The question now before us is whether Christ is now sitting on David's throne. Brother Boles affirms that be is; I am to deny. In this proposition everything depends on what is meant by David's throne and what is meant by Christ's sitting on it. And I will say at the very outset that if that means anything else or anything less in Brother Boles' mind than the actual exercise of the rule and government allotted by God to David, there is no use of carrying this proposition any further. As my respondent knows, I am not denying Christ's present universal authority and power, which, indeed, includes also all the right to, and authority of, the throne of David. This I affirmed and declared over and over again throughout the last two propositions. I did not merely admit it or concede it, but I avowed and gladly declared it, and have always done so. If, when he affirms that Christ is on David's throne now, Brother Boles means nothing more than that that right and authority is Christ's now, we will shake hands on it right here and stop further dispute. But if he means that Christ is now actively exercising the rule of David's throne, that Christ is now administrating the sphere of government which God committed to David, that is what I deny, and that only. I am not making this distinction only here in this debate. Brother Boles knows (or should know) that this has been my published position all along. Not only did I explain this fully in my little book on "The Kingdom of God" (pages 60, 61), published five years ago, but the distinction was pointed out to him again in the correspondence preceding this debate. On pages 60 and 61 of the kingdom book I wrote as follows (beginning at the bottom of page 59):

      The risen Lord Jesus is indeed exalted and enthroned now, but the position of authority he occupies up there was in no sense inherited from his father David. David never occupied that throne, nor could have; just as it is equally evident that the Lord Jesus has never yet [232] exercised the authority of David's sphere of rule. The throne which our Lord occupies now is the all-inclusive sovereignty of heaven. It is a position of supreme authority held by him as the glorified God-man "until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet" (Ps. 110:1), upon which it will be surrendered (1 Cor. 15:25-28).

      It may be argued that being in the place of supreme and all-inclusive authority ("all authority in heaven and on earth is given unto me"), the authority of David's throne, being comprehended in "all authority," is his now also. That is entirely true. It is his and no one else's. He has and holds the key of David. He is the anointed King of David's line, the Christ appointed for Israel. (Acts 3:20.) But neither is that saying that he now sits and reigns on David's throne. David had been anointed God's king long before he actually sat upon his rightful throne over Israel, suffering indignities and persecution at the hand of Saul, and rejection at the hands of the people; and he never took the government until the people themselves willingly sought his rule and chose him and submitted. Yet all the while, though unrecognized by men, he was God's king. As it would be put in legal language, the throne was his "de jure et potentia" at first; and became his "de facto et actu" afterwards--that is, it is his by right and authority at first, and in fact and act afterwards.

      Moreover, his all-inclusive authority does not remove the necessity of his special introduction into a special subordinate sphere of rule and investment with a specific authority. George V. became King of England, sovereign, therefore, over all its wide domains, upon which the sun never sets. Yet some six months after his coronation in England he must needs go to Delhi to be there crowned Emperor of India. As King of England that crown belonged to him alone. Because he was King of England he was, by right, Emperor of India. Therefore, he went to Bengal to claim that crown. Let that serve as an illustration of a situation which is really simple enough in itself.

      The meaning my respondent places on the term "David's throne," therefore, determines whether there is any issue between us. Now, what is his definition of the "throne of David?" He says: "By 'David's throne' I mean 'the throne of the Majesty,' 'the throne of his glory,' 'the [233] throne of God,' 'Christ's throne;' not the mere wooden chair or throne that David used, but the authority and leadership of the Lord's people. 'Throne' is usually the symbol of kingly power and dignity; it denotes governing or judicial power; it is sometimes equivalent to kingdom or reign."

      Now, if really that is what my brother means by "throne of David," and if that is all he means, there is nothing to debate. If, by definition, the throne on which Christ now sits is the same as David's throne, the question is begged and also settled by his definition at the very start. What is the use of saying anything more, one way or another? For Brother Boles knows that I believe and teach that Jesus Christ is now exalted at God's right hand, on the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, and on the throne of God, all things in the universe, visible and invisible, being subject to him; that neither of us thinks that "the mere wooden chair or throne that David used" is meant; and Christ now has "the authority and leadership of the Lord's people." If that is "the throne of David" (and my respondent says that it is), we are both heartily agreed, and so Christ is on David's throne now, and the dispute is ended. What is there left to debate about? Did Brother Boles think I would deny that Christ is now exalted to universal sovereignty, that he is now on "the throne of the Majesty" and has "the authority and leadership of the Lord's people? " If he thought I would deny that, he had no reason to think so on grounds of anything I ever said, but every reason to know better.

      It seems to me a very unusual thing in a discussion that the affirmative should so define the proposition as to leave no ground for the real issue. To expect me now to state the proposition and to define it so as to bring out the real issue would be virtually the same as placing the negative into affirmation and shifting the burden of proof to the negative's shoulders. I could not consent to that, [234] and my respondent would not want me to do that. Let Brother Boles give us a clean-cut and distinctive definition of the throne of David. Let him tell us, if he will, that the throne of David is that sphere of rule and governmental authority which God delegated to David, and which Christ, by virtue of his Davidic descent in the royal lineage, has legally inherited from his father David, and then go to work and prove that the throne on which Christ now sits is that which he has inherited from his father David. That would be facing the issue squarely, and then we can proceed with the discussion. It is absolutely essential that Brother Boles give us a clear and distinctive definition of the term "David's throne," and also of what is meant by Christ's being or sitting on David's throne, whether it means only the possession of the authority, or the active exercise of it in governmental rule in the realm of David.

      Further on the affirmative speaks much more distinctly. "Is the throne which he [Christ] now occupies called in the Scriptures 'David's throne?' The affirmative claims that it is; the negative denies this. The affirmative claims that the throne which Christ now occupies, the one which he has at the right hand of God, is the throne which the Scriptures call 'David's throne;' the negative claims that he is not now on the throne which the Scriptures call 'David's throne,' but that he will occupy 'David's throne' when he comes."

      Good. That is the issue fair and square, provided only (as explained before) it be understood that Christ's present universal sovereignty includes all subordinate authority and power. The issue in its simplest terms is whether Christ is now exercising the rule and government implied in the term "the throne of David." For to occupy a throne has always meant to exercise the sovereignty of that throne. For example, to use a Scripture illustration, [235] David was God's anointed king over Israel years before he actually sat on the throne. Again, he lost his throne for a time during Absalom's rebellion. Yet all the time he was king. To sit on a throne is not merely to hold a rank and title of royalty, but the active exercise of that rule and government. Christ is God's universal King; yea, he is God's King of the house of David, whose own the throne of David is, the only living Heir, Claimant, and Possessor of the same. When he gets ready, he will exercise that right and rule. He has not done so yet, according to the negative's contention. It is the affirmative's duty to prove that Christ has assumed the active exercise of the power and rule which is his as the Heir of the throne of David, and which would constitute occupancy of the throne.

      What, then, is that sphere of government? The affirmative rightly refers to God's promise to David in 2 Sam. 7:11-16. That, with 1 Chron. 17:10-14 (see also Ps. 89:19-37), is the fundamental Scripture teaching on the subject; only, my respondent does not give it in full. The promise begins at 2 Sam. 7:8. "Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, that thou shouldest be prince over my people, over Israel. . . . And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more as at the first. . . . Moreover Jehovah telleth thee that Jehovah will make thee a house. . . . And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever." (2 Sam. 7:8-16.)

      It is clear from this that David's rule and authority was over the people of Israel. This was the sovereignty delegated to him by Jehovah. For Jehovah had specifically claimed the sovereignty over Israel for himself; but when they asked a human king, God first gave them Saul; and upon his failure, David. (1 Sam. 16:1.) God, [236] however, never abdicated his kingdom and right over Israel, but the throne--that is, the right to administrate and exercise its government--he delegated to David and David's house forever. It is in that sense, and no other, that David and his sons "sat on the throne of Jehovah," according to 1 Kings 2:12 and 1 Chron. 29:23, two passages cited by my respondent. The affirmative ought to prove either that David once occupied the throne on which Christ now is at God's right hand, over all the universe, or he ought to prove that Christ is now ruling the realm of David's sovereignty, the nation of Israel. That was the only throne and kingdom David ever held, the only one, therefore, that Christ could have inherited from David his father, and the only one that could with propriety be called "the throne of David." The negative denies that Christ is now exercising the rule of David's dominion.

      Among the many passages quoted or cited by my respondent (in many of which I could not discover any bearing on the question in hand) there is not one that states that Christ is sitting on David's throne now, and that now he is exercising the rule of David's realm. As shown above, David ruled over the people of Israel. The reign of David is specifically defined to be "over Judah and Israel." (2 Sam. 3:10.) He was "shepherd of my people Israel" and "prince over Israel." He reigned "over all Israel and Judah." (2 Sam. 5:2, 5.) David's kingdom was that over which Saul had previously ruled. (1 Chron. 12:23.) David never had any other. He never bequeathed any other to his sons after him. The Scriptures do not mention any other. "David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel." (1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; Jer. 33:17.) The throne of David was, according to the Scriptures, the throne of the house of Israel. David's seed, who inherited his throne, were to be "rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." (Jer. 33:26.)

      It was seen in the quotation from 2 Sam. 7, above given, that the perpetuity of David's throne demanded the perpetuity of the people over whom David ruled. If his throne was to be forever, then that people which constitute his realm must continue forever, and the land, and the people in the land, must continue. Therefore, God said: "I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as at the first." (2 Sam. 7:10; compare Amos 9:15--"And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith Jehovah thy God"). David himself perceived that in giving him this promise concerning the perpetuity of his throne, God had established Israel to be a people unto him forever. (2 Sam. 7:24.)

      The affirmative must prove that Christ is administrating the rule and government in the realm of Israel, over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and in their land (Jer. 23:5), else Christ is not now occupying David's throne. For the Scriptures define the throne of David to be the rule over Israel, and never as anything else. This is also what the angel said to Mary, concerning the wonderful Child that was to be born: "The Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever." (Luke 1:32, 33.) Every one knows who the house of Jacob is. It is not the church. The expression, "house of Jacob," occurs often. Every single time that term is used in the Scripture it has exclusive reference to the descendants of Jacob, Jacob's family, the entire nation of Israel. Is my respondent at liberty to put a significance of his own upon these plain and well-defined Scripture terms, "the throne of David" and "the house of Jacob?" I want him to take the Scripture terms at their own meaning and definition and show us when our Lord Jesus has sat on "the [238] throne of David" and ruled over "the house of Jacob." Brother Boles says: "The dynasty of David is an everlasting dynasty; it continues from David to Christ and becomes an everlasting throne." The dynasty does not become a throne, but the throne was given to David's dynasty. Both the throne and the dynasty failed for some centuries, but were to be rehabilitated in Christ. They did not steadily continue, as my respondent thinks, but the throne of David was cast down to the ground (Ps. 89:44), and "the tabernacle of David," which is his royal house, his dynasty, fell and was broken down into ruins. After many years and centuries there came forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, long defunct (Isa. 11:1), and the great Son of David, Jesus Christ our Lord, came to fulfill all the promises. In him the tabernacle of David (David's royal house) is rebuilt and reëstablished (Acts 15:16), for here is now an Heir apparent to David's throne--one who has the legal right to reign upon it, and divine power to do so, and to whom by every right it exclusively belongs; one who represents both God and David. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder. .  . . Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it." (Isa. 9:6, 7.) "And a throne shall be established in loving-kindness; and one shall sit thereon in truth, in the tent of David, judging, and seeking justice, and swift to do righteousness." (Isa. 16:5.)

      But these facts go to define "the throne of David" yet more clearly: the throne of David is a throne that once stood, and was cast down to the ground, and was to be reëstablished again. The throne on which the Lord Jesus Christ now sits was never cast down to the ground. It is God's eternal throne in the heavens, the supreme sovereignty of all the universe, which stands from everlasting to everlasting. Of the throne of David, God said: "I will [239] overturn, overturn, overturn it: this also shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him." (Ezek. 21:27.) But the throne on which Christ now sits was never overturned; it is the eternal throne of God in heaven. "He that overcometh," said the Lord Jesus, "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.) That is the throne Christ occupies now, at God's right hand, according to Ps. 110, which my brother quotes and cites; the throne which never was or could have been "overturned" or "cast down to the ground." But will my respondent tell us on what throne, once cast down to the ground and overturned (so that it was "no more")--on what throne answering such a description Christ now is sitting? Let the affirmative explain this.

      My respondent cites many passages--too many for the negative to examine and discuss each separately. But none of them declare either singly or in conjunction that Christ is now sitting upon David's throne and exercising the rule and government peculiar to it. Like the steward of David's house, Eliakim, who was put instead of the faithless treasurer, Shebna, Christ has the key of David's treasure house, and can and does even now dispense its blessings (Isa. 22:15-25; Rev. 3:7)--this is told us. And that is nothing strange. But nowhere are we told that Christ is now exercising the particular rule that pertains to David's throne. Brother Boles cites and quotes passages that teach the present unlimited sovereignty and Lordship of Jesus--all of which are gladly accepted and agreed to, as has been stated time and time again. Yea Christ is now "far above all rule, and authority," just as my respondent declares on the strength of Eph. 1:21, and will hold the same supreme position in "the world to come" (Greek "the age to come"). I believe that with all my heart, and the fact harmonizes perfectly with all else I believe. I want it to be clear to the reader that on [240] this point there is no disagreement between Brother Boles and myself, and that the proofs and assertions of this fact which he continually advances are needless in this discussion. The same is true in regard to Phil. 2:9-11, where it is stated that "God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This high position Jesus holds now, although, as yet, every knee has not bowed to him nor every tongue confessed him, as Brother Boles admits. The fact of Christ's universal Lordship, therefore, is not denied or discounted by the fact that everything is not now actually under his rule and government as yet. Though all things are, by title, subject to him, we see not yet all things actually subjected to him. (Heb. 2:8.) Brother Boles himself said that in his second negative of the preceding proposition. There is, therefore, nothing derogatory to Christ's present supreme exaltation in the fact that he is not now actually exercising a rule which is his by right and title already.

      Ps. 2, cited by the affirmative, points forward to the time when Christ shall rule the nations with a rod of iron and dash them to pieces as a potter's vessel. True, the raging of the nations began, and the conspiracy of kings and rulers with the combine of Herod and Pilate and Jews and Gentiles, as shown in Acts 4:25, 26; but it is also still going on, and will continue until he rises up to rule and dash his enemies to pieces in righteous judgment. Ps. 72 refers to Christ's Davidic reign, and applies to the future. Jer. 23:5 (already referred to) also has reference to Christ's specific reign on David's throne over Israel, in their own land. In those days "Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely." And in connection comes one of the clearest and strongest predictions of Israel's return and restoration: [241]

      "Therefore, behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that they shall no more say, As Jehovah liveth, who brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but, As Jehovah liveth, who brought up and who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them. And they shall dwell in their own land." (Jer. 23:7, 8.)

      The force of this prophecy must be evident to all. Brother Boles quotes only verse 5; but verses 6, 7, and 8 are vitally connected with it. In order that the King of David's line may reign and "execute justice and righteousness in the land," the nation of Israel (the same which once was brought up out of Egypt) will have to be regathered from their world-wide dispersion; and this regathering will be so glorious as to eclipse even their marvelous deliverance from Egypt. Then, according to the Scripture meaning of the term, will Christ sit upon David's throne. Like David himself, who, though anointed, God-appointed, rightful King of Israel as he was, would not assume his reign over them until they submitted willingly and invited him (2 Sam. 2:4; 5:1-4)--so neither will Christ assume his Davidic rule over Israel until they seek him. Therefore, Peter, speaking to the Jews, said to them: "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been from of old." (Acts 3:19-21.) If Israel turned, God would send them their Messiah, their Christ who was appointed for them, from heaven. "Ye shall not see me henceforth," said the Lord Jesus to disobedient Jerusalem, "till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Matt. 23:39.) When God sends him, and he so comes, and converted Israel welcomes him, Jer. 23:5-8 will be made possible. The first time, when he came to [242] them according to Zech. 9:9, they rejected him. When he comes again, they will hail him with gladness.

      Brother Boles quotes Acts 2:29-31, a passage which he considers as entirely clear and conclusive, to prove that Christ is now seated on David's throne. A careful examination of the passage reveals that it stops short of exactly the point that would help the affirmative. Instead of saying that Christ was seated upon David's throne, it declares only that he was raised up from the grave in order that God might set him on David's throne. When God would do that, whether immediately or in due time, is not indicated in this Scripture, but must be learned from other passages. That Christ is now already occupying David's throne is precisely what Peter does not say, and what the affirmative ought to prove.

      My respondent has laid out "three alternatives"--a sort of three-cornered dilemma--thus: If Christ is not now on David's throne, he is (1) either to ascend yet higher when he takes it, or (2) he is to come lower in authority and power when he takes it, or (3) it will add nothing to him. My respondent thinks that this "includes all of the possible disjunctions." But, as is the case generally in purely human reasonings, his conclusion falls short. The Lord Jesus Christ, holding all authority and power in heaven and earth, can proceed to assume his right in any sphere where he has not been actually exercising it, without either rising higher in his station, or coming down lower, or marking time in doing so. Such a logical or illogical speculation as my respondent here proposes would be a poor foundation for a man's belief that Christ is now exercising the rule and authority of David's throne.

      Brother Boles has himself affirmed that Christ had all authority before his ascension (Matt. 28:18); he has also affirmed that the reign of Christ began on Pentecost. Well, then, having already all authority, could Christ still ascend, take the heavenly throne, and begin to reign on Pentecost? If he could do that, then he can do this. If, [243] consistent with the "all authority" which was already his, he could later begin his reign--on Pentecost--then he can certainly with the same consistency assume the actual exercise and rule of David's throne in his own good time.

      Under the headung of "Summary" my respondent lists some new and additional arguments. He says that when Christ comes there will be nothing for him to do but "to gather up his jewels, render judgment, and deliver up the kingdom to his Father." It would help his proposition if he could prove that, instead of merely making the assertion.

      He also speaks of Christ's power to bestow eternal life. But that has nothing to do with the proposition one way or the other. The question is whether Christ is now sitting on David's throne, not what he could or could not do if he sat on David's throne in the future.

      He says Christ has all glory now. Good. The negative believes that. But that does not nullify the fact that "when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall be sit on the throne of his glory." (Matt. 25:31.)

      He insists that Christ is now sitting on God's throne, on the right hand of the Majesty on high. We are agreed on that. But David never sat on such a throne, and the affirmative has failed thus far to prove that Christ sits on any throne like that of David's, which the Scriptures say was "over all Judah and Israel," "over the house of Jacob," and which was "overturned" and "cast down to the ground." Christ is not sitting on that throne now, is he?

      Again, he thinks that if Christ is not now on David's throne, he will have nothing to conquer when he does come to sit on it, seeing he will sit on God's right hand until all his enemies are made the footstool of his feet. And yet Brother Boles surely believes and teaches that [244] at his coming Christ will destroy his enemies, vanquish "the man of sin," "the lawless one" (2 Thess. 2:8), and render vengeance to them that know not God and obey not the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8). Does Brother Boles mean to say that Christ will sit still in heaven until all these things have worked themselves out here below? And does he mean that when Christ comes again be thereby forsakes and abandons his high position and authority at God's right hand? And does he think that when Christ occupies the throne of David (granting he has not yet done so) he would have to abdicate his throne of universal sovereignty in order to do so? These are strange assumptions. I would like for Brother Boles to tell us if that is his conception of it. Unless he thinks something like that, his arguments would have no force.

      Finally, he would like to disprove the possibility of a future occupancy by Christ of David's throne because, so far as he knows, it would not add anything to man in his present and future state. I have noticed similar arguments from my respondent in preceding propositions. But though neither he nor I could see what it would "add to man" if God did this or that, are we to censor the Bible's teaching by our idea of the usefulness of things? I am not going to be sidetracked into explaining to my respondent what good it would do if God did as he promised. It is his business to prove that Christ is now sitting on David's throne, executing the rule and authority thereof.

      In conclusion, I want to ask my respondent to give us a clear, clean-cut, unequivocal definition of what is meant by Christ's being on, or sitting on, David's throne. And if, as he must, he defines that it means that Christ not only holds the right and authority, but is now administrating and actively exercising the government of David's throne. I want him to give us the Scripture proof that such is the case. [245]

[UP 232-245]