The question of the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy comes up again. A proper division of the Bible shows seventeen books of prophecy in the Old Testament. Much of the subject matter in these books is history; all the prophecies which have been fulfilled are now history. Only a very small portion of the prophecies can now be classed as "unfulfilled prophecy." Brother Boll has frequently admitted that the proof of his propositions has to do with "unfulfilled prophecies." He says: "Our propositions deal with unfulfilled prophecy, not with the fulfilled." Since his proof has to do with the interpretation of "unfulfilled prophecy" and since very little of the Bible belongs to the class of "unfulfilled prophecy," he has but little Scripture from which to take his proof text. Of course, the occasion for dispute as to whether a prophecy belongs to the class of "fulfilled prophecy" or "unfulfilled prophecy" may arise, but no issue has been raised on the classification of any prophecy.

      When Brother Boll admitted that he must go to the class of "unfulfilled prophecies" and interpret "unfulfilled prophecy" before he could prove any of his propositions, the question was raised as to his ability to interpret correctly "unfulfilled prophecy." He wanted to proceed on the assumption that his interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy were absolutely correct. I called upon him for proof of his ability to see the end of "unfulfilled prophecy" and give an absolutely correct interpretation of it. I called upon him to give us a guarantee that his interpretations of "unfulfilled prophecy" were infallible. I still insist that he should show his credentials as to his qualifications as an infallible interpreter of "unfulfilled [123] prophecies." Mere "theological guesses" are not to be accepted as proof of his propositions. The emphatic categorical statement was made that "no proposition which depends wholly upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecies for its proof can ever be established by man unaided by inspiration." Brother Boll asked me to recede from this position or else he could not prove his propositions "until this one point was settled." He admitted that he could not prove his propositions until he had established the fact that man, unaided by inspiration, could give absolutely correct interpretations of "unfulfilled prophecy." Now, since he had not established this fact nor had given any guarantee that his interpretations were absolutely correct, he felt that he ought to do this before proceeding, and insisted that we settle this point before going further. I reminded him that he should have settled this point twelve or fifteen years ago; that he had been offering his interpretations of "unfulfilled prophecies" to the public on the presumption that his interpretations were absolutely correct.

      I have read much of the interpretations of different writers. Almost every new cult in religion attempts to interpret unfulfilled prophecy. They all differ from one another in their interpretations. Pastor Russell gives one interpretation, Mrs. Ellen G. White gives another, and Brother Boll gives still another interpretation. They all differ from one another. Which is correct? They cannot all be correct, since they conflict with one another. Hence, it is f air for me to call upon Brother Boll to show us his credentials or give us a guarantee that his interpretations are correct before we accept them. I frankly confess that I have no confidence in the interpretations of any uninspired person. I have no faith in Pastor Russell's ability to interpret correctly unfulfilled prophecy, neither Mrs. White's, nor Brother Boll's, nor even my own interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. I do not mean to cast any reflection whatsoever upon Brother Boll. I simply mean [124] that I do not believe that any one, unaided by inspiration, can see the end of unfulfilled prophecy and tell how and when it will be fulfilled.

      I gave Brother Boll the opportunity to stop in the midst of this discussion and affirm that "the Scriptures teach that man, unaided by inspiration, can give an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy." He refused to affirm this proposition, and asks: "How and where did I claim that uninspired man can know exactly 'how and when' unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled? I am sure that neither in this debate nor anywhere else did I say anything that would warrant such a conclusion." He says that he does not claim to "know exactly how and when unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled." Does he know approximately? He says that he does not know "exactly." How near can he approach exact knowledge of an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy?

      He answers my challenge on this point by giving counter propositions for discussion. Such tactics do not get us anywhere; neither are they edifying. The reader knows that the real issue between us is whether Brother Boll is able to give an absolutely correct interpretation of "unfulfilled prophecies." No counter challenge or a skillfully worded proposition will obscure the real issue. When Brother Boll admitted that the prophecies of the Bible were Scripturally and logically divided into two classes--"fulfilled" and "unfulfilled prophecies"--and when he admitted that the proof of his proposition depended upon his interpretations of "unfulfilled prophecies," then he assumed the responsibility of showing that he was thoroughly competent to give infallible interpretations of "unfulfilled prophecy." He cannot escape this issue. He is in a dilemma--namely, he must say that his interpretations of "unfulfilled prophecy" are absolutely correct or he must say that he can give no guarantee for the correctness of his interpretations. If he says that he [125] is able to give an absolutely correct interpretation of "unfulfilled prophecies," he takes upon himself the honors of being an infallible interpreter of "unfulfilled prophecies;" if he acknowledges (and he ought to do this) that he is unable to tell exactly whether his interpretations are absolutely correct, he concedes the contention of the affirmative.

      He wants to know what the affirmative means by "interpretation" or "private interpretation." I mean just what Peter meant when he said: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation." (2 Pet. 1:20.) This Scripture was quoted in the beginning of our discussion.

      Brother Boll states that the affirmative "is not accurate" in stating that he "is unwilling to continue the discussion until we have settled the question whether man, unaided by inspiration, can give an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy." I thought that Brother Boll wanted to settle this point first. He said:

      Our propositions deal with unfulfilled prophecy, not with the fulfilled; and if a man cannot understand unfulfilled prophecies without being inspired, and since neither Brother Boles nor I am inspired, the discussion cannot go on, unless Brother Boles recedes from this position. I await his reply to this. The rest of the discussion depends on it.

      The reader will see that he says "the discussion cannot go on, unless Brother Boles recedes from this position." I replied at that time and said: "I cannot. I believe it to be true." I did not "recede." The reader may judge whether I was inaccurate in saying that Brother Boll was "unwilling to continue the discussion until this point is settled."

      When did the kingdom of God begin its mission? Four questions were involved in the proposition they [126] were as follows: First, what does the image represent? Second, what does the stone represent? Third, what does the smiting and destruction of the stone mean? Fourth, when did this stone begin its destructive work?

      We have learned that the composite image represented four, and only four, universal world powers. We have learned that these universal kingdoms were the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman empires. These four world powers descended in inferiority from the head of gold to the feet and toes of iron and clay, or from the Babylonian to the Roman Empire. Brother Boll agrees to all of this.

      We have also learned that the stone represents the kingdom of God which "the God of heaven would set up." Brother Boll agrees to this. The smiting and destruction of the image by the stone means the conflict which the kingdom of God should have with the world powers; it means the opposition which the kingdom of God has with the forces of evil. Brother Boll agrees to all of this.

      When did the stone begin to smite the image? This calls for the sharp issue as set forth in the proposition. The affirmative claims that it began on Pentecost. Brother Boll denies this. The affirmative claims that the smiting and destruction began when the kingdom was set up. Brother Boll denies this and says that it is to be done when Christ returns to earth. The issue is now narrowed down to a very fine point. All extraneous matter has been removed and preliminary work has been done, so there is left nothing else to do except to press the issue. We have waited for this part of the task until now, so that the pressing of it may be the more emphatic.

      It is well now to note the admissions which Brother Boll has made, or note how far he agrees with the affirmative. As the stone represents the kingdom of God and the kingdom was established on Pentecost, then the stone began its smiting and destruction when the [127] kingdom began. Brother Boll admits that the kingdom began its mission on Pentecost. Now, the kingdom began its work and mission on Pentecost. Surely no one will claim that the kingdom was set up on Pentecost, which is now more than nineteen hundred years ago, but that it has not yet begun its mission. Brother Boll is in another dilemma. He must say that the kingdom began its work and mission when it was set up, or he must say that the kingdom was set up on Pentecost, but deferred its work and mission until Christ comes again. If he says that it began its work and mission when the kingdom was set up, then he must say that it began its work and mission on Pentecost; if he says that it began its work on Pentecost, he concedes the very point at issue and all that the affirmative claims. If he says that the kingdom has not yet begun its work and mission, he is placed in the embarrassing position of saying that the God of heaven set up a kingdom and left it in idleness for thousands of years before it could begin its work and mission. This makes the kingdom of God a kingdom of idleness; it makes the King an idle king; it makes the subjects of the kingdom idle subjects; it makes the army of the Lord merely idle soldiers on dress parade.

      It must be remembered that Daniel mentions no other work or mission for the stone, or kingdom of God, except that of smiting and destroying all foes to the kingdom of God. The kingdom of Daniel has these points: First, God would set it up; second, it would be given to Christ; third, it would never be destroyed; fourth, its sovereignty would not be left to another people; fifth, it should stand forever, be eternal; sixth, it shall break in pieces and consume all other kingdoms. Now, we have received just such a kingdom as Daniel describes. "Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well pleasing to God with reverence and awe: for our God is a consuming fire." (Heb. 12:28, 29.) The kingdom which was [128] established on Pentecost is the kingdom which Daniel described; it is the kingdom of God on earth to-day. It is a militant kingdom.

      Christ described the nature of Christianity and his kingdom when he walked among men. In speaking of the nature of his kingdom and its spirit, he said: "Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt. 10:34-39.)

      The nature of the warfare is described by Paul as follows: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh; but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds); casting down imaginations and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; and being in readiness to avenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be made full." (2 Cor. 10:3-6.)

      Many Scriptures could be quoted showing that the church of our Lord, or the kingdom established on Pentecost, is militant in spirit and mission. Its subjects are also militant. Paul said: "Fight the good fight of the faith." (1 Tim. 6:12.) Every citizen of this kingdom has the hope of triumph. He is to have on the "whole armor of God;" he is to follow the Captain of our salvation. The apostle to the Gentiles said at the close of his life: "I have fought the good fight." (2 Tim. 4:7.) [129]

      The gospel is to be preached and the kingdom of God is to go on with constantly increasing victory. The spirit of conquest must ever inspire the citizens of this kingdom. He who does not view the church, or kingdom of God on earth to-day, as a militant institution has not the New Testament conception of that kingdom.

      If Brother Boll admits the militant spirit and mission of Christianity, he is admitting the militant mission of the kingdom which began on Pentecost. If he denies the militant mission of this kingdom to-day, he denies a large portion of the Scriptures which describe the fight and triumph of the church. If he admits the militant mission of the church to-day, let him tell us who the foes are which it is fighting; let him tell us what the kingdom of God is opposing; let him tell us why the citizens of the kingdom are ever to be clad with "the whole armor of God," if there is not fighting to be done. Surely, he will not take the position that the kingdom of God to-day is not smiting and destroying the forces of evil which were represented in the composite image of Nebuchadnezzar.

      Wherever the influence of Christianity goes, it breaks in pieces and destroys all opposition. The more of the spirit of Christ and Christianity one has, the less need for human government; the more of the spirit of Christ any community has, the less use that community has for human government; the more of the spirit of Christ and Christianity a people have, the less need they have for human government. God's highest conception of human society is faithful citizenship in the kingdom of God; his perfect conception of human society and government is in the kingdom of God. As the kingdom of God is preached and accepted, the smiting and destruction is going on. No one claims that the kingdom has fulfilled its mission or completed its work. The contention of the affirmative is that it began its work and mission on Pentecost and that it has waged its warfare [130] through these centuries and will continue to do so until Christ, the King, shall surrender up the kingdom triumphant to God the Father. "Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death." (1 Cor. 15:24-26.)

      The stone was to begin smiting the image during the existence of the Roman Empire; the kingdom was to be set up during the existence of the Roman Empire. The stone which represents the kingdom of God did begin its work during the existence of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire has ceased. Like all human governments, it went down. Brother Boll has admitted that the stone began its smiting during the Roman Empire; but since the Roman Empire has ceased, he meets with a serious embarrassment. His theory puts the smiting of the stone, or the work and mission of the kingdom, to begin in the future. How can the kingdom of God begin to destroy the evil powers of the world during the existence of the Roman Empire and it still be in the future? Brother Boll tries to meet this embarrassment by saying that the Roman Empire is to be reëstablished. What an absurd theory! Surely such an absurdity ought to emphasize the egregious error in his theory. What a monstrosity! Where is there any Scripture which teaches that God will bring back into existence old pagan Rome, with all of its corruption and idolatry? How long did it take wickedness to culminate into pagan Rome? Yet Brother Boll says that the God of heaven is going to bring back into existence the Roman Empire. He says: "The Roman world power then, though now it does not exist, is to return. When it returns, the Roman power [131]

      will be in the form of a ten-kingdom confederacy under one dominant head; which fact is indicated by the toes of the image; more fully set forth in the ten horns of the fourth beast (Dan. 7) and clearly revealed to John in Revelation." (Boll, in his "The Kingdom of God," page 19.) This is a specimen of man's attempt to interpret unfulfilled prophecy. Frankly, I cannot believe that such an interpretation is correct.

      If the Roman Empire should be returned, it will not be the same kingdom or government. It will be another government; it will be another world empire; it would be a fifth universal world power and would contradict the image and Daniel's interpretation of the image. Why not have the entire image to return? Why not have Babylon, the head of gold, return? Why not have the Medo-Persian and Grecian kingdoms return? The stone smote the entire image and not just the feet of the image. Surely Brother Boll can see the inconsistency of such a theory; surely he can see that there is something wrong with his interpretation. An interpretation which involves such monstrous errors should be given up. Such an interpretation, which calls for a reëstablishment of old pagan Rome, with all of its wickedness and idolatry, is an insult to common intelligence, to say nothing about the perversion of God's word. Frankly, such an interpretation given by Brother Boll disqualifies him as an interpreter of unfulfilled prophecy.

      But Brother Boll claims that all of the other three universal world powers are embodied in the returned Roman Empire. How does he know this? There is no Scripture which teaches such. No inspired man has so interpreted the prophecy of Daniel. But Brother Boll attempts to identify the ten-horned beast in Revelation with the Roman government. How does he know that they are one and the same? This is another "theological guess." How does the reader know that his guess is correct? This is only a theory of his. There is not one [132] sentence given by inspiration which connects the prophecy of Daniel and the symbolical language of Revelation, making them mean one and the same thing. Until Brother Boll has proved that man, unaided by inspiration, can give infallible interpretation of unfulfilled prophecies, he must excuse me if I reject his interpretation. The reader may accept them if he wishes and put faith in them, but I cannot.

      No new argument is needed in support of the proposition. The affirmative has tried to deal fairly with the proposition, and presented clear and definite arguments in support of the proposition. I need not say that the negative has failed so far to examine the argument. In fact, the negative has agreed to nearly all of the arguments which have been submitted as proof of the proposition. Nearly one-half of the negative's discussion on this proposition has been given to the question of "unfulfilled prophecy." It was stated in the beginning that the proof of the present proposition does not belong to the field of "unfulfilled prophecy." When Brother Boll admitted that the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 was the same as the kingdom that was set up on Pentecost, he admitted the contention on this point of the affirmative--namely, that it belongs to the past and not to the future.

      Daniel said that the God of heaven would set up a kingdom during the existence of the Roman Empire. John the Baptist, Christ, and eighty-two inspired men were sent out through Galilee and Judea to preach, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand," "The kingdom of God is come nigh." Brother Boll and I agree that this kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ; we further agree that this kingdom is the church of the Lord Jesus Christ; we further agree that the kingdom of Dan. 2:44, which is represented by the stone, is the kingdom that was set up on Pentecost. [133] Brother Boll was forced to agree to this or contend that the God of heaven had set up two kingdoms during the existence of the Roman Empire.

      The argument was made that the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 was given to Christ, and that only one kingdom was given to him. Brother Boll was forced to admit that the kingdom mentioned in Dan. 2:44 and the kingdom established on Pentecost were one and the same, since Christ was given the one established on Pentecost, or take the position that Christ was given two kingdoms during the existence of the Roman Empire.

      Again, the argument was made that Christ is now reigning over the kingdom mentioned in Dan. 2:44 and that he is now reigning as King of kings and Lord of lords over the kingdom established on Pentecost. The negative was forced to take the position that Christ was now reigning over two kingdoms or admit that the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 and the kingdom established on Pentecost were one and the same. He agreed with the affirmative that Christ is now reigning over but one kingdom, and that this is an eternal kingdom; that there can be no other kingdom brought into existence without conflicting with the one which Christ is now reigning over.

      The only point over which we seem to differ is whether the "smiting and destruction" began on Pentecost. The affirmative has argued that it did begin then or else the kingdom was not functioning in its mission; that the kingdom of which Christ is now King is a militant kingdom and that its subjects are militant. They are instructed to ever be ready with the "whole armor of God" to fight the good fight of faith. The negative's position on this point is that the kingdom is now in idleness, but when Christ comes again the kingdom will then begin its work and mission. Attention was called to the fact that the only feature of the kingdom mentioned by Daniel in fulfilling its mission was "the [134] smiting and destruction" of the foes of Christianity, and since the kingdom began on Pentecost, that its mission began then; and if its mission began then, its work began then. These points have all been established, and the affirmative claims that the proposition has been established.

      No one contends that the work of the church or mission of the kingdom has been completed; its mission has not yet been fulfilled, but is in process of fulfillment, and began its fulfillment with the establishment of the kingdom, which was the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, "the Scriptures teach that the event signified by the smiting and destruction of the image in Dan. 2:35, 44 began to take place on the day of Pentecost," which was to be proved. [135]

[UP 123-135]