Russellites, Jew Baiters And Bollites
My little article on the Jews and the kingdom has brought me a storm of criticism from a faction of a minor nature who claims to be members of the church of Christ, but who talk and write as no inspired member of the church ever talked or wrote in New Testament times.
In that article I challenged all Russellites, Millerites, Bollites, Webberites, or Jew baiters, to find one promise to the Jews after the flesh in the gospel of Christ. Since this was published I have received some lengthy communications pretending to furnish such promises, but so far I have seen nothing that resembles proof. This challenge cuts all preachers off at the pockets who go about the country preaching to the Jews that God bound himself by an oath to do something for them that he has not done.
It is my contention that the gospel is the Lord's last word to man, and the salvation offered is the only salvation that ever will be offered, and all parties admit that it puts into effect, at least, the spiritual phase of the promise made in the covenant with Abraham. It is my contention that the promises of the gospel are based exclusively upon faith and obedience, and therefore there can be no promise in it to the Jews after the flesh.
It is also my contention that the land promise made to Abraham was fulfilled under the law at the time Joshua led them into Canaan and put them in possession of it. "And he gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers, and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about according to all that he sware unto their fathers, and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all of their enemies into their hand. There failed not aught of any good thing the Lord had spoken unto house of Israel all came to pass." (Josh. 21:42-45)
I thought when I presented this passage it would be the end of controversy on that point, but I had not properly appraised the cunning of debaters who have a theory to establish. I am promptly informed that this Scripture has no reference whatever to the promise God made to Abraham regarding the land of Canaan, and the fathers mentioned in it were not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I am told these fathers are the ones God took by the land to lead out of the land of Egypt, and the promises the ones he made to them at that time.
As I remember the incident recorded by Moses the Lord was not too well pleased with the fathers he led out of Egypt. It seems that they continued not in his ways, and he regarded them not, and swore in his wrath that they should not enter his rest, and their carcasses fell in the wilderness.
But suppose we should admit that Joshua 21:42-45 did have direct reference to the promises the Lord made with them at that time, and the ones afterwards incorporated in the law, what effect will that have on the fact that the promise was made first to Abraham, and the land grant made to him? We find that this same land was promised to Abraham and his seed at various times before it was fulfilled. It was promised to father Isaac, and then to father Jacob, but it was the same land, and the same promise, made to the same identical people, the seed of Abraham.
It is stated in Exodus 6:8 that the Lord appeared to Moses and told him the time of the promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was now to be fulfilled. He sent Moses to Egypt with a commission to lead his people out of bondage, and put them in possession of the promised land, and the books that Moses wrote, and the book of Joshua, tells us how that promise was literally fulfilled.
But I am told that what Joshua did for them only fulfilled the promises made in the law, and the original promise made to Abraham remains yet to be fulfilled regarding the land of Canaan. But the promise contained in the law was the same promise made to Abraham, pertained to the same land, and the same people, and Paul says the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after the promise was made to Abraham, cannot disannul it, or make the promise of none effect.
Then what effect did this law of Moses have on the promise God made to Abraham? We know positively that it did not disannul it, or make it of none effect. (Gal. 3-17) Paul said it was added to the promise because of transgression. If it was added to it then it became a part of the original promise, and when the promises of the law were fulfilled the promise made to Abraham was fulfilled in so far as it pertained to the land of Canaan.
Now, let some Jew-baiter who is going around preaching that there are a lot of unfulfilled promises that God made to Abraham, and swore to, and cannot break, and therefore must fulfill to old Abraham and all of his seed after the flesh at some time in the near future. They are all dead, those back there, but they see no difficulty in that. God swore it, they say, and must do it. Therefore, he will resurrect all of the Jews, good and bad, and with all the living Jews put them in possession of the land of Canaan, and by hook, or crook, fix it so they can live in it forever. Now answer the argument in the preceding paragraph.
Jesus said to some of the fleshly seed of Abraham when they bragged about it to him (like all Jews will do after they hear these Jew baiters): "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father you will do." But according to the Jew baiters that will not change the results in the least. God is bound by an oath, and he must resurrect them, and put them in Canaan, and keep them forever, and ever, regardless of what they think, or do.
Jesus Christ is the promised seed of Abraham through which all of the nations of earth would be blessed, and the gospel is the fullness of all God's promises to humanity, that filleth all in all. (Eph. 1-23) I know of no salvation to any man, Jew or Gentile, except that one in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and no other way for any man ever to be saved except through faith and obedience to that gospel. If these Jew baiters know of any other way to be saved or any other salvation yet to be offered to Jew, or Greek, let them come forward and show us where it can be found.
They talk very learnedly about a "future reconciliation," which they say is to be for all men in some post-gospel-age period. When you tell them that is just old Uncle Charley Russell's theory, they deny it, and claim it is something they have figured out from their deep knowledge of the covenants, and of prophecy, and which the ordinary man never would have discovered.
Yes, it took a deep man to figure that theory out; deep like old Charley Russell--muddy water always looks deep. You can't even see the wiggle tails in it if is muddy enough, and this theory has plenty of things in it, things foreign to the gospel which Paul preached, and by which all men must be saved. They can't even tell you how men can be saved in that post-gospel age. The Bible gives them no light on it, not even a hint. They will not be saved by the gospel for it belongs only to this "church age" that they talk so learnedly about. The gospel age will end with the church age and they both end when Jesus comes the second time for the judgment, and the Lord's people will receive their reward.