I.
NO one can read the New Testament with any care without being impressed with the large place given to the Church’s hope that the Lord Jesus is to come again. When the disciples looked steadfastly toward heaven as their Lord and Master ascended they were made conscious of the presence of two men in white apparel who addressed them in these words: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts i. 11). So in like manner the Apostle Paul in announcing the doctrine that “the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men” indicates that it has a practical bearing on the believer’s present life and his out-look for the future—”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 all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus. ii. 12-14). There can be very little doubt that the doctrine of the Second Coming has not the place in the teaching of many who are rightly regarded as conservative in their doctrinal position as it had in the teaching of the Apostles. This may have arisen as an offset to the labyrinthic wanderings of so many pre-millennarian teachers; but the fact that many have gone out of the way in their interpretation of a certain doctrine is no reason why we should neglect that doctrine especially if it is clearly revealed in the Scripture. How seldom one ever hears a sermon on the subject or even a reference to the doctrine! This could not be said about the late Rev. D. Macfarlane who not only preached on the Second Coming but made reference also to it in his sermons. The emphasising of the doctrine does not necessarily involve the fixing of the date of that great event. Too many have indulged in these conjectures and notwithstanding their failures others are as ready to indulge in these speculations. Such excursions into the unknown should be avoided. The Scriptures make it clear that the Lord is to come again but they do not make it clear as to the exact date of His Coming. The attitude of the Church is to be that of patient waiting for the Coming of her Lord. Such an attitude is fitted to keep faith in lively exercise, to minimise the importance of the claims of the world, and to make the Church never forget her mission in the world as a witness to her Lord. The doctrine it will thus be seen is not visionary but has a practical bearing on the religious experience and life of the Lord’s people. In these articles it is not our intention to establish the doctrine so clearly revealed in the New Testament that the Lord Jesus is to come again but rather to call attention to various views that have been held on this doctrine by evangelical Christians. These views may be classed under three main heads—1. A-millennarian; 2. Pre-millennarian and 3. Post-millennarian.
- The A-millennarians are so-called because they deny the doctrine of an earthly Millennium. The most recent statement of this position we have come across is to be found in Dr. Masselink’s Why Thousand Years? (Grand Rapids, Mich.). Dr. Masselink points out that nowhere else in Scripture is the millennium found except in Revelation xx. He maintains that the numbers in this book are symbolic such as 3; 4; 7; 144,000; 666, etc. What then according to this view is the meaning of Chapter xx.? Dr. Masselink answers: “The third foe of Christ is the dragon, which is Satan. His destruction is reserved for chapter 20. The great theme of this portion is the overthrow of Satan. It is preceded by the overthrow of the false prophet and the beast in chapter 19, and is immediately followed up by the scene of judgment. The whole section gives us a vivid picture of the condition of the souls of the believers after the bodily death and before the resurrection. This millennial peace and blessedness which the saints enjoy is hedged in by war. The war which immediately precedes it in chapter 19 terminates with the conquest of the false prophet and the beast, and the war which follows ends with the final destruction of the Devil” (Why Thousand Years?, p. 201). The symbolical method of interpretation is the only logical method, says our author, for this chapter. The thousand years cannot be taken literally any more than the other numbers in the Book. The binding of Satan for a thousand years is a figure used to teach that Satan’s power is completely broken for a season. The thousand years is symbolical of the completeness of the rest of God’s saints in their intermediate state. This intermediate state is summed up as being “the first resurrection.” This interpretation of “the first resurrection” as referring to the intermediate state is that set forth by Dr. Warfield in his article “The Millennium and the Apocalypse” in the Princeton Theological Review (vol. II. pp. 599-617). Warfield uses language, the meaning of which, leaves us in no doubt as to his view of the thousand years when he says: “John knows no more of two resurrections—of the saints and of the wicked—than does Paul: and the whole theory of an intervening millennium—and indeed of a millennium of any kind on earth—goes up in smoke. We are forced, indeed to add our assent to Klieforth’s conclusion, that ‘the doctrine of a thousand-year kingdom has no foundation in the prophecies of the New Testament, and is, therefore, not a dogma but merely hypothesis lacking all Biblical ground.’ The millennium of the Apocalypse is the blessedness of the saints who have gone away from the body to be at home with the Lord” (Ibid. ii. 615). Post-millennarians, while accepting the statements concerning “the thousand-year kingdom” of the pre-millennarians as having no foundation in Scripture, will challenge the statements that the millennium does not refer to a state on earth but “to the blessedness of the saints who have gone away from the body to be at home with the Lord.” Philip Mauro, in a sentence, indicates the real question between the A-millennarians and the Post-millennarians and Pre-millennarians when he says, in the foreword to his The Hope of Israel; “The great question concerning the Millennium is not When? but Where?” Post-millennarians and Pre-millennarians say the Millennium is on earth. A-millennarians hold that it is the intermediate state of the saints until Christ come. Dr. Masselink, in the book referred to, devotes the most of it to a criticism of the Pre-millennarian position and with his arguments generally we are in hearty agreement but he has not dealt with his own position—the A-millennarian—with the thoroughness one would wish on such a subject. In a review of his book we have seen, the reviewer evidently failed to understand Dr. Masselink’s position in asserting that Dr. Masselink denied a millennium altogether. What Dr. Masselink and leading A-millennarians deny is an earthly millennium. The thousand years or millennium of Revelation xx. is the millennium of the saints in their intermediate state of perfect blessedness. This view is beset with many difficulties. We were inclined to charge it with a novelty almost as recent as that of modern Dispensational Truth teaching until we came across a statement on the subject made by Dr. Stafford in his A Study of the Kingdom (Nashville, Tenn.). In a reference to the above interpretation Dr. Stafford writes: “Some years ago I thought out for myself this interpretation and the proof just cited. I thought I could claim originality for it. But to my chagrin I discovered the other day that Augustine made the same interpretation supported by the same words of Jesus (City of God, 20, 7). I cannot, therefore, claim originality for the interpretation; but there is more assurance that it is sound.” We are not in a position at present to say definitely what place this view, if any, occupied in the historical theology of the Church. One thing is certain, however, that in the great controversy waged around the doctrine of the Millennium it never entered the lists until comparatively recent times. It is the view that was adopted by Philip Mauro when he renounced his Dispensational Truth teaching. His views are set forth in the above quoted book—The Hope of Israel: What Is It?*
Some of our readers, unacquainted with the subject, may be inclined to think that some of the matters dealt with in these articles are not important enough to receive so much attention and that they are too intricate for those who have had no special training in theology. In regard to the first objection it may be said that it rests on ignorance. No one acquainted with the views held by thousands of evangelical and conservative Christians can shut his eyes to the facts that the doctrine of the Millennium occupies a very prominent place in their teaching and to take up the position because we are not feeling the strength of the rushing tide in our little sheltered nook that we should ignore it is neither indicative of intelligence nor wisdom. The fact that the subject is beset with many difficulties and caused considerable controversy is no more reason that we should ignore it than that we should ignore the doctrine of the divine infallibility and inerrancy of God’s Word because the waves of controversy are surging menacingly around this rock. The Pre-millennarian position which falls to be dealt with next is full of difficulties for the expositor. There are so many views held on different points by individual pre-millennarians that it is impossible within our self-imposed limits to deal with them. It will only be possible to touch upon the leading positions taken up generally by Pre-millennarians.
(To be continued.)
*The only religious periodical known to us advocating this view is Christianity To-day (Philadelphia) copies of which come to this country.—Editor.