This proposition launches Brother Boll further into the mysteries and deeper into the complexities of unfulfilled prophecy than any of the other propositions. The time of this proposition takes us beyond the resurrection and the second advent of Christ. We should bear in mind the fact and admission of Brother Boll that this proposition with others has nothing to do with our obedience to the gospel and our faithful work and worship in the church as the Lord's people; they belong to the future, and the Lord's people can be faithful to him and never understand or believe the present proposition.

      Necessarily the question of the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy is introduced again by Brother Boll, since the direct proof of his proposition admittedly belongs to that field of human endeavor. I am sure that the reader understands the issue between Brother Boll and me on the question of interpreting unfulfilled prophecy. However, for the sake of emphasis, the issue is restated. Early in the discussion of the first proposition Brother Boll, inadvertently or otherwise, admitted that the proof of all of his propositions depended upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. At once he was called upon to give evidence that his interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy were absolutely correct. This emphatic statement was made: "No proposition which depends wholly upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy by uninspired man for its proof can be established. It is an indisputable fact and an incontestable principle that if the proof of a proposition depends upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, the proposition which so depends upon the interpretation cannot be logically proved unless the interpretations are absolutely correct. If there is an element of doubt, uncertainty, improbability in the interpretation, this same element of doubt and uncertainty enters into the proof of the proposition; that if truth and [155] certitude do not characterize the premises, doubt and uncertainty must of necessity inhere in the conclusion. This cannot be disputed. Now, unless Brother Boll can give us a guarantee that his interpretations are absolutely correct, he cannot prove his proposition.

      He wished to stop or divert attention from the signed propositions and take up this new issue. We have failed to agree upon the wording of a new proposition. I have tried to get him to accept an unequivocal statement of the issue. We have been discussing this issue in almost every article. I have stated it as follows: "The Scriptures teach that man, unaided by inspiration, can understand how and when unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled;" or, "The Scriptures teach that man, unaided by inspiration, can interpret correctly unfulfilled prophecy, telling how and when it will be fulfilled." He says that this statement of the issue does not represent his position. Whether it "represents his position" or not, it represents the issue, and he must prove this before he can prove his proposition and use logically his interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy as proof of his proposition. He must prove that man can interpret correctly unfulfilled prophecies; and even after he proves that, he must prove that he belongs to that class of men who can, unaided by inspiration, interpret correctly unfulfilled prophecy.

      But he complains that I will not discuss this new issue with him. This claim is rather amusing, since the reader knows that I have been discussing it with him in every article since the point was raised. But why does he complain that I will not discuss it with him? If he can prove that he is able to give an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, why does he not do so? He is of age; he can speak for himself; I have no strings on him; he is at liberty to prove it if he can, and give us his credentials that he is an infallible interpreter of unfulfilled prophecy. He does not need another proposition in order to prove it. I am sure the reader is wondering why he [156] does not launch out and establish that point, as he has repeatedly admitted that he cannot prove his proposition until he proves this point. Why "waste time and words" about it? He was in the lead when the question arose, and he is now in the lead. If he can give us an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, he owes it to himself, his proposition, the brotherhood, and to the truth of God to give us the evidence that his interpretations are absolutely correct. Not only does he have the opportunity to give the evidence that his interpretations are correct, but he is urged by the force of the logic of the situation to do so.

      I am on absolutely safe ground when I say that man, unaided by inspiration, cannot see the end of unfulfilled prophecy and tell how and when it will be fulfilled. E. G. Sewell, in writing on this point, said:

      We think it just the same way in regard to, the unfulfilled prophecies of the book of Revelation, and yet men are constantly claiming to understand them and to be able to tell others all about them. These efforts have been going on for centuries; theory after theory has been written and published, claiming to tell when, how, and by whom these prophecies would be fulfilled, and by the next generation abandoned as fallacious; and still they keep on, with the same results. With a knowledge of the failures which the Jewish people made in regard to the prophecies concerning Christ and his kingdom, people ought to learn a lesson in regard to the prophecies yet to be fulfilled, and not waste so much precious time in a vain effort to understand the figurative representations of things that are to take place hereafter. The time would be much better spent in learning, teaching, and practicing the plain and practical requirements of the Christian religion. (Gospel Advocate, June 11, 1903.)

      The lamented David Lipscomb wrote as follows:

      This is assumed, but on what ground we have never been able to see. So it is with all prophetic calculations. We could make many, if we could but fix a certain starting point. But, alas! These have always, so far as known to me, been based upon the merest fancies. (Gospel Advocate, September 24, 1868.) [157]

      Again, he said:

      I have very little confidence in human interpretations of unfulfilled prophecies. Because when I look at the fulfillment as given by God, they differ so from what I would have said it meant that I have no confidence in my own interpretations or those of others of what is unfulfilled. (Gospel Advocate, December 5, 1907.)

      This has been the position of the Gospel Advocate on the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy all through the years; it is the position of its present editors. These references to the Advocate and the quotations from Brethren Sewell and Lipscomb are made to show that I am in good company when I say that man, unaided by inspiration, cannot give an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, telling how and when it will be fulfilled.

      Prophecy was not intended to make uninspired men prophets; this it would do if uninspired man could see the end of unfulfilled prophecy. If uninspired men can see the end of unfulfilled prophecy and tell how and when it will be fulfilled, these men become uninspired prophets. If uninspired men can give an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, then uninspired men have more ability than the inspired prophets, for they could not do this. If uninspired man can give an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, uninspired man has the advantage over angels, for angels could not do that. (See 1 Pet. 1:10-12.)

      The present proposition is a simple statement which depends for its proof--if, indeed, it has any Scriptural proof--upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. Brother Boll is not quite clear in the definition of some of his terms of his proposition. He does not tell us just how the saints are to reign with Christ. Are they to sit on thrones with him when he comes? Are they coequal with him in the reigning? Over whom will they reign? Let us know just how his saints will reign with him after he comes. He says that "all the earth" means "the [158] entire globe and all humanity, all nations living on it; 'all the peoples, nations, and languages,' all the 'kingdoms under the whole heaven.'" This includes all rule, authority, and everybody; it includes the entire human race, from Adam, the oldest member of the family, to the youngest member when the race of man shall cease; it includes all from the first to the last. Not a single exception. It includes saint and sinner. It means, then, that Christ will reign "with his saints" over his "saints," as the saints are included in the entire human family. This seems to me to involve an absurdity--namely, Christ reigning "with his saints" over "his saints." How can this be?

      Christ has all authority now. (Matt. 28:18.) "Angels and authorities and powers" are now "subject unto him." (1 Pet. 3:22.) Christ is now "both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36.) He is now "King of kings, and Lord of lords." (1 Tim. 6:15.) He is now at the right hand of God and "far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion." (Eph. 1:21.) The Scriptures abundantly teach that Christ is now reigning. He has been crowned King and has a kingdom with laws, subjects, and territory. All the Scriptures which Brother Boll gives concerning Christ's reigning help to emphasize this fact. It is dishonoring to Christ to imply or argue that he must come the second time before he can reign over all rule, authority, power, and dominion; he has dominion now, even over angels. (See Rom. 5:21; 1 Cor. 15:25.) The fact that he is a King now is proof positive that he is reigning now.

      The reign of Christ began on Pentecost. (See Acts 2:23-36.) His present reign will not end till the last enemy shall have been brought into subjection to him. Paul said: "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, [159] 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 present reign of Christ will continue until "all things have been subjected unto him." (1 Cor. 15:28.) When the last enemy shall have been conquered, then his reign ceases, and "he shall deliver up the kingdom to God," "that God may be all and in all." Yes, my Lord is now a King; he is reigning and will triumph in his present reign until "all things have been subjected unto him." It should be remembered that when Christ comes he cannot be given any more power or authority than that which he already has. He now has all power and authority. When he comes, he cannot be exalted any higher than his present position, for he is now "far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come." When he comes, he will not be given any more power, because he now has all power; when he comes, he will not be exalted any higher, because he is now at the right hand of God, far above all rule; when he comes again, his dominion will be no greater than it is now, because he is now enthroned and must reign until the last enemy is subdued; when he comes, he will not be given a greater kingdom, because he now has a universal kingdom "which cannot be shaken." (Heb. 12:28.) These Scriptural facts forever explode Brother Boll's theory of what he will do when he comes. There will be no enemies to conquer when he comes, because his present reign will continue until the last one is conquered.

      Brother Boll and I agree that the Bible teaches that the saints are to reign with Christ. We differ, unfortunately, as to when the saints are to reign with him. Brother Boll teaches that they do not reign with him until after their resurrection. This is the point of time affirmed in his [160] present proposition. I think the Bible teaches that the Lord's people are now reigning with Christ. This is the issue: Are they reigning now, or must they wait until Christ comes and they are raised from the dead? In speaking of the saints, Peter says: "But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation." (1 Pet. 2:9.) "A royal priesthood" means a kingly priesthood; a priesthood of kings or a kingdom of priests. In the church or kingdom of our Lord the two elements of kingship and priesthood are united in every faithful child of God. Every Christian is a king and a priest; kings to reign with him and priests to offer spiritual sacrifices to him. As sure as the saints are priests, so sure are they kings; if kings, then reigning with him. In this sense Christ is indeed "King of kings," as he is our King. Paul says: For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:17.) From this we learn that Christ is reigning through his people, or his saints are reigning through him.

      Christ promised his apostles that they should sit on thrones in his kingdom or church and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (See Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30.) As Christ had promised his apostles that they should reign with him, so those who accept the Lord's will as given through the apostles join in the reigning with them. Paul refers to this in 1 Cor. 6:2. That which was promised to the apostles, that they should "sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel," Paul extends in a general way this same honor to all the faithful followers of Christ, his "royal priesthood." Since the kingdom has been established and the apostles are still reigning in that kingdom and all the saints are in the kingdom, they are reigning with Christ in his kingdom to-day. [161]

      Brother Boll quotes a part of the second Psalm as not being fulfilled till Christ comes; but, unfortunately for Brother Boll's position, the Holy Spirit quotes this Psalm in the New Testament and says that it was fulfilled in Christ and his kingdom. (Acts 4:25, 26.) Again, the Holy Spirit says "that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm," etc. (Acts 13:33; see Heb. 1:5; 5:5.)

      Brother Boll quotes 2 Tim. 2:12, which reads: "If we endure, we shall also reign with him." Brother Boll applies this to our reigning with Christ after the resurrection of the saints, or when Christ comes. In commenting upon this verse, Dr. Ellicott says: "Not only shall we live, but be kings with him." ("Commentary," Volume II.) Dr. Macknight says: "I do not think there is here any reference to the millennium as Benson fancies. In other passages of Scripture the future felicity of the righteous is represented by their reigning with Christ. (Rev. 3:21.)" ("Commentary on Second Timothy.")

      Brother Boll next goes to the book of Revelation for proof of his proposition. This book is written largely in figures, symbols, and allegories. Now, truths, facts, and principles are not to be explained by figures and symbols, but figures and symbols are to be explained by facts and principles. One law of interpretation to which Brother Boll and I have subscribed is that obscure and figurative language is to be interpreted or explained by plain and simple Scriptures. Brother Boll does not follow this law of interpretation when he comes to the apocalyptic prophecies. He has taken symbolic and figurative language and given his own interpretation of it instead of other plain and simple Scriptures which bear upon the point. He violated his own caution which he gave some years ago. He said: "Study Revelation also--there is a blessing in it (Rev. 1:3)--but beware of the many [162] called interpretations, wild theories, and imaginations men have spun around that book. First get its facts and teaching into your mind whether you understand or not." ("How to Understand and Apply the Bible," by R. H. Boll, page 24.)

      Brother Boll says that "the time of Christ's reign with the saints" is to be learned from two sources or in two ways: (1) "From the nature of the conditions upon which a reign is promised to the saints;" (2) "by the direct teaching on the point." Logically these are not two ways; for if "such a reign is promised to the saints," if promised at all in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures directly teach it; and if the Scriptures directly teach it, his two ways become only one. But we wish to examine both branches of his evidence.

      He quotes Rev. 2:25-27 as enumerating the conditions upon which the promise to reign with Christ is made. These conditions are (1) "their holding fast," (2) "their overcoming," (3) "their keeping his works unto the end." These conditions do not necessarily belong to the time after the resurrection; they, can belong to the saints in their reign now with. Christ, as their reign with Christ now is conditioned upon their faithfulness to him.

      In order that the reader may know whether Brother Boll is able to interpret symbolic terms, figurative language, and allegories found in the book of Revelation, a list of them is compiled and submitted for his interpretation. They are as follows:

1. What is meant by the "beast coming up out of the sea?"
2. The "seven heads and "ten horns?"
3. The "ten diadems" on the "ten horns?"
4. The "death stroke?"
5. The "dragon?"
6. The "forty and two months?"
7. The "other beast?" [163]
8. Its "two horns?"
9. The "fire" that came from heaven?
10. The "image of the beast?"
11. The "mark on their right hand?"
12. The "number of a man," "six hundred and sixty and six?"

1. The "four living creatures?"
2. Is "the hundred and forty and four thousand" to be taken literally?
3. The "eternal good tidings?"
4. "Babylon?"
5. The "wine of the wrath of God?"
6. The "sharp sickle?"
7. The "thousand and six hundred furlongs?"

1. The "seven plagues?"
2. The "harps of God?"

1. Are "the seven bowls" literal?
2. Are the "sores" literal?
3. Does the "sea" become literal blood?
4. What were the "three unclean spirits?"
5. What and where is Har-Magedon?

1. The "great harlot?"
2. The "foundation of the world?"
3. The "five" kings?
4. Is the time "one hour" literal?
5. Do they eat her literal flesh?

1. Is the great "white horse" literal?
2. Is the eating of "the flesh of kings" literal?
3. Who is "the beast?"
4. Who is "the false prophet?" [164]

1. What is "the key of the abyss?"
2. Are the "thousand years" literal or measured as we now measure time?
3. What is "the first resurrection?"
4. Who are "Gog and Magog?"
5. Over whom shall the saints reign forever and ever?

      His explanation of these terms, symbols, and figures will help us to know his ability to interpret the book of Revelation. If he cannot do this, what evidence can he give us that his interpretation of this symbolic language is correct? If he can give no evidence that his interpretations are correct, what force do they have in proving his proposition? [165]

[UP 155-165]