I am aware that a question like this may occur to some one: If that kingdom was established in rebellion against God, how is it that Jehovah promised the throne of David to the Christ? But if we were unable to give a satisfactory answer to that question, it would not change what the Lord says as to the spirit that brought that kingdom into existence. But the question presents no real difficulty. Before the people called for a king so as to be like the nations, Jehovah was their king; he alone occupied the throne. Of course you understand that “throne” means authority to rule, rulership, kingly authority. When Saul, David, or Solomon ruled over God’s people, he occupied the throne of Jehovah. It was called David’s throne because he occupied it, and not because it was his by right. If people could ever get it settled in their minds that David really sat on Jehovah’s throne, it would save them from some confusion. But these two quotations show that the throne of David and the throne of Jehovah are the same: “And Solomon sat upon the throne of David his father.” (1 Kings 2:12.) “Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah as king instead of David his father.” (1 Chron. 29:23.) It is plain that Jehovah’s throne was called David’s because he occupied it. He who rules over God’s people occupies the same throne that David occupied. No one will deny that Jesus now rules over God’s people or, if you like the expression better, rules in the hearts of God’s people. To acknowledge that he does so rule is to acknowledge that he sits on the throne on which David sat. This truth has nothing to do with the fact that the people of Israel sinned in wanting a king so as to be like the nations around them. “I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath.” (Hos. 13:11.) NEITHER—NOR In the May issue of Word and Work, Stanford Chambers writes under the above caption as follows: One was recently heard to say publicly: “I am neither a premillennialist nor a postmillennialist.” I think I saw the same from the pen of some writer. It is difficult to see how one can avoid being one or the other. A man might say: “I am neither an immersionist nor a nonimmersionist.” How could that be, unless he disregards baptism entirely? Just so in regard to the return of our Lord; it is either before the millennium, that is, premillennial, or it is after it, that is, postmillennial. Whoever disavows the event of his coming until the close of the millennium, whoever puts the millennium anywhere preceding the coming, is a postmillennialist, whatever he disavows or denies. Just because the Lord Jesus may come at any time, and because it is an event he has commanded us to watch for and to pray about, I dare not put a thousand years between me and the fulfillment. Hence, I am a premillennial, and can no more help it than I can help being an immersionist.