I am glad with my respondent over the clear-cut simplicity of the present proposition. The proposition is even simpler and plainer than my respondent seems to realize. It resolves itself into two exceedingly simple questions, the answer to which the affirmative must squarely and plainly set before us: (1) What is the throne of David? and (2) Is Christ now exercising the rule and authority of that throne? That is all. First of all, we must have the true definition of the term "throne of David," that we may know exactly what we are talking about--just what sphere of governmental authority is designated by that term; and, having clearly established that, the affirmative must show that Christ is now occupying that throne--that is, that Christ is now administrating the governmental authority and function pertaining to that throne. That is very simple indeed. We will now see what the affirmative has done to establish this.

      In my first reply to Brother Boles I pointed out that the definition given by him of "David's throne" was insufficient, and for the purpose of this discussion entirely worthless, seeing it assumed the very thing to be proved. In answer to my demand for a better definition, he gives practically the same thing over again. Let us examine the items he arrays under his "definition." David's throne (he says) means "the throne of the Majesty." What majesty? The word signifies "exalted dignity," "grandeur;" secondarily, "a title given to reigning monarchs; hence, royal state or rank." Brother Boles knows that I believe that Jesus Christ is now seated on the right hand of God, far above all principality and power, having absolute, unlimited authority over all the universe, visible and invisible. Now, when he says that the "throne of David" is "the throne of the [259] Majesty," that leaves nothing to debate about. He has begged the question in his definition. He understands perfectly what I believe on this point, and that I would be as far as he himself is from denying that Christ now sits on "the throne of the Majesty." The next definition he offers is, "the throne of his glory." But that is itself a term that needs to be defined. We have had it up before. I called attention to the Scripture statement that "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." (Matt. 25:31.) That makes "the throne of his glory" future. Now, if Brother Boles will accept the light this Scripture throws on the term, "the throne of his glory," of course I agree with him, and he has surrendered his proposition at the outset; but if he denies the futurity of "the throne of his glory," he ought to tell us what he means by that term.

      His next definition of David's throne is "the throne of God." If he means by that the universal, unlimited throne of God in heaven, he knows that I believe that Christ holds that at the right hand of the Father now. The thing I am to deny in this proposition is that that is equivalent to the throne of David. Why should a man of Brother Boles' ability and experience as a debater seriously offer such definitions? Would he allow an opponent of his to assume the proposition and beg the question in his very definition of the terms? I dare say not!

      Next he defines David's throne as "the throne of Jehovah"--without the limiting statement always found in the Scriptures, "the throne of Jehovah over Israel"--as if wishing to imply that by "the throne of Jehovah" was meant the absolute throne of Jehovah in heaven, on which, as he and I both believe, Christ is now sitting. If Brother Boles means that, then by his definition he assumes what he ought to prove. This is a thing that was not to be expected, and I still trust he will correct it.

      Again, he says David's throne is "Christ's throne." [260] Here is the same vagueness. To be sure, it is "Christ's throne." Now, I would thank him for a further elucidation of that. Does he mean by that the throne on which Christ now sits at the right hand of the Father? If so, there is again the same petitio principii--begging of the question.

      In the rest of his definition he says: "It [David's throne] means the authority of God to rule over the Lord's people (2 Sam. 3:10); it means that Christ is now exercising 'the rule and government allotted by God to David' over the Lord's people." That would be nearer the facts if he had told us what he meant by "the Lord's people" just as the Bible defines it in 2 Sam. 3:10 (which he cites, but does not quote)--"the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba." All right; if it means that, we are agreed--only, that puts him in the predicament that he has to deny, or explain away, his own definition; and mine would be the privilege of showing that Christ is not now "exercising the rule and government allotted by God to David over the Lord's people," which, according to Brother Boles' citation of 2 Sam. 3:10, does not mean the church, but "all Israel and Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba."

      All this is regrettable. Why the affirmative does not give us a simple, concise, inclusive and exclusive definition of the throne of David passes me. If he had simply said that it stood for that peculiar royal authority and rule which God allotted to David, it would have been sufficient and satisfactory. Instead, he begs the question, beclouds the issue, and makes a clean, clear-cut discussion impossible by a series of vague and ambiguous definitions. These he follows by quotations, one from the "New Standard Bible Dictionary," which is as inadmissible as his own definition; one each from Hastings' and Smith's, which, though acceptable, are not to the point. His conclusion from all that is that "Christ now has the royal honor of David's house," which is perfectly correct, but not to the [261] point. There is no issue between us as to that. Then he adds, "that Christ is now in actual possession of 'the exercise of royal power,'" which seems to me a strange use of language, and not calculated to promote clarity. "Regal power" can be said to be in a man's possession; to exercise it is action based on possession. But I do not see how he could be said to be "in possession of the exercise of regal power." That is meaningless to me.

      He thinks Brother Boll is inclined to reject scholarship. He is wrong about that. I depend on scholarship in all matters of scholarship; but I do not let scholarship prescribe to me in matters of faith and doctrine. (Brother Boles does not, either; or, if he does, he oughtn't to.) So he will give us Bible definition of the throne of David. He quotes 1 Kings 2:12. That strikes center. "Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father." Elsewhere we read that to Christ, the Lord, God will give "the throne of his father David." (Luke 1:32.) Do the terms mean the same in the case of Solomon and of Christ? Did Christ ever occupy the throne (I do not mean the chair, but the sphere of rule) on which Solomon sat, and which Solomon derived from his father David? If so, then he is on David's throne. And did Solomon ever occupy a throne on the right hand of the Majesty on high? If not, then that heavenly throne is not David's throne.

      Again, my brother shows correctly that Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as King instead of David his father. (1 Chron. 29:23.) Good. But he concludes: "So that which is called 'David's throne' is called also 'the throne of Jehovah.' . . . So the Holy Spirit says that 'the throne of David' is 'the throne of Jehovah.'" Yea, so it says. Now, will Brother Boles tell us whether that is the throne of Jehovah in a limited and delegated sense, or in the sense of God's unlimited, divine and heavenly sovereignty? If the latter, what was God doing while David and Solomon ruled? Who was sitting on the throne of God in heaven while David and Solomon were ruling on [262] God's throne? The negative desires an answer. But if the affirmative says it was the throne of Jehovah in a limited, subordinated sphere of rule, I want to know what were the specific bounds and limits of said sovereignty. He says that "David was reigning over the Lord's people by the authority of Jehovah." That is true, but not specific enough. Will he tell us what people? The Bible tells us plainly and fully that it was "over all Israel and Judah." (See 2 Sam. 3:10, cited by Brother Boles himself.) Inseparably connected with David's throne is David's people, the nation of Israel, the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Jer. 33:17); and the territory, the land which God swore to them for an everlasting inheritance. This was emphatically brought out in the first negative, but my respondent has so far paid no attention to it. The "throne of David" is as definite a term in the Bible as, for instance, "the throne of the Hohenzollerns" in German history. It is defined both as to its line of occupants and the realm of its rule. If a stranger had seized the throne of David, or if one of David's line had ruled over an entirely different nation or in some different land, it would have ceased to be "the throne of David" in the accepted sense. Except one of David's line is ruling in David's land and over David's people, it is not the throne of David. The Davidic dynasty (the house or tabernacle of David) was broken up and the throne of David cast down to the ground. (Ps. 89:44; Acts 15:16.) There is a Man now of David's dynasty whose right it is, therefore the dynasty is repaired; but there has been no occasion as yet for him to sit on the throne of David, nor will there be till this King of David's house assumes the reign over "all Israel and all Judah," the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was pointed out in my last article. Is Christ now ruling over the nation David ruled over? Has he reëstablisbed the throne of David? Is he sitting on that throne which was once cast down to the ground? His present position is one of [263] glorious, all-inclusive sovereignty, absolute and unlimited. But he who is Lord of all is also the promised King of the seed of David, and will, when the time comes, administrate the government of David's realm--which thing will be of the vastest consequence to all humanity, and an essential factor in God's great plan regarding man and the earth. "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever." (Luke 1:32.)

      Since a throne stands for royal honor and power, to sit on a throne means the exercise of this regal power. On this we agree. We have seen that the throne of David is the throne of the kingdom of Jehovah over Israel, the rulership "over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," which God delegated to David and David's house forever. Now, to sit on that throne means to exercise that special government. It is evident on the face of it that Christ is not ruling now in that realm. Brother Boles no doubt believes like Brother David Lipscomb, and as I also believe, that the kingdoms of the world are in the power of Satan, that Satan is until yet the prince and ruler of the world. And no nation is more terribly in his grasp and blinding power than Israel.

      In admitting this, neither Brother Boles nor Brother Lipscomb, nor this writer, is denying that Christ has now absolute and unlimited sovereignty at God's right hand, on the throne of the universe. I wish Brother Boles would get this point. Seemingly he has tried to make out a case against me to the effect that I do not believe in the present absolute and universal authority, Lordship, and Power of our Lord Jesus Christ. In his final negative of the preceding proposition he attempted to fix such a charge on me. I had called his attention to the fact that at the time our risen Lord uttered the words of Matt. 28:18 ("all authority in heaven and on earth is [264] given unto me") he had not, as an actual fact, received it as yet, but did receive it about fifty days later, on Pentecost. But my brother vehemently asserted that Christ did have it even at the time when he uttered Matt. 28:18, and that this shows that I do not believe in Christ's universal authority! Of course I am glad for him to have his point on Matt. 28:18. If Christ had the universal authority before he was actually exalted to the throne on Pentecost, maybe Brother Boles sees how Christ can have all power and authority now, and yet will go on to take the throne of David when the time comes! But my brother continues to intimate that I deny the present supreme and universal authority of Christ. In former articles he stated that I was "forced" to admit this great truth, when all along I had upheld and declared it, also propounds and tries to explain to the reader some theory I am supposed to hold, and out of his own imagination suggests the idea that somewhere around 1919 I modified my views regarding the kingdom. Why does he do these things? It is not pleasant to think that a respondent in a brotherly discussion should be watching a chance to bring some grave charge against one. I will be exceedingly glad to accept my brother's disavowal of any such intention. If I believe in the present supreme Lordship of Christ just as he does--and I do--ought not my brother to rejoice in the fact that I stand with him in this great fundamental truth? It cannot be, surely, that he is sorry that I hold to this great truth, or that he is unwilling to give me credit for it. I trust not. Let it be understood, then, that I believe whole-heartedly and unequivocally in Christ's present supreme and unlimited power and authority. And, in my conception at least, this great truth is not affected by the question of whether or not Christ is now administrating his authority in the subordinated realm of David's throne. [265]

      We have seen that, according to the plain Scripture definition of "the throne of David," Christ is not now actually exercising that rule. But several direct arguments have been advanced to prove that Christ is now on David's throne. These we must briefly examine.

      1. Acts 2:30, 31. I replied to this in my first negative. I pointed out that this passage does not say that Christ is now on the throne of David, nor when he will sit on it, but merely states that God bad raised up Christ from the dead in order to set him on David's throne, and that David foreseeing spoke of the resurrection of Christ. This every reader can see and verify for himself. But Brother Boles says that "the Holy Spirit declares . . . that Christ was now on David's throne." My brother should be careful. To put words in a man's mouth is generally risky; but to put our words and conclusions in the Holy Spirit's mouth is far more serious. Now, as the passage reads in my Bible, the Holy Spirit said no such thing, and my respondent ought to fear to impute words to the Spirit which he did not utter. Again, "the reign of Christ on David's throne, as Peter says, began on Pentecost." If Peter had said that, I would be glad to acknowledge it, and the discussion of this proposition would be at an end. Where did Peter say it? I doubt not that Peter said some things from which my respondent draws such conclusions; but that is quite different. Note some of his human, speculative conclusions on this: "If God did not do it [i. e., set Christ on David's throne] when he raised Christ from the dead, then he did not do what he raised Christ from the dead to do." If that is his firm foundation, it is not such as one would want to build on. The passage does not say when God would do it. If God has not done so yet, it is no sign that he will not do it. Indeed, he will, for he said so; and the unexpected length of time does not nullify the promise. But my brother concludes more: "If he [God] did not do this [266] [i. e., set Christ on David's throne] when he raised him from the dead, he has not yet given him all authority and power." That does not follow. For example, God also gave all judgment into the Son's hands--yea, raised him from the dead for assurance to all men that he would judge the world by him (John 5:22, 27; Acts 17:31)--yet the judgment has not taken place though almost two thousand years have passed. Does that prove that Christ has not this authority, even though he has not exercised it as yet? What becomes, then, of my respondent's argument on Acts 2:30, 31?

      2. Acts 15:15-17. I will not go into a detailed discussion of this passage. It declares that the tabernacle of David which had fallen into ruins would be reëstablished. The tabernacle of David is the royal house of David, the Davidic dynasty. It is not the same as the throne. Those of that dynasty have the right to the throne. But for many years that dynasty was defunct--hopelessly killed out in Jeconiah (Jer. 22:29, 30), miraculously revived in the virgin birth; so that in Christ there is again a God-appointed, God-approved Heir to David's throne, to whom it belongs by right and promise. When this Heir shall assume the throne is not told us in this passage. My respondent is quite mistaken when he says the tabernacle and the throne are the same. He can himself easily observe the distinction. He quotes Isa. 16:5, which says that a throne shall be established and one shall sit thereon in the tent of David. That shows that the throne and the tent are not the same. He thinks the tent of David could not be in existence several thousand years before the throne. But there are many things that may seem unlikely to some of us, which are nevertheless both possible and true.

      3. Acts 13:34. "I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David." On this he observes that "whatever was included in 'the holy and sure blessings of David' has already been bestowed." Again this does not [267] necessarily follow. An examination of Paul's argument in Acts 13 will show that in the resurrection of Christ and his ensuing endless life all the blessings of David are forever guaranteed. But if Christ has any blessings for us which are yet in the future (and he certainly has), and if Brother Boles admits that those are to be reckoned among the holy and sure blessings of David (and he surely does), then these "holy and sure blessings of David" have not all been bestowed.

      4. 2 Sam. 7:12; 1 Chron. 17:11. These Scriptures, the affirmative says, declare that Christ would occupy an everlasting throne. But he quickly modifies his statement. "Everlasting" ends when David is raised! And why? Because the reign of Christ on David's throne would take place after David's death and while he slept with his fathers, or before his resurrection! So this is Christ's everlasting reign? And this is the proof he offers: "When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom." (2 Sam. 7:12.) It would be a curious piece of exegesis to gather from that that Christ's reign is limited to a space between David's death and resurrection. On the face of it the meaning of the statement in 2 Sam. 7:12 is that David, after his death, would have a successor of his own seed; and in view of the context nothing more than this seems to be intended. But arguing purely from my respondent's point of view, I will show that his exegesis is untenable. Brother Boles will say that the general resurrection and judgment takes place at Christ's return. Therefore, David, too, must be among the raised dead at that time. But, according to Scripture, when Christ comes again, he will "sit on the throne of his glory." (Matt. 25:31.) Therefore, on Brother Boles' own ground, it is demonstrated that Christ will be reigning on the throne of David even after David's resurrection! [268]

      5. One more argument is to be noticed--that the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, and the Davidic kingdom are not different kingdoms with different thrones. In this my respondent speaks truly. The terms "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" are virtually synonymous. The Davidic kingdom is a subordinate realm of God's universal kingdom, to the throne of which God has the only right, and the administration of which he forever committed to David and his seed. Therefore, it is Christ's, who will assume the government of it when he sees good. All of which is very simple, and I see no point of difficulty there.

      None of the affirmative's arguments have established that Christ is now sitting on David's throne, administrating the government of David's realm. He has shown that Christ is of the seed of David after the flesh. We all believe that. He insists that Christ is now enthroned on God's right hand as Lord of all. I insist on the same. He avers that David's throne belongs to Christ, and that Christ is the promised King of David's line. I agree to that, and believe and teach it. He says the throne of the universe which Christ now occupies at God's right hand in heaven is the throne of David. That I deny, and that is what he has not thus far proved. David never sat on that throne. Christ, on the other hand, never sat on David's throne. The throne of David was once overturned and cast down to the ground. The throne on which Christ sits is the eternal throne of God, which has never been overturned or cast down to the ground, nor can be. Therefore, they are not the same, and Christ is not now on David's throne.

      I could conclude my reply at this point; but I feel that it would not be just not to notice an argument--a basic assumption, rather--which really underlies the whole of my brother's position. It is this--that the original [269] David, and David's throne, and David's people, the literal nation of Israel, were only typical and emblematic, as it were, of the spiritual antitypes of the present dispensation; that the literal throne, people, and kingdom of David of old were but types and shadows of the higher spiritual verities enjoyed in the gospel age; and that the literal promises made to David and Israel did not mean what on the face of them they said, but were veiled prophecies of the spiritual blessings which are enjoyed now. Thus the throne of David was but an earthly figure of the glorious heavenly reign of the Christ; and David's people, the nation of Israel, a type of the spiritual people of God to-day; the promises and prophecies of old were fulfilled spiritually, not literally; Christ's exaltation at God's right hand fulfills all that was meant by the prophecies of the Old Testament.

      Even if that be granted (for we have in the Scriptures many instances of spiritual application of the prophecies and of other portions of Scripture), such spiritual analogies do not deny or nullify the simple, straightforward meaning of the Scripture promises. The word of God must stand. "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto." (Gal. 3:15.) Now, God made a covenant of promise with David concerning David's house and David's throne, and confirmed the same with an oath. "My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness: I will not lie unto David." (Ps. 89:34, 35.) Now, if the meaning of the terms of the original covenant be canceled and a spiritual significance substituted in lieu thereof, the covenant is altered. The term, "throne of David," is plainly defined in the Scriptures, and the realm of David as well. Though I conceded every spiritual application that could be made, I believe in the perfect truth and accurate fulfillment of all the terms of the original [270] promise, and that God will keep faith and covenant with David exactly as he said.

      No author has yet arisen who has dared to assert that the grammatical construction of the Old Testament language, received according to usual laws, does not convey the meaning found therein of a literal restoration of the Theocratic-Davidic throne and kingdom as expected by believing Israelites. . . . No one has attempted to call the fact of such an existing sense into question.

      Believers, infidels, and semi-infidels teach this fact; every author and commentator consulted, every Life of Christ, every Introduction to the Bible, etc., fully admits it. With infidels, it is a standing joke that the prophets predicted such a kingdom. Thus, e. g., Renan (Life of Jesus, page 86) calls it "a gigantic dream for centuries," and "they dreamed of the restoration of the house of David, the reconciliation of the two fragments of the people, and the triumph of the Theocracy," etc. "They dreamed of the Messiah as judge and avenger of the nations," of "a renewal of all things." In view of this, he informs us (page 266) that "the first generation of Christians lived entirely upon dreams," and that it required "more than a century" for the church to disengage itself from such "dreams." (G. H. N. Peters.)

      Blessed "dreams" were these, productive of faith, hope, and love, and unworldly lives, looking for "that blessed hope;" dreams that were based upon the simple meaning and belief of the promises of God. The thing Brother Boles calls a "Judaistic theory," which had to be fought by the apostles and early Christians, and which he thinks is a peculiar little heresy found among Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians, was the prevailing faith of the church universal for the first three hundred years. All church historians testify so. (Mosheim, Schaff, Neander.) And the writings of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers" abound with evidence to this fact. Not till Origen, Augustine, and Jerome muddied the waters of primitive teaching with their allegorizing and spiritualizing interpretations did a general change come, and that was not until the professing church had headed deeply into worldly corruption. The author afore quoted says: [271]

      Such an Origenistic application of language which casts loose from a sense actually contained in the inspired Record is taking dangerous and undue liberty with the Word of God. . . . It is a dangerous procedure, opening a wide door to arbitrary interpretations. . . . It removes the veracity of God's word in its grammatical sense, by leaving the fulfillment at the option of the interpreter; it weakens an appeal to prophecy, undermining its strength as proof.

      So, while gladly conceding any spiritual applications and fulfillments pointed out in Scripture, we stand upon the ultimate foundation of God's word in its sure and simple meaning, fully assured that such a faith will never be put to shame.

      My brother now makes the charge that I hold "the position of the Judaizing teachers which the Holy Spirit condemned frequently through Paul." This is not the case. The Judaizers were those who taught the Gentile Christians that except they be circumcised and kept the law of Moses they could not be saved. (Acts 15:1, 5.) It was that that the Holy Spirit condemned; and Brother Boles cannot find one passage, nor a shadow of an instance, where the Holy Spirit condemns the position I stand for in this discussion. He seems also to fear that some one might think I found all this myself "by a profound study of the Bible." Why should that worry him? If all were taken away from us except what we have independently discovered for ourselves, perhaps neither Brother Boles nor I would have much left. We are all debtors; but let us see to it that we take no man's word blindly, as authority, but that all is verified by the word of God. "It [my supposed theory] is based on the Jewish interpretations of prophecy and their false interpretation of Christianity," he says. It is easier to make charges than to prove them. But we don't care at all for Jewish interpretations, or any other, but only for what God says. Nor are we appalled at the sinister suggestion that "Christ is to come in person with his Jewish [272] nationality prominent," and: "It makes Christ as a Jew sit on the 'throne of David' and reign over fleshly Israel in Jerusalem, and only over the Jews. Such a position is Judaistic and literalistic and materialistic." I serve notice that I do believe Christ is coming back in person, for he said so. And as for Jewish nationality, he is of the seed of David according to the flesh, else he would have no right to sit on the throne of David at all, whether now or then. Nor will he reign over fleshly Israel, but over spiritual Israel. Spiritual Israel is that people who are not only Israel after the flesh, but also after promise, a converted and regenerated people. Nor will Christ reign "over them only," but (because they are destined to be the head of the nations) through them, "from sea to sea, and from the River unto the ends of the earth," over all nations, peoples, kindreds, and tribes under the whole heaven, "until the moon be no more." (Ps. 72:7-11; Dan. 7:27.) [273]

[UP 259-273]