Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
August 7, 1958
NUMBER 14, PAGE 2-3b

Reply To Mr. Welch On "The Kingdom"

Bill Thurman, 830 Eli, Dallas, Texas

We will be exercising active kingdom or kingship in the future age, for the expressions receive kingship, inherit kingship, etc. in the original are incapable of any other interpretation. We have not inherited the kingdom of God, which is kingship from God, in this age, for "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingship from God," I Cor. 15:50. This view is backed to the hilt by Dan. 7:27. This verse is no veiled prophetic vision. Rather, it is an inspired interpretation to the prophet Danel of the vision that he had seen; Dan. 7:27 unequivocally states that "the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms that are under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High." That is not ruling to be done by the saints in this age; that is not ruling that consists in "preaching the gospel" under the most adverse conditions of persecution and abasement! No. The ruling power that God's people will receive is that which now belongs to "the kingdoms that are under the whole heaven," and it is a wild dream to think this consists in the power of gospel preaching. Please reread Lk. 19:11-27. Note I Cor. 6:2. Rev. 2:26-27, 3:21, Ps. 49:14-15.

With regard to Mk. 9:1 Mr. Welch failed to answer the arguments set forth in the paper: (1) In every occurrence of this prediction, the Lord has spoken immediately before of the future coming, Mt. 16:27, Mk. 8:38, Lk. 9:26. To apply the very next verse to the church is to lift this utterance out of its context. (2) Matthew's version of the very words of Mk. 9:1 says "till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom", and no one saw the son of man in kingly power on Pentecost; (3) but the son of man was seen in kingly power at the transfiguration and some of those who stood by (the disciples) were present (Peter, James and John) and they became "eyewitnesses of his majesty" as Peter says in II Peter 1:16. There is no doubt as to where Peter and the others witnesses his majesty — "in the holy mount", II Peter 1:18. Nor is there any doubt about Peter's interpretation of the event, for he presents this as bona fide proof that the Lord's future power and presence is no fable, II Peter 1:16. Let the scripture interpret the scripture, and there is no difficulty.

It does not seem that my argument on Acts 15:14-17 has yet been grasped by some of my critics. The point is that the prophecy is not a prophecy of Gentiles coming into the church at all; it is rather a prophecy of a Gentile people who are already called by His name (not calling upon His name!) seeking or worshipping Him in David' tent. Before the tent of David is restored, God must visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name, so that this prophecy may be fulfilled. It is in this way and no other that the prediction of Amos agrees with the purpose of God to "take out of the Gentiles a people for His name"; unless he were to do this prior to the rebuilding of David's tent, there could be no Gentile people present "upon whom His name is called" when the tent finally is rebuilt!

The stock in trade argument from Heb. 8 about the priesthood of Christ is perfectly silly. This is another example of failure to note the context which says "seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law".

The point is that Jesus would not be recognized as a priest, since he sprang from Judah, and could not draw near to offer the Levitical offerings; he might be stoned if he tried to touch the holy things. The point cannot be that there would be anything in the nature of things to keep Christ from both being on earth and being the kind of priest that he is! For what is the supreme sacrifice that this Great High Priest had to offer? Himself. Where was he when he offered it ? On earth. Was he a priest at the time he offered it? It would be silly to say, No. And that is why Heb. 7:27 makes it perfectly silly to interpret Heb. 8:4 apart from its context!

There is no part of my paper which states that I do not believe the wicked dead will be raised at all until after the "1000 years" are ended. II Thess. 1 makes it crystal clear that those who have rejected the gospel will be avenged at the moment when He appears! I have never believed and nowhere, ever stated that the devil will be twice cast into hell! The key point of my argument on Rev. 19 and 20 was that the lake of fire, the second death, is a point of no return ... and that the "amillenial view" that requires Jesus to come after the 1000 years would also require the beast and false prophet to be raised out of the lake of fire, which is an impossibility. Not enough can be said here to make this argument crystal clear, but a paper containing the argument may be produced by writing me at the above address.

Whether Mr. Welch makes the argument or not, some do insist that the "last day" must be just 24 hours long! And that the "hour" of resurrection must be just 60 minutes! The paper answered these others by alluding to in 4:23 "the hour cometh . . ." which mentions an "hour" that has lasted almost 2000 years! It was also pointed out that the present age is called a "day", so why can the future age not be called "the last day"?

A little still needs to be said on I Cor. 15:23-24. Both the ASV and RSV give a good and consistent translation of the words "then" in these verses. Neither word must mean "at that time." Christ the first fruits then they that are Christ's at his coming. The word "then" may bridge a gap of many centuries! The first word then is but an intensified form of the second word then, and the very slight difference is only for variety, not to change the meaning. "Then" in I Cor. 15:24 only has the sense of "thereafter"; the reader who reads the original or has access to an analytical concordance may examine the use of these selfsame terms in I Cor. 15:5-7. It is interesting that I have a Greek translation of this into the modern language, which translates the second word "then" by the Greek word "hysteron" which means "later"!

The speech of Jesus in Mt. 24 is the same as that in Mk. 13; but the speech recorded in Lk. 21 differs radically from them both. Anyone who will carefully read the accounts may discern this! That tribulation mentioned in Mt. 24 is not only the destruction of Jerusalem, for, immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light ... and they will see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven! (Mt. 24:29-30) There were no extraordinary signs like these after the destruction of Jerusalem, nor did the Son of man come and gather his elect! (Mt. 24:31.) To spiritualize all this is the same foolishness that many perform with the more ancient prophet; but there are too many details that harmonize with the other predictions of His coming for this to succeed. For instance, how would the "great sound of a trumpet" in verse 31 be explained? This chapter has often been dissected on the basis of the words in verse 34; but "this generation" does not mean the one in which Jesus lives but the one to which he has just made reference in his speech. The word "but" most obviously connects verse 36 with 34 — although the generation will be known, the day and hour will not be known.