The Kingdom of God by Uriah Smith

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 8, 1874

The Kingdom of God.

By Uriah Smith

ONE of our religious exchanges is exercised on the subject of the kingdom of God. We are glad of this; for the agitation of the question, however unworthily it may be handled, may be overruled for good. So far as it has progressed, however, we are sorry to say we think its utterances sadly open to criticism.

The writer says: “It is a mistake that affirms that ‘Christ is coming to set up his kingdom.’” This is true; but the writer supposed he was stating a proposition of ours that needed to be refuted; which is not the case. One of our most common experiences is to meet those who, from an imperfect acquaintance with our belief, manufacture positions for us. If they would first become intelligent in regard to our faith, the investigation of these subjects with them would be more pleasant, and perchance more profitable. Christ does not come to set up his kingdom. He receives it before he comes, according to the parable of the nobleman, Luke 19:11, 12, according to Dan. 7:13, 14, and Matt. 25:31, which declares that when the Son of man comes, he comes in his kingdom, it having been already established.

But the writer means, as his article subsequently reveals, that there is no kingdom of Christ to be set up in the future; and with this we take issue. He claims that the kingdom of Christ has already been established, and appeals to Dan. 2 for proof. Does he know that in going to that chapter he enters a citadel every gun of which is pointed against himself? The four kingdoms represented by the great image he admits to be Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. These are the kingdoms, he says, in the days of which the God of Heaven was to set up his kingdom. But was it in the days of Babylon that God’s kingdom was set up? No. In the days of Persia? No. In the days of Grecia? No. In the days of Rome? Yes, says our author, at the first advent of Christ. Then it was in the days of the last kingdom, not in the days of these kingdoms, plural; and it should have read, “In the days of this last king,” not as it does, “In the days of these kings.”

Our writer is “deeply impressed that on this subject important facts have been overlooked, and, as a consequence, fundamental mistakes have been made.” So we think. And we marvel that any one should overlook so important a fact as this, that the kings, or kingdoms, in the days of which the God of Heaven sets up his kingdom, must be kingdoms existing contemporaneously. It is doing violence to the language to apply it to kingdoms that follow each other consecutively, only one existing at a time. On philological grounds alone, therefore, the interpretation of this language given by our friend is an utter impossibility.

Later developments in the Roman Empire, its division into ten kingdoms, as represented by the ten toes, supplied the conditions to which the language can apply. Here we have a plurality of kingdoms, all arising within the space of about a century and a quarter, which under different names have continued till the present, and are still in existence, in the days of which the God of Heaven is to set up his kingdom.

But our friend objects to this exposition, and says:—

“Where did this thought come from? Certainly not from Daniel. He does not say that the image had ten toes. He says nothing of the number of toes more or less.”

Alas! is it necessary that a person tell this writer how many toes a man has, before he can know? How many toes does a man usually have? Or does he think that the descendants of the six-toed Philistine, predominate? But hold! According to the same principle of reasoning, we don’t know how many legs or arms the image had. Daniel does not say it had two. And who knows but that it had as many as old Briareus? and had four legs, and pranced around before Nebuchadnezzar like a wild centaur?

We know not how it may look to others, but it seems to us that what our friend says about the toes of the image is a manifest lack of candor, which cannot be accidental, and is therefore all the more deplorable.

He attempts an argument on the word “divided,” which is more worthy of notice. The prophet says plainly, the kingdom shall be divided. This, says our friend, is not such a division as to create other kingdoms, for it still leaves the kingdom a unit: inasmuch as the prophet continues. “In it shall be of the strength of iron,” &c. Well, suppose the prophet had said, In them shall be of the strength of iron,” &c. It is at once evident, that it was not his purpose to follow out the history or condition of these several divisions, but to show the effect of this division upon the kingdom as a whole. After its division it was weakened, and the prophet speaks of the kingdom in its divided state. He says, “They shall not cleave one to another;” that is, these separate members of the kingdom, these broken fragments, could not again be consolidated together into one unbroken whole. But in the days of these kings the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom.

So far as our present argument is concerned, however, we are not particular to press this point. On his own interpretation the language is equally against the theory he advances. He admits that the division was national weakness. This division occurred before the God of Heaven set up his kingdom; and that kingdom was set up, it is claimed, at the first advent of Christ. What was the condition of the Roman Empire at that time? Christ was born when the temple of Janus was for the third time closed, showing that no arm was raised in rebellion in any province of all the world that lay in subjection at the feet of imperial Rome. Augustus Cæsar sent out a decree that all the world should be taxed. Luke 2:1. This was the golden age of Roman history. Rome then stood at the very pinnacle of her strength and greatness. And in this time, says our friend, God’s kingdom was set up. But the prophecy says that when God’s kingdom is set up, this earthly power is divided, partly broken, weakened as with clay, disintegrated. Rome at this time was just the opposite of this. Our friend’s theory is as far from the truth as can well be. This broken state of the Roman Empire cannot be found till centuries after the Christian Era was ushered in.

But our friend believes in time. He says, “There was a time appointed then for the kingdom to be set up;” and he thinks Christ declared this time fulfilled when he commenced his ministry. Mark 1:15. But Christ did not say, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is now set up.” No, no. He only said, “The kingdom of God is at hand.” The time to which he referred therefore did not bring us to the kingdom of God. He simply referred to that period which was given to reach to his manifestation as the Messiah. Dan. 9:25.

There was no kingdom set up in the days of Christ. There are only two objects to which the expressions, “kingdom of God,” “kingdom of Heaven,” &c., are applied. One is, the means of grace set in operation in this world for the salvation of men; and the other is, the future results of this work, when the ransomed hosts are established in glory. But the first we find in operation away back even at the gate of our lost paradise, and the second is still future, or the Lord taught his disciples a useless prayer, when he directed them, through all time, to raise to Heaven the petition, “Thy kingdom come.” All that took place in the days of Christ was a new development in the great plan of salvation, and the more glorious manifestations accompanying Christ’s personal presence.

But if God’s kingdom was set up at the first advent of Christ, if that was the smiting of the image on the feet by the stone cut out of the mountain without hand, when were these kingdoms dashed to pieces as predicted? Dan. 2:35.

This the gospel has not done. It is not its nature or its work to subvert and overturn earthly governments, and establish itself on their ruins. This the kingdom of God will do under the sounding of the seventh trumpet. Rev. 11:15; Ps. 2:9; 110:1.

Scripture should interpret scripture. The most judicious commentators acknowledge the validity and importance of this rule. In connection with Dan. 2, we should therefore take Dan. 7, as that chapter covers the same ground. No one can deny that the beasts of Dan. 7 symbolize the same as the different parts of the image, of chapter 2. The fourth beast represents the fourth or Roman kingdom. But this beast has ten horns which are expressly said to be ten kingdoms which should arise out of that empire. There is no chance to dodge or quibble here. Another little horn arises which is a fit and acknowledged symbol of the papacy. After its presumptuous act of thinking to change God’s law and cruelly wearing out the saints of the Most High, this power is destroyed—destroyed, Paul says, by the spirit of Christ’s mouth, and the brightness of his coming. 2 Thess. 2:8. And after this Daniel says (7:27), “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”

Here again the kingdom of the Most High is brought to view. This is the same as the kingdom of God in Daniel 2. Here is a nail in a sure place, a link from the armory of Heaven that cannot be broken. God does not have one kingdom in Dan. 2, and another in Dan. 7. We repeat it, they are the same. But chapter 7 plainly shows that this kingdom does not succeed to the fourth or Roman kingdom till after the development of the ten horns, or the division of the Roman Empire into ten parts, and the rise, rule, and ruin, of the papal power.

This kingdom has not been set up in the past. It is still future. The Lord’s prayer, “Thy kingdom come,” is still in order. When the Lord ceases his work as priest, he takes the kingdom, and appears with a title inscribed upon his royal apparel, which shall strike dismay to all his foes, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Rev. 19:16. For the great developments that were to take place in the days of Christ, the people were exhorted to prepare; and we believe the language for the present time is, Repent ye, and believe the gospel; for the kingdom of God (not in its incipient workings, nor its intermediate developments, as a saving plan, but in its results as a completed redemption) is now nigh at hand.

U. S.