Discussion at Lancaster on the Kingdom of Christ
By R. F. Cottrell
Discussion at Lancaster, N. Y. No. 2.
THE proposition on the question of the kingdom was this: “Christ has a kingdom now, and that kingdom is his church.” Eld. Burns affirmed, Bro. Reynolds denied. It was admitted on our part that Christ now reigns with the Father on his throne, and that this is the kingdom which “he shall have delivered up,” when he comes to take his own everlasting kingdom. 1 Cor. 15:24. Eld. Burns made the absurd claim that Christ’s kingdom, of which it is said, “there shall be no END,” (Luke 1:33; Dan. 2:44), was the one to be delivered up. It was on the second part of the compound proposition, that is, that the kingdom of Christ and his church are identical, that the issue was taken. In proof of their identity, Eld. Burns’ text upon which he relied most was Matt. 16:18, 19: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” The Elder affirmed with great emphasis that that which is called the church in verse 18, is called the kingdom of Heaven in verse 19. In reply it was shown that the Greek, ekklesia, church or assembly, found 115 times in the New Testament, and basileia kingdom, found 160 times never are used interchangeably; that ekklesia, (from ekkaleo, to convoke,) is defined, “any public assembly, a congregation; a Christian assembly, a church;” basileia is defined, [“a kingdom, realm, i. e. the region of country governed by a king; kingly power, authority, dominion reign; royal dignity, the title and honor of king;” &c. It would seem that the kingdom of Heaven, in the text was not the church upon the earth, because earth and Heaven are put in contrast, as two distinct places; and the promise is that what Peter should bind on earth should be bound in Heaven. This does not sound much like the assertion, that Peter used the keys to unlock the kingdom of Heaven, which is the church on earth; it seems rather that Peter’s work on earth, directed by the Spirit of God, would be ratified in Heaven. And it was shown from Matt. 18:18, that this work of binding and loosing pertained to the church in general, as well as to Peter. “Whatsoever YE shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven.” Eld. Burns claimed that the promise to the apostles, that in the regeneration, or at the renovation, they shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, (Matt. 19:28), was fulfilled on the day of pentecost; that then the apostles sat on the twelve thrones “giving laws to the twelve tribes.” He said that the kingdom of Heaven was not set up during the life time of Jesus Christ, but that it must have been set up during the life of Peter, as he was to unlock the church. To show the fallacy of this, Luke 16:16 was quoted: “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Christ also said to the scribes and Pharisees, “Ye shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” These texts prove that men could enter the kingdom of Heaven in a certain sense, that is, become heirs of that kingdom, before the memorable day of Pentecost. And it was shown that the Christian church also received the kingdom by faith, being the heirs of that which is promised to be given hereafter. Says James, “Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and HEIRS of the kingdom which he hath PROMISED to them that love him.” Jas. 2:5. Other texts were quoted having the same import. To prove that Christ’s kingdom is already established, the Elder emphasized the tense of the verb in those texts which assert that the Father hath put all things under Christ. Said he, It says hath put, not will put. In reply to this it was shown that Christ is to sit where he now is, at his Father’s right hand, UNTIL his enemies should be put under him. Ps. 110:9; Acts 2:34, 35; 1 Cor. 15:25. And that when all were put under him, the last enemy, death, would be destroyed by the resurrection. 1 Cor. 15:26, 27. And though the apostles quote the original prediction, Ps. 110:1, in the perfect tense yet Heb. 2:8 proves that Paul did not preach that it had been fulfilled, but the contrary. He says, “For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see NOT YET all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” &c. Where is he crowned with glory and honor? At his Father’s right hand. He is already set down with his Father in his throne. Rev. 3:21. While there he is expecting his own throne and dominion, when all will be put under him. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth EXPECTING TILL his enemies be made his footstool.” Heb. 10:12, 13. On Dan. 2:44, it was claimed by Eld. Burns that “these kings” refer to the four successive kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. On the other hand my brother held that it would not be very luminous to assert that the God of Heaven would set up a kingdom in the days of four kingdoms, only one of which was to exist at a time. It might then be set in the time of the kingdom of Babylon. But after the fourth kingdom, the Roman, was divided, as predicted in the prophecy, there would be contemporaneous kingdoms, in the days of which the kingdom of God would be set up. Here Eld. Burns called for a grammatical umpire to decide what is the grammatical antecedent of “these kings.” Three were appointed, of whom I was one. We did not fully agree at the moment. One of my colleagues, a teacher in a high school, said he would like to have time. The next morning I told them I was ready to report my opinion. The teacher was not present. I gave my decision as follows: - “These kings” being in the plural number, there is no antecedent noun in the whole interpretation to which it can possibly refer as its antecedent. The kings to which it refers must be inferred from the description given.
- These refers to the last mentioned, while those refers to the former or first mentioned. Therefore, if there are two classes of kings described, these must refer to the last described.
- There is an antecedent pronoun, “they” to which “these kings” may possibly refer. It is first introduced as follows: “They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another.” We are left to infer the antecedent of they from the description preceding.
My other colleague, a Presbyterian minister, instead of giving his opinion as a grammatical umpire, gave, in a spirited speech, his theological opinion that the phrase refers to the four kingdoms, referring to Clarke, Barnes, &c., to sustain him. It was anticipated that to prove that the kingdom was set up on the day of Pentecost, a strong argument would be made by Eld. Burns on the fact that Jesus sent out his disciples to preach that the kingdom of Heaven was at hand. Therefore Bro. R. took up this matter. The gospel narratives first prove that Jesus was the son of David, the rightful heir to his father’s throne; that he was born of a virgin, according to prophecy, and in Bethlehem where David dwelt. It was understood at his birth that he was born king of the Jews; and an attempt was made by Herod to slay the infant king. John the Baptist preached that the kingdom of Heaven was at hand. Jesus preached the same; and he sent out the twelve and the seventy to preach the same, confining their mission to the house of Israel, and telling them that they would not be able to go over all their cities ere the Son of Man should come. At length, when the Jews were assembled at Jerusalem on occasion of one of their great feasts, Jesus, attended by a great retinue, entered Jerusalem according to Zechariah, “Behold, thy KING cometh unto thee;” while the multitude cry, Hosanna to the Son of David, saying, “Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Being rejected by the chief rulers, he gave the parables of the householder and his vineyard, and the marriage of the king’s son, marriage being a figure of the coronation of the king, and reception and inauguration of the kingdom, then told them plainly that the kingdom was taken from them and given to such as should bring forth the fruits of it. From this point of time there is no more preaching of the kingdom of Heaven at hand. He had come to his own, but his own received him not. He is accused of making himself a king, and thus speaking against Cæsar. Said they, “We have no king but Cæsar.” Pilate asks him, “Art thou the king of the Jews?” The reply, “Thou sayest it,” admits it fully. But said he, “My kingdom is not of this world,” implying that it will be established in the future world. “But now [now, since I am rejected] my kingdom is not from hence,” That is, it is not from this time forward. The marriage does not take place till all the guests have accepted the invitation; and the guests are examined, before they are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. The net of the kingdom gathers a multitude of fishes, bad and good. Then they are sorted and the bad thrown away. “Who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.” The advent messages of Rev. 14:6–12, proclaim the gospel of the everlasting kingdom; and it is now at hand, because “The hour of his judgment is come.” After these messages have done their work, Jesus descends from Heaven, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Rev. 14:14; 19:11–16. I close by giving in form an argument used. - Christ’s kingdom is not of this present world.
- But his church is a real institution in the present world.
- Therefore the church and the kingdom are not identical. The true believers are heirs of the promised kingdom.