During a series of debates held on April 20-22, 1906 between Charles Ready Nichol (1876-1961), a member of the Churches of Christ ("Campbellite") and Alfred Seth Bradley (1850-1928) (said to be a “materialist” in the book containing the debate transcripts. At the time, this meant, not someone who believes there is only matter, but a proponent of conditional immortality. See more at the end of this article), the first debate thesis was:
"The Scriptures teach that the kingdom of
Christ was established on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of
Christ." (Charles R. Nichol. affirmative: A. S. Bradley. negative.)
During
Bradley’s fourth negative speech, he argues that the Ancient of Days from Dan 7
is “the olden times”:
Now we call your attention to Dan. 7:13, 14, again. My friend has
had much to say about this passage, but let us look at it carefully: "And
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the
clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near
before him. And there was given him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all
people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an
everlasting dominion, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."
My opponent says that the Ancient of days is God. He is wrong about it. The Ancient
of days is "the olden times."
[Mr. Nichol: "Will you please restate that? Mr. Bradley:
"Yes sir." God is not the Ancient of days; the Ancient of days is
"the olden times."] (The Nichol-Bradley Debate: C.R. Nicol,
Christian, A.S. Bradley, Materialist. Held at Rule, Texas; April 20-22, 1906.
Reported by W.W. Golden [3d ed.; Clifton, Tex.: Nichol Publishing Co.,
1907], 98-99)
Of course,
the concept that the “Ancient of Days” is “the olden times” (an
era/epoch/dispensation) is an exegetical stretch, and was rightly noted in
Nichol’s fifth affirmative speech:
In the name of reason, what will the man say next? Listen,
according to Bradley: "And came to the Ancient of days, and they brought
him near before him." They brought him, the Son of man, near before HIM,
the "olden times." In this he makes the personal pronoun "him"
refer to "olden times." Pshaw! What next? Listen to verse 9: "I
beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit [i. e.,
according to Bradley, the "olden times" did sit], whose garment was
white as snow [i. e., the garment of the "olden times" was white as
snow], and the hair of his head like the pure wool [i. e., the "olden
times" had a head and hair on it like pure wool]: his throne was like the
fiery flame [i. e., the "olden times" had a throne like the fiery flame],
and his wheel was burning fire [i. e., the "olden times" had wheels
like a burning flame]." Bradley, aren't you ashamed of yourself? The
gentleman said in his last address yesterday that he was ashamed of having met
me in debate. I am not surprised at the statement. When I was a green schoolboy,
I proposed to engage my school-teacher in a debate. He whipped me so completely
in the debate that I was ashamed of myself, and am yet, to think that I had no
more sense than to engage him in a debate. We understand, Mr. Bradley, why you
are ashamed of having met me. (Ibid., 108)
Nichol was
not alone in interpreting Dan 7 to teach his flavor of eschatology. Another
Campbellite preacher from the early 20th century noted the
following:
Next I want to call your attention to Daniel's vision as it is
recorded in the seventh chapter of Daniel. "I saw in the night visions,
and behold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came
near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom
that that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him." (Daniel
7:14.) This does not say that the Son of man was to come from the Ancient of
days, which would have to be the case if Christ should come to this earth to
establish a kingdom. He "Came to the Ancient of days," not from. He
"Came with the clouds." When did he ever come with the clouds except
at the time of his ascension? That is the time. At this time he received the
kingdom. Why? Listen. "That all people, nations, and languages should
serve him." Can all nations and languages serve him now? Yes. Then Danie's
vision has been fulfilled and the kingdom has been set up. (E.M. Borden, Has
the Kingdom of Christ Been Established? [Austin, Tex.: Firm Foundation
Publishing House, 1926], 26)
Still, it is
rather interesting to see someone in the context of a theological debate from
the early 20th century argue against the traditional view that the
Ancient of Days being God the Father.
In terms of
background on A.S. Bradley, he was a “materialist” (a proponent of conditional immortality)
I found the following (albeit, polemical!) discussion of him and the background
to the debate in a work extolling the life of his debate opponent:
3. Nichol-Bradley Debate.
A. S. Bradley came from Arkansas to Texas, it was reported, chiefly
because he sought a wider field in which to work. If that were his true reason
he must have been delighted. He was gratefully welcomed by the struggling group
of Christians. Well he knew how to expose Sectarianism and that most certainly was
what these determined Christians needed.
But alas! how time changes things, and often works out a reversal
of actions. No sooner had he ingratiated himself into the hearts of his
brethren until he began preaching what to them was a false doctrine. Just what
it was they did not know. They were certain that it was not the seed of the
church; but the weed of its misrepresentative. Hence they called it
"Bradleyism." Had one preached the same doctrine a few years earlier "Christadelphianism"
he could have called it, or had it been preached a few years later, it could
have been labeled "PreMillennialism." To these Christians it was
"Bradleyism" and it lived and died wearing that name. Faithful
brethren and teachers became suspicious of this new doctrine and began questioning
it as "Simon Pure." This led to frequent discussions and dissensions
which often engendered bitterness. Bradley knowing the weakness in numbers and
training among the leaders of the church, preached his "dogma" with
increasing boldness, while the denominational hordes sat on the sidelines and
watched the suffering Saints suffer.
There was no excitement in East Texas where this new doctrine was
not known. In West Texas the controversy was acutely active, with Bradley denying
the existence of Christ's Kingdom and teaching that man is wholly mortal and
unconscious from death till the resurrection.
While busily engaged in meetings and debates a young man was
keeping current on newspaper and other reports of great victories being won by
this "New Dealer" in religion. Soon he was challenged for debate on
the major issues of this "New Doctrine."
Bradley, "Rejoiced at the prospects of the opportunity," as he expressed it, "Of getting hold of this young Tennessee Snob." The "Young Snob" was none other than C. R. Nichol. (C.R. Nichol: A Preacher of Righteousness [Clifton, Tex.: The Nichol Publishing Co., 1952], 58-59; cf. J. Turner Stilson, Biographical Encyclopedia: Chronicling the History of the Church of God Abrahamic Faith 19th & 20th Centuries [Stillman Valley, Ill.: Word Edge, 2011], 41-43)
It
appears that Bradley, after leading the Campbellites (due to preaching 'soul sleep') became a member of the Church of God (General Conference),
a group strongly influenced by Christadelphian
theology. I know some
Christadelphians (not all) reject the equation of Ancient of Days being God the
Father, but never encountered in any work, Christadelphian or otherwise, an
equation of the “Ancient of Days” with an era (“olden times”).
