The Kingdom of Christ by James White

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 1, 1873

The Kingdom of Christ.

By James White

In the January number of the Christian (Disciple) Record, published in Bedford, Ind., Eld. W. B. F. Treat commenced a series of articles under the above heading. The declared object of these articles is to meet the views of Adventists on this subject. “Eld. Treat is a ‘representative man’ among the Disciples of Indiana. The Record has sung his praise as one before whose ‘ponderous logic and sledge-hammer argument’ no opponent could stand! This praise, however, would mean more if it did not come from a denomination proverbial for its flattery of its teachers. A ‘big gun’ is but an ordinary title for their ministers. And, while they boast as having alone ‘the gospel,’ very few of them have learned, if we judge from their words and actions, that the ‘law of faith’ excludes boasting. Rom. 3.

In this first number his argument is not developed; but we purpose to examine it whenever it appears in tangible form. One principle, however, is announced in his first article, which deserves notice. He argues against the Adventists’ view of Jesus’ possessing two different thrones at different times. The view of the Adventists is based upon such texts as Rev. 3: 21. “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne.” He does not, however, notice this text in defining our views—perhaps he will hereafter. In harmony with this text, we read in 1 Cor. 15 that Christ is to “deliver up” a certain kingdom, or throne, “to God, even the Father;” and we take it that this is the throne upon which he is to sit “until” his foes are made his footstool. Ps. 110: 1. On that throne he is now; it is the throne of his Father in Heaven, where he sits as a great High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, that is, as a kingly priest. Heb. 7 and 8. And while sitting on that throne he is “expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.” Heb. 10: 13. And this expectation will be realized when the time comes for him to leave his Father’s throne as priest, as in Ps. 110: 1, &c. Now he that denies that Christ’s priesthood will at some time close, places himself in antagonism with great principles, as well as numerous explicit declarations. For how else should he “put on the garments of vengeance,” as in Isa. 59: 17? Surely, he is not a priest at his Father’s right hand, when he comes “in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel.” 1 Thess. 1. He is not granting “repentance and the remission of sins,” when he says, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still.” Rev. 22: 11. It is not in “the day of salvation,” while mercy is offered to the impenitent, that the wicked call for rocks and mountains to fall upon them to hide them “from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of his wrath is come.” Rev. 6: 16, 17. And if Jesus is to cease to occupy the throne which he now occupies, it cannot be the throne referred to in Luke 1: 32, 33; “And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Compare Dan. 2: 44. And again, if the saints have been inheritors of that kingdom since the day of Pentecost, as Eld. Treat and his associates teach, how is it that they that are rich in faith, and love God, are “heirs of the kingdom,” and that it is to them a matter of promise? James 2: 5; and that, when the Saviour comes, sitting “upon the throne of his glory,” he will say to them, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom”? Matt. 25: 31–34. And, if the saints are in that kingdom in their probationary state, how is it that Peter shows them how “an entrance shall be ministered unto you [them that have obtained like precious faith, verse 5] into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”? 2 Peter 1: 11.

The truth is, Eld. Treat’s view of the kingdom of Christ is one-sided; based on a partial acceptation of the Scriptures of truth. The truth—the whole truth, on this important subject, is not understood by himself and his people; or if understood, the prejudice of position or opinion will not permit him to accept it.

His principle I will briefly notice. He says: “I now state as a fact, recognized by all right-thinking men, that all Divine Power is a unit, and emanates from the throne of God. The erection of any other religious or spiritual throne would be an unpardonable act of rebellion. Adventism teaches men to believe Christ will perform by assuming a throne separate from the throne of God and legislating therefrom over the destinies of millions of responsible beings whose only rightful allegiance is to the throne of God!”

I quote literally; but I infer that he meant that Christ performs such an act of rebellion, according to the teachings of Adventism. Now Adventism does not teach that there is at any time any withdrawal of “rightful allegiance to [from] the throne of God.” If the Saviour receives anything from “the Lord God” by gift, it does not argue a non-recognition of the power, authority, or right, of the Lord God. His statement of the principle is evasive, not placing us in the wrong by direct expression, but only by implication. But he well knows that our views, correctly taken, are not subject to criticism on this point.

But now we will examine to see where Eld. Treat stands on this important question. Is he really zealous for the principle which he has set forth? or is he desirous of “making a point” against an opponent without regard to principle? I will state a fact, and let the reader judge.

In Nov. 1871, I had the privilege of listening to a discussion between Eld. E. B. Lane and Eld. Treat, on the subject of the Sabbath and Law, in Gosport, Ind. Many statements of Eld. Treat I carefully noted at the time, expecting to have use for them in future reference. The following I copy from my memorandum book, taken, word-for-word, from his argument.

“The law was abolished THAT OUR ALLEGIANCE MIGHT BE TRANSFERRED FROM GOD TO CHRIST.”

I had the pleasure, soon afterward, before Eld. Treat and the congregation, of characterizing his statement as “one of the most monstrous perversions of Scripture that I ever heard;” and my opinion of it has never changed. We have never held any view nor made any statement on this subject that we would not have all our brethren and the world hear. Is it so with Eld. Treat? Or, if he has now changed his mind—if he has at last become convinced that “our allegiance” is not “transferred from God,” is he ready to accept the conclusion, and reverse the argument he tried to maintain in Gosport? His “sledge-hammer” was too “ponderous” for him to wield, and it has fallen back upon his own head! Our opinion is that “the primitive faith” has been remodeled to its detriment in “the current reformation!”

It is a solemn truth that Eld. Treat’s theory, when traced to its legitimate conclusion, is found to be a godless system. It ignores the God of the universe—“the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;” and it perverts the gospel, denying the office of Christ as “a mediator between God and man,” by “transferring allegiance from God to Christ,” and thereby rendering the office of mediator an impossibility.

But sufficient for the present. We shall wait for the development of Eld. Treat’s argument, and test it by the Scriptures, in due time.

J. H. W.