00B.34 Chapter 27. Premillenialism

XXVII. Premillenarianism At the time this book goes to press the premillenarian theory is receiving more emphasis and causing more con­troversy than any other issue among professed Christians. It seems proper, therefore, that a chapter on the issue should be included in a book that Contends for the Faith.

It is a sad commentary upon the weakness of the human nature when intelligent and sincere men will allow any ideas concerning the millennium to become an issue be­tween them; to cause controversy and strife and division. No sin is more emphatically or more repeatedly condemned in the New Testament than strife and division, whatever may be the cause. Then when the cause is as nebulous as is the millennium, such a sinful and lamentable condition is pathetic in the extreme. If men must differ in their ideas about the millennium—a question that is entirely academic and touches no essential point of doctrine or item of practice in any Christian’s life—what sane reason can anyone give for making his idea a tenet of his creed or a test of fellow­ship or a barrier to brotherly relationships or to active and hearty cooperation in essential Christian service? This question has been often asked and it has also been often answered—but the "sane reason’ was not seen in the answers. It seems to be a characteristic of this question that men cannot enter into a discussion of it and remain entirely balanced and serene and sane. And as to practical points, it seems that a thoroughgoing premillenarian cannot be practical anyway. He is exceedingly visionary and im­practical. He has no hope for the world; no confidence in the success of any of our efforts and no interest in any subject that does not in some way relate to his imminent rapture and his thousand years’ reign with Christ on earth. Any gospel preaching that does not somewhere and in some way bring this in with heavy emphasis has no value in his sight. (This is true, however, of any other hobbyist— whatever his hobby may be. In our time it is admittedly true of those who are making a hobby of opposing pre­millenarianism.) But the ecstatic joy of believing that he is about to be delivered from the tragic conditions that prevail in the earth gives the premillenarian a decided dis­taste for the prosaic duties of a workaday world. But the sane reason for strife and division over such a question is still wanting.

WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT?

Let us study some of the words that are so often heard in our present-day prating about premillenarianism:

• Millenarianism.

• Premillenarianism.

• Postmillenarianism.

• Amillenarianism.

It will be clear to everyone that all these long words are based upon and are in some way connected with the mil­lennium. This word is made up of two Latin words. Mille means a thousand, and annus means year—hence, millen­nium means a thousand years. This word is not found in the Bible, but its English equivalent is there five times—all in one passage, Revelation 20:1-6.

If the reader will open his Bible and read that passage, he will then know all about the millennium that any other living man knows. Here is your chance, reader, to have Bible knowledge unexcelled! Read six verses and you will have arrived. Oh, but there are questions you want some­one to answer! Exactly. That is what everyone else wants. The usual questions are: When will this thousand years’ reign begin? Where will that reign be—on earth, in heaven, or in the air? If on earth, where will the throne or seat of government be? Who will be in that reign with Christ— only those who have been beheaded or all saints? If all saints, over whom will they reign? Over wicked men? Is this to be an exact thousand years of three hundred sixty-five days each or is it just an indefinite period of time?

Now the effort on the part of men to answer these ques­tions is where all our trouble comes from. Each man’s answer is, of course, that man’s interpretation of the passage. And since it is not a matter of simple exegesis, but neces­sarily implies the making out of a program for the Lord and his saints, for the devil and his forces, and for the nations of men on the earth, each man’s answer, therefore, becomes that man’s theory concerning all future affairs! This is a most excellent subject to let alone. That is exactly what the author of this book has at­tempted to do for many years. In answer to all the above questions he has said orally and in writing: "7 do not know, and I will not put forth a theory." The following is a state­ment of his views which the author has repeatedly published concerning the millennium, not concerning premillennialism or any other theory:

I do not know anything at all about the millennium. I do not know what Revelation 20:1-6 means and I will not venture a guess or spin a theory. All my thinking and believing is independent of this passage. With me it is not a pivotal point at all. My view on this point is expressed completely by Doctor Robertson. I published this a year or two ago in the Gospel Advocate and I still say that it expresses better than I can express it myself my attitude toward the millennium. Here is what he says. Dr. A. T. Robertson, in his book called "New Testament History," page 116:

"The millennium plays a really unimportant part in the book itself (only in chapter 20), and yet it has been made to dominate the in­terpretation of the book by premillennial or postmillennial theories. As for myself, it is by no means clear what the millennium is, nor how long it lasts, nor what is its precise relation to the second coming of Christ and the end of the world. So I leave the millennium to one side in my own thinking, and grasp firmly and clearly the promise of the personal second coming of Christ as a glorious hope and have no program of events in my mind for that great event."

I have no program of events in my mind in reference to the sec­ond coming of Christ except that he is coming to judge the world, make up his jewels and take his children home, and when that judg­ment is completed and death has been defeated, he will surrender the kingdom to God, the Father, and we will live with him forever and ever. That is all I know. About the millennium, I know nothing in the world. But in these dark days of world distress premillenarians have become so certain in their conclusions and so per­sistent in pressing them that we are forced either to agree with them and accept their views or else oppose them and give reasons for rejecting their views. We shall give some attention now to the terms used above.

Millenarian.—Anyone who believes in the millennium is a millenarian, regardless of what his idea is about when it comes or what the nature of the reign will be. He believes that there will be a thousand years’ reign of righteousness. That is enough to make him a millenarian or a ehiliast. (Chiliast and chiliasm are Greek terms.)

Amillenarian.—This means one who does not believe in the millennium. This word is formed by adding "a" as a prefix to millenarian. This prefix "a" is the Greek "Alpha privative" which gives a negative sense to a word. "Amoral" means not moral and may be applied to something that is not positively immoral, but it has no moral value and is not a protest against the immoral. An amillenarian does not believe that there is any thousand years to be reckoned with. He may be an unbeliever who does not care what the Bible teaches, or he may be a modernist who does not believe in the coming of Christ or accept any statement of God’s word that does not suit him. Or he may be a Bible-believing Christian who thinks that the book of Reve­lation has all been fulfilled: that this was a figurative rep­resentation of something that occurred under the Roman Empire. Whatever his explanation, the amillenarian just does not believe in the millennium. There is, therefore, no further discussion with him.

Millenarians may be of a number of varieties, but the two most well-known groups are postmillenarians and pre- millenarians. A postmillenarian is one who believes that Christ will not come until after the millennium has passed. The first postmillenarians believed that Christ will conquer sin and Satan through the gospel; that the world will be con­verted; and then there will be a period of peace and right­eousness on earth of a thousand years’ duration. After that Christ will come and time will be no more. This puts the coming of Christ so far into the future that it has no meaning in our lives. But any person who believes that the millennium must be over before Christ comes is a postmillenarian. Those who think that the millennium is now going on are post- millenarians, for they believe that Christ will bring the millennium to a close at his coming.

Premillenarians believe that Christ will come before the millennium; that he will at his coming inaugurate the millennium. And they have a very definite schedule of events made out for the Lord and for men. That schedule is about as follows:

OBJECTIONS TO THIS THEORY

Every passage of Scripture in the New Testament that says anything about the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the judgment represents all of these things as taking place at the same time or in immediate consecution—unless we except Revelation 19, 20. If those highly figurative chap­ters allude to the second coming, the general resurrection and the final judgment (about which there is a question) they certainly must not be made to contradict the plain unfigurative declarations of all the other New Testament books.

Yet all millenarian theories are based wholly upon the one passage. (Revelation 20:1-6.) It is true that many passages are used to corroborate and sustain the theories—especially are passages in Old Testament prophecy made to render- service in this cause—but if Revelation 20 were not already in the mind of the interpreter he would never see in these other passages what he now thinks he sees. He finds things in the prophecies that have never yet been literally fulfilled —at least so he thinks—and he clasps his hands in joy and exclaims, "Ah, ha! See? That will take place during the millennium!" It is a good deal safer and better to say, "I don’t know," in reference to these future things than it is to formulate a theory about when and how they will take place. For even if the theory does not contravene any plain Scriptures, and regardless of how plausible and beautiful it might be, you still do not know! You only have a theory.

POINTS UPON WHICH THE PREMILLENNIAL THEORYCONTRADICTS THE SCRIPTURES

Whereas premillennialism claims that when Christ comes he will set up his kingdom on this earth and that he and the risen saints will reign over earthly beings while they sin and suffer, marry and die, as they do now. Immortal beings reigning over mortal beings!

Whereas premillennialism preaches that when Christ comes he will take up his abode on this mundane sphere, become an earth dweller, and rule over suffering, sinning, dying men and women for a thousand years!

SOME PREMILLENNIAL ARGUMENTS EXAMINEDAND REFUTED But we are reminded that some of the passages that we have cited to refute the premillennial conclusions are used by those who hold these conclusions to support them. We shall notice two of those arguments in order to make the refutation as complete as time will allow.

Sometimes those who undertake to answer the premillen- nialist say it this way: "They that are Christ’s at his coming. Then, at that time, cometh the end. Therefore, the end will come when Christ comes and there will be no thousand years following his coming. This conclusion is pre-eminent­ly correct, but the argument based on "then" is fallacious and the scholarly premillennialist will gain a point by exposing the fallacy, though it proves nothing for his con­tention. He will point out that the Greek word for "then" here is not tote, but eita. And eita does not mean "at that time," but next, afterward, and how soon afterward or how long afterward will have to be determined by some­thing other than the word itself.

It denotes the sequence of things enumerated with no regard for how near they are to each other or how far they are from each other. As if we should say, Napoleon under­took to invade England, and then came Hitler. Hitler was the next man after Napoleon to entertain that ambition. But Hitler came more than a hundred years after Napoleon. Oh, says the premillennial brother, you have admitted my contention that eita may include a thousand years! But you are wrong. Eita does not include any time. It may designate a thing that happened in time years after some formerly designated thing happened. It denotes the order in which things occur and has nothing to do with the length of time between their occurrence. They may follow each other immediately or they may be thousands of years apart. To be of any benefit to the premillennialist eita would have to require a thousand years between the things mentioned. But it does no such thing. There is, therefore, no argument in eita for either side, and a discussion of it is only to confuse the minds of the people.

We may leave out any reference to eita and still see that 1 Corinthians 15 teaches unmistakably that Christ will give up his reign when h e comes instead of beginning his reign. Let us construct two or three syllogisms on the statements of Paul as follows: