The writer has learned
from experience that it is not only necessary to set forth the truth in a clear
and conclusive manner in these days when a false theology has bewildered the
minds of the people; but it is also necessary to anticipate and remove what
difficulties arise in the readers’ minds concerning a few texts which,
superficially viewed and sophistically presented by theologians, appear to be
at variance with what has been set forth herein. He has had ample opportunity
during thirty-two years of his life of observing the methods employed in
endeavoring to sustain the popular theories, and has had considerable experience
in defending the truth of the Bible against the different tactics of
representative men of the various sects of Christendom, both in private
conversation and public discussions. He feels that the first part of this book
will be more useful to the inquirers after truth and to those who are equipping
themselves to effectually defend it, if a chapter is devoted to the careful
consideration of the few texts which are used, or rather misused, against the
truth it contains and the many proofs given in their support.
The representative men
of different sects must necessarily employ methods somewhat differing according
as they differ in their theories. Hence a Campbellite, who believes in a
Pentecostal kingdom must resort to different tactics from those employed by a
Baptist, who believes the kingdom was established before Pentecost--some
Baptists claiming it was set up when Christ triumphed over death and others at
an earlier date, not being willing to be definite as to the date. In meeting
these opponents of the Truth it is necessary that one "study to show
himself a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth;" for an awkward use of the sword of the Spirit is quite likely to
leave the interested listeners confused and deluded by the sophistry of
perverters of the word of God. We are commanded to "Prove all things and
hold fast that which is good," and to "Try the spirits whether they
are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world." It
is our duty to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the
saints;" and this cannot be done unless we carefully prepare ourselves as
good soldiers of Christ. Let us not be driven from our duty in this matter by
the taunts of some that we are controversialists and always ready to discuss
for the sake of discussion. This is one of the tactics used to enable the enemy
to escape the test of truth. We must make up our minds to obey the foregoing
injunctions, not for discussion’s sake, but for truth’s sake, and for the sake
of deluded fellow men, and we must not shirk nor be cowardly, but press the
battle, giving no quarters, and fully convinced that truth can never surrender
to, retreat from, nor compromise with error.
THE PROMISE TO
ABRAHAM NOT FULFILLED
NEH. 9: 7, 8
In chapter iv, page 36 we have shown that the promise to Abraham that
he and his seed should have the
Now how does the matter
stand? Is it not clear that Nehemiah says that the fulfillment he is speaking
of was one that pertained only to Abraham’s seed and not to Abraham, while Gen.
13: 15 promised the land to both Abraham and his seed? Nehemiah is therefore
referring to the typical and temporary possession of a part of the land
involved in the everlasting covenant; and the apostle Paul distinctly says that
this temporary possession under the Mosaic law
"cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect." "For," he adds, "if it be of the law, then it is no
more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise" (Gal.
THE
MATT. 3: 2
In attempting to prove
that the
This is neither a
"kingdom of grace in the heart" nor the church, but a grand
constitution of things far more powerful, glorious and extensive, and fraught
with sweeter blessings than the "heart hath conceived," than the
church has ever experienced or the world ever witnessed.
But there was a sense in
which the kingdom of heaven was at hand in the days of John’s ministry, for the
words quoted so declare. In order to get at the meaning of the words we have
only to ask, What was the mission of John? What or whom did he come to herald? In Isa. 40: 3 the prophet says,
"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of
the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." And
Matt. 3: 3 says of John’s coming, "For this is he that was spoken of by
the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare
ye the way of the Lord and make his paths straight."
From this we learn that
John came to herald and to prepare the way of the Lord, Christ; and we may
therefore conclude that it was Christ who was "at hand," as declared
in John’s preaching. But if it was Christ, why does it say "the kingdom of
heaven is at hand." Is there a sense in which Christ can be spoken
of synonymously with kingdom? The word in the Greek for
"kingdom" is Basileia, a word which the lexicons say stands
for royalty or a royal personage, as well as for kingdom.
Now that Christ is
spoken of as synonymous with the
THE KINGDOM NIGH
Luke
The work of Christ and
his apostles was not to set up the
In building a great
railroad, after the plan is conceived and arranged, the first thing necessary
to the accomplishment of the purpose is to make it known--to preach it. In
doing this the name the railroad is to have when complete is used in making
known the enterprise. Suppose it is the Northern Pacific Railroad. It was
planned and called by this name before anything was done towards preparing the
literal bed, ties, rails, cars and locomotives, etc., and when agents are sent
out to make the plan known, they call it the Northern Pacific Railroad, and
they present the plan to those whom they desire to become participants in the
enterprise. If they are asked, What do you represent? they answer "The Northern Pacific Railroad. We have
come to make it known to you--or to "bring it nigh"--for your
acceptance and embarkation in it, so that when our plan, to use a modern term, materializes,
you may partake of the profits.
At the present time
Zionism is preaching the establishment of an "Independent Jewish
State" in
Now, if we apply these
illustrations to the verses quoted, we shall readily see that the kingdom of
God has been planned and named by the God of heaven Himself--in this sense
"prepared from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25: 34). When this
great and good and sure plan is spoken of it is called by its name-- the
Kingdom of God--though it has not actually been established, but is being
preached, made known or heralded to those who are invited to join in this
divine enterprise with a view of receiving a share in the blessings which shall
come from its operations when it becomes an actual fact. In presenting this
glorious plan it was brought "nigh" to the Jews first and afterwards
to the Gentiles in the form of the Gospel, or good news,
"concerning the
Those who would
"study to be workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the
word of truth," should always be on guard not to apply one scripture in a
way to contradict other scriptures. To say of the verses we are considering
that they mean that the kingdom of God had come nigh in the sense of being set
up is to array them against the teachings of Jesus when he corrected the
mistake of his disciples in supposing that "the kingdom of God would immediately
appear" (Luke 19: 11). If the kingdom of God had "come nigh"
in the sense of being set up or established--in the form of a church, or in a
spiritual sense in the heart--then the disciples were right in believing in its
immediate appearance, and then the question is, Why did Jesus declare them to
be mistaken in this immediate appearing aspect of the question? He taught them
that the kingdom of God which they thought would immediately appear would
appear, but not immediately; not until he would go to heaven and return,
"having received the kingdom" (Luke 19: 15). It follows therefore
that the only sense in which the kingdom of God had "come nigh" was
in that it had been presented to them for acceptance, in which acceptance they
would receive Christ, who was the kingdom in its germ form, and would receive
the gospel which had Christ for its alpha and omega, and which was the kingdom
of God in gospel form, destined to ultimately pass from being a matter of
gospel, or good news, into a reality that would bring to an afflicted world the
blessings of a reign of "peace on earth, good will toward men and glory to
God in the highest."
THE
Matt.
It is here said that
John was a great man, yet in the kingdom of heaven the least is greater. It can
not be said that the least in the church is as great as John. Neither can it be, that the least one who has the so-called "kingdom
of grace in the heart" is greater than he. The "kingdom of
heaven," here, therefore, is not the church, nor the "kingdom in the
heart." What then is the meaning of the words? When the kingdom of heaven
in answer to the prayer, "Thy kingdom come," is established and the
redeemed will inherit it, having been invited to that honor in the words,
"Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world," the position of the very least there will be
a high and glorious one. It is said, "To him that overcometh will I grant
to sit with me on my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down
with my Father in his throne" (Rev. 3: 21). This will be "When the
Son of man shall come in his glory and all his holy angels with
him," for it is added "then shall he sit upon the throne of
his glory" (Matt. 25: 31). "Then shall the righteous shine forth as
the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matt.
While we have partly
dealt with this text before, since it is here connected with what is said in
verse 12, we deemed it best to give a more elaborate treatment.
The next question is, In what sense did the kingdom of heaven suffer violence? It
cannot be that in the establishment of the kingdom of heaven
there will be power enough to "treat it with violence," nor that it
can be taken by force; for at that time the violence will be on the part of the
kingdom of heaven against the wicked kingdoms of men. The prophet Daniel says,
"In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,
which shall never be destroyed, neither shall it be left to other people, but it
shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand
forever" (Dan. 2: 44). So we may safely conclude that when the kingdom of
God "suffered violence and the violent took it by force" was not at
the time of the establishment of the kingdom.
Now, if when agents are
sent out to preach Zionism, or the establishment of a
Jewish State in
EVERY MAN PRESSETH
INTO IT
Luke
We are asked, How could they press into the kingdom if it was not there?
This question has been put by Campbellite preachers to the writer in public
debates; but they forgot for the moment that their theory is that the kingdom
was not set up till the day of Pentecost. To expose the sophistry of the
question with them, all we had to do was ask, Since
you say the kingdom was set up on the day of Pentecost, how do you account for
every man pressing into it from the days of John the Baptist? According to your
own theory the kingdom was not there in its established form, and the force of
your attempted blow at your opponent falls upon your own head. How could they
press into the kingdom when it was not there?
Most of the
"orthodox" representatives, when pressed to state the time when such
a remarkable event as the establishment of God’s kingdom took place--an event
which must have been a marked epoch in history if it took place in the
past--will answer that it was when Christ had triumphed over death and hades.
So with all such the question is still pertinent, How
could every man press into the kingdom from the days of John? None of them are willing
to say that the kingdom was set up in the days of John’s ministry, and
therefore, since it was from that time every man was pressing into it, the
difficulty, if there be a difficulty, which they raise against a future
establishment of the kingdom is as great against one set up in the form of a
church or otherwise after John’s ministry and before or at Pentecost. There is,
therefore, nothing in the passage to sustain the popular view of a
heart-kingdom or a church-kingdom.
Now, the illustrations
we have given relative to the kingdom "coming nigh" and
"suffering violence" will help to explain this text. It does not say
that "the law and the prophets were until John: since that time the
kingdom of God is established and every man presseth into it; but it
says, "Since that time the kingdom of God is preached." For
men to "press into" Zionism when it is preached is for them to enter
the society promoting the enterprise and become parts of the institution; but
not till Zionism is established at Zion can they enter it in its established
form and receive the real advantages, faith in which induced them to enter
it in its preached form. So when men believed the gospel of the kingdom
and were baptized they pressed into that institution as constituent parts in the
hope that when it would become an established fact, fraught with the promised
blessings, they may realize how "good it is to be there."
Then, again, the matter
of pressing into the
THE
Luke
This is the text
generally quoted to prove that the
Still, the inquirer
will ask, What about the text in question, which says, "The
The Emphatic Diaglott
renders the passage as follows: "Nor shall they say, Behold here! or behold there! for, behold, GOD’S
ROYAL MAJESTY is among you," and in a footnote the author says:
"In this verse it
has been found necessary to depart from the usual signification of hee
basileia tou theou, the
Of his first coming
Jesus could truthfully say, "The
MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF
THIS WORLD
John 18:
36--"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: If my kingdom were
of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to
the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence."
This passage is quoted
to prove that the
But, it will be said,
in answer to this, The meaning is that Christ’s
kingdom is not of this world--the present worldly institutions. Then, we
answer, do not call this world Christendom: for if this world is Christendom,
and if Christendom is the dominion of Christ, then this world is Christ’s
kingdom, and his words in the text are denied.
Finding a difficulty
here to sustain a false theory, there is an attempt to prove that the meaning
of the passage is that the kingdom is not on earth, but in heaven. This, of
course, contradicts the hundreds of texts which show that Christ is to have
"the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession" (Psa. 2: 8),
and that the kingdom is to be "under the whole heaven" (Dan.
The passage does not
say the kingdom is not to be on earth; but that it is not of this
world. World, from the Greek word kosmos, here does not mean earth,
but order or constitution of things. At that time the world represented by
Pilate (to whom the words of the passage were spoken) was the Roman government,
consisting of civil and religious laws and institutions of men--false, corrupt
and sinful in the sight of God. Christ’s disciples were not of that world, but
had been called out of it, and were no longer "walking according to that world
(kosmos) according to the prince and power of its aerial (or ruling
customs) the spirit (disposition) that now worketh in the children of
disobedience" (Eph. 2: 2). Christ’s kingdom is not a worldly kingdom, but
a heavenly kingdom. Its great plan was conceived in heaven, and the revelation
concerning it came from heaven. It is a heavenly or heaven-like kingdom
to come, that God’s will might be done on earth
as it is in heaven. Had Christ’s kingdom been of that world
represented by Pilate it would have been one kingdom of that world contending
against another, and in that case his servants would have fought that their
king might not be delivered to the Jews. Hence he adds, "But now is my
kingdom not from hence." As he had shown by the parable of the nobleman,
he must go to heaven and receive the title and power at the hands of Him who
said, "Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy foes thy
footstool." Then his kingdom will come as the stone, to smite the kingdoms
of this world, break them in pieces, grind them to powder and blow them away as
the chaff of the summer’s threshing floor. Then the stone kingdom will become a
great mountain and fill the whole earth.
To accomplish this
great work Christ will come as a man of war and then his servants will fight
for divine rights; for they are to "execute vengeance upon the nations and
punishment upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles
with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honor
have all the saints" (Psa. 149: 7-9). "The Lord shall be king over
all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord and his name one" (Zec.
14: 9).
In heaven God rules the
universe; but to His Son he has promised the earth and a kingdom upon the
earth. When the set time arrives, "God shall send Jesus Christ, which
before was preached unto you, whom the heaven must receive until the times of
restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy
prophets since the world began" (Acts
Rom.
This text is often
quoted against the literality of the kingdom, and in an effort to prove that
the
In the confidence which
an intelligent belief of God’s plan of salvation only can beget there is an
experience of peace and joy; but it is not from present conditions apart from
"the hope set before us." "Blessed are they that mourn: for they
shall be comforted" (Matt. 5: 4). "Blessed are ye that hunger now:
for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall
laugh" (Luke
Now, the true followers
of Christ are commanded to "seek first the kingdom of God and its
righteousness" (Matt. 6: 33); to pray, "Thy kingdom come" (Matt.
6: 10): They are "heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to
them that love him" (Jas. 2: 5); and if they continue faithful to the end
"an entrance shall be ministered unto them abundantly into the
everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (II. Pet. 1:
11). The great question is therefore one of "putting the hand to the
plow" and not looking back, in order to a fitness for the promised
kingdom. It is, therefore, not a question of meat and drink about which
there were discussions in
HATH TRANSLATED US
INTO THE KINGDOM
Col. 1: 13--"Who
hath delivered us from the powers of darkness, and hath translated us into the
kingdom of his dear Son."
Here is a verse which
is supposed by some to prove beyond a doubt that the church is the kingdom, and
the two words, "hath" and "into" are sometimes vehemently
emphasized when this verse is quoted by the advocates of a church-kingdom, and
the "kingdom of grace in the heart" is forgotten; for instead of it
proving that the kingdom is "within"--in the heart--it shows that it
is something to be entered into, and in this it is in perfect harmony with the
general teaching of the Scriptures; the only texts which could in any way favor
the grace-in-the-heart-kingdom being Luke 17:21, which we have explained under
the heading "The kingdom of God is within you."
There being a
willingness to agree, therefore, that the verse in question teaches that the
kingdom of God and of His dear Son is one into which the "saints in light"
are to enter, the only question to be dealt with is, When does this entrance
take place?
The answer generally
given is that it takes place when one enters the church, and it is to sustain
this theory that the word "hath" is emphasized. Now it is always well
to be careful not to build too much upon the tenses in the Scriptures. To the
Author of this wonderful book all is present, for He seeth the end from the
beginning, and he speaks of things that are not as though they were, because
the things that are not and are parts of His purposes are not dependent upon
emergencies; they are as sure of fulfillment as if they had actually come to
pass. It would have been a mistake seven hundred years before Christ was born
to have emphasized the word "is" in the passage, "Unto us a
child is born, unto us a son is given" (Isa. 9: 6)--that is,
for the purpose of proving it to have become a fact then; so with the prophetic
words of Mary: "He hath scattered the proud," "hath put
down the mighty from their seats and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled
the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath
holpen his servant
Coming, however, to the
real meaning of the text in question, a little more than a superficial view will
show that it in no way sustains the theory of a church kingdom, and surely we
ought to expect the religious leaders of the people to go deeper than the
surface of a certain translation of a text that seems to contradict the general
tenor of the Scriptures. Christ is to "Judge the quick and the dead at his
appearing and his kingdom" (II. Tim. 4: 1), and it is "when
the Son of man shall come" he shall say, "Come ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you," etc. (Matt. 25: 31). Now the fact that viewing the words, "hath translated us into
the kingdom," as a present reality seems to contradict these and many
other passages ought to evoke a close and careful investigation of the verse,
even to the extent of a comparison of the different translations. When
the question of translation is mentioned some are apt to ape indignation, and
they cry out, "There you are, questioning the translation again!" And why not? Why was there a revision a few years ago? Why
have our best scholars deemed it necessary to give us translations differing
from our Authorized Version? Why do "orthodox" commentaries so
frequently correct the translation of the Authorized Version? "But how can
common people be expected to look critically into the
question of the translation of texts?" Well, there are not many texts
needing such careful, critical investigation, and if one is as much in earnest
about the meaning of a clause in his title to eternal life in the kingdom of
God as he would be about that of a title to a worldly estate he would not
consider it too much trouble to go critically and deeply into the investigation
of the apparently difficult texts of the Bible. "But what do common people
know about Greek and Hebrew?" we are asked. They need not understand Greek
and Hebrew to critically examine these matters. They have the meanings of words
given by Hebrew and Greek lexicons in English dress. So they can, if they are
in earnest, examine the meanings of a given Hebrew and Greek work, as they can an English by the use of an English dictionary. Then, again,
they can compare one translation with another, and when they find that the
words are by some scholars translated in such form as to be in harmony with the
general tenor of Scripture, they can be sure that they have found the solution
of the difficulty.
Of late years, Dr.
Young, author of Young’s Concordance, has come to be regarded as a very able
Greek and Hebrew scholar. In his "Commentary of the Holy Bible, as
literally and idiomatically translated out the original languages," he has
the following on the passage in question:
"12.
[GIVING THANKS.] lit.
‘Ye leaping much for joy in the Father, who made us
sufficient with a view to the portion of the lot of the hallowed ones in
light.’
"13.
[HATH.] lit.
‘Who freed us out of the authority of darkness, and set with (them) with a
view to the kingdom of the Son of his love.’"
Here the verse is shown
to be in perfect harmony with the general teaching of Scripture that entrance
into the kingdom is future. We are now "freed out of the authority of
darkness with a view to the kingdom." It is to prepare us to be fit
for the kingdom that we are brought into the light of the good news of the
coming kingdom.
In the Greek the
preposition rendered in verse 13 into is the same as in verse 16, next
to last word, is rendered for. It is eis in both places. Now, if eis
can be rendered for in verse 16 why not in verse 13? It would read
quite sensibly, and indeed, put verse 13 in perfect accord with other passages.
The Emphatic Diaglott
gives the best rendering of the passage we have ever seen. It agrees with Dr.
Young’s in showing that the kingdom is future and shows that
"translation" means the change which brings an "alien from the
commonwealth of Israel," into Christ, wherein he is an "heir of the
kingdom" which God hath promised to them that love him (James 2: 5). Here
it is:
12. Giving thanks at
the same time to THAT FATHER WHO CALLED and QUALIFIED us for the PORTION of the
saints’ INHERITANCE in the LIGHT.
13. Who delivered us from
the DOMINION OF DARKNESS, and changed us for the KINGDOM of the SON of His
LOVE.
14. By whom we have
REDEMPTION, the FORGIVENESS of SINS.
Those the apostle wrote
to, then, had been qualified for the portion of the saints’ inheritance in the
light. They had been changed for, or "with a view to," or in order
to, the
Among those the writer
has met in public debate, the ministers of the Campbellite church have made the
most of this passage, and yet there is a reason why they should be more careful
than others in the use they make of the Greek preposition eis. In the
many discussions between Baptists and Campbellites on "baptism for the
remission of sins," the latter, following their leader, are very emphatic
in saying "for, or in order to, the remission of sins" (Acts
COMPANION IN THE
KINGDOM
Rev. 1: 9—"I,
John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom
and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the Isle that is called Patmos, for the
word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
By this verse there is
an attempt to sustain the theory of a church-kingdom. It is claimed that John
meant that he was, when he wrote these words, in the kingdom as well as in
tribulation, etc. This is a very short-sighted view of the text, and its misuse
in bolstering up a theory goes to show how hard-pressed that theory must be for
support. If to be in the kingdom is a fact when one is in
"tribulation," it cannot be a great boon to be in the kingdom. The
general teaching of Scripture is that to be in the kingdom is to have passed
beyond the reach of tribulation. In the church tribulation is to be expected,
but not in the kingdom. "We must through much tribulation enter into the
Since it is through much
tribulation we must enter into the kingdom, we might safely conclude that when
we are in the kingdom the tribulation is a thing of the past. If one passes
through
In the form of words of
the text in question it is obvious that John combined the language of fact and
of hope, just as one might exclaim to a friend, "I am your friend in
adversity and in prosperity," or to a comrade, "I am your comrade at
home or on the battle field." It would be a very foolish thing to infer
from these expressions that the friend must be in prosperity and adversity at
the same time, or that the comrades would be at home the same time they would
be on the battlefield. In the time of John he and his companions were passing
through much tribulation, and it was by this that they hoped to enter the
kingdom under the seventh trumpet; for it was not till then that John saw, by
the Spirit, the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our Lord and of
his Christ (Rev. 11: 15). The tribulation through which they were passing was
the means of discipline; entering the kingdom when Christ shall judge the quick
and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom is the goal. This is the joy that
is set before us to enable us to endure the conflict to the end with a hope
before us shining along the rough and rugged pathway brighter and brighter unto
the perfect day. Our companionship gives a little sweetness mixed with the
bitterness of this evil day; but now even this companionship can last but a
short time when death defiantly severs the closest ties that bind us. At the
end of the journey, however, death will have no power. It will then be a sweet
companionship in the
"Friends
then shall part from friends no more
Endless as time their joy shall be:
For pain is swallowed up in joy,
And death in victory."