Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 121


In Proposition 121, George Peters states:

“This Kingdom, of necessity, requires a Pre-Millennial Personal Advent of Jesus Christ.”

For those not familiar with the term Pre-Millennial, how it is defined and applied often depends on what “flavor” of eschatology to which one affirms. At its core, Pre-Millennialism can be defined as the belief that

“the Second coming will occur before a literal thousand-year reign of Christ from Jerusalem upon the earth. In the early church, premillennialism was called chiliasm, from the Greek term meaning 1,000, a word used six times in Revelation 20:2-7. This view is most often contrasted with Postmillennialism which sees Christ’s return after a golden “millennial age” where Christ rules spiritually from his throne in heaven, and Amillennialism which sees the millennium as a figurative reference to the current church age.” [1]

From what I have been able to discover, George Peters affirmed the dispensational approach to eschatology and thus falls into the pre-tribulation rapture position, a position to which I do not adhere for reasons at this point outside the scope of this particular study/post. With that said, both dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists can be pre-milliannialists. I know it can be confusing when all the various nuances and associated positions subsumed within eschatology are explored. For the purposes of this Proposition, Peters is merely affirming the pre-millennial position as defined above without, at least at this point, inserting any dispensational specific language.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 121 is the following:

“This Sec. Advent will be the greatest and grandest event that the world has every yet witnessed. Great and glorious as was the First Advent – unspeakably precious and indispensably necessary unto Salvation – yet it was a Coming in humiliation and ending in death, with a glimpse at exaltation, but this is a Coming in overwhelming power, splendor, majesty and glory – a Coming in triumph and like the mighty Theocratic King. To this Coming the Scriptures especially turns the eye of faith and speaks of it in the most lofty and exultant strain; and we may rest assured that what God thus describes, and to which He directs the hope of prophets, Apostles, and believers, must be in conceivably magnificent. It is an honor to aid in upholding and directing attention to it.”

I appreciate the majestic nature by which Peters describes the Second Advent. It is fast approaching the time of year when the First Advent is typically remembered. Much pomp and attention is given to the Messiah coming to earth through the miracle of the virgin birth for the purpose of saving us from the wages of sin which is death. I fear we often forget, misunderstand, and do not appreciate the even greater majesty that will be the Second Advent. The entire movement of salvation history and thus Scripture points us to this event. It would behoove us to join Peters in “upholding and directing attention to it” and to better understand this doctrine of the Kingdom.


[1] “Premillennialism,” Theopedia, accessed December 12, 2017, https://www.theopedia.com/premillennialism.

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 120


In Proposition 120, George Peters states:

“This Kingdom with its Millennial blessings can only be introduced through the power of God in Christ Jesus.”

This seems like such an obvious proposition to make, but nevertheless, it must be stated lest someone try and assert the coming Kingdom will come about through some other means than the power of God in Jesus. This is a Theocratic Kingdom and thus it will be instituted by the Creator, Ruler, Sustainer, and Redeemer. Moreover, the return of the Messiah is essential to this coming Kingdom being established.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 120 is the following:

“This Kingdom designed to carry out and display the Redemptive process in its realization will exhibit in the highest degree the love of God through re-creative power and activity. No one doubts but that such love was strongly shown in creation, in the Incarnation, in Providential movements, etc., but all these, if we are to credit the Prophets, are only forerunners of a higher manifestation of His goodness when the consummation arrives. God revealed directly through humanity as the Theocratic God, acts of restoration and renewal, the complete union of Church and State, the subordination of the human to the divine Will, the rule of righteousness and righteous submission harmoniously blended, the abrogration of all divergence between religion and science, the world and heaven, the heart and God, life and holiness – all this calls forth exhibitions of love in Father, Son, and Spirit, to which all previously given ones are only earnests of the ultimate feast.”

Peters aptly notes the coming Kingdom will be the full realization of the redemptive process. Any redemptive events that have taken place thus far in salvation history are but a foretaste of the fullness to come. We can only grasp a tiny portion of what this coming Kingdom will be like when established. The separation between Creator and His creation will be no more, the issues of sin, death, and decay will be forever dealt with, and holiness will abound in the prescence of God. God will be on His throne on a renewed and restored earth and as Peters has so saliently noted, the “rule of righteousness and righteous submission” will be “harmoniously blended.”

I have said this before and I do not doubt I will state it several more times, I long for this day and I hope you do as well. While we may see glimpses of peace and love in our world today, they are fleeting compared to the eternal joy that will result from this coming Theocratic Kingdom.

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 119


In Proposition 119, George Peters states:

“The Kingdom of God in the millennial descriptions is represented as restoring all the forfeited blessings.”

Peters now draws the readers attention to how Scripture describes the millennial kingdom, noting how the Kingdom of God is noted as being a restoration of all forfeited blessings that were removed from man by God due to sin. This is an important proposition as it brings into focus the entirety of the biblical message of redemption.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 119 is the following:

“Now let the reader consider: 1. What would this earth have become if Adam had not fallen? The answer, as given by Scripture and repeated in various theological systems, is this: it would have had no curse entailed, bringing in its train unfruitfulness, evils, sorrow, and death. It would have had the world under a Theocratic ordering, by which man would have been elevated and blessed, having direct nearness to his beneficent Ruler, etc. 2. Now look at the millennial blessings enumerated, to be realized here on earth during the Messianic reign in the restored Theocratic Kingdom, and is there a single blessing that we can conceive of as intended for man unfallen, and which was forfeited by sin, that is not mentioned to be then realized? If the millennium embraces “Redemption”, “Salvation”, and the Messiah is One that can perform His work perfectly, this precisely the condition that we ought reasonably to anticipate. The very fact that the Millennium itself contains such inestimable blessings, honor, and glory, such a revelation of Divine majesty and goodness, such as ample deliverance from all evil and even death, such a restoration to God’s favor and nearness in Theocratic ordering, is sufficient evidence that our doctrinal position is impregnable. The unity of the Word, running from the fall to the Sec. Advent, demands, prompted by covenants and promise, impelled by the plain grammatical and God-given sense, this belief, so dear to the hearts of the martyrs of the early Church.”

The book of Genesis presents the reader with a description of a world without sin. Then sin enters the picture with the ensuring penalty of decay and death. Scripture ends with a description of a world redeemed and restored. These can be stated as the bookend pictures of Scripture. We started with perfection, sin messed things up, and we have a movement in salvation history towards a time when God fully and forever deals with the sin and death problem. In doing so, He establishes His Theocratic Kingdom for all eternity. The Creator will once again dwell with His creation as it was in the beginning.

Many theologians pontificate about taking the plain, grammatical sense of Scripture. Peters clearly outlines how the plain, grammatical sense of Scripture can do nothing but present the future reality of the Doctrine of the Kingdom as has thus far been presented. To insert anything other than what has been presented thus far, is to skew the movement of salvation history and redemption set forth by God that will be realized and experienced by the people of God for all eternity in this coming Theocratic Kingdom.

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 118


In Proposition 118, George Peters states:

“This view of the Kingdom is most forcibly sustained by the figure of the Barren Woman.”

If you are like me and are/were a bit clueless as to what this figure of the Barren Woman is all about as noted in Scripture, have no fear. Peters outlines in great detail in the below notable observation the meaning of this important figure as related to Israel.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 118 is the following:

“Who is this “barren woman”? The definite answer is given by the entire scope and order of the prediction. For the present, we reply: It is the Jewish nation as the covenanted elect nation, or, if the reader chooses, Jerusalem as the type of the nation, its chief representative, the nation itself being thus designated. For, (1) this nation is represented as being married to God, being His wife. The marriage relation being thus used as a figure to denote the intimate, Theocratic relation that God sustained as earthly Head and Heir over it. Many passages teach this, in which the nation, under the same figure, is declared to be treacherous as a wife, guilty of whoredoms, etc. In this same chapter she is therefore called “a wife of youth,” a woman that was married when but young, etc. Compare Ezek. 16; Jer. 3:20, etc. (2) She is a “barren woman.” Because, (a) she forsook the Lord and followed her own devices, so that God said, Hos. 2:4, “And I will not have mercy on her children, for they be the children of whoredoms;” Hos. 4:6; (b) she persecuted and destroyed her children; Ezek. 16:20-21, “Moreover thou hast taken they sons and daughters whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain my children,” etc.; (c) hence the increase that would have resulted had she proven faithful, was, owing to her wickedness, not realized, Hos. 9:14-17; (d) by her sinfulness she defeated the gracious purposes of God respecting her. This is apparent from numerous declarations in which God promises to her to perform such and such things if she only prove faithful. The lamentation of Jesus over her is sufficient evidence. The nation, persistent in its evil course, instead of blessings receives the curse which is productive of barrenness; (e) she brings forth fruit unto herself and not of God, Hos. 10:1, “begotten strange children,” Hos. 5:7. (3) She is not only a “barren” but a “desolate woman.” In view of the wickedness of the nation God forsook her and in wrath hid His face from her (vs. 7-8), so that in verse 6 she is called a “woman forsaken;” and, owing to this forsaken condition, in verse 4 it is designated by way of reproach a “widowhood” (a condition, notwithstanding the assertions of some, that can never be applied to the Church). How amply this has been fulfilled is evident from Scripture (Ezek. 16:36, etc., Hos. 2, etc.), and from history. Down to the present day she is yet in her “widowhood,” yet a “forsaken woman,” yet “judged as a woman that breaketh wedlock.” Right here the reader may pause and ask, if all this as been so minutely fulfilled that is a matter of record in the languages of the earth, will not the remainder, also asserted of this very “forsaken woman,” be verified? Certainly!

If you had any element of not understanding what the figure of the barren woman is all about as noted in this Proposition, after reading the above notable observation, this figure, its meaning, and application should now be much clearer.

The book of Hosea is an important text for grasping the concept of Israel being betrothed to God. Her chasing after other gods is likened to adultery. As a result of this playing the whore and refusing to repent and return to her Betrothed, Israel was divorced, thus becoming the “barren widow,” the “desolate woman”, the “woman forsaken.”

This seems like a dark and horrible status to be in and quite frankly it is. However, this will not be the end of the story for Israel. The doctrine of the Kingdom predicts God remembering His covenant promises with His people. This will result in a time of repentance. Peters shares a rabbinical writing I think is worth mentioning:

“Woe to those who shall live in the days of the Coming of the Messiah; woe, and also hail to them! For when He, the Holy One, blessed be His name, will appear to remember the barren…” (Rabbi Simeon – Book of Sohar).

We can see the expectation of the people for this future coming kingdom. Woe to those who declare God as being done with His people or who teach that another has fully taken her place in the eyes of God. Such a position is foreign to Scripture and thus cannot be inculcated into or associated with the biblical doctrine of the kingdom. This barrenness is but for a time.

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 117


In Proposition 117, George Peters states:

“The Kingdom of God re-established will form a divinely appointed and visibly manifested Theocracy.”

Peters continues to reveal what will comprise of this coming Kingdom. In this proposition, he aptly notes this Kingdom will be divinely appointed and visibly manifested. Furthermore, it will be a Theocracy. Thus, this will be no ordinary, run of the mill earthly kingdom. Conversely, this Kingdom will be ruled by God.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 117 is the following:

“This is a Theocracy in deed and in truth, for in this reorganized Kingdom we find the Theocratic idea – God’s idea for a perfect government – fully consummated. The Rulership is safely and powerfully lodged in one Person, who in Himself unites the human and the Divine, who becomes, according to “the everlasting covenant” and “the sure mercies of David” (Is. 55:3-4, Alexander’s version), the “Chief and Commander of Nations.” See Prop. on Humanity, etc.”

There is an important element to what Peters is observing. That important element is this Theocracy is one that will be fully consummated. Some point to the church as embodying this divine Theocratic idea. We certainly do not have a semblance of an earthly, visible, fully consummated Theocratic Kingdom re-established at present. This is a covenanted, future Kingdom. I appreciate the description by Peters of this future Kingdom having its rulership “safely and powerfully” residing in the Messiah. Those terms of safely and powerfully represent the reality that the rulership will never be taken from the Messiah. This will be an eternal, visibly manifested, Theocratic Kingdom.

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 116


In Proposition 116, George Peters states:

“This Kingdom is a visible, external one, here on the earth, taking the place of earthly kingdoms (comp. Props. 122, 111, 123, etc.).”

Peters again drives home the importance of understanding the visible, physical nature of the future, promised Kingdom of God. This will not be just a spiritual venture on the part of God, something merely experienced in our hearts. Conversely, this kingdom will be real and will be established on earth, superceding and fully replacing all earthly kingdoms that will be in place at that time.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 116 is the following:

“If the popular definition of the Kingdom of God, viz., that it is “God’s reign in the heart” (thus confounding God’s Sovereignty with a special Kingdom of promise) is correct, how comes it thta the prophets assign it specified time and place in the future? How comes it that it is spoken of as established at a certain period, and as pertaining to the humanity of Jesus Christ? Surely something very different from the absolute eternal Sovereignty of God is denoted; it may be, and is indeed attached to, and grows out of, that Sovereignty, but linked as it is with the elect Jewish nation, the Davidic throne and Kingdom, the human nature of Christ as David’s Son, the outward visibility and dominion, the ending of the times of the Gentiles, the restoration of the Jewish nation, etc., it cannot be referred to any other Kingdom but the Theocratic-Davidic as believed in, and preached by the early churches. Admit this, and the significance and unity of covenant and prophecy are apparent; deny it, and diversity and antagonism follow.”

There is an unfortunate tendency to state the Kingdom of God is simply within our hearts since after all, as believers, God rules and reigns in our hearts. While true, that is not the message Scripture reveals concerning the doctrine of the Kingdom. While our hearts are a part of where God rules, the full reality is a future earthly Kingdom. As Peters rightly notes, this future earthly kingdom is linked to the restoration of the Jewish nation.

To limit this Kingdom to being only of a spiritual nature, we are limiting God’s sovereignty to being located only in our hearts. The reality is God’s Sovereignty in this regard is a much bigger construct. It will involve the utter destruction of the wicked, the restoration of the Jewish nation per God’s covenant promises with His people, and the establishment of the Theocratic-Davidic kingdom on a renewed earth. Peters correctly identifies that such a position is rooted in the clear teaching of Scripture as found in the message of the prophets and for that matter all through God’s Word. To limit or deny such a proposition is to misunderstand God’s divine plan for His people and to place God’s Sovereignty within the confines of the human heart rather than recognizing the affirming that even something greater will take place.

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 115


In Proposition 115, George Peters states:

“The Kingdom is not established without a period of violence or war.”

I think it can easily be asserted that we live in a world where their exists a conflict between God and those who oppose Him. If the establishment of a future Kingdom is in order, which we are affirming as clearly outlined in Scripture, it is then a reality that the forces of evil will oppose any hint of this Kingdom coming to fruition. Thus, preceding the future and eternal establishment of the Kingdom of God will come a period of violence and war against the people of God. Now we typically think of this as persecution of the people of God in total. What Peters is specifically noting is the coming against Israel, meaning the nation of Israel in whatever form it exists at the time, to prevent the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 115 is the following:

“This, in the nature of the conflict described, and the results that follow, indicates a prior, partial restoration of Jews to Jerusalem, as many writers have observed. This is not the restoration under Christ, but one that will be effected under the auspices of some nation. At least one thing is certain, that the nation, as such, is at this very time represented at Jerusalem in such numerical force that prophets predict a gathering of the nations against the Jews. With one voice nearly all of them allude to this gathering, and describe the condition of the Jews as one of great trouble and misery. This gathering, too, is purposely allowed by God. In some predictions the nations are said to do this; in others that God, “He shall gather them.” In Rev. 16:14, “the spirits of devils shall gather them;” in another place (Rev. 13:5-18), the last head of the beast and the false prophet shall assemble them; and then again God will do it, as in Zeph. 3:8,” Therefore wait ye upon me saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey, for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them my indignation, even all my fierce anger,” etc. This is reconcilable with the permissive Providence of God, and with the fact that the results of the free agency of these nations falls in with the fact that the results of the free agency of these nations falls in with the contemplated design of God to employ the very period of their gathering and anticipated triumph for their terrible punishment. By wilfully closing their eyes to “the counsel” of God, to His plain Word, they are led ito the position of unbelief, etc., and God orders all thigns in such a manner that their purpose of gathering shall be fully carried out. Nothing shall intervene to frustrate the daring plans laid by them until the decisive moment arrives. They shall agree among themselves, and be prospered until God is ready to pour out His vengeance; and the gathering itself on a gigantic scale with the eyes of the world fixed upon it, will make the punishment the more signal and overwhelming. God employs their design as a vehicle for the accomplishment of His own; and therefore, with the power to prevent it at any time, it is correctly, although the direct result of creature agencies, attributed to Him.”

Peters saliently notes that this period of violence and war against Israel is part of God’s divine plan. This may seem odd to some. Why would God allow His people to be attacked by the nations of the earth? Why would He gather the “spirits of devils” against His people? The answer to this valid question is found in passages such as Zeph. 3:8 which notes God as declaring He will assemble these nations in order to “pour upon them my indignation, even all my fierce anger.” This declaration is in keeping with God’s promises made through the prophets long ago, namely that even though God used the nations to bring judgment on Israel for their disobedience, judgment would eventually come upon those same nations for their evil.

God will protect His people, will destroy the pagan nations who will array themselves against His people, and will establish His Kingdom as covenanted. This is all part of God’s divine plan, one that will be executed to perfection.

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 114


In Proposition 114, George Peters states:

“This Kingdom, being identified with the elect Jewish nation, its establishment at the restoration embraces the supremacy of that nation over the nations of the earth.”

In this proposition, Peters move the train of thought along to its next logical conclusion. If the coming Kingdom of God is intimately connected with the restored Jewish nation, the by very definition of this coming kingdom being the Kingdom of God, this denotes the reality that the nation God has chosen as a people for Himself will have supremacy over all the nations of the earth once this future kingdom is established.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 114 is the following:

“This is abundantly confirmed by the direct teaching of the prophets. Thus Micah 4:8, “And Thou, O tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion, the Kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem.” The context shows that this is spoken of the same Zion and Jerusalem that was ploughed and in ruins, which are to be restored and made glorious. The same idea pervades even other expressions contained in the chapter: “But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountains of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains and it shall be exalted above the hills,” etc. To “be established in the top of the mountains” and to be “exalted above the hills” denotes supremacy; for mountains and hills, being symbolic of kingdoms and nations, the meaning is, that the first position among the nations, an elevation above all others, is assigned to this “mountain of the house of the Lord.” That “the house of the Lord” is the Davidic house has frequently been proven, He having incorporated it in His theocratic rule, and claimed it in view of His Son and David’s Son, in one person, being destined to rule therein. What “the mountain” of this house is can be readily seen by what the Spirit says, Zech 8:3; and when God thus defined it, man can only accept of the definition.”

Peters notes an important and rather clear passage, that of Micah 4:8. The concept of mountains and hills in Scripture is a fascinating study. In the ANE, the mountains and high places were the abode of the gods. Thus, when a specific mountain or high place is mentioned in Scripture, something of both a physical and spiritual nature is in focus. This is often lost on far too many readers of Scripture. Thus, scriptures that speak of something being established in the top of the mountains are declaring that what is to be established has absolute supremacy, both physically and spiritually.

It has supremacy in the physical realm as this nation will literally be the focal point of the future Kingdom of God. It has supremacy in the spiritual realm because God, as ruler of this future nation, is THE God and supreme over all other gods. It is important to pay attention to such language as it speaks to this issue of the doctrine of the Kingdom and identifies the nation God has chosen above all others.

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 113


In Proposition 113, George Peters states:

“The connection of this Kingdom with Jewish restoration necessitates the realization of their predicted repentance and conversion.”

This is a simple yet important proposition. Restoration is intimately connected with a future repentance and conversion. One will not take place without the other. Moreover, this is an issue of national repentance and conversion. While individual repentance and conversion has, is, and will take place, what is being addressed in this proposition is something on a national and holistic scale.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 113 is the following:

“The restoration of the nation cannot, and will not, take place without a repentance; and therefore it becomes essential to notice some more particulars relating to it. It is no ordinary repentance, and not merely that of individuals, but extraordinary and national in its extent, Micah 7:15-20, etc. It is caused by the judgments of God, Mal. 3:2-4; Hos. 5:15; Is. 30:18-19, and the personal presence of the King, Micah 2:12-13; Ezek. 20:33-44; Zeph 3:15. It is done that God’s faithfulness may appear, Ezek. 36:22; Is. 43:25; Is. 44:22-26. It is bestowed in the land given to their fathers into which they are brought, Ezek. 36:24-35; Jer. 33:7-16; Jer. 32:37-44; Jer. 31, etc. The reign of the Messiah is intimately connected with it, as e.g. in Jer. 23:3-8; Ezek. 34:23-31, etc. The absence of such national repentance for the last eighteen hundred years is no proof that it never will be accomplished. On the other hand, it is decisive that it will yet come to pass, if we but consider that this very absence of repentance – excepting in individual cases – this “veil of unbelief covering them, is also predicted. Seeing the prophecy in the one case verified before our eyes, it is faithless to deny the other. Paul tell us (Rom. 11; 2 Cor. 3:16) that this “veil” shall finally be removed, corroborating the testimony of the prophets. There is a divine unity in all the writers on this point, worthy of a revelation from God; and it becomes distinctive just in proportion as a comparison of their utterances is instituted. So striking is this, that men of all classes, even the most hostile to our belief, fully admit it, however some may be inclined to spiritualize certain portions of it, as the Coming and reign of the Messiah. The repentance and restoration is so much the burden of prophecy, runs through and enters into the Divine Plan so thoroughly, that its almost universal admission is presented by a witness so impartial (owing to his opposition to our doctrine) that all will acknowledge its force. Dr. Whitby on Rom. 11, speaking of this repentance and restoration of the Jews emphatically says: “it hath been the constant doctrine of the Church of Christ by the Greek and Latin Fathers, and by all commentators I have met on this place.” But right there is an inconsistency in many modern writers, to which allusion has been made, and which deserves repeated notice. They acknowledge that the prophecies describe a literal repentance and restoration but refuse credence to the time, and manner and accompaniments of the same as also portrayed by the prophets. Why this change of time after, to one before the Advent; of this supernatural interposition into one of ordinary means; of this personal presence of David’s Son, and introducing a spiritual Coming in its place; of this transposition of a visible Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom into an invisible reign, etc.? What satisfactory reason can be assigned for introducing an entire new element of interpretation which emasculates some of the most precious of God’s promises to man? Where is the authority for this most arbitrary dealing with the Word? Are the rules for such a proceeding given authority by God or man; and if so, where found? Simple consistency, if nothing else, demands that if one portion of these prophecies is conceded to be literal (i.e. to mean what the laws of language present) then the other portion must be understood in like manner. For, having applied the literal interpretation, compatibility requires its continuance, unless God Himself, the only Being having authority to indicate a change, in express terms revokes it, or informs us that it is to be understood differently. Besides, it is this literal interpretation that becomes history, doctrine, evidence of inspiration, etc. Is it not time, in this matter, to discriminate between the Word and human opinions attached to it? Therefore, cleaving to the Word, as it reads, our argument holds that, having no authority to make any change, we must receive this repentance, restoration, and the reign and Kingdom identified with it, precisely on the same ground of interpretation. And, it will not answer for the believer in God’s Word, in the face of the Incarnation, etc., to reject any portion of these promises because he cannot tell how, if accepted as the Word plainly indicates, they can be fulfilled; for God, the All-sufficient, is abundantly able to take care of their fulfillment.”

I appreciate the tone and forcefulness of this observation. The questions Peters asks are vital not only for this topic, but for all of Scripture and how we develop and apply theology. When God outlines a clear and specific plan on action that will take place in a physical sense, to spiritualize the matter because of either errant theology or because we cannot comprehend how God will accomplish such a feat, does damage to Scripture. In essence, such an approach places biblical authority in the hands of man rather than God, with man manipulating the text in order to fit one’s theological persuasion. Outside of any biblical mandate for such an alteration of God’s plan or the biblical text, what has been presented by the OT prophets and in turn by the NT authors, namely that of Jewish restoration to the land concomitant with a national repentance and conversion must be averred as truth. The literal interpretation in this case, regardless of whether we can fully wrap out minds around how it will take place, is nevertheless the facts God has provided us in His word.

As Peters so wonderfully states, “God, the All-sufficient, is abundantly able to take care of their fulfillment.” This national conversion of the Jewish people can be stated to be a future event, one which God will in keeping with His covenant promises, make abundantly sure will take place.

Please follow and like us:

Michael Boling – Thoughts from the Theocratic Kingdom (Vol. 2): Proposition 112


In Proposition 112, George Peters states:

“The Kingdom, if established as predicted, demands the national restoration of the Jews in their own land.”

This proposition is a natural extension of Prop. 111, namely that if an earthly Kingdom is what is in view in keeping with God’s covenant promises, there must be a national restoration of Israel not collectively to just any place on earth, but a particular location – their homeland.

The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 112 is the following:

“The reader will consider how unnatural – even cruel – it would be, if the doctrine of a restoration is not to be received, to give so many predictions which in their plain grammatical sense teach a future glorious national restoration of the Jews to their once possessed land. Why thus excite the expectations and hopes of a multitude for many centuries of oppression and exile, if they are never to be realized? Would such a course of procedure be honorable even in man, knowing as he must the deception that would accrue from it? To trifle with the dearest, most heart-felt hopes of a nation by language pre-eminently calculated to excite the same, is not Divine, and we earnestly repudiate every theory which either directly or indirectly charges Holy Writ with such a node of procedure. No! God’s Word is the truth, and the grammatical sense – the sense which all men agree is the most legitimate in language – contains the plain truth, which God will fulfil at the appointed time.”

Peters’ observation makes perfect and clear sense. God repeatedly noted He would bring His people back. Back where one might ask. To the land of promise, the land of their forefathers, the land God promised and covenanted to His people. To make such repeated declarations rooted in a covenant promise and then to turn around and not keep that covenant promise would go against the very nature of God. Since God is not a liar, we can affirm just what Scripture declares, namely a restoration of the people of Israel to the land will be part and parcel to the establishment of the Kingdom. The two are, as we noted in the previous proposition/observation, intimately integrated.

Please follow and like us: