Home The PreteristSite Home Page Preterist StudyAn index of material for the study of orthodox preterism Contra-Hymenæan Materials to refute the NeoHymenæan (hyper-preterist) heresy Resurrection Materials to understand the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection Millennial Materials to refute chiliasm and study post- and a- millennial views Contra-Dispy Materials to refute diSpENSATIONALISM Misc.Misc. resources including a listing of helpful websites Author IndexA listing of all the authors, with their works, that are indexed on this site Information Some information on the site The Preterist PodcastThe Companion podcast to this site hosted by Dee Dee Mt. 24 Commentary "It's Not the End of the World!" Dee Dee's cyber-commentary on Matthew 24 The Preterist Blog Blog on various issues including eschatology TheologyWeb Forum We Debate Theology... Seriously!

Notes & Excepts by DDW of
Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?

Plain Text/Printer friendly Version

Here is a composite of my blog post notes and observations regarding the following (there will be some akward due to the fact that all of this material was originally posted on a blog over many months):

I am reading Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial? by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist amillennial view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful while reading.

In light of some recent discussions on the grounding for the "new thang" of "preterist idealism" wherein it appears that the Second Coming and resurrection might be spiritualized, this portion seemed very apropos. I say might because the new wave of "preterist idealist" refugees from hyperpreterism have not been particularly clear about precisely where they land on this issue.

Pages 24—25

To put the expectation of one's own death in place of the prospect of Christ's appearing, is to dislocate a beautiful jointing in divine truth —— to destroy one of its finest collocations. Here it is, as expressed by the apostle: "The grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from al iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." (Tit. ii. 11—14.) Here both comings of Christ are brought together; the first in "grace" —— the second in "glory;" the first "bringing salvation" —— the second, to complete the salvation brought. To the first we look back by faith —— to the second we look forward by hope. In the enjoyment of the fruit of the first, we anticipate the fulness [sic] of the second. Between these two the apostle here beautifully places the Christian's present holy walk. These are the two pivots on which turns the Christian life —— the two wings on which believers mount up as eagles. If either is clipped, the soul's flight heavenward is low, feeble, and fitful. This is no casual collocation of truths. It is a studied, and, and with the apostle, a favourite juxtaposition of the two greatest events in the Christian redemption, the first and the last, bearing an intrinsic relations intheir respective objects. "As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second times, without sin, unto salvation." (Heb. ix. 27, 28). "If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Rom. viii. 17.) And who does not see that the comfort and the profit of this collocation in our own minds is as great as is the beauty of it in the text of Scripture? All is thus made to centre in the Person of Christ —— the contemplations and the affections of the believer travelling [sic] between his Abasement and his Exaltation, and finding in Jesus, under both aspects together, a completed salvation.

Perhaps more to come, I post these things as I find them. I praise God that there are former hyperpreterists, but some of them are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and embracing unbiblical mysticism —— or at least that is how it appears to me thus far. I could be wrong. I would rejoice to be wrong.

I hear it said that unless you believe in the "imminency" doctrine (which I don't), then you cannot "watch" for Christ's coming. Is this biblical? No.

Page 40

"While the bridegroom tarried, they all (wise as well as foolish) slumbered and slept." (Matt. xxv. 5.) Thus the Lord, in parables intended to teach incessant watchfulness, scruples not to warn his disciples against expecting his immediate return —— openly tells them that he would be found tarrying —— intimates that he would be away a long time. And as the express object of these parables was to teach watchfulness, it is perfectly plain, that, to his view, there was no inconsistency between watching for his return and believing that it was not to occur very soon; and that, though the actual time of it would always be [sic] matter of uncertainty before it arrived, it was not to be expected that the interval would be a brief one.

This book asks a question I have frequently brought up. In the premill scheme (and most particularly the post—trib one), the saved are all glorified, the wicked are all destroyed, who is left to populate the Millennium?

pages 70—71

The weight of these testimonies to the absolute completeness of the Church at Christ's coming, lies merely in the quarter from which they come. With any other than premillenialists, such statements as we have quoted would be a matter of course; for none but they have any doubt that Christ will stay in the heavens till all his redeemed be brought in. But when any of them admit this, we see at what a sacrifice it is done. It destroys at once the sobriety and credibility of their scheme. What it seems to gain at the beginning, and during the currency of the thousand years, it more than loses at the end of that period. Bright would be the hope they hold out of "our gathering together unto him" at his coming, and reign with him on the earth——none that are his left behind, but all "ever with the Lord"——were the prospect not overcast, and the vessel marred in the hands of the potter, by the introduction of a very different and discordant element at the end of one brief millennium of celestial bliss——even the rush of myriad hosts from all the ends of the earth against——what? against the very glory of the Lord, and the pavilion of his immortal and transfigured people! It matters little which of the ways of explaining this be adopted——whether, with Homes and Burnet, the revel multitude be thought to be mortal men; or, with Perry, the wicked raised from the dead; or, with Mr. Burchell, evil spirits. The absurdity of all ways of it is alike manifest. But those who concede to us that there will be no earthly Church after Christ comes, and yet insist on bringing him from heaven before the Millennium, cannot help themselves. As their concession to us deprives them of all materials for bringing bout the final conflict, they are driven into such extravagant ways of realizing it as only serve to show the hopeless Church when Christ comes. But to this notion they have as much repugnance as we have; and rather than fall in with what they regard as abhorrent and in the face of Scripture, they resort to solutions of their difficulty which all but themselves perceive to be extravagant and incredible. It is this, then, which gives weight to their testimony to the completeness of the Church at the Lord's coming. It is the testimony of those who have every inducement (so to speak) to deny it——who feel themselves shut up to the admission, cost what it may, that when Christ comes——whether before the Millennium or not——he will want none of his redeemed.

This portion of Brown's work is directed towards refuting premillennialism, and I am not convinced of its strength in that regard, nor is it my primary interest at this time, but have found it directly refuting hyperpreterism——which is my primary interest.

Pages 96—100

Christ's Second Coming will Exhaust the Object of the Scriptures

His Coming is the goal of all revelation, its farthest horizon, it last terminus, its sabbath and haven. Thither are directed all the anxieties which divine truth awakens. Every hope which it kindles and every fear which it excites instinctively points to that awful event, its concomitants, and its issues, as the need to the pole. To prepare men for it, as an even future to all whom it addresses, is what the Bible proposes, and positively all that it undertakes and is fitted to do. The whole force of every reference to Christ's coming in Scripture, as a motive to action, absolutely depends on its being a future event.

Look——in the case of saints——at all the incentives to patience and hope, to watchfulness and fidelity, to promptitude and cheerfulness in the discharge of duty, drawn from the prospect of Christ's coming, and see if they would not be stript of all their power and all their point, on the supposition of its being a past event, and as addressed to saints living after it.

***

[there are some points here that I would differ with in that I would hold to a double fulfillment]

***

And here, let me recall the scriptural connections which we found to subsist between the two coming of Christ; how to the grace brought by the one we look backward by faith, and forward by hope to the glory which is to be brought by the other how, between these two events, of unutterable importance to the formation and growth of the Christian character, the believe is thus poised: let this intrinsic connection and studied juxtaposition of these two doctrines in the Christian system——these commanding events in the work of redemption——be duly weighted, and then let the reader say, whether the theory of a race of outstanding saints, living on earth after the second advent, does not dislocate this connection, eviscerate every text which expresses it, derange the economy of evangelical motives, subvert the only recognized basis of a Christian character, and introduce a principle of inextricable confusion, which order and beauty, symmetry and strength, are seen otherwise to reign.

***

In reply to this it is urged, that the "the Old Testament was a book written for men before the first advent, ad applicable universally to such alone, this does not hinder us from profiting by the Old Testament after his coming." But this is to mistake, and not at all to meet, my argument. It is not the mere fact that an an event is past, that makes the recorded predictions of it and preparations for it useless ever after. It would be absurd to maintain this. But it is the nature of the event, which I say would render the Scriptures inapplicable and useless to any living after it. What is that event? It is "the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ"——"the day in the [sic] which he will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom he hath ordained"——"the day of judgment and of the perdition of ungodly men, against which day (alone) the heavens and the earth are not kept in store."

****

(again Brown does cite some additional verses which I believe have dual application)

***

The first coming opened "the door" of grace, which the second coming will "shut." (Matt. xxv. 10; Luke xvii. 26—30.) The first coming——far from rendering the Old Testament inapplicable, or putting it out of date, for believers under the gospel——only opened out its riches, making it, in some respects, more valuable to us than even to those under who economy it was written. The old and the new dispensations are, in fact, but one dispensation of grace——the former being preparatory to the latter ——the latter perfective of the former——both together embracing the infancy and maturity of the same economy of grace. In short, of his first advent the Redeemer expressly says, "I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." Can such a saying be found respecting his second advent? No, but the reverse of it continually. Ever is it said that he comes to "judge"——never once that he will come to "save the world." It does not follow, then, that because Christ's first coming——to save——did not supersede the Old Testament, his second coming——to judge——will not supersede both Testaments as a means of grace; but the opposite clearly follows. If the object of the Scripture be to prepare men for "THAT DAY" which will be the crisis and consummation of the state of grace, surely the arrival of that day must supersede their use.

Again, Mr. Brown continues with ideas he believes absolutely refutes premillennialism noting that Millennium would require new revelation, an idea he finds abhorent. Actually, if the premillennial suppositions are true, I don't find that at all shocking. However, in a post—Second Coming world postulated by the heretical hyperpeterists, his refutations are applicable indeed.

Pages 102—103

As to the Lord's Supper, what more can be conclusive than I Cor. xi. 26: "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come"?

That the cessation of this precious and characteristic ordinance of the Christian Church is here intimated, I argue, not so much from the word "till," as from the manifest design of the statement itself, which was to teach the perpetuity of this ordinance in the visible Church——its continuance as long as there should be a Church upon earth in which to show it forth. According, then, to the apostle's teaching, the visible Church—state and this ordinance are to terminate together, and both at Christ's coming. and is not this what any one would take for granted, from the nature and intent of the ordinance itself? The Lord's Supper is the symbol of that double attitude of the believer——to which we find ourselves ever recurring——the backward look of his faith and the forward look of his hope——its present crucifixion and anticipated glorification with his Lord. Now, this is precisely the note which the apostle strikes. He seems almost to go out of his way to get a this, his favourite colocation. He does not bid them show the Lord's death in the Church "always, even t the end of the world"——though that had come to the same thing——but he bids them celebrate his death for them, as their Life, they find themselves appearing with him in glory. "Show the Lord's death till he come"——till the affecting be turned into a joyous scene——till the grace ye draw from his first, shall be merged in the glory ye receive at his second coming——till He whose table ye bedew with your tears, in "fellowship with his suffering and conformity to his death," shall interrupt your communion and break in upon y9ou with his glory, and swallow up faith in sight; giving you, in place of the symbols, the immediate and eternal fruition of himself. Thus, the Lord's Supper will cease to be celebrated after Christ's coming, not because the Lord of the Church has so willed it, but because after that it would be meaningless——because the state of things and the attitude of the believing soul, with reference to the two comings of Christ, of which the Lord's Supper is the ordained and beautiful symbol, shall then have no place.

I am sorry, but pondering things like that, hyperpreterism is nothing short of stupid. But then again I am the Queen of Stupid, so who knows?

I am finding this book oh so useful for such an entirely different purpose from its original intent. Not to insult my premillennial brethren AT ALL, but there is some sense in which refutations of any historical period of salvation history AFTER the Second Coming also refutes hyperpreterism, as hyperpreterism believes the Second Coming is past. If it is impossible to have a "millennium" after the Second Coming (as this book seeks to prove) it is even more so impossible to have any salvation history now in a hyperpreterist post—Second Coming scheme. I have said this for a while, and I have despaired that I have not stated my point eloquently enough. After the Second Coming, Christ's role changes such that His special Messianic mediatorial role is over, and the Kingdom is "handed up" to the Father complete as per 1 Corinthians 15. This is but one way that hyperpreterism destroys the Gospel. But ah ha, the hyperpreterist will try to say — wouldn't your point prove too much? Wouldn't it prove that the premillennial scheme also destroys the Gospel? No. Why? Because the conditions of a future millennium (if true) are largely unknown, but the condition NOW ARE known and the means and need of salvation, and the Gospel for doing so are. This is why only two options are open to the hyperpreterist. One, no one can be saved post—AD 70 or everyone was saved in AD 70. Well, actually there is a third option. There is some secret Gospel for us today that no one but a select few knows.

This builds quite nicely on my view of the Coming of Christ as a block of salvation history and not some isolated event just solely off in the future. The Coming of Christ IS the reign of Christ which is bookended by two physical advents. This is also the view of Keith Mathison, and as I understand it thus far, is also the view of Roderick Edwards (Roderick correct me if I am wrong), and has been the view of such learned men as Hengstenberg and others in the centuries prior to the rise of rapturism.

Now onto the brilliant material of David Brown:

Pages 110—113

THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST, AND THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT, FOR SAVING PURPOSES, WILL CEASE AT THE SECOND ADVENT

I. The ground and the nature of Christ's intercession are sufficiently known. but what Iwish to be observed is the place which it holds in relation to his two advents. It stands intermediate between his first and his second coming as the following passage, viewed as a whole, plainly shows:——

Heb. ix. 12, 24—28. "By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. —— Christ is not entered into the holy place made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth itno the holy place every year with blood of others; (for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world:) but now once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many: and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation."

Here the two advents stand at the two extremeties of Christ's mediatorial work, while the intercession stretches from one to the other, and occupies the whole intervening period. Each of these three things is termed an "appearing" —— the word being somewhat different in each case, but the idea essentially the same —— and each of them is said to be done once. Thus: "Once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." "By his own blood he entered in once into the hole place" —— "not into the holy places made with hands, but into heaven itself, now to appear the second time [once for all], without sin, unto salvation." The first and the last appearances are to us: the intermediate appearance is to God, for us. This intermediate appearance —— "in the presence of God for us" —— carries into effect the work of his first appearance to us, and prepares teh way for his second. As he appeared the first time "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," so he will appear the second time, "without sin, unto salvation." Now, as the second coming is here represented as crowning the whole purposes of the first, it is plain that the intercessionm which is but a continual pleading upon the merit of his death, must be over, for all saving purposes, before he comes.

***

When the Advent arrives, the Inercession is done; and when the Intercession is done, Salvation is done. When Christ appears the second time to us, he will cease to appear in the presence of God for us.

***

Again, though Brown is explicitly arguing against premillennialism (and I believe successfully so), I have been fascinated about his arguments are so successful against hyperpreterism which was not even under consideration in his book. Brown could have written a masterful anti—hyperpreterism piece.

On Acts 319—21 (page 138)

Whether we understand the "restitution: here meant of a moral or a physical restitution, or both — considered as the burden of all Old Testament prophecy, and requiring complete accomplishment ere Christ can come — the words of the apostle are clearly subversive of a millennial state after Christ comes. Premillennialists tell us that Christ's second coming must preceede the conversion of the Jews : Peter here tells them just the reverse. The Jews thought his going away from the earth was a bad sign of his Messiahship. 'But if you would only repent,' says Peter, 'and be converted, your sins would be blotted out; and times of refreshing would then come from the presence of the Lord; and events thus hastening on apace, he would send again to the earth your predicted Messiah, who is none other than Jesus Christ: but heaven in the mean time must receive him, till the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by all his prophet.'

This is a very hard passage for hyperpreterists. How so? The train of thought requires a physical return unless one is denying a physical ascension.

Of course the most consistent hyperpreterists do deny a physical resurrection of Christ (or posit a temporary physical resurrection body of Christ) will not have an issue with this particular passage. But hyperpreterists aren't known for their consistency.

Here are just some notes I found helpful from Brown on why he finds the argument of a premillennial resurrection in Revelation 20 untenable. I will not be typing out his arguments in full, but I will give full page numbers so that the interested reader can go and do further research. I am omitting some arguments of his which I think are poorly worded, wrong, or overly optimistic. At one point he seems to say that the Church has always held to one general resurrection at one time of all — I do not think that is what he meant to say but simply that it came out wrong. The early chilliasts (as he later acknowledges, and thus, why I don't believe he would contradict himself in the space of a mere few pages) certainly didn't. My educated guess is that if you take the whole of Church history and average out the trend, one general resurrection at one time of the saved and the damned has been the winning view statistically. I think that is true.

After this section, Brown gives some examples of what he thinks are poor arguments for his own view, i.e. that the first resurrection of Revelation 20 is a figurative (I dislike that language) resurrection. Here also I disagree. I find those arguments perfectly reasonable as part of the total case. I will list briefly what he says they are in a separate post.

I hope my habit of giving book excerpts of "nuggets" I find in my reading is helpful and edifying to the readers of this blog. It helps me remember the important points, and I hope it gives the benefit of some of my reading time to others, and perhaps give them leads on books they might want to read. As you may guess, I have quite a substantial eschatologically related library. I also have a good collection of "Bible Discrepancy" books which I started back when I was trying to find an explanation for Matthew 24 other than the obvious one. Although I solved that issue for me, I have kept my collecting of that genre. If you would like to view my library, you may look me up on LibraryThing under deedeewarren. I encourage you to join and add me as a friend so that we may benefit from some of the titles in each other's libraries that we might not have otherwise been aware of. Sometimes I find the best sources for great books are the cites hidden away in endnotes and footnotes. I just purchased a rare book "Christ and Time" which I am eager to read though it is at the bottom of seventy (I am not joking) other books I need to read. I try to read 10 pages a day. That's not a lot, but it is a goal, it is attainable, and it is certainly better than nothing. I listen profusely to audio books so that is how I get my fiction reading in. Right now I am listening to Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" (well just beginning to). I finished her work "The Fountainhead" and despised it and her philosophy as, well, satanic, but it is educational to learn of other philosophies.

Now on to the Brown notes:

Pages 206—214

If the question then be, — Was this celebrated passage designed to announce A LITERAL AND GENERAL RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS? the following appear to me to be strong presumptions against it.

1.It is very strange that the resurrection of the righteous a thousand years before the wicked, if it be revealed truth, should be directly and explicitly announced in onepassage only. We are not, indeed, to set limits to God; but, judging of Him by his way of revealing other truths of equal importance and of kindred nature, we may safely say, that it is not according to his usual method. Still, there might be reasons for a deviation in this case; and if we found, scatteeredup and down the Scripture, hints of a prior resurrection — hints which, though not at all explicit, were yet sufficient to suggest it, or at least were best explained on that one theory, and thought by impartial expositors substantially to express it — this might go far to neutralize the presumption against it, arising from its being nowhere directly announced, if not here. But it is not so Though the resurrection is a theme on which the apostles delighted to expatiate — though the nature of it, the grounds of it, and its connection in point of time with the coming of Christ, are abundantly dwelt on — and though in such passages the prior resurrection, if a true doctrine, could hardly miss to have dropt from the apostolics pen — it is altogether wanting, as we have seen, and what are alleged to be hints of this doctrine are not so, nor have ever been so, nor have ever been so regarded by critics and expositors. This,I think, makes the presumption against is being found here very strong. But if this be added all that points in an opposite direction — what the overwhelming majority of the Church have held to be direct, explicit,and indubitable announcements of a simultaneous resurrection of the whole human race — the presumption, that a general resurrection of the righteous a thousand years before the wicked is not the true sense of this prophecy, is greatly increased.

2. If this was to be the chosen place for announcing such a prior resurrection, it is surely reasonable to expect that a clear and unambiguous revelation of it would be made. "It was enough," says Mr. Birks, "that one clear statement should be given before the inspired volume was closed, which might serve for a key to all the other prophecies, and brighten into fuller and fuller evidence when the time of the fulfillment should be drawing near. This is a grank admission, that if "one statement" was to be held "enough," it would require to be a "clear one." But, can this modestly be said in the face of the diversity that prevails upon it? But do all those who take the prophecy literally interpret it alike? It is true that the early chiliasts seem to have thought that all the saints would, sooner or later, partake of the millennial resurrection and reign. But every one who has read their writing will admit, that they show a strong tendency to apply it chiefly to the martyrs.... These testimonies are, I think, sufficient to show that the passage before us is not a clear and unambiguous prophecy of a literal resurrection of the righteous at large a thousand years before the wicked. For while those who see in it a literal resurrection at all are a mere handful in opposition to the general voice of the Church, even those who do takeit literally are not agreed as to the parties intended by it; and those who conceive it to embrace the rigtheous at large, some — and the most distinguished — have come to that conclusion with much hesitation, and with great diffidence as to the soundness of that opinion.

Should it be said that the difference above noticed, is, after all, not so great as to throw doubt upon the clearness of the passage, I have just one question to put in reply — Has there ever been any such diversity of opinion about the subsequent prophecy of the final resurrection? That I call a clear and unambiguous prophecy of all the righteous and wicked at once, and in proof of this I appeal to the all but universal voice of the Church. Has there ever been any testimony approaching to this, either in amount or harmony, in favour of the literal sense of the millennial prophecy? No, there has not. This, then is my second presumption against it. It would be unreasonable to insist that every testimony in favour of a truth should be equally explicit. But if we are reduced to one direct testimony, as we are here, in favour of a literal millennial resurrection, it is reasonable to require that it be unequivocal; and because it is not, as I have shown, I think this circumstance must be set down among the presumptions against the literal sense.

3. If a resurrection of the righteous in general — as contra—distinguished from the wicked — be the true sense of this prophecy, the description is very unlike the thing to be described. It is not in the elast like any other description of that event in the New Testament. Every other description of the resurrection and glory of the saints, as such, is catholic in its character, while this is limited — even laboriously so. Let me request the reader to run his eye over the few following specimens of the usual language of Scripture on this subject.

Brown cites John 4:54; Romans 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:23; Phil.3:20—21; 2 Thess. 1:10, 2:1; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Pet. 1:4—5, 13; 1 John 2:28—29, 3:2; and Rev. 20:12, 15.

Please be sure to read About This Blog. While this blog is "The Preterist Blog," not all of the authors are what would be considered preterist, but do find some AD70 fulfillment. This site is a place owned by a preterist where orthodox options will be presented for two reasons. One: We all benefit from hearing different voices. Two: We want to show hyperpreterists how profoundly they err. We all rejoice when they accept the basic Christian orthodox eschatology. Thus, what one author says is that author's point of view which may not be held by all. When preterists isolate themselves only to those who entirely share their view, it can make them easy targets for hyperpreterist teachings.

In my last installment I had mentioned that Brown had mentioned several arguments that he thought should not be used against premillennialism but commonly are, and I had disagreed. Upon re—reading the text, there is just one, and this is just a very brief summary:

Page 215

It is frequently argued, for example, that because "souls" were seen in this vision, and no mention is made of bodies, it cannot be a bodily resurrection is meant.

I disagree with Brown there. That is indeed a very good argument when properly used.

Brown makes a wonderful point here that many premillennialists don't seem to grasp:

Page 216

Indeed all figurative resurrections in Scripture are couched in the language of literal ones; and why should this be any exception.

In this instance, premillennialism shares a point with hypreterism in reverse! Perhaps that is why I am relating more of Brown's book to hyperpreterist points than his original topic of premillennialism.

This is the very same question I ask to those who want to literalize this Scripture yet they don't take Ezekiel's visions of the dry bones (chapter 37) literally when that is even more description, speaking of flesh and sinews. I do note though that many futurists do take the dry bones prophecy literally, but any one that does not has sold the farm as far as Revelation 20 is concerned. Read this:

I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life.

I absolutely cannot take with any consistent seriousness an argument which accepts a figurative resurrection in Ezekiel but cannot in a highly figurative book which parallels a saying by the same author — John, in John 5:24—29 in which two resurrections are pictured, just as in Revelation. One spiritual, one physical.

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

28"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

Brown then goes on to detail what he believes are good arguments for taking the first resurrection figuratively. I wanted to try to just bullet point them, but from the few I read already they are just too good for that. He has nine reasons, I may make separate posts on each one if they all are as strong as the first few. To summarize I think would rob his argument of its flow and replace it with my much more ackward rendering.

So I am now starting on Brown's 9 arguments for his (and my) interpretation of Revelation 20. I will condense where I can, but this is tasty stuff, a lot of which needs to be posted in full.

Pages 217—218

NINE INTERNAL EVIDENCES THAT THE MILLENNIAL RESURRECTION IS NOT LITERAL BUT FIGURATIVE

As the visionis followed up by certain explanatory clauses, it is natural to begin with them. And,

FIRST. — The clause, "This is the first resurrection" (v. 5), which is thought to prove it literal, seems to me to suggest the reverse. "It is allowed by all," says Daubuz, in his Commentary on the Revelation, "that the second resurrection is of bodies; and if so, why not also the first, since both are expressed in like terms." And Bishop Newton says, "We should be cautious and tender of making the first resurrection an allegory, lest others should reduce the second into an allegory too." Unfortunately for this way of reasoning, the very next verse contradicts it: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection, on such the second death hath no power" (v. 6). Here "the first resurrection" and "the second death" are intentionally brought together and contrasted. But are these deaths of the same nature? Quite the reverse. The first death is that of the body, the second that of both body and soul; the first death is common to the righteous and the wicked, the second is the everlasting portion of the wicked alone. To suffer the first death for Christ carries with it exemption from the power of the second death — "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life" — "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." (Rev. ii. 10, 11). "The Scriptures," says Fraser of Kirkhill, "frequently mention the second or new birth. The first birth is that of the body. Is it necessary that the second should be so too? Will any man, acquainted with the Scriptures, put the question now which Nicodemus formerly proposed to our Lord, "How can a man be born again when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John iii. 4). The second birth is doubtless an allegory. But does it follow that the first birth is an allegory too? The Scriptures mention the second death: now, the first death is that of the body. But is it necessary that we understand the second death of the body only? Does it affect the body in the same manner, by putting it in a state of insensibility and putrefaction? The terms, first and second, are used in Scripture to distinguish subjects which are in some respects similar, but in others are very different, lest we should mistake on for the other; and so the term "first resurrection" is used here, to show that this part of the prophecy does not describe such a change as shall take place at the general resurrection."

Brown notes that a Mr. Birk was an author who had attempted a refutation of an earlier edition of this work and that Birk did not deal with this argument at all.

So I am now starting on Brown's 9 arguments for his (and my) interpretation of Revelation 20. I will condense where I can, but this is tasty stuff, a lot of which needs to be posted in full.

This is his second argument:

Pages 218—220

It cannot but appear strange that we should be told that hte risen and glorified saints do not perish eternally. Yet this is what the second explanatory clause tells us, according to the literal view of this vision — "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power" (v. 6), or in other words, they shall not be "cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death" (v. 14). Is it likely that the Spirit of God means nothing more here than such a truism? But only suppose that the first resurrection is a glorious state of the church on earth, and in its mortal state, a period emphatically of "life from the dead" — when the world shall seem to hear a voice saying to them, "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light" (Eph. v 14) — take it thus, and the whole clause becomes intelligible and highly consolatory. Accordingly, in another part of this same book, where we have the same identical promise, that certain persons "shall not be hurt by the second death," the promise relates not to risen and glorified men, but to "him that overcometh" the struggle for "the crown of life" (Rev. ii. 10, 11). And as exemption from the power of the second death is here to make to rest upon a certain character, namely, fidelity to Christ even to death, and in our millennial chapter, exemption from the power of the same second death is made to rest upon participation in the first resurrection, is it not reasonable to conclude that this "first resurrection" is meant to signify a certain character in the present life, and not the possession of bodily resurrection and glory? In that case, the assurance of our prophecy is, that this victorious spirit, as it will be the reigning characteristic of the millennial period, so it will be the bright pledge of immunity from the power of the second death. The word "blessed" will then express the high privilege they enjoy who have their lost cast in such a period. Indeed, the same language is employed by Daniel to express the privilege, not of bodily resurrection, but of living in the body during this period. "Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thrity days (Dan, xii. 12). And then, the word "holy" will express the high devotedness and spirituality that will distinguish the Christians of that period, and signalise the millennial day itself above all former periods in the world's history; while the following word, "over such the second [death] hath no power," will just be one more example of a spiritual as the earnest of a bodily resurrection, a present of a future, so familiar in the language of the New Testament. "The hour is coming," says our Lord, "and now is, when the (spiritually) dead shall hear his voice, and they that hear shall (spiritually) live: marvel not at this, for the hour cometh in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth (bodily)." "My sheep hear my voice, and I give unto them (now) eternal life, and they shall never perish (or die the second death)," "If," says the apostle, "the spirit of HIm that raised up Jesus our Lord dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you (your quickened souls)."

Preach it brother Brown. It is pretty simple and easy to understand without the absurd idea of Jesus having to sit on a literal earthly throne on earth with glorified people walking around with non—glorified people. That is cartoonish. The earth is Christ's footstool, not His throne. He does not need to come to earth and suffer the second humiliation required by a premillennial scheme. I am firmly convinced that hyperpreterism is the flip side of literalism — two extremes. However the literalists affirm the historic faith while the hyperpreterists reject it. This book has really educated me on how easily the contra—premill arguments can be adapted to combat hyperpreterism (which is much more my primary interest). I would rather the whole of Christendom be premillennial than one be hyperpreterist.

So I am now starting on Brown's 9 arguments for his (and my) interpretation of Revelation 20. I will condense where I can, but this is tasty stuff, a lot of which needs to be posted in full.

This is his third argument:

Page 220—221

There are but two alternatives in this prophecy — either to "have part inthe first resurrection," or to be under the "the power of the second death." "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on them the second death hath no power." Into which of these classes are we to put the myriads of men who are to people the earth, in flesh and blood, during the millennium? They have no "part in the first resurrection," if it be a bodily one. Are they given over, then, to "the power of the second death?" But only suppose "the first resurrection" to be a phrase denoting the character of the millennial era, as one of prevailing spiritual life — bright earnest of life everlasting on that "new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness;" and then the assurance that "on such the second death hath no power," becomes a promise that such as possess this character — found in its substance in every renewed man, and constituting the prevailing character of the millennial era — shall not "be hurt of the second death."

So I am now starting on Brown's 9 arguments for his (and my) interpretation of Revelation 20. I will condense where I can, but this is tasty stuff, a lot of which needs to be posted in full.

This is his fourth argument:

Pages 221—222

The express mention of how long this "life [sic] and reign with Christ" will last, , namely, "a thousand years," if meant to inform us what a long period of earthly prosperity the Church is yet destined to enjoy, is intelligible and cheering. But to say that the risen and glorified Church is to live and reign with Christ for a period of a thousand years, is totally unlike the language of Scripture in every other place. I know what is said in answer to this, but it has no force. The limiting of the life and reign to a thousand years, we are told, has relation not to the risen saints, but only to those over whom they reign, and to the imperfection which will continue upon earth till that thousand years be ended. But so says not the text. No mention is made of their reigning over any other class of persons; still less it is said that they reigned over them only for a thousand years, but with Christ for ever. On the contrary, it is just this reign of the saints with Christlimited to a thousand years. Vain are all the attempts made to explain away this, as if the still changeable state of the earth might account for a period being mentioned. For the words of the text fix down the limitation not to the accidents but to the essence of the reign — telling us that it was their "living and reigning with Christ, whatever that means, that lasted a thousand years. And as we are immediately told of a great change for the wore, after the expiry of this period, and during another shorter period called "a little season," it is perfectly clear that the "life and reign with Christ," considered as the characteristic feature of the millennial state, terminate with the thousand years. I think this is enough convincingly to show that it is no literal resurrection of the Church of God to be ever with her Lord that is here meant, but just the long period of a thousand years' "life from the dead(Rom. xi. 15), in that figurative sense with which Scripture, in previous portions of it, had made us so familiar.

This is his fifth argument:

Pages 222—226

If the first resurrection be literal, the other or wicked party, styled "the rest of the dead," who "lived not again until the thousand years were finished,? must of course be expected to "live again," or rise from the dead, in the same bodily sense, "when the thousand years are finished. But so far from this, we read of no bodily resurrection at all on the expiry of this period.

"When the thousand years are finished," we read that "Satan shall be loosed out of his prison" (v. 7) for a period expressly called "a little season" (v. 3). Some would make this, from its supposed brevity, no period at all; but if we take it in relation to the preceeding thousand years, and to the work to be done, perhaps it will not be so little as many suppose. "He shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea;" and observe not only the multitudes he collects,bu the union and organization effected in this stupendous and appalling confederacy — the last desperate effort of the serpent — "tey went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city:" In view of this, the little season of the enemy's liberty, after the expiry of the thousand years, and compared with that long period of "imprisonment," seemed to Bengel and Faber to require a century or so. However this may be, during all this time we read of no bodily resurrection at all. This postmillennial period is to be filled up with something else than bodily resurrections. It will indeed be employed in the raising of a wicked party, but no bodily, fom their graves. Where, then, do we read of the bodily resurrection of that party called "the rest of the dead"? Nowhere. We go downwards in the chapter to find them, till we come to the account of the last judgment, and there observing that "the dead, small and great," are seen "standing before the throne," we must suppose that these "dead, small and great" are just "the rest of the dead" we have been seeking for — otherwise, they never appear again at all.

And when once we have made, "the dead, small and great, that stand before the throne" at the final judgment to be merely "the rest of the dead that lived not again until the thousand years were finished," we are forced to exclude the righteous altogether from the last judgment, making "the dead, small and great," to be all wicked. This, besides doing the greatest imaginable violence to that august scene, gives no explanation of the "opening of the book of life" on that occasion except one which I have shown to be wholly inadmissable (pp. 214—216), and I would say absurd — namely, to show that none of those then judged have their names written in it!

Now, reverse the process. Make the resurrection of both the parties figurative, and understand by it first the extinction of the one and triumph of the other for a thousand years, and then the temporary resuscitation of the defeated party, with their gigantic death—throes, under the desperate agency of the old serpent before the final ruin of his kingdom — and not only are all the difficulties of the literal sense avoided, but a meaning put upon the whole chapter consistent with itself, and entirely accordant with the phraseology of Scripture in other places. At the close of the previous chapter, we fine "the Beast taken, and with him the False Prophet, and cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (xix. 21). This put an end to the antichristian kingdom; but it is added, "The remnant" or the rest "were slain with the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh" (v. 21). A marked distinction is thus drawn between the doom of "the beast and false prophet," and that of "the rest." The former go to "the lake of fire" — never more to reappear: The other do not do so, but are merely "slain with the sword from the mouth of Christ." We are prepared, then, for the possibility, at least, of their reappearance upon the stage. Accordingly we find then in the fifth verse of the next chaper under their old name — "the rest of the dead;" dead, that is, in respect of the cause they espouse. In this sense, they "live not again (after being 'slain with the sword from Christ's mouth') until the thousand years are finished." To use the triumphant language of the prophet, pointing to this same period, "They are dead, they shall not live: they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited them, and made all memory of them perish" (Isa. xxvi. 14). Meanwhile, the other party, so long held down, are seen springing to life and dominion. The devil is bound that he may no more deceive the nations till the thousand years be fulfilled (ver. 1—3). The earth is at rest from the plots and seductions of the enemy. His cause is at an end, his kingdom extinguished, and for a thousand years, "The Sovereignty of the World" is "Our Lord's And His Christ's" (chap. xi. 18). "The Lord alone is exalted in that day;" and "the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven is given to the people of the saints of the Most High." But the very hint, "they lived not again till the thousand years were finished," is a warning to expect their reappearance at the close of that period. Accordingly, though in the sense of a literal resurrection of their bodies we never hear from them again, we find them duly reproduced, as a party, by the old serpent, who is loosed at the close of the millennium for this very purpose. "When the thousand years were fulfilled," and satan is loosed, he shall again "go out and to deceive the nations;" not, of course, the same individuals, but their successors, who are spoken of under the same name, as deceived first for long ages, then undeceived for a thousand years, and finally again exposed, for a brief period, to deception.

Thus does the famous prophecy, when viewed as symbolical, explain naturally from beginning to end; when taken literally, however well some expressions may interpret, we cannot get through it.

This is his sixth argument:

Pages 226—227

We have seen (pages 202—203) that the "opening of the book of life," at the time when the dead are judged (ver. 12, 15), signifies the manifestation of those who are written in it. "Two reasons," says Mr. Gipps, "lead me to conceive that this must take place at the second coming of Christ. First,..... It is utterly inconceivable that all this glory [described in Matthew xxv. 31﹣c.] can be conferred upon the saints, and such a manifestation of them be made in the presence of Christ and of all the holy angels, of one another, and of all the ungodly living in every part of the earth, one moment before what is called 'the opening of the book of life.' The very absurdity of the idea would convince me that such a manifestation of the glory of those who are written in the book of life must coincide with, and be the same as 'the opening of that book.' And the expression (v. 15), 'Whosoever was not found written in the book of life,' still farther proves that this is the time when the open discovery or manifestation is made of those who are written therein. — Secondly, It is expressly set forth that 'the manifestation ofthe sons of God' will take place at their resurrection (Rom. viii. 19, 23). As, therefore, I am convinced that this manifestation cannot take place before the book of life is opening, in which their names are written therein, I feel assured that the resurrection of the saintswill be at the time of the 'opening of the book of life; and not at the 'first resurrection.' These two reasons, therefore, prove to my mind that when Christ sits upon the throne of judgment and the book of life is opened, must be the time of his second coming and of the resurrection of the saints."

Whew almost there, but this is good stuff.

Pages 227—228

"The omission," says the acute author just quoted, "of any declaration as to 'the sea, death, and the grave [or Hades] giving up the dead' at the first resurrection, and the making such a declaration respecting 'the dead' in verse 13, convinces me both that 'the first resurrection' is not that of the saints, and also, that 'the dead' in verses 12, 13, include all mankind, both the saints and the ungodly. In every other part of the Word of God, the information given concerning the resurrection of the saints is not only much more frequent, but also much more explicit, tan concerning the resurrection of the ungodly. I feel convinced, therefore, that in this portion also of Scripture, if it were intended to foretell a resurrection of the saints distinct from that of the ungodly, more explicit information would be given concerning the former than concerning the latter. I find, however, that the information given concerning 'the first resurrection,' instead of being much more, is much less explicit than that concerning the resurrection intimated in verses 12, 13; for there is a not the least allusion to 'the sea, death, and the grave giving up the dead' at the first resurrection, and it is expressly declared that they do this at the time of the resurrection set forth in verses 12, 13. By contrasting this, therefore, with the course pursued in other portions of the Word of God, I feel convinced that the first resurrection cannot be that of the saints; and that verses 12, 13, do not describe the resurrection of the ungodly only, but that of the saints also, and include all the dead without any exception."

The seven foregoing arguments have been gathered from the surface of the millennial prophecy: the two following, with which I will conclude, are suggested by a narrower observation of the vision.

The premillenial Jenga tower is a—tumbling down.

Introduction: I am reading "Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?" by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

So I am now starting on Brown's 9 arguments for his (and my) interpretation of Revelation 20. I will condense where I can, but this is tasty stuff, a lot of which needs to be posted in full.

This is his eighth argument (this is long and will be spread amongst multiple days and posts):

228—230

It is a fatal objection to the literal sense of this prophecy, as announcing the bodily resurrection of all dead, and the change of all living saints, that it is exclusivey a martyr—scene — the prophet beholding simply a resurrection of the slain; whereas this very circumstance eminently favours the figurative sense.

The vision is described first generally, and then in detail. Two companies are seen in the vision, and in two successive and opposite condition — first as dead and dishonoured, next as risen and reigning. Thus: —

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE VISION.

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given upon them:

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE VISION.

First Company seen Dead.

"And [I saw] the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the Word of God;

Second Company seen Dead.

"And [I saw] such as had not worshiped the beast nor his image, neither had received his mark upon their forehead and on their hand:

Both Companies seen Risen and Reigning.

"And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." (v. 4)

A few remarks on the several clauses of the passage will still further open it up.

"I saw thrones, and they sat upon them." Who sat upon them? Not any mentioned as yet, for the vision begins here. Clearly, therefore, it is the two companies about to be specified. Accordingly, as soon as the prophet has described these in detail, he comes back to his first general statement — "And they (those now specified) lived and reigned a thousand years;" as if he had said, 'And I saw thrones, and persons sitting on them, to whom judgment was given: these thrones were filled by the beheaded, and such as had not worshiped the beast: And their reign lasted a thousand years.' If this be the construction of the passage, as it clearly is — if the word "they sat upon them" mean "they to be presently mentioned" — then we must put no other saints into the vision besides those afterwards specified; and the concluding words, "and they lived and reigned," tie us preremptorily down to those two companies alone.

Ouch.

This is his eighth argument (this is long and will be spread amongst multiple days and posts):

Pages 230—232

Let us now see who they were: —

And [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the Word of God." Beheading, a well—known Roman mode of utting to an ignominious death, is mentioned here, merely to denote the Roman authority by which they were slain, in the Pagan and unbroken period of the Empire. all the martyrs of Jesus, then, under the Pagan persecutions are here embraced. The next clause describes another class of martyrs, to arise after this class was completed. But before coming to it, let me request the reader's attention to the following passage, in the sixth chapter of this book, where the same class of martyrs (under Paganism) are described in nearly identical terms, and the other class announced as yet to come: — "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls fo them that were slaim for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth! And a white robe was given unto every one of them; and it was said to them, that they should rest yet for a [little] season, until both their fellow—servants and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

The persons seen in this vision are unquestionably the same as the first class in our millennial vision; "their souls" in both cases, or themselves in the status of the dead — as slain for the Word of God. In the former vision, however, the apostle hears them asking "judgment;" in the latter, he sees them get it. "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? is their doleful cry in the one vision: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them," is the delightful response to that cry which the apostle was privileged to announce in the other. The one, in short, is the petition presented, and the other, the petition granted. But the connection of the two visions is close than this. The petition party in the former vision are one. but they are told there is another party to come after them, to be treated like themselves, and who will have to be judged and avenged as well as they. They must wait, therefore, till their time be over; and then they shall both together have judgment given them, and their blood be avenged on them that dwell on the the earth." "White robes were given unto every one of them: and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow—servants also, and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." As these are clearly two distinct parties suffering in succession for Christ, and as the former includes all who suffered under the great red dragon in his Pagan form, the latter can be no other than those who were to suffer under the same dragon in his subsequent, and, I believe, Papal form of opposition to Christ. Now, as judgment is promised to the former party as soon as their brethren and fellow—servants of the other party have suffered, or after Antichrist shall have fallen, and the millennial time have arrived, we naturally look for both parties in our vision, and expect to find "judgment given" to both together "against them that dwell on the earth." Accordingly, so it is. That exquisite jointing of the corresponding parts of this book — which, with other peculiar features of it, so fascinated Sir Isaac Newton, that he pronounced it to have more characters of divinity than any other book of Scripture — is nowhere better seen than here. "I saw," says the apostle, "the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the Word of God:" — 'Those whom I had before seen under the altar, the souls of them that were slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held — the I now saw again, getting the judgment which then they sought.' So much for the first company of martyrs, under Paganism."

To be continued (and please note that I don't agree with everything above — particularly the Papal connection which was very popular among the Reformers)

This is his eighth argument:

233—234

The next clause of our passage describes the second company. "And [I saw] such as had not worshipped the best, either his image, either had received the mark upon the forehead and in the hand." The resurrection of this company shows they were seen as dead, while the "judgment" given to them along with the former class — in fulfillment of the promise made to that class, that they should have judgment given them as soon as the other party were "killed as they were" — puts it beyond doubt that this is a martyr—company too. accordingly, we read (ch. xiii. 15), that "it was given to him" — the second beast that spake like a dragon, v. 11 — "to cause that as many as would not worship the image of hte beast should be killed."

Thus this celebrated vision is exclusively a visional resurrection of martyrs. Not only are none else in it,but the first and last clauses of the passage — the one referring us to those about to be described, and the other to these as already described — tie us down to the very parties specified in the two middle clauses of the passage, and necessitate the restriction fo the whole to the slain witnesses of Christ.

In this view of the vision, it is utterly inadequate to express the resurrection of the wholeChurch of God bodily from the grave. I think every one must see this. The amazing contrast between the wll—comprehensive idea to be expressed, and the rigidly—limited expression of it,if such it were , would prevent any cautious interpreter from recognizing it in the passage. And is it conceivable that the Spirit of God, supposing him to have reserved the announcement of a prior resurrection of the righteous to one single passage at the end of the canon of revelation, and intending this vision to be the one formal announcement of it, should have selected such a mode of revealing it, that only an inconsiderable few out o the whole Church of Christ have been able to detect it — that those few are not able to assign satisfactory reasons for the conclusion at which they have arrived — and that the more closely every clause of the passage is investigated, the more sternly are we forbidden, by all the admitted rules of interpretation, to put that construction on it?

I find this devastating to the premill view.

Pages 228—238

But what is fatal to the literal sense is eminently favourable to the figurative. Need I ask any familiar with the figurative language of Scripture, and with the scriptural figuration of this very period, familiar with the best writers in every language and every age, or himself accustomed to think and speak in vivid style, whether a resurrection of the slain witnesses of Christ of every period, to people, possess, and hold the supremacy of the earth with their Lord, be not a conception worthy of the Spirit of God to dictate, and inexpressibly refreshing for the soul of an oppressed Church to be filled with? In this very book, the figurative resurrection of the witnesses for the truth is thus expressed: — "And after three days and an half, the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet." — (Rev. xi. 11.) It is indeed part of the classic style of Scripture in depicting this very ' period. For example, Will the Jews be brought in? "Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, O my people, I will open your grave, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live; and I will place you in your own land." — (Ezek. xxxvii. 12—14.) "After two days will he revive us; in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." — (Hos. vi. 2.) This certainly is figurative.

Again, Will this resurrection of Israel be a mighty blessing to the Gentile world? "What shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?" As of the return of a prodigal it is said, "He was dead and is alive again;" and of the change which passes upon the believer in justification, it is said, — "He shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life;" and of sanctification, that he is "quickened who was dead in trespasses and in sins," so it is said of the church; — "Thy dead men shall live," just as it is said of the opposite party, — "They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and make all memory of them to perish." — (Isa. xxvi. 13, 14.)

I have said further, that this idea is current coin in all vivid thinking, in every age and every language.

"When the venerable priest," says Merle D'Aubigne, speaking of John Huss, "had been summoned by Sigismund's order before the Council of Constance, and had been thrown into prison, the chapel of Bethlehem, in which he had proclaimed the gospel and the future triumphs of Christ, occupied his mind much more than his own defence. One night the holy martyr saw in imagination, from the depths of his dungeon, the pictures of Christ that he had painted on the walls of his oratory effaced by the pope and his bishops. This vision distressed him; but on the next day he saw many painters occupied in restoring these figures in greater number and in brighter colours. As soon as their task was ended, the painters, who were surrounded by an immense crowd, exclaimed, 'Now let the popes and bishops come, they shall never efface them more! And many people rejoiced in Bethlehem, and I with them, adds John Huss. 'Busy yourself with your defence rather than with your dream, ' said his faithful griend, the knight of Chlum, to whom he had communicated this vision. 'I am no dreamer,' replied Huss, 'but I maintain this for certain, that the image of Christ will never be effaced. They have wished to destroy it, but it shall be painted afresh in all hearts by much better preachers than myself. The nation that loves Christ will rejoice at this. And I, awaking from among the dead, and rising, so to speak, from my grave, shall leap with great joy.

Deo respondebitis et mihi — "When a hundred years shall have revolved ye shall answer to God and to me." He also refers to a brief addressed by Pope Adrian, in 1523, to the Diet at Nuremburg, containing these words: — "The Heretics Huss and Jerome are now Alive Again in the Person of Martin Luther."

These last illustrations supple a complete answer to the only plausible argument that I have met with against the figurative sense of our vision. "Surely," it is said, "the resurrection must correspond with the death. If the one be figurative, so may the other; but if the death be literal —— as we have admitted to be the case with both the martyr—companies in this vision —— then must the resurrection be the same." This argument is adduced by all literalists as triumphant. But though the principle of it is undoubtedly correct, Mr. Elliot, who among others urges it with his accutomed force, has, in the above illustration, himself furnished enough to show that it is pointless in the present case. John Huss, before his death, anticipated the day when, awakening from the dead, and rising from his grave, he would leap with great joy." Suppose, then, I were to reason thus. "A resurrection ought to be of the same character with the death from which it is a revival: but Huss' death was literal and personal; therefore it must have been his own literal and bodily resurrection which he anticipated on the eve of his death." But it was not. Did Huss, then, expect no resurrection of himself personally? Of course he did; but that was not the burden of his thoughts at the time. He was filled with the thought of the eventual triumph of the truth he was dying for, and that was the resurrection of himself which he so joyfully anticipated. Take now the other case. Pope Adrian said to the Diet at Nuremberg, "The heretics Huss and Jerome are now alive in the person of Martin Luther." But the death which Huss and Jerome died was a literal and bodily one: Shall we therefore say that Adrian meant to tell the Diet that Huss and Jerome were not figuratively, but literally and personally alive in Martin Luther? Absurd. It is true that Huss and Jerome were literally slain, just as the witnesses in our vision were; but as this did not in the least prevent Huss himself anticipating a glorious resurrection in the person of his successors in the faith, nor the enemies of both from testifying that they had risen and were actualy living in the man who of all other best represented them, so neither does it hinder us from seeing in this vision the same figurative resurrection of the slain witnesses of Jesus in the millennial day. The only difference is, that what was realized at the Reformation, in Luther and his compeers, was but as a drop in the bucket —— "the little cloud as a man's hand" —— compared with the millennial resuscitation, not only in point of numbers but the completeness of the triumph. For while Huss and Jerome, as witnesses for Christ, were put completely down by the antichristian party in their day, Luther and his coadjutors at the Reformation were not able to put them completely down in their turn. But at the time of our vision, the witnesses for Christ of every age shall not only "live and reign" in their successors "for a thousand years," but "the rest of the dead (the opposing party) will not live again until the thousand years shall be fulfilled —— This is the first resurrection." And "blessed" surely, "shall he be" whose lot is cast in such times, and "holy shall he be that hath part in the first resurrection" —— representing in his person the noble army of martyrs, yet without being exposes,as they were, to be crushed and swept off the stage, merely because Jesus and his truth were dearer to them than life itself!

Okay now I confess he completely lost me in some places and in others I would not agree. However, I did want to keep his collection of arguments intact for the reader to judge for themselves.

So I am done with Brown's 9 arguments for his (and my) interpretation of Revelation 20. I will condense where I can, but this is tasty stuff, a lot of which needs to be posted in full — as it turned out, all of it was posted in full.

This is his ninth argument and conclusion of the arguments:

Pages 238—242

Lastly — The literal view can offer no consistent explanation of the "judgment that was given unto" he slain martyrs. What judgment was this? Clearly the same that the first company of them sought, and were assured they would get as soon as the second company were ready to receive it along with them — "How long, O Lord, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" If the words "judge" and "avenge" here do mean precisely the same thing, the latter being explanatory of the former, they at least mean things inseparable from each other, and to be received at one and the same time. When "it was said unto them, that they should rest yet a little longer until" the other company "should be killed as they were" — the meaning is, "Judgment shall be given unto you, and your blood shall be avenged on them that dwell on the earth," when that period arrives. Accordingly, when our millennial vision says, "I saw judgment given unto them — the martyr companies — it is impossible, I think, to doubt that the meaning is, "I saw the Lord fulfilling his pledge to the souls under the altar, — I saw him judging and avenging their blood — and the blood of the other company along with them — on them that swell on the earth." If this be correct, of course the slain and those who slew them, must be taken in the same sense. If the judgment is to be given unto the martyrs personally at the millennium, their blood must also be personally avenged on them that dwell on the earth. If the martyrs are to rise bodily from their graves, in order that judgment may be personally given to them, then their persecutors, every one of them, must be raised from their graves to have vengeance rendered to them for the blood of those dear saints which they shed. If Paul, for example, was seen in the millennial vision have "judgment given to him" in his individual person, why is not Nero here also to have apostolic "blood avenged upon him?" If Ignatius, why not also Trajan? If Justin and Polycarp, and the blessed martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, why is not the mild and lauded Marcus Antonius confronted with them in this "judicial," "blood—avenging" resurrection? Why, in a word, is not the long line of bloody emperors, and their more guilty minions, arrayed in person before the hundreds of thousands of the martyrs of Jesus, of whom the world was not worthy, whose blood they poured out like water, with little intermission, for three hundred years? On all just principles of interpretation, if the cry for "judgment" and "vengeance on their enemies" is to bring up the martyrs in their persons at the millennium, the same cry ought to bring up their enemies in person along with them, for their part of the judgment. So with respect to the second class — after whose slaughter the whole array of martyrs is to be judged — if the Lord's.

"Slaughtered saints, whose bones lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold," are personally to appear in this millennial resurrection, why not also "the bloody Piedmontese, that rolled Mother with infant down the rocks?"

And shall the seventy thousand dear French Christians that perished in three days —— to the eternal infamy of the Church of Rome —— rise from their graves for "judgment" at the millennium, and, while looking for the avenging of their blood on them that shed it, shall they miss the bloody Guises, and that Man of Sin who, from his throne on seven hills, caused a medal to be struck in honour of this fearful slaughter of the Huguenots?

Certain that it is, that the judgment which John saw the martyrs get, brings up not one of the persecutors in their individual persons. Have the martyrs been deceived, then? Having asked bread, have they gotten a stone? No, but you misinterpret their petition. The thing granted shows what we are to understand by the thing asked. They get "judgment" on the cause that slew them. That, therefore, is the judgment sought. It is just the testimony of Jesus, once slain in the martyrs, at length living in their millennial successors — trodden once, but now triumphant. Listen to the following words of the 18th chapter: — "Rejoice over her (over Babylon), thou heaven, and ye saints and apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her (v. 20). "Reward her even as she rewarded you" (v. 6). And again, in the 19th chapter, — "He hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hands" (v. 2). Here you have both parties together — the party avenged, namely, "the saints and apostles and prophets," from the beginning; and the part "on whom God hath avenged them," namely, Babylon, the harlot—Church, in its destruction. It is simply the fall of this antichristian, cursed, bloody system, that is meant. Over her ruin the whole Church of God, of every age, and especially those who fell under her murderous policy, are called to rejoice, as if personally avenged in the destruction of that which destroyed them.

I am far from denying that this righting of the cause of Christ and his enemies involves an ultimate resurrection of the persons on all on either side — to everlasting life in the one case, and to shame and everlasting contempt in the other. In this sense, the millennial state, as being the next stage and the nearest resemblance to the eternal state, is described in the Old Testament prophets in language which in the Apocalypse is appropriated, with slight elevation of strain, to the everlasting state. But if you raise the platform of the vision on the one side into the celestial and eternal region, by bringing up the martyrs into glory at the millennium, you must not sink the platform on the other side, by leaving the persecutors to rot quietly in their graves for a thousand years more. This is a clumsy expedient, which creates more difficulties than it removes, and in the case of our vision fails, as we have seen, to the the requirements of the text. To put this argument, then, in a single sentence, the "judging" and "avenging," if not precisely the same thing, plainly go together — as in the petition, so in the bestowment: the meant is one and the same interposition in favour of the one party and against the other; with reference to the cause at the millennium, and at the great day with reference to the persons, when all who have had any thing to do in the conflict shall "go to their own place."

Thus I have examined this celebrated passage both presumptively and directly, both generally and in detail. Though I have adduced some considerations which, even before examining the passage, seemed to bear very hard against the literal sense, it will not e said that I took advantage of these to prejudge the question. I have rejected some arguments in favour of the figurative sense which did not appear to be tenable, as proceeding upon a mistaken apprehension of what the vision really was; and while I have freely availed myself of the observations of others on both side, I have presented the whole in the light in which it rose before my own mind. Some of the arguments which I have advanced appear to me decisive of themselves; but taking the whole nine arguments together, I believe the conclusion to which they lead — that the millennial is a figurative, not a literal resurrection — cannot be overthrown.

And this is the seat of the doctrine of a resurrection of the righteous a thousand years before the wicked. If this, now, be dislodged — and the confirmations of it elsewhere were found to be none — the whole doctrine fails, and with it, of course, the premillennial theory itself, which absolutely depends on it.

I know this is a work intended to counter premillennialism, but I am finding it invaluable for hyperpreterist nonsense.

Premillennialism is a defeatist eschatology. Thankfully most adherents live contrary to the logical outworking.

Page 297

"The Gospel," says Mr. A. Bonar, "is the instrument in the Lord's hand for converting the worlds$mdash;it will always be the one instrument in the Spirit's hand." But he does not design "so ot use it at present"—"in this dispensation that precedes the Lord's coming;" and to look for it before Christ come is but "a visionary hope," which missionaries should not cherish. He has heard missionaries "regret deeply that the Church at homes should be dazzled by the vain hope of conversions on a grand scale." If the missionary would "see that the gathering out of the elect is his sole hope," he would be "far less disheartened by opposition than when he vainly expected every day to see symptoms of national and universal conversion." And if "it would be wrong, grievously wrong, to say that the Gospel is not the instrument in the Lord's hand for converting the world, equally wrong is it to say that the Lord is so to use it at present."

If ever a statement went directly in the face of the Redeemer's own words, this is surely one.

Pages 298—299

But what I wish to specially to note, is the connection between the present exercise of the work of the ministry—at home by pastors, and abroad by missionaries—and this evangelization of all nations as the result. To expect this result, in the believing and prayerful use of the prescribed means, Is nothing else but to rely on Christ's word of promise; and to expect it in the "present,",/em> use of the means, or "in this dispensation that precedes the Lord's coming," is merely to presume that the Lord means what he says. Yet this is what Mr. Bonar ventures to call "a vain" and "visionary hope" "dazzling the Church at home," and fitted only to "dishearten" missionaries abroad. Say we not well, that the premillennial theory paralyses missionary effort by paralysing missionary expectation?

To the same effect, Dr. H. Bonar. "Do I paralyze effort," he asks, "when I say, 'Work while it is day, for the night cometh when no man can work?" No, I reply, not when you say "work;" but when you teach the workman not to expect the promised result then you paralyse effort.

Pages 301—302

A word or two on the effusion of the Spirit, in virtue of which those extensive conquests of the nations to Christ are to be brought about. We should like to hear more about this. I do not for a moment doubt that those whose writings I am now examining are at one with me in expecting such effusion. But do they believe that it may come "at this present time—in this dispensation that precedes the Lord's coming?" We—believing that the "discipling of all nations" is to be effected, as the Lord himself assures us, before he comes—of course look for those copious shows of the Spirit which alone can make the Word efficacious to do it. They—believing that the conversion of the nations is not to be till after the Lord come—of course do not look for the Spirit to effect it by any preaching of the Gospel that is, or can be now set on foot. And is this not to "paralyse effort?"

In further reading, it seems to me that David Brown might have actually leaned towards a historical postmillennial view. What do I mean by that? I am a Neo—Postmillennialist—that means that I believe we are now in the Millennium and that we are progressing towards a world that will be globally changed by the Gospel. Classic/historical Postmillennialists tended to believe in a distinct future golden age after which Christ will return.

Pages 321–322

Now, this is but the issue in which our parables land us. They gave us the thing attained; while here we have the arduousness with which it is reached—that is all. The kingdom shall grow, says the parable of the mustard seed, till it overspread the earth: It shall work into human society, says the parable of the leaven, till it pentrate with its blessed principles and character the whole mess. It shall fight, and win its way, says Nebuchadnezzar's vision, to the throne of the world, and having smitten down the most formidable of all the bulwarks which satan ever threw up against its progress, shall thenceforward sit mistress of this world's affairs, pursuits, and enjoyments, bringing them all into captivity to the obedience of Christ!

What, then, have we found in this vision? We have found that the kingdom of Christ is already in being, having been set up by the God of heaven in the days," or duing the currency, of the four famous kingdoms—not at, but long before, the millennium. We have found that the difference between its two principal "states," its premillennial and its millennial state—is a difference not of administration, of constitution, of dispensation or form, but of prosperity and extent. Its oppressors cease, tis chains fall off, its vitality, elasticity, and force become signally manifest, its character is developed, its limits are extended, and it becomes at length all in all: And, to complete the representation, we have found that all this is just the triumph of the now existing Church —the stone cut out of the mountain without hands merely smiting the image. No new weapon does the Church get to fight her enemies withal. No change of dispensation does she undergo. She is already all that she needs to be. She is complete in her living and ever=present Head, having "all power in heaven and in earth" at her command, and getting it too at the destined period, when, "the time to favour her is come, even the set time.

More problems for premillennialism.

In further reading, it seems to me that David Brown might have actually leaned towards a historical postmillennial view. What do I mean by that? I am a Neo—Postmillennialist—that means that I believe we are now in the Millennium and that we are progressing towards a world that will be globally changed by the Gospel. Classic/historical Postmillennialists tended to believe in a distinct future golden age after which Christ will return.

Pages 328–330

These remarks will, if I mistake not, throw light upon the remainder of this vision, which is evidently to be interpreted upon the same principles. Once claimant for the throne of the world has been disposed of. He has been in possession of the ground, indeed, long before his Rival, in some sense; and might pretend to a de facto right to keep the ground. But right de jure he had none, and that is the only right recognised in heaven. He is accordingly, at the time appointed, swept away; and the stage being now clear, the rival Claimant—even the Son of Man, borne upon the clouds—is seen advancing to the Eternal Arbiter, still sitting on his awful throne, and is introduced to him by the angelic officers of state: "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." (Verse 13.) For what purpose is this? That he may be seen putting in his claim to the sovereignty of the world, and getting that claim recognised by Him that sitteth upon the throne. "Ask of me," says the Ancient of days, in effect, "and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for they possession." (Psal. ii. 8.) The prophet sees this done. "And," he adds, "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, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." (Verse 14.)

Who does not see that this has nothing to do with the second personal advent of Christ? The coming of the Son of Man here is not, be it observed, a coming to men at all, but a going to God; nor is it any local coming even to Him. It is simply the advancement and the recognition of his claim to rule the world, clothed in state forms,—in the symbolic drapery of an august installation or inauguration. From what locality his rule is to issue, the vision says not a word, nor gives a hint. It is just the rule itself—"that all people, nations, and languages, should serve and obey"—wrested out of the hand of a base usurper, and committed to "Him whose right it is to reign." It is just that in symbolic language which Zechariah expresses in naked terms, referring to the same period: "And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be on Lord, and his name one." (Chap. xiv. 9.) It is the removal of all Redeemer's public rivals, in consequence of which "the Lord alone is exalted in that day." (Isaiah ii. 11, 17.) Enemies, we shall by and by find, will still exist; but they will not be exalted or lift up the head. They will be still, and know that he is God. They will yield him feigned submission: but universal submission he will have. The only difference, then, between his rule now and in the latter day, is in the presence now, and the extinction then, of a public party in opposition to him together with the native consequences of these very different states of things. Now, it is said to him, "Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies." (Ps. cx. 2.) Then, it is said to him, "O Lord our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. They are dead; they shall not live; they are deceased; they shall not rise: therefore has thou visited and destroyed them, and made all memory of them to perish." (Isa. xxvi. 13, 14.)

Another bag of hurt delivered to premillennialism. There's more where that came from.

In further reading, it seems to me that David Brown might have actually leaned towards a historical postmillennial view. What do I mean by that? I am a Neo—Postmillennialist—that means that I believe we are now in the Millennium and that we are progressing towards a world that will be globally changed by the Gospel. Classic/historical Postmillennialists tended to believe in a distinct future golden age after which Christ will return.

Page 338—339

That the unbelieving Jews should look for a rebuilt temple, a re—established priesthood, the restoration of their bloody sacrifices, and an Israelitish supremacy—at once religious and civil—over all the nations of the earth, when their Messiah comes, is not to be wondered at. With these views of Old Testament prophecy, their fathers rejected Jesus and put him to death, as he neither realized their expectations, nor professed to do so; but, on the contrary, directed his whole teaching to the uprooting of the prevalent conceptions of Messiah's character, work, and kingdom, and to the establishing of views directly opposite. Unless they had been prepared to abandon their whole scheme of Old Testament interpretation, they could not consistently have acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah. But that any Christians should be found agreeing with the unbelieving Jews in their views of Old Testament prophecy—that there should be a school of Christian interpreters, who, while recognizing Jesus as the promised Messiah, and attached in all other respects to evangelical truth, should, nevertheless contend vehemently for Jewish literalism, and, as a necessary consequence, for Jewish altars, sacrifices, and supremacy—is passing strange. It is true that this Judaistic element was not wholly expelled from the minds of the apostles before the day of Pentecost; it is true that even after this it had its advocates in some of the infant Churches—as the Galatian and Colossian; and it is true that, even when extruded thence by the zeal with which Paul attacked it, and the light which he poured upon the Old Testament by his rich expositions, it still lingered, and struggled for a footing, and succeeded in entrenching itself in a number of shallow minds, and forming small sects who precise tenets are still a matter of dispute among ecclesiastical historians. But characterized as they were by low views of the Person and Work of Christ, as well as of every thing else in religion, their existence was brief and outside the orthodox Church; nor have such Judaizing opinions ever been able to raise their head, save in a few isolated cases, till the present day. The most remarkable fact of all is, that those who held the premillennial theory in the second and third centuries, seem not to have believed in any literal, territorial restoration of the Jews at all,—much less in their millennial supremacy over all nations, and the re—establishment of their religious peculiarities.

There are some great points there, but I do not agree with his insults against some early Christians as "shallow" if he is referring to such thinkers as Justin Martyr. Since he does not name who he is referring to, I felt I had to make it clear that while I agree with his theological points here, I cannot countenance saying Justin Martyr had a shallow mind or low view of the Person and Work of Christ.

Page 346–347

But the Jewish idea, under which this prediction [Malachi 1:11] is couched, is not merely that "incense and a pure offering" shall be offered to God by all nations, but "in every place"—as if they would have the temple service at home, and not need to go to Jerusalem for it. Now we have seen, that in other places the reverse of this is expressly predicted. In Isaiah and Ezekiel, the catholicity of the Church's worship is expressed by all nations flowing to Jerusalem, and going up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of God of Jacob; whereas in Malachi instead of them going to the temple, the temple is represented as coming to them. If, then, we would not make the prophets contradict themselves, we must understand both representations as designed to announce just the catholicity and spirituality of the Gospel worship.

Obvious, isn't it?

I find myself here reproducing an entire chapter of awesomeness. Brown totally decimates a very common premill argument. Bravo.

Chapter VI. (pages 367 through 373)

The Way of Salvation No Less Narrow During the Millennium Than Now.

Very loose is the language indulged in upon this point,—language which, though repudiated by some, is nevertheless the prevailing strain in the contrasts which are drawn between the present and the expected millennial dispensation.

"Concerning the number of true believers under this dispensation," say Dr. M'Neile, "we read, 'Many are called, but few are chosen. Enter ye in at the strait gait, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate and narrow is way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in they name; and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity.' Concering the character of true believers, we read, 'Love not the world, neither the things of the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. The friendship of the world is enmity with God; whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God. Therefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.' These passages of Scripture avowedly belong to this dispensation. They have applied in every age, and do still apply to the true disciples of the Lord Jesus: But if the world become Christian, the world will no longer persecute Christians. If all the families of the earth be blessed with eternal life, the way of life will be no longer narrow. If the world become Christian, then Christians cannot separate from the world.. It is obvious, that in the passage from our present state to a state of universal holiness, these characteristic saying of the New Testament must cease to have any application, and become obsolete, not to say false."

The least consideration," says Mr. Maitland, in the note already quoted, "will serve to show that the New Testament supposed a suffering kingdom, and that its encouragements, exhortations, warnings, were addressed to a people conflicting with the world, the flesh, and the devil. The Master, as he delivered it, said, 'I am come to send fire on earth, not peace, but a sword;' and this supposition is the whole revelation founded. Now, if we turn to the promises of God concerning the state of the world, after his ancient people shall have been brought in and made the light of the nations (as given in Isa. xi., xxv., lx., and elsewhere), and carry the exhortation and warnings of our dispensation to a people conditioned as they shall be, we shall at once see how ill adapted they would be to their times and circumstances. Christ says to his Gospel—church in every line, if not in word yet in spirit, 'Watch and pray lest ye enter into temptation: Behold I come as a thief—a snare: be ye therefore like servants which wait for their Lord.' Take this thought with you to the sixtieth of Isaiah, and mark the incongruity. If such precepts as these are still needed, the condition there described could not exist. Holy fear and jealousy, from the surrounding dangers, would effectually check the tide which we see flowing there. Their condition is evidently one not militant but triumphant."

When," says Mr. Wood,, "the nations say, 'Come and let us go up to the house of the Lord,' shall it be true, then, that 'strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it?"

Once more,

"Surely," says Mr. Brooks, "the kingdom will be already come, when all the kingdoms of this world shall have become the kindom of our Lord and and of his Christ. With what propriety, then, could men any longer be exhorted to 'seek' and to 'lay up treasure,' and 'hope for' that which they will already be in possession of!"

The confusion of thought which all thse passages manifest, is such as can only be accounted for by the difficulty of defining a state which is made up of the most ikncongruous elements. Let us try to bring order out of it.

1. When the world ceases to persecute Christians, it will only be that on a great scale, which on a small one has seen hundreds of times in the past history of the Chrch, and, on a scale smaller still, occurs in the domestic circle every day. "The had the churches rest," says the historian of the Acts, after Saul of Tarsus had been transformed out of a bloody persecutor into a glowing Christian, and "walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multipled." (Acts ix. 31.) such rest, and such blessed consequences of it, have been more or less experienced in the Church from age to age since that time. And what will the millennium be, in one blessed feature of it, but this same rest,and these same consequences of it, over the whole earth? But what in this case, it will be said, becomes of such passages as these, "In the world ye shall have tribulation;" "I am not come to send peace on earth,but a sword;" "The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father"? Why, just what becomes of them when "one of a fami8ly," after having been the object of incessant and virulent opposition from an ungodly housuehold, is blessed to the faining of every one of them—when "those who spake against him as an evil—doer, do,by his good works which they behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." Of course the father is not now "divided against the son." they are "all of one mind; they live in peace, and the God of love and peace is with them." There is manifestly no difference at all between this case and that which we expect during the millennium over the whole earth. The extent is nothing. The principle is the only thikng of consequence, and who does not see that that is the same in both cases? Yet they build out of this an argument for a new dispensation! As well might one say, that the change which came over the Church when Constantine extended to it the protection of the empire, was a new dispensation. (Comapre Isa. xi. 9; ii. 3, 4; xxxii. 15﹣18.)

2. The argument for an entirely new state of things during the millennium, from the words, "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it," while it resembles the former one in shallowness, grates more upon the ear, and is more vicious in its tendency. It proceeds on a misapprehension of the real point of our Lord's statement, and unduly magnifies what is the least important part of it. What makes "the narrow way" to narrow, is not that "few find it," but it is because of it narrowness that it is found by few. It is not because "many there be that go in thereat," that the way they take is called "the broad way," but it is because of its breadth that so many frequent it. The one way means just the course which pleases the flesh, is congenial to the carnal taste of eery natural man, and consists in following the bent of corrupt nature; therefore it is called broad—easily trodden, as its "gate" is said to be wide—easily got in at. The other way means just the opposite of this—resistence to all the desires of the natural man, the mortification of the flesh, obedience to the promptings of the opposite principle—the new, spiritual, heaven—born natrue. If this be correct, it follows, not only that men during the millennium, just as much as now, willo naturally prefer the "broad" to the "narrow" ay, if they be born in sin as we are, but that, left to themselves, every one in all time will walk in the former, and none at all in the latter; that the wonder is, not that "few," but that any find it, and that these few fine it purely in virtue of a supernatural principle, emancipating them from the "earthly, sensual, devilish" desires to which, in common with all other men, they are naturally in bondage. Now, as this is the secret of any man's finding the narrow way, so is it the secret of every man's finding it who is ever conducted to "life" upon it. What, then, is the difference between the present and the millennial state, in respect of this way? Just the difference between grace plucking more brands out of the fire than now—between a less and a greater number of converted and holy persons:—that is all.

Will it be said, The way will no longer be narrow, when, instead of few, many find it? That, as I have said, is to make its narrowness to arise from its unfrequentness. And by so saying, you do something far worse than make the cause the effect, and the effect the cause; you put the real narrowness of the one way and breadth of the other out of sigh altogether, and represent the millennial state as on in which men will not find the way of life to be what it is to us—a state in in which they will not have to struggle against the corrupt tendencies of the natural man—a state in which the corruption of nature either will not exist at all, o r will not have those characteristics which make it what it is, and which have been always the same since the fall. If this is not what you mean, your argument is inept, and your language fitted only to deceive.

But surely it will not then be said, "Few there be that find it," and if not, will not this statement be then inapplicable? The answer, if answer the question needs or merits, has been furnished already. "The father is" no longer "divided against the son," when the father joins the son in the bonds of the gospel. When the sword of persecution is sheathed in any land, the Saviour's words, "I am not come to send peace on earth, but a sword," before realized there, cease of course to be descriptive of the actual state of things in that land. In these and similar statements of Scripture, it is the principle of eternal hostirily between him that is born after the flesh and him that is born after the Spirit which is to be seized upon. In this originates all the actual opposition to the cause of Christ and the members of his body which is displayed. It varies, of course, in the forms which it takes, in the places where it occurs, and in the extent to which it is permitted to go: sometimes the worse triumphs over the better, and puts it down; at other times it is the reverse; and the time is coming when those that are born after the flesh shall be the tail and not the head, all the world over. But who would ever spreak of such statements as the above being superseded, either now—wherever true religion triumphs, in families, cities, or countries—or hereafter over the whole earth? So with the "few" that now find the narrow way, compared with what will be witnessed during the millennium. As the way will be the same then—and narrow then in the same sense and for precisley the same reasons as now—so it will be nothing else than grace triumphing then over nature in more person, and to a greater extent, than now.

3. "If the world, says Dr. M'Neile, "become Christian, then Christians cannot separate from the world." Is it possible that such a fallacy shoudl stumble any one acquainted with Scripture language? What definition of "the world" from which Christians are commanded to separate, is given in the very passage which he quotes? "Love not the world," says the beloved disciple, "neither the things that are in the world. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." Will none of these exist during the millennium, or require to be separated from? Take riches—one of "the things (now) in the world," and the love of which must be in this passage forbidden, seeing it is said to be "the root of all evil." Will this not be "in the world" during the millennium? or will money be anything else than than what it is now, or will the "love of money" be more lawful? "The lust of the flesh"—will that be extinct during the millennium, or may it be then cherished? "The lust of the eye"—will that also be gone? And "The pride of life?" Or will they be any thing else then than now? The question, it will be observed, is not, Will men then rise superior to those things? but, Will they have them to resist? Dr. M'Neile's argument, if good for any thing, is this, that men during the millennium will not need to be warned against the love of the world—not becuase they will have so much of the Spirit that hte world will make no impression upon them, though even that were no reason why they should never be warned—but because there will then be no world to love, no lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and pride of life, to require warnings against. And when we have got this length we are still not far enough; for unless it will then be lawful to "love" the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, since the "creature" will exist during the millennium, and be quite as attractive, I should suppose, as ever it has been since the fall, there will be the very same reason then as now for the apostle's counsel, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world."

The reader will now know what to gether from Mr. Brooks' question, "With what propriety could men any longer be exhorted to 'seek' and to 'lay up treasure,' and to 'hope for' that which they will be in possession of?" As this is spoken of the millennial condition of mortal men, it either means that they will, in the state of mortality, be in possession of heaven, and heaven's treasures, so as no longer to need hoping for them, as poor mortal men now have, who, with all "the frist—fruits of the Spirit" they enjoy, are dorced to "groan within themselves, waiting" for a very different state;—or else it has no meaning. I am inclined to think, that neither solution is perfectly correct. All the meaning which the statement has, is to the effect just expressed; but as I feel persuaded the author does not and cannot go that length, the rest must be set down to the nature of the expectation actually entertained, which in vain will any one attempt intelligibly to express.

In fine, the millennial state, according to the foregoing representations of it, will not be our Christianity at all. It has none of the characteristics of a state of grace; or, if this should be protested against as an unfair inference from their statements, let them give up contrasting the present with what they call the millennial dispensation. As well, I preat, may the term the change from teh persecuted to the peaceful state of the Church before and after Constantine, a change of dispensation; as well may they call the change from the Bloody Mary to Elizabeth of England, and similar changes in Scotland, and all the other kingdoms of Protestant Christendom, new dispensations. True, the change will be vastly more extensive, permanent, and glorious, tha tis to characterize the millennial period. But will there be one element in it that has not already been realized, and is not from time to time witnessed, on a smaller scale? Not one. when "the sovereignty of the world has become our Lord's and his Christ's" (Rev. xi. 15); when the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, is given to the people of the sains of the Most High; when Christ's dominion is from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth; when men are blessed in him, and all nations call him blessed; when they have beaten their swords into plough—shares, and their spears into pruning—hooks—nation not lifting up sword agaiknst nation, and none learning war any more:—then, of course, all the earth will be at rest and be still, save in the unwearied activities of welld oing. But even then, as the flesh will lust against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so salvation in every case will then be as much a triumph of grace over nature as now.

Brown presents a different view of the "little while" in Revelation that I find intriguing.

Page 414–421

When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison—for a little season—and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them to go to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven from God, and devoured them."—(Rev. xx.7, 3, 8, 9.)

Many writers seem to think, that the whole of what is here described will be accomplished with such rapidity as not to deserve the name of a period in Church history. For this, however, there is no ground, either in the passage itself, or in any analogy from past experience. The "little season" expressly assigned to these movements plainly shows it to be a distinct period; and as it is mentioned in immediate connection with the thousand years, and as following directly on it, we must take its littleness, in point of duration, relatively to that long period. were it to extend through one, two, or three centuries, it would still be comparatively "little," if we take the other period for a literal millennium. "Since it cannot be imagined," says Faber, "that the whole world will plunge at once from piety to impiety, both common sense and general experience may teach us that a considerable time will elapse ere the children of men will become so thoroughly depraved as to enter into a regular combination for the purpose of extirpating the samll remnant of God's faithful people."

"To deceive the nations" here, as we have seen, does not mean every kind of deception. Shut up "that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled," and now loosed and going forth "to deceive" them once more, the deception must be of the same character in both cases—to organise a new apostasy, and through them to make a fresh attempt against the Church of God upon earth.—There is no sufficient reason for taking "the nations that are in the four quarters (or corners) of the earth" to mean some particular nations at its remote extremities, so to speak. Under this impression, coupled with the mystic names "Gog and Magog," some have given lists of uncivilized nations answering, in their opinion, to the description. The expression is clearly employed to correspond with the figurative description of the Church, as "the camp of the saints and the beloved city—"images (says Scott) borrowed from the affairs of Israel in the wilderness and in Canaan. The Church being represented under this figure, as occupying one central sacred spot—once a realtity, but now, under the gospel, only a figure,—her enemies are described as sweeping from the ends of the earth towards this spot; and of course, in order to this, Satan is described as going out thither to collect his forces. Thus understood, the expression denotes the nations universally, or over the whole extent of the earth.—The names "Gog and Magog" carry us back to the account which Ezekiel gives (xxxviii., xxxix.) of an unprovoked, formidable, but abortive attack on the people of Israel peacefully settled in their own land, by some power or powers called by these same names. Fraser, Faber, and others, take both attacks to relate to the same event; but looking, not only at the passages themselves, but at the usual way in which Old Testament events are referred to in the Apocalypse, we are led, with the majority of commentators, to an opposite conclusion—that the events are in character analogous, rather than in fact the same.

The object of Satan is very explicitly stated—"to gather them together to battle." The temptations from which he was restrained being strictly of this nature, he is now loosed just to organise a confederacy against the Church again. By what steps he will proceed, and on what precise questions the quarrel will ostensibly be raised—whether he will set up a new religion, or whether, as seems more probable, he will breathe into them an anti—religious spirit, that cannot rest so long as God has any open friends, and Christ any witnesses, and the Church exists as a visible body—we cannot tell, and shall in vain attempt to determine. One thing only is certain—he will succeed in raising a mighty party, "the number of whom is as the sand of the sea" (an expression, however, not to be pressed too far; see Gen. xli. 49; Judges vii.12; and 2 Sam. xvii. 11). One may wonder at such success; but the past of the struggles of the serpent's seed and Christ and his people, teach us to wonder at nothing which he gets liberty to do. The bright latter—dat has set; the generations that adorned it have died; and other generations have arisen that "know not Jospeh." In process of time they may come to deny that matters were ever much better than they are, and laugh at every assertion of the sort. Impatience of the yoke of religion will in all probability come to be the uniting principle and animating motive of this vast party. "No oppression," says Freser, "is so grievous to an unsanctified heart as that which arises from the purity of Christianity. A desire to shake off this yoke is the true cause of that opposition Christianity has met with from the world in every period, and will, it is most likely, be the chief motive to influence the followers of Gog in his time."—Their "going up on the breadth of the earth," denotes their sweeping all before them in their advances against the Church; while their "compassing the camp of the saints and the beloved city," seems to be an allusion to the close investment of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, king of Assyria. The daring and blasphemous assumptions of that heathen monarch and his men of war, their undoubting confidence of success and their profound and godless security, up to the moment when the angel of the Lord smote the host—will doubtless find their like at this final investment of "the beloved city."

"As it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; the did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed."—(Luke xvii. 26–30.)

"Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape."—(1 Thess. v. 2, 3)

"There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?"—(2 Peter iii. 3, 4.)

"When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"—(Luke xviii. 8.)

And just as faithful Hezekiah and his people, shut in to an enemy sufficient to overwhelm them, could only "lift up their prayer for the remnant that was left," saying, "This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy for the children are come to the birth, and there is no strength to bring forth: incline thine ear, O Lord, and hear and open thine eyes, O Lord, and see; and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which that sent to reproach the living God (Isa. xxxvii. 3, 17)—so will the faithful in this final struggle feel their case utterly hopeless but for some signal interceding position from on high. Accordingly, they are represented as "crying to him day and night," and because he "beareth long with them" (Luke xviii. 7), some will give it up in despair, while the hearts of others will fail them for fear of being left to the will of their enemies.

In these circumstance, of confidence on the one side and fear on the other,—when the enemy is saying,"I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil,"—the tremulous cries of the remnant that is left enter into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. "Shall not God avenge his own elect, that cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you, he will avenge them speedily." No manifest sign of interposition, it would seem, will be given. As "the sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar," and "then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" (Gen. xix. 23, 24). so when the last enemy of the Church shall be ready to swallow up the camp of "the saints and the beloved city," then "fire shall come down from God out of heaven, and devour them."

Whether there will be any interval, or of what length, between this act of signal vengeance and the Personal Appearing of Christ, we have not sufficient ground to determine. Fraser, Faber, and those who take their views of "Gog," suppose that the "seven months" which Ezekiel speaks of, as spent burying the carcasses of these victims of justice, are an indication that "the last day will not quite immediately follow" this judgment. Their grounds, however, are not convincing, and the probability is that this will be the immediate precursor of "the last trumpet;" for the final judgment of the devil himself is recorded in the very next verse, and just before the account of the last judgment.

Here is part of Brown's commentary with which I would have some disagreement with his historicist approach of certain passages, but there is much in here worth noting and helpful.

Pages 430—433

It will be of no avail to allege that some or all of these passages point ultimately to the Personal Advent of Christ, and that Babylon, Egypt, Jerusalem, Sardis, are in that case to be viewed as typical of powers and parties then existing. It is enough if it be admitted—and who can dispute it?—that "the Lord" is in all these passage represented as "coming" for the destruction of the communities just mentioned, and that in those cases the coming could only be figurative. From these examples it is evident, that a figurative coming of the Lord for such purposes was quite familiar in prophetic phraseology; that the mere occurrence of such language in a prophecy would not necessarily suggest to any one well versed in its language the personal advent of Christ, but rather the reverses; that, as the Apostle Paul was profoundly read in the Scriptures, and deeply imbued with their spirit and style, it cannot be thought strange that he should fall in with it in this respect, by speaking of a bright coming of Christ to destroy the Antichristian power, meaning a figurative advent, and not his second personal coming. This being the case—since such a sense of the apostle's phraseology, taken by itself, is perfectly familiar in prophetic language—the only question is, Does the whole passage forbid such a sense? is there any thing in the subject and context to make such a sense harsh and unnatural? If so, I for one would not adopt it. For i most cases, the scope of an author is a far better clue to his meaning than any criticism on particular words. Let us try the passage, then, by this test.

The precise object of the apostle, be it observed, was not to tell the Thessalonians when, or even in connection with what events, Christ would come. His one object is expressed by himself as plainly as possible, namely, to dissipate the notion "that the day of Christ was at hand" or imminent. This object is sufficiently gained by the announcement of an apostasy yet to be consummated, and the Man of Sin yet to be revealed, in the Christian Church. By this they would be taught that matters were very far from being ripe for the immediate coming of Christ. But our apostle is not accustomed to dismiss great topics, even though only incidentally noticed, with the topic which occasioned the mention of them; and often the digression occupies more space than the subject which drew it forth. So it is here. The subject is the second coming of Christ; the digression relates to the apostasy and the Man of Sin. Having disposed of the primary subject he expatiates on the incidental one, going into very interesting details regarding the antichristian character and blasphemous pretensions of this ecclesiastical power; the preparations already in being for his manifestation; the unnamed obstacle still existing to his formal development, and the revelation, on the removal of this obstacle, of the dreaded enemy, destined nevertheless to perish by the spirit of the Lord's mouth, and the brightness of his coming; his Satanic origin and diabolical arts for decoying men; the mischief he was to be permitted to work; the causes of his success, and the class of person whom he would find prepared to swallow his lies to their souls' destruction. These details extend over ten verses, while the intimation of the destruction of this power by the brightness of the Lord's coming occupies the half of one verse in the very centre of these details, and is introduced quite parenthetically, even in the middle of a sentence—the detail being continued through four subsequent verses.

Looking on the whole passage in this light, I can see nothing requiring us to take this incidental "brightness of his coming" to be the same with that personal "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering unto him," the error about which had been already corrected. I do not say it cannot be. All I say is, I see nothing which imperatively requires us so to understand it. In answer to the question, Which is the more probably sense of the phrase, "brightness of his coming," here? I would remind the reader how all great judicial visitations—all inflictions of public vengeance on a great scale, whether in political or ecclesiastical bodies—are described in language drawn from the final and personal coming of the Lord to judgments, and how,for the judgment of Antichrist especially, the Lord is uniformly represented as "coming" in the awful pomp of retributitive justice—with all the solemnities in which he will ever appea—in proof of the personal inferiority of the Son, it would be uncandid to deny that these and like passages, taken by themselves, and without the light thrown upon them by other portions of revelation, do seem to teach this inferiority; and that, when we nevertheless assert the absolute personal equality of the Son to the Father, we seem to violate the natural sense of those passages. It is only be a careful comparison of Scripture with Scripture, that the perfect consistency of such statements with the supreme deity of Christ is made to appear.

In like manner, though it would be uncandid to deny that "the brightness of Christ's coming," to destroy Antichrist may explain perfectly well of his second personal coming and that if we take this passage by itself, and without the light thrown on it by other portions of Scripture, that does seem to be the coming intended. I have no hesitation in affirming that if we will but deal with this passage as we do with those which seem to favour the Socinian scheme, we shall soon be convinced that the second personal advent is not the coming of Christ here intended. Some insist that the "coming" here must be personal because the word "parousia," rendered coming," is never used but of a personal coming. Were I disposed to trust such materials, I might argue the opposite of this from the very next verse, where the same word is employed to denote the "coming of the Man of Sin"—which is described as being "after the working of Satan, i.e., meaning,that the rise of this antichristian power would be gradual, stealthy, artful, devilish. the application of the word in question to such a coming shows with what latitude it can be used. It is admitted that the Lord is said to "come" figuratively in many place of Scripture; and if so since the fingure—to be a good one—must be taken from his personal coming, of course any word expressive of a person coming must, ust on that account, be suitable for expressing his figurative coming.

Here is part of Brown's commentary with which I would have some disagreement with his historicist approach of certain passages, but there is much in here worth noting and helpful.

Pages 433—442

OBJECTION SECOND:—'The coming of the Lord announced in the following passage can be no other than his personal coming; and as the time of this coming is when "the time of the Gentiles have been fulfilled,' that is at the fall of Antichrist and immediately before the millennium, it follows that this is the time of the second advent.'

Matt. xxiv. 29—31: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heave to the other." (Compare Luke xxi. 24—27.)

That these words point ultimately to the personal advent of Christ and the final judgment, I have not the least doubt. But the first question ought to be, What is the direct and primary sense of the prophecy? Those who have not directed their attention to prophetic language will be startled if I answer, The coming of the Lord here announced is his coming in judgment against Jerusalem—to destroy itself and its temple, and with them the peculiar standing and privileges of the Jews as the visible Church of God, and set up "the kingdom of heave" (or gospel kingdom) in a manner more palpable and free than could be done while Jerusalem was yet standing. I say this application of the words, as their direct and primary sense, will probably startle those unacquainted with the prophetic style. But all hesitation on the subject will cease if we will but allow the Scripture to be its own interpreter. And,

1. Our Lord decides the sense of his own words, when he says of this entire prophecy, almost immediately after the words quoted, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all these thing be fulfilled."—(Matt. xxiv. 34.) Does not this tell us as plainly as words could do it, that the while prophecy was meant to apply to the destruction of Jerusalem? There is but one way of setting this aside, but how forced it is, must, I think, appear to every unbiased mind. It is by translating, not "this generation", but "this nation shall not pass away;" in other words, the Jewish nation shall survive all the things here predicted! Nothing but some fancied necessity, arising out of their view of the prophecy, could have led so many sensible men to put this gloss upon our Lord's words. Only try the effect of it upon the perfectly parallel announcement in the previous chapter: "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers...... Wherefore, behold, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagougues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation" (Matt. xxiii. 32, 34—36.) Does not the Lord here mean the then existing generation of the Israelites? Beyond all question he does; and if so, what can be plainer than that this is his meaning in the passage before us? In this case, the coming of the Lord here announced is just his figurative coming to "judge" and destroy Jerusalem, with all the judicial consequences of that coming.

2. Language equally strong with that of this prophecy is not only used in a figurative sense, and in a great variety of cases—showing that the figurative sense is a fixed and recognised sense in prophetic style—but it is expressly applied to this very event of the destruction of Jerusalem, where we have inspired authority for so understanding it. I have already shown that the judgments of the Lord on Babylon, Egypt, Jerusalem, at the time of the captivity, and the Sardian church, are announced in language quite as strong as that of the passage before us. I here add one other example:—

Rev. vi. 12—17: "And the sun become black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig—tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is ruled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bond man, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"

Who that is ignorant of the prophetic style would not be startled to learn that the personal advent of Christ, and the last judgment, is not the primary and proper subject of this sublime prophecy, and that the fall of Paganism in the fourth century of the Christian era is the historical event here symbolically announced? Yet the great majority of commentators, including some of the staunchest premillennialists, so expound this prophecy. I am not here contending that this is the event predicted. All I say is, that, strong as the language is—as strong as that of the prophecy we are examining—some of the ablest and most judicious commentators understand by it a figurative coming of Christ, and a figurative "day of wrath" against the Pagan world.

All the commentators I refer to admit that this and similar comings to judgment are but preludes to the personal advent and the personal judgment: and such, I freely admit, is the prophecy before us. But I think it must now be allowed, that if it can be shown that our Lord meant nothing else primarily or immediately but the judicial overthow of Jerusalem, there is nothing in the mere grandeur and strength of his language to prevent us taking that view of it. Now, I have show, from our Lord's own solemn declaration, that the generation then existing were to witness the fulfillment of the whole; and I have only now further to show that in other prophecies which we have inspired authority for applying to the destruction of Jerusalem, the same prophetic style is employed as in this prophecy.

"And it shall come to pass afterwards," says Joel—or "in the last days," as Peter renders the phrase—"that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh..... And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible say of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name o the Lord shall be delivered." (Joel ii. 28—32)

The Apostle Peter, quoting the whole of this passage, expressly declares that the first and the last parts of it were fulfilled at the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit, and the conversions immediately following it. Evident therefore it is, that the "great and terrible day of the Lord"—is no other, according to inspiration itself, than the day of Jerusalem's judicial destruction.

Again,

"Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap." (Mal. iii. 1,2.)

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children." (Chap. iv. 5, 6.)

Taking the questions contained in the first of these passages by themselves, who would ever doubt that the refer to the second coming of Christ and the last judgment? And yet it is absolutely certain that they do not. He whom Messiah calls in this prophecy, "my messenger"—afterwards called "Elijah the prophet"—is so expressly declared to be John the Baptist, both by the angel who announced his birth (Luke i. 17), and by our Lord himself once and again (Matt. xi. 13, 14; xvii. 10—13), that no doubt of this being the right application of the words can remain on the mind of any who bow to such authority. Of course, in that case, "the great and dreadful day of the Lord" can be no other than what Joel describes in identical terms—the say of Jerusalem's judicial destruction. When it is said, "The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple—but who may abide the day of his coming?" the prophet refers indeed to Christ's first coming, but stretches it onwards till after his ascension, and the awful reckoning which he made with the Jewish nation and Church for rejecting him, by the destruction of their whole state through the instrumentality of the Romans.

I might add the following: "Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come" (Matt. x. 23)—which Mr. Birks actually stretches out to the second advent!

Here is part of Brown's commentary with which I would have some disagreement with his historicist (and futurist) approach of certain passages, but there is much in here worth noting and helpful.

Pages 442 through 447

OBJECTION THIRD:—'A full and distinct narrative of the Lord's appearing from heaven is detailed by the prophet [in the Apocalypse] just before the millennium, and forms its immediate introduction. (Rev. xix. 11.) On the other hand, after the millennium, there is not found one syllable in the prophecy expressive of such an advent. The testimony of this fundamental vision [to the premillennial advent] is decisive and complete.'

"It may be affirmed, no doubt," adds the acute author just quoted, "that the advent in chap. xix. is figurative only, and that a real advent occurs after the millennium, when Satan has been loosed, and the fire descends from heaven. But the stubborn fact remains unaltered, that the vision expressly reveals an advent in the former place, and in the latter passes it by in silence. to have to explain away the advent where it appears openly and in plain terms, in the prophecy; and we have to introduce it where the Holy Spirit gives no token of its occurrence. It is difficult to see how any interpretation could be censured with more justice, as both adding to and taking away from the words of the prophecy. Let any Christian read the two chapters in question (Rev. xix., xx), laying aside every previous notion, and with a simple desire to the voice of God's Spirit, and I see not how he can escape from the evident conclusion. The second advent of our Lord, as described in the latest prophecy of Scripture, does not follow, but precedes, the millennial kingdom."

This is strong language certainly, and it will be admitted that the objection is put as forcibly as possible. Let us examine it then.

What is this "full and distinct narrative of the Lord's appearing from heaven," which is "detailed" in Rev. xix.? It is as follows:—

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew but himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called the Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. and he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. ... And I saw the beast, and the kinds of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." (Rev. xix. 11—16, 19—21.)

Truly, there is "detail" here; but this is the very thing which show it not to be the personal coming of Christ. For where, let me ask, is there one undisputed, unequivocal announcement of Christ's second personal coming in which such details occur, or any details at all? All we read is just the fact of his coming.

[omitted extensive Scriptural citations, some of them being futurist interpretations that I would not hold to]

But further, what can you possibly make of this as a vision of the second advent? Will Christ personally and visibly fight against "the beast and the kings of the earth, and their armies," personally and visibly gathered together against him? "We know," says Mr. Gipps, "the overwhelming effects produced by the manifestation of Christ's glory, or of portions as it were of that glory, upon those who beheld such manifestation, some of whom were his own saints, such as in Dan. x. 6—9; and at his transfiguration, Mark ix. 6, Luke ix. 32—34. We are informed of the appearance of one of his angels at his resurrection, and of its effect upon the guard of Roman soldiers (Matt. xxviii. 3, 4); of the effect of his appearance to Paul and his companions (Acts ix. 3—7, xxii. 9—11); and lastly, of his appearance to John himself (Rev. i. 17), the glory of which was so overwhelming to him, although he was the beloved disciple, and leaned upon Jesus' breast when manifest in is humiliation as man, that John fell at his feet as dead. Can we, I would ask, when we read these accounts, conceive, that when Jesus comes in person in his own glory, and that of his Father, with all his holy angles, any created being, any worm of the earth, any sinful child of man, will either date or be able to make war against him in his person? The very absurdity involved in this idea would of itself prove to my mind that the event foretold in chap. xix. 11 ;&c., cannot be the second or any personal coming of Christ.

But it may be said, if this be not the second advent, where does it occur in the Apocalypse after this? "After the millennium," says Mr. Birks, "there is not found one syllable in the prophecy expressive of such an advent." True, for this is symbolical and figurative; and it would be somewhat difficult to conceive how the personal descent of Christ from earth to heaven could be symbolically represented. But when I read thus, "And I saw [after the millennium] a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face (or presence) the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them," and connect this with Peter's announcement, "The day of the Lord will come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away, and the earth and its works be burnt up" (2 Pet. iii. 10), I see the Lord personally present in the one passage, while the other informs me he has only then come. Thus no attempt is made in the Apocalypse to picture by symbols the personal advent, but in place of it he is beheld in his great white throne—just come; with which agree the words of Jesus himself, "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. xxv. 31.)

OBJECTION FOURTH:—'When the beloved disciple beheld the redeemed in vision, sitting on thrones, with golden crowns upon their heads, and heard the halleluiahs which they poured into the ear of the Lamb, the last note, it seems, of their song of praise was, "We shall reign on the earth." (Rev. v. 10.)'

This passage is quoted in almost every defence of the premillennial theory, but without an attempt to show that it proves any thing which we deny—as if the sound of it were quite enough to convince the reader that it belonged exclusively to that scheme. Now, in order to make this out, two things must be proved. First, That the reign here anticipated means the personal reign of those who sang this song of praise to the Lamb; and secondly, That it mean their reign during the thousand years, and not in the eternal state. Many, who reject the premillennial theory as wholly unscriptural, understand the words, "We shall reign on the earth," to refer to the glory of the redeemed in "the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness." In this case, the passage proves nothing in favour of the premillennial scheme. But I am not satisfied with this view of the passage. I agree with Druham, Marck, Vitringa, Lowman, and the majority (I take it) of exact expositors, who take this to be a vision of the Church, not in its disembodied state, but as it now is, upon earth, with the Lamb slain enthroned in the midst of it, and "inhabiting its praises" (Ps. xxii. 3), "sending forth into all the earth" those mystic "horns and eyes" of his—that sevenfold plenitude of power and wisdom, for the ingathering of his elect "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation," and for the protecting, ruling, and perfecting of the gather Church "unto the day of redemption." In this case, the anticipation of the Church, in the words we are considering, relate more to the ultimate triumphs of Christ's cause upon the earth during the present state, than to the glorified condition of the saints. It is not "the spirits of just men made perfect," anticipating this resumption of their bodies in the resurrection—state, and their reign with Christ in glory on the earth when that state arrives; but it is the infant Church of Christ in flesh and blood, struggling against tribulation, and persecution, and peril, and sword, for Christ's sake, killed all the day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter, unable, without miracles of divine interposition and relief, to survive the combined and protracted assaults of her enemies, much less to overpower them, to carry all before her, to subdue the world under her religion and her Lord, and reign with undisputed sway over the whole earth. Yet this is anticipated as certain, and joyously sung by the choir of throned elders—bright earnest of the 'reign for ever and ever,' when that which is perfect being come, that which is i part shall be done away.