THE MILLENNIUM
T.P. Simmons
The word
"millennium" comes to us from the Latin, meaning "a thousand
years." It refers to the thousand years of Rev. 20:1-7. In these verses
there are six references to this period of time. It is here given as the time
during which Satan is to be bound and the saints are to
reign with Christ.
When the opponents of
premillennialism assert that the word "millennium" is not in the
Bible they speak deceitfully. It is just as truly in the Bible as the
expression "one thousand years." Since these expressions are English,
neither of them was in the original manuscripts. But the
word "millennium" represents the meaning of the Greek as truly as the
expression "one thousand years." Thus there can be no point in saying
that the word in question is not in the Bible, except it be said to prejudice
one's hearers or readers.
Our
treatment of the subject will not justify the charge that premillennialism
"builds chiefly on one passage in Revelation 20:1-10," or that
premillennialists "start with a certain interpretation of Rev. 20:1-10 and
then work their idea back into the epistles and gospels." Rather we shall
begin with other Scriptures and interpret the passage in Revelation by them.
Moreover our discussion will
conform to a rule enunciated by one of our opponents; viz., "It is a sound
principle of Biblical interpretation to begin with Him who is the Light of the
World; in other words to begin with the study of the New Testament, and go back
into the Old with the light of the New." That shall be our method of procedure exactly.
However, after we have done
this, after we have let the New Testament focus the light of the Old upon this
question, then we shall interpret Rev. 20 in view of that light. And if our
opponents wish to continue ranting about our reading into the text what is not there, we shall treat the accusation with
complacent and tolerant disdain. There is not a one of them that does not
"read into" such passages as Luke 13:3 that faith as well as
repentance is a condition of salvation. Thus it is throughout the Bible. We
take the various details of collateral passages and put them together to get
the full truth.
I.
THE PRESENT AND FUTURE FORMS OF THE KINGDOM
1.
THE PRESENT FORM OF THE KINGDOM IS NOT THE FINAL FORM
This is
plainly indicated by a number of passages that point to a future kingdom. See Matt.
6:10; 25:34; Mark 14:25; Luke 13:28, 29; 2 Tim. 4:1. Note also that some of the
parables in Matt. 13 indicate that the kingdom of Heaven now contains false
professors (tares and bad fish), while other passages speak of a form of the
kingdom of Heaven into which only the righteous will enter. See Matt. 5:20;
7:21. These passages evidently point to the period that
shall follow the fulfillment of Matt. 13:41. "The Son of man shall send
forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that
offend and them that do iniquity." Manifestly this is to be accomplished
in the judgment at the end of this age (Matt. 13:39, 40), and then shall ensue
the kingdom or form of the kingdom alluded to in Matt. 5:20; 7:21, and also in Matt. 25:34. From these passages, then, we see clearly that
the judgment at the end of this age will not bring an end to the Messianic
reign, but rather will usher in its final form.
Nor are we to regard this
plain teaching as contradicted by 1 Cor. 15:24. We can never
hope to arrive at the truth unless we let the plainer passages suggest the
interpretation of those that are somewhat obscure. Read vss. 22-24 in the
revision. Note the reading, "then they that are Christ's at his
coming" instead of "afterward they that are Christ's," etc. Thus
the revision gives "epeita" the same meaning as "eita."
"Then" is used to translate both. Notice, then, that the first
"then" allows the lapse of time between the
resurrection of Christ and His second coming. Therefore "then cometh the end"
cannot be used to prove that "the end," whatever it is, occurs
immediately after Christ's coming. "Epeita" and "eita" in
these verses mark not immediate temporal succession, but rather sequence in
enumeration depending "on the nature of things enumerated" (Thayer).
Certainly there is not the difference in the words that will
allow the first to admit of a lapse of more than nineteen centuries while
forbidding any lapse of time to the latter. Thus understood it will be seen
readily that vs. 24 itself suggests that "then cometh the end" does
not fix the time "when he shall have delivered up the kingdom of God"
(better, "whenever he shall deliver" etc), but rather vice versa.
Moreover, as E. P. Gould says
very significantly, "At His coming," may be translated, in the
parousia or presence- i. e., during the time of Christ's presence on the earth,
following His second coming." This is the meaning, if, as we believe, on
the basis of Isa. 65:20 and implications in other passages, death will continue
on the earth after the establishment of the "new
heavens and a new earth" (Isa. 65:17).* In other words, this passage
admits of a continuous resurrection of the righteous through the reign of
Christ on the earth, and we believe that the Scriptures in general demand it.
As believers in natural bodies die they will be resurrected immediately. We can
then give to "then cometh the end" its most natural meaning according to its context, understanding it to mean the end of
the Messianic kingdom; which will come not immediately, but only after death is
completely conquered.
2.
CHRIST IS NOW KING, BUT HE IS NOT NOW ON HIS THRONE
The author flatly disavows the
view that Christ is not reigning now. This is held by some premillennialists,
but is not a necessary part of premillennialism. Christ is already king over a
spiritual kingdom (usually spoken of in the New Testament as "the kingdom
of God"), that is, a kingdom without visible head and physical boundaries, whose subjects may be distinguished by spiritual
characteristics alone. That Christ is
already king over such a kingdom is defiantly and unmistakable taught in Matt.
28:18-20; John 18:36; Col. 1:13; Rev. 3:21.
But Christ is not now on His
throne, the throne of David that was promised to Him. Luke 1:32.
Note this significant passage:
___________
*It is evident that "a
new heaven and a new earth" alluded to by John in Rev. 21:1 is not the
same as the "new heavens and a new earth" mentioned by Isaiah. Manifestly John saw the
results of a second renewal that is to follow the loosing of Satan and the
consequent rebellion of Gog and Magog.
See Rev. 20:7-10.
___________
"To him that overcometh
WILL I grant to sit with me in MY throne, even as I also overcame,
and AM set down with the FATHER IN HIS THRONE" (Rev. 3:21).
Notice that Christ is now
sitting with the Father in the Father's throne, and that it is implied that at
some time in the future He will sit on His own throne, at which time overcomers
(all the regenerated, 1 John 5:4) will sit with Him. The contrasts here are significant- the "Father's throne" contrasted
with "my throne," and the present "am set down" contrasted
with the future "will sit." This passage is dead against those who
contend that the millennium is now in progress, and we have never known a single
one of them to try to deal with it.
Acts
2:25-32 does not prove, as has been alleged, that Christ is now on the throne
of David. Our opponents offer groundless arguments on the basis of this passage
together with 2 Sam 7:12- (1) That this passage teaches that Christ was to sit
on the throne of David immediately after His resurrection. But the passage says
nothing of the kind. It teaches that the resurrection was necessary to His
sitting on the throne, but not that He ascended that throne
immediately. Scriptures already cited show that this was not the case. (2) That
David understood from the promise quoted by Peter (2 Sam. 7:12) that Christ
would sit on David's throne while David was still sleeping with his fathers,
and not after the resurrection of the righteous dead. This is marvelous logic
to come from those who protest that we read into Rev. 20:1-7 things that are not taught there.
The letter and natural phase
of 2 Sam. 7:12 referred to the placing of Solomon on David's throne, and to
insist that the fulfillment of the spiritual import of the promise conform to
the letter is merely to argue absurdly for the support of a proposition
that is too weak to stand. One could just as well argue that, inasmuch as the
natural phase of the passage looked to an immediate successor to David, Christ
ascended the Davidic throne at David's death. In Acts 2:29 Peter speaks of the
fact "that David is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us
unto this day" merely to prove that David could not have been speaking of
himself when he said that his soul should not be left in
Hades and that he should not see corruption. This fact is evident to all,
except those blinded by a desire to sustain an unscriptural theory.
3.
CHRIST WILL ASCEND HIS THRONE AT HIS SECOND COMING
This is made indisputable by
the following passage.
"WHEN the Son of man
shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, THEN shall he sit
upon the throne of his glory" (Matt. 25:31).
In this passage we have further
answer to the absurd contention noted above.
It is at His second coming that Christ will sit on His throne. At that
time will be established the future form of the kingdom referred to in Matt.
13:43; 25:34. This accords with Like 19:12, where "a certain
nobleman" represents Christ.
II. THE NATURE OF THE FUTURE KINGDOM
1.
IT WILL BE UPON THE EARTH
This is a
significant fact that is established by the two following passages:
Rev. 5:10, where the redeemed
(twenty-four elders), after speaking of redemption through Christ, say:
"And
has made us unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign on the
EARTH."
Zech. 14:9: "And the Lord
shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Lord and his
name one."
We have quoted the first
passage from the revision, which follows the Alexandrine manuscript in reading
"they reign" instead of the Sinaitic in reading "we shall
reign." Thus we must choose here between two outstanding manuscripts in
deciding whether the tense is present or future. However, A. T. Robertson, with no affinity for
premillennialism, says that we have the "futuristic use" of the
present active indicative. And who,
except one seeking proof of a theory rather than the truth of the Scriptures,
can doubt that we have here a reference to the same thing as in Rev. 2:26, 27; 3:21; 1 Cor. 6:2, where it is
consistently put in the future?
Note from
this passage, then, that this reign is to be on the earth; and remember that
Rev. 3:21 tells us that the saints will sit with Christ on His throne. Thus we see that, since the saints' reign is
to be on the earth, Christ's throne and, therefore, His kingdom, are to be
here.
The second
passage refers to that which is yet future. At no time up to the present has
the whole earth been subject to the Lord. The passage is to be fulfilled after
the events of the previous verses have taken place. Those who have tried to
find a fulfillment of this chapter in the past have been able to make out only
a and garbled makeshift of a fulfillment. For instance one writer argues quite
conclusively that the chapter was not fulfilled in the
destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, because At that time all instead of half
of the people were "cut off from the city." Moreover, at that time,
God did not fight for the Jews, but against them; sending forth the Roman
armies even as His own, He "destroyed those murderers, and burned up their
city," as Jesus said He would (Matt. 2-2:7). Furthermore it is pointed out
that since that time Jerusalem has been "trodden down
of the Gentiles" ( Luke 21:24), and no one has gone there to "keep
the feast of tabernacles." But then this same writer goes on to try to
make out a fulfillment in God's care of His people during the darkness and
afflictions of the inter-biblical period, referring it particularly to the
terrible persecutions inflicted on the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, king of
Syria, in the second century B. C. But he undertakes to
find no detailed fulfillment, which, of course, he could not do. The following
glaring differences exist between the siege described in Zech. 14 and the wars
and persecutions under Antiochus:
(1) In Zech. 14 we read:
"I will gather all nations against Jerusalem, to battle." Under Antiochus only nations under Syrian rule came against
Jerusalem.
(2) In Zech. 14 the siege was
to last but one day (vss. 6, 7), while under Antiochus and his son there were
attacks over a period of years; and at one time temple worship in Jerusalem was
abandoned by the Jews for three years, during which time
the Jewish religion was forbidden and the temple devoted to the worship of the
Grecian god, Jove.
(3) In Zech. 14 the siege and
victory are followed by a glorious period of blessing and spiritual prosperity,
while the period following the wars under Antiochus was marked
by further war, internal division, rivalry, intrigue, and civil war among the
Jews, ending up in their subjugation to Rome.*
(4) In Zech. 14 a great plague
is prophesied for the opposing armies (vs. 12). This did not occur at the time of
Antiochus.
(5) In Zech. 14 the siege is
to be followed by those who are left of the nations that came against Jerusalem
coming up from year to year to worship and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
This did not follow liberation from persecution under Antiochus any more than
it occurred following the destruction of Jerusalem A. D. 70.
Our opponents acknowledge that
"someone's feet are to stand upon the Mount of Olives," but they are
not certain who the person is. This is not certain to them because they are
committed to a theory that forbids them to admit evident facts. To those not so bound it is clear that the unmistakable
grammatical antecedent of "his" in vs. 4 is "the Lord" in
vs. 3. Also it is evident that the statement that "the Lord my God shall
come, and all the saints with thee" refers to the second advent of Christ,
just as do similar statements in the New Testament. See Jude 14; 2 Thess. 1:7;
Matt. 25:31. Thus we conclude that our point here is proved.
2.
IT WILL BE IN THE NEW EARTH
We wish here to call attention
to Matt. 19:28, which reads:
"And
Jesus said unto them (the twelve apostles), Verily I say unto you, that ye
which have followed me, in the REGENERATION when the Son of man shall sit in
the throne of his glory, YE ALSO SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE THRONES, JUDGING THE
TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL."
Commenting
on the phrase, "in the regeneration," A. T. Robertson says: "The
new birth of the world is to be fulfilled when Jesus sits on His throne of
glory." John A. Broadus says: "When the Messianic reign is fully
established there will be a new birth of all things, called a 'restoration of
all things' (Acts 3.21, Rev. Ver.), 'new heavens and a new earth, wherein
dwelleth righteousness' (2 Pet. 3.13) . . ."
*Blaikie says: "It would
be impossible to narrate all the sieges, battles, murders, and massacres, that
gave their dark hue to this period of history" (Bible History, p. 398).
_____________
But more interesting than
these comments are two Old Testament passages that link up with this passage in
a very definite way. Note these two passages:
"For, behold, I create
new heaven and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered,
nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I create;
for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will
rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall be
no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an
infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the Child
shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an
hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit
them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat of the fruit of them. They shall
not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for as
the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy
the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the
Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before
they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The
wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the
bullock; and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy
in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord" (Isa. 65:17-25).
"For as the new heavens
and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord,
so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from
one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come
to worship before me, saith the Lord" (Isa. 66:22, 23).
Can there be any reasonable
doubt that our Lord had these passages in mind when He spoke of "the
regeneration"? Furthermore, is it not evident that Peter also had these
passages in mind when he wrote of the "new heavens and a new earth,
wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet. 3;13)? The author regards it as
definitely settled that Peter's words allude to the same
thing as do those of our Lord in Matt. 19:28 and that the establishment of the
millennial reign of Christ will be ushered in by the establishment of new
heavens and a new earth.
3.
IT WILL BE PREEMINENTLY JEWISH
We have noted that believers
will reign with Christ in His throne. But Matt. 19:28, which we have noticed
already, tells us that the twelve apostles will occupy twelve thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel. Of course the spiritualizers will anathematize us
for taking the Lord to mean exactly what He says here, but we are not in the least afraid of, nor slightly worried by, their
ruthless campaign to emasculate the Word of God.
Just as our Lord, steeped in prophesy
as He was, very likely had in mind the passages already cited from Isaiah in
speaking of "the regeneration," so likewise there
is another passage from Isaiah that He must have had in mind in referring to
twelve apostles and their sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes
of Israel. This other passage is Isa. 1:26, which reads:
"And I will restore thy
JUDGES as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning;
afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city."
All of this implies, and the
Bible conclusively teaches, the regathering of Israel, the conversion of
Israel, and the restoration of Israel's national life. Let us note:
(1) The Regathering of Israel.
A. Scriptures that allude to
it.
Note carefully
the three following passages:
"And in that day there
shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it
shall all the Gentiles seek, and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come
to pass in that day that the Lord shall set his hand a second time to recover
the remnant of his people which shall be left, from
Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and
from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set
up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel and
gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth"
(Isa. 1:10-12).
"For the children of
Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without
a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without a
teraphim; afterward shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their
God, and David their king: and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days" (Hosea 3:4, 5).
"Behold, I will gather
them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my
fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I
will cause them to dwell safely: and they shall be my people, and I will be their god: and I will give them one heart, and one way,
that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children
after them: and I will make an everlasting Covenant with them, and I will not
turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts,
that they shall not depart from me" (Jer. 32:37-40).
"And I will bring again
the captivity of my people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and
inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they
shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon
their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God" (Amos 9:14,15).
Note that these prophecies
speak of a recovering, a return, a gathering, and a bringing again of the Jews.
We affirm that they have reference to Israel as a nation and they have not yet
had their complete fulfillment. We make this affirmation on the
basis of the following facts:
(a) A distinction is made in
the first passage between the Gentiles and His people. The Gentiles are to
participate in the blessings of Christ's kingdom, but it is His people, Israel
and Judah, that are to be regathered.
(b) This is to be God's
"second time to recover the remnant of his people."
(c) The gathering is to be,
not merely from Assyria and Babylon and other adjacent countries, but from
"the four corners of the earth."* Thus it is to be a gathering of both Judah and Israel.
(d) This is to be accomplished
in the day when "there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an
ensign of the people." This plainly refers to the times of the Messiah.
(e) The second passage affirms
that in the day of their return the Israelites are to "seek the Lord their
God, and DAVID THEIR KING." This again plainly refers to the days of the
Messiah.
(f) The
third passage stipulates that at the time of this regathering God is going to
make an "everlasting covenant with them," with the result that He
will never again "turn away from them" and "they shall not
depart" from Him.
(g) The fourth passage tells
us that when Israel has been regathered, "they shall no more
be pulled up out of their land." They were pulled up out of their land
again after the return from captivity under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
B. Objections offered by our
opponents against our interpretation of these prophecies.
These objections are many and
they are urged with great insistence. But as far as space will permit, we will
take them up and show that they are groundless.
(a) In spite of the facts to
which we have called attention we are told quite confidently
that the first passage given above (Isa. 11:10-12) refers to the return
recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
This is said on the basis of
the fact that in Isa. 10:24-34 the prophet "refers to the Assyrian."
But this by no means proves that nothing in the following chapter can go beyond the historic return of Israel, even as our opponents
themselves admit by
____________
*For a prediction of the
present general dispersion of the Jews, see Deut. 28:49-69. This was fulfilled
in 70 A. D. under the Romans. "The distance from which the Romans came, the rapidity of their marches, the emblem of
their arms, their military training, and foreign tongue, could scarcely have
been described in more accurate terms. The continued desolation that was to
ensue is not applicable to the time of Nebuchadnezzar or of Antiochus"
(Urquhart, The New Biblical Guide, Vol. 8, p. 275).
referring a part of this
prophecy to our times. Note is taken of the fact that "the Lord shall set
his hand A SECOND TIME to recover the remnant of his people," but we are
told that the "first time" was their deliverance from Egypt. This is
said simply on the basis of the fact that vs. 16 says that
in the day of Israel's return "there shall be a highway for the remnant of
his people like as it was to Israel in the days that he came up out of the land
of Egypt."* We leave the reader to form his own opinion of the validity of
this argument. Does the mere mention of a thing by a prophet give us the
liberty of reading it into his writings wherever we see fit?
"In that day" of
Isa. 11:10 is wrested from its connection with the rest of the sentence and
made to refer to the day of return from Assyria and Babylon. No account
whatsoever is taken of the fact that this prophecy is "dated," the
whole thing being, attached to that day when "there shall be a root of
Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people."
(b) However, despite all their
efforts, our opponents cannot find a complete fulfillment of these prophecies
in the Old Testament. Thus they fall back on a second line of attack, and
affirm a fulfillment in this present gospel age. We are told that
the Holy Spirit has dated the prophecy of Isa. 11:1-10 and has declared it
fulfilled in this age. Rom. 15:12 is given to prove this. We answer that Paul,
in Rom. 15:12, makes merely an application of one and only one part of this
prophecy to show "that God's purpose from the beginning was to comprehend
both Jews and Gentiles in the wide embrace of His mercy, through the
Messiah" (A. N. Arnold). There is not one thing in
Rom. 15 or in any other New Testament passage that indicates that Christ and
the apostles considered Old Testament prophecies concerning the Jews as finding
consummate fulfillment in the Gentiles of this age. Paul, in Rom. 15:12, quotes
from Isa. 11:10 only insofar as this latter passage refers
____________
*Verse 16 is really a
boomerang against our opponents when read in the light of the preceding verses.
Vs. 15 tells us there shall be a smiting of the "tongue of the Egyptian
sea" so as to "make men go over dryshod." This explains the
reference to Israel's deliverance from Egypt. Just as they crossed the Red Sea
dryshod, so in their final return from captivity they will
cross waters dryshod. Let our opponents oblige us by telling us how this was
fulfilled in the return from Assyria and Babylonia.
____________
to the Gentiles,
and that, as we have said, only by way of application. He says not one word about vs. 11 and its
prediction of the return of Israel.
Neither does any other New Testament writer make a spiritual application
of such prophecies.
Nevertheless we are told that
the New Testament explains and applies the prophecies of
Israel's restoration from captivity to this gospel era (Isa. 52:11; Jer.
30:18-24; 2 Cor. 6:17,18), and hence that they are typical of our great
deliverance by Jesus Christ. Let the
reader read carefully the passages referred to. There is here nothing more than the application by a New
Testament writer of a principle and an appeal that find their first enunciation
in the Old Testament. This constant
practice of our opponents in reading into New Testament
passages arguments that are not there is sufficient evidence of the utter
falsity of their contention. If they
had any real proof, they would use it.
Similarly it is affirmed that
Jeremiah's prophecy of the new Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) was
fulfilled and established in Christ.
Since the new covenant is a covenant of grace under which God deals with
individual believers instead of with a nation, as under the old covenant,
believers are now under it. BUT SO WAS
ABRAHAM! Gal. 3:6-18. This covenant was first made known fully to Abraham, and
was applied through him to his spiritual seed through Christ. This is the
reason Gentiles participate in it. But in Jer. 31 and 32 it is revealed that
Israel as a nation (the nation living at the time) shall come under this
covenant. Whereas once God dealt mainly
with them as a whole under the old covenant, then He shall deal with the whole
nation as individuals under the new covenant. Then the writer to the Hebrews,
writing to professed believers among the Jews, makes application of Jeremiah's words to prove to these Jews that the old covenant has been replaced. There is nothing here to prove that there is
not yet to be an application of this covenant to the whole house of national
Israel. This is the evident meaning of
Jeremiah's words, interpreted in the light of all Old Testament prophecy. When
our opponents spiritualize them they do so, not upon the basis of Scripture,
but upon the basis of their own preconceived notions. The only safe method if interpreting God's
Word is to consider it literal unless there is clear indication of a figurative
of spiritual meaning. They have utterly
failed to produce that clear indication.
When we come to Isa. 11:11, 14
our opponents are hard-pressed indeed.
They know full well that they cannot find a
fulfillment in the Old Testament, nor do they seek to find one; but rather they
tell us that it would require a miracle of raising from the dead the nations
referred to if these verses are to have a literal fulfillment in the future.
They refer, we are told, to the return in this age of the remnant according to
election of grace from among the Jews, that is, their return to God and Christ.
No; the future literal fulfillment of these verses will not
require the raising of the nations mentioned from the dead. The nations
mentioned merely represent the nations of the earth, from among whom, even
"from the four corners of the earth" and "the islands of the
sea," God shall "assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together
the dispersed of Judah."
(c) But our opponents are not
done yet. Lest there might be some bits of prophecy that have escaped the
methods of elimination already noticed, they come with a third attack. We are
told that if there be any left, that are not properly included in the
foregoing classifications, they must be considered forfeited and cancelled,
because the conditions were not met. It is alleged that
Christ and the apostles declare this to be true in Matt. 23:37, 38; Rom. 11:10;
I Thess. 2:15,16.
Let us examine these passages.
In the first one (Matt. 23:37,38) Jesus says: "Behold your house is left
unto you desolate." This, He told them in the next verse, was because He was going away from them, which in the purpose of
God was in consequence of their rejection of Him. Hence they would not see Him
henceforth- for how long? Not forever, but "TILL YE SHALL SAY, BLESSED IS
HE THAT COMETH IN THE NAME OF THE LORD." This points to the time when
Israel will be no longer unbelieving, but will gladly receive Christ. This is
to be, according to Christ, at HIS COMING. We shall notice
more about this later.
The second passage is Rom. 11:
10, which reads: "Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and
bow down their back alway," a quotation from Psa. 69:23. This deprecation,
when read, as certainly it should be, in the light of the whole of the sixty-ninth Psalm and the eleventh chapter of Romans, can be
taken as APPLYING PRIMARILY TO THE GENERATION OF THE JEWS LIVING AT THE TIME OF
CHRIST'S EARTHLY MINISTRY. Beyond that, it can APPLY TO THE CONTINUED NATION
ONLY SO LONG AS THEY CONTINUE THEIR REJECTION OF CHRIST. Notice that David
implies that they will not always reject the Messiah, when
in vs. 35 he says: "For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of
Judah; that they may dwell there, and have it in possession." Paul
develops this thought and makes its meaning unmistakable, viz., "For I
would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should
be wise in your own conceits; that a hardening in PART hath befallen Israel,
UNTIL THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES BE COME IN" (Rom.
11:25). This is the key verse of the whole chapter. The whole chapter is based
on two facts: (1) That Israel's hardness and unbelief are only IN PART, partial,
not involving the whole nation-there being now "a remnant according to the
election of grace" (Rom. 11:5). (2) That it is TEMPORARY, extending only
"UNTIL the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
Then, as the next verse states, and as we shall note more fully later,
"all Israel (the nation living at the time) shall be saved."
What we have just said about
Rom. 11:10 also fully explains the third passage cited, 1 Thess. 2:15,16.
This alleged forfeiture and
cancellation of blessings promised to Israel is based on what our opponents
call the conditional element in prophecy. As proof of this conditional element
they cite Deut. 28:13-15, 25, 43, 44; Jer. 18: 17-10.
To which
we reply that God's blessings are always conditional. God's grace and blessings
to believers in this age are conditioned* on their faithfulness and final
perseverance. See. Matt. 10:22, 32; Acts 14:22; Rom. 2:6-10; 11:22; Col.
1:21-23; Rev. 2:7, 11. Yet God declares in absolute terms that all who truly
believe on Christ will be finally saved. It is only the Arminian that denies
this. And our opponents put themselves on Arminian ground
when they allege the cancellation and forfeiture of the blessings promised to
Israel. They are no better on this score than the Arminian is in seeking to prove
that saved people may fail to receive their eternal inheritance. We had just as
soon argue one as the other. The cases are exactly parallel. The blessings
promised to Israel are stated in terms fully as absolute as are the words spoken of and to believers. Turn and read again the Scriptures
given on a previous page to prove the regathering of Israel. Words could not be
more manifestly absolute.
The explanation of it all is
that with Israel, as well as with believers, God has guaranteed
that the conditions will be met. In both cases this guarantee is based
______________
*A condition, as here implied,
is "an event, fact, or the like that is necessary to the occurrence of
some other, though not its cause" (Funk & Wagnalls Desk Standard Dictionary).
______________
upon God's eternal
foreknowledge and choice, upon eternal, unconditional election, if you please.
See. Rom. 8:29, 30; 11:2, 27-29.
This brings us then to note:
(2) The Conversion of Israel.
A.
Scriptures that allude to it.
The following passages show
that Israel will receive all the things promised of God by turning to Him as a
whole in genuine repentance and faith through His grace and the operation of
the power of the Holy Spirit:
"And I will turn my hand
upon thee, and thoroughly purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin; and
I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the
beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the
faithful town. Zion shall be redeemed with judgment, and her converts with righteousness."- Isa. 1:25-27
"And it shall come to
pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall
be called holy, every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem; when
the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion,
and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the
spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning."- Isa. 4:3, 4.
"And it shall be said in
that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, we will be glad and
rejoice in his salvation."- Isa. 25:9.
"For I will take you from
among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into
your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A
new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of the flesh, and I will
give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you
to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."-
Ezek. 36:24-27.
"And I will pour upon the
house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the
spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look upon me whom they have
pierced and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that
is in bitterness for his firstborn."- Zech. 12:10.
"And I will cause the
captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will
build them, as at the first. And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity,
whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities,
whereby they have transgressed against me. And this city shall be to me a name
of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall
hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all
the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto
it" (Jer. 33:7-9).
"And so all Israel shall
be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and
shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them when
I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching election, they are beloved for
the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are not repented of"
(Rom. 11: 26-29).
The "all Israel"
that shall be saved is explained by Isa. 4;3, given previously, viz.. "he
that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, . . . every one that
is written among the living in Jerusalem." This latter
passage is further explained by Zech. 13:8, 9 which reads: "And it shall
come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be
cut off and die; BUT A THIRD PART SHALL BE LEFT THEREIN. And I will bring the
third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and
will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name,
and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people; and they shall say, The Lord
is my God."
B. Objections offered by our opponents against our interpretation
of these prophecies.
(a) Will any of our opponents
say that these prophecies have been accomplished already in the experience of
national Israel? If so, then let them
note:
(1) That this conversion,
according to Zech. 12:10, was to come after the Jews had pierced
Christ; for it is said, "...they shall look upon me whom they have
pierced," and it is evident that this passage refers to the same
experience spoken of in the other passages we have given. (2) There was no time
in the history of Israel in the Old Testament when every one remaining in
Jerusalem was called holy, as declared by Isa. 4:3. (3) Paul's reference to the
salvation of Israel (Rom. 11:26) shows that this was not an
Old Testament experience. (4) The words of every passage given imply something
surpassing anything experienced by Israel either in the return from Babylon or
their liberation from Antiochus Epiphanes.
(b) Will our opponents say
that the blessings mentioned were forfeited because the conditions
were not met? If so, let them stipulate the conditions.
Are we not told that Israel
will say, "Lo, this is our God"; that a new heart and a new spirit
will be put within them, causing them to walk in God's statutes and keep His
judgments; that there will be poured upon them the spirit of grace and of supplications; so that they shall be purged, washed, cleansed,
redeemed, and pardoned? How could language be made more absolute? If the
blessings of these passages were forfeitable, then so also is the salvation of
all God's elect. Before we can believe that these promises are not absolute, we
shall have to be convinced of the truth of Arminianism.
(c) No; perhaps not many of
our opponents will take either of two views already noticed. Most of them will
say that these promises are to be spiritualized and applied to believers in
this gospel age; to which we reply:
(1) What
is the meaning, then, of "I will restore thy judges as at the first"
(Isa. 1:26)? (2) Furthermore, what is the meaning of "every one that is
written among the living in Jerusalem" (Isa. 4:3)? (3) Again, what is
meant when God says to Israel that He will "build them, as at the
first" (Jer. 33:7)?
The whole
question as to the spiritualization of the passages given may be resolved to
the proper interpretation of Rom. 11:26. The spiritualizers tell us that
"all Israel" here is the elect of all nations, so-called spiritual
Israel. But such an interpretation of this passage is nothing short of a
ruthless wresting of it from its context. It is so absurd that we make bold to
say that no careful reader will adopt it except that he is more
interested in sustaining a theory than he is in knowing the truth. The contrast
all the way through the chapter is between the Gentiles and Israel, and vs. 25
makes it plain that this distinction carries right on into vs. 26. Therefore
candid commentators, wholly apart from any interest in the millennial question,
recognize that the allusion here is to national Israel, viz., "The
immediate context . . . argues for the Jewish people 'as a
whole'" (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament). "But
surely it puts violence on words, and in thought, to explain 'Israel' in this
whole passage mystically. Interpretation becomes an arbitrary work if ye may
suddenly do so here, where the antithesis of Israel and 'the Gentiles' is the
very theme of the message. No; we have here the nation, chosen once to a
mysterious specialty in the spiritual history of man,
chosen with a choice never cancelled, however abeyant. A blessing is in view
for the nation; a blessing spiritual, divine, all of grace, quite individual in
its action, but national in the scale of its results" (H. G. Moule, The
Expositor's Bible). "All Israel shall be saved: the great mass of the
Jews, in contrast with the 'remnant' referred to in verse 5" (J. M.
Pendleton, The New Testament With Brief Notes). "And
so. . . all Israel shall be saved- that is, the literal Israel, in the
collective sense of the word, all the posterity of Jacob. That the word is to
be taken in this sense and not in the sense of spiritual Israel, including the
Gentiles, is fairly inferred from the sharp distinction between Jews and
Gentiles observed throughout this whole section; see 9:24, 30, 31; 10:12,
19-21; 11:11, 12, 13, and especially in the immediate
context, ver. 17-31" (A. N. Arnold, An American Commentary on the New
Testament). "In our view Paul teaches that ... Israel as a whole, perhaps
'the whole nation which shall then be in existence' (Prof. Turner), will accept
Jesus as their Messiah..." (D. B. Ford, ibid).
(3) The
Restoration of Israel's National Life
A. The theocratic government
of Israel will be restored. Christ will be their king and the twelve apostles
will be their judges. Isa. 9:7; 32:1; Jer. 23:5, 6; Ezek. 34:23, 24; Zech.
3:14, 15; Zech. 14:9, 16; Isa. 1:26; Matt. 19:28.
B. Jerusalem will be the
center of government and religious life. Isa. 2:3, 4; Joel 3:16, 17; Zech.
14:8, 9, 21.
C. All nations will come to
Jerusalem to worship. See Isa. 2:3 again and also: Zech. 8:21,
22; Zech. 14:16, 17; Isa. 66:22, 23.
Our opponents say a literal
fulfillment of these passages in the future will be impossible.
By which
we are reminded that Sir Isaac Newton once predicted that it "was
necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy that the means of rapid communication
between all nations should be greatly extended . . . as to enable men to travel
forty miles an hour. On which opinion Voltaire made this remark: 'What do you
think Sir Isaac Newton said? Why, he actually predicts that the time will come
when people will travel at the rate of forty miles an hour.
See to what extremities the study of the Bible can drive a great and gifted
mind"' (Urquhart, New Biblical Guide, Vol. 8, page 287). We smile at this
from Voltaire. But the argument of our opponents is just as puerile and stupid.
Do they think that it is impossible with God to bring this about? Do they know
how much faster international communication shall become? Can
they predict that geographical conditions in the new earth will not render this
easier than at present? For ourself we believe that inasmuch as the mouth of
God spoke the prophecy that same mouth will command its accomplishment; and it
shall be done.
D. Worship
will be in full accord with the finished work of redemption. We feel that
neither logic, nor consistency, nor anything said in the Bible, obliges us to
believe that the sacrificial system of the Jews will be wholly restored.
There will be a house of
worship, called both a tabernacle and a temple (Ezek. 37:27;
43:5-7; Zech. 6:12, 13; 14:21; Mal. 3:1). The temple shown Ezekiel in vision
(chapters 40-47) is perhaps a foreshadowing in general of that temple,
especially in view of Ezek. 45:5-7; 47, but as to the letter we regard the
pattern as that which Israel should have followed in rebuilding the temple
after returning from Babylon.* Here perhaps is a merging of the two: the temple
that Israel should have built, and the one that the Lord
Himself shall build; just as in other passages we have a merging of the two
returns of Israel the two advents (Mal. 3:1-5;
_________
*We do not have it positively
declared in Ezekiel that God would bring about the construction
of a temple according to all the details of this vision. On the other hand, it
is positively declared that God will accomplish the return, conversion, and
reestablishment of Israel. Thus we can consistently believe the latter without
believing the former.
_________
Isa. 61:1,2*), and the two
sieges of Jerusalem (Matt. 24- the one that occurred in 70 A. D., and the one
that shall occur in the battle of Armageddon, Zech. 14:1,2; Rev. 19:19-21). There
are passages that speak of sacrifices in connection with the millennium. But
these may be mere figurative expressions of worship. We feel sure that the work of priests under Christ's reign (Isa. 66:21)
will be so altered as to make it fit into His finished redemption. The
sacrifices that were made in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles (Zech.
14:16) and any other special seasons that may be observed, we feel sure, will
be either abolished or so altered as to fit into the nature of Christ's reign.
We are not the least afraid that God will not know how to fit
these things into His plan.
To interpret references to
sacrifices in the new earth as figurative does not mean that in order to be
consistent we must ruthlessly spiritualize all prophecy that was not fulfilled
to Israel in the former dispensation. There is absolutely no reason for spiritualizing the regathering, conversion, and
reestablishment of Israel as a nation. They are never spiritualized in the New
Testament, and there is nothing about them that is incongruent with the reign
of Christ. But in the case of the sacrificial system, it is different. Thus we
are sticking to our rule of interpreting Scripture literally, unless we have
clear indication of, or good reason for, a figurative or symbolic meaning. Also our interpretation here is in harmony with the
face that the literal and the symbolic are sometimes mingled together in the
Bible.
At this point it is
appropriate to reply briefly to certain objections:
(1) There
will not be a return from Christ to Moses, for Christ will be there in Moses'
stead, according to Deut. 18:15. Grace and the gospel will reign in the
millennium as now. (2) There will not be a return to the old covenant, but the
application of the new covenant to Israel as foretold. (3) There will not be a
turning back to the Aaronic priesthood, except insofar as it fits into the
reign of the
*Note how our Lord, in reading
in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16-20), stopped in the middle of this
verse; because the rest of the verse had not to do with His first advent, but
His second. In like manner, whatever there is in the vision of Ezekiel
that does not fit into the reign of Christ on the earth we may consider as not
applying to it.
________
Messiah. Christ will be the
high priest then as now. He will appoint priests and Levites
to assist Him, Isa. 66.21. We are willing to trust Him to work this out in full
harmony with His finished work. (4) It will not be a backward step when the
church gives way to redeemed Israel. Rather it will be a glorious climax. Rom.
11:12; Isa. 11:10. (5) Christianity will not be superseded by Judaism, but
rather the grace of God will triumph over and permeate Israel; and Israel will
be made whatever it pleases God for her to be. We expect to
be there and to rejoice in it. Isa. 65:17-19; 66:10-14. We rejoice even now as
we live in anticipation of it.
III.
THE APOSTLES AND THE FUTURE KINGDOM
The
apostles, after attending upon Christ's ministry for three years, believed that
the kingdom was to be restored to Israel as evidenced by their question, Acts
1:6. They had heard Him speak the words of Matt. 19:28, which promised them
that they would rule over Israel, and the words of Matt. 23:39, which carry the
inescapable implication that Israel would some day say: "Blessed is he
that cometh in the name of the Lord." Perhaps He had
enlarged on these matters in their presence, and had spoken of them at times
other than those referred to above. Christ's words had confirmed the hope that
Old Testament prophecy had kindled in their hearts. They believed the fact, but
were confused as to the time. Consequently they asked Him: "Lord, wilt
thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Here
was Christ's opportunity to set them right if they were wrong. But He did not
do it! Why? If our opponents had been in His place, they certainly would not
have passed up the opportunity. They are very active and zealous today in
trying to rescue from "heresy" those of us who believe exactly what the
apostles believed, i. e., that the kingdom in due time will be restored to
Israel. Was Christ less zealous for the truth than they?
Was He less interested in the apostles than they are in us? Why did He not tell
those "erring" apostles, as surely our opponents would have done,
that this Jewish fable that had originated in the apocalyptic writings of the
inter-Biblical period was not taught by the prophets and that they were not to
understand Him as teaching this in anything He had said; that the distinction
between Jews and Gentiles had been obliterated forever;
that all the prophecies of the Old Testament not literally fulfilled in that
period, either had been forfeited or were to be spiritualized and applied to
this age? We ask again, Why did Christ not disillusion them?
Christ's
failure to correct this supposedly wrong notion becomes even stronger evidence
that it was not wrong in the light of John 14:2- "In my Father's house are
many mansions; IF IT WERE NOT SO, I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU."
Then, when, instead of
correcting them, He gave an answer that distinctly implies the
truth of their belief, it furnishes certain proof that they were right. He said
simply: "It is not for you to know the times or the season, which the
Father hath put in his own power."
IV.
THE FUTURE KINGDOM AND THE COMPARATIVE SILENCE OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT
Our opponents make much of
what they call the silence of Christ and the apostles as to the details of what
we believe concerning the future kingdom. This silence is not so great as they
would have us think. They deny everything that is said, and then shout that the New Testament is silent. They are like a
disputant that forbids his opponent to speak and then uses his failure to speak
as an argument against Him.
We have noted that the New
Testament predicts a future kingdom. We have noted that it teaches unmistakably
that Christ will ascend His throne when He comes, and that
the apostles will occupy special positions of rule over Israel. We have shown
how this connects up with prophecy. We have seen that all believers will reign
with Christ when He ascends His throne. We have observed that "all
Israel"* in distinction from the Gentiles will be saved, saying
"Blessed is he that cometh in the
__________
*Another argument of our opponents
as to the meaning of "all Israel" (Rom. 11:26) is that it refers to
the elect remnant among the Jews and not to the whole nation. But vss. 16 and
25 make this very untenable for all who put truth above a theory. The former
verse argues that the elect remnant of Paul's day were the "first
fruits," and that inasmuch as these first fruits were
holy, "the lump (the nation in prospect) is also holy." Then, as we
have pointed out previously, the latter verse informs us that the blindness of
the nation is not only partial, but also temporary, existing only "until
the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
__________
name of the Lord" (Matt.
23:39), which event was manifestly in the mind of Paul when in speaking of the
veil that is yet upon the heart of Israel he said: "Nevertheless when it
(the nation) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall he taken away" (2 Cor.
3:16). In harmony with this, Christ taught that Jerusalem, after its devastation by Titus, 70 A. D., would be "trodden down of
the Gentiles not always, but only "until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). Then we have the much disputed passage of Rev.
20:1-7, concerning which we shall see more later. These references are enough
to show the meaning of prophecy.
However it
is true that the New Testament says much less than the Old Testament about the
future of Israel as a nation. This is because its primary application is to the
times of the Gentiles. This is similar to the fact that the Old Testament has
comparatively little to say by way of good about the Gentiles.
On the
other hand, let it be observed that the passages on which our opponents rely
are comparatively few and inconclusive. They can find no reference to Christ's
sitting on the throne of David now. They can point to no statement from Christ
or any apostle to the effect that prophetic references to the regathering of
Israel refer to the gathering of the elect out of all nations; that Old
Testament references to Jerusalem and the blessings that
should come upon it have been fulfilled in this age or that they refer to
"new Jerusalem"; that believers are now reigning with Christ on earth
or in Heaven. Thus the discussion narrows itself down to two questions. (1) Are
the New Testament references relied on by us stronger and more conclusive than
those relied on by our opponents? (2) Will Old Testament prophecy submit to the methods of elimination used by our opponents? Every
student must decide these questions for himself.
V.
THE FUTURE KINGDOM AND THE INTERPRETATION OF REV. 20:1-7
We are
ready now to inquire into the proper interpretation of this much-disputed
chapter. It is altogether proper to interpret it in the light of the rest of
the Bible, particularly the New Testament. When so interpreted, are we to
conclude that Satan is now bound or that he has been bound at any time during
this age, as some of our opponents contend? Are there any other references that
suggest or commend this conclusion? We certainly do not
believe so. The victory of Christ over the Devil at the Cross, so far as it
affected the world in general, was potenital, not actual. Matt. 12:29; Luke
11:22 have reference to individual cases and not to the general binding of
Satan. The same is true of Christ's giving of authority over devils to the
apostles. That affected his work only in the case of those with whom the
apostles came in contact. It left him perfectly free with
others. Nor do 1 John 5:18; John 10:28; Jas. 4:7 have any reference to the
general binding of Satan. Throughout the New Testament he is seen, not chained
and in the bottomless pit, but catching "away that which was sown in the
heart (Matt. 13:19); sowing tares in the field (Matt. 13:39); sifting believers
(Luke 22:31); holding the lost in his power (Acts 26:18) and blinding
their eyes (2 Cor. 4:4); corrupting minds "from the simplicity that is in
Christ" and transforming himself "into an angel of light" (2
Cor. 11:3); as "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now
worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2); hindering believers
(1 Thess. 2:18); and walking about as a roaring lion "seeking whom he may
devour" (1 Pet. 5:8). Such passages as in Rom. 16:20
and Rev. 12:12 (if Rev. 12 he interpreted as the birth of Christ) must be
interpreted where the word "short" has been found already to allow
the lapse of more than nineteen centuries.
Does it seem likely that the
binding of Satan means no more than that he should not prevent
the preaching of the gospel to all nations? Is not the language of Rev. 20:2, 3
too strong to be adapted to such a weak meaning? Does the fall of the pagan
Roman empire satisfy the fact that Satan, in the vision, was cast "into
the bottomless pit," where he was shut up by a seal? Does this sound like
a mere limiting of his activity? or does it sound like complete restraint? Was
paganism the only method of deception used by the Devil?
Did not the so-called Holy Roman Empire become as great an enemy to true
Christianity as paganism had ever been? Did it not imbibe much of paganism and
bring it within the pale of Christianity, thus corrupting the truth? Was not
this even worse deception than before? And has not this deception grown to
great dimensions, involving people of all nations? In the light of Rev. 3:21, which shows that Christ is not now on His own throne, and
Matt. 19:28 and 25:31, which give us the earliest time when He is said to sit
on His throne, that is, at His coming, can we regard the saints as reigning
with Him now either on earth or in Heaven? In the light of the use of
"souls" in Acts 2:41; 27:37; 1 Pet. 3:20, can one insist that the
words, "I saw the souls of them that were beheaded," etc., prove that
those alluded to were to reign in the disembodied state? Is
it not evident that the "beast" of Revelation is one and the same as
Paul's "man of sin" (2 Thess. 2:4)? If so, then since the man of sin
is to be destroyed "with the brightness of His (Christ's) coming," is
it not manifest that Rev. 19:11-16 depicts the coming of Christ, inasmuch as
the event here described results in the destruction of the beast (Rev. 19:20)? If this is true, then, since the resurrection of the
righteous will occur in connection with Christ's coming (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess.
4:16), is it not likely that the "first resurrection" referred to in
Rev. 20 is the actual resurrection of the righteous, rather than a spiritual or
metaphorical resurrection? Does it not appear strained and illogical to regard
the "first resurrection" as symbolizing the revival of things for which martyrs had stood and consequently the corresponding
"second resurrection" as symbolizing the revival and triumph of the
things for which the wicked had stood, when there in vss. 12-14 an actual
resurrection is depicted? In other words is it not poor exegesis to postulate a
resurrection in vss. 7-10, where there is no mention of a coming forth from the
dead, when the required "second resurrection!' is
provided in vss. 12-14, in which we have an actual coming forth of the dead? Is
it not straining the ordinary use of language to insist on such exactness as to
require the words, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the
thousand years were finished," to mean that the "second
resurrection" had to come exactly at the expiration of the thousand years
and could not occur at the end of the following "little
season"? Does not vs. 6 indicate that "the first resurrection!' is a
bodily resurrection by implying that all who do not participate in it will come
under the power of the second death? Can the "first resurrection!" be
considered representative of a revival of the piety and principles of the
martyrs when vs. 4 does not say that only martyrs sat upon thrones? John saw
the thrones occupied, and he saw the martyrs; but the verse
certainly does not prove that only the martyrs were on the thrones.
As we answer these questions
for ourselves we conclude that the passage under discussion refers to the same
kingdom that we have been considering; that kingdom that
will ensue when Christ comes and ascends His throne. In our mind the evidence
for this view is conclusive.
VI.
THE FUTURE KINGDOM AND CERTAIN GENERAL OBJECTIONS
As we have
proceeded with our discussion we have tried to answer as many of our opponent's
specific objections as we have been able to deal with in an orderly way. We
shall now turn to some more general objections to the things set forth in this
chapter.
1. We are
told that the New Testament characterizes the days of this gospel era as the
"last," and that there can be, therefore, no further period of time
beyond the end of the present age. Passages cited in this connection are as
follows: Heb. 1:1,2; Heb. 9:26; 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 John 2:18; 1 Pet. 1:20.
The reply
here is simple. These passages, speaking of "the end of these days,"
"the end of the ages," "the ends of the ages," "the
last time," and "these last times," must be understood in the
light of the following passages: Matt. 12:32; Luke 18:30; Eph. 1:21; 2:7; Heb.
6:5, which speak of "the world to come," "the ages to
come," and "the age to come." In the light of these latter
passages, the former ones can mean no more than that we are
now living in the last days, ages, and times of the present order of things,
while the latter passages tell us of other ages yet to come. Those who deny
this put themselves in direct and unmistakable opposition to the Word of God.
Nor is it
ours to say arbitrarily what will be the divine order of things for the age
that immediately follows this one. We must let the Word of God answer. This age
will be terminated with judgment. See. Matt. 13:40; 25:31-46. (Our opponents
will agree with us this far.) This will be followed by the saved on earth
entering into the kingdom prepared for them. Matt. 25:34. It is in connection
with this judgment and this kingdom that we have the first
mention of Christ's sitting on His throne. Then we learn more about the nature
of this kingdom by turning to Matt. 19:23, where we find that it will be
ushered in by "the regeneration," and by the twelve apostles sitting
on thrones judging the tribes of Israel. "The regeneration" unmistakably
points back to the "new heavens and a new earth" of Isa. 65:17-25. It
will be seen by reading these verses that they do not
describe the final state of the righteous, but just such an order of things as
one would expect under the promised blessings of God upon Israel and the
binding of Satan. It is an order where death will yet prevail, where sin will
enter, though it will not be present at first; where houses will be built,
vineyards planted, and prayer offered.
We are living in the last days
of gospel opportunity for those now living. None who die in unbelief or who are
found in unbelief when Christ comes to judge the world will enter into His
future kingdom, but will perish, Matt. 25: 41. Hence none now living will have
an opportunity to be saved beyond this life or age.
The judgment of Matt. 25 is a
judgment of nations in the sense of the individuals that make up these nations.
None but saved individuals will enter the millennium. These are the sheep of
this judgment. They are Gentile believers. On the other hand, we have shown
that "all Israel," the nation that witnesses the return of the Lord (Isa. 4:3,4; Zech 12:10), will be converted as individuals.
Hence only saved Jews will enter the millennium. But, if as we believe, these
saved Gentiles and Jews will enter the millennium in their natural bodies, the
race will continue to reproduce itself and the children that are born will need
to be saved. Certainly the gospel will not have lost its saving power for them.
Let us remember that the term "gospel age" for this present
period is of our own coining. The New Testament has not given it this
designation. The Bible designation for this age is "the times of the
Gentiles" (Luke 24:21). We have no ground, therefore, for inferring that
this is the only age in which the gospel will be preached. Our opponents make
unwarranted assumptions here as elsewhere.
2. Our opponents find
intolerable incongruity in the mingling of mortals and immortals in the
millennial kingdom.
We do not know just how much mingling
there win be between the two. But the reply here is again
very simple, exceedingly simple, and quite brief. The saints who reign with
Christ will have bodies like that of Christ (1 John 3:2; 1 Cor. 15:49; Phil.
3:21): the body in which He was raised from the grave, in which He ascended,
and in which He will come again (Acts 1:11). While here on earth in that body
Christ mingled with the mortal disciples, being seen of above five hundred of
them at one time. 1 Cor. 15.6. Seemingly He found no
incongruity in this. Neither would our opponents if they were not hard-pressed
for arguments.
3. It is contended that the
prophets saw the final fulfillment of their prophecies in the resurrection of
all believers rather than in the return and restoration of national Israel.
A. Ezek. 37 is given as
teaching this. In this chapter the regathering and restoration of Israel is
likened, not to a resurrection, but a restoration. Ezekiel saw sinews, flesh,
and skin corning upon dried bones and these bones were made to live. Our opponents would see this if they would look for facts,
instead of putting upon every passage they deal with the interpretation that
suits them. The vision was given because the Israelites in captivity were
saying: "Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost; we are cut off for our
parts" (vs. 11). Therefore the "graves," mentioned in the next
verse, out of which God promised to bring His people, are not holes in the ground, but the nations that swallowed them up. Lam. 2:16;
Ezek. 36:3; Hos. 8:8.
The parable of the two sticks
that follows that of the dry bones in the valley shows the meaning of the
former. Ezekiel was to hold the two sticks joined into one before the eyes of
the people, and say: "Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they be gone, and will gather them
on every side, and bring them into their own land." Vss. 20,21. Then the
verses that follow show that this looked to Messianic times for its consummate
fulfillment, a time when "David my servant shall be king over them,"
and when "they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob . .
." (vss. 24, 25). There is nothing here that hints even remotely
at the resurrection of believers.
B. Another passage used by our
opponents in this connection is Isa. 25:2-9. This passage makes allusion to the
resurrection, but it cannot be taken that the prophecies concerning Israel's
restoration were to be fulfilled through the resurrection,
for "It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for
him, and he will save us; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice
in his salvation" (vs. 9). These are the words of restored Israel, and
they are the words, not of people resurrected, but of people converted. Vs. 8
mentions the resurrection of believers as occurring along with Israel's
restoration, but not as the means of it.
C. Dan. 12:1-3, 13 is also
offered in defense of this position. But no such teaching is found there. Vs. I
speaks of one fact, the deliverance of the Jews, the living nation, while vss.
2,3,13 speak of another, the resurrection of believers. Again the two are
associated, but the latter is not made the means of the former.
D. In Hos. 13:14 the
restoration of Israel is expressed as a resurrection, but it is just as easy to
understand this as being a figurative representation of the restoration of a
living nation as it is to understand passages that describe such a restoration
as being a figurative representation of a resurrection. We believe the Bible
demands the former. The fact that Paul, in 1 Cor. 15: 55,
quotes from Hos. 13:14 proves nothing as to the application of this passage to
Israel. Its language alludes to a resurrection, and can therefore be applied to
a resurrection. But the application of the verse to Israel must be governed by
the preponderance of scriptural testimony.
E. Acts
26:6-8 is used in an effort to prove that the resurrection of believers is the
hope of Israel, but the passage says no such thing. The hope was, as Hackett
points out, "'Of the promise'-i. e., of a Messiah- 'made unto our
fathers.'" The resurrection mentioned is that of Christ, as shown by Acts
13:32, 33, and not that of believers, as our opponents would have us think;
"because the resurrection, considered as involving
the ascension and exaltation, was essentially the finishing act in the
fulfillment of the promise relating to the Messiah" (Hackett).
F. In somewhat loose
connection with the foregoing passages, our opponents also use Acts 3:24; 1
Pet. 1:10-12.
Acts 3:24 says that "all
the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken,
have likewise foretold of these days." Yes, all the prophets have foretold
of "these days," but the passage does not say, as our opponents would
arbitrarily assume, that ALL THAT THE PROPHETS WROTE HAS ITS APPLICATION
TO THESE DAYS. They spoke of the first
advent of Christ and His earthly ministry, but they also spoke of HIS SECOND
ADVENT AND THINGS THAT WILL FOLLOW. Vs. 21, for instance, speaks of "the
times of restitution (or restoration) of all things, which God hath spoken by
the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." This looks
beyond the second advent and alludes to "a sate of
primeval order, purity, and happiness, such as will exist for those who have part
in the kingdom of Christ at His second coming" (H. B. Hackett, in An
American Commentary on the New Testament). The word for "restoration"
was "used by the disciples to Jesus in Acts 1:6" ("Wilt thou at
this time restore again the kingdom to Israel") and by Josephus "of
the return from captivity" (Robertson).
Nor does 1 Pet. 1:10-12 teach
that all that the prophets wrote pertains to believers of the present age. Peter says of the prophets that it was
revealed unto them "that not unto themselves, but unto you they did
minister the things"- What things? The remaining words of the verse give
the significant answer- the things "which are now reported
unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you..." This is far
from saying that the prophets wrote nothing that pertains to a future age.
4. Our opponents also use Luke 17:20, 21; John 18:26, 37 and Luke
20:35, 36 against our idea of the millennium.
A. In Luke 17:20, 21 the
Master told the Pharisees that "the kingdom of God cometh not with observation
... the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." The present tense here
shows that Christ spoke of the present form of the kingdom. But we have shown
that the kingdom is to have a future form; and our opponents, regardless
of how much they differ with us as to the future form of the kingdom, must
admit that it will come with observation. It will come, as we have shown, when
Jesus comes again, and His coming is to be visible. His first act as a king on
His own throne will be to judge the nations. This judgment will be visible. As
a result of this judgment the sheep will enter into the kingdom, or form the
kingdom, then to be established. All this will be visible.
B. In John 18:36 Jesus said:
"My kingdom is not of this world." But He certainly did not mean that
His kingdom is not in this world, for we have just noted a Scripture that says
the kingdom is now in the midst of men. He meant that His kingdom
was not of the material that worldly kingdoms are made of; that it was not
permeated by the same spirit, not worldly in nature. This will be just as true
of the future form of the kingdom as it is of this present form.
C. The statement of our Lord
in Luke 20:36, 37, let it be noted, says not simply: "But
they which shall . . . obtain that world, neither marry nor be given in
marriage." Rather, it says: "But they which ... obtain that world,
AND THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD," etc. The statement applies only to
those who come forth in the first resurrection. The question in the preceding
verses, as well as the verse under consideration, shows this to be true.
5. Our opponents have much to
say about the book of Revelation being a "book of symbols."
It is thus that they would
seek to frighten us away from the truth, and get us to accept
their system of arbitrary interpretation. We realize that there is much that is
figurative in the in the book, but we will never admit, as they do not, that
all of it is figurative. Nor will we agree to follow them as they spiritualize
at will in order to fit things into their preconceived theory.
We
recognize that the rider of the white horse in Rev. 19 is a symbol, a symbol of
Christ. And when we read in this chapter, "in righteousness he doth judge
and make war," smiting the nations and ruling them with a rod of iron,
taking the beast and false prophet and casting them into a like of fire, common
honesty will not allow us to say that this all alludes to the fall of the pagan
Roman empire, A. D. 476. We see here the glorious second
advent of Christ, for other passages tell us that when He comes He will come to
judge (Matt. 25:31) and make war (Zech. 14:3-5). We see in vss. 19-21 the same
thing that is described in 16:14-16, as well as partially in 2 Thess. 2:8, and
this to occur in connection with "that great day of God almighty,"
which is manifestly the day of judgment for this world. Moreover when we read
of the beast and false prophet that "both were cast
alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone," we believe it means the
same thing that similar statements mean, i. e., that they were cast into Hell.
This is confirmed by 20:10, which refers to their presence there at the time of
the judgment of the great white throne. Thus again we find connection between
Rev. 19 and Matt. 25:31-46.
Then when we come to chapter
twenty we recognize some more symbols. We do not believe that Satan is to be
bound with a physical chain or that he will be shut up in a physical pit.
Neither a chain nor a pit could confine a spirit being. But we do recognize
that this means that God by His power will temporarily suspend the work of the Devil. Our opponents not only want to spiritualize at
will, but they want to rob some of their symbols of about all their force. We
refuse to trifle with the Word of God by saying that this means merely that the
Devil could not henceforth take believers out of God's hand, or merely could
not prevent the preaching of the gospel to all nations because of the overthrow
of pagan political power.
Furthermore when we read of
occupied thrones and reigning with Christ we see here all believers reigning,
because other passages tell us that they will. See Rev. 2:26; 3:21 in the light
of 1 John 5:4. Moreover when we find this reigning consistently put in the
future (Rev. 2:26; 3:21; Matt. 19:28; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3), we are confirmed
in placing this chapter where it rightfully belongs according to the events of
the nineteenth chapter. Finally, observing the reign of the saints is to be on
the earth (Rev. 5:9, 10), we conclude that this whole matter alludes to an
earthly reign. This is confirmed by Zech. 14:9; Isa. 2:4.