The Kingdom of Promise and Prophecy

by Robertson L. Whiteside

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: