The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy

by Robertson L. Whiteside

SHALL WE LOOK FOR A LITERAL FULFILLMENT OF ALL PROPHECY?

The future-kingdom advocates put great stress on the literal application of Old Testament prophecies. A Prophecy concerning Israel must be applied to Israel in the flesh, and Jerusalem means the Jerusalem in Palestine. Zion must have its literal application, and so with “throne” and “kingdom”, etc. With them, there must be no “spiritualizing.” The lamb and the lion must refer to literal lion and lamb. But will they stick to that line? Hardly. Isaiah said: “Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places plain.” (Isa. 40:4.) Now, the inspired historians of the New Testament applied that Scripture to the work of John the Baptist; yet we are told by the future-kingdom advocates that every prophecy must have its plain, literal fulfillment. If so, the inspired New Testament writers were mistaken on this point, and that prophecy has not yet been fulfilled.

But we are told that the prophecies mean exactly what they say. Now, is that really so? Then, what about the four beasts in Daniel 7? “Four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from the other.” Yes, it is true that these matters were interpreted for us, but it is also true that the interpretation shows that the four beasts were not actually four beasts. It also shows, as do other passages, that many prophecies are couched in highly figurative language. The prophecy concerning the work of John (Isa. 40) shows how highly figurative some prophecies are. Or will the future-kingdom folks say that even this prophecy must yet have its literal fulfillment?

But it is contended that the throne of David means the rule over the fleshly house of Israel in the land of Palestine, and that unless Christ rules over the Jewish nation in the land of Palestine he does not occupy the throne of David. He must have a civil government, with Israelites as citizens and the land of Palestine as the territory; otherwise, he does not occupy the same throne David did. This would imply that the kingdom over which Christ rules must be an exact replica of the kingdom as it was in the days of David. If not, why not? If it can be changed in one particular, why not in others? It is argued that God’s oath to David (Ps. 89:34, 35) precludes the possibility of any change in the kingdom. But even after so arguing, do our future-kingdom advocates outline a kingdom just like the kingdom of David? They do not. Here are a few points wherein the kingdom of David differs from the future kingdom as outlined by its advocates:

David’s reign was local; Christ’s reign to be worldwide.

Every kind of Israelite, good and bad, citizens in David’s kingdom: only regenerated Israelites to be citizens in Christ’s kingdom.

Fleshly birth made citizens of David’s kingdom; a Jew must be born again to be a citizen of Christ’s kingdom.

Every child of Hebrew parents was in David’s kingdom; children must be old enough to voluntarily accept Christ to be in the future kingdom.

David was king, family of Aaron were priests then; Christ to be both King and Priest.

Some rather unruly men were helpers in David’s kingdom; only true and tried Christians are to reign with Christ. (Here the future kingdom as outlined by its advocates radically differs from David’s kingdom.)

David’s kingdom was constantly beset by its enemies; no enemies to the future kingdom.

David’s kingdom constantly organized for war; nothing like that in the future kingdom.

In David’s kingdom they learned war; in the future kingdom they shall learn war no more.

David reigned while the devil was loose and doing his worst; we are told that Christ cannot begin his reign till Satan is bound.

Moses was the lawgiver of the old kingdom; Christ is to be the lawgiver for the future kingdom.

And that is not all; but we grow weary of the task of enumerating the differences. Yet we are told that, if there is any alteration, the throne of the kingdom cannot be the throne of David.

When Jehovah called Israel out of Egypt, he told them that, if they would obey his voice, they would be unto him “a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5, 6.) But had not God always exercised universal dominion over all the works of his hands? Certainly, but now he was to rule in a special way over a special people. As this people were to have no earthly head, they were not to be like the nations around them, and were not to be reckoned among the Nations. God made their laws, and gave direction for their execution. This state of things continued till the days of Samuel. Then the people asked for a king that they might be like the nations around them. That was a rejection of Jehovah as their king. Saul was put on the throne, and the kingdom became his. He was rejected and the kingdom given to David. These men and the descendants of David occupied the throne that belonged peculiarly and specially to Jehovah. Jehovah occupied that throne before Saul or David, and that throne continued after the last son of David reigned. The royal family of David fell into decay, but did Jehovah’s rule over Israel cease? Did not his throne continue as it did before Saul became king? It is true that the Jews were rarely independent, but were they any less under the rule of Jehovah when they were subject to other nations? Did not the kingdom continue with them? Before becoming excited at these words, read Matt. 21:43: “Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” How could the kingdom be taken from them, if it was not then with them? The Lord was then developing that nation to whom the kingdom was to be given, and to whom it was given on the first Pentecost after his resurrection.

On Pentecost, Peter preached that God had raised up Jesus to sit on David’s throne. It has been argued that Peter does not say that he then sat upon that throne. If not, what point was there in mentioning it? After mentioning it, Peter says: “Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted,” etc. If that is not a conclusion from what he said about the throne of David, why the “therefore”? Would Peter—would any speaker—make an argument about the throne of David, and conclude that “therefore” Jesus had been exalted to something else, something he had not even mentioned? Are we seriously expected to believe such absurdities?