The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy

by Robertson L. Whiteside

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.