The negative cheerfully and fully reciprocates the brotherly love and fraternal spirit expressed in the last sentences of Brother Boll's affirmative. We may differ--we do differ widely on these subjects--but we esteem each other as brethren in the Lord. We are not striving for victory the one over the other, nor any cheap fame as debaters. We are in quest of the truth of our God, and I hope that we both are honest enough and courageous enough to accept it in its fullness when we learn it.

      My brother is mistaken when he says that I "throw a haze of doubt and uncertainty over God's word of unfulfilled prophecy." My doubt is not in "God's word of unfulfilled prophecy," but in Brother Boll's use and interpretation of "unfulfilled prophecy." Neither do I "disparage the book of Revelation." I believe every word of it; but I do discredit Brother Boll's theological guesses and doubtful interpretations of its figures, symbols, and allegories. There is a difference between unfulfilled prophecy and the interpretation of prophecy; a wide difference between God's word as expressed in unfulfilled prophecy and human interpretation of this prophecy. We should discriminate between the two and draw the line accurately between what is stated or expressed in unfulfilled prophecy and what is a mere human interpretation of the unfulfilled prophecy.

      Brother Boll seems to fail to grasp the argument which has been made against his ability to interpret correctly unfulfilled prophecy. When Brother Boll admitted that the proof of his propositions depended upon unfulfilled prophecies, the statement was made that no propositions which depends wholly upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, by uninspired man for its proof can be established. My brother has not refuted this and seems not to grasp the force of it. No correct or true conclusion can be deduced from false premises. It is a canon of [178] logic that whatever measure of doubt attaches to the premises of an argument, just that degree of uncertainty belongs to the conclusion; if doubt or uncertainty belong to the premises, doubt and uncertainty inhere in the nature of the conclusion. So, if the proof of his proposition depends upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecies, then his interpretation must be absolutely correct, entirely free from any element of doubt, or he can never prove his proposition. I am sure that the reader understands this argument.

      Brother Boll is correct when he says, "Whoever discredits a legitimate exegesis of God's word discredits the word of God itself." But who is to determine whether the "exegesis" is "legitimate?" Whose standard of reasoning shall measure the "exegesis?" I cannot let his interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy pass as a "legitimate exegesis."

      The understanding of unfulfilled prophecy, in the sense of interpreting it, is not to be "understood on the same principles and in the same way as all the rest of God's word." Unfulfilled prophecy cannot be "understood on the same principles and in the same way" as fulfilled prophecy is understood. The Holy Spirit has pointed out the event or set of events which fulfilled specifically certain prophecies which were announced in the Old Testament. We can know and understand that these prophecies were fulfilled, because Christ and the Holy Spirit pointed out specifically that they were fulfilled by certain events. No such claim can be made on behalf of unfulfilled prophecy, and hence that portion of God's word is not to be "understood on the same principles and in the same way" as the fulfilled prophecy. It is a canon of interpretation that events can never be proved by unfulfilled prophecy, but prophecy must be proved and explained by events. Unfulfilled prophecy can never be converted into history until it has been fulfilled; hence, unfulfilled prophecy can never prove an event. [179]

      The following proposition has been pressed upon the affirmative: "The Scriptures teach that man, unaided by inspiration, can understand how and when unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled." Brother Boll refuses to affirm this, saying that it does not represent his position; he says he does not believe it. In refusing to affirm this, he concedes the very point for which I am contending; he admits that he cannot prove his proposition unless he can give absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. I know that he will not affirm it, but logically it is the very proposition which he must affirm if he proves his proposition by his interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. I am sure that the reader can see that he yields, by this admission, the very point for which the negative contends.

      But the affirmative evades the issue and says that it resolves itself into this question: "Can man understand what God has said?" No, I beg his pardon, this is not the issue. The issue is, Can uninspired man see the end of unfulfilled prophecy and give an absolutely correct interpretation of its fulfillment? Can uninspired man see and know that which inspired men and angels could not see and know? Brother Boll's position says "yes;" the negative says "no." That is the issue. "Will Brother Boll face it?" "He certainly ought to do something about it."

      He says: "I claim no infallibility." Just so. I know that he does not claim it; I do not compliment him with it, neither do I demand it of him; but he ought to see that if his proposition depends for its proof upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, then his interpretations must be infallible, or else they do not prove his proposition. But why should we talk so much about this or discuss his ability to interpret correctly unfulfilled prophecy? If his interpretations are absolutely correct, why does he not prove it? He has been urged to do so. Let him show us his credentials or give us a guarantee that his [180] interpretations are absolutely correct, and that will end the matter; but until he does this, we cannot accept them as absolutely true.

      He ignores the quotations that were given from Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell, and says that "Brother Lipscomb himself wrote some highly valuable expositions on certain features of unfulfilled prophecy." Yes, Brother Lipscomb did. He said: "I have very little confidence in human interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy." Again, he said:

      Many of those ideas concerning the second coming of Christ are in themselves harmless; but if preached as the gospel or in lieu of the gospel, or are made hobbies to create division and strife among brethren, or to attract the people, in their faith, love, and practice, away from the great practical concerns of life eternal, they are evil, and only evils. Of such are the two tracts sent us. A man preaching and teaching such things and claiming simply to be a disciple of Christ is sailing under false colors and should be reported." ("Questions Answered," page 627.)

      Truly, Brother Lipscomb "wrote some highly valuable expositions on certain features of unfulfilled prophecy," which are applicable to the present issue.

      Brother Boll attempts to confuse "unfulfilled prophecy" with "promise." He says: "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." I do not think that my brother is correct in this statement. Prophecy is a prediction made under divine influence. Unfulfilled prophecy always has the element of prediction in it. A promise is an assurance given by one person to another that the former will or will not do a specified act; it can be conditional or unconditional. Sometimes a prophecy may contain a promise, but certainly not every promise is an unfulfilled prophecy. Is Acts 2:38 a prophecy? Remission of sins is promised to every believing penitent who is baptized. Is this promise [181] a prophecy? But Brother Boll should prove this statement before he uses it as a premise in an argument. He is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation when he shifts from the logical term "unfulfilled prophecy" to the term "promise" without showing that they are logically and Scripturally synonymous and hopes to escape the difficulty of having to prove that his interpretations of "unfulfilled prophecy" are infallible. He thinks he will not meet with such a difficulty if he shifts to the term "promise;" but we cannot let him elude this embarrassment even with such plausible sophistry.

      History has ever falsified man's interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. It is not in the power of finite mind to peer through unfulfilled prophecy and see the end of it and tell how and when it will be fulfilled. Take, for example, the prophecies in the Old Testament of Christ's first advent--his birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, his kingdom, its work and mission. The prophets of old were not able to interpret correctly the prophecies concerning all of these. I gave numerous examples in my third article on the first proposition, showing that it was not in man to give correct interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy. Brother Boll did not even refer to the examples which I gave. Here I submit other examples.

      Take the prophecy of Isa. 61:1. Who knew what this prophecy meant and how it would be fulfilled? Who correctly interpreted it before it was fulfilled? During his personal ministry Christ came to Nazareth and went into the synagogue and picked up the book of Isaiah and read this prophecy. He then closed the book and said: "To-day hath this Scripture been fulfilled in your ears." (Luke 4:16-21.) No one could have guessed the fulfillment of that prophecy.

      Another prophecy of the Old Testament illustrates the same point--Hos. 11:1. Who knew the meaning of this? Who interpreted it correctly before it was fulfilled in [182] Christ? Who knew its meaning until the Holy Spirit said that it was fulfilled by the Lord, saying: "Out of Egypt did I call my son." (Matt. 2:15.) No one could know its meaning until it was fulfilled. Another example is found in Ps. 16:8-11. Who knew the correct interpretation of this before the Holy Spirit, through Peter, gave its meaning on the day of Pentecost? (Acts 2:25-28.) These examples could be multiplied, but surely this is enough. God has emphasized concerning his unfulfilled prophecy that "the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end." (Dan. 12:9.)

      Brother Boll writes as though he and those who have espoused his theory are the only people who believe and teach the prophecies. I do not believe his theories or his interpretations which he has offered in support of his theories, but I do believe the entire word of God. I have as much confidence in Brother Boll's "theological guesses," "prudent conjectures," "improbable interpretations," and "uninspired foresights" as I have in any one else's. I simply have no confidence in any of them, and certainly Brother Boll's recent excursions and ventures into the field of unfulfilled prophecies have not convinced me that his interpretations are absolutely correct. Frankly, I think that his splendid talent, consecration, piety, and reverence for God's word could be used to a greater advantage by devoting them to the things which are practical.

      Brother Boll now makes it clear that Christ is not to reign with his saints, when he comes, over any one except "simply the race then living on the earth." His theory is that Christ, when he comes, will sit on David's throne in Jerusalem, and with his saints he will rule, not only in Palestine, but over all "the race then living on the earth." There will be two classes living upon the earth when Christ comes--saints and the wicked. (See 1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:15.) If all the saints are to reign conjointly with Christ when he comes, and if Christ is to [183] reign only over "the race then living on the earth," then Christ with his saints will reign only over the wicked. He will reign over the wicked for a thousand years. We now have the meaning of Brother Boll's proposition which he is affirming. It means that the Scriptures teach that after Christ comes he will reign for a thousand years over the wicked; and that his saints--all his saints--will occupy thrones and reign conjointly with Christ over the wicked for a thousand years. Now, what kind of a kingdom will that be? His theory has Christ, a righteous King, on David's throne, with millions of his righteous saints on their thrones, with righteous laws, ruling for a thousand years over the wicked "race which is then living upon the earth." Who can believe it? I am positive the Bible does not teach such a theory.

      Brother Boll's theory is self-contradictory. He says that "when he comes again, he comes in royal power, destroying his enemies and opposers." How can he with his saints reign over the wicked a thousand years, if he is going to destroy them when he comes? How can he harmonize these two conflicting and contradictory statements? He is in a dilemma. If he says he destroys the wicked, then he has no one to reign over; if he does not destroy the wicked when he comes, then he has a righteous King with his righteous saints and righteous laws reigning for a thousand years over a wicked race of people.

      But there is another difficulty with his theory. If the wicked race over which Christ is to rule submits to the rule or authority of Christ, they will not be wicked people, but will become saints. No one can submit to the will of God or Christ without becoming a saint. It is preposterous to claim that people will submit to the reign of Christ for a thousand years without becoming saints. But if the affirmative says that they will not become saints, then I ask, Will it take Christ with his saints a thousand years to destroy "the race then living on the earth?" May I ask if "the race then living on the earth" will be ruled [184] by gospel principles? Will they have opportunity to accept Christ as Lord? Will they have advantages that people do not have now? Such inconsistencies betray the weakness of Brother Boll's position. It is just such inconsistencies as these that he is trying to support with his interpretations of the Scriptures.

      So far Brother Boll has attempted to make only two arguments in support of his present proposition. I do not think that he sustains his proposition by these two arguments. I think that his two arguments are fallacious. The first one is based on Rev. 2:26, 27. A close reading of the text shows that it does not support his proposition. The context of this Scripture shows that what Christ now has he will give to his saints: "As I also have received of my Father." This is in the past perfect tense and states emphatically that he has already received of his Father that which is promised in this Scripture to the saints. It says absolutely nothing about what Christ will receive from the Father when he comes and then share that with his saints. The comments and interpretations of scholars do not agree with Brother Boll's interpretation and application of this Scripture.

      Dr. William Burkitt says:

      I have received power as mediator, from my Father, effectually to subdue and conquer all mine and your enemies, and I will make you partakers of it in some measure; you shall exercise an irresistible power over them by consenting to, by approving and applauding of, that righteous judgment which I shall denounce against them and execute and inflict upon them. ("Burkitt's Notes," Volume II., page 768.)

      Adam Clarke, in commenting upon this Scripture, says:

      Verse 26. Power over the nations. Every witness of Christ has power to confute and confound all the false doctrines and maxims of the nations of the world, for [185] Christianity shall at last rule over all; the kingdom of Christ will come, and the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our God and of his Christ.

      Verse 27. He shall rule them with a rod of iron. He shall restrain vice by the strictest administration of justice; and those who finally despise the word and rebel shall be broken and destroyed, so as nevermore to be able to make head against the truth. This seems to refer to the heathen world; and perhaps Constantine the Great may be intended, who, when he overcame Licinius, became the instrument in God's hand of destroying idolatry over the whole Roman Empire; and it was so effectually broken as to be ever after like the fragments of an earthen vessel, of no use in themselves and incapable of being ever united to any good purpose." ("Commentary," Rev. 2:26, 27.)

      Dr. Justin A. Smith says:

      A distinction should be made, here, between the Greek "power" in the sense of authority (which is the word in this place) and "power" in the sense of force or strength. With this should be taken the proper emphasis of the Greek in what follows. The true sense and scope of the passage is also better seen by still connecting these words with the concluding words of the verse, as I have received of my Father. That is to say, that "power," authority, which the Son has received of the Father "over the nations," by which must be meant the world as distinct from the kingdom of grace, he imparts to, or shares with, those who "keep" his "works," who are with him and gather with him. (Matt. 12:30.) . . . Not, however, the severity of mere force, least of all of force exercised in the mere interest of authority; not the rule of the despot, but of the shepherd. . . . The breaking to pieces will be by the Lord's own divine power; but this power will work through his people, and thus, to them, the instruments, he imparts this power. This is a part of their reward in the overcoming." ("American Commentary," Rev. 2:26, 27.)

      According to these scholars, "the nations" or kingdoms shall be broken--not that the people are to be destroyed or broken, but their government so destroyed that the "kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord." This message directed to the church at Thyatira [186] is in harmony with the message which the Holy Spirit gave to the church at Laodicea, in which it is said: "He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne." (Rev. 3:21.) Christ had already overcome "when his message was given and had already sat down with my Father in his throne." The tense is not future, so far as Christ's part is concerned. So we see Brother Boll's first argument does not support his proposition.

      His second argument is based on 2 Tim. 2:12. I quoted Drs. Ellicott and Macknight as opposed to Brother Boll's application of this Scripture, but he dismisses them with his mere "ipse dixit" denial. He places himself and his word in square opposition to these scholars. I confess it would not be a comfortable attitude for me. Macknight says emphatically: "I do not think there is here any reference to the millennium."

      But we wish to quote this verse which Brother Boll bases his second argument upon in connection with both the verse which precedes and the one which follows it. Paul says: "For if we died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him: if we shall deny him, he also will deny us: if we are faithless, he abideth faithful; for he cannot deny himself." (2 Tim. 2:11-13.) Notice the two parallel conditional clauses and their parallel consequences. "If we died with him, we shall also live with him." Christians have died with Christ. (Rom. 6:2; Col. 3:3.) The antecedent is true; hence, the consequent is true, "We shall also live with him." The Scriptures teach that we are now living a new life in Christ; and the life which we now live is by faith in Christ. (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 2:20.) Now examine the parallel in verse 12. "If we endure, we shall also reign with him." Now, as Christians, we are enduring and suffering for Christ. "Yea, and all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." [187] (2 Tim. 3:12.) The antecedent is true now; therefore, the consequent, "We shall also reign with him," is true now. Both consequents, "we shall also live with him" and "we shall also reign with him," are true. As sure as we are living with Christ now, we are reigning with him now. So Brother Boll's second argument does not sustain his proposition.

      The negative has produced two arguments which show that the proposition of the affirmative is not true. The first one of these arguments was based upon the Scriptural fact that Christ is now reigning and will continue this reign until the last enemy has been conquered. Christ is now reigning as King and Lord over all rule, authority, power, and dominion; even has dominion now over angels. (Rom. 5:21; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:21; 1 Tim. 6:15; 1 Pet. 3:22.) The reign of Christ began on Pentecost when the stone began smiting the image, and it will continue to the end. Brother Boll contradicts this argument and makes Christ merely bearing the title of King. He says: "He had all along held all title, but then he takes actual possession." He further says: "The kingdom of the world is yet to pass into the hands of Christ." Brother Boll's position is that Christ is now only bearing the title of King and has all authority, but is not in "actual possession" or exercising this authority. He seems to see that if he admits that Christ is now in "actual possession" of all authority it will be detrimental to his theory as to what Christ will do when he comes. I regret that Brother Boll does not believe that Christ is in "actual possession" of "all authority." Such a position contradicts the statement of our reigning King. He said: "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." (Matt. 28:18.) But Brother Boll says he is not in "actual possession" of this authority, but will take "actual possession" when he comes. Such a position robs my faithful Lord and reigning King of power, [188] authority, and glory; such a position dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ. The King James Version closes what is commonly called "the Lord's Prayer" with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever." Surely there must be something wrong with a theory which denies the Lordship and authority of the King of kings. Such a position denies the fundamental principle of the Christian religion.

      The negative's second argument is based on the fact that the saints are now reigning with Christ. Matt. 19:28 and other Scriptures were quoted in support of this position. I now wish to quote J. W. McGarvey's comment on Matt. 19:28 as further support of this position. He says:

      "Regeneration" means, either the process of regenerating, or the result attained by that process, according to the context in which it is found. Here it evidently means the former, for it designates a period during which the apostles would sit on thrones. . . . The words, "ye who have followed me," simply describe the parties addressed as having done what the rich man refused to do. The period designated by the term "regeneration" is further limited by the words, "when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory." He sat down on that throne when he ascended up to heaven, and he will still be seated on it in the day of judgment. . . . "The regeneration," then, is cotemporaneous with this period, and therefore it must be that process of regenerating men which commenced on the Pentecost after the ascension, and will continue until the saints are raised with regenerated bodies. . . . The judgment and the sitting on thrones are declared to be cotemporaneous with the regeneration and with Christ's sitting on his throne; and therefore they must be regarded as now in progress. . . . The judging consists in pronouncing decisions on questions of faith and practice in the earthly kingdom, and the twelve are figuratively represented as sitting on thrones, because they are acting as judges. During their personal ministry they judged in person; since then they judge through their writings. True, we have written communications from only a part of them; but judgments pronounced by one of a bench of judges, with the known approval of all, [189] are the judgments of the entire bench. . . . The apostles have sustained no such relation to the twelve tribes of Israel, literally so called, as the text indicates, nor is there any intimation in the Scriptures that they ever will. Their work is with the true Israel, and not with the Israel according to the flesh; consequently, we are to construe the term metaphorically, the twelve tribes representing the church of God, of which they were a type. ("New Testament Commentary," Volume I., Matthew and Mark.)

      Brother D. Lipscomb, in commenting on this Scripture, gives the following:

      The word "regeneration" literally means a new creation or new order of things. As used in the passages named, we think it means the new institution--the church, or kingdom, of God on earth. The apostles were to sit on thrones in the regeneration-that is, in the church. The apostles received their power, or authority, on the day of Pentecost, when they received the Holy Spirit and began to preach the word of the Lord as the Spirit gave them utterance. They then began to give the words that are to judge all Israel and all the world. Christ was then seated upon the throne of his glory in heaven, and his promise to the apostles was that when he should sit upon the throne of glory they should sit upon twelve thrones. These apostles took their seats on their thrones that day, and they are on them yet, and will be till the close of time. We are, therefore, to look to them for all authority in religion. The words of the apostles must be an end to all controversy in matters of faith and practice. ("Questions Answered," page 538.)

      So the Scriptures abundantly teach that Christ is now reigning and that his saints are now, reigning with him. This refutes the position that Christ and his saints will not reign together until he comes. All legitimate interpretations of other Scriptures must harmonize with these facts. [190]

[UP 178-190]