In examining Brother Boles' first negative, I am impressed by the amount of space and argument he devotes to invalidate the testimony of God's word of unfulfilled prophecy. He makes reference to admissions I am supposed to have made (but misconstrues my expressed position on those points), he quotes Brother Sewell and Brother Lipscomb, he quotes himself, and repeats his unwarranted and unscriptural axiom that "no proposition which depends wholly upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy by uninspired man for its proof can be established," and thinks it stands for "an indisputable fact" and "an incontestable principle," although it is purely his own unfounded opinion; he tells the readers how deeply the present proposition launches me in the "mysteries . . . and complexities of unfulfilled prophecy;" he disparages the book of Revelation as definite testimony to anything, and speaks of it as a book "written largely in figures, symbols, and allegories." We cannot but wonder why he is so anxious to throw a haze of doubt and uncertainty over God's word of unfulfilled prophecy and why he tries so hard to make it seem worthless for purposes of definite proof and information. Why, unless it be that these portions of Scripture, if accepted as valid proof and taken at face value, are against him and fatal to his side of the controversy? I presume that if the plain and legitimate import of God's statements in unfulfilled prophecy were in his favor, he would not work so hard to nullify it or to make it appear so mysterious. In order to ascertain what "the Scriptures teach" on this proposition, the reader must look steadily beyond all this dust and fog to the testimony of God's word.

      I have tried to meet every Scripture argument Brother Boles has presented fairly and squarely, and have offered [166] in support of my propositions--not theories, dreams, speculations, arbitrary "interpretations," but what I believe to be honest, clean-cut, solid Scripture teaching. I think the readers will bear me witness in this. But my respondent did not so much endeavor to meet my Scripture arguments on their merits, but rather to discredit them a priori, beforehand, at wholesale, and on general principles, and to set aside all I may have to say and all the proof I may bring, on the ground that it is unfulfilled prophecy, and therefore unintelligible and for purpose of proof worthless. Now, I can probably meet him on that ground as well as any other; but I am sorry and disappointed on the readers' account, as well as my own, for they had a right to expect a straight-out and profitable examination of God's word on the topics under discussion. In denying the validity of the testimony of God's word of unfulfilled prophecy, my respondent virtually admits that those portions of Scripture, taken at their lawful import and meaning, are adverse to his position.

      But if my respondent falls, back upon his undefined word "interpretation" and says he is not discrediting God's word, but only my "interpretation" of it (he has never told us, however, what he means by "interpretation"); I would remind the readers of my oft-repeated (and as often ignored) statement that all the interpretation I stand for is the fair and legitimate import of the inspired language of God's word. With that I stand or fall. Now, whoever discredits a legitimate exegesis of God's word discredits the word of God itself. If my exegesis has been wrong, if I have misunderstood or misapplied what God has said, let him point out the fact and show that the Scripture language does not sustain me. In no other way can he meet my Scripture arguments. But when he tries to sweep aside the fundamental right and principle of Scripture interpretation itself, he really denies the validity of the word of God.

      But he does not go that far, for he will not deny that [167] "unfulfilled prophecy can be understood on the same principles and in the same way as all the rest of God's word." That proposition I have repeatedly offered him--not "to divert attention from the other propositions," but to prevent him from diverting attention from the issues before us by his continual discrediting of God's word of unfulfilled prophecy. He says, however, that that is not the issue. He says the real issue is: "The Scriptures teach that man, unaided by inspiration, can understand how and when unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled." So he wants me to prove something I have never claimed or affirmed, but which I conceded from the first; for I stated from the first that I did not know when or how a prophecy would be fulfilled, except in so far as God revealed the when and how. I profess to know nothing except what God has revealed, and that only to the extent of man's ability to elicit the just significance of the language of God's word. That throws the whole thing back on the question, Can man understand what God has said? That is the issue, and nothing else. Will Brother Boles face it? Will he deny it? Will he concede it? I wish he would face it frankly and squarely. He certainly ought to do something about it. If he will say he is willing to take the Scriptures at their own worth and meaning, it will be all the concession necessary.

      Meanwhile I shall continue to set before our readers such Scripture testimony as I am able to present in support of my proposition, and meet my respondent's arguments with the word of God as the case may require.

      But my respondent makes great demands. My proposition, he says, cannot be proved unless my "interpretations" (whatever he means by "interpretations") are absolutely correct. That is for him to see after. I claim no infallibility, as he well knows. I present my teaching subject to examination in the light of God's word. When I present a passage of Scripture in support of a proposition, it is his business, not to wave it aside on grounds of [168] the preconceived theory that it needs an infallible interpreter, but to examine it to see whether his opponent has used it rightly and applied it fairly, and in case he has not, to point out the failure. Brother Boles and I have met on equal terms in this debate. I claim no superior ability or infallibility. I am to examine his points fairly and conscientiously, and he mine; and neither of us has any right to demand that the other be infallible. Without impugning my respondent's motives, I would say that all this talk about absolutely correct and infallible interpretations has but the effect of throwing dust in his readers' eyes. So also the absurd contention that if an uninspired man could give an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, he would himself become an uninspired prophet. "Prophecy was not intended to make uninspired men prophets." Apply this reasoning to other parts of God's word, and you may say that if a man understands the apostles' teaching, for example, and would tell it abroad, he, would thereby himself become an uninspired apostle. Yes, to the extent a man faithfully teaches God's word, he is God's uninspired spokesman. And that is our highest aim.

      But enough of this. As to the quotations from Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell, whom I hold in high regard, as my respected respondent does--they would have been the last to think that their word would settle such a matter. Both of these brethren would no doubt have yielded to clear and manifest testimony from the word of God on prophetic matters, as they did on everything else. I think that what these brethren really opposed was unfounded notions, theories, and date settings, and such like things, by which the study of prophecy has been brought into reproach. The quotations from Brother Lipscomb show as much. Brother Lipscomb himself wrote some highly valuable expositions on certain features of unfulfilled prophecy, [169] showing that he in no wise discountenanced the study of the prophetic word or discredited its meaning and value.

      My respondent complains that my definitions of the terms of the proposition were not clear. He is justly entitled to clear and full definitions of all the terms of the proposition, and if my former definitions are deficient, I must supply the deficiency. However, definition is not discussion. It is not my task under the head of definition to go into details as to the "how" of things. My definition of "reign," to exercise rule and governmental authority over territory and subjects, is clear and sufficient. By "all the earth," I said, I meant the entire globe, and all humanity, all nations living on it; "all peoples, nations, and languages," and all the "kingdoms under the whole heaven." This my brother says is not clear, for to his mind it includes "the entire human race from Adam," and even the saints themselves, who would thus reign over themselves! Hardly. Nobody would infer anything like that--not soberly, at any rate. When we say the saints shall reign over all the earth and all nation's living on it, we need not add "except themselves." The reigning ones are ex hypothesi excluded from the number of those who are reigned over. Nor did it even occur to the writer that anyone might misunderstand the "nations living on the earth" to include the dead of past generations, which was not intended, but simply the race then living on the earth. The term "reign with Christ" was not defined--it seemed too obvious. However, nothing ought to be taken for granted, and Brother Boles has a right to know what I mean by that. It means they will reign conjointly with Christ--not as coequal, for he is ever the Head, but as "joint heirs" with him. (Rom. 8:17.) I trust this is now clear to my respondent and to all. [170]

      Coming now to his reply to my affirmative--he fails to pay anything like adequate attention to my first and chief argument, taken from the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in his message to the church at Thyatira:

      "And he that overcometh, and he that keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give authority over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to shivers; as I also have received of my Father." (Rev. 2:26, 27.)

      This is purely a plain, direct promise from the Lord to a congregation of Christians. In his third negative of the first proposition my respondent makes a distinction between a promise and a prophecy. "Brother Boll fails to distinguish between a promise and a prophecy." There is no such distinction to be made. Every promise of God pertaining to the future, and the hereafter is an instance of unfulfilled prophecy. But taking my respondent on his own ground, here is a plain promise, which he cannot turn down on the pretext that it is unfulfilled prophecy. It is not taken from a maze of bewildering apocalyptic symbols, but from a sober and direct message of Christ to his church. No plainer, more practical and pointed teaching can be found anywhere in the New Testament than those messages to the seven churches, in Rev. 2 and 3. In the passage before us the Lord Jesus Christ makes the definite promise to his saints that he would give them authority over the nations--namely, that they should "rule them with a rod of iron; . . . as I also have received of my Father."

      It will be noted that the tense the Lord uses is future. To illustrate: Brother Boles, when he preaches or debates on Matt. 16:18, emphasizes the future tense in the statement, "Upon this rock I will build my church," and shows correctly, upon the strength of it, that the church could not have been in existence when Jesus spoke those words. [171] Now, here we have a similar case. The Lord Jesus tells his faithful people that, when certain conditions are fulfilled, he will give them authority over the nations. The nature of the authority is clearly set forth: "He shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to shivers; as I also have received of my Father." The people to whom the Lord Jesus says this are Christians, of that "royal priesthood" of which Brother Boles speaks--"kings and priests," as he says. My respondent declares that if Christians are kings they are reigning now." I think the Bible teaches that the Lord's people are reigning now with Christ," he says. "This is the issue," he says further: "are they reigning now, or must they wait until Christ comes and they are raised from the dead?" Just so; that is the issue exactly. Manifestly the Lord Jesus promised to the church at Thyatira a position of rule and authority over the nations, and it was not something they already had when the Lord made the promise, but something they were to receive in the future. Although they had been a faithful and noble church, in the main, and that for years, as the message shows, this promise was yet in the future for them. They had not received it nor entered upon it. The Lord's words also show when this rule would be given into their hands. He says to them: "Nevertheless that which ye have, hold fast till I come. And he that overcometh, and he that keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give authority over the nations." So, manifestly, not before they had kept his works to the end nor before his coming was this promise due. When Jesus comes, he will examine the works of his servants, and then to each will his reward be adjudged: then shall every man receive his praise from God (1 Cor. 4:5); then shall they receive their crown, for though they be kings they are uncrowned kings till then (2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4); then shall they sit down with him in his throne (Rev. 3:21). Let the reader turn again to Rev. 2:25-27 and judge whether [172] it is a plain Scripture or not; and whether this is a case of uninspired "interpretation," or if it is the simple, straightforward declaration of God's word. The Lord Jesus here promises to those who shall be found acceptable at his coming a joint share with him in the exercise of the rule and authority as he has received of his Father.

      2 Tim. 2:12 says the same thing, despite the comments to the contrary of Mr. Ellicott and Dr. Macknight. "If we endure, we shall also reign with him." It can never be known whether a man has endured until he has endured to the end, nor is endurance worth anything unless it be endurance to the end--until Christ comes, and judges our life and work, and brings to light the hidden things of darkness and makes manifest the counsels of the hearts: then shall every man have his verdict and, if faithful to the end, his praise from God. (1 Cor. 4:5.)

      In respect to the exaltation of Christ, my respondent repeats what I had emphatically affirmed in my first affirmative--that Christ holds universal authority now, at God's right hand. He seems to think the fact is damaging to me. But I rejoice in it, because it is the truth, let it damage my "position" as much as it will. However, it is in perfect harmony with all I believe. "The fact that he is a King now," says Brother Boles, "is proof positive that he is reigning now." No, that is not proof; for he was King (because he was the Christ) before his exaltation and before his reign began. But he is indeed reigning now. Just as Brother Boles says, "The reign of Christ began on Pentecost (see Acts 2:23-26);" and: "His present reign will not end till the last enemy shall have been brought into subjection to him. . . . The present reign of Christ will continue until 'all things have been subjected unto him.'" This is not only true, but absolutely undisputed. I should be sorry if Brother Boles' reiteration of these great truths should make the [173] impression on even a single reader that this truth is not as whole-heartedly believed by the affirmative as by the negative. My respondent goes on in this strain: "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.'" That is good and true. So my brother believes, and so I believe. Yet he does not notice the distinction (though he himself makes it) between a position of universal authority and the actual exercise of this universal authority and power. He himself shows that all things have not been actually subjected to Christ, for he says: "The present reign will continue until 'all things have been subjected unto him.'" Just so. Therefore, all things have not yet been subjected unto him. On this rebel earth Satan still reigns, the "prince of the world," the "god of this world," who holds the whole world in his embrace (1 John 5:19), and his throne still stood when the last book of the New Testament was written, and stands unto this day (Rev. 2:13). Christ's right and authority could not be greater than it is now; but there are yet enemies to be subdued and dominions to be seized. In the parable of Luke 19, the nobleman (Christ) has gone into the far country (heaven), there to receive a kingdom and thence to return. In the meanwhile he has left his servants in the midst of a hostile population to administrate his goods. When he comes again, he comes in royal power, destroying his enemies and opposers, and to his servants, according to their faithfulness during his absence, he grants a share in his royal prerogative and sovereign power. That seems too plain to be controverted. (Luke 19:11-27.) Again, when the last, the seventh, trumpet sounds, the world-shaking announcement is heard: "The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ: and he shall reign forever and ever." (Rev. 11:15.) He had all along held all title, [174] but then he takes actual possession. For when this announcement is made the four and twenty elders say: "We give thee thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who art and who wast; because thou hast taken thy great power, and didst reign." (Rev. 11:17.) The power, then, had been his all the time; but now he has taken it, now he asserts his right, now he exercises his authority. We see, then, that though Christ is exalted to supreme and universal authority, that fact does not clash with the additional teaching that all things are not yet subjected to him in actual fact. Satan is yet to be bound; the kingdom of the world is yet to pass into the hands of Christ; he is yet to reign with his saints over all the earth; the saints of the Most High are yet to possess the kingdom, "and the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven," shall yet be given unto them. (Dan. 7:22, 27.) Then, when, after this reign, Satan is cast, into the lake of fire, and death, the last enemy, shall have been abolished (Rev. 20:10, 14) when Christ's immediate aim, and work is accomplished, he shall deliver up the kingdom (the entire sphere of his universal domain) unto God, even the Father, not to cease from reigning, for his kingdom is eternal (2 Pet. 1:11), but to take a subordinate position under his Father's sovereignty. Such is the outline of things future as the Holy Spirit taught it (John 16:13) through the Word.

      Finally, I will not overlook the argument my brother makes on Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30; and 1 Cor. 6:2. He says: "Christ promised his apostles that they should sit on thrones in his kingdom or church and judge the twelve tribes of Israel." Brother Boles himself recognizes the fact that though the church is his kingdom here and now, the church and the kingdom are not coextensive. Christ's kingdom is that over which he rules, of course. His sphere of dominion is far larger than the church. "He has dominion now even over angels," as Brother Boles declares. But the angels are not in the church. [175]

      And again: "He now has a universal kingdom 'which cannot be shaken.'" Well; but the church does not embrace this universal domain of Christ, which includes "all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named," in heaven and on earth. But the church shall be associated with him in all his glorious reign when he comes. They shall judge the world; they shall even judge angels. (1 Cor. 6:2, 3.) That has no reference to anything going on in this present time, for he uses the future tense, and brings the promise of the future judging into contrast with things that are now. "Know ye not that the saints shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life? (1 Cor. 6:3.)

      As for the argument on Matt. 19:28--the apostles have never yet in any conceivable sense sat upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. If it be said they are "judging" by their writings, the infallible word of God of which they were the messengers (truly a "highly figurative interpretation!"), let us remember that we have the writings of only four apostles, all told; and if there has been a set of people through all these centuries that cared less for the apostles' teaching than anybody else, and were not ruled by it, it is those selfsame twelve tribes of Israel. My brother's "fulfillments" are even more mysterious than the unfulfilled prophecies. But when shall the apostles sit on twelve thrones? "Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And when shall that be? "But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." (Matt. 25:31.) Now, "when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory [that is, when he comes in his glory], ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19:28.) [176]

      My respondent has not, so far as I am able to see, done anything with the affirmative argument. He has not seriously attacked the passage upon which the argument chiefly centered--Rev. 2:25-27. I believe that his rebuttals have been fairly met. If I have failed, let him point out my failure, and I will try to come up with the word of God on my part as best I may be able. In all things I am preserving my regard and respect for my respondent, and nothing I have said is to be taken as even remotely reflecting upon his Christian character and integrity. I think he feels the same way toward me. We are both learners and desirous of God's truth; and if in our quest for it we should lose sight of the supreme thing, all else would be vain. For if I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not love, I am nothing. [177]

[UP 166-177]