My respondent has filled up much space with generalities. Over five pages of his eight-page manuscript is taken up with remarks about interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. The testimony of God's word of unfulfilled prophecy is surely dead against him, seeing he must work so hard to nullify it. "Counsel in a lawsuit," says an English jurist, "has sometimes to advise that unless some adverse witness can be discredited the case must collapse." It is manifest that unless my respondent can discredit God's word of unfulfilled prophecy as testimony to the proposition, his case collapses. If he cannot make the readers feel that it is so mystical, so obscure, so indefinite, so incomprehensible, that fallible mortal man cannot tell what it means--if he cannot rule it out of court one way or another, his case is gone. As for my end of it, I propose to stand simply upon the word of God. I am not asking my respondent to accept any theories, guesses, or opinions; I want him to point them out if I should forget myself so far as to offer such thing to him in proof of my proposition; and I desire him to face, as honestly, the Scripture proof I present. He is greatly exercised over what my supposed theories and alleged ideas and positions are. He seems, indeed, much too much concerned about me and my views and my "theories." I wish he would not "pursue after a flea," as David said, but simply and directly address himself to the examination of the Scriptures I present, and let us know whether they say what the affirmative claims, and if not, why not, and let him show what the passages in question do say and mean. That would be profitable to us all. He cannot, it seems, give up that Roman Catholic error that Scripture cannot be understood unless there is an infallible interpreter. I know well that he does not extend that [191] idea to all the Scriptures, but only to God's word of unfulfilled prophecy, and I do not charge him with more. But any one can take his position on this and prove the whole Roman Catholic contention by it. He thinks I have failed to grasp his point. Reasoning that no certain conclusions can be reached from uncertain premises (which, of course, is true), he applies thus: "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 the reader understands this argument."

      I think we do understand it. It is the very same as the common Roman Catholic argument. "Since you are not an infallible interpreter," they tell you, "you can never be absolutely certain of the correctness of your interpretations of the Bible, and therefore it is impossible for you ever to prove anything from the Bible." If an enemy who desires to break the force of God's word and set it aside should employ such argument as that, it would not be strange; but it does not behoove a Christian who would have all men to rest their confidence on God's infallible and faithful word to make use of such arguments. Our premises are not uncertain when we build on God's word. This whole thing concerning the "interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy" is a plain open-or-shut sort of question, and I think my respondent sees it by now. It is just the question whether God means what he says; whether his statements can be credited at their own face value or not. If not, I confess I am out of it; but if yes, Brother Boles has got to face the Scriptures. He says he does not discredit God's word; but "I do discredit Brother Boll's theological guesses," he says, "and doubtful interpretations of its figures, symbols, and allegories." Very well. I am whole-heartedly with him in that. But that is no reason why the testimony of God's word in [192] matters of unfulfilled prophecy should not be gold standard, worth a hundred cents on the dollar.

      I am glad he sees that "there is a difference between unfulfilled prophecy and the interpretation of prophecy;" for he has been charging me with saying that my proof depended on "the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy." But I had said that it depended on God's word of unfulfilled prophecy. There is "a wide difference," he says, "between God's word of unfulfilled prophecy and human interpretation of 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." Amen. So say I, and so I have been saying all along. I have stated a number of times that all the "interpretation" I stand for is "an acceptance of God's word as testimony to the proposition, in accordance with the fair meaning of its statement." That is really simply that which he calls "what is stated or expressed in unfulfilled prophecy." Brother Boles himself draws a distinction between this and "interpretation." Nevertheless, he continually charges me with "interpreting" and speaks of my "interpretations." I have a right to know, and the readers have the right to know, what he means by that. I ask him to tell me plainly what he thinks I am guilty of that he calls "interpretation."

      But if uninspired man cannot understand unfulfilled prophecy, and if nobody can know what a "legitimate exegesis" is, then even "what is stated or expressed in unfulfilled prophecy" is worthless to us for light or truth or proof! And it is that that my respondent has been driving at, and it is that that I deny and object to as an unfair turn in a discussion that deals with matters of unfulfilled prophecy.

      But at last my respondent comes out on one tangible statement concerning this. If I understand him, he says that unfulfilled prophecy cannot be understood on the [193] same principle and in the same way as all the rest of God's word. Good. If he will stand by that, I challenge him an it. I say it can be so understood. He says it cannot. This is a clear issue and strictly to the point. I will take the affirmative on it and assume the burden of the proof. Let him deny it. This is by far the most important thing we can discuss now. He can take it up next or last, as he chooses, but this certainly ought to be discussed. Except in a few lines at the first mention of this issue, I have not discussed this question of uninspired man's ability to understand unfulfilled prophecy at all on its merits so far; but all the discussion has been on the general point of whether my respondent's position on this was fair and whether it ought to be discussed in a formal and orderly manner. Let my respondent save his arguments till we take up this proposition proper.

      I would even accept his proposition, if he will make it represent the issue, thus: "The Scriptures teach that man, unaided by inspiration, can understand how and when unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled, in so far as God has revealed in his word how and when it will be fulfilled." For, of course, Brother Boles would not have me to affirm that uninspired man can know something that God has not revealed. I do not claim that, as he knows. So, if he will allow me to guard that point, I will take even his own proposition.

      Brother Boles quotes from "Questions Answered," page 627, where, speaking against certain things of which I am wholly innocent, Brother Lipscomb says:

      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 evil. 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. [194]

      The case does not apply to me. I have preached the gospel according to my ability and have not substituted anything in lieu of it. Those who have known and heard me these thirty years will bear me witness. Nor can any man show that I have made a hobby of prophetic teaching, or that I created division and strife among brethren; rather, I have used my influence to prevent strife where others had fomented it. "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24.) If I have attracted people "away from the great practical concerns of life eternal," the results ought to show it. "By their fruits ye shall know them," said our Lord; and a man's work ought to be permitted to bear witness of him. For near twenty-four years I have worked with the Portland Avenue Church, Louisville, Ky. If I had been teaching falsehoods, if I had preached hobbies and drawn people away from the practical concerns of the Christian life, surely the effects would show here if anywhere, and the blight of the error would be manifest by now. I invite my brother to come and see if this congregation has been less faithful and practical than others.

      After all this loss of time and space, we must now take up the proposition itself. My respondent says (incorrectly, however) that the only two arguments I have made were those on Rev. 2:25-27 and 2 Tim. 2:12. He has clean forgotten about 1 Cor. 6:2, 3 and Luke 19:11-27 and Dan. 7 and Rev. 20. But let us see what he has to say on Rev. 2:25-27.

      In order to get it before our readers, I will quote this passage again, in full:

      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: 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. 2:25-27.) [195]

      My respondent declares that this passage does not support my proposition. The reason he gives is that "it says absolutely nothing about what Christ will receive from the Father when he comes and then share with his saints," as though that had any bearing on the point. Then he quotes, what to my humble judgment is rather a weak effusion, from one Dr. William Burkitt and one Dr. Justin A. Smith, whoever they are, and something not much better from Adam Clarke. And of this consists his reply to the argument based upon the simple declaration of Christ as given above.

      Commentators are never to be received upon their own authority, be they ever so great scholars, but their work rests purely upon its own merits. I do not bank upon commentaries at all. However, since Brother Boles has himself once quoted Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, I will quote him on Rev. 2:25-27:

      At Christ's coming the saints shall possess the kingdom "under the whole heaven," therefore over this earth; cf. Luke 19:17, "Have thou authority (the same word as here) over ten cities."

      Verse 27 (from Ps. 2:8, 9). Rule--lit., "rule as a shepherd." . . . Beginning by destroying His Antichristian foes, He shall reign in love over the rest. "Christ shall rule them with a scepter of iron, to make them capable of being ruled with a scepter of gold; severity first, that grace may come after."

      It is easy to see how much clearer and truer to the text these comments are than those which Brother Boles quoted. But we could "prove" or "disprove" anything in the world by means of commentaries. Here is something better from one of the ablest and greatest of our brethren that ever lived, James A. Harding:

      It is apparent that the one great, all-including purpose for which we were made, for which we exist, is to be educated, trained, developed, so as to be indeed sons of God; brothers of Christ, heirs of God, who will dwell with their Father forever and will reign with him. We were made for rulers to start with (Gen. 1:27), and the [196] faithful are to be members of the ruling family of the universe, rulers for evermore. Daniel prophesied, saying: "The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever. . . . I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. . . . And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heavens, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." (Dan. 7:18, 21, 22, 27.) Paul indignantly asks of the Corinthians, when they were so foolish as to go to law before the unbelievers: "Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" (1 Cor. 6:2, 3.) In the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30), and of the pounds (Luke 19:11-27), Jesus plainly shows that the faithful are to be made rulers. Referring to the time of his second coming, he says to the faithful, "Well done, thou good servant; because thou wast found faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities;" and to another, "Be thou also over five cities;" or, as he expressed it in another place: "Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." (Word and Work, 1922, page 15, quoted from The Way.)

      I would have the reader to observe that nobody said that Christ would "receive" something from the Father when he comes. That has nothing to do with it. He says the word, "I have received," is perfect tense. Why shouldn't it be? But the Lord who says he received this authority from the Father also says he will bestow it upon his faithful servants, and that they should "rule the nations with a rod of iron" just as the Father had granted to him to do. There is no proof that the Lord Jesus is going to quit his rule when the saints begin theirs; therefore, they rule together, and they share his rule with him. But the saints to whom the Lord is [197] making this Promise had not yet received this rule and authority, for Christ said: "I will give." That is future. According to Brother Boles' idea, they would have been already reigning with Christ, and there would have been no room or occasion for such a promise. If they had been already reigning with Christ, they would have been doing so without any authority; for the Lord promised to give them authority to rule, in the event they would hold fast till his coming and would keep his works to the end. The question whether they had held fast, overcome, and kept his works to the end, cannot be officially settled and decided until the Lord's coming. Therefore the promise refers to a time subsequent to the Lord's return. Thus the proposition, "that Christ shall rule with his saints over the nations after his coming," is as perfectly established as it will ever be possible to establish anything by the teaching of God's inspired word.

      I want to call especial attention, since so much has been said on the point, that in this I am not advancing any theories, or putting up "theological guesses" or "doubtful interpretations;" that this passage does not deal with apocalyptical symbols and figures. I am staking everything upon the plain declaration of the word of God. I would like for Brother Boles to face this passage squarely.

      In my last I pointed out that, according to the distinction which Brother Boles himself drew, this is not even "unfulfilled prophecy," but purely a promise. So I don't see how he can turn it down on any ground. What will he do with it?

      I specifically limited my statement about the promises of God being instances of unfulfilled prophecy by the clause, "pertaining to the future and the hereafter." Brother Boles quotes this statement of mine correctly, but then goes on to reason upon it as if I had omitted that clause. He says that I attempt to confuse "unfulfilled prophecy" with "promise," and calls it "plausible [198] sophistry." Such language is hardly in line with the standards we have chosen in this debate. The expression, "plausible sophistry," carries an intimation of trickery and dishonesty. I was not guilty of "sophistry;" my respondent simply overlooked or ignored my words. I said: "Every promise of God pertaining to the future and the hereafter is an instance of unfulfilled prophecy." That is simply so, and no one can deny it. Brother Boles reasoned as if I had said that all promises are "unfulfilled prophecy," and wants to know whether Acts 2:38 could be so classed. Can we not be more accurate in our argumentation, avoid aspersions in our language, and keep the whole discussion on a high plane?

      But to go back to Rev. 2:25-27 once more. My respondent sees many reasons why Christ simply could not reign over the earth with his saints after his coming. If I could not answer a single one of his objections, and if I could not tell him what sort of "nations" these could be, whether wicked or righteous, where they had come from, or what their conditions or advantages would be under that reign, none of that could in any wise alter what God says in Rev. 2:25-27. We must not trim the word of God to our ideas of what could or could not be, but we must trim our ideas to fit what God has said. The question, "How can these things be? is always secondary and waits upon the question, What hath God spoken?" Daniel Sommer offers this possible explanation:

      Does some one inquire where the people will come from who will be on the earth during the millennium? That is not our side of the question. Though God will take the righteous away, and destroy those who have worshiped the beast, or received his mark, yet we need not be in doubt. God knew how to overthrow Pharaoh and his army, yet spare a residue of the Egyptians who were not responsible for his sins. He knew how to destroy Jerusalem, and the Jew as a nation, and yet save a remnant of that people. On the same principle, we may feel assured that he will know how to overthrow all his enemies [199] among mankind in the last days of the gospel age, and, yet, will be able to save sufficient of mankind to people the world in the millennial age. Besides, from the time of the event mentioned in Rev. 11:13, God will have the Jews as his people, for the promise in Isa. 66:22 cannot fail. In view of all this, we need not to be disturbed about God's side of the question, nor of any other. He knows how to manage it, and will manage it to his honor and glory. All that we need to do is to believe and obey the Lord in the present, then believe and trust him with reference to the future.

      I note, however, that though Brother Boles is sure that no uninspired man can know how or when an unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled, he seems to know how and when it can not be fulfilled. According to his position, he ought to be simply neutral and say he does not and cannot know anything about it, one way or another.

      He says also: "Brother Boll's theory is self-contradictory." But I haven't offered him any theory. I have not promulgated any theories to him. All I gave him to work on was a few simple passages of Scripture, which I took at face value and on which I rest the proposition. Let the negative confine himself to his task, instead of troubling about some "theory" the affirmative is supposed to hold.

      My second main argument, according to my respondent, is on 2 Tim. 2:12. I will give this also in full:

      Faithful is the saying: 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." (2 Tim. 2:11, 12.)

      My respondent says I dismissed his quotations from "Drs. Ellicott and Macknight" with my mere "ipse dixit" denial. That would not be a very bad slip, even at that. Says Brother Boles: "Macknight says emphatically, 'I do not think there is here any reference to the [200] millennium.'" Well, well; because "Dr." Macknight "emphatically says" he "thinks" something, ought we to stand in awe of such solemn authority? It has never been so among us. But I did not turn those gentlemen down with my "ipse dixit;" I gave good reason. I said that it will not be possible to say that a man has endured until he has reached the end of the journey. "He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." (Matt. 24:13.) The "stony-ground hearer" is he that "endureth for a while," but under stress falls away. Will he reign with Christ? Will it be made known who has "endured" until after Christ has come, "who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts?" (1 Cor. 4:5.) Then, and not till then, "shall every man have his praise from God." "For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor. 5:10.) The promise of the reign with Christ rests upon the "if" of endurance; and that requires the finished course. So, whatever the doctors may say, we shall not reign with Christ till after his coming. But then we shall, if we are found to have been faithful to the end. This again, alone, establishes the proposition.

      My respondent uses strong language regarding the matter of Christ's universal authority, which I showed is indeed his, "de jure," though not as yet "de facto et actu," as the lawyers say--that is, "by right," but not yet "in actual fact and act." My respondent says that this is a theory "which denies the Lordship and authority of the King of kings." (It does no such thing; it affirms it.) Again: "Such a position denies the fundamental principle of the Christian religion." Why does my respondent make such charges? I believe in the present, universal, absolute authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and feel that he must in some way prove that [201] I do not so believe. But the reader will remember that in my last I pointed out that Brother Boles himself stated that all things are not yet actually subjected to Christ. Very well, then; that is the very position he so extremely denounces now, and that is all there is to it. When he said that all things are not yet subject to Christ, did he "deny the Lordship and authority of the King of kings?" Did he "deny the fundamental principle of the Christian religion?" Of course he did not; nor do I, neither by implication nor otherwise. I think my respondent might see this. Brother Boles quotes Matt. 28:18 in proof of Christ's present universal authority. Good. I hold by that. But at the very time when the risen Lord said, "All authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth," had he at that time actually received this authority? It was almost fifty days before he ascended to the Father and sat down at God's right hand, crowned with glory and honor. At the time he said, "All authority is given unto me," the certainty of this authority was his. Therefore, he could speak of it even then as a present fact. But now he holds that authority, although there are yet some steps to be taken in claiming what is his own. And that is not derogatory to the Christ's supreme Lordship.

      In "Queries and Answers" (old edition, page 304), David Lipscomb, in answer to the question, "How do you know that the kingdoms of this age are not Christ's?" (Rev. 11:15), says: "I know the nations are not the kingdoms of God, because they do not obey his laws." Is that position derogatory to Christ's universal Lordship and authority? If not, then neither is mine. Again, Brother Lipscomb says (page 360, same volume):

      Jesus had been to earth and returned to heaven. Heaven must receive him until "the times of restoration of all things." Then "the times of restoration of all things" must be when Jesus returns again to earth--the restoration of all things to their original relation to God. . . . When Jesus comes again, the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and all things in the [202] world will be restored to harmonious relations with God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe.

      If this position does not "deny the fundamental principles of the Christian religion," then neither does my position.

      On Matt. 19:28, Brother Boles quotes from McGarvey, and also from Brother Lipscomb, to the effect that the twelve apostles are now sitting on thrones and ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. I noticed in our first proposition that Brother Boles did not at all seem to mind turning down what Brother McGarvey had said on the restoration of Israel, and he surely will not blame me overmuch now if I see reason to differ from Brother McGarvey just here; and as for differing from Brother Lipscomb in any matter, that has never been regarded as a capital offense among us. I have a suspicion that perhaps Brother Boles differs with him just a little in the quotations given just above. My reason for venturing to differ is not only the inherent untenableness of the idea that the apostles are now reigning over the twelve tribes of Israel, but that, according to Matt. 19:28, the apostles were not to sit on their thrones until the Lord Jesus should "sit on the throne of his glory;" and in Matt. 25:31 he himself states when that would be: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory."

      If my respondent should denounce this as subversive of Christian faith, let him remember that this is what Christ himself said in so many words, and it is no "theory" or "guess" of mine, or anybody else's. I believe that his present position on the Father's throne (Rev. 3:21) includes all authority and dominion, yet when he comes he will sit on the throne of his glory, just as he said; a throne that is his now, but which he will occupy when he gets ready--that is, when he comes; and then shall the apostles rule on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [203]

      I have finished my work on this proposition.

      1. It was proved with complete conclusiveness that in Rev. 2:25-27 the Lord Jesus promises to give those who would be faithful till his coming authority over the nations, that they should rule them with a rod of iron, as he also had received of the Father. It was shown that this would be joint rule with Christ, and could not take place before Christ's coming. This alone establishes the proposition.

      2. It was shown that in 2 Tim. 2:12 the promise is given to Christians of reigning with Christ if they endured, and it was pointed out that that is not to be decided till Christ comes. This again, alone, establishes the proposition.

      3. It was shown that, not here and now, but in the life to come, the saints shall share in Christ's sovereign function and prerogative of judging the world and even angels. (1 Cor. 6:2, 3.) This again shows their position as joint rulers with Christ in the judgment.

      4. It was shown that in Luke 19:11-27 the Savior taught that his servants were to administrate his goods in the midst of a hostile population, while he himself had gone away "to receive for himself a kingdom and return;" and that on his return he judged his servants and appointed to the faithful ones a sphere of rule. This again sustains the proposition.

      5. It was shown in Dan. 7 that the saints are persecuted by opposing powers clean up to the point when the "Ancient of Days" came, executed judgment, and the kingdom under the whole heaven was turned over to the saints of the Most High, and they should possess it forever. The context shows that this kingdom was the one which was given to the Son of man, that all kingdoms and dominions should obey him.

      6. It was shown that when Christ comes again in glory he will sit on the throne of his glory, and that then his [204] apostles shall reign with him on twelve thrones over the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28; 25:31.)

      7. It was shown that in Rev. 19 and 20, after the destruction of the beast and his armies, Christ and his saints take possession, and they shall reign with him forever. (Rev. 19:11-21; 20:1-6.)

      I have no desire to do my respondent the least injustice by any undue assertion. So I will simply say that, so far as I am able to see and judge, he has not answered any of these arguments, and that the proposition of the affirmative is established. The reader must judge for himself. [205]

[UP 191-205]