THE SETTING UP OF GOD'S EVERLASTING KINGDOM

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 26, 1860

THE SETTING UP OF GOD'S EVERLASTING KINGDOM.

There is perhaps no subject on which more misapprehension exists than on the establishment of the kingdom of God. On this point we have been often assailed, and charged with holding very absurd views in respect to it. But wherein the absurdity consists it is to be presumed our opponents have no very definite idea, as they have hitherto failed to point it out in their writings on the subject. It is but fair that we consider their view briefly, that the reader may contrast the two, and so judge between them.

According to their view, as we gather it from the most prominent authorities, the Saviour first comes, and then sets up his kingdom in Canaan or Palestine, and when established, the kingdom, by agencies not defined, destroys all the enemies of Christ (see Age to Come, p. 90): all his adherents having been immortalized. And then those that are left, belonging to neither of these classes—not friends nor enemies—not justified by the gospel nor condemned by the law (too good to be destroyed and too bad to be saved), are put on a new probation and again populate the earth. To the Jews a national pre-eminence is given (the middle wall is re-built), the apostles rule over them, and all the saints immortalized act as priests, to offer sacrifices (types of Christ's sacrifice in the past) for the sins of the probationers. The gospel (by types) will then save the nations, as it now saves individuals out of the nations: the Devil (the evil principle) is bound; sickness and death are in a measure done away; peace prevails throughout the world among the nations, while the saints, who are priests and advocates for mortals, "rule with a rod of iron," having "the high praises of God in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand, to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people (see Age to Come, p. 89), and by the double process of advocacy and punishment—filling the double office of Advocates and executioners, Christ and his saints in the course of 1000 years subdue all their enemies and bring all the nations in subjection to Christ, and thus the kingdom symbolized by the stone, fills the whole earth. Then, having restored the kingdom or world to a state of submission or loyalty, Christ delivers it up to the Father (see J. M. Stephenson). The Devil is then let loose for a little season, and in that "little season" overthrows the 1000 years' work of Christ and all his saints, so that he deceives the nations, a multitude as numerous as the sand of the sea (who had previously been saved by the gospel of the Age to Come!), and they of whom it was said that they should not learn war any more, are by Satan deceived and gathered to battle; and so successful are they in this brief warfare, that they retake the vast dominion which had been subdued to Christ and by him rendered up to the Father as a "loyal province," and drive the saints back to Jerusalem, their starting point, which they besiege, and they are then destroyed by fire from God out of heaven. Those who read the authors above referred to, and others, must acknowledge that we have done their views no injustice in the above sketch. Mr. Marsh has "Jerusalem rebuilt" as the capital of the kingdom for the Age to Come, and the New Jerusalem come down from heaven at the end of that age. But what becomes of the old city when the new one comes down he does not inform us. J. B. Cook took the position that the New Jerusalem will not come down from heaven, but a causeway will be erected between the new and the old, from heaven to earth, and thus a Jerusalem will be located at either end of Jacob's ladder !!! How he obtained this interesting intelligence he does not deign to inform us. J. M. Stephenson quotes Dr. Thomas to show that the New Jerusalem, or "Jerusalem which is above" [Gal. iv], is above in the sense of being exalted, which denotes the position she will occupy in the Age to Come. But if the word above signifies her honor and glory, and not her location, then her "coming down" [Rev. xxi], must denote her abasement, or deprivation of that honor and glory! The criticism of Dr. Thomas on the word "above," as quoted by J. M. Stephenson, is not correct. Greenfield says, in his lexicon, "Ano, adv., above; up, upwards, that which is above, higher." Robinson says, "Ano, adv., up, upwards, above, i. e., (1,) of motion, up, upwards. John xi, 41; Heb. xii, 15. (2.) Of place where, up, above. Acts ii, 19."

We come now to a consideration of the scripture view of the subject.

Dan. ii, 44: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

On this text we enquire

What is the act of setting up the kingdom referred to in the text?
When will it break in pieces the kingdoms of earth?

It might appear to be the most natural order of inquiry to first examine when the kingdom will be set up; but we think all will agree with us, that there will be little ground for controversy on the time, after we have scripturally defined the action. Our main disagreement with the advocates of the Age to Come, is not so much on the time (as they seem to think), as the nature of the event. But we must go still further back and inquire, who is "the God of heaven" referred to by the prophet? Is it the Father or the Son? We take the position that it refers to the Father, and shall now present the scriptures which define the action of the Father in respect to the kingdom.

In 1 Chron. xvii there is a promise recorded, given to David concerning his "seed," clearly referring to Christ, wherein God said, "I will raise up thy seed after thee which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom." Verses 11, 12, 14.

The word establish is evidently used here in the same sense that the expression set up is in Dan. ii. (See Webster.) It may also be used to denote the confirmation of that which is set up, and is so used in Isa. ix, 7: "Of the increase of his [Christ's] government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever." Now we have in definite terms the establishment of the kingdom ascribed to both the Father and the Son; and we must look to other Scriptures to ascertain the precise work of each. That their works are different is shown in these promises. The Father says he will settle David's seed in his house and kingdom, and establish his kingdom and throne; and the Son shall order it and establish it with judgment and with justice. The Father sets it up and settles the Son in it: the Son orders and rules what he has received of the Father. This view is confirmed by many scriptures.

Dan. vii, 13, 14. "I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him," &c. Here is the act of the Father, to wit, conferring the kingdom on the Son of man; and the consequence, to wit, all people, nations, and languages serve him, or he rules in the kingdom bestowed by the Father.

Psa. ii, 8, 9, expresses the same fact: "I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron: thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Ps. cx, 1, 2 is parallel with the foregoing: "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies." Also Luke i, 32, 33: "The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall rule over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

It will be noticed in all these passages that the only work ascribed to the Father is that of giving the throne and kingdom to his Son, thereby putting his enemies under his feet. All else—the dashing, breaking, destroying (his enemies), ruling, and ordering it—is the work of the Son. See also Luke xiv, 12, where the Saviour likens himself to "a certain nobleman who went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded," &c. Verse 15. According to Age-to-Come teachers he only received something to make a kingdom of, but the Scriptures teach differently. He has received the kingdom when he returns; the kingdom is given to him when he is brought to the Ancient of days. Dan. vii. But they urge that the materials or parts of which the kingdom is composed are not yet arranged in order, and therefore the kingdom is not yet set up when the Lord returns. But they are in error here the same that we have shown them to be in error on 1 Cor. xv, viz., they make no distinction between the work of the Father and the Son. It is the work of the Son to order and arrange his kingdom, but not, of course, until it becomes his by the gift of the Father. And now we are prepared to raise the direct query with our opponents, Does the God of heaven set up the kingdom, or does he not? If the promise of 1 Chron. xvii, and the prophecy of Dan. ii, be admitted in their full force, viz., that the God of heaven does set up the kingdom, and settle and establish his Son in his kingdom, then we ask further, Is there any thing implied in the Father's setting up the kingdom but the crowning of the Son, or investing him with regal power and authority? Is there in all the Scriptures of truth a single act beyond this ascribed to the Father in setting up the kingdom? And is not this work accomplished in heaven before the second advent of the Saviour? Rev. xi, 14–18; xiv, 14; xix, 16.

We understand that "these kings," referred to in Dan. ii, 44, are the divisions of the Roman Empire, symbolized by the feet and toes of the image, and the horns of the fourth beast of Dan. vii. In their days, at the termination of the priesthood of our Lord (Heb. viii, 1; Ps. cx, 1), the God of heaven bestows the kingdom upon his Son, and he receives the holy city, the capital of the kingdom, the New Jerusalem, "which is the mother of us all," the gift of which is represented by the figure of a marriage. See Matt. xxv, 1; Rev. xxi, 9, 10; comp. Isa. liv, 1, with Gal. iv, 25, 27.

The whole work brought to view in Dan. ii, 44, is plainly referred to in the passages above quoted, so that in the second proposition, concerning the breaking in pieces the kingdoms of the earth, but little remains to be said. The dashing in pieces of the nations, is always ascribed to Christ, and that it will take place at his coming has been proved in chap. ii, to which we refer. The symbol of the destruction of the governments of earth, is the stone smiting the image on the feet, when all parts of the image are broken and destroyed together. We locate this at the second advent. Where do the advocates of the Age to Come locate it? D. F. Hull said in the "Wisconsin Tent," in Sept. 1855, and was endorsed by J. M. Stephenson, 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. In 1858, Age-to-Come believers (Reed and Collings) at Crane's Grove, Ills., both in preaching and private conversation, denied that the Saviour would break in pieces what was given to him by the Father; one of them said it would be folly in the Saviour to receive a gift from the Father, and then break it in pieces! This is surely charging heaven itself with folly. See Psa. ii, 8, 9. "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces as a potter's vessel." By these it would appear that they consider that the advent of the Saviour will be a joyful event to the nations of the earth. That the tribes of the earth will have no occasion to mourn when they see him coming [see Matt. xxiv, 30]; for it will not come as a snare, nor be as it was in the days of Noah and of Lot [Luke xvii, 26–30; xxi, 35]; that sudden destruction will not come upon them, and they shall escape, even the inconveniences of the present system of limited probation! 1 Thess. iv, 16–18; v, 1–3.

We see by their teachings that they have no place for the smiting and breaking of the image till the thousand-years reign is past. The parts that composed the image were universal dominions; and the stone does not come peaceably to them and infuse its nature into them, and thus transform them into itself, as believers in a temporal millennium and Age to Come teach, but it is also a universal dominion, which destroys and supersedes them. Neither can they with consistency quote Zech. xiv to show the events of the Age to Come, for "there shall be no more utter destruction" after the events spoken of in verses 4–11, but they admit of no utter destruction till the execution of the general judgment.

Against the view here presented that the kingdom is set up, and Christ commences his reign in heaven, it is claimed that as Christ is called David's son, it would be inconsistent to transfer the reign, or any part of it, from the place where David reigned, or from earth to heaven. But it is not wisdom to aver what would be consistent for God to do when we have the means of knowing what he has done, and what he has promised to do. Notice the following facts:

1. Christ will reign for ever in the New Jerusalem, which will come down from heaven. David reigned in the old Jerusalem, and seven years in Hebron.

2. The reign over Israel has once been transferred from heaven to earth. It was God's kingdom, and he ruled over it. When the Israelites desired a king, he said: "They have rejected me that I should not reign over them." 1 Sam. viii, 7. David's was a secondary right, held by sufferance. Many talk as though David had the first and sole right, and as if everything was disorderly and illegal that differed from his reign.

3. Christ was born heir to David's throne; but partaking of our nature he died, as had all of David's sons before; and what he received by birth he lost by death, and his being David's son would have availed him nothing had he remained dead. Thus, though born heir, he receives the throne by the gift of God, through the resurrection. "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David." Luke i, 32. "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." Acts ii, 30, 31.

4. David had many sons, but Christ was superior to David, for he called him Lord. And David will also be raised from the dead, but Christ will supersede him in the throne. Though born son of David he would have had no special right to the throne had he not also been the Son of God. Ps. lxxxix, 27; 1 Chron. xvi, 13; Ps. xlv, 6, 7; comp. Heb. i.

5. As he is the Son of God, so his throne will be set in the house and city of God. Notice 1 Chron. xvii, 14: "I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever, and his throne shall be established for evermore." Also verse 12: "He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever."

These declarations make it clear that the first ruler over the kingdom reigned in heaven. They rejected him and desired a king "like all the nations." 1 Sam. viii, 20. And it has been abundantly proved that he "whose right it is" will commence his reign in the same locality. How long he will continue to reign in heaven can only be known by ascertaining when the New Jerusalem will come down to earth. As that is the capital of his kingdom, the seat of power is of course determined by its location.

The foregoing view of the setting up of the kingdom and the commencement of the reign of Christ, is further proved by the fact that his people, the subjects of the kingdom [see Matt. xxi, 43; xxv, 34; Jas. ii, 5; Luke xix, 27], are taken to heaven when they are redeemed. We invite the careful attention of the reader to the proofs on this point.

John in prophetic vision saw a Lamb on Mount Zion, and with him an hundred and forty-four thousand. We have before shown that Mount Zion is in heaven. Again he said, "I heard a voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia." Rev. xix, 1. This is after the Lord has judged Babylon, and "hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." Verse 2. And it is after the resurrection, for they do not sing the song of triumph till after that event. 1 Cor. xv, 54, 55. In chap. xv, 2, he saw the triumphant company stand on a sea of glass, having the harps of God in their hands, and singing the song of Moses and the Lamb. In chap. iv, 1–6, which is a view of the heavenly temple, the sea of glass is before the throne of God. By referring to the work of Solomon we learn that a "molten sea" was made with the earthly temple. The expression, "a molten sea," well accords with John's description: "as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire." As the work of Solomon, as well as that of Moses, was according to the pattern given [1 Chron. xxviii, 11, 12], the antitypical sea belongs in heaven, before the throne of God, with all the other articles typified, in that work. Heb. viii, 1–5. There is where the saints sing their triumph: on the sea of glass, before the throne of God, on Mount Zion, in heaven. Here is a harmony between the type and the prophetic view; and the promise of the Saviour fully sustains it.

Said Jesus to the Jews, "Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come." John vii, 34–36. The Jews did not understand him, and said among themselves, "What manner of saying is this?" They knew it contemplated a departure from their midst, and thought perhaps he intended to leave them and go and teach the Gentiles. Many at this day are as blind over this passage as the Jews were; but if they had noted what the Saviour said as recorded in verse 33, they need not have queried whether he was going to the Gentiles, or to some remote corner of the earth; for he said plainly, "I go to him who sent me." "Where I am," was spoken prospectively, and signified the place to which he was going, not the place where he then was, for the Jews were there also. The Jews would not be able to come where he was when he went away; as Campbell renders it: "Nor be able to get thither where I shall be." As if he had said, thither, or to that place, where he is who sent me, ye cannot come.

Again, in chap. viii, 21, he said, "I go my way and ye shall seek me and shall die in your sins: whither I go ye cannot come." But the blindness of the Jews was proverbial; and again they inquired, "Will he kill himself? because he saith, whither I go ye cannot come." When he told them that they could not go whither he went, namely, to him that sent him, they seemed to think he would go to the Gentiles; a supposition forbidden by the fact of their inability to go. So in the latter text; when he told them they should die, but could not go where he went, they wondered if he would kill himself! an idea as wild and extravagant as they could have entertained. If he had gone to the Gentiles, they could have gone also: if he had killed himself and they had died, the difference implied in the text would have been overcome. So far as these expressions to the Jews are concerned, all is plain.

In chap. xiii, 33–36, he used the same words to the disciples, except that he did not tell them they should die in their sins. But he said, "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me, and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go ye cannot come; so now I say to you." The suppositions of the Jews are contradicted by facts in their cases also. He did not go to the Gentiles, for thither the disciples went. He did not refer to death, for they died; nor yet to a special or particular manner of death, for they also died for the truth. But whither he was going he explained in chap. xiv, 12, 28, and xvii, 16: "I go unto the Father." That this is fulfilled, that he has ascended to the Father in heaven, it is unnecessary to offer proof, but there is a promise based upon these facts which we will now consider.

This promise is recorded in John xiv, 1–6. He said, "Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." Where he went we have already seen—he went to the Father; to the Father's house, to prepare a place for the saints. But their hearts were troubled; for he had said to them as he had said to the Jews, that they could not come to the place to which he went. Now he continued: "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, THAT WHERE I AM THERE YE MAY BE ALSO." We have seen that the expression, Where I am, denoted that place to which he was going; hence, the promise is that when he returned he would take them to the Father's house, where he was going. It may be supposed that this promise conflicts with his words in chap. xiii, 33: but the harmony is shown in verse 36, where he said, "WHETHER I GO thou canst not follow me now, BUT THOU SHALT FOLLOW ME AFTERWARDS." This is a very plain statement, and justifies Campbell's rendering of chap. xiv, 3: "I will return and take you with me."

On this exposition of these texts we invite the criticisms of our opponents, confident that it will stand the severest test. We cannot imagine how any one can pretend to find any other view taught in these Scriptures, and therefore must wonder at the pertinacity of some who affirm that Christ will not reign in heaven, and that the saints will not go there. But not till they show that Christ ascended in mid-air, or in the clouds, and then returned to Palestine, there to remain for ever, can we believe that the saints will only be taken into the clouds, and then return to earth, without going to the mansions prepared in the Father's house, whither Jesus has gone.

Prov. viii, 21 has been quoted to prove that the saints will not go to heaven. It reads, "That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance." This is quoted on the supposition that heaven is unsubstantial, and would be in point if God himself, his temple, and his throne, were non-entities, and Christ had gone nowhere. But Paul said to those that suffered loss for Christ's sake: "Knowing yourselves that YE HAVE IN HEAVEN A MORE ENDURING SUBSTANCE." Heb. x, 34. So we can assure those who look to Canaan or Jerusalem, because they desire substance, that we have a substance, even in heaven, undefiled and more enduring. That is perishable—it will be shaken by the voice of God, and be removed. This is eternal, it cannot be shaken; it is incorruptible, undefiled, and will not fade away.