The Kingdom of Christ.—No. 2.
By John Harvey Waggoner
The second number of Mr. Treat’s articles would have been noticed before, but the Record containing it was not received at the Review Office, and it had to be procured. In this he assumes that “Adventism contravenes” the entire New Testament in regard to the establishment and history of the kingdom of Christ. He quotes 1 Cor. 15: 23–28, calling it a historic fact, which he says we seek to evade. They who are entirely ignorant of our views, may be made to believe that we seek to evade the testimony of this text; no others can be. I will notice his reasoning and its consequences. He affirms that our view of this passage, namely, that it is “the kingdom of grace” which is to be “delivered up,” cannot be true, because “after the coming of Christ there will be no longer a kingdom of grace.” Even so; but this is fatal to his theory. When Christ comes, “he shall have delivered up the kingdom,” which is to say that before Christ comes he leaves the throne of the Father, where he now sits as mediator, or priest after the order of Melchisedec, and the offer of grace is withdrawn. Of this throne, Mr. Treat again says: “The throne which Christ to-day occupies, is that throne whose foundations were laid in uncreated light.” This being so, it follows that those scriptures which speak of a kingdom as being “overturned,” “set up,” and “restored,” cannot refer to that throne and rule; and also, that when Christ shall leave that throne, as Mr. Treat admits he will, he will then deliver up that kingdom, and the Father alone will thenceforth occupy the throne of original and eternal power and glory, which is now occupied jointly by the Father and Son. And this will exactly fulfill 1 Cor. 15: 23–28. His next statement in this connection is more unhappy. He says: “There is no intimation in this, nor any other passage of Scripture, that Christ will receive a second kingdom after he has delivered up all power in Heaven and in earth.” Let us see. In Ps. 110: 1, the Father says to the Son, “Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” He is sitting there at the present time, and his enemies are not yet made his footstool. The apostle speaks of his being exalted to the right hand of God, and “from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.” Heb. 10: 13. Mr. Treat says he received “all power” when he was raised from the dead. A comparison of the scriptures here quoted shows that this “all power” is of a special kind, as related to the special work of the gospel—of granting repentance and the remission of sins; and that there is another form of power which he is expecting to receive when he leaves his Father’s right hand, as priest. There is no remission of sin—no priestly work, connected with the authority which he then receives over his enemies. On any other view than that held by “Adventists,” it is not possible that “the kingdoms of this world” should become the kingdoms of Christ under the seventh trumpet. Rev. 11: 15. For how can he have “all power,” in an unlimited or unrestricted sense, as Eld. Treat teaches, and still be expecting till the Father subjects his enemies unto him? And what reason is there in the assertion that he will possess “all power” in such unlimited sense, until “all things” are “put under him”? The next point I notice is most decisive. Mr. Treat confesses that Christ’s present reign will “end” at his second coming. But I have before quoted the scriptures which speak of Christ’s receiving a kingdom in which his reign has “no end.” Are these reigns one and the same? The Scriptures speak of Christ’s own throne, and that of his Father. Mr. Treat says there is and will be but one. The Scriptures say that Christ’s present reign on his Father’s throne will end. Mr. Treat admits that. The Scriptures say that Christ will receive the throne of his father David (not that “whose foundations were laid in uncreated light”), upon which he will reign forever; his dominion will not pass away; and the saints will with him inherit this everlasting kingdom “forever, even forever and ever.” And so Adventists hold. But here is Mr. Treat’s dilemma. He denies that there are two thrones, and two kingdoms. He denies that Christ receives another dominion when he leaves the throne of his Father in Heaven. Of course, he denies all those scriptures which speak of the “everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” and of his unending reign. It is easy to see that the Discipleism of Mr. Treat “contravenes” the Bible doctrine of the kingdom, and that it ignores the presence and authority of Jehovah, the Father, in the gospel. “The gospel of Christ” cannot, with them, be also “the gospel of God.” Mr. T. speaks as follows:— “The Son delivers up the kingdom, and becomes ‘subject.’ Which means that he who was the obedient agent by whom God made the worlds; by whom and for whom all things were made that were created, and without whom nothing was made that exists; shall again become submissive to the supreme will of God.”
If Mr. Treat does not hold that the Son is not now submissive to the will of the Father, I would be pleased to have an explanation of the above. The reader will remember the quotation I before made from Mr. Treat, that “The law was abolished that our allegiance might be transferred from God to Christ.” And again, in this article, he speaks of “the precise date at which” Christ is to become “submissive to the supreme will of the Father.” All Bible readers (except Disciples) accept the union of the Father and Son in the work of redemption; that the Son now acts as “mediator between God and man.” Of course, he who occupies a throne cannot be called a “subject” of that throne, though he may be carrying out strictly the will of Him who has called him to its joint occupancy. But when Christ leaves that throne—when he delivers up that kingdom—he will of course become “subject” to that throne, and receive a kingdom and dominion subordinate to that, which will be without end. Christ is not now occupying “the throne of his father David,” but that of his Father, God. David’s kingdom and throne were subverted, and overturned, and needed to be “set up,” or restored; but not so the throne of God. Mr. Treat’s Disciple theory is irreconcilably opposed to the Bible. His next point is that Adventists dishonor Christ by limiting his reign to this earth, where he has all power in Heaven and earth. But Mr. Treat well knows that we accord to the Saviour “all power in Heaven and earth,” while he is on the throne of his Father in Heaven. Here we are not in fault; indeed, there is no great disagreement between us as to the extent of his present reign. His next or future reign will be limited. But if we dishonor Christ by giving him only a limited dominion after he leaves the throne of his Father, what shall be thought of Eld. Treat, who gives him none at all? We hold, as the Scriptures largely testify, that Christ will “reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” But Eld. Treat says, “Here we have the precise date at which the reign of Christ is to end.” His description of Christ’s “kingdom whose limits are bounded only by the illimitable,” applies to the present, which we agree must end. But the future reign of Christ, which is “bounded only by” eternity, he ignores entirely. And the “irreconcilable difficulty” of which he speaks, is all on the side of Discipleism—not of Adventism. Having placed our views before the reader, and in contrast with those of Eld. Treat, we are prepared to appreciate the following statement of his:— “I charge Adventism with flatly contradicting this important passage in all of its specifications. Just where the apostle says the ‘Son becomes subject,’ they say, ‘Not so; you are mistaken, Paul!’ The Son does not become subject; nor does God become all in all. On the contrary, at that time the Son receives authority, and ascends his throne to reign a thousand years, or ‘to all eternity,’ just as the whim of a soul-sleeper prefers.”
The reader is invited to judge which of us contradicts the Scriptures, on this subject. I might think that ignorance of our faith prompted the above misrepresentation, had I not heard the truth fully set forth before Eld. Treat, in173his debate with Bro. Lane, on the kingdom. Indeed, he has betrayed himself in this quotation, for he makes Adventists to say Christ receives his throne, and all know that we believe that he receives it as a gift from the Father, and that it is not the eternal and universal throne which he now occupies; of course it is subordinate to that, and so fulfills the prediction of 1 Cor. 15: 23–28. I care nothing for the epithet of “soul-sleeper;” it may even appear excusable on his part to use it, for all who are acquainted with his locality, know that he passes current for “a Campbellite” among all the neighboring denominations, and he is only treating us as all his neighbors treat him. Possibly he enjoys it.