The purpose of this discussion is to study what the Bible teaches on these questions. It has been stated repeatedly that neither Brother Boll nor I am striving for victory the one over the other; we are both searching for the truth. I shall be disappointed if there is not a kindlier and more brotherly feeling after this discussion has closed than there was before it began, between all parties and churches that have been affected by any disturbance over these questions.

      In his second negative Brother Boll stated that the proposition "resolves itself into two exceedingly simple questions"--namely, "What is the throne of David?" and, "Is Christ now exercising the rule and authority of that throne?" My brother is mistaken. The simplicity of the proposition is clearly expressed in the simple wording of the proposition--to wit: "The Scriptures teach that Christ is now on David's throne." The proposition resolves itself into but one question--namely, "Do the Scriptures teach that Christ is now on David's throne?" A definition of a term of a proposition is not an issue of the proposition. If that were true, there would be as many issues in a proposition as there are terms in the proposition. There is but one issue in this proposition, and that issue is simple and clear-cut.

      The negative has raised objections to the definition of only one term of the proposition, and that is "David's throne." The affirmative refuses to be diverted from the issue of the proposition to a mere dispute about the meaning of terms. The discussion of this proposition cannot be reduced to a mere logomachy--a war about a word. The affirmative always has a logical right to define the terms of the proposition--yea, it is the duty of the affirmative to define the terms of the proposition. [274] The negative has a right to object to definitions of the terms, if these definitions are not according to standard authorities. The Bible and scholarship have been given as proof of the correctness of the definition of the terms of the present proposition.

      For the sake of clearness and emphasis, the definitions of "David's throne" are given again. The affirmative means by "David's throne" the "throne of the Majesty," "the throne of his glory," "the throne of God," "the throne of Jehovah," "Christ's throne;" it means the authority given by God to rule over the Lord's people (2 Sam. 3:10); it means "the rule and government allotted by God to David" over the Lord's people.

      The "New Standard Bible Dictionary" defines "David's throne" to mean that "Jesus the Messiah is the true Davidic King, and his throne--i. e., his power, etc.--sometimes his seat at the right hand of the Father--is the realized ideal of the Davidic throne of the Old Testament." Brother Boll says this definition "is inadmissible." By what authority does he reject such scholarship as is represented by the "New Standard Bible Dictionary?" Absolutely none. The definition just does not suit him, and therefore it is "inadmissible." But Brother Boll will not be permitted to ignore scholarship in such a way. Again, "The Dictionary of the Bible," by James Hastings, defines it as follows: "Frequently 'throne' is used metaphorically for dignity, royal honor, and power. Thus 'the throne of David' often stands for the royal honor of David's house. (2 Sam. 7:16.)" But Brother Boll says this definition, "though acceptable, is not to the point." Why is it not to the point? He is defining "David's throne." Smith's Bible Dictionary says: "The throne was the symbol of supreme power and dignity. .  . . Similarly, 'to sit upon the throne' implied the exercise of regal power, and 'to sit upon the throne of another person,' succession to the royal dignity." When we affirm that Christ is now on David's throne, we mean [275] that Christ now has "the royal honor of David's house," that he has now succeeded "to the royal dignity" of ruling God's people. Brother Boll has no right or reason to reject these definitions. His objection to them is only a confession that he cannot meet the arguments which have been made, and unless he can raise an objection against the definition his case is hopeless.

      In addition to the definitions of different scholars, the Bible definition was given. The Holy Spirit has very definitely defined the meaning of "David's throne." "Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father." (1 Kings 2:12.) Again: "Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father." (1 Chron. 29:23.) And again: "Blessed be Jehovah thy God, who delighted in thee, to set thee on his throne, to be king for Jehovah thy God." (2 Chron. 9:8.) So it is clear that the Holy Spirit calls "David's throne" "the throne of Jehovah;" hence, "David's throne" is "the throne of Jehovah." David was "king for Jehovah"--that is, he was reigning over the Lord's people "to be king for Jehovah." So, when it is affirmed that the Scriptures teach that Christ is now on David's throne, it is affirmed that Christ is now ruling the people of God "for Jehovah." Just as David ruled over the Lord's people by the authority of Jehovah then, Christ is now ruling over the Lord's people by his authority, and is thus on David's throne. To deny this is to deny the word of God. Brother Boll's position makes him opposed to both the Bible and scholarship. This is an embarrassing situation for him.

      The Old Testament teaches that Christ would rule over the Lord's people by the authority of God, or that he would occupy David's throne. The New Testament Scriptures emphasize the fact that Christ is now seated at the right hand of God, ruling the Lord's people. We are taught in the New Testament that Christ "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb. 1:4, 13), [276] and that he "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens" (Heb. 8:1); again, that he it sat down on the right hand of God" (Heb. 10:12); and still again, that he "sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Heb. 12:2). These expressions all mean that Christ is now enthroned and ruling over the Lord's people. "Throne" is a symbol of power. Christ now has the authority to rule over the Lord's people just as David had. In 1910 Brother Boll taught just what the affirmative is contending for now. He said: "Here and there in the Old Testament is a prophecy of the Priest that shall be King, the King that shall be Priest--predictions that were not fulfilled under the old order of things. We see here the great Priest's sanctuary, which is also his throne. (Jer. 17:12; compare Heb. 8:1, 2.)" ("Lessons on Hebrews," by R. H. Boll, page 93.) If Brother Boll does not believe this now, he should withdraw his book in which he teaches that Christ is now on his throne.

      Surely Brother Boll will not deny that Christ is our High Priest; that he is now "a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 5:6); that he is our Mediator and is functioning as Priest and King. The prophet said: "Speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh Jehovah of hosts, saying, Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah; even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (Zech. 6:12, 13.) This Scripture teaches clearly that Christ "shall sit and rule upon his throne" and that he "shall be a priest upon his throne." At the same time that he is to be "a priest upon his throne" he is to "sit and rule upon his throne." At the same time that he is to be a Priest, he is to be a King upon his throne in "the temple of Jehovah." As sure as he is now a Priest, he is also a King and ruling over the Lord's people; so sure [277] as he is in the sanctuary as a Priest, he is on David's throne as a King. I think the negative ought to meet this argument fairly and squarely. The angel announced to Mary that "the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David" (Luke 1:32), and the Holy Spirit declared through Peter that God had raised Christ from the dead "to sit upon his throne"--that is, David's throne. There is no way to escape this argument.

      Brother Boll says that "inseparably connected with David's throne is David's people, the nation of Israel, the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Jer. 33:17.)" Brother Boll should have read the eighteenth verse of this chapter. For the instruction of all, both verses are given here. "For thus saith Jehovah: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to burn meal offerings, and to do sacrifice continually." (Jer. 33:17, 18.) This Scripture which declares that "David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel" also declares that "neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to burn meal offerings." In the light of this Scripture, Brother Boll cannot consistently contend for a continuation of fleshly Israel for one to reign on David's throne without at the same time contending that the fleshly priests and Levites shall continue with all of the animal sacrifices. If, he contends that Christ is to sit on David's throne and rule over fleshly Israel, he must also contend for a reëstablishment of the old Levitical priesthood with all of its rituals and sacrifices. Such a contention would bring back into use the entire law of Moses with its long retinue of priests and Levites. This Scripture proves too much for Brother Boll. He cannot contend for a continuation of fleshly Israel without also contending for the Levitical priesthood.

      Brother Boll has said that "except one of David's line [278] is ruling in David's land and over David's people, it is not the throne of David." This Judaistic and materialistic theory reëstablishes, not only fleshly Israel in Palestine, but also the Levitical priesthood with all of its animal sacrifices. Let us repeat the same language in regard to the priests: "Except one of Aaron's line is officiating in Aaron's land and for Aaron's people, it is not the priesthood of God." I challenge Brother Boll to say anything about a continuation of the fleshly lineage of David that cannot be said of the fleshly lineage of Aaron. The truth of the whole matter is that the line of David as king and the priesthood of Aaron meet and blend in Christ, and hence "he shall be a priest upon his throne;" and as Brother Boll once taught, Christ is "the Priest that shall be King, the King that shall be Priest." The Judaistic theory calls for a fleshly king over fleshly Israel with fleshly priests under the old law making animal sacrifices "which can never take away sins." (Heb. 10:11.)

      Brother Boll is mistaken. I am not trying to make out a case against him, neither am I trying to saddle any theory on him. I know that he has said repeatedly that he believes "whole-heartedly and unequivocally in Christ's present supreme and unlimited power and authority;" that he believes "in the present absolute and universal authority, Lordship, and power of our Lord Jesus Christ." I know that he has reiterated these statements. But I also know that he has repeatedly said that Christ does not now have and exercise universal authority; that he does not now rule over the Lord's people as did David. The reader will recall this language of Brother Boll: "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.'" Brother Boll published this in his book, "The Kingdom of God," page 61, and he has [279] repeatedly stated this in our discussion. He says that Christ does not yet "in actual fact and act" have universal authority. Now, how does he expect us to believe these two contradictory statements and positions of his? I can account for it only in this way: Under the pressure of the Scriptures which are pressed upon him, he admits and even states that Christ now has and is exercising universal authority; but when he begins to defend an unscriptural theory, he falls into the error which all advocates of this theory are in--namely, that Christ does not have and exercise absolute authority now; that he only has a right to it, is not using it, but that he will have this authority "in actual fact and act" when he comes to rule over fleshly Israel. This theory postpones the Kingship of Jesus until he comes, and then he is to have "in actual fact and act" this universal authority, at which time he will occupy David's throne. Brother Boll makes statements on both sides of this question of Christ's universal authority.

      The kingdom of Israel over which David once reigned was born in rebellion against God. Though Israel had rebelled against Jehovah and had rejected him, yet he did not cast them off nor destroy them, but selected their king. The prophet says: "I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath." (Hos. 13:11.) Jehovah destroyed the earthly descendants of the line of David and would not permit them any longer to sit upon David's throne. He says of Coniah: "Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah." (Jer. 22:30.) Matthew Henry, in commenting on this verse, says: "In him the line of David was extinct as a royal line." Coniah was the same as Jehoiachin, and reigned only three months in Jerusalem. David's line should cease as king, and no one should again occupy David's throne until the Christ should come. [280] There was to be no other ruler sitting upon David's throne to govern the Lord's people until Christ should occupy the throne of David. The Lord has a people now. All Christians are the Lord's people. If Christ is now ruling them, he is on David's throne. If Christ is not on David's throne now, then the Lord has a people without a King or Ruler.

      The prophet said: "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." (Isa. 22:22.) Jesus, in Rev. 3:7, says: "These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David." Isaiah said that Christ should have "the key of the house of David," and Christ said that he had "the key of David." Whatever "the key of the house of David" meant, Christ was in possession of it. Dr. James Hastings says, commenting on these Scriptures: "The key is the symbol of authority and rule." ("Dictionary of the Bible.") Hence, Jesus had "the authority and rule" "of David's house," and therefore Christ is now on David's throne. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in commenting on this, say: "Key--emblem of his office over the house. . . . Here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the Son of David, of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse, and himself, in Rev. 3:7, the same language as the latter clause." Adam Clarke, in commenting on this same Scripture, says: "Likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil." Matthew Henry, in commenting on this, says: "Our Lord Jesus describes his own power as Mediator by an allusion to this (Rev. 3:7), that he has the key of David. . . . His power in the kingdom of heaven, and in the ordering of all the affairs of that kingdom, is absolute, irresistible, and uncontrollable. As "key" is the symbol of authority and rule, and since Christ has the key of David's house, then he is on David's throne, or ruling the Lord's people as [281] did David. The Lord's people with David was fleshly Israel; the Lord's people with Christ is "the Israel of of God," or Christians. The Lord's people in the time of David are described by the phrase, "from Dan to Beersheba," a term denoting all of the Lord's people; but to-day the Lord's people include all Christians, all the people of God, the whole "family in heaven and on earth." (Eph. 3:15.)

      The angel announced to Mary, as recorded in Luke 1:32, 33, that "the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

      J. S. Lamar, in commenting on this verse, said:

      But in what sense did Christ possess this throne? Certainly he did not reign, as David did, over the literal house of Jacob. His kingdom was not of this world, nor was his throne, like David's, upon the earth. But in truth David was God's king, reigning as the vicegerent of Jehovah over God's people, by God's special selection and appointment, and governing according to God's own law. All his legitimate royal authority, therefore, which is symbolized by the word 'throne,' was really and only God's authority. . . . Hence, when Jesus established the kingdom of God, and was crowned as its Christed or anointed King, having all authority in heaven and earth given to him; when he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, he became King over the true 'house of Jacob,' and possessed at once the throne of his father David and of his Father God." ("New Testament Commentary," page 30.)

      What will Brother Boll do with this Bible scholar's clear and emphatic statement that Christ is now on David's throne? Dr. Thomas O. Summers, in commenting on the same Scripture, says: "The throne--the spiritual kingdom typified by David's." ("Commentary on the Gospels," Volume III., page 19.) Grotius says: "The kingdom of the Messiah, raised on the throne of David, extended to, and included, the Gentiles." (Ibid.) Dr. William Burkitt, in commenting on this Scripture, says: [282] "God would settle upon him a spiritual kingdom, of which David's earthly one was a type, which never shall be abolished." ("Burkitt's Notes on the New Testament," Volume I., page 258.) These scholars say that Christ is now on David's throne and emphasize that the Scriptures so teach. What will Brother Boll do with these scholars? They flatly contradict his position.

      An argument was made on Acts 13:34. Paul here says that God had fulfilled what the prophets had said and that God had given to Christ "the holy and sure blessings of David." Now, Christ had received "the holy and sure blessings of David." Whatever may be included in "the holy and sure blessings of David," Christ had already received. It was pointed out that "the throne of David" was included in "the holy and sure blessings of David," and that, therefore, Christ had already received "the throne of David." Brother Boll replied that there are some "blessings for us which are yet in the future" and that "the holy and sure blessings of David" have not all been given unto us. This may be true, but Brother Boll missed the point and failed to answer the argument. We may not have as yet received all "the holy and sure blessings of David;" some of them, to us, may be in the future; but Christ has received all "the holy and sure blessings of David." And since he has received them, and the throne of David is included in them, then Christ has received the throne of David. All spiritual blessings are in Christ, for God "hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ." (Eph. 1:3.) Again, Paul teaches us: "How many soever be the promises of God, in him is the yea: wherefore also through him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through us." (2 Cor. 1:20.) All the promises of God to man are affirmed and fulfilled in Christ. The promise was made to David that Christ should sit upon his throne; and since all of the promises [283] to man are in Christ Jesus, then Christ has David's throne.

      Acts 2:29, 31. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit said, through Peter, in speaking of David: "Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption." In this the Holy Spirit says that Christ has been raised from the dead that he might be set "upon his throne." The testimony of such Bible scholars as J. W. McGarvey, Dr. H. J. Ridley, and D. Lipscomb has been given showing that Christ is now on David's throne. Brother Boll did not make any reply to the testimony of these scholars. Their testimony is here repeated.

      J. W. McGarvey:

      He had made him Lord by causing him to sit on God's own throne, to rule over angels and men; and he made him Christ by causing him to sit on the throne of David according to the promise. It was God's throne because it was the throne of universal dominion; and it was David's throne because it was the lineal descent from David which made Jesus the rightful King. From this conclusion the Jewish hearers of Peter learned that, contrary to their previous conception, the promised Christ was to sit, not on an earthly throne, however glorious, but on the throne of the universe." ("Commentary on Acts," Volume I., page 36.)

      Dr. Henry Ridley:

      The Messiah, who was to descend from him, was in like manner to be King of the Lord's people--namely, his spiritual people, of whom the nation of the Hebrews was only an emblem. Hence, the Messiah was to sit on David's throne, ruling the people of God. . . . Christ, then, or the Messiah, was to sit on David's throne, or to be his successor, by becoming the King of God's spiritual [284] people. . . . When we think of David's government, being a divinely instituted one, as emblematic of the Messiah's administration, and preparatory to it, we see how Christ, having established the new dispensation of religion, or laid the foundation of the Christian church, is said to sit on David's throne." ("The Acts of the Apostles, with Notes," pages 42, 43.)

      D. Lipscomb:

      The worldly throne of David typified the spiritual throne of Jesus, in which all the prophecies concerning the throne of David found their perfect and highest fulfillment." ("Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles," page 42.)

      Acts 15:14-18. Paul and Barnabas had gone from Antioch to Jerusalem to confer with the elders and apostles at Jerusalem about the question of circumcising the Gentile Christians. Peter had made a speech and said, "That by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe;" then Paul and Barnabas made speeches, and after them James made the speech of this quotation. He called attention to the fact that Peter had rehearsed "how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." Then, in order to show that the Gentile Christians were to be included in the blessings of salvation without becoming circumcised or bearing the mark of fleshly Israel, he quoted the prophets and said that it had been fulfilled: "As it is written, After these things I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old." In building "again the tabernacle of David" and in setting "it up," James says that it has been done in accepting the Gentiles into the church. Plainly and simply he teaches that "the tabernacle of David" has been rebuilt and that the Gentile Christians are a part of it. If this does not [285] have reference to the church, then there is no hope of salvation for any Gentile. Brother Boll and I have no hope of salvation, except in "the tabernacle of David" and in its being rebuilt. If it has not been rebuilt, no Gentile has any hope of salvation; but if it has been rebuilt, then Christ is on David's throne, for surely the tabernacle of David would not be rebuilt without David's throne being established.

      The negative has quoted Dr. Peters; but Brother Boll will not accept Dr. Peters' theory. Brother Boll has argued that the Jews were to be converted to Christ and then as a righteous nation restored to Palestine. Dr. Peters says: "While rejecting the Whitbyan theory of a future conversion of the world previous to the second advent of Jesus as unscriptural and misleading, we at the same time hold to a future blessed conversion of the Jews and Gentiles after the second advent, as plainly taught in the Word." ("The Theocratic Kingdom," Volume III., page 210.) So Dr. Peters believes that the Jews will be converted after they are returned to Palestine.

      The theory for which Brother Boll is contending is literalistic because it calls for a strict literal interpretation of all prophetic language; it is materialistic because it contends for fleshly Israel located in Palestine, with Jesus on the throne of David ruling over fleshly Israel; it is Judaistic because it takes the erroneous conception of the Jews of an earthly kingdom when Christ comes. This theory contends that fleshly Israel will be restored to Palestine, Jerusalem to be the chief city, Christ to come in person with his Jewish nationality and sit on David's throne and rule over fleshly Israel; the temple worship is to be restored, the Aaronic priesthood resumed, animal sacrifices to be offered; in fact, the theory demands a restoration of the entire ritual of the law of Moses. Brother Boll follows this theory flinchingly and [286] in confusion. He has modified the general theory in some points, but in the main he contends for all of these points. The theory further states that God offered the Jews a kingdom when Christ was here upon earth, but that they refused it and that Christ did not then establish his kingdom. The theory says that when he comes the second time he will then set up his kingdom and will occupy David's throne; that his kingdom has been held in abeyance until Christ comes the second time. This is the theory generally held by all premillenarians. It is an ancient theory revived by Judaistic minds, colored with many sectarian ideas. This accounts for Brother Boll's confusion when he attempts to modify this theory and make it fit the Scriptures.

      The Scriptures abundantly teach that this theory is false, as Paul and other New Testament writers met and refuted it. Paul says: "Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more." (2 Cor. 5:16.) Christ was once known "after the flesh;" his tribal lineage was pointed out; but since he has accomplished his earthly mission, Paul says that he is to be known "no more after the flesh." But Brother Boll says that he is to be known "after the flesh" when he comes again and that he will reign over fleshly Israel on David's throne. Any theory that calls for Christ to come back to earth with his tribal distinction and Jewish nationality prominent contradicts this Scripture. Not only is Christ not to be known any more "after the flesh," but none of God's people are to be known any more "after the flesh." This forever destroys this Judaistic theory.

      Again, Paul makes a distinction between "Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18) and "Israel after the spirit" (Rom. 2:28; Gal. 4:29; 6:16). McGarvey says, in commenting on 1 Cor. 10:18: "In Paul's eyes the church was the true Israel, and the Jews were Israel after the flesh." ("Standard Bible Commentary," page 104.) The [287] "Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical Commentary," by Schaff, in commenting on "Israel after the flesh," says: "The designation is in contrast with that of 'Israel after the spirit;' it means the Israel which is so, not by virtue of a divine spiritual life arising from faith (Gal. 3:7), but by natural descent." ("First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians," page 211.) The Bible makes a wide distinction between "Israel after the flesh," or fleshly Israel, and "Israel after the spirit," or "the Israel of God." All Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, now constitute "the Israel of God." (Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3.) Paul says: "Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. . . . And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:27-29.) "The true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man" (Heb. 8:2), "the house of God," "a spiritual house," "the temple of God," "a royal priesthood," "a holy nation"--these are all different terms or phrases for "the Israel of God," "the seed of Abraham," "the tabernacle of David," "the church of God." Jesus is the head of "a spiritual house," his people are to honor him with "spiritual service" (Rom. 12:1), they are "to offer up spiritual sacrifices" (1 Pet. 2:5), and are to "worship the Father in spirit and truth" (John 4:23). Again, Paul says: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:27-29.) Brother Boll has not answered this argument.

      Nothing is so plainly taught in the New Testament Scriptures as that the Lord's people to-day are "the seed of Abraham," "the Israel of God." Jehovah made a promise to Abraham that he would make him "a father of many nations." (Gen. 17:5, 6.) Paul declares that this promise is fulfilled in Christ. "For they are not all [288] Israel, that are of Israel [born of Israel after the flesh]: neither, because they are Abraham's seed [after the flesh], are they all children. . . . That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed." (Rom. 9:6-8.) All Christians are now "Abraham's seed "and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:28, 29), "the children of the promise," "children of God." So, again, we see that "the Israel of God" are "the children of promise" and the people of God to-day. Now, Christ is King over the Lord's people to-day; he is ruling over them; and as he is ruling over the Lord's people, "the Israel of God," he is on "the throne of David." Nothing could be plainer than this. Brother Boll has not answered this argument.

      Furthermore, this Judaistic theory mixes the old and the new covenants, as is recorded in Gal. 4:21-31. In this allegory, "Hagar," "Ishmael," "handmaid," "born after the flesh," "Mount Sinai," "bondage," "Jerusalem that now is"--all represent fleshly Israel with the old law and ritual of worship; "Sarah," "Isaac," "freewoman," "children of promise," "Jerusalem that is above"--these terms represent the new covenant. Paul says that the bondwoman with her children and the law represent the old covenant, and that the freewoman with her children represent the new covenant. But the Judaistic theory for which Brother Boll is arguing would perpetuate forever the old covenant and would nullify the new covenant.

      Again, the New Testament teaches that the old law with its subjects and ritual of worship are types of the new covenant with its spiritual subjects and worship. "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the thing, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh." (Heb. 10:1.) It is frequently taught in the Bible that the prophets, priests, [289] and kings pointed to Christ; that every sacrifice pointed to the great sacrifice of Christ; that the temple and its worship typified the spiritual temple and the worship of the Lord's people to-day. Now, if these types are brought back into use, they are meaningless or else they nullify the antitype. The throne of David was the type of the throne of Christ. To claim that the throne of David is yet to be established is to nullify the antitype, which is the throne of Christ to-day. Christ is now on the throne which was typified by David's literal throne.

      The Jews misunderstood the mission of Christ and had a misconception of his kingdom and reign. They thought that Christ had come to set up an earthly kingdom. Even his disciples expected him to be an earthly king. They had the same erroneous conception as this Judaistic theory for which Brother Boll is contending--namely, that Christ would be an earthly king and set up an earthly kingdom. When Christ first announced to his disciples that "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again," his disciples thought that if this be true, then he never could establish his kingdom, that he never could become King over Israel. With this misunderstanding, "Peter took him, and began to rebuke him." Peter did not see how he could establish 'his kingdom and reign over it if he should be put to death; but Jesus "rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men." (Mark 8:31-33.) Here Christ placed the false conception of an earthly kingdom and his reigning over fleshly Israel as an earthly king as being "not the things of God, but the things of men." This Judaistic, literalistic, and materialistic theory for which Brother Boll is arguing is classed by the Son of God as belonging to "the things of men." He rebuked Peter then for contending for this theory, and he rebukes Brother Boll and all others who now so [290] contend for the things of men" as represented by this theory.

      1. Christ's mission for the redemption of the human race and God's revelation of his will to man for this redemption have been completed; and when Christ comes again, it will not be to establish another kingdom and sit on another throne, but he will deliver up the kingdom which he now has to God. "Then cometh the end." (1 Cor. 15:23-28.)

      2. Eternal life is promised to the Lord's people by the authority which Christ now has. (John 10:28; 17:2.) Christ must now have supreme and truly divine command of eternal life to promise it in his name. If he is not on David's throne now, to occupy it at some future time will give him no more authority over eternal life.

      3. He now has all glory. (2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 2:10; Heb. 2:9.) If he is not on David's throne now, to occupy it at some future time will add no glory to him.

      4. He is now on the throne of God, and David's throne is called "the throne of Jehovah." (1 Kings 2:12; 1 Chron. 29:23.) Hence, he is now on David's throne.

      5. Christ has now been exalted far above all principalities and powers and dominions and rule and authority. (Eph. 1:20, 21.) If Christ is not now on David's throne, to occupy it at some future time will give him no more rule or authority or honor and power than he now has.

      6. Christ is now victorious over death, hell, and the grave. He is to reign on the present throne until the last enemy shall have been destroyed. If he is not now on David's throne, there will be no enemies for him to conquer when he does occupy it.

      7. Christ has all authority now, both in heaven and on earth. (Matt. 28:18.) If he is not now on David's [291] throne, to occupy it at some future time will give him no more authority.

      8. Man's full and complete redemption is now in Christ Jesus, with him on his present throne. Man's salvation and glorification are now to be had in Christ as a high priest, with him on his present throne. If he is not now on David's throne, to occupy it in the future will add nothing to man in his present or future condition.

      9. The Old Testament Scriptures promised Christ the throne of David. (2 Sam. 7:11-16; 1 Chron. 17:10-14; Ps. 110; Isa. 22:22; 9:6, 7; 32:1; Jer. 23:5; Dan. 7:13, 14; Hos. 3:5; Zech. 9:9.) The New Testament claims a fulfillment of this promise. (Luke 1:30-33; Matt. 13:41-43; Acts 2:29-31; 15:15-17.) In Christ every promise has been fulfilled and affirmed. (2 Cor. 1:20.) Hence, Christ is now on David's throne.

      10. The weight of Bible scholars who testify that Christ is now on David's throne. "Smith's Bible Dictionary," "A New Standard Bible Dictionary," "Dictionary of the Bible" (by James Hastings), Dr. T. O. Summers, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Dr. Henry J. Ridley, J. W. McGarvey, and D. Lipscomb all bear witness on the affirmative side of this question. In addition to these, the Bible makes the evidence complete.

      11. Nowhere in the Scriptures are we taught that Christ is to occupy two or more thrones. There must be a throne for each kingdom and a kingdom for each throne. Since Christ now occupies one throne and is reigning over one kingdom, he thus fulfills all Scriptures which speak of his throne and kingdom. If he is not now on David's throne, to occupy it in the future will call for another kingdom.

      12. Christ now has "the key of the house of David." (Isa. 22:22; Rev. 3:7.) "Key" is an emblem of office, power, and rule; and since Christ has the key of David, he has David's throne.

      13. Christ was promised "the holy and sure blessings [292] of David." (Acts 13:34.) He now has "the holy and sure blessings of David." The throne of David is included in "the holy and sure blessings of David." Hence, Christ is now on David's throne.

      14. "The Israel of God" to-day is the Lord's people; Christ is ruling over them; hence, he is on David's throne. (Gal. 3:7, 29; 6:16; Phil. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:5; Rom. 9:6-8.) [293]

[UP 274-293]