Chapter VIII: Part II: Discussions (3)

Then Paul says that it is not necessary to say anything to them about the times and seasons. “The times and the seasons” of what? Of that concerning which he had just told them about—namely, the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead saints, and the ascension of all saints to meet him in the air. But that day would come as a thief in the night; then what? “When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape.” So, then, in that day in which the Lord comes to gather to himself his saints, sudden destruction will come upon the rest of mankind. “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.” What day? The day of which he was speaking, the day in which the saints shall be taken up and the wicked shall suddenly be destroyed. Some would have us believe that the saints will be secure in the day when sudden destruction is visited upon the wicked, because they shall have already been taken up to meet the Lord in the air some years before that day of destruction of the ungodly. But Paul tells us that that day of destruction will not come upon them as a thief, for they are all sons of light—they are ready and watching. To fit the theory, Paul should have said that that day would not overtake them, because they would not be there, having already been caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

Some people look at this Scripture so carelessly that they actually think that Paul says the dead saints will be raised before the wicked are raised. One good brother, a friend of mine, quoted Scripture, to me as follows: “The dead in Christ shall rise first, and the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years are passed.” But Paul was not contrasting the resurrection of the saints and the wicked, but was speaking of the dead saints and those living when Christ comes. Will the living saints leave the dead in their graves? No, the dead saints will be raised first—that is, before the living ascend; and then all shall be caught up to meet the Lord. Whether the wicked were to be raised then, or were never to be raised, was not so much as hinted at. But the passage does teach this: When the Lord comes, the saints will be caught up to meet him in the air, and the wicked will be destroyed in that day. And that agrees with what Paul says in his second letter to the Thessalonians.

In Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians he gives some additional information concerning the coming of the Lord and our gathering together unto him. From the first verse of the second chapter we learn that the coming of the Lord referred to is that coming in which the saints are gathered together unto him. Paul would not have them troubled by thinking that that day was “just at hand.” One writer, well known to the Gospel Advocate readers, makes this comment on the phrase, “at hand”: “In every translation known to me, except the Douay, the King James, and the American Revised Version, this reads ‘the day of the Lord is now present.’ Some one had made those Thessalonians believe that the day of the Lord had already broken in upon them.” I know that some translations have “present” instead of “at hand”, but they are not so numerous as the foregoing quotation would have us believe. The following translations have “at hand”: Latin Vulgate, Bible Union, Living Oracles, Sharpe, George R. Noyes (Harvard University teacher), Anderson, Syriac, Sawyer, and James MacKnight. So far as scholarship goes, it is very likely that the scholarship back of the American Standard Version outweighs the scholarship of all the translations referred to in the foregoing quotation, with the exception of the English Revision.

But it matters little to us what those Thessalonian brethren thought about the matter; it does not affect Paul’s teaching on the subject. Paul tells us that a falling away must come first and the man of sin be revealed. This must be, he tells us, before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto him. But the theory that is now so attractive to some people has this man of sin developed after the saints are taken up to meet the Lord in the air; the man of sin is then to be destroyed at what is termed the second stage of his coming. But Paul plainly says that the coming he is here talking about is the coming in which the saints are gathered together unto the Lord. It is strange that a theory will so blind people that they cannot see a plain statement in the very passages from which they claim to deduce their teaching.

Pointed Paragraphs:

Jesus and Paul were not contentious, yet they contended earnestly for
the truth. They were the greatest fighters of all time. They were
moved by two Loves. They loved man so much that they fought with
determination anything and everything that would hurt man. They loved
the truth so much that they fought everything that was in the way of
its progress. And they stirred people as none others ever did.

It has been said that it is useless to quote the Bible to one who
disbelieves it. But Jesus quoted it to the devil. There is power in an
appropriate passage of Scripture that even a disbeliever cannot evade.

Before following any advice it is better to find out the character of
him who gives the advice and what possible interest he may have in our
following his advice.

RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD

The following question came to me recently:

Brother Whiteside: Do you not think that the expression, “resurrection
from the dead,” has reference to the death state, rather than the
meaning that some will come “out from among” the other dead ones? Say
something to us in the Gospel Advocate along this line. John S. Clark.

In the growth of language it is common for words to take on additional meanings. This, of course, is common knowledge and needs no proof.

In the phrase, “from the dead” (ek nekron), the word “dead” is plural in the Greek, but by a sort of figure of speech, or extension of the meaning of the word, it applies to the state of death; at least, some passages of Scripture set forth that idea. In Rom. 6:13 we have the phrase, “alive from the dead,” and in I John 3:14 we have the phrase, “passed out of death into life.” In both passages the meaning is the same; yet in Romans the Greek word from which we have “dead” is plural, and in John we have another word in the singular. The Romans had been dead in sins, but were made alive from that death. The Cambridge Greek Testament has this note: “Ek nekron, as men that are alive after being dead.” Bloomfield: “Ex nekron zontas, as those who, after having been (spiritually) dead, are now alive.” Thayer: “Zeen ek nekron, tropically, out of moral death to enter upon a new life, dedicated and acceptable to God (Rom. 6:13.)” In defining “ek,” Thayer has this: “5. Of the condition or state out of which one comes or is brought: ... zontes ek nekron, alive from being dead—i. e., who had been dead and were alive again (Rom. 6:13.)” It is plain, therefore, that the word “dead” in Rom. 6:13 refers to the death state. It is true that it refers here to spiritual death, but its use in describing the state of the sinner is a figurative use of the same expression that is applied to the state of those who are dead physically.

We have the same phrase in Rom. 11:15—“life from the dead” (ek nekron). On this passage Thayer has this: “Zoa ek nekron, life breaking forth from the abode of the dead.” Bloomfield gives the following as the sense of the whole verse: “If their _sin_, which occasioned this casting away, has been the means of reconciling the world, by bringing about the death of Christ, what shall the _receiving of them again into the divine favor be_ (whenever it shall take place), but so happy a change, both to themselves and to the Gentiles, as may, in a manner, be said to raise the whole world from death to life? Zoe ek nekron, by a figure common to all languages, denotes (as Turretin and Stuart explain) something great and surprising, like what a general resurrection from the dead would be.” So, according to Bloomfield, “life from the dead” is life from death.

But it is contended by all the future-kingdom folks that the phrase, “resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron), applies to the righteous and never to the wicked. Their cause depends upon their repudiating the idea that the word “dead” refers to the death state. They tell us that the righteous are raised before the wicked, and are, therefore, raised “out from among” dead ones. But their contention is not conclusive, even if “ek nekron” should be rendered “out of the dead ones.” In the first place, to make “ek” mean _out from among_ is stretching that little word too much. Again, before the resurrection, the dead ones are made up of both the righteous and the wicked. Their contention will not allow that the righteous come “out from among” the righteous dead. They do not, then, come “out from among” the dead, but “out from among” only a part of the dead. But “out from among” is not even good English.

Again, granting, for argument’s sake, that “from the dead” means “out of dead ones,” their contention then does not hold good. We view the field of the dead; they are all there—the righteous, the sinners, the infants, and all irresponsible people. They all arise at once; have they not come out of the dead? They were dead ones, now they are live ones; out of the dead ones came the living ones. The apostles preached a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15). In Acts 4:2 “ek nekron” is used in connection with the resurrection of all the dead. The Sadducees were sorely troubled because the apostles “proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.”

I have never seen any provision, or place, for the resurrection of infants and irresponsibles in the future-kingdom theory, nor have I seen any place for such in their future-kingdom. They cannot be rulers, for they have not been tested and proved worthy of such place; the most of them cannot be citizens, for they are not Jews. Will they be raised before the millennial kingdom begins? If so, what will be their status in that kingdom, or will they be any part of it?

Pointed Paragraphs:

Contrary to all human tendencies, God would have us celebrate the
death of Christ instead of his birth. Had he wanted us to celebrate
his birth, he would not have left its date in obscurity. A little
attention to the history or manner of shepherding in Palestine will
convince anyone that December 25 is not the correct date. In the
Lord’s Supper, we celebrate his death; in observing the Supper on the
Lord’s day, we celebrate his resurrection. We honor Jesus by following
in his steps and by doing his will; we dishonor him and disgrace his
cause by celebrating his birth in the way it is usually done.

Abraham did not want Isaac to marry any daughter of the heathen
surrounding him; neither did Isaac and Rebekah want their two sons to
do so. The marriage relation is so close that no Christian should
marry a person whose influence would be hurtful instead of helpful.

THEORY OF TWO RESURRECTIONS CONSIDERED

In a former article it was shown that the word “dead” in the phrase, “resurrection from the dead,” sometimes, at least, refers to the death state. People are raised from the dead—that is, the death state. But it is contended by the future-kingdom folks that there will be two resurrections—the righteous to be raised from among the dead, and the rest of the dead will be raised later. They insist that the phrase, “from the dead,” shows that some of the dead will be left. But their arguments have never seemed conclusive to me.

It would be hard to get two resurrections more than a thousand years apart out of the following language of the Savior: “Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in their tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28, 29.) There is to be an hour, or period, in which all, both good and bad shall come forth from the dead at the call of Jesus. The same thought—that is, that both will be raised at the same time—is presented in Acts 4:1, 2: “And as they spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, being sore troubled because they taught the people, and proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.” Here we have the phrase, “resurrection from the dead” (ek nekron). The priests and the captain of the temple were Sadducees. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of anybody. With them death ended all. Are we to believe that they stirred up all this trouble because the apostles taught that the righteous would be raised before the wicked? That point did not concern them, but to preach that the dead would be raised did disturb them. The apostles preached in Jesus a universal resurrection from the dead. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22.) Before Felix, Paul preached that he had hope toward God that there would be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust. (Acts 24:15.) It was that sort of preaching that so exasperated the Sadducees. Hence, when the apostles at Jerusalem preached that all would be raised from the dead (ek nekron), it infuriated the Sadducees. But the Pharisees believed in a universal resurrection. Paul took advantage of this difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees, when he was brought before the council in Jerusalem, and said: “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” (Acts 23:6.)

The two-resurrectionists seek to make a point on Paul’s effort to “attain unto the resurrection from the dead.” (Phil. 3:11.) After quoting Phil. 3:10-14, Charles M. Neal says: “To present and emphasize this thought, Paul invents a new word. This word, ‘exanastasis,’ occurs but this one time in the New Testament. The phrase ‘resurrection from the dead,’ is translated by Rotherham as ‘out-resurrection from among the dead,’ and in the Emphatic Diaglott as ‘resurrection from among the dead’.” It is true that the word occurs in the New Testament only in this one place. But we become somewhat doubtful of one who quotes as authority the Emphatic Diaglott, a translation that is printed and sold by the Russellites. And surely no one would seriously put Rotherham up against the great body of scholars who gave the American Standard Version.

But to seek to make “exanastasis” mean _out-resurrection from_ is to venture beyond the lexicons. Liddell and Scott gives the New Testament meaning as the _resurrection_. Thayer: _a rising up; a rising again; resurrection_. Thus it is seen that Thayer, though himself a premillennialist, gives no support to the idea in defining the word. When a man gives a definition of a word that is not sustained by either of these lexicons, nor by the greatest body of scholars that was ever gathered for any purpose, he puts entirely too much stress upon himself.

It is true that “ek” or “ex” when standing alone as a preposition, usually has the general meaning of “out of”; but when used as a part of a compound word, as in ’exanastasis’, it sometimes merely intensifies the meaning of the word to which it is joined, giving the idea of “utterly, entirely.” See Thayer and Liddell and Scott. If one has the time and opportunity, he may also examine Winer (page 429) and Robertson’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament (pages 562-4, 596). If “ex” adds any meaning to the word here, it merely means that Paul was striving to obtain a complete resurrection, a perfect resurrection—that is, a resurrection to life that is life indeed. In that respect there is a decided difference between the resurrection of a faithful Christian and a sinner, for a sinner is not raised to real life.

Sometimes the preposition adds nothing to the meaning of the word with which it is compounded—that is, so far as we can see. Take, for illustration, the verb from which we have “exanastasis.” It occurs in Mark 12:19 and Luke 20:28—“raised up seed unto his brother.” Here we have “ex” joined to the verb; but in the parallel passage in Matt. 22:24, where the meaning is bound to be exactly the same, the preposition “ex” is left off. If adding “ex” to the verb does not change this verb, how can one dogmatically argue that it changes the noun that is derived from the verb? The argument built on “exanastasis” is about as flimsy an argument as one could find. A cause that depends on such arguments cannot have a substantial basis. But a wild theory is often supported by very tame arguments.

Pointed Paragraphs:

One preacher can do very little toward establishing a church in a
great city. It is perhaps harder now than ever. We have seen it tried.
It would be better to take Antioch as an example. Notice the number of
workers that concentrated their efforts on that city. They got
results. Paul generally had a group of helpers with him. Together they
did work in cities where one man would have failed, or practically so.
Ignoring this divine example and putting one man in a city without
real help, we have wasted much effort.

CHURCH AGES

When a man tries to sustain a false theory in religion he cannot do so by correct application of the scriptures. He will make false arguments and pervert the scriptures. A striking example of this is seen in the efforts of some to find prophetic symbolisms in the letters to the seven churches in Asia. These letters were written to seven churches in seven cities of Asia Minor, and they are recorded in the second and third chapters of Revelation. Here is what Scofield says in his Bible: “The messages to the seven churches have a fourfold application: (1) Local, to the churches actually addressed; (2) admonitory, to all churches in all time as tests by which they may discern their true spiritual state in the sight of God; (3) personal, in exhortations to him ‘that hath an ear,’ and in the promises ‘to him that overcometh’; (4) prophetic as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A. D. 96 to the end.”

Of course, when these men talk about the church they include all that they call branches of the church. They claim that we are now living in the period symbolized by the church at Laodicea. There is not even a hint that there were any prophetic symbolisms in the condition of these churches. Of course they do not claim that the condition of the church at Ephesus was prophetic of a future period—its condition merely portrayed the condition of the churches then. That is absurd, for the six other churches mentioned were not like Ephesus—in fact, there is not a hint that the Ephesus church was like any other church of that day, and yet the theory requires that the condition of the church at Ephesus correctly represented all the churches of that period. And then the other six churches are said to represent, or symbolize, or forecast the condition of the church at certain periods. The marking off the period that each church is supposed to represent is purely arbitrary. No one can prove, even if the theory were true, that we live in the Laodicean period. But the whole theory is fantastic, absurd, and a reflection on God.

Think what the theory involves. How could a church then determine the character of the whole church during a certain period hundreds of years later? Or did God by direct miraculous power make these churches to be like what he knew the whole church would be at different periods? Or did he by direct power make the periods to be like the churches of Asia? In either case people had to be what God by direct power chose to make them. Where then is there room for freedom of will, or freedom of action? Any one who can believe that each of these churches was a forecast of the whole church at a certain period can believe any foolish, fantastic, absurd thing that the wildest imagination can conceive. He does not have to have any evidence—he just lets his imagination run riot. I would like for some of its advocates to tell me when that notion was hatched out, and by whom.

PHILADELPHIA AND THE HOUR OF TRIAL

Foy E. Wallace, Jr., passes over to me a document which was written in Detroit with a request that I say something about it. The document would fill my page. As much of it has no special bearing on the points sought to be made, I will make liberal and fair quotations from it. The passage commented upon first is Rev. 3:10: “Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” I quote:

“The promise. ‘The hour of trial’ was ahead, but Philadelphia was to be kept from it. Not saved through it, but kept from it....

“That Hour. (1) It is the ‘hour of trial’ with emphasis on ‘the’. (2) It is the ‘hour of trial’ with emphasis on ‘trial’, for it is ‘to try them that dwell upon the earth.’ (4) It is yet future; ‘to come upon the whole world.’ Nothing has since occurred in history filling out this picture.... (5) the Philadelphia type of saints will escape.... Those who keep his word are of the Philadelphia type of saints. The church that is true to the word is a church of the Philadelphian type and can lay claim to this same promise.”

John wrote seven letters, dictated by the Lord, to seven churches in Asia; the church at Philadelphia was one of these churches. The Lord made a definite promise to the church at Philadelphia. Naturally the members of that church would understand that the promise was to them; but that church long ago ceased to exist. And yet we are told that the promise made to those brethren is yet future. If that be so, then that promise was not for those brethren at all! They are all dead; was that the way the Lord was going to keep them from the hour of trial? No, no; according to the foregoing quotation, the promise was not meant for the church at Philadelphia at all, but for the churches of the Philadelphian type! Such juggling with the record is both taking away from and adding to the words of the book. The promise was not made to the “Philadelphian type of saints”, but to the church at Philadelphia. It is true that some promises, general in their nature, though not to one individual or group of individuals, are to be enjoyed by all who fulfill the conditions; but certainly the ones to whom the promise is directly made are included in the promise! But, strange to say, according to the foregoing quotation, the church at Philadelphia to whom the promise was made was not included in the promise made directly to them! That promise is yet future, so we are told.

But the implication of the quotation is that the promise was made to the Philadelphian type of churches, and that it is to be fulfilled in “the rapture.” And what is it that a person cannot prove, if he is allowed to juggle words to suit his theory? If the hour of trial is yet future, the Lord kept Philadelphia from it by deferring it till all those saints died. But he conjures up a peculiar method of escape for those saints who long ago died: (7) “The method of escape is found in such passages as 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. It is often called the rapture, and properly so, from the expression ‘caught up,’ which rapture means.” But would not the saints of Philadelphia escape that supposed three and a half years of tribulation if they should remain in their graves?

I quote again: “Other Designations. Jesus used the term ‘that day,’ also the term ‘tribulation.’ Daniel calls it ‘a time of trouble’ such as is unequaled and never repeated. In Jer. 30:7 it is ‘the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.’ Here is a parallel to the escape of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace. Those who are ‘saved out of it’ are distinct from those who are kept from it. John has a vision of a number who ‘come out of the great tribulation,’ but the Philadelphians are kept from it!”

He affirms that the various terms he names applies to one certain period that is yet to be; but he gives not one word of proof. The terms, “that day,” “in that day,” “day of trouble,” “tribulation,” “tribulations,” “that hour,” are used many times in the Bible, and certainly do not all refer to the same period of time. Why then pick out a term here and there and arbitrarily apply them to one certain time? THE REASON: a certain theory demands it. And if the writer will examine the Greek in Jer. 30:7 and Rev. 3:10, he will find apo, from, in Jeremiah, and ek, out of, in Revelation, which completely reverses the point he seeks to make on the use of prepositions.

Again I quote: “Chronology.... The order of some outstanding things foretold is revealed. To get this order saves confusion. From Jesus’ prophecy on the mount (Matt. 24 and 25; Mark 13; Luke 21) avoiding all forced interpretations, we learn ‘the tribulation of those days’ leads up to the darkening of the sun and moon, the falling of the stars of the heaven, the powers of the heaven being shaken, and the glorious appearing of the Son of man. Note the expression ‘immediately after’ in Matt. 24:29. Note also Mark 13:24-27 ... even up to the tribulation there are foretold ‘wars and rumors of wars,’ and ‘nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.’ Again, attention is called to the fact that those days of unprecedented tribulation ‘shall be shortened.’ Obviously they are terminated by the Son of man in connection with his appearing. The times foretold in this connection constitute ‘the days of the Son of man.’ (see Luke 17:26.) The ‘rapture’ precedes ‘the tribulation of those days,’ ‘the days of the Son of man.’ And the rapture awaits nothing that is foretold.”

There are difficulties in the discourse Jesus delivered to the disciples on Olivet; but it is certain that no one will get a correct idea of what was said if he ignores the questions that gave rise to the speech. Jesus was answering questions put to him by the disciples. The disciples had called his attention to the temple and its adornments. Jesus said: “As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” When they had crossed to the mount of Olives, Peter, James, John, and Andrew said to him: “Teacher, when therefore shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to come to pass?” Put yourself in the place of these disciples: would you not understand that everything Jesus said was in answer to those two questions? Would Jesus confuse them by saying a lot of things which they would understand to be in answer to their questions, but were not? In Mark’s record we have: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are about to be accomplished?” To say that most of the answer Jesus gave related to something about which they had not inquired is to accuse Jesus of not dealing fairly with them. In Matthew’s record we have: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” For the last clause the marginal reading has, “Or, _the consummation of the age_.” To say that Matthew’s report of these questions does not mean the same as the reports of Mark and Luke is to accuse some one of making a false report of the questions.[1]

It is singular that so many commentators take it for granted that the disciples were, in Matthew’s report, asking about the second coming of Christ; but that could not be. Jesus had not taught them anything about his second coming; besides, they had never believed that he would be put to death! The Jews held to the idea that when the Messiah came, he would abide, forever, ruling as a great king in Jerusalem. How then could the disciples have been asking questions about the second coming of Christ, when they did not believe he would go away? It is astonishing that commentators have overlooked this plain fact. The disciples referred to his coming in judgment on Jerusalem. The tribulation was the suffering of the Jews when the Romans destroyed their nation and Jerusalem. The temple was utterly destroyed. The Jewish nation ended; darkness and gloom settled down over the people. The fulfillment of what Jesus had said was a sign that he was what he claimed to be—that the Son of man was also the Christ, the Son of God. For the natural phenomena mentioned you get some explanation by reading Isa. 13:1-10.

Pointed Paragraphs:

The treatment Joseph received at home would tend to make him arrogant
and overbearing. To serve the purpose God had in view, these traits
had to be toned down. A period of slavery, followed by a rather long
stay in prison, would reduce his pride and feeling of importance. In
both slavery and imprisonment he learned to work under men, and at the
same time he learned to manage men. He also learned business
principles. A petted son does not have much opportunity to learn any
of these useful things. Joseph had to be torn away from his father in
order to learn to be useful.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM

Nebuchadnezzar had a wonderful dream, and required, on penalty of death, that the wise men tell him the dream and its interpretation. None but Daniel could do so. To the king Daniel said: “Thou, O king, sawest, and, behold, a great image. This image, which was mighty, and whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the aspect thereof was terrible. As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron, its feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” (Dan. 2:31-35.)

Before we read the interpretation of this dream, let us observe: (1) that Nebuchadnezzar saw the complete image, as if all its parts existed at the same time; (2) that the stone smote the image on the feet; (3) that the whole image from feet to head was broken in pieces and scattered as dust; (4) and that no place was found for them—no place for such parts as composed that image.

_The Interpretation_—“Thou art the head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee; and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, for as much as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that crusheth all these, shall it break in pieces and crush.... And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. For as much as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter.” (Verses 36-45.)

This dream and the interpretation have furnished a starting point for many sermons by gospel preachers. Till recently they all contended that the kingdom of this prophecy was set up in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, and then and there entered upon the work which Daniel said it would accomplish. It is now argued by a few brethren that when Jesus comes again the kingdom of this prophecy will then have its real beginning, and will then destroy the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. But is there anything in the interpretation to warrant such a radical change from a century of gospel preaching?

The four world kingdoms represented in the image—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome—came and fell in the order mentioned. Yet Nebuchadnezzar saw them in the image, as if all existed at the same time. The stone is represented as breaking in pieces the whole image—that is, the kingdom of God is represented as destroying all of the four world kingdoms. “It broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold.” In truth, it was an image of world empire, and that was broken in pieces, never to be made whole again. Every attempt at world empire, since Rome, has ended in failure, and will continue to fail.

It is also plainly stated that in the days of these kings—that is, while the image still remained—the God of heaven would set up a kingdom, and that this kingdom would destroy the image. The Roman Empire embodied all that was in the other three kingdoms of the image. So long as Rome existed the image stood. The stone smote the image on the feet, but destroyed every part of the image. Every kingdom represented in that image has ceased to be; the image has been entirely destroyed—not a vestige of it remains. It follows, then, with the force of a demonstration, that the kingdom of God has been set up. Even though it be claimed that another world empire is yet to be, it cannot, by any juggling of words or flight of the imagination, be made a part of the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. In that image each kingdom merged into the one following it till Rome; then the stone smote the image and destroyed it. As the kingdom was to be set up during the existence of that image, and as that image has been destroyed, it proves beyond a doubt that the God of heaven has set up his kingdom.

So far as the interpretation of the dream shows, the kingdom of God was to destroy only the kingdoms of the image; and it could destroy the first three only as they were represented in the Roman Empire. World Empires died with Rome. The principles of the kingdom of Christ have so modified human thinking as to destroy the possibility of world empire.

But we are told that Daniel’s language shows that these kingdoms are to be destroyed suddenly, and by violent impact. But it cannot be shown that Daniel’s language requires such method of destruction. The kingdom was to grind them to dust. Does that only imply destruction? Besides, the future-kingdom idea is that the kingdom of God will be ushered in in full power; whereas the dream represents it as a stone that destroyed the image and then grew into a mountain that filled the earth. If you still insist that Daniel’s language shows that the kingdoms are to be destroyed by violent impact, then I ask you to consider carefully the language of Jer. 1:9, 10: “Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth: see, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.” That is as strong language as Daniel uses in describing the work of the kingdom of God; yet we know that Jeremiah destroyed nothing by violent impact. Yet how these future-kingdom advocates would have stressed this language if it had been used to describe the work of the kingdom instead of the work of Jeremiah! It would be interesting to see them try to show how Dan. 2:44, 45 requires violence, but Jer. 1:9, 10 means “peaceful penetration.”

Pointed Paragraphs:

A thing gained through deceit or fraud cannot bring contentment and
satisfaction. Jacob never enjoyed any real happiness in possessing the
birthright, and the blessings he obtained from Isaac by fraud made him
an exile and caused him much worry and distress. One cannot see
wherein it was any real satisfaction to him.

We get into trouble when we scheme and plan to help God work out his
plans. When God announced, even before Esau and Jacob were born, his
purposes concerning these two prospective sons of Isaac and Rebekah,
Rebekah should have realized that God would work out his plans in his
own way; but she thought she must do some scheming to help God work
out his plans. In so doing she lost the company of her beloved son and
caused him untold misery.

MILLIGAN ON NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM

After I wrote my recent article on “Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation,” I found a series of articles on the kingdom, written by Robert Milligan and published in the Millenial Harbinger of 1858. That the reader may see that the positions set forth in my article are neither new nor fanciful, I quote some extracts from Bro. Milligan’s articles. Concerning the establishment of the kingdom foretold in Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, Mr. Milligan says:

The prophet limits the chronology of the event to “The days of these
kings.” But who are they? When did they reign? What was the beginning,
the duration, the end of their administration?

Many writers on prophecy, and even some of our own brethren, for whose
opinions we entertain very great respect, refer all this to the
future. They suppose by “_these kings_” are meant the ten kingdoms
into which the Roman Empire was divided, and which they suppose were
symbolized by the ten toes of the image.... But with all due respect
for these good brethren, we are constrained to dissent from such an
interpretation of the passage. To us there appear to lie against it
many objections, some of which are the following:

1. The notion that the toes of the image were designed to represent
the ten fragments of the Western Roman Empire is a mere hypothesis. It
may possibly be true; but certain it is that the evidence is
wanting.... But ten toes on one foot would be rather incongruous.

2. But even if it could be satisfactorily shown that the ten toes were
designed to represent the fragments of the ten kingdoms that arose out
of the Western Empire, it would by no means follow that these are
identical with the kings named in the text. The reverse of this is
certainly true. The limiting adjective, “_these_,” implies that the
subject to which it refers had been clearly designated.... But the
only kings fairly implied in the whole connection are those of the
four universal monarchies....

From these premises we infer that the phrase, “_these kings_,” has no
reference to the monarchs of modern Europe. Nor does it, as some have
supposed, refer exclusively to the Caesars. These are not in this
connection made the subject of a distinct prophecy. The phrase
evidently refers to all the rulers of the four universal monarchies,
and comprehends the kings of Babylon, and Persia, and Macedonia, as
well as those of Rome.

The meaning of this passage, then, is simply this: that at some epoch
during the lifetime of that human monster, or between the time of
Nebuchadnezzar and the fall of the Roman Empire in the year of Christ
476, the God of heaven would set up a kingdom in the world.

After some discussion of the events of the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ, Brother Milligan says:

According, then, to the testimony of Peter, Jesus Christ was, on the
day of Pentecost, seated on the throne of David, not in Jerusalem, as
the Jews anticipated, but in heaven at the right hand of God. He was
exalted to the rank and dignity of a Prince as well as a Savior. And
hence, for the first time in the history of the world, those who
gladly received his word were commanded to be baptized in _the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins_.

In his second article Brother Milligan quotes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation thereof, and then comments as follows:

The image was then smitten upon the feet. The wound was mortal. The
tyrant that had governed the world from the days of Nebuchadnezzar
till that hour was slain. His spirit was subdued, and his whole
physical organization, consisting of gold, and silver, and brass, and
iron, and clay, was then broken into fragments.

Since that time Charlemagne, Napoleon, and many others, have attempted
to revive the spirit and reunite the scattered fragments of this
fallen image. But all such attempts have been in vain.... It is true,
the spirit of war still exists: blood is often shed for the most
trivial causes. But let any prince or potentate now attempt to revive
the spirit of this fallen image; let him attempt, like Nebuchadnezzar,
Cyrus, Alexander, and Caesar, to subdue the world, and to govern it on
the principle that “might makes right;” and if not treated as a maniac
by his own subjects, he will, at least, find arrayed against him the
combined powers of Christendom.

In view of what happened to the Kaiser when he tried to conquer the world, the last statement of Brother Milligan looks almost like prophecy. But it was not a prophecy, but merely a statement based on Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.

I invite the future-kingdom advocates to consider the following:

1. The image, as it stood before Nebuchadnezzar, represented four world empires. That is, of course, admitted.

2. The kingdom of God was to be set up while that image stood, and was to destroy the image. On that point no one can mistake what Daniel says.

3. That image has been destroyed—there has not been a world empire since the days of Rome.

4. It is certain, therefore, that the kingdom of God has been established, and that the principles of that kingdom have broken down and destroyed world empires.

It is a pity that a man will become so obsessed with a speculative idea as to say that the image has been destroyed, but the kingdom of God had nothing to do with its destruction. To me it looks like a flat denial of what Daniel says.

A LEADING DOCTRINE OF THIS CURRENT REFORMATION

When I was a young man, the gospel preachers who were then active in preaching the ancient gospel preached often on the establishment of the kingdom. As I recall those sermons, they usually began with the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel’s interpretation thereof, as recorded in the second chapter of Daniel. It was argued that the kingdom foretold in verse 44 began on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ. That was one position on which there was no disagreement among “Christians only” in those days. It is true that there had been some speculations to the contrary in the days of Alexander Campbell. One Dr. John Thomas was a leading spirit in that agitation. It was contended that the restoration of the Israelites to a kingdom of their own in Palestine was the hope—the Elpis—of Israel. While we do not recognize Mr. Campbell as authority in matters of faith, we do recognize him as a teacher of great ability. It will do us good to read carefully some things Mr. Campbell wrote on the kingdom question. Note how the following fits into the present agitation on this question:

I will receive it as a favor from any person, to be informed of any
people or preacher, on this continent or in the European world, that
clearly or definitely stated or announced, in unequivocal affirmation,
that the Christian church did not commence, and, consequently, was
never organized, till the first Pentecost after the crucifixion,
death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and glorification of the Lord
Jesus Christ; that then placed upon the throne of David, and upon the
throne of God, he commenced his reign _personally_ in heaven and
_spiritually_ upon the earth, by the mission of the Holy Spirit to his
apostles, and through them to his church, which is now his natural and
earthly body—the fullness, or manhood development, of Him who fills
all things, in all places, with life, and beauty, and happiness.

The foregoing is taken from the Millenial Harbinger of February, 1852. In a footnote to the foregoing quotation we have the following from Mr. Campbell:

To prevent misconception of this allusion to the throne of David, I
simply remark for the present, to be developed, probably more fully
again, that the _throne of David_ was, in fact, the _earthly throne of
God_, in the midst of ancient Israel. David was his viceroy—that is,
_the Lord’s anointed_—a fact not well understood by the church, and
still less by some untaught and unteachable dogmatists of the present
day. It was necessary to the plans of Jehovah, which are all sublimely
grand and wonderful, that he should have two thrones—one on earth and
one in heaven—for a time occupied one above, by himself, and one
below, by his vicegerent, called or constituted by him; and therefore
his solemn oath or covenant with David, that he would raise out of his
person, in fullness of time, one that would occupy both thrones.
Hence, said the inspired bard of Israel, “Jehovah said to my Jehovah,
Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool.” It is
beautifully in accordance with this fact that Mary the Virgin was the
last bud on the tree of David which could blossom and fructify, and
bring forth a representative of David. So that, if Jesus be not the
heir of David’s throne, there never can be one born, and God’s
covenant has failed. This is a death blow to Jewish infidelity, if
their eyes were not closed and their ears sealed. But Jesus was the
Son of David, and born to be a King, as he told Caesar’s
representative. On the throne of David, as King of kings, he now sits,
and also on the throne of God; for he has all crowns upon his head,
and affirms that all authority in heaven and on earth is given him.

Any one who desires to peruse the most conceited, consequential, and
dogmatical treaties, based upon hallucination, and parody of the words
“Elpis Israel,” will, if he have a dollar to throw away, have a
demonstration of a disease called in Kentucky “the _big head_,”
probably unequaled in this century; making the _hope of
Israel_—indeed, the hope of the gospel in full development—to consist
in raising up again a throne of David in Palestine in Jerusalem; as if
that throne had been vacant now for eighteen hundred years, or as if
Jesus Christ would remove his throne out of the heavenly Jerusalem, to
rebuild and locate it in old Jerusalem, and there to aggrandize the
empire of the universe! But this only in passing, as one of the
specimens of the power of the love of notoriety or of the marvelous,
in wrecking and bewildering the human mind. We regard this development
of the passion for notoriety as one of the most admonitory
dispensations in our immediate circle of observation. It has made a
man, that might have been useful, worthless to himself, worthless to
his friends, and worse than worthless to the world.

In the January Harbinger (1851) Mr. Campbell reports a sermon which he preached at Bloomington, Ind., from which I glean the following excerpts:

“On Saturday night our subject was the promised advocacy of the
Spirit, after the return and coronation of the Messiah in heaven; the
commencement of his kingdom, and the peculiarities of the Christian
dispensation, in contrast with the patriarchal and Jewish
institutions. We gave reasons why Christianity, or the kingdom of
Christ, could not be developed till he received all authority in
heaven and earth—till he received the kingdom and government of the
universe.” “The kingdom has come, and the king has been on the throne
of David now more than eighteen hundred years: still, myriads are yet
praying, ‘Thy kingdom come’!” “Thus Jesus, after he had expiated our
sins on earth, entered heaven, and basing his intercession, _as our
high priest_, upon his sacrifice, he sat down a priest upon his
throne, ‘after the order of Melchizedek;’ a high priest forever,
‘according to the power of an endless life.’ This, as set forth, is a
leading doctrine of this current reformation.... It is pregnant with
great revolutionizing and regenerating principles.”

If Jesus is not now our anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, he is not yet the Christ. Do you believe Jesus to be the Christ now, or the Christ that is yet to be?

IS THE CHURCH THE KINGDOM?

Bro. Ira C. Moore, in F. F. of June 17, (190?) says “No.” He reasons that because these two words are from Greek words of different meanings, and because the two words themselves have no meaning in common, therefore they can not apply to the same thing. He says the meaning of a word may be substituted by the word and make sense, and refers to our use of this principle in reference to baptism and sprinkling. The principle is true in the main, but Bro. Moore’s reasoning from it is as fallacious as can be. No one claims that the words kingdom and church mean the same. To describe or define a specific act words must of necessity be synonymous, yet words very different in meaning may be applied to the same person or thing, owing to the different relations that a person or thing sustains to the world. Man, husband, father, citizen, author, and president are words very different in their meanings, yet all of them apply to one person Theodore Roosevelt. In the different positions of life he occupies the relation that each of these words indicates. Because all these words are appropriately applied to him does that mean that you can take a sentence in which one of them is used and replace it with either of the words and make sense. “I, Theodore Roosevelt, husband, or author, or father of the United States,” etc. How is that? “Nonsense,” did you say? Just so.

Apostle, Author, Shepherd, Bishop, Bread of Life, Bridegroom, Star, Captain, Christ, Corner Stone, Counselor, Governor, Head of the Church, High Priest, King, Master, Mediator, Prophet, Physician, and a number of other names and designations apply to one Being yet they differ in meaning. In different relations different words apply to Him. Just so with the church. It is called body, family, temple, house, kingdom, etc. Viewing it from different standpoints, you use different scripture words. Being “called out,” it is the church, as an organization, it is the body of Christ; as a government, having Christ as its King; it is the kingdom of Christ.

This is enough—you see the point.

Pointed Paragraphs: