The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy

by Robertson L. Whiteside

FUTURE-KINGDOM DOCTRINES

A brother in Tennessee wants to know the difference, if any, between the church and the kingdom of Christ. A brother in Florida writes an article about long enough to fill my page, seeking to prove that the prophets foretold a kingdom yet future. Occasionally a brother over in Arkansas has written me along the same lines. The scheme argued by these two brethren is along the same lines argued by other future-kingdom advocates.

In its broadest sense the church is that body of people who have been called out of sin into the service of Christ. As Jesus rules over this body of people, it is his kingdom.

“Now when John heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent his disciples, and said unto him, art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?” In similar fashion let us ask, Is Christianity the scheme of redemption that was to come, or look we for another? The future-kingdom advocates have answered, No, we must look for another. On that point they speak in no uncertain terms. It is argued that, though Jesus came to establish his kingdom in Jerusalem and to deliver the Jews from oppression, they rejected him, and he postponed the establishment of his kingdom till the time of his second coming. On this assumption their use of the prophecies is a puzzle. If the prophecies foretold the establishment of his kingdom at his first coming, then they did not foretell its establishment at his second coming; and the future-kingdom advocates discredit the prophets by seeking to make it appear that their prophecies can be shifted from one period to another. And yet they have the audacity to tell us that if things do not work out according to their theory, no dependence can be placed in what the prophets say. Well, half of their theory has failed—the kingdom was not established, we are told, at his first coming! Now they must shift the prophecies to some future date.

Arthur Pink represents F. W. Grant as saying, in the “Numerical Bible,” that Matthew shows, that because Israel rejected Christ, the kingdom of heaven would be taken from them, “and assume the mystery form in which it was unknown to the prophets of Israel.” (page 2). Again (p. 13) Pink says, “But the Old Testament knows nothing whatsoever of Christianity!” All future-kingdom advocates from whom I quote hold this same idea. In fact their theory makes it necessary for them to deny that any Old Testament promise or prophecy referred to the scheme of redemption preached by the apostles. In the Word and Work (January 1945) J. Edward Boyd says, “The prophets had clearly seen and foretold the kingdom gloriously triumphant, all opposition crushed, universal in its sway; but this present aspect of the kingdom, the church, although in the mind of God all along, they had not been permitted to see.”

It is a well known fact that the Jews expected the old kingdom to be restored and enlarged with the Messiah on the throne in Jerusalem; and R. H. Boll says, “Their expectations and conceptions of the king and kingdom had their origin in these Old Testament prophecies.” (Kingdom of God, p. 25.) “They saw in him that promised Coming One of David’s line who would free his nation from the Gentile’s yoke and reign over the house of Jacob, and through it over all the nations of the earth. For so it was promised.” (p. 26). “The Old Testament prophecies and promises of the kingdom were the theme of our preceding studies.... By such predictions as those was the kingdom-hope of Israel created; and that most justly and nationally. When John the Baptist lifted up his voice in the wilderness of Judea and announced ‘the kingdom at hand’ he used a phraseology which was already common and current among the Jews, and which was perfectly understood by all.” Read that again. If the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” was “common and current among the Jews,” it was a phrase of their own invention, for no Old Testament prophecy contains the phrase. Matt. 3:2 is the first place it occurs in the Bible. Again (p. 34): “But if the Jewish expectations had been utterly wrong (which, as we have seen in our former articles, was not the case), even then a sense of justice would suggest that God would not have left the people under such misapprehension without a clear protest and correction.” Read that again. Does he mean to say, that if God announced a kingdom different from what the Jews expected without telling them so, he did not have a proper sense of justice? Or does he mean that his own sense of justice would suggest that God should have made the explanation suggested? In either case, he crosses himself up; for he says that Jesus began in Matthew thirteen to talk about the mystery form of the kingdom. But Jesus did not give any hint, that as the Jews had rejected him, the kingdom they expected was now postponed and an entirely new sort of kingdom would be presented. And strange to say, he kept on using the term “kingdom of heaven,” without telling them he was now using the term in an entirely new sense. In fact the Jewish idea remained with the disciples up to the ascension of Christ. Now, what about that sense of justice?

AT HAND:—John the Baptist preached, “Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus preached, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” (Mark 1:14, 15) This plain language gives the future kingdom advocates a lot of trouble. According to John R. Rice, they soon quit preaching “the kingdom at hand.” He presents this question: “Is there a single time after tenth chapter of Matthew ... that they preached that the kingdom of heaven is at hand? I say it isn’t there.” Again, “After Jesus was rejected definitely by the nation, the kingdom was no longer at hand.” He argues that the kingdom was postponed till the second coming of Christ. But he overlooked what Jesus told the seventy to preach. (Luke 10:1-11). Verse 9: “The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” Verse 11: “nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh.” This preaching was done during the last year of Christ’s personal ministry. So what Rice says “isn’t there,” is there; and he would have seen it if he had been looking for truth instead of proof to sustain a theory.

The following sentence from Brother R. H. Boll shows that he realized the difficulty and tried to hedge against it: “If it be felt a difficulty that the kingdom, though announced as ‘at hand’, has never yet appeared, we shall find an explanation unforced and natural, and one which will cast no reflection on the truth and goodness of God.” (K. p. 34). That statement shows clearly that he realized some explanation was needed to keep his theory from casting reflection on the truth and goodness of God; but it seems to me that his attempt at an “unforced and natural” explanation helps not at all. Hear him: “Since the kingdom promise was national, the preparatory repentance must of course also be national: the rulers and the rank and file of the people to all of whom the kingdom was dear, must now sincerely turn and return to God.” Passing by his assertion that “the kingdom promise was national,” I call attention to the “national repentance” idea. Nowhere is there even a hint that John and Jesus told the people that the establishment of the kingdom depended on “national repentance.” Neither said, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom is at hand, provided the nation repents; otherwise it will be postponed to some future time.” But not a word about national repentance, not a word about national rejection and its results, not a word about postponing the kingdom; and yet in the absence of any such warning, we are told that the kingdom was postponed. Now, what about that sense of justice? Quoting again: “The announcement of the kingdom thus became the basis of the call to repentance.” One motive to cause them to repent was the promised kingdom. Vast multitudes were moved by that promise to repent and be baptized. (Mark 1:5; John 4:1, 2). Multitudes did as commanded; and yet according to the future kingdom advocates none of them received what was promised of them. It seems to me that the explanation reflects seriously on their proposition, and really charges that God did not make good on his promises. The explanation does not explain. What about that sense of justice?

Paul preached the gospel to Jews and Gentiles without distinction. Boll says this was a terrible perplexity to all believing Jews. He adds: “That the Gentiles were to be blessed in Messianic days was no mystery; that had been previously revealed. But the observant reader of the prophets will notice that it is always after the national restoration and exaltation of Israel, and always through restored Israel and in subservience to Israel, that the Gentiles were to be blessed.” But why quote more.

For a long time I have been preaching that all that the prophets said about a plan of human redemption is fulfilled in the plan of salvation preached by Christ and his apostles and is recorded in the New Testament. I have offered to affirm this proposition: THE PLAN OF SALVATION SET FORTH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE SCHEME OF HUMAN REDEMPTION FORETOLD BY THE PROPHETS; or, for foretold by the prophets substitute foretold in promise and prophecy. Here is a fair proposition that covers every point involved in the discussion of the future-kingdom theory. When it is proved to be true, then the whole future-kingdom theory is proved to be false. Why put in time showing that the various phases of the theory are false when one proposition fully established proves the whole theory false? Why show that their use of this prophecy and that prophecy is wrong when you can with even more ease show that the New Testament contradicts their use of the prophecies?

Before giving the proof of the correctness of my proposition I wish to mention another matter. Perhaps a few personal words will not be out of place. When I was in the Nashville Bible School out on Spruce street, I had a family—my wife and two children. We had very little money, but we managed by much self-denial to pay rent on a little house, to buy enough groceries to keep us alive, and to pay every dollar of tuition. My youngest brother was with me, and he paid his part of board and rent, and his tuition. Some of the able bodied boys (students) paid neither board nor tuition.

During those days Brother R. H. Boll and I became good friends, and continued to be so for years. He played the mandolin and his pal Robert Mahan played the guitar. Frequently they would come to our little home and entertain us with music. We enjoyed their music, and was glad for them to come. I liked the two Roberts, but became more intimate with Robert Boll. Some years later he began to write for the Gospel Advocate, but a break came between him and the Advocate over what the Advocate called his “speculating about unfulfilled prophecies.” Brother Boll started up his Word and Work, but I did not see many copies of it. There continued to be references to Boll’s “speculating about unfulfilled prophecies.” I remember distinctly that I thought, “Well, if speculating about unfulfilled prophecies is all that is the matter with him, why worry? What he said about unfulfilled prophecies might be as near right as what any body else said. No one could be sure about an unfulfilled prophecy. So why the fuss?” You cannot imagine my surprise when I began to study his booklets to see what he did say. I found that “speculating about unfulfilled prophecies” was not what was the matter with him at all. With him the land promise to the Jews is yet to be realized, the Jews are yet to return to Palestine, the kingdom of Daniel 2:44 has not yet been set up, that Christ has not been seated on David’s throne. To say that his teaching is speculation about unfulfilled prophecy is to concede the point. If his teaching that the prophecies concerning the throne of David are yet unfulfilled is speculating about unfulfilled prophecy, then Christ is not yet on David’s throne. If he is on David’s throne, then Boll is misapplying prophecy instead of speculating about unfulfilled prophecy. His trouble is speculating about fulfilled prophecy—making prophecies that have been fulfilled apply to some imaginary future scheme of things. Speculating about unfulfilled prophecy indeed! You have an argument with him about prophecies that you believe have been fulfilled, and he says they are yet to be fulfilled; and then you virtually give up your contention by calling it an argument about unfulfilled prophecy! It makes the heart sick. What unfulfilled prophecies has Boll been speculating about? When a man seeks to prove by the prophets that the Jews are yet to be restored to Palestine, that Christ is yet to be placed on David’s throne, that the new covenant is yet to be established, that Christ is to be a world ruler with the Jews as citizens of his kingdom and all others as serfs, that the Gentiles were to be blessed only through restored Israel and in subservience to Israel, that Christ is now seeking to convert and train only enough people to supply the needed number of rulers for a future kingdom, is he speculating about unfulfilled prophecy? It seems to me that Boll does very little speculating about unfulfilled prophecy compared with his use of prophecies that have been fulfilled. How can intelligent people be so dense?

In the early part of 1925 Brother C. R. Nichol and I made the first real attempt that was made to review Brother Boll’s teaching. We worked together, and no two men ever tried harder to understand exactly what another man had written. And yet some people, who should have known better, said we misrepresented Brother Boll and did much to hinder the effectiveness of our work. An example: A few brethren were talking together on the sidewalk in Nashville. An aged preacher of considerable ability and fame charged that we misrepresented Brother Boll, and was very caustic in his remarks. One of the group, a friend of ours, said: “Did you ever read their review?” Critic: “No, no; I never read it.” Friend: “Well, did you read what Boll said?” Critic: “No, no, I never read it.” Friend: “Well, you are not in a position to say anything about it.” And that ended the conversation.

No, we did not misrepresent Brother Boll. But herein is a peculiar thing. Many who said we misrepresented Boll said they did not believe his theories. If so, then they believed he misrepresented the Bible—misrepresented God; and yet in the estimation of some of them he was a very godly and pious man, even though he did misrepresent God. But they fancied that we misrepresented Brother Boll, we greatly sinned! Can you beat it? I can honestly claim that we were as sincere and honest in dealing With Brother Boll’s writings as his most devoted friends can claim honesty and sincerity for him in his dealings with the inspired writings.

One of the strangest, if not the zaniest things in all this controversy is that some brethren not only misrepresent themselves, but actually contradict themselves. An example out of many: A written discussion was had with Brother Boll in which Brother Boll contended that the land promise to Abraham is yet unfulfilled, that the prophecies concerning the seating of Christ on David’s throne are unfulfilled, and so on. Then that debate was published in a book form with the title, “A Debate About Unfulfilled Prophecy!” And thus unwittingly the whole issue was surrendered, virtually saying to Brother Boll, “You are right; the prophecies we have been debating about are unfulfilled.” Can you top that?