4.12 - PREMILLENNIALISM

PREMILLENNIALISM My friends and brethren, in looking over this audience tonight, I have an idea that we have not fewer than 6,000 people assembled. I am tremendously impressed, not only with your presence, but with the significance of it in view of announcements made last night.

I want you to know that I feel, very keenly indeed, the responsibility that is mine, and I am praying God that, with the right Spirit prompting every statement, nothing but good may come from our mutual study of those things that now challenge our concern.

I am talking to you tonight, as stated, about premillennialism, and some things connected with it. I might just say to you that that word means the reign or a period of a thousand years with Jesus Christ coming back to this earth before that thousand years begins, and after that, matters as I shall state, take place. l The leading Spirit sponsoring this doctrine among the churches of Christ has been Brother R. H. Boll of Louisville, Kentucky. His teaching it among the people of God, has disturbed their peace and led to a number of things rather bitter in their nature and threatening to the unity of the body of Christ. But my friends and brethren, this matter, though considered by some of small moment and no importance whatsoever, except on the part of those who want to raise a fuss about things, cannot be confined to the church of the Lord, and only those make such statements, who have not studied the matter and really do not know just what is taught by the theory and the consequences that follow the same. In all denominations the same trouble exists, over this land. The Baptist church of Fort Worth, Texas, of Dallas, of Detroit, Michigan, and wheresoever J. Frank Norris, and his influences have gone, is disturbed over the teaching of premillennialism. It’s in the Methodist church to their hurt and to their sorrow. And right here in Nashville, I read in the Nashville Tennessean Sunday morning, of the Second Presbyterian church and of the trouble between the church and the preacher, Mr. Stroud, whom I do not know. But it seems that the church is trying to get rid of Mr. Stroud as their preacher, that they have preferred charges of various kinds against him, and in his statement of their trouble, he says one of the causes for the opposition is that he talks too much about premillennialism.

I mention all of that, friends, to show you that this theory, sponsored by a number of people, is affecting all religious bodies, everywhere. Now, I appeal to you, brethren, is a thing of that kind to be passed lightly by? Are we not of that type who have subscribed to the principle of investigating all matters, comparing them with the word of God, and making a careful study of all things? I assure you that, to me, it is an unpleasant task to talk about those things that cause differences, hard feelings, and ugly sayings among brethren. All of that is unfortunate. The only way on earth that I know how it may be possible to heal our breaches, and for us all to come together, is an open, frank, honest, and candid discussion of these things, and I appreciate the concern that you have about it, as evidenced by your presence tonight.

Now, as best I can, I want to state to you the theory of premillennialism, as I have been able to get it.

First, God Almighty promised Abraham that through his seed a great nation should exist upon the earth. Second, Palestine was to be their home and they should inherit it and inhabit it; and third, the Gentiles were to be blessed through Israel as a nation. Now, that’s the original plan, in which this was no provision made for Gentiles except through the Jews as a nation. For the accomplishment of that purpose, God sent forth the prophets and the harbinger of Christ, announcing that He would establish a king" dom among men. Jesus Christ in company with John the Baptist, announced the same thing, and they broke the silence of the wilderness of Judea, by saying, "the kingdom of God is at hand." "The time spoken of by the prophet is fulfilled, and the kingdom is at hand," but the theory says God missed it, and Jesus Christ did not figure correctly. Why ? Well, when the time came, as spoken by God through the prophet and announced by John and Christ as at hand, the Jews said, "No sir, we will not accept the Christ," and hence, God was unwise in the proclamation of it; John the Baptist miscalculated affairs; and Jesus Christ did not understand that his preaching would be rejected and his purpose thwarted. Why? Because when the time came, the Jews practically said: "We know the voice of the prophets has heralded the coming of the kingdom; John the Baptist has announced it; and Jesus Christ has proclaimed it; but we are not going to have it." Therefore, they upset the plan of God and of Christ, and rejected him as king. Hence, the purpose of God was not carried out.

Now, I just want to stop and insert some parenthetical things. Friends, if God miscalculated the disposition of the Jews then, and if Christ missed it in saying the kingdom of God was at hand, due to the fact that the Jews did not prove ready, how can God know that the Jews might be ready the next time Christ comes? What assurance could this be that any time on earth would meet with the approval of the Jews? God might be disappointed again ! Well, with that program all upset, this was a readjustment. The theory suggests that when Jesus Christ found that he was rejected as king and could not set up the kingdom as he intended, he substituted for it, and established the church instead. Well, what for? Now mark it—that through the church, or what is called the gospel age, out of the Gentiles he might develop a ruling class. And when enough of the Gentiles are prepared for rulership, Christ will come back from heaven for his saints, and then both the living and the dead saints will rise and meet the Lord and go back to glory. That’s the first resurrection, as the theory proclaims. When they get back this, the respective places over which the Gentiles will exercise rule on this earth, will be assigned. Now you get that. The marriage feast will be on, and every Gentile Christian during the church age that proves worthy, will be appointed a place. One fellow will be appointed mayor of Nashville, another chief-of-police of Knoxville, and so on down the line. In the meantime, the Jews will be gathered back to Jerusalem, the old service of the Jewish age will be re-established, and the temple will be rebuilt. Jesus Christ will be in preparation soon to occupy the throne, prior to which the Roman Empire, will have once again ruled the whole earth. Now, when all of that setting is complete, then, Christ will come back to this earth with his saints, destroy the Roman Empire and sit upon David’s physical, literal throne. The Mosaic rites and ceremonies will all be continued, together with the burning of sacrifice, the observance of the Sabbath, and all things characteristic of the old law. All of this will continue for a thousand years, at the end of which time, the devil will be turned loose and deceive the nations, and the whole thing will end in a failure. Then the rest of the dead will be raised and judged.

Now, as best I have been able to gather, from quite an extensive bit of reading, that’s the program of premillennialism. I just want to stop and ask, my friends and brethren, do you believe that or not? With that program stated, I want to suggest some things further. That theory also says that God’s promise to the Jews regarding their occupancy of Palestine has never yet been fulfilled. Well, I am disposed to read to you a number of passages from God’s word right on that point, and I do that just to be careful about the matter, because I know this talk is being critically heard and observed. I thank God for the facilities for making it permanent, so that after I have gone from Nashville, this can be no misrepresentation of what Hardeman said on this night. In Joshua 1:1-18, God is encouraging Joshua to be strong and of good courage. He said: "This shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee." Now I am turning next to Joshua 21:1-45 and am reading from Joshua 21:43 : Hear it—"And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land," wait a minute. Does that say the Lord will give? No. This is toward the close of Joshua’s reign. Now then, Joshua said: "And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein." Now what had God promised? That the land of Palestine should be theirs to possess. Joshua, before you died, what about it? Well, you’ve heard me read what he said. "And the Lord gave them the rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and this stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand." Now mark it—"This failed not ought"—now what does ought mean? Anything. "This failed not anything of all the good that God said he would do unto Joshua or unto the house of Israel, all of it came to pass." Well, what was the promise? That the seed of Abraham, with reference to the land promise, should occupy the land of Palestine. Well, Joshua, what do you say about it? Joshua said that’s exactly what they did.

Well, I read the last part of Joshua 23:1-16, commencing with Joshua 23:14 : "And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth; and ye know in all your hearts, and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof. Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the Lord your God promised you; so shall the Lord bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you. When ye have transgressed the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you." Now, I just want to raise the point to an honest man: Does the Bible say that God promised the land of Palestine to the Israelites ? It does. Well, who was left to see to its fulfillment? First, Moses; second, Joshua. Well, Joshua said at the close of his career, this had not failed one single thing which the Lord God had said regarding their possession of the land, but when they turned from God and began serving idols, they should quickly perish from off the land. Well, I read again, this time, from Jeremiah 25:1-38, commencing with Jeremiah 23:9 : "Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them,"—this is a prediction of the Babylonian captivity—"and will make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations. Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle. And this whole land shall be desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." Now watch—"And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations." Now note—"And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations." This’s the prophecy regarding their captivity.

Now, I’m reading from 2 Chronicles 36:1-23, "And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia: To fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths; for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfill threescore and ten years." Now note "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished." God appeared unto Cyrus and bade him write a decree that the Jews should go back unto the land of Palestine. Now, take the very next chapter, Ezra 1:1-11 : and you’ll find that thing they did. Now then, you ask, why are they not this now? I turn to Hebrews 8:1-13 and this is this: "They continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Why is it, friends, that the Jews did not keep the land into which Joshua said he would place them at the command of God Almighty? Paul said the reason was that they continued not in God’s covenant. Well, friends, observe; when a covenant, which is an agreement or contract, is made, both sides are bound to it so long as the terms are executed; but suppose one side fails and violates it, then what about it? That covenant is broken and the other party is under no obligation whatsoever. Now get it: because, they, the Jews, "continued not in my covenant I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Therefore, the Jews were lost to Palestine, because they failed to keep their part of the contract, and were scattered abroad upon the face of the entire land.

Now, it is declared that in the next phase the Jews are to be converted as a nation and, therefore, are to return to Palestine. Friends, may I say to you in all candor, this Bible does not teach that, and that thing is so clear that it seems to me this could be no possible misunderstanding. I beg your indulgence for I don’t often read, but I am doing so tonight. This time from Romans the 11th chapter:

"Thou wilt say then, The branches," the Jews, "were broken off, that I," the Gentile, "might be grafted in." Well —; "because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches—" who is that? The Jews, "take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." Then what’s the next point? He tells just how the Gentiles got into the original vine, and that was by the process of being grafted in, and he said, therefore, if the Jews continue not in un belief, they also may be grafted in. Well, how? Just like the Gentiles. One individual after another. Not as a nation. Are the Gentiles all converted as a nation ? No Well, how is it? I am reading from Romans, in the gospel age. We are converted one by one. Well, is it possible for all of us to be saved? It is, if we submit to God’s process of grafting.. Now Paul said, if the Jew does not continue in unbelief, he can be grafted into the promises of God just like a Gentile, "and so, all Israel shall be saved." What do you mean by that so ? That’s not the conclusion, but so is an adverb, and means in this way all Israel shall be saved How? By being grafted in. That’s the only hope for either Jew or Gentile. So that much of it.

Now then, friends, I want to talk to you tonight about the serious consequences of this premillennial theory, or Bollism, as sometimes it’s called. And yet it’s not peculiar to Brother R. H. Boll. It started in modern times by old William Miller, back in 1843, at the beginning of Adventism It was brought on down the line by Charles T. Russell, by Judge Rutherford, and others, and R. H. Boll is but in company with speculators.

But, let’s think about the consequences of it. First of all, I am charging that the belief of a doctrine of that kind nullifies, makes void, the commission as given by Christ unto the apostles. Now, I think this is not a member of the church who does not know that Christ said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." I believe that you think that is binding upon all men. But, let me tell you friends, if the doctrine of premillennialism be true, that Commission does not and cannot apply to our Jewish friends. Someone asks why ? Well, I’ll just tell you why, and let me say that I don’t generally shoot until I can "see the whites of their eyes," and know what I’m talking about. I have here a book written by R. H. Boll under the title, "The Kingdom of God." All right, now on page 84, here’s the statement: "Moreover Israel is not in this judgment. It is the nations that are here judged before the King, which term means the Gentiles, and always means nations as distinguished from Israel who is not among the nations." Now let’s get it, Brother Boll, when you talk about nations, whom do you mean? "I don’t mean Israel, they are excluded from the term, the nations, and are not incorporated in it." Now what does the Commission say? Go teach all nations. But Brother Boll says the Jews are not in that, therefore, where is authority from God’s word tonight to preach the gospel to a Jew ? Friends, I speak candidly because of the intense earnestness. You know that Peter stood on Pentecost, after that Commission was given by Christ, and preached unto the Jews, but here is a declaration that says the Jews are not included in the nations—only the Gentiles. Then what? The Commission is nullified as it pertains to the Jew. And furthermore, this deponent saith not. Someone may say: You’re misrepresenting. No, I’m not. That’s what he says about it, that in the term Nations, the Jews are excluded. Well, to whom was the Commission? Go teach all nations! But the Jews are not in that. Well, all right, where is the Commission for the Jew? This is none according to this theory. Friends, what do you think about it? Someone says: I don’t think this’s anything in it. Well, this isn’t for the Jew. If the theory be true, Christ treated them worse than Hitler will ever do.

Well, let me state another thing, friends, regarding this doctrine. It not only nullifies the Commission, but it makes the church of Christ absolutely an accident. Friends; Brother Boll, and other premillennialists, teach that the church is an accident, and not intended. Well, lots of folks are from Missouri, and I love to talk to them. I have here, R. H. Boll’s magazine, the Word and Work March, 1938. All right, now you listen to what Brother Boll says right on that point. "If after all, God has solemnly promised and sworn to his people Israel that he does not fulfill his word in giving them the land of Palestine, but turns into a spiritual and Figurative fulfillment to a new spiritual contingent, called the church." Now what does he say the church is? A contingent. Now then, look at the definition of the word "contingent," and here’s what it is. It means "that which might happen, that which is incidental, that which is accidental, that which comes by chance." Therefore, friends, you who have relied upon the promises found in the church of the Lord, are in a thing that God never had in mind, and if the Jews had accepted Christ and let him establish his kingdom when he did come, this would have never been a church. So, but for the rejection of the Jews, that contingent never would have existed upon this earth. I want to ask you if you believe that? Is that church, bought with the blood of the Son of God, and filled with his Spirit, and crowned at last by his matchless glory, just an accident, or a contingent, and did it come by chance? Friends, is that your hope tonight of the eternal promise beyond? Well, I want you to listen—that’s Brother R. H. Boll, and this’s his magazine; I’m not giving it to you second-hand. Anybody here is at perfect liberty to come after service and say; "Hardeman, I want to see it myself." I’ll be glad to let you see it.

Now again, in contrast with that, I want to read to you from the third chapter of Ephesians, commencing with verse eight; Paul said: "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:" Now Paul, what do you say about the church ? Paul said the church is according to God’s eternal purpose. Brother Boll, what do you say about it? That it’s a contingent, accident, that God never intended it. Friends, I am positively ashamed to have to make a statement of that kind. And if my brethren, before whom I have gone preaching the gospel of Christ as best I could, have decided that the blood-bought and heaven-born and worldwide institution called the church, is a mere accident, I don’t know what to say further. If the preaching of God’s truth regarding such does not bring my brethren to unity, and cause them to quit all that speculation, and theorizing, then I do not know what to do that our differences may be healed. Look at it—Brother Boll, what do you say about the church ? It’s a contingent, accident. Paul, what do you say about it? It was according to God’s eternal purpose from the foundation of the world. And you say, "Oh, that doesn’t amount to anything." Yes it does. It destroys faith in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ and robs us of our fondest hopes of a blissful crown because of our membership in the body of Christ. Now, I am appealing to brethren, without any feeling of a partisan; I am asking brethren; did you know that such is the doctrine of premillennialism? It destroys the commission to the Jews; it makes the church of the Lord Jesus Christ a mere accident, and an incident, and a matter of chance.

Well, that’s not all. The doctrine of premillennialism denies, positively, Peter’s statement on Pentecost, when he said: "This is the last days." Now let’s see about that. According to the premillennialist theory, here we are in the church period. Well, when will the last days begin’ After Jesus Christ comes back from heaven, sets up business in Palestine on old Mt. Moriah, and then begins to exercise authority. That will be the beginning of the last days. Now friends, 1900 years ago, Peter stood upon Pentecost after the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them and said to that excited crowd: "These men are not drunk as you suppose, but this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel," namely, "it shall come to pass in the last days." Peter, what do you say about it? That was the beginning of the last days. Brethren, that was the establishment of the church. God says it’s the last days. But, if the doctrine of premillennialism be true, then it’s not the last days. Why? This’s to be a period of a literal thousand years after the days called the last ones. Now, I just want to ask you if you believe it or not? I am appealing directly to my brethren, for whose benefit this meeting is held. Do you believe that we are in the last days?

Well, again, Hebrews 1:1, hear Paul, "God, who at sun dry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." Now do you believe that, or will you accept some man’s speculative, theorizing, guessing conclusion ?

Brethren, I’ve preached enough to know this; I know when I drive home an argument. I know just what it takes to sell my brethren and to convince them. Whenever I can show them God’s word, that’s the end of the controversy. Now then, I’ve read to you what Peter said; this is the last days, Paul said; God has in these, not those that are yet to come, but in these last days, spoken by his Son. That’s God’s word and, unless we are wonderfully partisan’ and are determined to have some new-fangled affair, that’s the end of the controversy with us.

Now I just wonder, if this is an under-current and a question being raised to this effect: viz., Brother Hardeman, if Brother R. H. Boll, or some representative were present to answer, would you say all of that? Now, if you are really inquisitive about that, suppose you try and see. I am perfectly willing for you to find out to your own satisfaction.

Again, I want to suggest, my friends, another thing right along this line. The idea of premillennialism dethrones Jesus Christ, demotes him, takes him from God’s right hand, where he’s crowned King of kings, and Lord of all, and destroys the idea of his ruling as our King in fact. In Acts 2:1-47, which my brethren ought to know by memory: When the argument had been made by Peter regarding the resurrection, this is this: "Men and brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David. He is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would raise up one to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ." Well, what about him? That Christ was raised up, to sit, now mark it—to sit, for the purpose of sitting, that he might sit, in order to sit. Why did God raise Christ, who is of the fleshly seed of David? To sit. To sit where? On his (David’s) throne. Friends, I don’t know how to argue with some folks. If this is the disposition to deny that, I cannot say that I am like the proverbial boy that ran over the calf, I don’t know whether I’ve got anything fitten to say or not. Peter said: Brethren, David is not risen, his sepulcher is right here, but being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, therefore, seeing this, he spake of the resurrection of Christ, that Christ’s soul was not left in hell, nor did Christ’s body see corruption. But note again as I read further right along that line: "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now Peter, where is Christ ? He’s raised from the dead. What for? To sit on David’s throne. But premillennialists say, he’s not sitting on David’s throne. Well, what’s he doing then? Don’t you see that the resurrection could have been postponed until now. Where is Christ sitting? He was raised up to sit on David’s throne. Peter said, this he is, Lord of lords and King of kings. And yet, I’ve got to come before you with a degree of embarrassment and say: "I have brethren who fly in the face of Peter and say, that’s not so." Well, David said he shall sit upon his throne until his foes be made his footstool. Now listen at Paul’s wonderful resurrection sermon, 1st Cor. 15, Christ must reign. Well, he’s reigning, then. How long? "till he hath put all enemies under his feet." That’s what the prophet said. "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Jesus Christ is reigning at God’s right hand, and will reign until the last enemy shall be destroyed. Now then, premillennialists say that’s not so. That he is not doing anything of the kind. Brother Boll says: "Jesus Christ is King, de jure et potentia, but not King, de facto et actu." That’s wonderful, isn’t it? Brother Boll, what do you mean by it? Of course, anybody that knows the Latin language knows what it means, but let’s let him tell it. "Christ is king by right, but not in fact and in act.’ Who said that ? The fellow that wrote this book. Brethren, what about it, then? Is Christ your king tonight? Brother Boll says he is not; he’s only a king by right, but not in fact Well, all right, does he have a kingdom? Yes. How? By right, but not in fact. But Paul said: "God has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." How are we in the kingdom? Only by right, not in fact. So, if you think you are in the kingdom of God, Brother Boll said you are mistaken about it. You are in no such thing. You ought to be in this, but you are not; you have a right to be in this, but you are not. But I read again to you, and it but confirms the same thing. Now listen at this, Page 71, hear it—"so long as Satan’s throne is on earth, Christ is not exercising the government." Well, is the devil’s throne on earth? The same writer says it is. What about Christ? He’s not ruling. Then who is your Lord, brethren, tonight, and whom are you serving? You say, I’m serving the Lord. No, no, he’s not ruler; he’s not exercising authority. He’s not even king and doesn’t even have a kingdom. Where are you—better put all At after it, to get the matter clear. Friends, that’s the tragedy, and when I see what I know to be good brethren hold up their righteous hand, and say: "Oh, this’s nothing to that; you brethren just want to cause trouble." I’m sorry to say it, brethren, but you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Now, that’s the plain facts about it. You haven’t studied the matter; you haven’t read all the speculation regarding it, and therefore, you have no right to criticize those that are exposing error of this kind. But it is characteristic of this cult to profess an extremely pious air, and to be negative on all questions, and not to try to expose any kind of an error, even out in the sectarian and denominational world. They can put their arms around folks in error and honey them up, and say: "Brother, kindly lead our prayer." Now that’s the Spirit of it. This’s the harm. It’s the sacrifice, brethren, of the old landmarks. It’s the giving way to the least resistance, and it’s loving the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Well again, this theory, friends, also denies most positively, salvation to the Gentile world. Now, if I don’t read that, I’ll take down my sign and never again appear before a Nashville congregation. I am reading now from the 15th chapter of Acts. In that great Jerusalem council, after various ones had spoken, James said this: "Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets. As it is written, after this, I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." Now what’s going to happen? I am going to return and build again the tabernacle of David. What does the word tabernacle mean? Well, sometimes it means a tent, or a booth, or a house; again it means a descendant, posterity, those that are to come after. So what do we have in this connection? "I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down." Now with that, 2 Samuel 7:12 is perfectly harmonious: "And when thy days be fulfilled,"— this is talking about David—"and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom." Now whose kingdom? That of the seed of David. Therefore, I will build again the tabernacle of David that is fallen down.

Wait just a minute, while I present a matter. Friends, the kingdom was established over Israel in 1095 B.C. Saul reigned for 40 years, and upon his death David took the throne, 1055. He reigned for 40 years, and then Solomon 40. This brings the time down to 975 B.C. At that time, the kingdom divided. Ten tribes went down to Bethel, after Jeroboam and two stayed at Jerusalem, with Rehoboam. These two were in the Davidic line; they were of the house or tabernacle of David, and his seed continued on down until 587 B.C., when Zedekiah, the last one that could trace his ancestry back to David, rebelled. Zedekiah was dethroned and the family of David went down and so remained for 600 years. Amos said; after this the sifting of the house of Israel, I will return and build again that family of David. No one of David’s bloodline has been on the throne since the days of Zedekiah. But Christ is of the seed of David, and Peter said that God raised up Christ, of the loins of David to sit on his (David’s) throne. After this, "I will return and build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down." Now what for? Let’s get the purport. Here it is, "That the residue," what does that word mean? Well, the other, the remainder. "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord." Consider seriously. Couldn’t they seek after the Lord until the tabernacle of David was rebuilt? No sir. Why are you rebuilding the tabernacle of David? "That the residue of men might seek the Lord." What else? "And that the Gentiles might seek the Lord." Friends, we belong to the Gentile nation. We are sons of Noah through Japheth, and the Jews are sons of Noah through Shem, hence, we are Japhethites or Gentiles. Now then, James, what do you say? David’s family as ruler is gone. This must be another of David’s seed on the throne or else the Gentiles cannot seek the Lord. I insist, therefore, based upon God’s word, if Jesus Christ is not on David’s throne, this is not a Gentile on earth that has a shadow of a show of salvation. But let’s pass to another passage. I am reading to you now Second Corinthians five, and verse 16, "Henceforth"— what does henceforth mean? From now on, and on, and on, and on. "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more." Paul, what did you say? This was a time when we knew Jesus Christ after the flesh, but that time will never be again. Now look how premillennialists fly right in the face of that. They say: "Paul, you’re mistaken; when he comes back and sets up business in Palestine, this he’ll be in the flesh, exercising the functions of government and ruling with a sword in a bloody warfare." Don’t you see that such flatly contradicts God’s word? Paul said we will never know Christ after the flesh again, but the very heart of premillennialism is that Christ will come and reign in the flesh, and we’ll know him in the flesh. Friends, it’s a direct violation and contradiction of God’s word. Notwithstanding such opposition to God’s word, some deluded brethren think that kind of teaching amounts to nothing. Brethren, does error of that kind disturb the church? What do you think about it? And then again and finally, watch this picture: Premillennialists think they know just how all will be when Christ comes again. But John says: "Beloved, it cloth not yet appear what we shall be." Now John said that and he was the last to write. He said he did not know but premillennialists have heard from heaven since John did. They seem to know. John said: "it cloth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Friends, I thank God, that when the time shall come, I’ll not look upon Christ as he was while traveling o’er Judean hills and across Samaritan plains; I’ll not see him tired, footsore and weary; I’ll not see him humiliated by a blood-thirsty crowd; I’ll not see him as he was while on the tree of the cross suspended; nor yet in Gethsemane’s garden praying with agony to the Father that all might pass: I’ll not see him between the heavens and the earth as though rejected by both and fit for neither; but I’ll see him as he is in a glorified state, having triumphed over the powers of the Hadean world and now at God’s right hand crowned. That’s the picture, and with that I am perfectly content. If, after life’s dream is over and the time comes for the ransomed to be gathered home, I can be like Christ as he is, at God’s right hand exalted, that will be glory enough for me. I thank God for the exceeding great and precious promise therein contained. But I must close this talk tonight. Is this one, two, any number, who believe that the kingdom of God is in existence; that the church was really purchased with the blood of God’s Son; that in the body of Christ, this is salvation and forgiveness of sins? If such this be, the invitation is once again gladly tendered while we stand and sing the song selected.