Your ShelfYour Projects

NOTES OF THE DISCUSSION IN KANSAS.—THE KINGDOM

5%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 8, 1877

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 49, No. 10.

Read the full edition

NOTES OF THE DISCUSSION IN KANSAS.—THE KINGDOM.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

(Concluded.)
10. Of course my opponent had to argue that Christ was now sitting upon the throne of David, was now in actual possession of that kingdom, than which nothing could be more absurd and contradictory to the Scripture. Two points alone upset his entire theory. I pressed them upon him in every speech, and yet he never noticed them in any way, shape, or manner. I would stop in my speech, turn to him, and appeal to him to put these points down in his notes, and then be sure not to forget them; but in his next speech he was entirely silent about them. Then I would repeat them again, and again he would fail to mention them. Everybody saw that it was because he could not answer them.
The first point was this: Gabriel says Jesus shall reign over the house of Jacob forever. Is the house of Jacob the church of Christ? On the other questions he had taken such positions that now he dare not affirm that the house of Jacob was the Christian church. Secondly, I requested him to show how Christ was now sitting on the throne of David. If he could not show this, then of course he lost his question. The first time I asked him this question, he thought he had an answer ready, and so very triumphantly referred to 1 Chron. 29:23: “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king, instead of David his father.” Notice the point: The angel said that Jesus should sit on the throne of David his Father; but where is Jesus now? In Heaven. On what throne is he sitting? On the throne of the eternal God in Heaven. But is that the throne of David? This my opponent attempted to prove by the above scripture.
But what does it say? It simply states that the throne of David on which Solomon sat was the throne of the Lord. Very true, and so it was; for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. All kingdoms are his. But how does this prove that the throne of the great God in Heaven, on which Christ is now sitting, is the throne of David? The reader will see that it does not prove it at all. Because the throne of David on earth belonged to the Lord, my opponent had to argue that therefore the throne of the eternal God in Heaven also belongs to David. What an absurdity! He never seemed to have thought of this difficulty. After I showed him his failure, he never attempted to refer to it again, though I pressed it upon him in every conceivable manner.
Now that the throne of David upon which Christ is to sit is not the throne of God in Heaven is very plainly shown from the following facts: (1) David once had a throne on earth, while, at the same time, the throne of God was in Heaven. (2) David did reign over the twelve tribes on this earth. (3) That throne was cast down. Ps. 89:44. (4) God promised that this throne of David should be rebuilt. Amos 9:11. (5) God promised that it should be eternal. Ps. 89:19-34. (6) God promised that Christ in his flesh should sit upon this throne. Acts 2:29, 30. But his present kingdom is only a spiritual kingdom. (7) When Christ sits upon the throne of David, he will reign over the house of Jacob. Luke 1:33. But he is not reigning over the house of Jacob now. (8) Then the twelve apostles will sit on twelve thrones reigning with him. Matt. 19:28. But they are not reigning now.
(9) His reign will be eternal. Luke 1:33; Isa. 9:7. Notice, not only the kingdom of Christ is to be eternal, but there is to be no end to his reign. Here is a square contradiction to the Campbellite position. They say that the reign of Christ ends when he comes and delivers up the kingdom to his Father. Thus their theory says, that of his reign there shall be an end, while Gabriel says, it shall have no end. (10) His kingdom will have no end. Luke 1:33; Rev. 11:15. But if he gives up the kingdom to his Father, then it must have an end. (11) But David’s throne was never in Heaven. Acts 2:39. This alone shows that the throne of God in Heaven is not David’s throne. (12) God’s throne in Heaven upon which Christ now sits was never David’s throne. David never sat upon it, never had it in any conceivable sense. Hence this is not the throne to which the promise relates. The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. How can a man be so blind as to say that this means the throne of God in Heaven?
(13) David’s throne was cast down. Ps. 89:48. But God’s throne was never cast down. This shows that they are not the same. (14) The throne which Christ is to have was to be set up in the days of certain kings. Dan. 2:44. Eld. Shick claimed that this took place on the day of Pentecost. Very well; we ask, then, was the throne of God set up on the day of Pentecost? Had it never been set up before? or had it been thrown down? or was it now rebuilt? How absurd! (15) David was not a priest and king as Christ now is. Heb. 6:20; 7:1. (16) My opponent claimed that the church of Christ was the kingdom of God, which is certainly true, if he meant by that kingdom the kingdom of grace. But David never ruled over the church, was not the head of the church. The high priest was the head of that.
(17) God’s kingdom was a kingdom which was to be restored. Acts 1:6. (18) Christ’s throne will remain in the new earth eternally; Rev. 22:5; while the kingdom which he now has will be given up to the Father at the second advent. (19) The church will end, and the kingdom of grace will end. 1 Cor. 15:23-28. (20) David’s throne was not set up at Pentecost. (21) Neither was the church first set up there, because we distinctly read that on that day about three thousand souls were added to the church. Then the church existed before that time. (22) All this talk about a kingdom’s being set up on the day of Pentecost is made up out of pure imagination. The record does not say one word about it.
11. The eternal kingdom is not set up, given to Christ, till the setting of the Judgment, and the end of all earthly kingdoms. Dan. 2:31-35, 44; 7:10-14, 26, 27; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15-18; Matt. 25:31, 32.
12. It was not to be set up till after Rome was divided into ten parts. Dan. 2:31-44.
13. It was not to be set up till after the rise and fall of the papacy. Dan. 7:8-14, 23-27. But the papacy did not rise for over five hundred years after Christ, and is in existence yet; hence the kingdom of Christ is future.
14. As soon as the kingdom of Christ is set up, the wicked and all earthly kingdoms are utterly destroyed. Ps. 2:7-9; Dan. 2:44; Rev. 11:15-18; 19:11-21; Luke 19:11-15, 27. But none of this has been done yet; hence the kingdom of Christ is in the future.
15. The kingdom which Christ now has, and the throne upon which he is sitting are his Father’s, and are to be delivered up, and to end. 1 Cor. 15:23-28.
16. But the one promised to Christ is to be forever; Dan. 2:44; everlasting; Dan. 7:14; not to pass away; Dan. 7:14; to endure as the days of heaven, and the sun and moon; Ps. 89; to exist in the new earth; Rev. 21:1; 22:3-5; and to have no end, Luke 1:31-34.
17. It was prepared from the foundation of the world; Matt. 25:34; Acts 3:19-21; hence it cannot be a Christian church first organized on the day of Pentecost.
18. Long after the day of Pentecost, the glorious kingdom of Christ was still a subject of hope and promise. Matt. 6:10; James 2:5; 2 Pet. 1:10, 11.
19. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 15:50. But flesh and blood are baptized into the kingdom of God, according to the teachings of the Disciple Church.
20. All these facts show that the kingdom of God referred to in Dan. 2:44, and Luke 1:31-34, is not the church of Christ, but is the kingdom yet in the future.
Many interesting points remain in the debate upon this question, which I have not time to notice. The setting up of the kingdom on the day of Pentecost is one of the main pillars in the Disciple faith. When it falls, the main prop goes from under that system; and yet with our position on the kingdom question, they cannot meet us at all. Eld. Shick made a worse failure upon this question than upon any other we discussed. He got himself into several most absurd and amusing dilemmas. Each turn he made, he only got deeper into the mire. He felt this very sensibly, and so did his friends. Thus closed our debate. D. M. CANRIGHT.