THE KINGDOM OF GOD by J. H. W.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 22, 1857

THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

By J. H. W.

Bro. Smith:—Some time since, in a letter to Bro. Sperry, I promised to consider the establishment of the kingdom of God. I now address this to you to explain my long silence. I was from home during the entire Summer, with the tent; and after leaving that I still had other unfinished writings on my hands, which occupied my immediate attention. Winter came on while I was wholly unprepared for it, and temporal concerns have necessarily engaged much of my time. Other thoughts are even now crowding upon my mind, and I would fain give utterance to the emotions of my soul, and warn the household of dangers with which they are now beset; but a sense of duty impels me to resume this subject. I shall briefly notice a few points.

The position taken by our opponents in regard to the smiting of the image is this: that the stone is the symbol of the kingdom, and not a symbol of Christ; therefore the kingdom must be set up before the nations are destroyed; but as a kingdom is composed of various parts, all have their relative places before the destruction takes place. The objection, in a word, amounts to this, that the kingdom smites, or breaks, the nations, or kingdoms, of the earth and therefore Christ does not dash the nations, as we claim; for that which is symbolized by the stone becomes great, and fills the whole earth, which declaration would be absurd if made of Christ.

This is doubtless correct so far as the application of the symbol is concerned; and they must err who say the stone is a symbol of Christ. But the conclusion claimed as above, does not by any means follow. They who would show themselves critics, should be careful lest they lay themselves open to criticism. As the dimensions of some parts of the kingdom will never be increased, so the declarations of Dan. ii, 34, 35, must be fulfilled by the other parts, as their objection would also show. One fact must have been perceived by every one who has studied the Bible on this subject: that in many scriptures, speaking of the kingdom, the whole is taken for a part; that is, the kingdom is mentioned, where only a certain part is intended. Now as it appears evident that all the declarations of Dan. ii, 34, 35, cannot refer to the kingdom in all its parts, I inquire, To what part will the smiting or breaking refer? Certainly to the king; for other scriptures ascribe this work to him, as Ps. ii, &c. The king, in many places, stands as the representative of the kingdom. Thus, to Nebuchadnezzar, it was said, "Thou art this head of gold." But these same objectors readily apply this to the empire of Babylon. I have heard some of them say in public, that Alexander conquered Persia, and again say that the Persian empire was overthrown by the Grecian. Which was right? Or was Persia twice conquered, once by the kingdom of Grecia, and once by Alexander? And once more, was the kingdom in all its parts relatively considered like ten virgins that went to meet the Bridegroom? Matt. xxv. If we apply a principle in Dan. ii, which we are obliged to apply in Matt. xxv, and other texts, or if Christ be allowed to occupy the same relation to the fifth kingdom which Nebuchadnezzar did to the first, all is clear and plain.

I have previously shown that the capital of the kingdom is in heaven, that the kingdom is given to Christ before his return, and that the saints are taken to heaven with the King to the capital, and of course to possess the kingdom. And it remains to be shown whether we violate any scripture principle, or destroy the force of any scripture expression, by teaching that the saints remain in heaven during the 1000 years of Rev. xx. I trust that it cannot only be shown that we do not, but also that the views held by our opponents contradict plain scripture facts, and necessarily tend to absurd conclusions.

With all their claims to clearness and consistency of views, I must say that, by all their speaking and writings, I am not yet able to see when the stone smites the image, according to their view, unless it is after the 1000 years of Rev. xx. D. P. Hall said in the Wisconsin tent in Sept. 1858, and was endorsed by J. M. Stephenson the same day, that God had mighty blessings in store for the nations of the earth; that soon the Devil would be bound, his deceptions cease, and the nations would then be saved as individuals now are. But I cannot see how the image can be smitten 1000 years before it is broken to pieces, nor can it be broken to pieces and no place found for it, while yet the parts of which it is composed are exalted to higher privileges than they enjoy at the present. I can come to but one conclusion on their hypothesis; that is, that the image will be smitten and broken and removed at least 1000 years after the second advent. And if so, how is it possible for Dan. vii, 27, to be fulfilled until the close of the 1000 years? It reads, "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." And if that be their view, I would say that it is exactly what we have claimed, and for claiming which we have been held up to ridicule by our opponents. But their views tend undeniably to the same point, while ours are free in other respects from the absurdities which attach to theirs. Yet if they deny this point, and affirm that the kingdom and dominion and greatness thereof under the whole heaven be given to the saints at the commencement of the 1000 years, they then stand contradicting the fact stated in Dan. ii, 44, "The kingdom shall not be left to other people;" for according to Rev. xx, 8, 9, the Devil and his armies in the four quarters of the earth, go up "on the breadth of the earth," and surround the saints in the beloved city. Now, one of two things is evident: Either the saints have not possessed the dominion 1000 years over all the earth, at the time spoken of in Rev. xx, 8, 9, or if they have, it has been wrested from them at the end of the time, and it is for "a little season" "left to other people."

I would raise the serious inquiry, if they are warranted in their assumptions, What has been accomplished by Christ and his saints during the 1000 years? Messrs. Marsh, Stephenson, &c., say that in that time this rebellious world is brought back to allegiance to God; which is contrary to very plain scripture facts, as set forth in my remarks on 1 Cor. xv, 23-25, and also tends to the conclusion that what Christ and the multitude of the redeemed have accomplished in 1000 years, is overthrown by Satan in a little season; and the "rebellious province," after having been brought back to allegiance to the great Creator, and the work of Christ and his saints in its behalf is finished, the full time of their labor expired, is soon again engaged in a most determined revolt; and opposition to its rightful ruler is greater and more violent than at any other period in its history. Then if they still say, as they have often asserted, that Christ reigns on the throne of David till he has subdued the earth, and at the end of 1000 years yields it up in a peaceful state to the Father, we have the fact presented that the work of Christ has not accomplished the desired end; for there is an immediate revolt succeeding. Hence, the Son utterly fails in his work, and never returns a loyal province to the Father, or else he must commence again and subdue it a second time. Thus the theory not only contradicts the great leading truths of the law and the gospel, but also plain facts set forth in the prophecies. The more I look at the Age to Come, the more am I surprised that men of common reasoning powers should have ever embraced anything so full of contradictions and absurdities.

On the contrary, the view we hold is in perfect harmony with the Scriptures. The nations are given by the Father to the Son before his advent—the Father subdues them or puts them under Christ's foot. They are cut off from the earth by the plagues, and in the great battle. The Saviour takes them to heaven, according to his unfailing promise. The antitypical scapegoat is left to roam in a land uninhabited; the saints to judge the wicked world during the 1000 years. At the termination of that period the Saviour prepares a location for his capital—the city and the holy hill. The wicked dead are raised, and their old leader marshals them once more in opposition to the saints. That position they had always occupied; they were filled with madness and blind fury when the judgment of God cut short their mortal career. But fire from God devours them, melts the earth, consumes the works of guilty, fallen man, the curse removes, and all things new and glorious are presented to the delighted saints of God, who, after the manner of the heavenly host at creation, sing together, and shout for joy. The triumph of the saints is full and complete. The work of Messiah needs not to be repeated in order to success, neither does the enemy again mar the harmony of that lovely scene. We contemplate these things with delight, but words cannot express their glories. Let us so live that we may enjoy them.

With a few further remarks to our friends who may be troubled with this theory, I shall leave the subject.