Soon after being made king, Saul smashed the armies of the Ammonites in a great battle. Then Samuel knew that it was an appropriate time to gather the people together and “renew the kingdom.” They were called together at Gilgal, and there Samuel resigned as judge in a solemn address to the people. He told them that, although they had asked for a king when Jehovah was their King, Jehovah would bless them and their king, if they and their king obeyed his voice. His speech and the rain that came at Samuel’s call so impressed the people that they said: “We have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.” (1 Sam. 12:19.)
This kingdom, which was conceived in a desire to be like other nations, born in open rebellion against God, and tolerated through the forbearance of God, is the kingdom that some people would have us believe God yet intends to restore and enlarge. That kingdom restored is, we are told, the hope of Israel! That is the kingdom over which Jesus and the church will yet rule, and through which all the world will be blessed! Who can believe it?
I am aware that a question like this may occur to some one: If that kingdom was established in rebellion against God, how is it that Jehovah promised the throne of David to the Christ? But if we were unable to give a satisfactory answer to that question, it would not change what the Lord says as to the spirit that brought that kingdom into existence. But the question presents no real difficulty. Before the people called for a king so as to be like the nations, Jehovah was their king; he alone occupied the throne. Of course you understand that “throne” means authority to rule, rulership, kingly authority. When Saul, David, or Solomon ruled over God’s people, he occupied the throne of Jehovah. It was called David’s throne because he occupied it, and not because it was his by right. If people could ever get it settled in their minds that David really sat on Jehovah’s throne, it would save them from some confusion. But these two quotations show that the throne of David and the throne of Jehovah are the same: “And Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father.” (1 Kings 2:12.) “Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father.” (1 Chron. 29:23.) It is plain that Jehovah’s throne was called David’s because he occupied it. He who rules over God’s people occupies the same throne that David occupied. No one will deny that Jesus now rules over God’s people or, if you like the expression better, rules in the hearts of God’s people. To acknowledge that he does so rule is to acknowledge that he sits on the throne on which David sat. This truth has nothing to do with the fact that the people of Israel sinned in wanting a king so as to be like the nations around them. “I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath.” (Hos. 13:11.)
NEITHER—NOR
In the May issue of Word and Work, Stanford Chambers writes under the above caption as follows:
One was recently heard to say publicly: “I am neither a premillennialist nor a postmillennialist.” I think I saw the same from the pen of some writer. It is difficult to see how one can avoid being one or the other. A man might say: “I am neither an immersionist nor a nonimmersionist.” How could that be, unless he disregards baptism entirely? Just so in regard to the return of our Lord; it is either before the millennium, that is, premillennial, or it is after it, that is, postmillennial. Whoever disavows the event of his coming until the close of the millennium, whoever puts the millennium anywhere preceding the coming, is a postmillennialist, whatever he disavows or denies.
Just because the Lord Jesus may come at any time, and because it is an event he has commanded us to watch for and to pray about, I dare not put a thousand years between me and the fulfillment. Hence, I am a premillennial, and can no more help it than I can help being an immersionist.
“But what difference does it make whether I am ‘pre’ or ‘Post’?” I should say not enough in and of itself, merely, for it to be made a test of fellowship as has been attempted even by some “Neither ... Nor’s.” But it might make a great deal of difference for a man to put a thousand years between him and the coming of Jesus. Our Saviour himself shows the likely effect for one to say: “My Lord delays his coming.” Again, it might make a great deal of difference for him to teach men so. It is a serious thing to oppose any one’s quoting, “The Lord is at hand,” or “The Judge standeth before the door,” or “The end of all things is at hand,” or “When ye see these things, know that he is near.” Too much store is being set by this “what difference does it make?” The postmillennial error has many attendant malinterpretations it were well to avoid. As every truth of God’s word is helpful, so every error is harmful, and any error may lead to fatality. “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.”
Yes, I have said publicly, both orally and in print, that I am neither a premillennialist nor a postmillenialist. The Gospel Advocate has been all along making a heroic effort to steer clear of all party, or class, names. But Brother Chambers thinks it cannot be done. He does not see how a man can keep from being a premillennialist or a postmillennialist. In his estimation a man cannot be simply a Christian; he must have some sort of a descriptive term to designate what sort of Christian he is. And so we have premillennial Christians and postmillennial Christians. Here, then, is partyism in religion, the beginning of new denominations. It will not help the situation any to say that these are merely descriptive words, and not party names. Why the need of these descriptive terms, if they are not intended to describe different parties? Methodist was first a descriptive term, and then a party name. Premillennial Christian, postmillennial Christian, and Baptist Christian; in principle, what is the difference? And herein we see one of the evils of preaching speculative theories that create groups, classes, or parties in the church. What right has any man or set of men to create two parties, and then tell me that I must belong to one of them? That these brethren of Word and Work have created conditions that make it necessary in their judgment to use descriptive terms to designate groups of brethren condemns the whole movement as divisive in nature and sectarian in principle. If they think they have created conditions in the church that make it necessary for the Gospel Advocate to line up with one of these parties and be labeled, they are decidedly mistaken. If, as Brother Chambers says, he cannot help wearing a party label, he needs the help the Gospel Advocate is trying to give him. But if he is just bound to be what he is, and cannot help it, what will he do about it when the Lord comes, if the Lord does not follow the program these brethren have marked out for him? And herein is another danger to these brethren. Before Jesus came to earth, the learned Jews had things mapped out; and because Jesus did not follow their program, they believed him to be an imposter. Yes, there were program makers for his first coming, and there are program makers for his second coming; and the fatal blunder of the first program makers should be a warning to the present program makers.
But Brother Chambers thinks that neither “pre” nor “post” should be made a test of fellowship. There is something pitiful and shaky about a plea that one’s teaching or practice be not made a test of fellowship. The plea itself is a confession of divergence. We have often heard that same plea from the “progressives.” No matter from whom it comes, it sounds like a plea for forbearance and mercy. The Gospel Advocate has never, in its long history, felt the least need of making such a plea. Can you imagine J. C. McQuiddy, T. B. Larimore, E. G. Sewell, or David Lipscomb begging the brethren not to make some theory or practice of theirs a test of fellowship?
There has been a good deal of loose talk about tests of fellowship. To raise the question as to an opinion or theory without giving any attention to what is done with the opinion or theory does not meet the issue. An opinion or practice might be very innocent, and yet a man might make a great deal of trouble with it. It is not then his opinion you must consider, but the use he makes of it. Suppose some man should decide that dark clothing is conducive to piety and sober-mindedness, and that light clothing makes the wearer light-hearted and gay, and that flashy dress makes the wearer frivolous and giddy. Would you feel disposed to make his notion or his practice a test of fellowship? But suppose that peculiar notion of his becomes such an obsession with him that he feels that he must advocate it everywhere? He becomes so carried away with the idea that he becomes a nuisance, a trouble maker, and a divider of churches; what then? What would Brother Chambers do about it? Suppose he, while dividing churches with his peculiar theory, pleads that the sort of dress a fellow wears should not be made a test of fellowship; how would Brother Chambers answer him? It is supposed, of course, that Brother Chambers cares enough for the peace and unity of churches to do something about such a situation, but what would he do? Would he fellowship the fellow, bid him Godspeed, and call him to hold meetings? And it would be much worse if the fellow divided churches by preaching hurtful and untrue theories.
If brethren press a theory to the dividing of churches and then tell us that we must let them alone, else they will have no fellowship with us, what can we do about it? They have drawn the line, and issued a “manifesto.” And yet they keep talking about tests of fellowship.