The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy

by Robertson L. Whiteside

THE FUTURE-KINGDOM PERVERSIONS AND DISLOCATIONS OF PROPHECY

Much is said these days about modernism and fundamentalism. I hope to be allowed to live in a modern world without being called a “modernist” and to hold to fundamental truths without being dubbed a “fundamentalist.” These “fundamentalists” have formed a program for the Lord, mixed in a few truths, and named the mixture “fundamentalism,” and its advocates “fundamentalists.” If their theory is as old as the Bible, why the new names for it and its advocates? Old ideas and doctrines do not require new names: anything new requires a new name. Now, “modernism” and “modernist” are older words than “fundamentalism” and “fundamentalist.” Religiously, I am no “modernist”; and the term “fundamentalism” is too new for a Bible lover to accept. It is even newer than the term “modernism.” It would be interesting to hear Mr. Rice explain how his doctrine is so ancient, since the name of it is more modern than is the term “modernism.” In name, they out modern the modernists! When a doctrine is more modern than modernism, it is too modern for me.

In Mr. Rice’s tract, “Christ’s Literal Reign on Earth from David’s Throne at Jerusalem,” he claims to prove “from the Scriptures the premillennial coming of Christ; that he has not yet set up his kingdom on earth, but that he will reign from a literal throne at Jerusalem, in his literal human body, over the entire earth.” He assumes much, argues little, and makes many scattering assertions. It would be easier to review his tract, if more care and thought had gone into its making.

The trouble with him and his future-kingdom advocates, is not speculating about unfulfilled prophecies, but a perversion and dislocation of prophecies that have been fulfilled. When a man takes prophecies that have been fulfilled and makes them do service in some future program, he is not speculating about unfulfilled prophecies. To call such perversion “speculation about unfulfilled prophecies” is to yield to him his claim that they have not been fulfilled. This is not, therefore, a discussion on “unfulfilled prophecies,” but an effort to show that Mr. Rice and others have, in the interest of a theory, dislocated promises and prophecies, some of which have been fulfilled.

Mr. Rice quotes Gen. 13:14, 15; 17:8, and comments: “You will notice from the context that it was the literal land over which Abraham walked and which he saw, called by the name, ‘the land of Canaan.’ The promise is unconditional, and utterly without time limit. It is ‘for an everlasting possession’.” And if Mr. Rice will read Josh. 21:43-45; 23:14, he will notice both from the text and the context that God fulfilled this promise to the letter—not one thing failed of all that God had promised. Yet the Jews are not in that land now. Why? Mr. Rice says the promise of the land to Abram’s seed was unconditional and without time limit. Who broke the covenant? If Mr. Rice is correct, the seed of Abraham did not break the land covenant, for there were no conditions for them to break. If Mr. Rice is correct, God was the only one that could break the covenant. God promised them unconditional possession of the land, and then dispossessed them of it. That is a reflection on the integrity of Jehovah.

Mr. Rice says: “The Lord foretold in Deut. 28:63-68 the dispersion of Israel ‘among all the peoples, from one end of the earth even unto the other;’ but in Deut. 30:1-6, the regathering of Israel to their own land to possess it is plainly foretold.” Why did Mr. Rice refer to so small a part of each of these chapters? Was he afraid the reader might discover something in the rest of these chapters that would upset his theory? Their dispersion was one of the curses that would come upon them if they disobeyed the law Moses gave them. (See Deut. 28:15.) Read Deut. 30:8, 10, and you will see that their return was conditioned on their keeping the commandments which Moses commanded them, and that after their return they were to keep all the commandments of the law of Moses. This condition is now impossible of fulfillment, for the law of Moses is not in force. If Mr. Rice will read Neh. 1:8, 9, he will find that the regathering here spoken of took place when the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity. Surely he will not take issue with Nehemiah. The other passages relied on to prove the future gathering of the Jews to Palestine refer to the same event.

Moses plainly told the Israelites that if they forgot God and turned from his commandments, they would as surely perish as that the nations whom they drove out of Palestine perished. (Deut. 8:19, 20.) These nations perished utterly as nations, and Moses said the nation of Israel would perish as they did. Because of their sins they were carried into captivity. Later, all who desired to return to Palestine were permitted to do so. They again fell into sin; and in John’s day they had again grown so corrupt that he told them the ax then lay at the root of the tree. (Matt. 3:10.) Then the Jewish nation murdered the Son of God—that is, the high court of the nation procured his murder. Under God’s law the penalty for murder was death. As this was murder by the nation, nothing but national death would satisfy divine justice. The tree had become wholly bad, and God used the Roman armies as the ax with which to cut down that tree. According to these future-kingdom advocates, the most glorious period of Jewish history is yet to be; but Jesus tells us that the last state of that race will be worse than the first. (See Matt. 12:43-45.)

The Jews were broken off from God’s favor because of sin—unbelief. Now both Jew and Gentile stand on an equal footing before God. God is not a respecter of persons. Religiously, we know no man after the flesh. These future-kingdom folks seek to keep up this racial distinction which Christianity was meant to destroy. In Paul’s allegory (Gal. 4:21-31) the handmaid and her son represented Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and Paul uses that allegory to show that the handmaid and her son were cast out. Christians are children of the free woman. Paul then affirms: “The son of the handmaid (Jewish nation) shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.” Hence, the Jewish nation, as such, is left out of any further inheritance. Jesus plainly told the Jews: “Therefore say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matt. 21:43.) Believers in Christ are now “sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7) “and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). The Jewish nation, as such, is not now an heir of anything. By unbelief the Jews were broken off from God’s favor. (Rom. 11:20.) Gentiles were grafted in by faith. “And so”—in the same manner—“all Israel shall be saved.”

There is not a hint in the New Testament that the Jews will be restored to Palestine and be the only citizens of this fantastic future kingdom, with other people subject to them. That would be fleshly distinction with a vengeance. “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor. 6:2.) Think of the nature of this kingdom these men set forth as the object of our highest hope: “The kingdom of Christ is to be as literal as David’s kingdom.... It is to be as literal and earthly as Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, and Rome.” So says Mr. Rice. That would please well the carnal nature of man. It is a pitiful thing to see men delude themselves with such false hopes.

Mr. Rice says: “Jesus, David’s son, is to restore David’s kingdom.” Yet he says: “The present world system will have to be destroyed before Christ can have his kingdom on this earth.” David ruled without having the present world system destroyed. If Christ is to have the same kingdom, why cannot he do the same? Is it possible that Mr. Rice thinks David could do a thing that Christ will be unable to do? The theory belittles Christ.

Here are two statements from Mr. Rice: “Jesus will restore all Israel to their own land, the land of Canaan, and will rule over them from David’s throne.” “Jesus is not now sitting in his throne, but in his Father’s throne, according to Rev. 3:21.” His idea is that when Jesus comes again he will descend from that universal throne which he now occupies with the father and sit on David’s throne as king of the Jews, thus exchanging a higher for a lower. And they call that exaltation of Christ! Exalted to a lower place! “Throne” means kingly authority. David’s throne and Jehovah’s throne are the same. In I Kings it is said that “Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father.” In 1 Chron. 29:23 it is said that “Solomon sat upon the throne of Jehovah as king instead of his father.” That which was called David’s throne was Jehovah’s throne. It was called David’s throne simply because he ruled over God’s people. The effort to make a distinction between God’s throne and David’s throne is a miserable perversion of Bible truth. As Jesus now rules over God’s people, he occupies the same position that David occupied.

When did Jesus begin his reign? On Pentecost, Peter reminded his hearers that God had promised David to place one of his seed upon his throne, and that David, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ. Jesus was therefore raised up to sit on David’s throne. Read Acts 2:29-38. Verse 33: “Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.” To Peter the coming of the Holy Spirit on that day was proof that Jesus had been exalted to David’s throne. From John 7:37-39 we learn that the Holy Spirit would be given when Jesus was glorified. Read Mat. 20:20, 21 and Mark 10:35-37, and you will see that sitting with Jesus in his kingdom and sitting with him in his glory mean the same thing. As the giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was proof that he had entered into his glory, it is also proof that he had been exalted to rulership in his kingdom.

But it has been said that Jesus was then anointed, but did not then begin to reign, just as David was anointed some time before he began his reign. But here is a fatal defect in that illustration: Not one thing was done in the name of David as king till he actually assumed the reins of government. Acts were to begin to be performed in the name of Christ at Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit came. (Luke 24:46-49.) On that day Peter commanded the people to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38.) Was Peter guilty of forging the name of Christ to a pardon proclamation? He had no right to so do, and his act was forgery, if Jesus had not authorized him to do so. And Jesus could not have authorized him to proclaim pardon in his name, if Jesus was not then occupying the throne. Not one future-kingdom advocate, nor all of them together, can answer this one argument, neglected or overlooked though it has been. It settles the whole matter as to the fact of his reigning now and as to when his reign began.

Mr. Rice says: “John the Baptist came preaching ‘Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ (Matt. 3:2.) Jesus began to preach from the same text in his early ministry. (Matt. 4:17.) We find that the command to repent is repeated many times on through the rest of the New Testament, but the statement, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ was dropped and not repeated any more, though the kingdom is mentioned dozens of times. The reason is that the Jews rejected Christ, their King, and the kingdom was postponed. (Luke 13:34, 35.)” “At hand” means “near.” In the third year of his public ministry Christ sent the seventy out to preach, “The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” (Luke 10:1-10.) That was during the last year of his ministry. Certainly, after the first Pentecost after the resurrection the kingdom was not preached as “at hand” any more, for the simple reason that it had come. Paul says that Christians have been “delivered out of the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” (Col. 1:13.) Christ is now “The blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.” (1 Tim. 6:15.) As he is the “only Potentate,” he alone rules in this kingdom. Hence, it is his kingdom, and the throne is his throne.

But Mr. Rice would have us believe that when John and Jesus announced that the kingdom had come nigh they missed it a long way. Jesus also preached “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Mark 1:15.) If Mr. Rice is correct, the kingdom was not at hand—the time for it to come was not fulfilled. He would have us believe that Jesus did not know what he was talking about. But that is not the worst reflection on Jesus that this theory makes. They were assured of the kingdom on condition that they repent and believe the gospel—that is, that they repent and accept Christ. Some of them, in good faith, trusting the words of John and Jesus, did repent, and accepted Christ. But, according to the adherents of the future-kingdom theory, they did not get what God had promised them. It will not relieve the situation to say that most of them rejected him. What about his word to those who did accept him? They did their part; did God do his? Mr. Rice says he did not. I am unalterably opposed to any theory that thus makes out God a liar to those who faithfully do his commands and trust his promises.

The postponement theory belittles the church and makes it an afterthought, a sort of emergency measure. According to Mr. Rice, God meant to establish a material kingdom just like other world kingdoms, but the Jews did not make it possible for him to do so. The church was then established to continue till the time was ripe for the kingdom, according to the theory. The church, then, was not God’s original plan. But what saith the Scriptures? Was that God’s original intent? “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Eph. 3:10, 11.) Thus we see that it was the eternal purpose of God to make known his wisdom through the church. And how long will this continue? “Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations forever and ever.” (Eph. 3:21.) The church, then, will not be superseded by another institution so long as generations come and go.

Mr. Rice quotes Acts 15:13-16 to prove that “the restoration of the kingdom of David is to be after this Gentile church age.” Had he given the full quotation James made from Amos, it would have proved the very opposite of what he claims. James was justifying the acceptance of the Gentiles, and quoted Amos to prove that since the royal family of David was re-established the Gentiles might come into the church. Read verses 17 and 18 and see how miserably Mr. Rice perverts the argument of James.