The Coming Kingdom

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 15, 1863

The Coming Kingdom.

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.—Dan. vii, 27.

The subject which these words bring before us is, of course, the kingdom which the God of Heaven is to set up. And, that we may attain to clear and comprehensive views concerning it, I propose to treat it under the following heads:

I. What are we to understand by this kingdom?

II. The locality of it.

III. The state of the earth as the seat of this kingdom.

IV. The time and manner of its setting up; and

V. The subjects and officers of it; including its greatness and duration.

And in the progress of this examination, I shall ask you, brethren, to hear me patiently; to scan narrowly the proofs submitted to you, and then form your conclusions in the light of the word of God. I have nothing more to ask. My duty is done, when I have here made known to you all the counsel of God. You are responsible for your reception of it. Each one of you must answer for yourself. What others hold, or teach or deny, will be no plea for you. God's truth, as you receive or reject it, is to tell on your spiritual growth, and be the measure of your eternal state. If it is not the truth of God which I proclaim, mine will be a fearful account; and if it is, and you reject it, no less fearful will be yours. Let us come, then, to this great theme in an humble and prayerful spirit. Let us simply desire to know what the truth concerning it is, and then, with whole-hearted earnestness, follow wherever it leads us.

1. What are we to understand by this kingdom? Now, I submit to you that it would be quite impossible for any man to entertain a moment's doubt concerning this question, were he to be guided simply by the course of the prophetic narrative. He would see that the prophet foretold the rise and fall of four distinct and literal kingdoms of universal dominion. He would see, I mean, that they were real kings, holding sway over real people, dwelling in real and literal lands. He would see that the first was to be subverted by the second; that the second would be overturned by the third; and that the third was to go down before the power of the fourth. He would see, moreover, that this was to be broken into ten separate kingdoms, in the midst of which another, diverse from all the rest, was to arise, and before which three of the first ten were to be plucked up by the roots. He would then find that these kingdoms, so broken, were to exist even until the time of the end.

All these requirements of the prophecy he would find minutely and fully carried out in the book of history. Not one is wanting. In the simple literality of absolute facts, all received an absolute fulfillment. When, therefore, he read in the same prophecy that, at an appointed time, the God of Heaven was to set up a kingdom, which was to break in pieces all other kingdoms, fill the whole earth and last forever, could he doubt as to what was meant by that kingdom? Could he fail to understand, I mean, that it was to be an absolute and literal kingdom? The first four were so. One after another they rose, literal kingdoms on the earth's surface. Each despoiled the one going before it of its power, and gained a mightier dominion. Can the fifth be aught else than an absolute and literal kingdom too? No. He could not come to any other conclusion. From the prophetic narrative, no other conclusion could be formed. If language requires anything, and justifies anything, as a deduction from it, the language of this prophecy requires and justifies this. Guided by it, this conclusion is inevitable. It is plain reasoning, from which, as it seems to me, no man can get away.

But, then, it is quite certain that other conclusions have been formed. How is this? What account shall we give it? Simply this: Other passages have been appealed to in support of the idea, that the kingdom of God is simply a spiritual kingdom.

Is, then, the Bible a book whose teachings in one part can be arrayed against those in another? No. Nothing can possibly be further from the truth. The Bible is one. Its teachings are one. It is one, in the great scheme which it unfolds. And I desire here, brethren, to affirm this principle, that no interpretation can be accepted as the true one, which does not build upon and unite all the passages which bear upon a given theme. To this test let every doctrine be brought. Nothing but the truth can sustain it; and nothing which sustains it can fail to be truth. A key may pass through many wards of a lock, yet if there is but one which it cannot pass, you say at once it is not the key for that lock. You gain nothing by the wards which it passes. It does not reach the bolt. You open not the door by means of it. So, a principle of interpretation may pass through the wards of many passages, but the single one which opposes it shows its true character. It is not the key to the truth. The true doctrine of the word, like the bolt of the lock, moves not before it. The door of the truth opens not. The treasures within are shut up from you. You do not reach them. They are to you as though they were not. It may be an interpretation supported by great names. This single test is decisive against it. Come whence it may, support it who will, it is false. God's book is one. No one part contradicts, or fails to harmonize with all other parts. They all agree. It is one, as the light of day is one. When you decompose a sunbeam, some men might say, "These colors are very beautiful, but you can never unite them in one." You would smile at the man's ignorance, as, with a lens, you collected all the several rays together and said: "See how these different colors unite to reproduce the light!"

Now, just what the lens does to the different colored rays, which make up the sun's light, a true principle of interpretation does to the different parts of the word of God. It unites them all in the sunlight of God's truth.

But, it will be asked, are there not passages which speak of the kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom? Of course there are. It would be a sad and dreary thing for the believer were it not so.

By a spiritual kingdom, we understand the entire subjection of man's spirit to the will of God. It is a reign in the hearts of His people. And who can doubt that the Bible teaches this? But, then, this is not all. Man's spirit is not man; and ruling in the hearts of his people, is not the full idea of the kingdom of God. The redemption, wrought out by Jesus Christ, takes in the whole man; body and soul alike are to share it. It is to be a perfected redemption; i. e., a redemption taking in the entire being of those who share it. No part of their nature is to be shut out from it. The body, thus "fearfully and wonderfully made," and bearing at first the impress of the image of God, is not destined to destruction. I read the pledge of its entire and glorious renovation in the humanity of Him who was "God manifest in the flesh." It is a wondrous display of God's wisdom and power and skill. Sin has invaded it. It has marred its fair proportions, and blunted its powers, and spread through all its wondrous mechanism the witnesses of its fall. Sickness attacks it; death seizes upon it; but shall it be left in its dark domain? Nay. If like the leprous house, it must be taken down, it is only that it may be reared again, in glory surpassing its first estate. It lies in the tomb; but it is not to abide there forever. The eye of the All-Seeing One watches over it; the power of the Almighty One is around it. It shall rise again. At the appointed time it shall awake from its slumbers, and come forth in the loveliness of a new creation. Hence, the apostle prays that "your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Aye, brethren, it is a glorious truth, that our entire nature is to share the redemption wrought out by Jesus Christ. It is all the purchase of his blood; and, hence, a redeemed soul, in a redeemed and glorified body, forms the full idea of a subject of the kingdom of God. Everything short of this is fragmentary, imperfect, unscriptural.

When, therefore, I read that "God hath delivered us

from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son," (Col. i, 13,) I bless him for that glorious truth. I thank and praise him for every evidence that men may become subjects of his spiritual kingdom. But, then, that is not all the truth. I read again: "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father." Matt. xiii, 43. And that also is true. Neither passage by itself gives the entire truth. Both together do. And is there any clashing between the blossoms of spring and the fruits of autumn? The one is the preparation for the other.

It is a beautiful sight to see the trees of the orchard covered over with the blossoms of spring; but it is something more beautiful still to see those same trees laden with the ripe and glowing fruits of the closing year. So it is a beautiful sight to see the budding tokens of God's grace in the spiritual affections and holy lives of his people. But, oh! it is to be counted more beautiful and glorious far, to witness the gathering in of the fruits of redeeming love, in the visible setting up of the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ!

So the church of Christ on earth, or, if you like the title better, His spiritual reign in the hearts of his people, is just a preparation for entrance into his kingdom. It is not that kingdom. You may not put it in the place of that kingdom. Can you put the blossom in place of the ripened fruit? Can you make the blossom a substitute for the other? Never! It is only a preparation. You cannot make it more; you dare not make it less. There is no such thing as reaching the glory of the kingdom of God, save by membership in the church of God; i. e., by a saving reception in the heart "of the truth as it is in Jesus." You might as well hope to pluck the fruits of autumn, from a tree that had not borne the blossoms of spring. Hence, the Gospel is called "The Gospel of the kingdom." Matt. iv, 23; ix, 35; xxiv, 14. It is not that kingdom. It is sent to open the way into it; to prepare us for it; and, therefore, it is the gospel, or the good news of that kingdom. And so the people of God are called "heirs of the kingdom." They have not yet attained to it. It is still future. The title to it is theirs; but they have not entered on its possession.

The kingdom of God, then, is just the complement, the fullness of all that God designs to do for his people. His spiritual reign in their hearts is the beginning of it. His kingdom, set up in "the new heavens and new earth," is the conclusion of it; a universe, from which sin is banished forever! I submit to you, brethren, you can make nothing else out of it. Claim what you will for its spiritual aspect, there is a sense in which that does not express the fullness of its meaning. There are passages, and many of them, which lead you out into a wider, and more exalted, and more glorious range of truth, than it can possibly express.

Of course it must be granted that the phrase, "The kingdom of Heaven" is used in a variety of connections. I suppose, however, they may all be reduced to two, namely:

I. The kingdom which is yet to be set up on the earth; and

II. Some state or instrument of preparation for it.

I think you will find no other. And, bearing this distinction in mind, we shall encounter no great difficulty in determining the sense of the phrase whenever it occurs. In one or two passages its meaning may be doubtful; but then, were it so in many, that could not outweigh a single instance in which its meaning is strongly and clearly defined.

One of these is: "Behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke xvii, 21. Now, if by this, our Lord meant, in our hearts, it would be a very clear example of its spiritual signification. But, does it mean that? The proof seems very clear that it does not. Who were they to whom these words were spoken? Pharisees; of whom He affirmed, that they were hypocrites, whose hearts, like dead men's graves, were full of all uncleanness. They were children of hell; they were serpents; a generation of vipers, of whom He asked, "How can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

Now, can we suppose that our Lord meant to affirm of such men as these, that the kingdom of God was in their hearts? We must all feel that the supposition would be an outrage. But, if we adopt the marginal reading and say, the kingdom of God is "among you," we have here a different meaning. Most probably, that is the true sense.

The other passage is, "There be some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," Matt. xvi, 28. To what event does this refer? Clearly, not to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is difficult to understand how that interpretation ever gained currency in the church. What was there in a heathen army to symbolize the coming of the Son of God? And then it is absolutely destitute of scripture foundation. But, admit the transfiguration to be a type, or setting forth of the glory of His second coming; and a clear and radiant light invests the passage. And St. Peter manifestly takes this view, 2 Peter i, 16-20. He uses the one event to set forth the other. The sure word of prophecy attests that coming. And the transfiguration was a setting forth of its character. Christ in glory, and his risen saints with him; what is this, but his coming and his kingdom?

Let me repeat. The Bible is one. Its scheme is "at unity with itself." It has one, great central thought. And this, it follows out in every part. That thought is, "the restoration of man from the consequences of his fall." Of this, it never loses sight. The scene may change; but this is still the central figure. It may not always be equally visible. But it is always the great design; directing alike its silence and its speech it informs every part, and breathes in every page, and leads us on, through changing scenes and times and laws, and the rise and fall of empires; until it bids us rest in the full attainment of its glorious end! From Genesis to Revelation, the march of truth returns like a circle upon itself. It brings us back to the point of beginning. At first, man is sinless by creation. At last he is so, as the result of a perfected redemption. In Genesis, he stands by the tree of life; from which, alas, he is speedily driven out. In Revelation, he stands there again; but then, it is to go out no more.

And yet, there is advance in this unity of plan. The Paradise of the beginning, is the Paradise also of the end; while yet, there are added to it the statelier proportions of the city and kingdom of our God! Man is merely sinless, in the one. He is incapable of sinning in the other. And that, not by the power of compulsion, but as the result of a finished redemption. When the precious metal is once wholly purified, the dross gathers not in it, again. It is pure gold forever. So, when redemption by the blood of Jesus has run its course; the soul that shares it, shall contract the defilement of sin no more. The Bible opens with man exercising dominion over all the works of God. It closes with the same beauteous fact. But, it adds thereto, that "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."

And so, I submit, that this interpretation combines all the passages. It shows a harmony of meaning in them all. It passes through the wards of the different texts, and opens the door of the truth of God concerning them.

And then, see how imperative this view of the kingdom becomes in the light of the prophetic word. "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 forever." Dan. ii, 44. Can anything but a literal and visible kingdom do this? "These kings" ruled over literal kingdoms—did they not? Just as literal will that of the God of heaven be. Not else, could it be the fifth kingdom on earth. Not else, could it break in pieces other kingdoms. Not else, could it take their place and occupy their room?

So again. When one like the Son of man, came near before the Ancient of Days, "there was given unto Him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations and languages should serve Him." Dan. vii, 14. Here is, clearly, a kingdom on earth, a kingdom to which "all people, nations and languages" shall be subject. Could language be more pointed in description than this? What words could be employed to express this idea, if these words fail to convey it?

So again, in the words of our text: What is a "kingdom under the whole heavens," but a kingdom on the whole earth? If words mean anything, these words teach that the kingdom which the God of heaven shall set up, is to be an absolute and literal and visible kingdom.

That its scepter shall be swayed over willing and obedient subjects in the flesh. That opposition to his sway shall be nowhere found, and that the earth with all the wicked rooted out, shall flourish in the smile, and be blessed in the presence, of its God forever.

We may reach the same conclusion by another line of argument.

Christ is revealed to us in three offices; i. e., Prophet, Priest, and King. As far as he has entered on these, it has been an absolute and literal way. If there ever was a veritable prophet on earth, he was such. Did he not discharge all his duties? Did he not teach? Did he not unfold doctrine and prescribe law? Did he not reveal future events?

Was he not absolutely a Priest? Was it not a real sacrifice which he offered up? Both these offices were fulfilled by him in their plain, absolute, and literal sense. What reason, then, can you give why the other office will not be so fulfilled too? We are nowhere told that it will not. Nowhere is such a thing even hinted at. Why, then, should any one suppose it? Why dare assert that he will not be absolute King? He was a literal Prophet. He was a literal Priest. Why will he not also be a literal King? The teachings of his word are just as plain, just as positive, concerning the last as it is concerning the first. Why, then, draw a distinction not authorized in the word of God? It would, indeed, seem to be an easier thing to believe the one statement than the other. The doctrine of his exaltation as King, seems to be more natural, more in the line of what we might expect, than that of his humiliation on the cross. By itself, just as a revealed truth, it strikes the mind with a deeper awe to be told that he should be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, than that, as a consequence of this, he shall in the body that suffered be exalted to universal and endless dominion. Oh, when I look back upon the Saviour on the cross, it is an easy and grateful thing to look forward to the splendor of his crown.

If you say he is, and will be, King, but only in a spiritual sense, I reply, Be it so. If this is the Bible doctrine, it must rest on Bible proof. Where is that proof? Ye cannot produce it. No one can. It does not exist. The Bible does not contain it. If it does, where is it to be found?

And there is here a fearful dilemma, which may well scare back the honest inquirer after truth from receiving such a doctrine. If, after all the Scriptures teach about Christ as a literal and visible King, it should turn out in point of fact that he is only spiritually so; suppose that interpretation should be extended to the other side? Suppose that he be held to be only spiritually a Priest? There is as much authority for the one as for the other. There are no terms more express concerning his priesthood than concerning his kingdom. Why adopt a principle of interpretation in the one case, which is to be abandoned in the other?

The Bible is consistent throughout. And if you rest with an assurance which nothing can shake, on the strict reality of the one office, why may you not on the other?

You may. You must. You dare not stand upon a line of distinction which God has not drawn. Christ Jesus was a literal Prophet. He was, he is, he will be, a literal Priest. He will yet be a literal King. He is not yet. Not yet has he mounted his throne. He sits now on his Father's throne; i. e., his kingdom is not yet set up. When he ascended on high the Almighty Father said to him, "Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." And he himself says, "I am set down with my Father on his throne." And there he will remain until he comes again. Then, not before, but "then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." Then "thousand thousands shall minister unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stand before him." Then shall his elect

church be presented unto the Father, a glorious church, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." And then shall be "given unto him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him." All shall be literally accomplished, even as it is written.

You may say what you will of human theories. The sure word of prophecy calls for this. And this will assuredly be gained. The power of the Omnipotent stands behind and sustains that word, and it cannot fall to the ground. There will come a day in which all these things shall be gloriously fulfilled. As surely as the Saviour's brow supported the crown of thorns, it will yet glow with the splendor of universal dominion. As certainly as the reed spoke of a mock royalty, so certainly will be swayed the scepter over all the universe of God! The earth which looked on him, bending beneath the burden of his cross, shall yet behold him, radiant with the sheen of his many crowns. And where the counsel of his murderers prevailed against him, there shall yet go up a ceaseless song of praise from the world which he purchased with his blood.

We learn from this subject the importance of securing an interest in the kingdom of God. That kingdom consists of two stages; i. e., of grace here and glory hereafter. They are related as the cause to its effect, or as the blossom is to the fruit. You cannot have the fruit without the blossom, the effect without the cause, the glory hereafter without the grace here. Life is the spring-time of our being. The harvest of eternity will be just what the seed we now sow makes it.

As there lie folded up in the bud all parts of the future flower, so the glory which awaits the Christian in the kingdom of Heaven, is simply an expansion, an unfolding of the grace that has been given him here. To reach the one, he must have the other. Whatever there may be of brightness or blessedness in his future lot, is his only as that grace is received into his soul. The glory which it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive, and the duration of that glory, extending through eternal ages, are ours only as we are in Christ.

In what relation then do we stand to him? It is the one great question. All others are trifling in comparison with it. Other interests are for time. This is for eternity. Beyond and above all other questions, there rises up this one: What is my relation to this kingdom? What shall I be after death? What will be my eternal state? Where shall I be? And what? And how?

Our relation to this kingdom answers these questions. You and I, brethren, are the subjects of it, or we are not. The Bible speaks of those who are heirs of the kingdom: i. e., having a clear title to it. Only waiting to be called to its possession. Does that describe our state? Does that apply to you? Are you heirs? Are you? You may be among the rich, or wise, or great, of the earth. It matters little. What does it matter to the dead that once they were noted on the earth? As shadows, all these things pass away. But heirship in the kingdom of God is an absolute, fixed, glorious, and abiding reality.

Are you then an heir? Is the title to that kingdom yours? Is that title clear? Have you examined it well? Has it no flaw? There is none which conveys an interest in that kingdom, save that which stands in Jesus' blood! He alone is the line of descent. You must be found in him, or you have no interest in his kingdom. You may call yourself a Christian. Many do. That will not make an heir. You may have a prominent place in the church. Many have, who will fail of the kingdom at last. All the ordinances of the church may be yours. But the title stands not in them. You must be born again. Your sins must be washed away in the Saviour's blood. Faith in Jesus must connect you with his atoning work. It must open to you the door of the kingdom. You must be living members of the church of God. Fitness for the kingdom must be gained on earth. Grace here must prepare you for glory hereafter.

Dear reader, in my Master's name I press this theme home upon you. Take hence with you the question, Am I an heir of the kingdom? Forget what else you will, oh, forget not that. Neglect what else you choose, but make that your first concern. Turn aside from what else you may, but be you very sure that you have secured an interest in the everlasting kingdom.—Lectures on Daniel.