Archive for chiliasm
Rev. Alfred Bryant– On The Loosing of Satan and The Destruction Of Gog and Magog
(from Millennarian Views, With Reasons For Receiving Them, 1852)
It is the opinion of some millennarians, and of many who are not, that after the thousand years of peace and purity on earth, there will be a great falling away through the influence of Satan, who will be permitted to go out and seduce the nations to sin; and that so great will be his success, that the number of the seduced will be as the sand of the sea.
But there is another view of this subject entertained by some, which we will give, and leave the reader to judge which is probably correct.
Who are the nations in the four quarters of the earth whom Satan shall go out to deceive? It is replied, they are the unholy dead, who are raised up simultaneously with the loosing of Satan, in all parts of the world, just where they went down to the grave. Included in these vast nations, the number of whom will be as the sand of the sea, will be all the wicked who died before the flood, and who were swept away with that catastrophe, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah – of Tyre and Sidon, and all the vast nations of antiquity, who were destroyed from earth for their sins. Here, too, will appear the apostate nations, and Gog and Magog, described by Ezekiel, who were destroyed at the commencement of the Millennium.
The Millennial Reign: Earthly or Spiritual?
Throughout the centuries, Christians and scholars have disagreed concerning the nature of the Millennial reign. Will it be earthly or heavenly? In this short podcast Brian Simmons touches upon the issues involved, and establishes the earthly nature of the Millennium by examining some key Biblical texts.
Listen now: millennium
Rev. Joshua William Brooks– On “This Generation”
(from Essays On The Advent and Kingdom of Christ, 1840)
“There is one other point which I shall here anticipate, inasmuch as it proves a stumbling-block to many; viz. verse 34: “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” This is by many supposed to be equivalent to Matthew 16: 28: “There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” But the words are entirely different; and, though the latter passage has an undoubted reference to the term of man’s life, the former has not necessarily such a signification.
“So far as I have noticed, our Lord Jesus never used the word generation to signify the term of man’s life; but commonly to express the peculiar character of the nation or people to whom He applies it. Thus we find mention in the Scriptures of a “sinful generation,” an “evil and adulterous generation,” a “faithless and perverse generation,” a “generation that set not their hearts aright;” and on the other hand we have a “righteous generation,” the “generation of them that seek Him,” the “the generation of Thy (God’s) children,” etc. And as frequently is the word genea translated in this place of Matthew generation, used to express a nation, or the posterity of some individual.*
* Thus in the Septuagint we have such phrases as geneas Enak and genean Enak, Numbers 13: 23, 33, both meaning the children or descendants of Anak; also Genesis 43: 7: “The man asked us straitly of our kindred;” Numbers 10: 30: “I will depart to my own kindred;” and Lev. 20: 18: “Both shall be cut off from their people,” in all which the word in italics is genea in the original. There are likewise testimonies which I have noticed of a more direct character; as in Jer. 10: 25: “Pour out thy fury upon the families that call not upon thy name;” wherein geneas is exegetical of the word heathen in the same verse. Again: “Death shall be chosen rather than life by all that remain of this evil family;” which is evidently, from the context, spoken of the nation (Jer. 8: 3). Both in Matthew and Luke’s Gospel’s “the men of Nineveh,” or Ninevites, is the antithetical phrase for “men of this generation,” or Jews. So of Sodom, etc. (See Matt. 12: 31, 42, 45; Luke 11: 31, 32, etc). And the identical phrase translated “ a perverse generation” in Matt. 17: 17, is in Phil. 2: 15, rendered ” a perverse nation.”
“I will just add, that most commonly, when the word generation means a period of time, it is the New Testament used in the plural number: and this in some instances when it is translated in the singular number: e.g., Luke 1: 50; Acts 15: 21.
“It is likewise very important, as respects the use of the word in this prophecy, to observe, that the previous chapter thus concludes: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: for I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” This is evidently addressed to them nationally, since the generation then rejected the Lord to the last; but the words imply that there should be a time when they (“ye,” that same people or nation, though not the same individuals) should say, “Blessed is He that cometh,” etc.
“I consider this passage, therefore, as affording a sort of paraphrastic exposition of the words now under consideration: for it declares of the Jews, that they should be preserved nationally, (and probably it implies that they should remain in their unconverted state), during the time of the desolation, even until the advent of the Lord.” (pg. 17-18).
William E. Blackstone- The Faith of The Early Church
(from Jesus Is Coming, 1908)
It is admitted on all sides that the pre-millennial coming of Christ, and His reign with His saints upon the earth a thousand years, was the faith of the early church. Indeed, this is substantiated by such an abundance of evidence, that it cannot be denied.
We would that we had space to quote at length, from the many authorities on this point, but must be content to select a few:
Mosheim says: “The prevailing opinion that Christ was to come and reign a thousand years among men before the final dissolution of the world had met with no opposition previous to the time of Origen.”
Geisler says: “In all the works of this period (the first two centuries) Millenarianism is so prominent that we can not hesitate to consider it as universal.”
Chillingworth, with his characteristic invulerable logic, argues: “Whatever doctrine is believed and taught by the most eminent Fathers of any age of the Church and by none of their cotemporaries opposed or condemned, that is to be esteemed the Catholic doctrine of the Church of those times. But the doctrine of the millenaries was believed and taught by the most eminent Fathers of the age next after the Apostles, and by none of that age opposed or condemned; therefore, it was the Catholic doctrine of those times.”
Stackhouse, in his “Complete Body of Divinity,” says: “It cannot be denied but that this doctrine (Millenarianism) has its antiquity, and was once the general opinion of all orthodox Christians.”
Bishop Newton says: “The doctrine of the Millennium (as held by Millenarians) was generally believed in the first three and purest ages.”
Bishop Russell, though an anti-millenarian, says: “Down to the beginning .of the fourth century, the belief was universal and undisputed.”
Dr. Daniel Whitby,-the father of the modern post-millennial theory,-in his “Treatise on ‘Traditions,” candidly acknowledges that, “the doctrine of the Millennium passed among the best of Christians, for two hundred and fifty years, for a tradition apostolical, and as such is delivered by many Fathers of the second and third centuries, who speak of it as a tradition of our Lord and His Apostles, and of aU the ancients who lived before them, who tell us the very words in which it was delivered, the Scriptures which were so interpreted, and say that it was held by all Christians that were exactly orthodox.”
Lest anyone should lose the full force of these quotations, it may be proper to state, that this “ancient and popular doctrine of the Millennium,” as Gibbon styles it, was the belief in the pre-millennial coming of Christ, and His reign on the earth for a thousand years. It was commonly called chiliasm, which see in Webster’s Dictionary.
Such, in brief, is the testimony of historians, both ecclesiastical and profane upon this subject. And some of the early Fathers, of whom they speak, were very nearly, if not quite, the cotemporaries with the Apostles.
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, who was a disciple of St. John, or who at least received his doctrines from the immediate followers of the Apostle, was an extreme Millennialist, and has been called the father of Millenarianism. (See McClintock and Strong’s Enc.) Irenreus, as a disciple of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was directly connected with St. John. And also Justin Martyr was one of the earliest of the Fathers.
Is it not solemnly incumbent upon us, to respect and heed this doctrine, which these eminent Christian Fathers so undisputedly taught, as being the “tradition of our Lord and His Apostles”? Why is it, that, upon every other subject connected with our holy religion, such as Baptism, Church government, Forms of worship, Articles of faith, etc., we go back and search diligently to ascertain the doctrine of the Fathers, placing so much stress upon what we think they believed and taught, and yet upon this most important theme, cast aside what we know was their faith and testimony? Is it consistent? Dear reader, do let us here emphasize Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians:
“Brethren, stand fast and hold the Ttaditions (teachings) which ye have been taught whether by word or by our epistle.” That is, whether taught in writing, or orally, see Verse 5. Now, what were these traditions (teachings) if not the coming of Christ and the Reign of the Saints, of which Paul and the other Apostles wrote so freely? Being thus exhorted, it is reasonable to believe that they did hold them, and that they are the very traditions which Whitby and the other authorities clearly prove were held by the early Church. Then let us also hold,-not the comparatively modern post-millennial theory of Whitby, -but the aged faith of the Fathers.
The Apostles Were Not Mistaken.
We cannot believe (as some assert) that the Apostles were mistaken, and consequently not inspired upon this theme, nor that they and all the early Christians mocked themselves with false hopes in regard to the pre-millennial coming of Christ. They watched and waited for the return of our Lord, as a sure event, the hour of which none but the Father knew, but which had been enjoined upon them as uncertain and imminent. And as they passed away to the unseen domain of Paradise, they have left us the written Word, their reiterated traditions (teachings handed down), and their great hope. So we take up their vigil, hopefully watching, not daring to say that He will come tomorrow, nor a thousand years hence, but only this are we sure of, He may come now.
William E. Blackstone- Answering Post-Millennial Scoffers
(from Jesus Is Coming, 1908)
Only Souls Mentioned.
It is objected that only the souls are mentioned in Rev. 20 and therefore it cannot be a literal resurrection, but is only the regeneration, or spiritual resurrection and present life of believers in Christ.
The fallacy of this is easily seen, for these holy dead enjoyed the spiritual resurrection before they “were beheaded for the witness of Jesus.” Clearly, it was because of this spiritual life in Christ and their faith in the Word of God, that they became witnesses for Jesus and refused to worship the beast, or his image or receive °his mark,” and therefore they were beheaded (see chap. 13:11-15). Besides, (psukas-souls) means also life, person or individual. See same word in Acts 2 :41, “there were added unto them about three thousand souls (persons)” and in Acts 7:14; 27:10-37; 1 Cor. 15:45; 1 Pet. 3: 20; Rev. 12 :11; 16 :3, it unmistakably means persons. A spirit could not be beheaded. Only a person having body and spirit could be beheaded, and such it is evident these were. But they suffered physical death; that is, separation of soul and body, and became part of the great company of the dead. The 5th verse emphatically confirms this-these being that portion of the dead ones (nekron) who lived, while “the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished,” and “this is the first resurrection.”
In this objection Post-millennialists manifest one of their most remarkable inconsistencies. They labor assiduously to disprove the literalism of the first resurrection, described in verses 4-6, where zao = to live and anastasis = resurrection are each twice used, while they hold that verses 12 and 13 do describe a literal resurrection, though neither zao nor anastasis are used therein. Consistency requires that, if either is spiritual, it should be the latter. How much better to accept both as literal.
Spiritual Life in Paradise.
Equally fallacious is the interpretation which claims that the first resurrection is the spiritual life of believers with Christ in Paradise (the intermediate place of the holy dead). For this spiritual life begins, not at death, but at the regeneration. It begins with the first exercise of faith in Christ. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” John 3 :36. Hath it now. Is quickened already (Col. 2:13), and has been raised (Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1), and lives the life he now lives by the faith of the Son of God. Gal. 2 :19, 20. This spiritual resurrection spoken of in Eph. 2:6; Col. 2 :12, 13; 3 :1, is expressed by words entirely different from anastasis, which is used in Rev. 20: 5-6, and which everywhere in the New Testament expresses a literal resurrection.
Only the Beheaded Mentioned.
Again it is objected that only the beheaded are mentioned and those who have special1y to do with the beast and His image.
This is true of the latter part of the verse only. And we believe that these are the Tribulation Saints who accept of Christ and become His martyrs under the reign of Antichrist after the Church has been caught up to meet Christ in the air, But notice that the first part of the verse speaks of some as though they had already been raised. “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given unto them.”
Nothing is said about the resurrection of these because they had already been raised at the Rapture previous to the Tribulation.
They are all ready to occupy the thrones and reign upon the earth according to the promlises. But John sees the Tribulation Saints also raised to take part in this reign with Christ, which is in perfect accord with the order of the first resurrection.
CHRIST………………………………… THE FIRST FRUITS.
The Church and the Old Testament Saints
who are raised at the Rapture when
Christ comes in the air.
The Tribulation Saints who are raised at the
Revelation when Christ comes
to the earth.
The Last Day.
Again we hear it objected that Christ said He would raise up those who believe in Him at the last day (John 6 :39, 40, 44, 54), and if it is at the last day there can not follow a thousand years before the unbelievers are raised. But Peter says “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Pet. 3 :8. This is the great Millennial day ushered in and ending with resurrection and judgment, and during which Christ shall rule the nations and judge the world in rightousness.
It is “the day of an age” as the Holy Spirit designates it in 2 Pet. 3 :18. See the Greek (heemeran aionos). In harmony with this we find that the same word (heemera-day) signifies “a long period,” in John 8:56; 9:4; Rom. 10:21; 2 Cor. 6:2; Heb. 4:7-8.
“That Day” is the key to the book of Isaiah and many of the other prophets. Note how frequently it occurs. Isa. 2:11; 3:7, 18; 4:1, 2; 5:30; 7:18, 20, 21,23; 10:27, etc.; Jer.25:33; Ezek. 38 :14, 16; 39:11; 48:35; Joel 3 :18; Amos 9 :11; Micah 4:6; 7:11, 12; Zeph. 3:11, 16; Hag. 2:23; Zech. 9:16; 12:3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11; 13:1, 2, 4; 14:6, 8, 13, 21; Mal. 3:17; Mat. 7:22; 24:36; Mark 13:32; Lu. 21:34.
See how plainly it is identified With the Day of the Lord. Compare Isa. 2 :12 with 20. “For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon everyone that is proud and lofty. . . . . In that day a man shall cast his idols . . . . . to the moles and bats.” Also Zeph. 1 :14, 15. “The great day of the Lord is near. . . that day is a day of wrath.”
See the same in Zech. 14:1-4.
In Hosea 6:2 we read “After two days will He revive as; in the third day He will raise us up.” These are evidently three days of one thousand years each, for “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.” So “that day’ is doubtless the last thousand year day of God’s great’ week of aions (ages).
Mentioned in Same Verse.
Again it is objected that, while there will be a great difference in the character of the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, yet they must be simultaneous in time, for both are mentioned in conjunction, that is in the same verse.
But Jesus has taught us that this objection has no force, by giving us a remarkable example to the contrary. In Luke 4 :16-21, we read, that He opened the book, found the place and read from Isa. 61, to the comma (or division of clauses) in verse 2, and closed the book, saying: “This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.” Why did He stop there? Because the time had not come to proclaim “the day of vengeance.” That comma has been over eighteen centuries long and will continue until Christ (having gathered His saints, 1 Thes. 4:16-17) shall appear with them executing vengeance on the ungodly. 2 Thes. 1 :7-10; Jude 14, 15. Therefore, Jesus, Himself, having taught us, that two events, stated consecutively in Isa. 61 :2, are separated by more than eighteen hundred years, surely we should respect God’s Word, when it so plainly states that there will be a period of a thousand years between the resurrection of the “blessed and holy,”-and that of “the rest of the dead.”
The word (hora-hour) which Jesus used in John 5:28 is the same word as that used in verse 25.22 The latter we all believe has been over eighteen hundred years long. Why, then may not the former be at least a thousand years long and thus perfectly harmonize with Rev. 20? See also John 4:21, 23 and Rom. 13:11 (high time = hora = it is already the hour) in each of which hour signifies a long period.
Tregelles-who is supported by the Jewish commentators-renders Dan. 12:2 as follows:
“And many from among the sleepers or the dust of the earth shall awake; these shall be unto everlasting life; but those (the rest of the sleepers who do not awake at this time) shall be unto shame.” (See Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on this passage.) It is needless to add that this most intensely confirms the doctrine of the first resurrection.
Only One Text.
Lastly it is objected that a difference in time for the resurrection of the just from that of the unjust is stated in only one place in the Word, to-wit: Rev. 20. and that this is a book so symbolical, that we must not rely upon it for such an important fact.
Only one place indeed! But is not that enough? Why! the existence of all light rests upon the single sentence in Gen. 1 :3, and it rests safely, because God spoke those words. The most marvelous fact, in connection with our Lord’s first appearing, was the immaculate conception. It has caused suspicion of Mary’s character, and it calls for the greatest exercise of faith to believe in the Holy Ghost Fatherhood of her Son. It professes the holiest purity where the world can see only fornication and shame. And yet this astonishing event rested for centuries upon a single passage of prophecy, “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.” Isa. 7 :14, and although it was given by the Lord to the Jews as a special and important sign they will not rely upon it, because it occurs in a poetical book, and so they reject the Babe of Bethlehem. But shall we,-who believe that Isa. 7 :14 has been literally fulfilled-condemn the Jews for not accepting it, and yet justify ourselves in rejecting the literal fulfillment of this plain statement in Rev. 20? God forbid. Remember that He says, “Behold I come quickly; blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.” Rev. 22:7; 1 :3.
Oh then let us earnestly entreat you, to heed this one passage even though it may pierce through your established opinions. Don’t reject it. Don’t pervert its simple teaching, for it is God’s holy Word of prophecy and is as immovable as the rocky fastness of the mountains-yea more-for these shall pass away but the Word of the Lord endureth forever.
Dean Alford’s Comments.
And here, dear reader, let us invite your careful attention to Dean Alford’s comment upon this passage, viz.: “this is the first resurrection.” He says: “It will have been long ago anticipated by the readers of this commentary, that I cannot consent to distort its words from their plain sense and chronological place in the prophecy, on account of any considerations of difficulty, or any risk of abuses which the doctrine of the Millennium may bring with it. Those who lived next to the Apostles, and the whole Church for three hundred years, understood them in the plain literal sense; and it is a strange sight in these days to see expositors who are among the first in reverence of antiquity, complacently casting aside the most cogent instance of unanimity which primitive antiquity presents. As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion. If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain souls lived at the first, and the rest of the dead lived only at the end of a specified period after that first, if in such a passage, the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave; then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything. If the first resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, which I suppose no one will be hardy enough to maintain. But if the second is literal, then so is the first, which in common with the whole primitive church and many of the best modern expositors, I do maintain and receive as an article of faith and hope.”
Rev. Clarence Larkin- The History Of Pre-Millennialism
(from The Second Coming of Christ, 1918)
The Apostolic Church was Pre-Millennial, and for over 200 years no other view was entertained. The writings of the “Church Fathers” abound in evidence of that fact. But about A. D. 250, Origen, one of the Church Fathers, conceived the idea that the words of Scripture were but the “husk” in which was hid the “kernel” of Scripture truth. At once he began to “Allegorize” and “Spiritualize” the Scriptures, and thus founded that school of “Allegorizing” and “Spiritualizing” interpreters of Scripture, from which the Church and the Bible have suffered so much. The result was that the Church largely ceased to look for the Lord’s Return.
When Constantine became sole Emperor of Rome in A. D. 323, he united Church and State, and bestowed such great gifts and privileges in the Church, that it claimed that the Millennial blessings of the Old Testament had been transferred from the Jews to the Christian Church. The arrogance and persecution of the Papal Church led to the charge that it was the “Beast” (Antichrist) of the Book of Revelation. This led to an effort to expunge the Book of Revelation from the Sacred Canon, and when this failed, the Bible was locked up and became a sealed book, and the gloom of night settled down upon all Christendom. The result was the “Dark Ages.” But amid the gloom God was not without witnesses to the Blessed Hope. At the Reformation the doctrine of the Premillennial Return of the Lord was revived, but was again lost sight of in the religious controversies that led to the formation of numerous sects. The result was an ebb of spirituality and the growth of Rationalism, which refused to believe that the world was fast ripening for judgment, and a new interpretation of the Millennial Reign of Christ was demanded. This interpretation was furnished by the Rev. Daniel Whitby (1636-1726), a clergyman of the Church of England, who claimed that in reading the promises made to the Jews in the Old Testament of their restoration as a nation, and the re-establishment of the Throne of David, he was led to see that these promises were spiritual and applied to the Church. This view he called a “New Hypothesis.”
He claimed that Israel and Mount Zion represented the Church. That the promised submission of the Gentiles to the Jews was simply prophetic of the conversion of the Gentiles and their entrance into the Church. That the lying down of the lion and the lamb together typified the reconciliation of the Old and New natures, and that the establishment of an outward and visible kingdom at Jerusalem, over which Christ and the saints should reign, was gross and carnal, and contrary to reason, as it implied the mingling together of human and spiritual beings on the earth.
His “New Hypothesis” was that by the preaching of the Gospel Mohammedanism would be overthrown, the Jews converted, the Papal Church with the Pope (Antichrist) would be destroyed, and there would follow a 1000 years of righteousness and peace known as the Millennium; at the close of which there would be a short period of Apostasy, ending in. the return of Christ. There would then be a general resurrection of the dead, followed by a general judgment, the earth would be destroyed by fire and eternity would begin.
The times were favorable for the “New Theory.” A reaction had set in from the open infidelity of those days. All England was in a religious fervor. The “Great Awakening” followed under Whitefield and Wesley, and it looked, as Whitby claimed, that the Millennium was about to be ushered in. That he was mistaken the events of history since that time have shown. It is evident that we are not in the Millennium now, as the “Godless Civilization” of today proves.
Nevertheless his “Theory” was favorably received everywhere, and spread with great rapidity and became an established doctrine of the Church, and is what is known today as the “Post-Millennial” view of the Second Coming of Christ, and supposed to be the orthodox faith of the Church. In short, “Post-Millennialism,” as advocated in our day, is barely 200 years old, while “Pre-Millennialism” dates back to the days of Isaiah and Daniel.
