The Millennial Issue
By G. E. Jones
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Foreword
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
PART ONE
Different Positions in the Millennium -----------------------------------------------------------------------
6
Postmillennialists
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
Premillennialists --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
Non-Millennialists
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
The Fact of the Millennium
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
Symbolism of Revelation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
Inspired Method of Dealing with Visions and Symbols
---------------------------------------------------
11
The Place of the Reign
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
The First Resurrection
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
PART TWO
Mr. Kempin Answered – Twenty-Four Objections
--------------------------------------------------------
20
PART THREE
History of the Doctrine
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88
The Doctrine of the Early Churches
----------------------------------------------------------------------
89
The Alogi and Montanists
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91
Doctor Whitby’s Testimony
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
92
Opposition to the Doctrine in the East
-------------------------------------------------------------------
93
Philo and the Allegorical Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
94
Oxman Sees Women as Key to Church ------------------------------------------------------------------
96
Opposition in the Western Churches
---------------------------------------------------------------------
97
Kempin Witnesses against Himself
----------------------------------------------------------------------
99
Antioch against the Alexandrian Method, Etc.
----------------------------------------------------------
101
John-Polycarp-Ireanus Chain
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
102
Justin Martyr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103
PART FOUR
Other Objections Considered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
105
David’s Throne in Heaven
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106
The Last Days
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106
Every Eye Shall See Him
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107
The Battleground of Our Day
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
109
Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112
FOREWORD
As
this age draws toward the end the picture becomes clearer and clearer to the student
of prophecy. It becomes more and more apparent that the personal reign of
Christ on this earth is a vital question. I have always felt that there was
much more involved in this question that most people realized. Now I know this
is so. Today the lines are being more closely drawn. Modernists, social
reformers, unionizers, legalists, and all heresies and the forces that are
working to bring the Antichrist into power are lining themselves up against the
Premillennialists. The doctrines the Premillennialists are preaching are
in the way of the formation of a world government and a universal federation of
all religious bodies into one vast religious hierarchy. It was the same
in the early centuries of Christianity. It is so today. For the first two
and one half centuries the majority of Christians believed that Christ and His
saints would reign a thousand years on this earth. They looked for Christ to
return in person and reign in person over the nations of the earth. As long as
this was the prevailing opinion among professed believers there could not come
into existence the system of Popery, or the idea that Christ was now reigning
over the nations through a vicegerent, the Pope. The doctrine that Christ
will return in person to reign over the nations of earth, and the doctrine that
He is now reigning over the nations through a vicegerent are opposed to each
other. As long as the majority of professing believers held to the first
doctrines such a system as Popery could not prevail. It was therefore necessary
for the majority of those in positions of influence and leadership to be turned
away from the belief in the Pre-millennial position before such a system as
Popery could be developed. The Devil used such men as Caius, presbyter of Rome,
Origen of Alexandria, Dionysius, Jerome, and Augustine to turn many of the
churches away from Pre-millennial truth to an allegorical interpretation of all
prophecies with reference to the reign of Christ and the restoration of Israel,
the throne of David, and the regeneration of this earth. In this connection I
wish to quote from "Seven Dispensations,” by J. R. Graves, pages
562-63.
"Daniel
Whitby, D.D., was born in Northampshire, England 1638. His ability and
education is unquestioned yet we are at antipodes with the millennial scheme of
which he is the acknowledge originator. But he bears a noble testimony
for Pre-millennialism. Hear him: “The doctrine of the millennium,
or the reign of saints on earth a thousand years, is now rejected by all Roman
Catholics, and by the greater part of Protestants, and yet it passed among the
best of Christians for two hundred and fifty years for a tradition apostolic;
and as such is delivered by many fathers of the second and third century, who
spake of it as the tradition of our Lord and His apostles, and of all the
ancients that lived before them; who tell us the very words in which it was
delivered, the Scriptures, which were then so interpreted, and say that it was
held by all Christians who were exactly orthodox.”
From
this we see that the early Christians held to the idea that Christ and His
saints would reign on earth a thousand years. We also see that this
doctrine is rejected by Roman Catholics, and by the greater part of
Protestants, or those who came out from Rome. Baptists are not
Protestants. I want the reader to keep this in mind. The early
Christians and early fathers who followed the apostles were in the main
Pre-millennialists. But ALL Roman Catholics, and most of those who came
out from Rome, are against this doctrine. I think the merits of a
doctrine can be measured to a great extent by considering who adhere to that
doctrine and who oppose it. I challenge anyone to find a modernist who is
a Pre-millennialist, or one who is for the Federal Council of Churches, or for
a world government, who believes it. The attitude of this present world
system toward our Lord is reflected in its bitter opposition to His return to
this earth to reign. “We will not have this man to reign over us,” --
Luke 19:11-27.
The teaching of Pre-millennialists that Christ is coming back to this earth to
take over its affairs and reign in person is against what the modernists,
social reformers, and unionizers propose to accomplish. It condemns all
their wisdom and efforts to establish a righteous, peaceful world order as
vain, unbiblical and doomed to failure. It takes this task out of their
hands and puts it in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a close
relationship between the doctrine of salvation by works and the idea that men
will usher in a time of peace and righteousness. One teaches that the
individual’s salvation depends upon his own works. The other teaches that
the salvation of the world depends upon its works. On the other hand, the
Word of God teaches that this earth, like the sinner, can only be delivered by
the supernatural intervention of Christ Jesus in its behalf.
Premillennialism is a millennium by grace. It is one that is to be
ushered in by the supernatural return of Christ. In the salvation of the
sinner, grace intervenes when there is an end of human works. It will be
so in the redemption of this earth from the evils and woes that beset it.
When human wisdom and works have dismally failed and reached an end, then the
Lord will intervene by His supernatural power and coming.
The natural man has always resented the interference of God in his life and
plans. He wants no supernatural work in his behalf. He feels
himself entirely capable of bringing about his own salvation, spiritual and
otherwise. As a rule, he is willing to recognize the existence of a
supreme being, but he wants no close relationship with God. Because of
this, he is opposed to the work of the Spirit of grace in his heart.
Because of this he is opposed to the supernatural intervention of Christ in
behalf of the nations. This takes the task out of his hands and puts in
the hands of Christ alone.
For over thirty years, I have studied closely the trend of religious opinions
and movements. I have seen the world being turned away from the gospel of
Christ to a gospel of social reform. I have seen the faith of men being
turned away from what Christ is going to do to what man proposes to do. I
believe the time is here when those who expect to be loyal to Christ and His
word should take a firm, positive stand on the millennial question.
Come time ago, someone, who did not wish to reveal his, or her name, sent me
some literature which opposed the thousand years reign. This literature
is put out by the so-called “Bible Truth Depot” in Swengel, PA. I ordered
a book that was advertised as an eye-opener on this question. The title
of the book is “Why the Millennial Doctrine is Not Biblical.” The
author of the book is Albert J. Kempin. While the book I secured was sold
by the “Bible Truth Depot” in Swengel, PA., the book was printed by the
so-called “Gospel Trumpet Company” of Anderson, Indiana. Along with this
book I received a number of tracts on the same line. In this work I propose
to answer this book and these tracts. In so doing I wish to set forth the
teaching of the Word of God in such a way that our people may be brought to a
clearer understanding of the teaching of the Bible on this line and may be
brought to a realization of the situation that confronts us today.
-- G. E. Jones
PART
ONE.
DIFFERENT
POSITIONS ON THE- MILLENNIUM THE MEANING OF THE WORD "MILLENNIUM"
The word "Millennium" means a thousand
years. It is derived from two Latin words, "Mille," which means a
thousand, and "Annum," which means a year. While the word
"Millennium" does not occur in our English translations, yet its
equivalent does. The expression "Thousand years" occurs six times in
Rev. 20:2-7. Those who believed in this doctrine in the centuries following the
apostolic age were called "Chiliasts" by those who opposed them. This
term came from the Greek word "Chilia,"
which means a thousand.
THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS ON THE MILLENNIUM
There are three main positions with reference to
the, thousand years reign mentioned in Rev. 20:2-7. Some believe this thousand
years will come before Christ returns. Some believe that Christ must come
before the thousand years reign. Others deny that there will be such a thing as
a thousand years reign. The first are called Post-millennialists. The second
are called Pre-millennialists. The third are called Non-millennialists.
POSTMILLENNIALISTS
The Postmillennialists are so called because they believe
that the second coming of Christ will be after the thousand years reign
mentioned in Rev. 20:2-7. Dr. Daniel Whitby of Northhampshire, who was born in 1638, was the originator of
this position. They believe that the world will get better instead of worse,
and that through the preaching of the gospel and other influences for good that
the nations will finally be persuaded to cease from war, and an age of peace
and righteousness will come in. After this thousand years of peace and
righteousness Christ will return and a general resurrection and a general
judgment will take place. Favorite expressions with the Postmillennialists are
"Bringing in the kingdom," and "Taking the world for
Christ." They think it is the business of the churches to win this world
over to Christ. Their long range programs are built around this false
conception of the millennium. The tendency among them is to institutionalism.
They put great stress on secular training. They are drifting more and more into
a social gospel, and they are putting less and less stress on individual
regeneration, blood redemption, and personal repentance and faith. With them
the high mark of spirituality is to be loyal to their co-operative programs and
their denominational leaders.
PREMILLENNIALISTS
The Pre-millennialists are so called because they
believe that Christ must return before the thousand years reign can come. They
believe the gospel is to be preached as a witness to all nations, but they do
not believe it will be anything like universally accepted. They believe
conditions will grow worse and worse in this world .They believe that wars,
revolutions, and violence will fill the earth until the end, even as it was in
Noah's time. They believe that the closing days of this present age will
witness such days of trouble, wickedness and disaster as the world has never
seen. They believe that the Antichrist or beast will be in power on earth when
Jesus comes back to the earth to reign. They believe that when our Lord returns
to earth to reign the beast or Antichrist will be overcome and cast into the
lake of fire, and the Devil will be bound for a thousand years. They believe
that after this the earth shall have the thousand years reign of Christ and
His saints, and that Christ will occupy the throne of David (reestablished) in
Jerusalem, and reign from that throne. They believe in two bodily
resurrections, one for the righteous, the other for the unjust, these
resurrections being a thousand years apart. Pre-millennialists believe in the
Deity of Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, His vicarious death and sufferings,
His bodily resurrection, the new birth, the inspiration of the Bible, and His glorious
bodily return, not only in the air (I Thess. 4:13-17), but also back to this
earth itself, Zech. 14:4, and Rev. 19 :11-21.
NON-MILLENNIALISTS
The Non-millennialists are those who do not believe there
will be such a thing as a thousand years reign. They seek to bring the Book of
Revelation into disrepute by saying it is too highly figurative to be
understood, and that it was not meant to be understood. They, as a rule, do not
claim to know anything about the Book of Revelation, and they deny that anyone
else does. They thus charge the Lord with giving to His people a book written
in such language that it is impossible for them to know what He meant or to
profit by the book. They discourage the study of this book and frown upon those
who teach and preach it. In the days following the apostolic times the
Non-millennialists rejected the Book of Revelation and spoke of it as a book of
fables. Not only do they seek to discredit the Book of Revelation and its study
but they twist and turn the prophecies of the Old Testament to suit their
fancies and to explain away the plainly revealed truths concerning our Lord's
earthly reign. With them, the Bible never means what it says, and it never says
what it means. Every prophecy of Scripture has to be beat out on their anvil
and reworked to suit their own theory before being accepted. They pay no
attention to the words of Peter who said, "No prophecy of scripture is of
any private interpretation" (II Peter 1:20), and go right on their way
putting their own private interpretation on all prophecy. With them Israel does
not mean Israel, but the church. David's throne does not mean David's throne,
but the throne of the Heavenly Father in heaven. Mt. Olives does not mean Mt.
Olives, but something else. A thousand years does not mean a thousand years,
but an indefinite period of time, maybe ten days, maybe a longer time. (I read
after one man who made it to be the ten days between our Lord's ascension and
the coming of the Spirit on Pentecost.) Immediately does not mean immediately,
but perhaps two thousand years. (I had one Non-millennialist to tell me that.)
Canaan land does not mean Canaan land. Everlasting means everlasting when
connected with the punishment of the wicked, and some of them have it meaning
that when connected with the believer's life, but when it is found connected
with God's covenant with Abraham then everlasting no longer means everlasting.
I expect to show that both the Post-millennialists
and the Non-millennialists play into the hands of the modernists and infidels.
Many of the arguments which they use to discredit the doctrine of the
Pre-millennialists are like the arguments infidels have used to discredit the
Bible and Christianity as a whole.
I expect to show that in fighting and opposing the
preaching of Pre-millennialists, the Non-millennialists and Post-millennialists
are helping to keep people in ignorance as to what is coming on the world in
the last days of this age, and that they are lending encouragement to the movements
of Antichrist which are among us today.
THE
FACT OF THE MILLENNIUM
The fact of the thousand years reign is plainly
stated in the Word of God, just as much so as the fact that the one who
believes in Christ shall be saved. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part
in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they
shall be (future) priests of God and of Christ, and shall (future) reign with
Him a thousand years," Rev. 20:6. Now, let us put this statement side by
side with Acts 16:31.
"They shall be priests of God and Christ, and
shall reign with Him a thousand years," Rev. 20:6.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou
shalt be saved," Acts 16:31.
The statement about the thousand years reign is as
positive and as plain as Paul's statement to the Philippian jailor about
salvation. The man who sets himself to disprove the fact of the thousand years
reign sets out to prove that this part of the Bible is not true. We cannot
prove with one 'part of the Bible that what it plainly affirms in another place
is not true. To attempt to do so is to array the Scriptures against themselves
and discredit the same in the eyes of the unbelieving world. Here is a stone
wall against which all Non-millennialists may beat out their theological
brains, but they can never upset the fact of the thousand years reign. If they
can prove with some other part of the Bible that there is to be no thousand
years reign, then with the same argument the infidel can prove that the Bible
contradicts itself. It plainly states in one place that certain ones, who are
called, "Blessed and holy," shall reign with Him (Christ) a thousand
years. If some other part of the Bible teaches that this is not true, then a
contradiction has been found in the Bible and we may as well surrender the
whole ground to the infidel. We do not find in the Bible such a statement as
"There shall be no such a time as a thousand years reign of the Lord and
His people." But we do find people trying to so manipulate the Scriptures
as to make them teach the very thing expressed in that statement. Thus they are
handling the Word of God in such a way as to make it say in one place the very
opposite of what it says in another, and on the same subject. I ask, is this
not seeking to discredit the Scriptures in the eyes of the world? Starting with
the fact of the thousand years reign, let us work out from that point. Many insist
on understanding all the details connected with the thousand years reign before
they are willing to accept the plainly stated fact of this reign. The same
method of procedure keeps the infidel from accepting the fact of the
resurrection of Christ and the new birth, and our future resurrection. All
search after truth must start with some plainly understood and known facts and
from that point proceed to search after the complicated and the unknown. The
man who waits to understand all the details connected with any truth before accepting
a plainly proven fact will never make any progress. Especially is this so with
the Word of God. We must first believe because God has spoken, and not because
we understand all the why and the wherefore. To refuse to accept a plainly
stated fact in the Word of God is to impeach the testimony of God Himself. To
withhold our belief in a plainly stated fact in the Bible until we have been
shown how such a thing can be is to demand that God's Word be proven true
before we accept it. This might be in place for an infidel but it is certainly
unbecoming in those who profess to be followers of Christ.
SYMBOLISM
OF REVELATION
Opponents of the thousand years reign try to
discredit the testimony of the Book of Revelation by saying the book is highly
symbolic. By the same method we can discredit the words of John concerning
Christ when he referred to Him as "The Lamb of God." The word "Lamb"
is certainly used symbolically in that place. But millennial critics do not
stumble over this, nor do those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible
miss its meaning. Certainly we have many symbols in the Book of Revelation, but
those symbols are explained for us by divine inspiration and we are not left to
guess as to their meaning. Neither does the use of symbols argue that we are
not to look for a literal fulfilment of this symbolic prophecy, but rather that
we should expect a literal fulfilment. The Book of Daniel is very much like the
Book of Revelation, and deals with many of the same truths. Many of the symbols
in the Book of Daniel have already had a literal fulfilment and they concerned
literal world powers. In the eighth chapter of Daniel the prophet had a vision
in which he saw a he goat run into a ram and destroy him. The 20th verse
explains the ram and his two horns to represent the kings of Media and Persia.
The next verse tells us that the he goat is the king of Grecia.
The words "Ram" and "He goat" are symbols. But these
symbols are explained to mean literal kings, and this symbolic prophecy had a
literal fulfilment in the rise of literal world kings and powers. The four
beasts Daniel saw in Dan. 7:3 are said to be four kings in Dan. 7:17. The word
beast in Dan. 7:3 is a symbol. But the symbol is explained for us and it had a
literal fulfilment in the rise of four world kings. This cannot be denied.
Then why object to the same system of symbolism in the Book of Revelation
having a literal fulfillment?
THE
INSPIRED METHOD OF DEALING WITH VISIONS AND SYMBOLS
The inspired method of dealing with prophetic
visions and symbols is to change the tense from past to future when an
explanation of the vision and the symbolism is given. I shall prove this with a
few passages from Daniel and Revelation.
THE
VISION
"Daniel spake and said, I saw (past tense) in
my vision by night,—and four great beasts came (past tense) up from the
sea," Dan. 7:2-3.
THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION
"These great beasts which are four kings, which
shall (future) arise out of the earth," Dan. 7:17.
THE
VISION
"After this I saw (past tense) in the night
visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong
exceedingly; and it had (past tense) great iron teeth: it devoured (past tense)
and brake (past tense) in pieces,—and it had (past tense) ten horns," Dan.
7:7.
THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION
"Thus he said, the fourth beast shall be
(future) the fourth kingdom upon the earth, which shall be (future) diverse
from all kingdoms, and it shall devour (future) the whore earth, and it shall
tread (future) it down, and break (future) it in pieces. And the ten horns out
of this kingdom are ten kings that shall (future) arise," Dan. 7:23.
THE
VISION
"So he carried me away in the spirit into the
wilderness: and I saw (past tense) a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast,
full of names of blasphemy, having (past tense) seven heads and ten
horns," Rev. 17:3.
THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION
"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet
(They were yet future); but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
These have one mind, and shall give (future) their power and strength unto the
beast," Rev. 17:12.
From the above examples we see that when we are
given a record of what happened in a vision the past tense is used. But when
the tense is changed from past to future an inspired interpretation of that
vision is being given. Now let us apply that principle to Rev. 20:4 and Rev.
20:6.
THE
VISION
"And I saw (past tense) thrones, and they sat
upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that
were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had
not worshipped the beast and his image, neither had received his mark upon
their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived (past tense) and reigned
(past tense) with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not
again until the thousand years were (past) finished," Rev. 20:4-5.
THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE VISION
"This is the first resurrection (John is now
explaining.) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:
on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be (future) priests of
God and Christ, and shall reign (future) with him a thousand years," Rev.
20:5, 6.
Here we see the tense changes from past to future
even as in Daniel when an interpretation of a vision is being given. In the
fourth verse and the first part of the fifth verse we have recorded that Dart
of John's vision concerning a resurrection and the thousand years reign. In
that record John uses the past tense. It has to do with the vision which was
past. But in the last part of verse five, and in verse six, John is giving his
own explanation or interpretation of the vision. The tense now changes from
past to future. In the vision which was past it was
"And they lived (past) and reigned (past) with Christ a thousand
years." In John's interpretation of that vision it is "They shall be
(future) priests of God and Christ, and shall reign (future) with him a
thousand years." We need go no further. We are now out of the vision and
standing on the ground of an inspired interpretation of the vision. This should
be the end of all controversy. The critics can no longer have any right to hide
behind the plea of visions and symbols. John furnishes us with an explanation,
and he says in positive language "They shall be (future) priests of God
and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Anyone who
seeks to give any other meaning to Rev. 20:4 is setting aside an inspired
interpretation for his own private interpretation. He is hindering the truth
in unrighteousness, Rom. 1:18 R. V.
THE
PLACE OF THE REIGN
"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art
worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of
every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our
God kings and priests : and we shall reign on the
EARTH," Rev. 5:9-10.
There are two positive statements in the above quotation
to which I wish to call attention. First, Christ is said to have redeemed
people by His blood from every kindred and people. Second, those thus redeemed
clearly say they shall reign on the earth. The modernist denies both statements.
He denies that Christ has redeemed people with His blood. He also denies that
those so redeemed shall reign on the earth.
The Non-millennialist meets the modernist half way.
He claims to believe that Christ has redeemed people by His blood from every
people. But then he turns around and agrees with the modernist in denying that
those same redeemed ones shall reign on the earth. So the Non-millennialist
has left the ranks of the true believers and has taken the first step toward
modernism. Had that first step never been taken by others we would not have
modernism. I boldly affirm that Non-millennialists and Post-millennialists are
headed in the direction of modernism and apostasy.
A close comparison of Rev. 5:10 and Rev. 20:6 show
us that the thousand years reign is under consideration in Rev. 5:10 where the
redeemed say, "We shall reign on the earth." In this connection they
are said to be priests and kings. In Rev. 20:6 they are said to be priests of
God and Christ and reign (here we have kings) a thousand years.
"And the kingdom and dominion, and the
greatness of the kingdom UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN, shall be given to the people
of the saints of the most High," Dan. 7:27.
The kingdom that is UNDER the whole heaven can be
nowhere else but on the earth. Anyone with eyes to see can see that if they
will but open their eyes. "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit
the earth," Matt. 5:5.
"And he that overcometh
and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
and he shall rule them with a rod (sceptre) of
iron," Rev. 2:26-27.
The overcoming takes place in this present age. The
reigning over the nations will come hereafter as a reward for keeping the works
of Christ to the end. One of the works of Christ will be to reign on this earth
and bring all things in subjection.
In due time other Scriptures will come up showing
that the reign will be on this earth.
THE FIRST
RESURRECTION
Pre-millennialists
have always believed that the first resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6 would
be the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ. Post-millennialists and
Non-millennialists have tried to escape the farce of Pre-millennial argument in
this place by claiming that the first resurrection is the new birth. A few
Non-millennialists apply it to the people who came out of their graves when
Christ was crucified and resurrected. I shall give that due attention in time.
The English word
"Resurrection" is translated from the Greek word "Anastasis." This word means a standing or rising up.
It is found 42 times in the New Testament. It. occurs 40 times in the Gospels
and the Epistles, and twice in Revelation. This word is translated
"Resurrection" 39 times. In Mark 9:10 it is translated "Rising
again." In Acts 26:23 it is translated "That should rise." In
Heb. 11:23 it is translated "Raised to life again." One time this
word is compounded. It is "Exanastasis,"
and it is found in Phil. 3:11. It means "A standing up out of." If we
count this compounded form of "Anastasis"
then we have just 43 times this word occurs in the New Testament. In no case in
the Gospels and the Epistles does it refer to anything but the body. The new
birth is nowhere in the Bible called a resurrection. Neither can the Greek
word "Anastasis" ever be found applied to
the new birth or regeneration. If the reader will bear with me I shall show
that in the Gospels and Epistles it always applies to the body.
The word resurrection
(Gr. Anastasis) occurs ten times in our Lord's
conversation with the Sadducees about the woman who had married seven brothers.
The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and they were trying to trap
Jesus with their question as to whose wife she would be in the resurrection. In
the three accounts we have of this conversation the word resurrection is found
ten times, Matt. 22:23; 22:28 ; 22:30; 22:31; Mark 12:18; 12:23; Luke 20:27;
20:33; 20:35, and 20:36. It is easy to see that a bodily resurrection from the
dead is under consideration in these places.
The word is found
twice in John 5:28-29: "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation." Again the body is under consideration.
The word is found
twice in connection with the raising of Lazarus. Martha said, "I know he
shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus replied,
"I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me though he
were dead, yet shall he live," John 11:24-25. A bodily resurrection is
under consideration in these two places.
We find the word
resurrection in Luke 14:14 where Jesus tells His disciples they shall be
recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
The word
"resurrection" is found eleven times in connection with our Lord's
resurrection. In Matt. 27:53 it is translated from the Greek word
"Egersis." In the other places it is a translation of the word "Anastasis," Acts 1:22; 2:31; 4:33; 17:18; 17:32; Rom.
1:4; 6:5; Phil. 3:10; I Peter 1:3; I Peter 3:21. No one could say that
regeneration was under consideration in any of these places.
The word
"resurrection" (Anastasis) is found four
times in the 15th chapter of First Corinthians where Paul is proving by the
resurrection of Christ that the dead do rise, I Cor. 15:12; 15:13; 15:21;
15:42.
In Acts 4:1-2 we find
the Sadducees were grieved because the apostles preached through Jesus the
resurrection from the dead. Then in Acts 23:8 we find that the Sadducees say
there is no resurrection. The body is under consideration in these places.
In Acts 24:2.1 Paul,
in his defense before Felix, said that he was called in question touching the
resurrection of the dead which he preached. By going back to Acts 23:6-10 we
read that a great tumult had been raised in Jerusalem between the Sadducees and
the Pharisees when Paul declared that he was a Pharisee on the question of the
resurrection of the dead. The Roman soldiers had to intervene to keep Paul
from being pulled in pieces. So Paul had in mind a bodily resurrection both in
Acts 23:6 and 24:21. Then in Acts 24:15 Paul declared his belief in the
resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.
In II Tim. 2:17-18
Paul said certain men had erred in saying the resurrection was past already.
Paul did not believe it to be past, but future. This shows that he had the
body in mind.
The English word
"resurrection" is found twice in the Book of Hebrews. In Heb. 6:2 the
writer speaks about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. In Heb.
11:35 he speaks about certain ones who were being tortured would not accept
deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection. The connection shows
plainly that the body is under consideration. In the same verse it is said that
women received their dead raise to life again. Here the Greek verb "anastaseos" is used. We still have the body under
consideration.
In Phil. 3:10, Paul
spoke about the death and resurrection of Christ and in the next verse he
expressed his desire to attain "unto the resurrection (Gr. Exanastasis) from the dead." This also refers to the
body.
After our Lord's
transfiguration He told Peter, James and John to say nothing about the matter
until He was risen from the dead. Then the apostles questioned among themselves
what the rising from the dead (Gr. Anastanai) should
mean, Mark 9:10.
The above takes into
consideration every place the word resurrection is found in the New Testament
and every place the noun "Anastasis," or
its verb form occurs, except the two places in Rev. 20:5-6. Here again we have
the English word "resurrection" and the Greek word "anastasis." Now, if this English word
"resurrection" and the Greek word "anastasis"
have their application to the body in all the places where they occur in the
Gospels and the Epistles, then by what process of logic can one reason that it
means something different in Rev. 20:5-6? I ask do not those who claim that
regeneration is under consideration here throw all Bible examples and usage to
the winds and strike out in a direction foreign to all other Scriptures? In the
many places in the Gospels and Epistles where the new birth is under
consideration the words "resurrection" and "anastasis"
are never found. And in all places in the Gospels and the Epistles where these
words are found the reference is clearly to the body. Then I ask what
Scriptural authority and example do Post-millennialists and Non-millennialists
have to justify them in saying that the word resurrection as found in Rev.
20:5-6 refers to the new birth, and not to a bodily resurrection?
But if it be argued that
Paul taught that the new birth was a resurrection in Eph. 2:6, where he said,
"God hath raised us up together, and made us to sit together in heavenly
places in Christ," then I can assure them that the new birth is not under
consideration in this place. Paul is simply setting forth our federal position
in Christ Jesus in this place. In Eph. 1:20, Paul speaks about God raising
Christ from the dead and setting Him at His own right hand in HEAVENLY PLACES.
Surely Paul was talking about the bodily resurrection of Jesus in this place.
In Eph. 2:6, in which he is talking about the same thing that is under
consideration in Eph. 1:20, Paul tells us that God hath raised us up together,
(that is, together with Christ) and made us sit together in HEAVENLY PLACES in
Christ Jesus. Christ was raised up from the dead, bodily. At the same time, in
God's reckoning, we were raised up bodily with Him and in Him, our federal
head. After His bodily resurrection Christ was made to sit down bodily at God's
right hand in the HEAVENLY PLACES. At the same time God made us to sit together
with Him, our Federal Head, in heavenly places. This passage simply means that
in the reckoning of God we were all raised from the dead in the resurrection
of our Federal Head, Jesus Christ, when He rose from the dead. When He was
glorified and exalted to His own right hand in the HEAVENLY PLACES, then, in
God's mind, we were also glorified and made to sit in HEAVENLY PLACES in Christ
Jesus, our Federal Head.
This takes away from
the Post-millennialists and Non-millennialists the last vestige of an argument
they can make on the new birth being a resurrection. It is never called such in
the Bible. That is simply some of their twisting of the Scriptures in a vain
effort to dodge Pre-millennial truth.
In closing this part
of this work I wish to consider the theory that the first resurrection has
reference to those who came out of their graves when Christ arose. Such an
interpretation wholly ignores all references to the beast and his mark, and the
death some who are in the first resurrection shall suffer. This death they
will suffer (a physical death) for refusing to worship the beast or receive his
mark. All this was still future when the saints came out of their graves at the
resurrection of Jesus. This interpretation shows ignorance of the divisions of
the Book of Revelation. Jesus Himself divided the Book of Revelation into three
divisions. John was told to write: (1) "The things which thou hast
seen." (2) "And the things which are." (3) "And the things
which shall be hereafter," Rev. 1:19. So the third and last division was
about things which were to be afterwards. By turning to Rev. 4:1 we find that
the third and last division of the Book of Revelation starts with that verse.
Here a voice said to John, "Come up hither, and I will shew thee things
which MUST BE HEREAFTER." So the part of Revelation which deals with the
things HEREAFTER commences with Rev. 4:1 and continues to the end of the book.
The resurrection of Christ and the incident about the saints coming out of
their graves were already past when John was given this revelation. By no means
could they be classed as "things which must be HEREAFTER." So all the
things about the beast, his mark, the first resurrection, the thousand years
reign, the great white throne judgment, and the coming, down of the New
Jerusalem all belonged to the future in the days when John received this
revelation. These critics would do well to make a careful study of the Book of
Revelation, its three divisions, where those three divisions are found, and
with what they deal. I have my first person to see yet except
Pre-millennialists who paid the least attention to the divisions of the book
our Lord made in Rev. 1:19 and Rev. 4:1. It is no wonder they blunder so in the
Book of Revelation when they go about its study in such a haphazard way. In
fact not many of them make any effort to study this book and to know its
contents. The Non-millennialists of the early centuries rejected the Book of
Revelation as being inspired. The Non-millennialists of today, as a rule, give
it a good letting alone. So far as they are concerned it may as well not have
been inspired. Most of them have as little to do with it as they do the Koran
of the Mohammedans.
In the argument
presented above I have shown that the first resurrection is a bodily
resurrection of the saved. Neither have I yet used all the argument that is to
be made on this line. Since the first resurrection is the bodily resurrection
of the saved it will not come until Christ returns. In speaking of the order
of the resurrection, Paul said, "Every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits: afterwards they that are Christ's at his
coming," I Cor. 15:23. This verse tells us plainly that it is Christ's
people that shall be raised at His return. There is not a hint here about the
resurrection of the wicked at the same time. Their resurrection must come
later. In Rev. 20:5 John tells us it will not be until after the thousand
years: "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years
were finished." Since Christ must come before the saints can rise, then
the thousand year’s reign, which comes after the first resurrection, must come
after our Lord's return. So Pre-millennialists are right. We shall have more on
this later on.
PART TWO
MR. KEMPIN ANSWERED
In this part of the book I shall take up the
twenty-four reasons Mr. Kempin gave for not believing in the thousand years
reign. Since they are not really reasons I shall list them as objections. I shall turn Mr. Kempin's own guns back on
him and condemn him with his own argument. His work is full of self-contradictions and colossal blunders. He
displays a disposition to misrepresent Pre-millennial truth and create
prejudice in the minds of his readers. He also shows ignorance of the
Pre-millennial position and a very imperfect knowledge of the teachings of
God's Word.
Along with the consideration of Mr. Kempin's work
I shall also consider some
of the other tracts which I received which assail the Pre-millennial position.
In answering these I shall
be answering the quibbles of all who oppose and fight the millennial truth as
set forth in the Word of God.
FIRST
OBJECTION: IT ROBS JESUS OF HIS THRONE AND CROWN.
This is the first objection Mr. Kempin offers to
try to show why the millennial doctrine is not Biblical. I shall turn that
charge around and place it on him. He and all his kind are the ones who would
take from Jesus His throne and His crown. The Pre-millennialists are the only
ones who believe and teach that Jesus will receive the throne and the crown
promised Him.
Under his first reason, or objection, Mr. Kempin
says, "Jesus has a kingdom now." Pre-millennialists do not deny this.
But Mr. Kempin does not seem to know that Jesus teaches that there are three
phases to the kingdom of God. In Mark
4:26-28 Jesus likens the kingdom of God to the seed of corn that is planted in
the earth. He says, in this connection, "The earth bringeth forth fruit of
herself: first the blade,
then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." Here we find three
stages or phases of the kingdom. We have: (1) The blade, (2) The ear, (3) The full corn in the ear.
Mr. Kempin would only have one stage or phase.
He would cut it short in the blade stage. He sure would make a fine
farmer. He would cut his corn down when the blade first shows through the
ground. But at that he would be as good a farmer as he is a Bible teacher. We admit that the first phase
started when Christ was here the first time. But there are other phases, and
the thousand years reign is another one of those phases.
In his effort to upset the millennial doctrine,
Mr. Kempin contradicted himself. On page 5 he quoted part of Isaiah 9:6, 7 to
prove that Christ had a kingdom in His first advent into the world. I shall
quote what he quoted, and after that what he left off: "Unto us a child is
born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder. .
. . Of the increase of his government there shall be no end." But he
failed to quote the next expression in Isaiah, which reads: "Upon the
throne of DAVID." That part of the quotation did not fit his doctrine, so
he had to leave it out. After quoting the words above he said, "This reign
is immediately associated with Christ's birth—a Son is given. Our Lord claimed
a kingdom in His first advent into the world." Then he quoted John 18:36
and Matt. 24:14 to substantiate his position that Christ had His kingdom during
His first advent. But hear him on the very next page. There he asks the
question, "When did Christ receive this kingdom?" Then he quotes
Dan. 7:13. After quoting this verse, he says, "Daniel saw Jesus ascending
to God after having suffered, bled and died, to begin His great mediatorial
reign." Page 6. So on page 5 Mr. Kempin said, Christ had His kingdom while
He was on earth during His first advent. But on the very next page He does not
receive it until after He has left the earth and gone back to heaven. Mr.
Kempin had better learn to keep straight with himself before launching out to
straighten out the Pre-millennialists. Which
time was Mr. Kempin right? Was he right on page 5 when he said Christ claimed a
kingdom in His first advent, or was he right when he taught that Christ did
not receive that kingdom before going back to heaven?
After quoting Matt. 24:14,
Mr. Kempin said, "Millennial teachers would have the end come and then
the establishment of the kingdom of Christ, but Jesus said the kingdom would
be shared through the preaching of the gospel and then the end would
come," page 5. Now, just where did Jesus say anything about the kingdom
being shared through the preaching of the gospel? I fail to read such an
expression in Matt. 24:14. That verse says, "This gospel of the kingdom
shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then
shall the end came." This verse states that the gospel of the kingdom shall be
preached for a witness unto all nations; and then the end should come. But it
says nothing about sharing in a reign or kingdom during this time. The end of
what shall come? I guess Mr. Kempin thinks this means the end of the earth. But
it does not say so. In that chapter the apostles had asked Jesus about the end
of the world (Gr. age). It matters little with me whether he takes the King
James translation which renders this "world," or others which render
it "age." The world is not the earth. The world is simply this
present order of things which exists upon this earth. The Devil is said to be
the god of this age or world, II Cor. 4:3, 4; Eph. 2:2; 6:11, 12. "The
whole world lieth in the wicked one," I John 5:19, R.V. When this age ends
this present world will end, but then Christ shall establish a new order of
things and reign a thousand years on this earth. Millennial haters have never
learned to discriminate between different terms. Because they have confused the
words world and earth they think the end of the world means the end of the
earth.
In
the same connection Mr. Kempin used John 18:36, where Jesus said, "My
kingdom is not of this world." Of course, it is not. If so He would have
received His authority from the Devil and would be working in connection with
the Devil, who is the god of this world. But Jesus nowhere said His kingdom or
reign would not be on this earth. When Jesus returns to the earth to reign He
will set aside this present world order, and establish a new order on the
earth. "A King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and
justice in the earth," Jer. 23:5. "Thou shalt judge the people
righteously, and govern the nations upon the earth," Psalm 67:4.
On
page 5, Mr. Kempin quoted Heb. 1:8 and Heb. 4:16 to try to show that Jesus is
now upon His throne. Heb. 1:8 is a quotation from the 45th Psalm. Had Mr.
Kempin read the connection closely he would have seen that the application is
not to this present time, but to the second advent of Christ back to the earth.
Let us read it: "Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, 0 most mighty, with thy
glory and thy majesty. And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth
and meekness and righteousness;—thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the
king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. Thy throne O God is for
ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre," Psalm
45:3-6. By comparing this passage with Rev. 19:11-21 where Christ is pictured
coming on a white horse in righteousness and make war, we see they are the
same. At that time He will destroy the armies and the kings of the earth, so
this passage applies to His second coming to the earth.
In
Heb. 4:16 the believer is admonished to come boldly to a throne of grace. That
throne of grace is the throne of the Heavenly Father in heaven, not David's
throne which was promised to Christ.
Then
Mr. Kempin says, "Our Lord wears the crown of His sovereignty now. Jesus
is not an uncrowned King. He wears His glorious crown now." To prove this
statement he quotes Heb. 2:9, or part of it. "We see Jesus—crowned with
glory and honour." He failed to finish the quotation, "that he by the
grace of God should taste death for every man." Mr. Kempin does not seem
to know that there are two kinds of crowns mentioned in the New Testament. One
is a crown denoting victory in a contest. That kind of crown Paul had under
consideration when he was talking about runners running in a race. "They
do it to obtain a corruptible crown," I Cor. 9:24, 25. No runner wins a
crown of sovereignty by winning a race. He wins a crown of victory. The word in
Greek for this crown is "Stephanos." The verb form of this word is
"Stephavo," which means to crown the victor in a contest. This is the
word used in Heb. 2:9 to which Mr. Kempin referred. As a victor over
temptation, death and the grave, Jesus is crowned as victor. But the crown of
sovereignty is denoted by another word. This word is "Diadema,"
meaning diadem, or crown. On page 136 of his Lexicon, Mr. Thayer says,
"Stephanos" is the crown of victory and that "Diadema" is
the crown as badge of royalty. We nowhere find Jesus wearing the
"Diadema," crown of royalty, until John gives us a picture of Him at
His second coming in Rev. 19:11-21. Here we read that "On his head were
many crowns" (Diadema), Rev. 19:12. Mr. Kempin would have done well to
have looked up on this instead of jumping to a conclusion on the matter.
Mr.
Kempin denies that Jesus is going to reign from Jerusalem on earth, so he is
the one who is robbing Jesus of His throne and His crown, for Jesus was
promised the throne of His father David, and that throne was in Jerusalem. But
this comes up more fully in his second objection.
SECOND OBJECTION: THE MILLENNIUM IS
CENTERED IN AN EARTHLY JERUSALEM.
Under
this objection Mr. Kempin said, "The teachers of the millennial doctrine point
their followers to Jerusalem as the geographic location of the seat of Christ's
reign." I shall abundantly prove from the Word of God that Jerusalem, on
this earth, will be the place of the throne of Jesus.
When
the angel appeared to Mary, who should be the mother of Jesus, he said to her,
"Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call
his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest:
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David," Luke
1:31, 32. There are seven things.
I
shall call attention to in this passage.
1.
Mary
was to conceive in her womb. This was literally fulfilled.
2.
She
was to bring forth a Son. This was literally fulfilled.
3.
His
name was to be Jesus. This was literally fulfilled.
4.
He
was to be great. This was literally fulfilled as well as otherwise.
5.
He
was to be called the Son of the Highest. This was literally fulfilled.
6.
He
was to be of the lineage of David. This was literally fulfilled.
7.
He
was to be given the throne of His earthly father David. This will be literally
fulfilled.
8.
Since
David was the earthly father (ancestor) of Jesus, and David had an earthly
throne in earthly Jerusalem, and this was the only throne David had, then how
could Jesus inherit from David any other throne but the one David had' in
earthly Jerusalem. I could only inherit something from my father which he
possessed, not something he never possessed. No father ever bequeathed, or
transmitted to a son something he never had, or never will have. David never
possessed the throne of the Heavenly Father in heaven where Christ is now
sitting. David only possessed a throne in earthly Jerusalem. Jesus was not
promised the throne of His Heavenly Father in heaven, but He was promised the
throne of His earthly father, David, which throne was in Jerusalem, and on this
earth. The prophets tell us that Christ's throne will be in Jerusalem. "At
that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all nations
shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither
shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. In those
days the house of Judah (Southern kingdom) shall walk with the house of Israel
(Northern kingdom) and they shall come together out of the north to the land
that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers," Jer. 3:17, 18.
Let us see what we find here.
1.
Jerusalem
is to be called the throne of the Lord.
2.
The
nations are to be gathered unto it, to Jerusalem, to the name of the Lord.
3.
At
that time both the houses of Judah and Israel are to be gathered back to the
land which God gave to their fathers. This is Canaan land and adjoining
territories, and on this earth. God said to Abraham, "I will give thee and
to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of
CANAAN, for an everlasting possession," Gen. 17:8.
4.
After
this Israel is to walk no more after the imagination of their evil heart.
Scriptures
can be multiplied over and over showing that Jesus will reign in Jerusalem.
"The
moon shall be confounded, and the sun shall be ashamed, when the Lord of hosts
shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients
gloriously," Isa. 24:23. "When the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall
appear in his glory," Psalm 102:16. This has reference to His second
coming. Here is the proof. "When the Son of man shall come in his glory,
and all the holy angels with him, THEN shall he sit upon the throne of his
glory," Matt. 25:31. Our Lord Himself tells us that it is when He shall
come in His glory with His holy angels that He shall sit on His throne. No
place can be found where He will sit on His throne (The one David had, and the
one He was promised) this side of His return to earth. So Mr. Kempin loses on this one, and it is he
and his doctrine that would rob Jesus of His throne, not the one
Premillennialists preach.
To uphold his objection, Mr. Kempin quoted
John 4:21-23 where Jesus said to the Samaritan woman that the hour had come
when the worshippers should neither worship in the mountain of Samaria, or at
Jerusalem, but should worship the Father in spirit and in truth. It is true
that worship is not centered in Jerusalem in this age, but the millennial age
is another age, different from this one, and men shall again go to Jerusalem to
worship. Jesus Christ, who is the One to worship, is not now in Jerusalem, and
there is no need or occasion for us to go to Jerusalem to worship Him, because
He is not there in body, nor is He there in Spirit more than anywhere else. But
in the millennial age Jesus shall be in Jerusalem in person, and men shall go
there to worship, because Christ, the object of worship, will be there. Here is
the Scriptural proof of this. "And it shall be, that whoso will not come
up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the
Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain," Zech. 14:17. It is easy
to see that the Jerusalem under consideration is earthly Jerusalem, because it
speaks of the families of earth - going up to Jerusalem to worship the King.
The next verse reads: "If the family of Egypt go not up, and come not up,
they have no rain." It is a strange thing that men who profess to be
followers of Christ will criticize the Pre-millennialists for believing just
what the Bible teaches.
Mr. Kempin goes on to talk about the heavenly
Jerusalem, which is said to be the mother of us all, Gal. 4:26. He says,
"In that city are found the holy angels, all the redeemed of all ages,
Jesus our Lord and King, His matchless throne, and God our Father," page
7. It is true that there is a heavenly
Jerusalem, and John tells us that it shall come down from God out of heaven,
Rev. 21:2. But before this can be this earth must be made ready for it to come
down. The thousand years reign will prepare the way for the New Jerusalem to
come down. John's prophecy of that follows his prophecy of the thousand years
reign, and the final judgment. Mr. Kempin can prove that Jesus, the Father,
angels, and the spirits of departed saints are in heaven, but he is absolutely
without proof that the throne of Christ is there. God's Word tells us the
throne that He is to be given was the throne of His earthly father David, whose
throne was in earthly Jerusalem. He was nowhere promised the throne of His
Heavenly Father, which is in heaven.
"To him that overcometh will (future) I
grant to sit with me in my throne (Here is one throne), even as I also overcame,
and am set down with my Father in his throne," Rev. 3:21. Here is a second
throne. A man that cannot see two different thrones in this passage needs a
guardian. The throne where Christ now sits is the throne of the Heavenly
Father. It is in heaven, and has always been in heaven, even when David had a
throne in earthly Jerusalem. But the Heavenly Father's throne in heaven is not
the one the angel said would be given to Jesus. He said God would give Him the
throne of His father, David. Surely David is not God the Father, nor is God the
Father David. If David is not God the Father, then the throne which David had
is not the throne upon which God the Father has always been sitting. To make
the throne of David, which was promised to Jesus, the throne of the Heavenly
Father, is to make David the Heavenly Father Himself. What gross absurdities
men can involve themselves in when they seek to twist the truth of God's Word!
THIRD OBJECTION: IT IS BASED UPON AN
EARTHLY PEOPLE.
Under this objection, Mr. Kempin says that the
doctrine of a thousand years reign with Christ on earth creates anew the
problem of race superiority. He said that Jesus came to tear down the middle
wall of partition which kept mankind divided into hostile camps. He used Eph.
1:10 and Gal. 4:4 to show that since Jesus came, all national, racial, social,
political and economic distinctions between people are lost when they accept
the mercy of God. I just wonder if he believes all this. If so, he should not
object to his daughter marrying a black Negro, if that Negro is a child of God.
Faith in Christ does put all races on the same spiritual level, Gal. 3:28. But
I challenge him to prove that it puts them on the same social, political and
racial level. Just such foolish ideas as this is right now fanning the flames
of strife between the whites and blacks and is going to cause bloodshed and
rioting. Men had better let the laws of God alone. God has placed some races in
a place of servitude. "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be
unto his brethren," Gen. 9:25. Things go better when men leave them like
God placed them. Many believers in the days of the apostles owned slaves. Eph.
6:5-9, and Philemon 1:21. I challenge Mr. Kempin to find one place where the
apostles ever taught the believers to set their slaves free. The false idea
that it is the mission of the gospel to settle social, economic and political
affairs has drifted men away from the gospel of Christ to a social gospel.
Just such men as Mr. Kempin are playing into the hands of modernists and
helping to prepare the world for an ungodly church and national federations
which will put the beast in power. His blindness to Pre-millennial truth keeps
him from seeing this.
When it comes to the
question of salvation and spiritual privileges God is rich unto all that call upon
Him. Certainly the Jew who is a sinner
is lost just as much as a Gentile. But
that has nothing to do with social, economic and political affairs. The Jew himself is in this age under the
political yoke of the Gentile nations.
Jesus Himself said, “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles,
until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” Luke 21.24. This certainly does not look like political
distinction has been done away.
Mr. Kempin said, “A new
kind of Israel has come into being since Jesus gave His life as a ransom for
sin.” Now, just where did he read
that? To prove it he quotes Rom.
10:12. “There is no difference between
the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call
upon his name.” If this proves that
there came into existence a new kind of Israel since the death of Christ then
it proves there came into existence a new kind of Greek since that day. He also quoted, “There is neither Jew nor
Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female.” Isn’t it strange what men think they can see
in a verse of Scripture? Mr. Kempin
seems to think that this proves that the Greek when he is saved becomes a
Jew. If so, then it proves that when a
male is saved he becomes a female, and the female becomes a male when
saved. The same verse that reads, “There
is neither Jew nor Greek,” also reads, “There is neither male nor female.” The same logic that would make the saved
Greek a Jew, would make the saved Jew a Greek, the saved male a female, and the
saved female a male. Maybe the death of
Jesus brought into existence a new kind of females and males. Now, didn’t he have some argument? This verse does not mean that the Greek
becomes a Jew when saved any more than it means the woman becomes a man when
she is saved. It simply means that they
all have the same spiritual privileges.
All Pre-millennialists
know that there is an elect Israel in the national Israel. So are there elect from among the
Gentiles. But there were an elect people
in national Israel before Jesus ever came.
Elijah and the seven thousand in his day were just as much an elect
remnant out of Israel then, as Paul and the saved Israelites were in Paul’s
day, Rom. 11:1-7.
Sure, there will be an
earthly people during the thousand years reign.
Over whom does he think the glorified saints will reign? We will not reign over each other. A kingdom in its entirety has rulers,
subjects and territory. Who ever heard of a kingdom in which there was nothing
but rulers; no subjects at all? The Lord will carry a natural people over into
the thousand year’s reign over which those who are being saved today shall
reign in that age. "As the days of a tree are the days of my people, and
mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in
vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the
Lord, and their OFFSPRING with them," Isa. 65:22, 23. "The sucking
child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his
hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy
mountain: (Why) for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as
the waters cover the sea," Isa. 11:8, 9. These and many others that might
be quote to prove that there will be a natural people as well as glorified
people on earth at that time.
FOURTH OBJECTION: THE MILLENNIAL DOCTRINE IGNORES THE
SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
This one proves a
boomerang for Mr. Kempin. His own argument flies back and hits him in the face.
Under this objection, he says, "Teachers of the millennium take such
highly symbolic passages as Rev. 19:11-21 and interpret literally to mean that
the holy Christ, the spotless Lamb of God, who never lifted up His voice in the
streets or resorted to retaliation, and who laid down His life for His enemies,
will at His second coming, actually mount a white charger and, with sword in
hand, lead His followers into one of the most bloody battles of all time,"
page 10.
Here he objects to us
teaching that Christ will, at His second coming, take vengeance on His enemies.
He thinks what we teach with this passage about what Christ will do at His
second coming is inconsistent with the character of the spotless Lamb of God,
who never lifted up His voice in the streets or resorted to retaliation. But
let us turn to page 29 in Mr. Kempin's book and we will see that he teaches the
very same thing about the second coming of Christ, only he uses II Thess.
1:7-10. Here is what Mr. Kempin says:
"Paul points out
the fact that at one and the same time Jesus will come in flaming fire taking
vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ. At the same time Jesus shall come to be glorified in His saints
(II Thess. 1:7-10). LET THE READER
NOTICE EVERY WORD OF THAT PASSAGE. (My capitals.) We notice them. We also notice that Mr.
Kempin has fixed himself. At one and the
same time our Lord will punish with everlasting destruction from the presence
of the Lord those who know not God.” End
of quotation.
After criticizing us for teaching with Rev.
19:11-21 that Christ would take vengeance on His enemies, he does the same
thing with II Thess. 1:7-10. He has Christ, the spotless Lamb of God, who never
lifted up His voice in the streets, or resorted to retaliation when He was here
the first time, coming back in flaming fire taking vengeance on His enemies.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it is right for him to
use II Thess. 1:7-10 to teach that Christ will take vengeance on His enemies at
His second coming, then why is it not all right for Pre-millennialists to use
both this passage and Rev. 19:11-21? In fact, they both teach the same lesson
and apply to the same occasion. In II Thess. 1:1-10 Jesus is revealed from
heaven. In Rev. 19:11 John sees Him coming out of heaven. In the passage Mr.
Kempin used Jesus is revealed with His mighty angels. In Rev. 19:14 John sees
the armies of heaven coming with Christ.
"Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein:
and he that rolleth a stone it will return upon him," Prov. 26:27. He
tried to roll a stone on us and it returned upon him.
"People who are
truthful can be carefree and bold,
they don't remember
every tale that they have told."
This
proved a boomerang for Mr. Kempin. He fell in the pit he dug for us.
Under
his fourth objection, Mr. Kempin quoted the words of Jesus to Peter. "All
they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword." Then he said that
Christ was pronouncing the same doom on His kingdom if so be that He was coming
back the second time to make war on His enemies. This is another stone he
rolled that came back on him. He said that Christ was coming back to take
vengeance, page 29. Now what shall he say? Does he not know that vengeance is
the prerogative of God? The Lord says He will take vengeance. "Avenge not
yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is
mine; I will repay, saith the Lord," Rom. 12:19. A man that does not know
better than this needs to be in the primary class, instead of trying to
instruct others.
Under this objection, Mr. Kempin made an
effort to prove that the kingdom of God was in the hearts of men. He quoted the
words of Jesus to the wicked Pharisees, "The kingdom of God is within
you," Luke 17:20. He went on to say that what was set forth here is that
the kingdom of God is set up in the hearts of men and women who believe. Well,
those wicked Pharisees to whom Jesus was talking were certainly not believers.
Jesus surely did not teach that the kingdom of God was in the hearts of those wicked, unbelieving
Pharisees. If Mr. Kempin had only read the marginal translation then he would
have seen that Jesus was saying to those Pharisees that the kingdom of among
them or God was in their midst. He missed the boat again.
FIFTH OBJECTION: IT OPENS THE DOOR
FOR THE WILDEST KIND OF SPECULATION.
Under
this objection, Mr. Kempin says, "Our generation has more than its share
of prophets, but most of them are prophets of gloom. Such prophets of gloom
have invented their Antichrists, battle of Armageddon, tribulation, the mark
of the beast, fanciful rapture, a number of future comings of Christ, two
physical resurrections, at least five judgments, and the discovery of the lost
tribes of Israel," etc.
If
Mr. Kempin is going to reject a doctrine because that doctrine has been abused,
then he will have to reject every doctrine in the Bible. In the past sixty
years there has been at least a dozen new denominations arisen over different
views about the work of the Holy Spirit.
Some say there is no baptism of the Spirit today, others say there
is. Some say the baptism of the Holy
Spirit takes away the carnal nature, but does not enable one to speak in
tongues. Some say it enables one to speak
in tongues but does not take away the carnal nature. Some handle snakes and drink poison. Some
climb saplings and wave their handkerchiefs at God. On the same ground the
doctrine of the Holy Spirit could be rejected. On the same kind of argument the
infidel could reject the whole Christian system. It is to the Devil’s interest to get some to
abuse all doctrines of the Bible, and thus drive people away from the truth.
Mr. Kempin says,
"Most of the prophets have been prophets of gloom." Pre-millennialists
have been called prophets of gloom because they face the facts and the truths
of God's Word and tell the people what is coming. Because we have no faith in the unscriptural
movements of false religionists and world reformers we are branded as pessimists. So was
Jeremiah branded as an alarmist and a traitor because he foretold the coming
doom of Judah because of her sins. There was a bunch of false prophets in
Jeremiah's day who opposed Jeremiah and tried to counteract all his warnings
by prophesying smooth things to the people.
Jeremiah said of them, "They have belied the Lord and said, It is
not he; neither shall evil come upon us neither shall we see sword or
famine," Jer. 5:12. These false prophets had cried, "Peace, peace,
when there is no peace," Jer. 6:14. But all their false optimism and
denouncing of Jeremiah's warning about the day of gloom did not turn aside
that doom. It came just the same. King Jehoiakim cut up the roll of Jeremiah's
prophecy and burned it in the fire, but that did not turn away the day of doom,
but only brought worse judgment on the king and his family. It is downright
wicked to hold out a false optimism to the people. Mr. Kempin wants to do that.
He is in the class with the false prophets of Jeremiah's day. Instead of warning
people about the coming of the Antichrist, the tribulation period, and the
mark of the beast, he, like the false prophets of Jeremiah's day, is giving the
lie to God's Word which teaches that all these things are coming. Like the
false prophets who opposed Jeremiah, who was faithful to declare the truth,
though it was dark, he is opposing the Pre-millennialists in their faithfulness
to warn the people about what is coming. It was blind, foolish optimism that
placed a few thousand of our men, with poor equipment, on the Philippines to be
butchered by the Japs in the last war. Intelligent military men warned our
congressmen of what was coming and begged for proper equipment. They were
denounced as war-mongers, alarmists and pessimists. But the war came even as
they had warned, and our blind optimists left our poor boys without adequate
equipment to be butchered. Their blood is on the hands of the foolish
optimists. True watchmen will sound the warning, even if the news is not
pleasant. Kempin and his bunch want to smooth things over and keep the people
in ignorance as to what is coming. They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. "His watchmen are blind: they are
all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down,
loving to slumber--they are shepherds that cannot understand," Isa.
56:10, 11.
In his eleventh
objection Mr. Kempin puts the tribulation period in the past. So he is not
looking for the coming of a tribulation period, and it looks like he does not
believe in the battle of Armageddon, in the coming of the mark of the beast, in
but one bodily resurrection, but one judgment or but one phase of our Lord's
coming. Well, we shall see that the Pre-millennial doctrine, and not Mr.
Kempin, is right. Not many Pre-millennialists go in for the British Israel
theory, nor for the Mormon idea that Salt Lake City will be where the Lord's
throne will be. But the Mormons have as much Scripture to prove that David's
throne will be in Salt Lake City as Mr. Kempin has to prove that it is in heaven.
At least, the Mormons get it on earth, and David's throne was on earth, and
Mr. Kempin does not even get it on earth. The Mormon theory is silly and
unscriptural, but not more so than the theory of Mr. Kempin and
non-millennialists.
The Bible certainly
teaches that there is to be a battle of Armageddon. "And he gathered them
together into a place (A literal place) called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon,"
Rev. 16:16. In the verse above we find that the spirits of devils will go unto
the kings of the earth and the whole world, to gather them together to the
great battle of that great day of God Almighty. The same battle is foretold by
Zechariah, "Behold the DAY OF THE LORD cometh,—for I will gather all
nations against Jerusalem to battle," Zech. 14:1, 2. In both places it is
the kings of the whole earth and world that are gathered together to battle.
Both are connected with the great DAY OF GOD ALMIGHTY or DAY OF THE LORD. The
Hebrew word "Harmageddon" means "Mountain of destruction."
It is here that the world powers, which shall be headed up under the beast,
will meet destruction. In making light of such a battle Mr. Kempin is just
showing his unbelief in the Scriptures, both the prophecy of John and
Zechariah.
The mark of the beast will also come, even if
Mr. Kempin does not believe it. "And he causeth all, both small and great,
rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in
their foreheads : and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark
of the beast, or the number of his name," Rev. 13:16, 17. And the people
will be astonished when the beast does come. "And they that dwell on the
earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the
foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and
yet is," Rev. 17:8. Some translations read: "And shall come."
Dr. Williams translates it, "Shall be astonished," instead of
"Shall wonder." Now, just who will be astonished? Those whose names
are not in the book of life. Just why will they be astonished? Because such men
as Mr. Kempin and others are fighting the preaching of Pre-millennialists and
telling the people that all this matter about the coming of the beast and his
mark is just Pre-millennial foolishness. I here and now charge Mr. Kempin and
all his bunch with helping to keep the people in ignorance of what is coming,
and thus lending aid to the Antichrist movements of today. Pre-millennialists
will not be astonished when this takes place. They will not wonder. It is
something they are expecting and telling the people about. They are the faithful
servants in Matt. 24:45 who are giving the people meat in due season. Mr.
Kempin and his group are the evil servants who say the Lord is delaying His
coming, and are smiting the servants (Pre-millennialists) who are giving the
people meat in due season, or, warning them of what is coming. On page 14, Mr.
Kempin says, "Zealots rush around repeating in parrot-like form, 'He's
coming soon; He's coming soon." So
we see that Mr. Kempin does not believe He is coming soon. So he is exactly the
evil servant who says "My Lord delayeth his coming," Matt. 24:48. He,
and some others, need to think soberly on what our Lord had to say about the
wise and the evil servants, and see in which group they are. I would hate to be
in his place.
It is true, some have thought such men as
Mussolini was the beast. And who can say he is not, since the beast is to come
back again. In Rev. 11:7 we find that the beast is to come out of the
bottomless pit, or the place where the spirits of the unbelieving dead are
confined. So it is possible for Mussolini to be the one who shall come again.
I am not saying he is the one. But someone will be the one. None but God can
know just who the beast will be. But we
know that Jesus told His people over and over to watch, and it is only natural
that those who are watching should be in a state of expectancy. In the days of
John the Baptist some thought he was the Christ, John 1:19, 20. We know the
coming of Christ was then at hand, and the people were in a state of
expectancy. Because some made the mistake of thinking John was the Christ was
no reason to believe that Christ would not come, or for people to cease
talking about His coming, or to cease looking for His coming. So it is about
the beast. Because some have been mistaken in what person is to be the beast we
are not therefore justified in ceasing to expect such a person to come? I
venture to say that Mr. Kempin has already picked out one, or a system which he
thinks is the beast, and he made just as bad a blunder as others, if not worse.
I know he did when he said the dragon was not the Devil but pagan Rome. We
shall have that later.
If Mr. Kempin had wanted
to do so, and had taken the pains to have investigated he could at least have
found two future judgments. Listen to this. "Neither doth the Father judge
any man, but he hath given all judgment (Gr. Krisis) unto the Son;—He that
heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and
cometh NOT into judgment," John 5:22-24. (R. V.) In both places the word
for judgment is the Greek word "Krisis." Here is a judgment to which
the believer does not go. In writing to the church at Corinth Paul said,
"We must all appear before the judgment seat (Gr. Bema) of Christ,"
II Cor. 5:10. Here we have two different judgments. One is the
"Krisis" judgment and Jesus said the believer does not come into
that judgment. The other is the "Bema" judgment and the believers do
go to that one. There is absolutely no excuse for a man who sets himself up as
a teacher, and who attempts to set others right, of being ignorant on this
point. Just a little work with a "Young's Concordance" would have set
him right. Mr. Kempin should read and heed the words of James, "My brethren,
be not many masters (teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater
condemnation," James 3:1.
Mr. Kempin objects to us
having more than one phase of our Lord's second coming, or two separate manifestations
at His second advent. I wonder if he knows there were two separate
manifestations of our Lord at His first advent. During His personal ministry He
manifested Himself to all the people. After His resurrection He manifested
Himself openly, not to all the people, but to chosen witnesses, Acts 10:40-41.
At His second advent there will also be two separate manifestations, but in the
reverse order. First, He will only appear to those who wait for Him. "Unto
them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto
salvation," Heb. 9:28. I challenge anyone to find in this verse of
Scripture anyone but Jesus and those that look for Him, and to whom He will
bring salvation, or the redemption of the body. This is a different manifestation
to the one John speaks about when every eye shall see Him, Rev. 1:7. In I
Thess. 4:13-17 our Lord only descends into the air, and the saints are caught
up in the air to meet Him. But Zechariah tells us He is coming back to this
earth and that His foot shall stand on the Mount of Olives.
"Behold THE DAY OF
THE LORD cometh, and I will gather ALL nations against Jerusalem to battle; and
the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished, and the
residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord
go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of
battle. And his feet shall stand IN THAT DAY upon the mount of Olives, which is
before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst
thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great
valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it
toward the south. And the Lord my God
shall come and all the saints with thee. And it shall be in THAT DAY (the Day
of the Lord), that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them
toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: IN SUMMER AND IN
WINTER shall it be. And the Lord shall be King over all the earth in that day
(the Day of the Lord) shall there be one Lord, and his name one. All the land
shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of JERUSALEM (earthly
Jerusalem): and men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter
destruction; but JERUSALEM shall be safely inhabited," Zech. 14:1-11.
Now, let us outline these verses as follows:
1.
The prophet tells us the "DAY OF THE LORD COMETH," verse
1.
2.
"All nations" (not part of them) "shall be gathered
together against Jerusalem to battle," verse 2.
3.
Part of the city will be cut off and part of it will not be,
verses 2, 3.
4.
In the midst of the destruction of Jerusalem the Lord will come to
fight against the nations that are destroying Jerusalem, verse 3.
5.
At that time His (Jesus') feet shall stand upon the Mount of
Olives which is east of Jerusalem, verse 4.
6.
At that time the Mount of Olives will split asunder: Half of it
will go to the north, and half of it will go to the south, verse 4.
7.
This will make a valley running east and west, the natural consequence
of half the mountain goes north and the other half south, verse 4.
8.
At this time the saints of the Lord will come with Him, verse 5.
9.
A stream of living water (one ever running) will, go out from
Jerusalem toward the two seas: The Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. Jerusalem
is between these two seas, verse 8. See a map.
10.
There will be both summer and winter in that day, that is, the day
of the Lord, verse 8. This shows that the expression, "Day of the
Lord," stands for a long period of time, and not just for twenty-four
hours. Read verse 8, and see both summer and winter in that day.
11.
The Lord shall be King over all the earth in that day, that is,
the day of the Lord. A day with the Lord is as a thousand years, II Peter 3:8.
The statement about summer and winter in that day shows that it is not a day of
twenty-four hours; the "day of the Lord" will be one thousand years
in length, Rev. 20:6.
12.
Great geographical changes will take place in the country around
Jerusalem, verse 10.
13.
Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited, and there shall be no more
utter destruction, such as happened when Titus destroyed Jerusalem in A. D. 70,
verse 11.
14.
At this time our Lord comes all the way to the earth and shall
stand on mount Olives, verse 4.
15.
This is a different manifestation from that in I Thess. 4:13-17,
and Heb. 9:28.
16.
So I have proven two different manifestations of Christ at His
second advent, even as there were two at His first advent.
This answers Mr.
Kempin's quibbles about two resurrections and the judgments, and shows that
there will be two different manifestations of Christ at His second advent. It
shows, too, that He is going to reign in Jerusalem which is on this earth, and
which is situated between two seas. Anyone who knows about the location of
Jerusalem knows that it is between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. That locates
it in earthly Jerusalem. We are told that the Lord shall be King over all the
earth in that day, the "day of the Lord" or the day of one thousand
years.
SIXTH OBJECTION: IT PERPETUATES THE OLD COVENANT WHICH WAS
ABROGATED.
Under this objection,
Mr. Kempin says, "Teachers of the thousand-year-reign theory refer to the
Jews as the covenant people of God. One would suppose that they are still bound
to the Lord by the covenant which was given them at Sinai. Such teachers fail
to see that the Hebrews broke that covenant. Since they broke it, the
conditions stipulated within that covenant were rendered void." After this
Mr. Kempin goes on to give Col. 2:14 and Heb. 10:7-10 to show that the law has
been abolished.
Here is a gross
misrepresentation of the Pre-millennial position. But here is usually where the
millennial critics start. I have had a few debates and a number of private discussions
on this question and these critics start out to show that the law covenant has
been abolished. Pre-millennialists believe that as well as their opponents, but
no Pre-millennialist argues that Israel is to be restored to their land under
the covenant made at Sinai, which was the law covenant, but under the covenant
which God made with Abraham 430 years before the law covenant was made at
Sinai. If these fellows are really fair and open for the truth, then why do
they not find out really what the Pre-millennialists teach and quit
misrepresenting them and fighting a straw man? Anything and everything they
might say about the law covenant and its abolishment is beside the point. It is
under the Abrahamic covenant that, we teach, and the Bible teaches, that Israel
is to be re-established in the land of promise. Mr. Kempin is grossly ignorant
of our position here, or else he is deliberately trying to misrepresent our
position and prejudice the minds of people. We shall now examine the Abrahamic
covenant and its promises.
"I will establish
my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations
for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou
art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession,"
Gen. 17:7-8. This covenant included all the land from the river of Egypt to
the Euphrates. "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram,
saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the
great river, the river Euphrates." Gen. 15:18. I challenge anyone to show
where Israel has ever yet possessed all the land from the river of Egypt unto
the Euphrates River. A good course in Bible geography, the settlement of the
tribes under Joshua, and the great scope of country from the river of Egypt to
the Euphrates river, would be a good thing for a lot of these millennial
critics who neither understand what they say, nor whereof they affirm, Now, let
us read what Paul had to say about the law covenant and the Abrahamic covenant:
"Brethren, I speak
after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it
be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and
his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as
of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the
covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four
hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the
promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is
no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” Gal.
3:15-18.
Now, let us see what we find in these verses. It will forever answer Mr. Kempin
and such critics who argue that Israel is forever dispossessed of the land of
promise because they broke the law covenant.
1.
The inheritance God
promised to Abraham and his seed, which was the inheritance of Canaan land for
an everlasting possession (Gen. 17:7-8), was not through the law, but God gave
it to Abraham by promise, verse 18.
2.
If the inheritance was of the law, it would not be by promise,
verse 18.
3.
The Abrahamic covenant was given 430 years before the law was
given, and was thus another covenant altogether, verse 17.
4.
When a covenant is confirmed it CANNOT be disannulled, nor added
to, verse 15.
5.
God confirmed the covenant He made with Abraham 430 years before
the law was given, verse 17.
6.
This covenant was confirmed in Christ, not with Moses nor Joshua,
verse 17. Concerning the law covenant,
Moses said to Israel, “God made not this covenant with our fathers (Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob), but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the
fire.” Deut. 5:3, 4. Moses and Joshua will inherit it through
Christ.
7.
The promise was not made to seeds, as of many, that is, the many
who entered Canaan under the law covenant, verse 16.
8.
The promise was made to one seed, which is Christ, verse 16. So
Israel must come to faith in Christ before they can come under the Abrahamic
covenant, and inherit the promise. This
they will do in time.
9.
The law did not disannul the Abrahamic covenant, nor make the
promise that God gave to Abraham of none effect, verse 17.
10.
A covenant that has been confirmed CANNOT be disannulled, verse
15.
11.
The Abrahamic covenant was confirmed, so it CANNOT be disannulled,
and it still stands today, verses 16, 17.
12.
So whatever may or may not be said about the law covenant can in
no wise affect the inheritance of Canaan land by Abraham and such of his
posterity who believe in Christ.
Now,
let Mr. Kempin and millennial critics apply themselves to the real issue and
quit beating at a straw man. Let them
prove that the Abrahamic covenant has been disannulled. That is the thing they must do to overthrow
the position of the Premillennialists on the restoration of Israel to the land
of promise. When they prove that the
Abrahamic covenant has been abrogated then they have proven Paul to have been
wrong. It is easy to prove that the law
has been abrogated, but that is beside the point. We do not have Israel restored under the law
covenant.
SEVENTH
OBJECTION: THE MILLENNIAL DOCTRINE HOLDS
OUT FALSE HOPES TO BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES.
Under
this objection, Mr. Kempin says, “In this day when the hopes of people are
being dashed to pieces, it is a tragedy to deal with fainting hearts with
anything but the truth.” Amen, and amen,
I say. But what are those hopes which
are being dashed to pieces? They are the
false hopes that social reformers, and men like Mr. Kempin are holding out to
the people, that the world can have peace and safety, and an established order
of things without Christ coming back to the earth. It is not Pre-millennialists
who are holding out these false hopes that are being dashed to pieces. Pre-millennialists hold out to them the
return of Christ as the only true hope.
Will Mr. Kempin say Christ is not coming back?
Mr.
Kempin says, “Millennial teachers are doing the Jews the greatest kind of
injustice by raising their hopes through their teachings that they shall once
more be the center of a universal empire—that when Christ comes again they will
be the nation upon which Christ will build His millennial kingdom. The poor Jews have suffered enough—why hold
out such a bubble to them? It will only
burst before their very eyes to plunge them into deeper misery.” P. 16.
This
statement shows Mr. Kempin’s gross ignorance of the Word of God. We shall see that what we teach about the
restoration of Israel is not a bubble, or a false hope, but the very teaching
of the Word of God. I could take up
dozens of pages with Scriptures that show plainly that Israel shall yet be put
back in her land, and they shall NO MORE be pulled up out of their land which I
have given them, saith the Lord thy God.”
Amos 9:14-15. Let us examine
these verses closely.
1.
A future restoration of
Israel to their own land is here promised by the Lord.
2.
After this restoration, Israel is to be NO MORE pulled up out of
their land.
3.
Since Israel was pulled up after the return of a few thousand from
the Babylonian captivity, then this prophecy does not apply to that return, but
to a future return, after which they shall no more be pulled up out of their
land.
4.
Israel is now out of her land.
Therefore this promise of God to them must be fulfilled in the future.
5.
To make this prophecy apply to the return of a few thousand under
Ezra and Zerubbabel, is to put a lie in the mouth of the Lord and Amos, because
they said after this restoration Israel should NO MORE be pulled up out of
their land.
“Considerest thou not what this people have
spoken, saying, The two families which the Lord hath chosen (Judah and Israel),
he hath even cast them off? Thus they
have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them,”
Jer. 33:24. Here is Mr. Kempin’s picture,
and the picture of all who deny the restoration of Israel. They are telling us that we are holding out
false hopes to the Jews, and that they shall be no more a nation, and that
these promises are empty bubbles. God
says, in so doing, they have despised His people. It is a strange thing to me that a man does
not recognize his own picture when he sees it.
Mr. Kempin is teaching that Israel shall no more be a nation. And God
says he, and such as say this, have despised His people.
Now, let us see what the
answer of God to this denial of Israel's hope is. "Thus saith the Lord; If
my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the
ordinances of heaven and earth; then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and
David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the
SEED OF ABRAHAM (Abrahamic covenant is in this prophecy), Isaac, and Jacob: for
I WILL CAUSE their captivity to return, and will have mercy on them," Jer.
33:25-26.
This is the answer of
God to the people who say Israel shall no more be a nation. God says that if He
has not made a covenant with day and night, and if He has not appointed the
ordinances of heaven and earth, then He would cast away the seed of Jacob, that
they should no more have one of the seed of David to reign over them. No one
can find a place from the Babylonian captivity until the present day where any
of the seed of David have ever ruled over the seed of Abraham. But in due time
Christ will do that for God says, "FOR I will cause their captivity to
return." Then to deny the restoration of Israel and that they shall ever
be a nation again is equivalent to saying that God has not arranged the day
and night and that He did not fix the ordinances of earth and heaven. In
short, it is the equivalent of taking infidel ground and denying the works and
the creative power of God. That is where Mr. Kempin and his Non-millennial
brethren stand. I have said before, and I say again, that they are playing in
the hands of modernists and infidels.
"The children of
Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without
a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:
afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their
God," Hos. 3:4-5. Here we have the return and the repentance of Israel.
"And they shall
build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they
shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of MANY generations. And
strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the aliens shall be
your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shall be named the priests of the
Lord: men shall call you ministers of our God; ye shall eat the riches of the
Gentiles, and in their glory ye shall boast yourselves. For your shame ye shall
have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore
in THEIR LAND they shall possess double: everlasting joy shall be unto
them," Isa. 61:4-7. What do we find here?
1.
Israel shall return and build again the desolations of MANY
generations.
2.
Some Jews returned from Babylon under Ezra and Zerubbabel just 70
years after the captivity. Some of the fathers who had seen the temple that
Nebuchadnezzar built, also saw the foundation laid for the new temple, Ezra
3:12. The many generations spoken of by Isaiah had not then passed, so the
prophecy of Isaiah is yet to come, for it is after MANY generations.
3.
Many generations have passed since the destruction by Titus in A.
D. 70.
4.
After this restoration Israel is to eat of the riches of the
Gentiles and sons of the aliens shall be their plowmen and vinedressers. This
shows that Israel will then be above the Gentile nations. So the
Pre-millennialists are right and Mr. Kempin is wrong as usual. He just simply
does not believe God's Word. Because he does not believe it, he has to twist it
to suit his own fancy, and make God say something He does not say, and deny
what God does say. By his tradition he makes the Word of God of none effect.
Under this objection,
Mr. Kempin says. "Jesus came to build a universal brotherhood." This
is a falsehood of the first water. Jesus Himself said, "Think not that I
am come to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace but a sword. For I
am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against
her mother,—and a man's foes shall be they of his own household," Matt.
10:34-36. This certainly does not look like Jesus came to establish a universal
brotherhood. A universal brotherhood implies a universal Fatherhood. That is
one of the Devil's lies. God is not the Father of the unbeliever, neither are
we brothers of unbelievers. To have a universal brotherhood we would have to
have universal salvation, or God the Father of unbelievers. This smacks of the
Post-millennial idea of taking the world for Christ. This is the idea behind
the building of a universal government and a universal, or Catholic Church.
In this connection I
wish to quote from two articles that recently came out in the papers. One is
about a speech that Bishop Oxnam, the head of the Federal Council of Churches,
made in Philadelphia. The other is about a movement in Cleveland, Ohio.
OXNAM SEES WOMEN A KEY TO CHURCH
"When the women of the churches want the union
of the churches, the union of the churches will come," Methodist Bishop
G. Bromley Oxnam of New York told 1,000 women here at the 24th annual luncheon
of the department of women's work, Philadelphia Council of Churches. He called
for the union of all Protestant denominations into one church of Christ, which
would then unite with the Eastern Orthodox (Greek Catholic) and afterwards help
create one Holy Catholic Church, to which all Christians may belong."
Bishop Oxnam is the man who said, The God of the
Old Testament was a dirty bully. He is the head of the Federal Council of
Churches which is endeavoring to break down doctrinal principles and unite all
professing believers into a religious oligarchy such as this world has never
had. He is seeking to lead the world back into the folds of Rome and have one
Catholic (Universal) church.
Now, get this from him: "Personally, I
would be proud to kneel at any altar and have the hands of Harry Emerson
Fosdick (A rank modernist, who claims to be a Baptist), placed upon my head
symbolizing the passing of the freedom and the independence of the Baptist
tradition to the new church."
So Mr. Oxnam, who thinks the God of the Old
Testament is a bully, is calling upon Baptists to surrender their freedom and
independence and line up with his ungodly Universal church affair. Here is the
ultimate outcome of Mr. Kempin's universal brotherhood idea. This universal
brotherhood idea and universal church idea will result in a vast religious
combination called the great whore in the Book of Revelation, and it will wind
up in the worship of the beast. "And all that dwell upon the earth shall
worship him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life,"
Rev. 13:8. "Come hither and I will show thee the judgment of the great
whore that sitteth upon many waters," Rev. 17:1. "The waters which
thou sawest where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations
and tongues," Rev. 17:15. (Or in other words a universal affair). Here
will be the ultimate outcome of Mr. Oxnam's religious federation plan. It will
end in beast worship, and finally in judgment. Mr. Kempin's universal
brotherhood idea is lending aid and encouragement to these Antichrist
movements. I tell you brother, these Non-millennialists and Postmillennialists
are not your friends. You had better get right and line up with the
Pre-millennialists who are warning about these ungodly movements and the
coming apostasy.
WORLD UNION PLAN BOOMED IN CLEVELAND
"A campaign for the union of the world
under one government is booming in this city with an energy almost atomic. Two
hundred thousand citizens have signed pledges to help bring about this union.
Many say that half a million will eventually sign—a large majority of the adult
population. The movement called the Workers for World Security, is sponsored by
an amazing variety of most prominent citizens — (Blind fools. G. E. J.) —Republicans and
Democrats, Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant church leaders, heads of CIO, AFL,
and the railroad brotherhoods, educators, businessmen and industrialists, men
and women in all of Cleveland's social strata."
Here is some more of Mr. Kempin's universal
brotherhood idea. Where will it end? Will it end in a universal government?
It will, and God has foretold us that it will be the kingdom of the beast in
the last days of this age. Take notice to this. "The dragon (Devil) gave
him (the beast) his power, and his seat, and great authority," Rev. 13:2.
"And power was given him (the beast) over all kindreds, and tongues and nations,"
Rev. 13:7. Here is the one world-wide government these poor, blind, deluded
folk are planning and seeking. The beast will be the ruler over it. "The
wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the
word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?" Jer. 8:9. They have
listened to the wisdom and prattle of the world's wise men, Non-millennialists
and Post-millennialists. They have rejected the warnings of the
Pre-millennialist and the prophecies of God's Word which foretells these
things. They go on prating about their plans and federations and such ungodly
ideas of a universal brotherhood, and they are being caught in the Devil's
trap like flies in fly paper. All who fight what Pre-millennialists preach are
just helping to keep these poor dupes in the dark as to what is coming. They
need to hear the warning, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins
have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities," Rev.
18:4-5.
This article goes on to say, "They want a
world government of some kind because they are convinced that it is the only
way to avoid an atomic war." Verily the Scripture is right that tells us
that the wisdom of this world comes to nought, 1 Cor. 2:6. It is the wisdom of
the world that has led men into their present predicament. Now, it proposes to
have them jump out of the frying pan into the fire. It has brought them to the
verge of physical destruction, and, to escape the consequences, it is now going
to lead them into the eternal damnation of their souls. "If any man
worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in
his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured
out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented
with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb: and
the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no
rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image," Rev. 14:9-11.
So, in seeking to escape from the consequences of the folly of following the
wisdom of this world, which wisdom has brought them to the verge of physical
destruction, they are now going to follow the wisdom of this world into the
folds of the beast and bring upon themselves eternal damnation and torment,
without any hope of repentance. They had better fear God, rather than the
atomic bomb. "Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and that stay on
horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because
they are very strong; but they look not to the Holy One of Israel, neither seek
the Lord:—Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and
not spirit," Isa. 31:1-3. "For the Lord spake thus to me with a
strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this
people, saying, Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people
shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify
the Lord of hosts himself, and let him be your fear," Isa. 8:11-13.
Pre-millennialists are not talking of a universal brotherhood, nor or they
advocating confederacies, nor church unions, universal churches, or a world
government. They know these things are coming, and that they are the work of
the Devil, and leading onto the coming of the Antichrist, and they propose to
play hands off and warn the people about what they are getting into. They are
not going into any such ungodly universal movements for fear of the atomic
bomb. We have our faith fixed in our God and His Word, and we know He will come
and He will deliver. We look not to men, or the princes of men, in whom there
is no help. Our God tells us to
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no
help," Psalm 146:3. Our trust is in our Lord, His Word and the hope of His
coming. We have no confidence in world movements, nor of the self-made
religious movements of man. We know where they are headed, and what will be the
outcome. Pre-millennialists have been denounced as pessimists, and prophets of
gloom, because they dared to oppose the wisdom of men and big self-made
religious programs, and tell the people of the terrible days that would come
on this world in the end. Judging from that Cleveland movement to bring about a
world government to escape the destruction that is threatening from the atomic
bomb, it seems like someone else besides the Pre-Millennialists are seeing the
handwriting on the wall. But their wise men, like the wise men of Belshazzer,
do not know what it is all about, or what it means. But Pre-millennialists are
not alarmed. Christ has told us that the time would come when men's hearts
would fail them for fear of what is coming to pass on the earth, Luke 21:26.
But we are not alarmed, for our Lord told us that when we see these things
beginning to come to pass, "Then look up, and lift up your heads; for your
redemption draweth nigh," Luke 21:28. We are not looking to universal
brotherhoods, a universal church, or a universal government, nor to this
world's wise men, its religious, or political leaders. We are looking up. We
are lifting up our heads. We are not dismayed. Things, in this old world, are
working out as our Lord has told us and we have expected and preached. Our
faith in His Word is being justified. Our hopes are being made stronger. Our
courage is being renewed. We are looking and waiting for the call of our Lord
and Saviour; His promise is true and we are not doubting. Amid all the fear,
turmoil and shattered hope of this world we can hear the rustle of the wings of
the Sun of Righteousness. Amid the inky darkness and gloom of this age and the
despair of men we have a more sure word of prophecy that shines out as a day
star pointing us to the coming of better things, when our Lord and Saviour
shall come.
"It
may be at morn, when the day is awaking,
When
sunlight thro' darkness and shadow is breaking,
That
Jesus will come in the fulness of glory,
To
receive from the world His own.
"Oh
joy! Oh, delight! should we go without dying,
No
sickness, no sadness, no dread and no crying,
Caught
up thro' the clouds with our Lord into glory,
When
Jesus receives His own."
Brother, does your heart thrill at the thought? Do
you feel like lifting your voice and shouting His praises? Get on the doctrine
that will set your soul afire with glorious hope and expectancy. The lines are
being drawn. Which side do you want to be found on when Jesus comes? Be sure
you are not found in the company about whom Jesus spoke in His parable, who
said, "We will not have this man to reign over us." This nobleman is
coming back to this earth to reign. "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be
instructed ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with
trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his
wrath is kindled but a little," Psalm 2:10-12.
In closing my remarks on Mr. Kempin's seventh objection
I want to notice one other thing he said. "They may reign with Christ
right now over sin, the flesh and the Devil." p. 16. I would remind Mr.
Kempin that wherever the apostles speak about our reigning with Christ they put
it in the future. "If we suffer, we shall (future) also reign with him,"
II Tim. 2:12. I say to Mr. Kempin, in the words of Paul, who was rebuking the
Corinthians, "Have you ascended your thrones without us to join you? Yes,
could wish that you had ascended your thrones, that we too might join you on
them," 1 Cor. 4:8. Williams' translation. In Rev. 2:26-27, the overcomer
is promised that he shall (future) rule the nations with a rod of iron. Mr.
Kempin and Non-millennialists put the reigning now. God's Word puts it in the
future. Now is the time of suffering. Paul did not consider that he was
reigning when he was suffering. He did not consider himself to be reigning
then. But he could wish that the Corinthians were reigning, that he and Apollos
might also reign with them. Paul considered the reign to be future. So do
Pre-millennialists.
EIGHTH OBJECTION: IT DISCOURAGES PRESENT VICTORY IN
SALVATION WORK.
Under this objection, which he calls a reason,
Mr. Kempin says, "This false doctrine is based upon the worst kind of
pessimism. It discourages revival work by saying it is impossible to have real
Holy Ghost revivals because we are drawing toward the close of this age."
p. 18.
I flatly deny this charge. Practically all the
great revivalists have been Pre-millennialists, Spurgeon, Moody, Ham,
Broughten, Sunday, Fuller, Springer, and a number of other men famous for their
evangelistic work were, or are all Pre-millennialists. Some of these men are
dead, but they were Pre-millennialists.
Now, I am going to turn one of Mr. Kempin's own
Non-millennialists against him. I also received a pamphlet from the so-called
Bible Truth Depot, which is a speech made by Albertus Pieters before the
Ministerial Association of the Christian Reformed Church at Grand Rapids,
Mich., June 1st, 1938. In this speech, Mr. Pieters was denouncing the Scofield
Bible. Now, I do not agree with everything in the Scofield Bible, and this is
not a defense of that work particularly. But anyone who has studied that Bible
knows that Dr. Scofield was a strong Pre-millennialist, and all who like his
edition of the Bible are Pre-millennialists. Though Mr. Pieters was denouncing
this Bible and opposing the thousand years reign, and Scofield's position on
that, yet he certainly paid a high compliment to those who use the Scofield
Bible. Here is what he said about them—
"All this constitutes a situation to which
we as pastors and Bible teachers need to pay attention, and to do so we must be
thoroughly acquainted with the Scofield Bible. The importance of the problem is
accentuated by the fact that those who use this work (Scofield's Pre-millennial
work) are, in other respects, among the best Christians in our churches, those
with the deepest faith in the Holy Scriptures and with the most sincere
devotion to the Lord. They need to be very carefully and sympathetically dealt
with. These good people do not lack faith and zeal, but they sadly lack
knowledge." (In his opinion they lack knowledge.)
Here is a Non-millennialist who says the people
who study Scofield's Bible (and they are Pre-millennialists) are among the best
Christians in the churches; people with the deepest faith in the Scriptures;
people with the most sincere devotion to their Lord, and not lacking in faith
and zeal. Yet, Mr. Kempin says, such people discourage revival work. Here is a
strange thing. People who are among the best Christians, with the deepest faith
in the Scriptures; with the most sincere devotion to their Lord, full of faith
and zeal, yet discouraging revival work. I have always thought that such things
produced revivals. This is the first time I ever knew that cold, insincere,
church members, with little or no faith, and lacking in zeal were the ones who
bring about the revivals. Mr. Pieters and Mr. Kempin had better get together
and make their arguments harmonize before they set out to clean up the Pre-millennialists.
They gore each other to death. Like the enemies of Israel who were stampeded by
Gideon's three hundred, "Every man's sword was against his fellow."
Both books were put out by the same company. These men do not agree with each
other. After paying such a high compliment to those who use the Scofield Bible,
Mr. Pieters said, it was one of the most dangerous books on the market. Yet he
said it produced the best Christians, with the strongest faith in the
Scriptures, and with the most sincere devotion to their Lord and with plenty of
faith and zeal. Jesus said an evil tree could not bring forth good fruit. But,
according to Mr. Pieters, a millennial hater, we have one of the most
dangerous books on the market producing the best fruit in their churches, he
being witness against himself. These statements will not harmonize with each
other.
Under his eighth reason or objection, Mr. Kempin
says, "This doctrine rests upon the assumption that the world is getting
worse and worse and that righteousness is getting weaker and weaker—that when
Jesus comes He will find very few who are saved." p. 18.
Well, if the millennial doctrine rests upon the
idea that the world is getting worse and worse than it certainly rests upon
Bible truth, not an assumption as he calls it. Jesus said, "As it was in
the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man," Luke
17:26. How was it in Noah's day? "God saw that the wickedness of man was
great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually," Gen. 6:5. "The earth also was corrupt before
God, and the earth was filled with violence," Gen. 6:11. Is it not filled
with violence today? With the atomic bomb and other deadly weapons of
destruction, is it not filled with violence? Are not men wicked today as they
were in Noah's time? Jesus said, of the time of the end, "Because iniquity
shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold," Matt. 24:12. Paul said in
the last times men would be lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God: having
a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof," II Tim. 3:1-5. He
also said, "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving
and being deceived," II Tim. 3:13. In speaking about His second coming,
Jesus asked, "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the
earth?" Luke 18:8. These and many other Scriptures abundantly prove that
the world is waxing worse and worse. Mr. Kempin says our doctrine rests upon
this idea, which he calls an assumption. Then it certainly stands on a
Scriptural foundation, he being the witness.
Just what part of the Bible does Mr. Kempin
believe anyway? Just where is his Scripture to prove the world will not grow
worse? It is not in the Bible. It is his doctrine that is built upon
assumption. In the face of all these Scriptures which teach that the world
will grow worse and worse he denies it. "Woe unto them that call evil
good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that
put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isa. 5:20. Here is Mr.
Kempin's picture. The Bible teaches that the world will get worse and worse and
that iniquity and violence will abound. And we have it today. Mr. Kempin calls
this evil good, and he calls those who preach exactly what the Bible teaches
evil men and heretics. Hence, he puts light for darkness and darkness for
light.
NINTH OBJECTION: CHILIASM (MILLENNIALISM) TURNS THE STREAM
OF SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT BACKWARDS.
He says, Pre-millennial doctrine rests upon a
misconception of Isa. 11:11. He says the 11th chapter of Isaiah is a glowing
description of the gospel dispensation. He says, "A great transformation
was to be wrought in the lives of people who are symbolized by the wolf, a
lamb, leopard, kid, cow, bear, lion, and ox. Through the righteousness of
Christ, the fierce, the merciless, the vain, the devourer would be so changed
that only love would prompt their actions, and love would help otherwise
incompatible people to dwell together in holy, tranquil concord. This does not
apply to some future age in which the animals shall have their nature
changed;—the animals as such will always be just what God made them to
be."
Here Mr. Kempin has the wolf, the lamb, the kid,
the leopard, cow, bear, lion and ox representing men. And he has the lamb
transformed as well as the wolf. If the lamb is used to represent men, it can
only represent meek, peaceful, harmless men. But Mr. Kempin has the lamb as
well as the wolf transformed. So the gospel is to make good men out of evil
men, and evil men out of good men. The good as well as the evil are to be
transformed. The gospel is to make children of the Devil out of the children of
God, and children of God out of the children of the Devil. This is a new
version of the gospel, transforming and changing the good as well as the evil.
Mr. Kempin said, "The animals as such will
always be just what God made them to be." Doesn't he know one single
thing about the Bible? Does he think God made the ferocious beasts as they are
now? He did not. He made them without this fierce disposition. They did not eat
flesh when God first made them, but the herbs, "To every beast of the
earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the
earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it
was so," Gen. 1:30. God did not make the animals to eat flesh. This came
about as the result of the fall and the curse upon Adam's dominion. Now, since
Jesus was manifested to destroy the work of the Devil, then He must come and reverse
this work of the Devil, and cause fierce animals to eat grass again as they did
before the Devil brought about the fall. "The Son of God was manifested,
that he might destroy the work of the devil," 1 John 3:8. It was the work
of the Devil to bring the curse and cause the wolf, the lion and leopard to eat
the flesh of other animals. It is part of the work of Christ to reverse this,
and the lion will once again eat straw like the ox. How far Mr. Kempin missed
this! It looks like he could get something right.
Mr. Kempin says the second thing to remember
about Isa. 11:11 is that the burden of the prophet in particular concerns the
welfare and salvation of the Gentiles. This can be seen from the fact that the
prophetic declaration of the passage takes in even the isles of the sea. Let us
read the passage, "And in that day there shall be a root out of Jesse,
which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek:
and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass IN THAT DAY, that the
Lord shall set his hand the second time to recover the remnant of his people,
which shall be left from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from
Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of
the sea," verses 10, 11. The reference to the islands of the sea has to do
with the re-gathering of Israel from these places. Please notice the reference
to the ensign to which the Gentiles shall seek. Does Mr. Kempin know what an
ensign is? It is a national flag. Here is a reference to the national flag of
Israel in that day. The Gentiles will come to Jerusalem in that time seeking
the Lord and the blessings of His kingdom. "Many people and strong
nations shall come to seek the Lord of hosts in JERUSALEM, and to pray before the
Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that
ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take
hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we
have heard that the Lord is with you," Zech. 8:22, 23. Here we have a
prophecy of the Gentile nations coming up to Jerusalem to seek Him and worship
Him in the millennial age.
Under this connection Mr. Kempin makes a feeble attempt
to apply Acts 15:16, 17 to the gospel age. He certainly missed that passage.
We shall read it. "Simeon hath
declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a
people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will RETURN (second coming), and will build again the tabernacle
of David, which is fallen down: and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I
will set it up: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the
Gentiles, upon whom my name is called," Acts 15:14-17. We shall outline
this passage.
1.
God is to take out of the Gentiles a people for His name.
2.
This work commenced with the conversion of Cornelius, about whom
Peter had just spoken, verses 7-9.
3.
After the work of taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name
the Lord will return. "After this I will RETURN." After what? After
the work of taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name the Lord will
return.
4.
When He returns He will build again the tabernacle of David, which
is fallen down.
5.
The Heavenly Father's throne where Christ now sits has never been
fallen nor has it ever been overthrown, nor in ruins.
6.
But David's throne, which was promised to Christ, is a throne that
has been fallen and in ruins. It is now in ruins. It needs to be built again.
The throne of God, the Father in heaven, has never needed to be built again.
7.
After Christ has returned and built again the tabernacle of David
then the Gentiles, upon whom the Lord's name is called (already saved), will
come to Jerusalem to seek the Lord and worship Him. That is shown in Zech.
8:22, 23, which was quoted above.
8.
Now I shall show that neither the tabernacle of David, nor
anything else which is to be restored, has yet been restored, or will be until
Christ returns.
9.
"And he shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached
unto you: whom the heavens must receive UNTIL the times of the restitution of
ALL things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets,"
Acts 3:20, 21. Notice this three letter word ALL. It stares these
Non-millennialists in the face. Peter, in preaching to the Jews after our
Lord's resurrection and ascension, called upon them to repent, and he promised
them that God would send back this Jesus Christ (the man they had crucified)
whom the heavens must receive UNTIL (See this word UNTIL) the times of the
restitution of ALL things, (Not part of the things, or the rest of the things,
but ALL things) which the prophets had foretold. This puts the restoration of the
throne, the house of Israel, and ALL things God promised to restore off, UNTIL
Jesus comes back.
TENTH OBJECTION: THE MILLENNIAL MUTILATES THE WORD OF GOD.
On the other hand it is Mr. Kempin who mutilates
the Word of God. With him the Bible never says what it means and never means
what it says. It tells us that the world will grow worse and worse and wind up
as in the days of Noah, but it does not mean that, but that it will get better
and better and finally a time of peace will come. Mt. Olives does not mean Mt.
Olives, and the earth does not mean the earth, but heaven. David does not mean
David but God. David's throne, which was promised to Christ, does not mean
David's throne, but the throne of the Heavenly Father of Christ. It was the
Heavenly Father's throne which was fallen and which Jesus built again. Canaan
does not mean Canaan. Talk about mutilating the Word of God. Mr. Kempin,
"Thou art the man." He has a saw log in his eye and is trying to pick
the mote out of our eyes. The Bible plainly tells us that the dragon is the
Devil. But we shall find that Mr. Kempin tells us that this is not so, but it
is pagan Rome. He denies the Word of God and misapplies it at every turn. Talk
about the millennialists mutilating the Word of God, Mr. Kempin is champion in
that line. He is like the man who had limburger cheese in his mustache and
smelled himself and thought the whole town was rotten. Mr. Kempin, examine
your own mustache and you will find where the fault lies.
Mr. Kempin mentions such chapters as Isaiah 11;
35; 60; 65; Ezek. 37-40; Dan. 2:7, and 9 and applies them to the first advent
of our Lord. If space permitted it could be shown that all of these apply to
our Lord's second coming. Israel and Judah, represented by the two sticks in
Ezek. 37 are to be made one nation again and dwell in the land that God gave to
His servant Jacob, verses 21-25. That land is the land Jacob was sleeping on
when he dreamed about the angel ladder. God told him that He would give to him
and his seed the land on which he was lying, Gen. 28:13. Ezekiel tells us of
both Israel and Judah being made to dwell in that land for ever. If I owned a
vast tract of land in Conway County, Arkansas, and Mr. Kempin was standing on a
certain forty acres of that land and I should tell him that I would give him
the forty on which he was standing he would not misunderstand. He would not
think I was promising him some land in Ohio, or Texas, or California, or a
forty acre farm on Mars, or a turnip patch in the moon. He would take me for
just what I said and expect me to give him the exact forty on which he was
standing. God said to Jacob, "The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I
give it, and to thy seed," Gen. 28:13. God meant that very land on which
Jacob was then sleeping, Canaan land. God said through Ezekiel, "And they
shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob my servant, WHEREIN your
fathers have dwelt: and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their
children, and their children's children for ever," Ezek. 37:25. Now, just
why does God not mean what He says? This was not fulfilled when Christ was here
the first time. Mr. Kempin is just as bad wrong on all the other passages.
ELEVENTH OBJECTION: THE DOCTRINE OF THE MILLENNIUM
MISAPPLIES THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION
Under this heading, Mr. Kempin says, "The
finger of Christian scholarship through the age has pointed to the destruction
of Jerusalem and the Jewish state at the fulfillment of the passages in
Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. History points to A. D. 70 for the great
tribulation, which millennial teachers refuse to accept, pointing all the while
to the future for such a tribulation. A little independent research in some
library will convince any reasonable, unbiased heart of the truth of this
position. Let the reader consult such authors as Josephus, Adam Clarke, Matthew
Henry, and Philip Mauro for a safe and sane interpretation of the portions of
the Scripture cited.
"If the reader will turn in his Bible to
the following, passages he will find what Jesus said about the great tribulation:
Matt. 24:21-22; Mark 13:19-20; and Luke 21:20-24. Also Daniel's picture of this
awful event in Dan. 12:1." End of quotation.
Mr. Kempin failed to give us all in Matthew that
Jesus said about the great tribulation. He stopped at the 22nd verse. Jesus
goes on to the 31st verse talking about the great tribulation. But to bring in
those verses would have ruined Mr. Kempin's proposition. Let me tell Mr. Kempin
and all his scholars that we have a higher authority than all his scholars,
which he is pleased to call the finger of Christian scholarship. Our authority
is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He said He would return to earth IMMEDIATELY
after the tribulation of those days. Let us read it all:
"For then shall be great tribulation, such
as was not since the beginning of the world to this same time, no, nor never
shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be
saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Then if any man
say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. (Talking about His
second coming) For there shall arise false prophets, and shall show great signs
and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible they should deceive the very
elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you,
Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret
chambers; believe it not, For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and
shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Can't we see that Jesus is discussing His second coming, not the destruction
of the temple in A. D. 70)? For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the
eagles be gathered together. (Read on.) 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 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 of man coming in the
clouds with power and great glory," Matt. 24:22-31. What did Jesus tell us
would happen IMMEDIATELY after the tribulation of those days? Here is what He
said would happen:
1.
The sun would be darkened and the moon would not give her light.
2.
The stars would fall from heaven.
3.
The powers of heaven would be shaken.
4.
All the tribes of the earth would mourn.
5.
The sign of the Son of man would appear in heaven.
6.
The tribes of the earth would see Jesus coming in the clouds, with
power and great glory.
This is in keeping with Rev. 1:7, "Behold,
he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced
him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him."
I ask the question did all this happen
immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70? Were the powers of
heaven shaken? Did the tribes of earth see Jesus coming back immediately after
the destruction of Jerusalem? Did all the tribes of earth mourn because of Him
in A. D. 70? So Jesus Christ, the greatest of all authorities, said He would
return immediately after the tribulation of those days. Mr. Kempin rejected
what Jesus said about it and took what some men, whom he is pleased to call the
finger of Christian scholarship, have said. "If we receive the witness of
men, the witness of God is greater," 1 John 5:9. It does not take a
scholar to know that Jesus said He would return immediately after the
tribulation. The trouble with all heresy is that it bases its ideas on the
wisdom of men, rather than on the statements of God. The Devil has used the
weapon of scholarship ever since the temptation of Eve to browbeat people into
accepting his lies and false teaching. He told Eve the tree was good to make
one WISE. The evolutionists use the same club. They prate that all scholarship
agrees in the theory of evolution. Here is Mr. Kempin using the same weapon of
the Devil and is too ignorant to know it. The whole thing smacks of Roman
Catholicism, which teaches that the common people do not know enough to
interpret the Bible for themselves, and that they must accept the handed down
interpretations of the educated priests. So Mr. Kempin demands that we give up
reading the Bible for ourselves, and accept what a few scholars have said,
instead of reading for ourselves and taking what Jesus said about it. Jesus
said the Father had hidden things from the wise and prudent and revealed them
unto babes, Luke 10:21. "How do they say, we are wise, and the law of the
Lord is with us? lo, certainly in vain he made it; the pen of the scribe is in
vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have
rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?" Jer. 8:9. So
much for Mr. Kempin's appeal to the finger of Christian scholarship. Many of
the so-called Christian scholars are rank modernists. Many of them deny the
virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and every other great truth.
Mr. Kempin's boast is his shame. Jude told us about certain false teachers who
would come in the last days, "Having men's persons in admiration because
of advantage," Jude 16. Mr. Kempin is one of them. The common country
preacher with a knowledge of the Word of God can whip the ground out from under
a lot of these so-called big fellows any time. God did not use a giant to
bring down the boasting Goliath. He used a little shepherd boy. It is the same
way in the teaching of His truth. "God hath chosen the foolish things of
the world to confound the wise," I Cor. 1:27.
TWELFTH OBJECTION: IT INVENTS A FANCIFUL RAPTURE.
Under this, Mr. Kempin says, "According to
this supposed secret coming of Christ to snatch away His bride (the church),
the world will be unaware of the fact that Christ has come—They wax eloquent in
describing how saved loved ones will suddenly be snatched away to leave
business, school, social and family life paralyzed."
I have already shown that there will be two
manifestations of our Lord at His second advent, even as there were two at His
first advent. I will now prove that the saved will suddenly be snatched away to
leave others behind. Jesus Himself said, "I tell you, in that night there
shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be
left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the
other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the
other left," Luke 17:34-36. Here we have some caught away and others left
behind. I ask this question: "Will the sleeping man who is left behind
know anything about the matter until he awakes and finds the other
missing?" Here is another Scripture along this same line: "Thy dead
shall live, their bodies will rise, those who dwell in the dust will awake, and
will sing for joy; for thy dew is a dew of light. And the earth will bring the
Shades to birth. Go my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors
behind you; hide your selves for a little while, till the time of wrath go by.
For see! the Lord is coming out of his place, to punish the inhabitants of the
world for their guilt; and the earth will uncover her blood, and will no more
conceal her slain," Isa. 26:19-21. (Smith
and Goodspeed's Translation)
Here we see the dead in Christ rising from their
graves, and the living saints called to go into a place of hiding at the same
time. This hiding is to be just for a little while. It is to be until the wrath
of God goes by. The Lord is said to be coming out of His place to punish the
inhabitants for their guilt. But here is another.
"Because you have kept my message with
patient endurance that I gave you, I also will keep you from the time of
testing that is about to come upon the whole world, to test the inhabitants of
the earth. I am coming soon," Rev. 3:10, 11. (Williams' translation.)
A man that has eyes to see surely can see from
these verses that the Lord's people of this age are to be caught away from this
earth before the great day of testing comes on the earth.
THIRTEENTH OBJECTION: THE MILLENNIAL DOCTRINE BREAKS THE
CONTINUITY OF DANIEL'S SEVENTY WEEKS.
Under this objection, Mr. Kempin says,
"Every impartial scholar construes and interprets these seventy weeks as
seventy consecutive weeks. Millennial teachers, however, in order to make room
for the rapture and the supposed tribulation, say the first sixty-nine weeks
are consecutive, but the seventieth is detached from the sixty-nine and held
off until the millennium is set up. . . . This is like telling a man who sets
out on a journey of seventy miles that he will find the first sixty-nine
consecutive miles, but after the sixty-ninth mile he will find a sign telling
him that the seventieth, or last mile, is two thousand miles away. These
seventy weeks are to be interpreted as seventy weeks which take up from the
command to rebuild Jerusalem to the destruction of the Jewish State."
Page 31.
In answering this I will first say that Mr.
Kempin does not even know the Pre-millennialists position on this. Before he
sets out to refute something he had better learn what he is trying to refute.
The Pre-millennialists do not put off the last week to the millennium, but to
the tribulation which comes before the millennium. I have already shown that
we are right on the place of the tribulation. It will take place just before
our Lord comes back to the earth to manifest Himself to all the tribes and
peoples of the earth. (This must not be confused with our Lord's descent into
the air to manifest Himself to the saints of this age.) Now, Mr. Kempin's illustration,
which he thinks is unanswerable, does not fit the idea. There is a difference
in time and space. The seventy weeks have to do with time, not, with mileage.
The prophecy has to do with Israel and their temple and trouble. Let me give an
illustration. I was born in Morrilton, Arkansas, fifty-eight years ago. I have
spent fourteen and a half of those years in Morrilton, but those fourteen and a
half years have not been consecutive. They have been in three periods. My
parents moved away when I was a year and a half old. I returned here when I was
forty-one to spend nine more years. Then I moved to Missouri to stay over four
years. Then I returned again to spend four more until this date. Now, if I was
writing about my life's experience with reference to Morrilton those fourteen
and a half years spent here would not run consecutively. There would be places
where the time would stop, to be taken up again when I returned to Morrilton.
Mr. Kempin says those 70 weeks, or weeks of
years, take us to the destruction of the Jewish state. Daniel divides these
weeks into three periods, seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks, and one week. After
the second period, or the sixty-two weeks Messiah was to be cut off. "And
after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for
himself." This leaves one week of years, or seven years to come after the
cutting off of Christ. Christ was crucified in A.D. 33. If the seventy weeks
are to be taken consecutively then they would have ended in A.D. 40, or thirty
years before Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus. Mr. Kempin will have to do some
stretching to get 37 years out of 7 years. Mathematics proves that He is wrong
in saying they went to the destruction of Jerusalem, and were consecutive.
Seven years is not thirty-seven years.
There can be but one answer. After the
crucifixion of Christ the nation of Israel was cut off until the fullness of
the Gentiles is come in. "I would not, brethren, that ye should be
ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits that blindness
in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come
in," Rom. 11:25.. Jesus foretold that the kingdom should be taken from
them and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. When the fullness
of the Gentiles is come in, then the blindness will pass away from Israel, for
it is only to last until that time, the saints of today will be caught away and
God will go to dealing with Israel again.
Israel is represented as a wife who has been put
away by her husband, to be reconciled to him later. "Fear not; for thou
shalt not be ashamed; neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to
shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the
reproach of thy WIDOWHOOD any more. For thy maker is thine husband; the Lord
of hosts is his name," Isa. 54:4, 5. If a man married a woman and lived
with her ten years and was separated from her ten years and then they were
reconciled and lived together five more years, they would have had fifteen years
of married life together, but those fifteen years would not have been
consecutive years. Now, let Mr. Kempin tackle this illustration and I get it
from the Scriptural relationship between God and Israel, as set forth by Isaiah
and other writers.
FOURTEENTH OBJECTION: IT CONTRADICTS PAUL'S. VERDICT THAT
FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
That expression made by Paul was made in
connection with his great discourse on the resurrection. Mr. Kempin has all
along had us reigning with Christ now, when we are in our natural bodies. On
page 34 he says, "If we are going to reign with Christ we ought to do it
now." Mr. Kempin's objection cuts off his own head. It shows that we
cannot enter into our inheritance of the kingdom and reign until we are in our
resurrected glorified bodies. Mr. Kempin's objection flies back and hits him in
the face again. It is another boomerang. It proves that we can only enter into
our inheritance and reign after we have been resurrected and glorified. That
puts it after the second coming of Christ. Mr. Kempin did not see that one.
But here is his difficulty. He says millennial
teachers teach that life will go on much the same as now in the millennial
age. They will ride trolley cars, sit under fig trees, and raise vineyards.
Well, the Bible certainly teaches that they will sit under their fig trees and
will raise vineyards. After Micah tells about the nations beating their swords
into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, then he goes on to say,
"But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and
none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,"
Micah 4:3, 4. They shall not be made afraid because wars have ceased.
Mr. Kempin's difficulty lies in the fact that he
does not know the difference between the heirs of the kingdom and the subjects
of the kingdom. Those who are being saved today are the heirs to the kingdom,
but we have not yet entered into our promised inheritance. A child is an heir
to his share of his father's estate when he is born, but he may not enter into
his inheritance for many years. So we are made heirs by the new birth. But
before we can enter into our inheritance of the kingdom and reign we must be
resurrected and glorified, because flesh and blood shall not inherit the
kingdom of God. But the people who will be living their natural lives in the
1000 years reign will not be those who inherit the kingdom. They will be the
subjects of the kingdom. Does not Mr. Kempin know the difference in an heir to
a throne and the subjects of a king? The people at large are the subjects of
the king of England. But they are not heirs of the kingdom, nor will they
inherit the kingdom. His heirs are those of his immediate family. Today the
Lord is gathering to Himself a ruling class. Those saved today are heirs with
Christ. But as long as we are in our natural bodies we cannot inherit the kingdom
of God, or enter into our inheritance, because Paul says, "Flesh and blood
doth not inherit the kingdom of God." After we are resurrected and have
our glorified bodies we will inherit the kingdom of God and reign over the
natural people of the millennial age. We are the heirs. They will be the
subjects of the kingdom. So Mr. Kempin's proof text proves the Pre-millennial position,
not his. He ought to use his head for something beside a hat rack.
FIFTEENTH OBJECTION: THE MILLENNIAL DOCTRINE IGNORES THE
KINGDOM OF GOD AS A PRESENT REALITY.
I have already shown that there are three stages
to the kingdom, the blade, the ear, and the full corn in the ear, Mark 4:26-28.
We do recognize the present, or blade stage, but we do not ignore the
millennial stage as he does. The kingdom exists today in the person of the
King, Christ, and the ruling class He is now calling out. But that over which
we are to reign is yet future, for flesh and blood doth not inherit the kingdom
of God. We must first be resurrected. This is just more proof that the first
resurrection in Rev. 20:5, 6 is the resurrection of the bodies of the saints.
Under this objection, Mr. Kempin says, "If
we are to reign with Christ we ought to do it now." P. 34. This doctrine came from the Roman Catholic
Church. On page 4487 of The World Book Encyclopedia I read the following:
"Saint Augustine, the great Catholic theologian of the 5th century, was
the first to teach the present belief of the Roman Catholic Church, that the
church is the kingdom of Christ, and that the millennium began with His first
advent."
Here is the source of Mr. Kempin's false
doctrine and his opposition to what the Pre-millennialists teach. He is holding
on to the false teaching of the harlot. The Bible puts our reign in the future.
"If we suffer, we shall (future) also reign with him," II Tim. 2:12.
The false doctrine that we are now reigning came through Roman Catholicism. The
first one to teach it was Augustine, a Catholic theologian. We shall have more
of this anon. A lot of people have more Romanism hanging on to them than they
think. Even some Baptists have been infected with the leaven of this scarlet
woman.
SIXTEENTH OBJECTION: THE MILLENNIAL DOCTRINE WITH ITS MANY
COMINGS AND MANY JUDGMENTS RENDERS
INEFFECTIVE THE ACTUAL SECOND COMING AND THE JUDGMENT DAY.
I have already shown that there is to be two different
manifestations of Christ at His second advent. I have also shown two different
judgments. I will now show another. "True and righteous are his JUDGMENTS
(plural): for he hath judged the great whore," Rev. 19:2. Notice the word
judgment is in the plural form. Now, how will the judgment of the whore come?
"The ten horns (10 kings, verse 12) which thou sawest on the beast, these
shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her
flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his
will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of
God shall be fulfilled," Rev. 17:17.
The Bible teaches two separate manifestations of
our Lord at His coming and more than one judgment. So Mr. Kempin's objection is
not justified. Does he really know anything about the Bible? If this is all he
has learned from his finger of scholarship it has certainly left him in gross
ignorance of the Word of God. "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of
this world?" 1 Cor. 1:20.
SEVENTEENTH OBJECTION: MILLENNIAL TEACHERS INVENT ANOTHER
PHYSICAL RESURRECTION.
Under this objection, Mr. Kempin says,
"According to such teachers there are two physical resurrections yet future.
One resurrection will be for the righteous just before the millennium, and the
second resurrection, for the wicked, will be after the millennium. This is
exactly what the Bible says. We did not invent it. We just believe the Bible
record that puts it that way. We shall presently examine the Scriptures on this
point still further.
Mr. Kempin goes on to say, "The New
Testament is very plain on this matter. Let the reader read John 5:22-29 and II
Cor. 5:10 to see that only one general resurrection is in the future. Advocates
of such doctrine fail to see that the first resurrection is spiritual and the
second is literal. 'This is where all confusion originates.’"
In John 5:25, we read: "The hour is coming,
and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that
hear shall live." This has to do with the sinner being made alive from a
death in sin, but it is not called a resurrection. The verse above tells us
that the one that hears has eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation.
Jesus is here talking about our new birth, but He neither here, nor anywhere
else calls it a resurrection. The word "resurrection" is always
translated from the Greek word "anastasis" and means a standing up
again. I have shown that every time the word "resurrection" (Gr.
anastasis) is found in the Gospels and Epistles that the body is under
consideration. This is the same English and the same Greek word in Rev. 20:5.
6. Then why should it mean something different there? In John 5:28, 29, we
read: "Marvel not at this : for the hour is coming, in the which all that
are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have
done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto
the resurrection of damnation." Here are two resurrections of the body. One
is the resurrection of life; the other is the resurrection of damnation.
Non-millennialists have tried to make this mean
that both the saved and the unsaved would be raised in the same sixty minutes.
If so, then the hour mentioned in John 5:25, when the dead shall hear His voice
and live only covers 60 minutes of time. The hour in John 5:25 has already
covered almost two thousand years since our Lord spoke these words. People
heard His voice and lived when He was here in person. They heard it at Pentecost
and lived. They heard it in the apostles' days that followed that time and
lived. They are still hearing it and living. So that hour has already covered
thousands of years. Then why cannot the hour of John 5:28, 29 cover a thousand
years? Listen to Dr. Williams' translation. "The time is coming when all
that are in the graves will listen to His voice, and those who have done good
to the resurrection to life, but those who have done evil for the resurrection
of evil." I can say that if our Lord tarries long enough then the time is
coming when all of us shall die. Who would understand me to mean that we would
all die at the same time? No one would. Then why twist the words of Jesus to
mean that? When Jesus said the hour or time has come when the dead shall hear
the voice of God, and they that hear shall live, no one understands Him to
mean that everyone who is regenerated will be regenerated at the same time. My
time came when I heard and lived. My neighbor down the street heard and lived.
Another across town heard and lived. But we did not hear, and were not saved,
the same 60 minutes. Then why insist on giving such an understanding to John
5:28, 29? When Jesus said the hour is come when the dead shall hear His voice
and live He did not say how long it would be between the hour Jones believed
and Smith believed, and when Johnson believed, and Brown believed. But the hour
came to each of them when this happened, but not the same hour. Neither does
Jesus tell us here how long it would be between the hour when those would come
forth to the resurrection of life, and the hour they would come forth to the
resurrection of damnation, but we are told in Revelation about that period of
time.
Now, let us read what Jesus said to the
Sadducees in Luke 20:35, 36. "They which shall be accounted worthy to
obtain that world, and the resurrection from (Gr. Ek—out from among) the dead,
neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for
they are equal unto the angels: and are children of God, being the children of
the resurrection." Mr. Kempin will have to find another resurrection to
this one to get the unsaved out of the grave. Let us sum up what this passage
teaches:
1.
There is a resurrection from (or from among) the dead.
2.
Those who have part in it must be accounted worthy to obtain it.
3.
They do not die any more. In other words, "Over such the
second death hath no power," Rev. 20:6.
4.
They are the children of God.
5.
Here is the first resurrection, and it includes none but the
children of God, and it is a bodily resurrection.
Jesus said those who obtain this resurrection do
not die anymore. John says of those who have part in the first resurrection,
"On such the second death hath no power." So Jesus is here talking
about the same resurrection that John was in Rev. 20:4-6 which he calls the
first resurrection. Jesus says these people are children of God. John says the
people who are in the first resurrection are blessed and holy. John says such
shall (future) reign with Christ a thousand years. Paul promised a future reign
to those who suffer with Christ. "If we suffer, we shall (future) also
reign with him," II Tim. 2:12.
The verse which Mr. Kempin referred to in II
Cor. 5:10 is addressed to saints only. "We (the saved) must all appear before
the (Gr. Bema) judgment seat of Christ." The lost man goes to the
"Krisis" judgment, John 5:24.
Mr. Kempin quotes Col. 3:1 which he thinks
proves a spiritual resurrection. It is too bad I am going to have to tear down
his playhouse again. "If ye then were raised together with Christ, seek
the things that are above," Col. 3:1 (R. V.). In the first place the Greek
word "anastasis" from which our word resurrection comes is not found
here. It is found in Rev. 20:5, 6. In the second place Paul is not talking
about our regeneration here as Mr. Kempin and others think. Let us read it that
way and see what we have. "If then ye be regenerated together with Christ
seek those things which are above." Now, how would that sound? That would
teach that Christ also was regenerated, or born again. Mr. Kempin says this has
reference to those redeemed by faith. Let us read it like that. "If we
have been redeemed together with Christ by faith, seek those things which are
above." Many have grossly misunderstood this passage and the one in Eph.
2:6. They do not have reference to our new birth, but to our identification
with Christ, our federal head, in His own bodily resurrection. Now, let us read
it that way. "If ye then be risen together (bodily) with Christ, seek those
things which are above." Christ did have a bodily resurrection, but He
never had to experience regeneration, which Mr. Kempin makes the first
resurrection to be. And when Christ was raised bodily from the grave God
considered us to be raised bodily with Him our federal head. Talk about
mutilating the Scriptures, Mr. Kempin and his kind are those who mutilate them.
EIGHTEENTH OBJECTION: THE MILLENNIUM IS BASED UPON AN
ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER OF REVELATION.
We do not interpret it. We just believe the
interpretation that John the Revelator gives. I have shown that John used the
past tense in Rev. 20:4 when talking about the vision and the thousand years.
But in the interpretation which he gave in verses 5, 6 he changed to the future
tense. Mr. Kempin is the one who set out to give us his own interpretation
instead of accepting the one John gave.
Just what a good interpreter Mr. Kempin is may
be seen by what he has to say about the dragon. He said, "It was the
dragon who was being bound and not the Devil himself." What does God's
Word say? "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, WHICH IS THE
DEVIL, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," Rev. 20:3. God's Word
says the dragon is the Devil. Mr. Kempin says, "This dragon-power
represented pagan Rome, which persecuted the woman, or the church of God, page
39. He is wrong in both places. The dragon is not pagan Rome, nor is the woman
the church. Was there any Devil in existence before pagan Rome arose? Has there
been any Devil since the days of pagan Rome?
That the woman is not the church is seen from
the followings things John said about her:
1.
First she is said to be with child. The church is to be presented
to Christ as a chaste virgin, II Cor. 11:2. The marriage of Christ and the
church is yet future, Matt. 25:10-13. A woman with child is not a virgin.
2.
The sun, moon, and twelve stars are connected with the woman. In
Gen. 37:9, 10 we find that the sun, moon, and stars are connected with Israel,
his sons, and their trouble in Egypt.
3.
The woman brought forth the man-child, Rev. 12:5; 19:15, 16.
Israel, not the church, brought Christ into the world.
4.
John speaks of the remnant of the woman's seed, Rev. 12:17. This
points directly to Israel. "Though the children of Israel be as the sands
of the sea, a REMNANT
shall be saved," Rom. 9:27. The word "remnant" in Rev. 12:17
points to the woman as Israel. The prophecy concerns her trouble in the
tribulation, Rev. 12:14-17.
Mr. Kempin's own remarks about the first
resurrection do not harmonize. On page 41, after quoting John 5:24, he says
this life in Christ is called symbolically the first resurrection. How does
this verse read? "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent
me, hath everlasting life." If that is the first resurrection, then it
follows that everyone that believes in Christ shall reign with Him a thousand
years, because John said that those who had part in the first resurrection
should reign with Christ a thousand years. "Blessed and holy is he that
hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power,
but they shall be priests of God and Christ, and shall reign with him a
thousand years," Rev. 20:6. How many shall reign a thousand years? John
said those who have part in the first resurrection. This means all, not part,
who have a part in the first resurrection. If all who believe in Christ are the
first resurrection, then all who believe in Christ shall reign a thousand
years, the last one who believes in Christ, the same as the first one. The one
who believes in Him one hour before He comes back, the same as he that believed
in Him when He was first here, if the eternal life in Christ is the first
resurrection. That gives everyone who, obtains eternal life in Christ (which
Mr. Kempin says is the first resurrection) the promise of reigning a thousand
years. But hear Mr. Kempin on page 40: "A careful reading of this passage
will show that the only ones eligible for this reign with Christ in this
instance were those who were beheaded; no others were included." Since all
who have part in the first resurrection shall reign with Christ, as Rev. 20:6
tells us, then no one but those who have their heads cut off are in the first
resurrection, which Mr. Kempin makes eternal life. Then no one ever has, or
ever will come into possession of eternal life, except the people who have
their heads cut off. Mr. Kempin had better be calling for someone to bring the
chopping ax and cut his head off before he dies a natural death. Mr. Kempin
never read anything carefully. He wholly ignored the first part of Rev. 20:4.
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto
them." This is a group of people distinct from the next ones mentioned who
have their heads cut off for refusing to worship the beast. Why do these
Non-millennial people want to skip the first part of Rev. 20:4? All of them,
both those in the first part of this verse, and the martyrs who are brought in
in the last part of the verse, live again and reign a thousand years.
Eternal life in Christ which the believer gets
when he believes is not the first resurrection, but such will be in the first
resurrection, for that resurrection is the bodily resurrection of the saved.
To teach that the first resurrection is regeneration is to teach universal
salvation. "The rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years
were finished." Here we have the dead divided into two parts. The first
part who live before the thousand years, and the rest who do not live again
until after the thousand years. Death must be understood in the same sense in
considering the first part of the dead who live before the 1000 years, and the
rest, or other part of the dead who live again after the thousand years. If the
first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection from a death in sins, then the
first part was dead in sins before their resurrection. So would the last part
be dead in sins before they are made to live again. But since they live again
after the thousand years, then all the rest of the people who were dead in sins
will be made alive from that death in sins. This would give us the salvation of
all men.
Paul tells us there is to be order in the
resurrection. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive, but everyone in his own order; Christ the firstfruits: afterward they
that are Christ's at his coming. Then (Gr. eita, meaning afterwards) cometh the
end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when
he, shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For (because) he
must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that
shall be destroyed is death," I Cor. 15:22-26.
We notice that Paul says there is order to the
resurrection. In seeking to have one general resurrection, all at the same
time, both saved and last, the Non-millennialists are destroying the order of
the resurrection. Paul said that. Christ was the firstfruits. Then, he said
afterward, "They that are Christ's at his coming." Why did Paul just
point out those who are Christ's as the ones who are to be raised at His
coming? Simply because that will be the first resurrection. The resurrection
of the wicked is nowhere connected with the second coming of Christ. In I
Thess. 4:13-17, Paul discusses the return of Christ and the resurrection of His
people. He says, "The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in
Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." Why did he
designate the dead in Christ as the dead who shall rise at this time? Simply
because the unsaved dead do not rise at this time.
Non-millennialists harp on the expression,
"Then cometh the end," and try to make it appear that this means the
end will come at that time. But the word "Then" has two meanings. It
sometimes means "At that time," but it also means "Next or
afterward" at other times. Now, which meaning does it carry in this place?
I am willing to stake this whole issue on the Greek and other translations as
to whether it means, "At that time," or "Next or
afterward." Dr. Goodspeed translates it, "After that will come the
end, when he will turn over the kingdom to God his Father, bringing to an end
all other government—for he must retain the kingdom until he put all his
enemies under his feet." Dr. Williams translates it, "After that
comes the end."
If the reader will turn to pages 972, 73 of Young's
Analytical Concordance, he will find that the Greek has two words for then. One
is "Eita" meaning "Afterwards." The other is
"Tote" meaning "At that time." The reference to this
passage (I Cor. 15:24) is found under the word "Eita," meaning
"Afterwards." Under this word we also find the reference Mark 4:28.
Let us read that passage. "The earth bringeth forth fruit of itself, first
the blade, then (eita) the ear, after that (eita) the full corn in the
ear." Now who would say that the ear came at the same time the blade came,
and at the same time the full corn in the ear came? There is an order of events
separated by intervals of time. So it is in I Cor. 15:22-24. Paul tells us that
every man shall be raised in his own order. There is an interval of time
between the first in order, which was the resurrection of Christ, and the
second in order, which will be those that are Christ's at His coming. So will
there be another interval of time between the resurrection of the saints and
the last thing in order when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to the
Father. In between the second in order and the last in order will come the
reign of Christ and His saints. At the end of that reign is when the last enemy
shall be destroyed. By reading Rev. 20:3-14 we find this order. The Devil is
bound, verses 1, 2. John's vision of those who live again and reign with Christ
a 1000 years, verse 4. John's interpretation shows it to have reference to the
first resurrection, and his statement shows that such shall reign a thousand
years. At the same time he tells us the "rest of the dead" will not
live again until the thousand years are finished. After the Devil is loosed
(verse 7) he will stir up another rebellion of the people of earth (some of
those who have been born during his imprisonment), and will seek to make war
against the camp of the saints. Fire from heaven destroys them, verses 8, 9.
The Devil is then cast into the lake of fire to remain forever, verse 10. The
final judgment is set and the dead (the rest of the dead who live again after
the thousand years) are raised and brought before this judgment, verses 11,
12. They are judged, verse 13. Death and hell (Hades) are cast into the lake of
fire along with those whose names are not in the book of life, verses 14, 15.
Here we find the last enemy being destroyed. It comes after the thousand years
are over. This harmonizes exactly with I Cor. 15:22-26.
There is absolutely no excuse for
Non-millennialists being ignorant on I Cor. 15:22-24. They do not have to know
Greek themselves. They can purchase "Young's" concordance for $8 or
$10, and anyone who can read English can study and profit by it. The Greek
words are all spelled out in our letters. Their meanings are given, and the
references are all given showing where they are used. If these fellows are
really honest and open for the truth, then why do they not investigate these
matters before they launch out to teach people things which they know nothing
about? Before they set out to overthrow a doctrine they should know what that
doctrine is and just the foundation it rests upon. When they start out guessing
and assuming they get their foot in a trap before long. To say the least, they
should have knowledge enough to know that the word "Then" has two
meanings. Since this is so, they should not just blindly seize upon the
meaning which is contrary to what is taught elsewhere. They start wrong when
they set out to prove that a plain statement in God's Word is not true. In the
statement, "They shall be priests of God and Christ and shall reign with
him a thousand years," we have a plainly stated fact. Those who set
themselves to disprove this put themselves in opposition to the Word of God.
They can accomplish nothing but to confuse themselves and others. When a word
has two or more meanings a man had better be sure he has the right meaning, and
not just the one he wants, when he goes to base a doctrine on that word. I do
not wish to be harsh, nor to appear smart, but it is a serious thing with me
for men to oppose the truth of God's Word, and hinder those who do preach it.
Non-millennialists always make the word "Then" in I Cor. 15:24 to
mean "At that time," when the connection, other translations, and the
Greek word used in that place all show that it means "Next, or
afterwards," and not "At that time." Some are complaining that
the millennial doctrine is disturbing the churches. Why is it? Because some
are opposed to the truth being preached. The fault does not lie at the door of
those who are preaching the truth, but at the door of those who refuse to
investigate and believe the Word of God, and who oppose those who are doing
their best to teach the people. In another part of this work I shall prove that
it was non-millennialists, or those who oppose the thousand years reign, who
set the stage for the development of the Roman Catholic system. I shall also
show that the same class of people are paving the way to go back to Romanism,
and are preparing the way for the beast.
Non-millennialists today are saying let us
confine our preaching to repentance. Was that all the apostles preached? Is
that the only doctrine taught in the Word of God? That same cry has been made
by Methodists and others who wished to shut the mouth of Baptists on Scriptural
baptism, proper church membership, and other things Jesus told us to do and
teach. That same liberalism paved the way for pulpit affiliation, and union
meetings, and has drifted men into the camp of modernism. Any time a man argues
that we should cease preaching any Bible doctrine he is just that much of a
modernist. He has placed his wisdom up against the wisdom of God, who revealed
to us these truths, and he is assuming that God made a mistake in so doing. He
has exalted human wisdom above the wisdom of God. That is modernism. We do not
propose to listen to their sophistry, but we expect to go on down the road
doing our best to preach all the truth of God's Word, plus nothing, and minus
nothing.
NINETEENTH OBJECTION: IT LIMITS THE DURATION OF THE KINGDOM
OF GOD TO A LITERAL THOUSAND YEARS.
This is just another place where Mr. Kempin
speaks where he does not know. Premillennialists do not end the kingdom itself
with the end of the thousand years. That is just the duration of one of the
stages of the kingdom. That is the duration of the reign of the saints of the
Lord with Him over this present earth. The kingdom itself never ends. There
will be an eternal phase. After the thousand years the kingdom of Christ will
merge with that of the Father and will continue without end.
But this objection proves another boomerang for
Mr. Kempin. It flies right back and hits him in the face. He quotes Isa. 9:7;
Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Luke 1:33 and Rev. 11:15 to show that the kingdom will never
end. All of which we accept and believe. But on page 5 he used Isa. 9:6, 7 to
prove that Christ's kingdom began when He was first here and that it was now
going on through the redemptive work of God in the hearts of men. On the next
page he used Dan. 7:13 to prove that this reign commenced after Jesus went back
to heaven. On page 33 he says, "When Jesus comes again He will be the
judge of all mankind and His redemptive reign will be ended." He meets
himself coming back at every turn. On one page he tells us Jesus had His
kingdom when He was on earth the first time, and he has this reign immediately
associated with His birth, page 5. On the next page he does not have Jesus
getting His kingdom until He has returned to heaven. In one place he tells us
there shall be no end to His reign, page 43. On page 33 he tells us the reign
will end when Christ comes back. The poor fellow does not know whether he is
coming or going. He is so muddled he would not know mud pies from egg custard.
That is the fix a man gets into who sets out to refute the Word of God. That
was just another pit he dug for us and fell into it himself.
TWENTIETH OBJECTION: IT POINTS CHRISTIANS TO THIS EARTH AS
A FUTURE HOME.
This is one more time Mr. Kempin shows either
his ignorance of the Word of God, or his unbelief in it. The Bible certainly
teaches that the saints shall inherit this earth. "Blessed are the meek:
for they shall inherit the earth," Matt. 5:6. "The heaven, even the
heavens, are the Lord's: but the earth hath he given to the children of
men," Psalm 115:16. "Wait upon the Lord, and keep his way, and he
shall exalt thee to inherit the land: WHEN the wicked are cut off, thou shalt
see it," Psalm 37:34.
The Little Horn of the prophecy of Daniel is the
same as the beast of Revelation, and it is after the overthrow of the Little
Horn that the saints shall be given the dominion UNDER the whole heaven, which
is on earth.
The Little Horn
1.
Has a mouth speaking great things, Dan. 7:8.
2.
He shall speak great words against the most High, Dan. 7:25.
3.
He shall make war against the saints and prevail against them
until the Ancient of Days Comes, Dan. 7:21, 22.
4.
He shall continue for three and an half years, Dan. 7:25.
5.
He shall be associated with ten kings, Dan. 7:8. and 24.
6.
After his overthrow then the saints of the most High shall come
into possession of the kingdom UNDER the whole heaven, Dan. 7:22; 7:25-27.
The Beast of Revelation
1.
He will have a mouth speaking great things, Rev. 13:5.
2.
He shall speak blasphemous things against God, Rev. 13:6.
3.
He shall make war against the saints (of the tribulation) and
prevail against them, Rev. 13:7.
4.
He shall continue for three and an half years, Rev. 13:5.
5.
He shall be associated with ten kings, Rev. 17:12, 13.
6.
After his overthrow the saints enter into the thousand years
reign, Rev. 19:20-20:6.
This shows that the beast of Revelation and the
Little Horn of Daniel are one and the same person. He will be destroyed when
Christ, the Ancient of days comes, Dan. 7:21, 22 and Rev. 19:11-20. After he is
overthrown the saints of the Most High are given the dominion, and the
greatness of the kingdom UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN, Dan. 7:27. This will not be in
heaven, but UNDER the heaven, or on this earth. Mr. Kempin just simply does not
believe the Word of God.
Abraham was promised Canaan land for a
possession. God's Word says he died in the faith, not having received the
promises: "These all died in faith, not having received the
promises." That is, Abraham, Sara, Isaac, and Jacob. God's Word reads : "By faith he (Abraham)
sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in
tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise,"
Heb. 11:9. That land in which they sojourned was Canaan land and on this earth.
God promised it to them, the same country in which they sojourned. But they
died not having received the promises. Then they must be resurrected and
brought back to the land of promise, Canaan land, in which they sojourned, if
they ever inherit that which was promised them. That will put them back on this
earth.
Under this same objection Mr. Kempin quotes II
Peter 3:10 to show that in the day of the Lord the earth would be burned up.
But in that same connection we see that a thousand years is as a day with the
Lord. So this day of the Lord will last 1000 years. In Zech. 14:1 the chapter
opens by announcing that the day of the Lord cometh. In the same chapter we
read where they shall have both summer and winter in that day. "It shall
be that in that day (The day of the Lord), that living waters shall go out from
Jerusalem: half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the
hinder sea: in summer and winter shall it be," verse 8. Literal earthly
Jerusalem is situated between two seas. We see here that we have both summer
and winter in the period of time called "The day of the Lord." That
will be the day when Christ shall reign over this earth. "And the Lord
shall be King over all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord, and his
name one," verse 9. It will be at the end of this 1000-year day that this
earth shall be burned with fire. How easy to meet Mr. Kempin's heresy.
TWENTY-FIRST OBJECTION: IT ACCOMPLISHES NO MORE THAN CAN
NOW BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH JESUS CHRIST.
Under this objection, Mr. Kempin says that the
presence of Christ can be made real through the Holy Spirit, and that peace
that passeth all understanding may be the heritage of every ransomed soul. All
of this we admit, but how much more blessed and real will the presence of
Christ be when we behold Him face to face in our glorified bodies, in bodies
that shall feel no pain, no weakness, no weariness, and where we shall never
sorrow anymore? That is as much as to say that not one thing will be
accomplished for us by our glorification. This is just another one of Mr.
Kempin's bobbles. What will he say next?
I shall prove with the words of Paul, not only
that that time will bring greater blessings, but that Paul believed in the
future restoration of Israel in that age.
"I ask then, has their stumbling led to their absolute ruin? By no
means. Through their false step salvation has gone to the heathen (Gentiles),
so as to make the Israelites jealous. But if their false step has so enriched
the world, and their defeat has enriched the heathen (Gentiles), HOW MUCH MORE
GOOD the addition of their full number will do," Rom. 11:11, 12. There we
have it in plain words that the restoration of Israel will bring much more good
to the Gentiles, than was accomplished by the cutting off of Israel. Israel is
now cut off. But she is to be restored and Paul says that will do much more
good. But let us read on. "For if their rejection has meant the reconciling
of the world, what can the acceptance of them mean but life from the
dead?" Rom. 11:15. "These quotations are from Goodspeed's
Translation. I will now give Dr. Williams' translation:
"I say then, they did not stumble so as to
fall in utter ruin, did they? Of course not! On the contrary, because of their
stumbling salvation has come to the heathen peoples, to make the Israelites
jealous. But if their stumbling has resulted in the enrichment of the world,
and their overthrow becomes the enrichment of heathen peoples, how much richer
the result will be when the full quota of Jews comes in! For if the rejection
of them has resulted in the reconciling of the world, what will the result be
of the final reception of them but life from the dead?"
It has always been astonishing that men could
read these verses over and over and never see a future restoration for Israel,
and that the future restoration of Israel would bring a still greater blessing
to the Gentile world. The people who fight the millennial reign are just
ignorant of what they are fighting.
Let us read Dr. Williams' translation of Rom.
11:25, 26: "For to keep you from being self-conceited, brothers, I do not
want you to have a misunderstanding of this uncovered secret, that only
temporary insensibility has come upon Israel until the full quota of the
heathen peoples comes in, and so in that way all Israel will be saved, just as
the Scripture says: From Zion the deliverer will come, He will, remove
ungodliness from Jacob; and this is my covenant with them when I shall take
away their sins."
This show that the blindness of Israel is only
temporary, and not to be forever. It will last only UNTIL the fullness of the
Gentiles is come in. Then it will pass away and they will repent, and the whole
house of Israel, both Judah and Israel, will be saved and restored as a nation
again. This, of course, refers to only such of them as will be found still
living at that time. The Israelite who dies in unbelief will, of course, be
lost forever. But here is the point, and the teaching of the Bible in many
places, there is to be a great turning on the point of Israel unto Christ after
the fullness of the Gentiles has come.
The casting away of Israel brought salvation, or
justification to the Gentile world, or the part that believes. The restoration
of Israel will bring their glorification, or as Paul says, life from the dead.
Our resurrection (the first resurrection), the Lord's coming and the
restoration of Israel are all tied up in the same package. Now, since the
translations given above have given us a better insight into these verses let
us read them in the King James and see if the same thing is not taught.
"If the fall of them be the riches of the
world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles, how
much more their (Israel's) fulness? If the casting away of them be the
reconciling (justification) of the world, what shall the receiving of them
(Israel) be, but life (Our resurrection) from the dead?" Our justification
was connected with their casting away. Our resurrection and their restoration
will be connected.
How harmoniously this all fits in with
Pre-millennial truth! Cast away Pre-millennial truth and many, many of such
Scriptures must forever remain an unsolved mystery and a problem that can never
be solved.
But there is something else that this age will
bring to the earth which this gospel age has never done. It will bring an age
of peace. "Therefore Zion for your sakes shall be plowed as a field, and
Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house (That is, the
temple) as the high places of the forest. (Here is a prophecy of the
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Titus in a literal war. This was in
A.D. 70. Now, watch the picture change.) BUT in the last days it shall come to
pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the
top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; (Notice in
Zech. 14 that there will be a lifting up, or raising of the mountains in
Jerusalem.) and people shall flow into it." The mountain of the house
(temple) that was made as the high places of the forest in Micah 3:12, is the
same mountain of the house of the Lord in the next verse, which shall be
exalted, or elevated above the hills about it.
But let us read on, "And many people shall
come, and say, Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, (The same mountain we
found in 3:13 and 4:1) and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach
us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of
Zion, (The same Zion that Titus plowed as a field, Micah 3:12) and the word of
the Lord from Jerusalem. (The same Jerusalem that was made heaps in 3:12.) And
he shall judge (as a King) among the nations, and rebuke strong nations afar
off: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning
hooks (no more wars as in Micah 3:12 which destroyed Jerusalem): nation shall
not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. BUT
they shall sit every man under his vine and his fig tree; and none shall make
them afraid (not be made afraid of what? Of wars as in Micah 3:12): for the
mouth of the Lord hath spoken it," Micah 3:12-4:4.
This passage opens up with a prediction of the
destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple by a literal war in the
time of Titus. The next word "BUT" introduces something opposite to
the prediction of the first verse, Micah 3:12. The mountain of the house, which
in Micah 3:12 was made as the high places of the forest, will be established
and lifted up or elevated above the hills about. The nations of the earth will
come up to this mountain (mountain of the Lord's house) to be judged, and
instructed as to what to do. Christ will be the Judge over them at this time.
As the result of His rebuke, counsel and authority, the nations will convert
all their war machinery into implements of industry, and wars will cease. Then
people will not have to flee from their homes before invading armies, but they
will sit unafraid under their vines and fig trees. The whole passage indicates
that literal wars and their cessation are under consideration in these passages.
Oh, how the blundering of men, who have tried to do away with the plainness of
this prophecy, has blinded the people. "O fools, and slow of heart to
believe all the prophets have spoken."
TWENTY-SECOND OBJECTION: THE WHOLE MILLENNIAL THEORY IS
BASED UPON GUESSWORK.
On page 18, Mr. Kempin said, it rested on the
assumption that the world was getting worse and worse. I have shown from the
Bible that the world was getting worse and worse. So then it is based upon the
teachings of the Bible. Is that "guesswork?" Mr. Kempin does not
watch his statements. Now, he says, "The whole millennial theory is based
upon guesswork." The "whole" means all of it, not part of it. He
says one thing in one place and something to the contrary in another place.
About all he knows is that he is "Agin" the thing. He needs to
remember every tale he has told.
Under this objection, he speaks about some
picking out such men as Napoleon, Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler as the "Man
of sin." Well, some picked out John the Baptist as the Christ. But did
that argue that the coming of Christ was based upon guesswork? The Bible
certainly teaches that the Man of sin will come, and that he will be seated in
the temple of God and will be there when Christ returns, and will be destroyed
by the Lord at His coming.
"That day shall not come, except there come
a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself
that he is God," II Thess. 2:3, 4.
"And then shall that Wicked be revealed,
whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth (See Rev. 19:11-21),
and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming," II Thess. 2:8.
This shows that the man of sin will come and
will take his seat in the temple which the Jews will rebuild and that he will
be worshipped as God by some. He will be here when Christ returns and will be
destroyed with the spirit (sword, Rev. 19:21) of the mouth of Christ.
Now this in no wise argues that
Pre-millennialists are urging people to go back to the old temple sacrifices.
We believe they have filled their purpose, but the Jews do not. We just simply
believe the prophecy that the Jews will go back and renew the sacrifices.
Before they are converted they will go back in unbelief and still believing in
the worth of animal sacrifices. Because we believe that such things will happen
is no sign we believe in those things. We also believe that in the last battle,
at Jerusalem, the women will be ravished. Zech. 14:2 says so. But that does not
teach that we are advocating rape. Neither is it fair to charge us with
advocating a return to the law just because we believe the prophecies which
teach that Israel will do so.
II Thess. 2:4 teaches that the temple will be
rebuilt. The man of sin could not sit in the temple if there were none to sit
in. In Rev. 11:1, 2, we have a prophecy of the restoration of the temple. Dan.
8:10-14 and 12:11 teach the same thing, and that the sacrifices will be
restored and then taken away by the "Little Horn." We know this is
not in the past because Daniel says: "At the time of the end shall the
vision be," Dan. 8:17. This puts the prophecy of the "Little
Horn," the restoration of the daily sacrifices, and the taking of them
away by the "Little Horn," all down in the time of the end. Daniel is
told that he should rest, and stand in his lot at the end of the days, Dan. 12:13.
This has reference to Daniel's death, and his resurrection at the time of the
end. This puts the prophecy of the "Little Horn" in the future, or at
the time of the end of this age.
Because Israel returns in unbelief and restores
their sacrifices God will allow the Little Horn, beast, or man of sin to come
and take them away. He will take his seat in the temple after taking away the
sacrifices and claim to be God or the Jew's Messiah. Jesus said to the Jews,
"I am come in my Father's name and ye receive me not: if another come in
his own name, him ye will receive," John 5:43. This person will be the man
of sin, beast, or "Little Horn."
The fact that there is a lot of guessing as to
who will be the person of the man of sin, does in no wise do away with the
Scriptural fact that he is coming. The Word of God tells us that he is coming,
when he is coming (not the year, but that it will be in the end time), what he
will do, but it does not tell us what his name shall be. There is no guess work
in any of it, but as to what his name shall be. People, too, have guessed at
the time of the end of the world, and many of them have not been
Pre-millennialists. But this does not do away with the fact that the end will
come sometime. As long as people are guessing about the end of the world, the
end has not yet come, but is future. So it is with the man of sin. When he does
come there will be no guesswork. The Word of God tells us that he is to be
revealed in his time, II Thess. 2:6. Since he has not yet been revealed, and no
one knows who he is, then his time has not yet come, but it is future.
Pre-millennialists put it in the future.
TWENTY-THIRD OBJECTION: MILLENNIALISM IS ROOTED IN MAN'S
QUEST THROUGH THE AGES FOR A GOLDEN AGE.
Again, Mr. Kempin plays right into our hands
without knowing it. He said he got the material for this section from a book
written by John A. D. Khan, published by the gospel Trumpet, but no longer in
print. He should profit better by his reading than he has done. What he has to
say only helps Pre-millennialists to prove their doctrine.
Under this objection he points out the fact that
the hope of a golden age existed among the Greeks, the Romans, the Hindus, in
Persia and Babylon and among other peoples. He says, "The pleasant hope of
a renovated earth entirely free from sin and suffering has always created in
the thoughtful minds of ancient nations a longing for the dawn of a second
golden age."
What is a longing? Isn't it a desire? Then the
nations have had a desire for a golden age, in which this earth should be
renovated, Mr. Kempin being witness against himself. Well, the Bible teaches
that this desire shall come. Listen at this Scripture. "For thus saith the
Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens,
and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, and
the desire of all nations SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory,
saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of the latter house shall be greater than
the former, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace,"
Hag. 2:6-9.
In this passage the Lord says, "He shall
shake the heavens." Immediately after the tribulation, and in connection
with His second coming, the Lord said, "The powers of heaven should be shaken,"
Matt. 24:29. The Prophet Haggai tells us that the earth shall be shaken. Jesus
tells us there shall be earthquakes just before His coming, Matt. 24:7. In
connection with the battle of Armageddon we read of an earthquake mightier than
had ever been on earth, Rev. 16:16-18. Haggai said the Lord will shake the
seas. In connection with His second coming, Jesus said the sea and waves would
roar, Luke 21:25. Haggai said the Lord would shake the nations. Christ said
that in connection with His coming, or just before it, there would be distress
of nations, Luke 21:25. Then Haggai tells us that the desire of nations would
come. Here is the golden age for which the nations have longed or desired.
Haggai tells us that the house of the Lord would be filled with glory, and in
that place the Lord would give peace. Here is the golden age for which the
nations have longed or desired, and the passage shows us that it will be
ushered in by the Lord's second coming.
Whence came this idea and hope among the nations
of the golden age? There can be but one answer. It is the leftover of the ideas
which they must have learned from Noah and his sons. Infidels have also found a
trace of the doctrine of the virgin birth among other nations, even before
Christ was born. By this they seek to discredit the doctrine of the virgin
birth and teach that Christianity borrowed it from the heathens. The truth of
the matter is that it is all a part of the original truth that was handed down
to Noah's descendants by Noah, who was called a preacher of righteousness. Of
course, as time went on, the promise of one born of a virgin, and of a
millennial or golden age for the world, have been changed and corrupted by
traditions and the imaginations of men. That is one reason why it was necessary
for God to give to men a written revelation, so that such truths could stand
out unmarred by the additions and changes of men. Dr. Seiss, in his
"Gospel in the Stars," shows that the many myths among the nations
had their origin in original revelation, which was given to men through the
mouth of such prophets as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Job. Job breathed a hint of
it when he said, "I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand
at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this
body, yet in my flesh shall see God," Job 19:25, 26. Here Job foretold his
resurrection and the Lord's return to the earth at that time. It is only
reasonable that the teachings of such men should affect the thinking of the
ancient nations. The trouble has been, the Devil has deceived men into
believing that man himself could bring about this golden age. The Scriptures
show that it can only be brought about by the return of Christ. Mr. Kempin uses
the same logic to discredit the millennial reign that infidels do to discredit
the virgin birth.
In the last part of this book I shall take up
several of the quotations that Mr. Kempin quoted about the writers and teachers
who came after the apostolic age. I am going, to turn all that against him. I
shall also bring in some historical data that will be an eye-opener.
TWENTY-FOURTH OBJECTION: THE FANCIFUL AGE ENDS IN DEFEAT
FOR CHRIST AND HIS PEOPLE.
Because the Devil is to be loosed after the
thousand years reign and goes out to deceive the nations again, he argues that
Christ and His people are defeated. That is just some more of his natural
reasoning set up against the Word of God. Was Christ defeated when He was
crucified? It might have seemed so. But it was the greatest victory the world
has had so far. Neither will it be a defeat for Christ and His saints when the
Devil is loosed. It will end in the final and complete defeat of the Devil. God
has some wise purpose in allowing the Devil to be loosed after the thousand
years whether Mr. Kempin or anyone else understands what that reason is. It
should be sufficient for any child of God that the Bible says he will be
loosed. "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be (future)
loosed out of his prison," Rev. 20:7. Mr. Kempin cannot believe the Word
of God like it is. He has to change it and fit it all up to correspond with his
ideas, which ideas we have seen, are out of harmony with the rest of the Bible.
Mr. Kempin resorts to ridicule, the tactics of
infidels and unbelievers, under this objection. He sets forth a good outline of
the 20th chapter of Revelation, the chaining of the dragon, the thousand years
reign, and after that the loosing of Satan, and the gathering of his forces to
battle. That is the exact order of things as given. But Mr. Kempin finds it
impossible to believe that it can be just as John put it. It just does not mean
what it says, he thinks. He has to hammer it out on his own anvil and explain
away the plain outline which he gave. He can see what it teaches, but he just
does not believe it. So it is simply a case of unbelief on his part.
He can't believe what God says because he can't
figure out where the Devil gets his forces of evil overnight. Perhaps, I can
help him some. A people in the flesh will be (carried over from the tribulation
age into the millennial age in their natural bodies. Over these the glorified saints will reign. It will be like it was in Noah's day.
Jesus compared His second coming to the days of Noah. God carried over a people
in that time to re-people the earth. The new age started with eight righteous
people. But these eight multiplied on the earth and their descendants were not
all righteous. Isa. 2:8, 9; 65:21-25; Ezek. 37:25; 47:22; Zech. 8:3-6, and
Zech. 14:16 show that there will be a natural people on the earth during that
time, and that they will multiply. From these will come descendants like the
sands of the sea in multitude. During
that age there will be no deceiver until right at the end. Lawlessness and
violence will be kept down because Christ and His glorified saints will be in
power on the earth. But for some reason, not made known to us, many will not
believe to the saving of their souls. From among these, who have been born on
the earth, after the Devil has been bound, and, who are still un-regenerated,
the Devil will gather his crowd at the end of the 1000 years. This will
demonstrate at least one thing, and that is, that it is not environment, but
the grace of God that makes Christians out of people.
Under this objection, Mr. Kempin said, "All
who believe in Jesus Christ will reign with Him now and THROUGH ALL
ETERNITY," page 64. But that is not the way he puts it on page 34. There
he says, "Paul states that death is destroyed at His coming (Paul did not
say it), at the resurrection at the end. Hence, if we are to reign with Christ
we ought to do it now." Here he only has us reigning with Him now. But on
page 64 he has the believer reigning with Christ eternally, without end. He
just meets himself coming back at every turn. Error just can't be made to
harmonize with itself.
Our Lord's millennial reign will not end
disgracefully as Mr. Kempin would have us believe. It results in His ultimate
triumph over the last enemy. The 1000-year phase will end, but His kingdom will
go on forever.
That there will be the millennial age. This explains how there will be lost people
to go after the Devil when he is loosed after being in prison for 1000 years.
Though some who are born in the millennial reign
will not believe and be saved, yet it is evident that a great multitude will,
for in the end the children of the free woman will be many more than those of
the bondwoman, Gal. 4:27. It will take
many more than will be saved in this present age to even begin to fill the New
Jerusalem which will be 1500 miles wide, long, and high. One of the purposes of the millennial age is
no doubt to make ready for that New Jerusalem and fill it up with
redeemed. When we figure how many a city
will hold that covers 2,225,000 square miles, and then reaches up 1500 miles
high, we will find that it will take far more than have been born on the earth
since creation’s dawn. With wars
abolished, and human life lengthened into hundreds of years, perhaps, through
the thousand years, and infant death abolished, then we can see how the people
will multiply in the millennial age. This is not guesswork on my part. Micah
4:1-4 and Isa. 2:2-4 tells us that wars shall be no more in that age. Isa.
65:20 shows us that there will not be any infants die, and that only the sinner
shall die at the age of an hundred. The 22nd verse shows that the days of God's
people will be as the days of a tree, and that they shall long enjoy the work
of their hands. Zech. 8:4 tells us that there shall be men and women of great
age dwelling in Jerusalem. The next verse says the streets shall be full of
boys and girls. Does this seem marvelous, and unbelievable? Well, listen to
what the Lord says, "If this be marvelous in the eyes of the remnant of
this people in these days, should it also be marvelous in mine eyes? saith the
Lord of hosts," Zech. 8:6. Goodspeed
translates it, "If it seem incredible."
I close this part of the work by quoting Isa.
65:20-25: "There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man
that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old;
but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build
houses and inhabit them: and they shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of
them. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and
another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine
elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain,
nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord,
and their offspring with them. It shall come to pass that before they call, I
will answer; and while they are yet speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb
shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock."
Non-millennialists never use this Scripture and
many more like it. They have no place to fit them in. When forced by others to
face them they just say, "It does not really mean what it says. It does
not mean that people shall live hundreds a years and bear children. It does not
mean that the wolf and the lamb will feed together." On what authority
can they say it? They say it for one reason only, and that is to blind the
people to millennial truth. They take away from the people the key of
knowledge. From the above Scripture we learn:
1.
Life will not be uncertain then as now. When one builds a house or
plants a vineyard he can know that he will get the benefit of them and not be
snatched away by sudden death.
2.
There will be no infant death. "No more an infant of
days."
3.
None die under a hundred years of age. And the sinner only dies at
this age.
4.
The days of God's elect will be as the days of a tree, and they
shall long enjoy the work of their hands. That is why they are assured that
when they build a house or plant a vineyard they will live to enjoy the same.
5.
They have offspring in this age. "Their offspring with
them."
6.
The wolf and the lion shall graze with the lamb.
This can be nothing but the millennial age and
shows that there will be a natural people on earth then, and that they will
bear children and live a long time. This is the Word of God, not the invention
of Pre-millennialists. We simply believe what the Scriptures foretell will come
to pass. Any other doctrine must leave hundreds of Scriptures like this without
any meaning or way of being fulfilled. Other people never quote or teach them
to the people. More than that they oppose those who do bring them up and teach
them. We believe they are there to be believed and taught. Others seem to
believe they are there to be ignored and passed over.
God's Word shows that though this be
unbelievable in the eyes of men, that it is not in His sight. "If it
seems, incredible in the sight of the remnant of this people IN THOSE DAYS, in
my sight will it also seem incredible? Zech 8:6, Goodspeed's translation.
PART
THREE
HISTORY
OF THE DOCTRINE
Mr. Kempin made an effort to prove with history that the doctrine
of the thousand years reign was unscriptural. He had a lot to say about the
controversy over this question in the second, third and fourth centuries. He
gave the names of some early writers and bishops who opposed the doctrine, and
the names of some who stood for the doctrine. He gave Dionysius of Alexandria
the credit for suppressing the doctrine in the East, and Augustine the credit
for giving the death blow to it in the West. "Augustine is said to have
given a decisive blow to this doctrine in the West just as Dionysius did in the
East. His interpretation of the apocalyptic vision became the prevalent view on
the subject in the Western churches, and by the influence of his teaching the
doctrine of millennarianism was banished from the realm of dogmatics,"
page 59.
On pages 60, 61, he said the doctrine of the millennium never
thrived in Greek Christian soil. He tries to reason from this that the doctrine
was a distinctively Jewish doctrine which had been transplanted into the
Christian community. But he never got back to the reason as to why the
doctrine never thrived in Grecian soil, nor did he tell us the influence under
which Dionysius, Augustine and others had been turned against the doctrine of
the thousand years reign. Neither did he tell us how it was that Augustine had
given the decisive blow to this doctrine in the West. He did not tell us what
influence the union of the churches with the state had in causing Augustine to
formulate a new position on the millennial reign. Augustine was the first man
to proclaim that the Catholic Church in its EMPIRACAL form was the kingdom of
Christ on earth and that the millennial reign began with the first advent of
Christ. This is the very heresy Mr. Kempin has taught all the way through his
book, viz: That we are now reigning with Christ. Augustine, and Ambrose,
another man who opposed the old belief in the millennial reign, advocated the
suppression of heresy by force. They started the forcible suppression of the
old millennial doctrine by the power of the state church. That is how he
banished the doctrine from the realm of dogmatics. I am prepared to give the
reader all this information and to show how the suppression of the doctrine of
the thousand years reign of Christ on this earth prepared the way for the
development of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Mr. Kempin listed Origen, whom he calls the distinguished author
and scholar of Alexandria, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine
and Caius, the learned presbyter of Rome, as some who opposed the idea that
Christ would reign on earth a thousand years. I am prepared to show that
Origen, Dionysius, Jerome and Augustine were all influenced by Greek
philosophy against which Paul warned when he wrote, "Beware lest any man
spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ," Col. 2:8. Mr. Kempin
listed Montanus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian as some who held to
the doctrine of the millennial reign, which Mr. Kempin calls heresy. I shall
give others who held to this doctrine and shall show how close was the
connection between some of these men and the apostles themselves. Three of
these advocates of the millennial reign suffered martyrdom.
A
Doctrine of the Early Churches
I shall present sufficient evidence to prove that the early
churches held to the doctrine of the thousand years reign of Christ and His
saints on this earth. The first proof I shall give is found in the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, volume 15, pages 495, 96.
"Faith in the nearness of Christ's return
and the establishment of His reign of glory on earth was undoubtedly a strong
point in the primitive Christian church. In the anticipations of the future
prevalent among the early Christians (50-150) it is necessary to distinguish a
fixed and a fluctuating element. The former includes (1) the notion that a last
terrible battle with the enemies of God was impending; (2) the faith in the
speedy return of Christ; (3) the conviction that Christ will judge all men; and
(4) will set up a kingdom of glory on the earth. To the latter belong views of
the Antichrist, of the heathen world-power, of the place, extent, and duration
of the earthly kingdom of Christ, etc. These remained in a state of solution;
they were modified from day to day, partly because of changing circumstances of
the present day by which forecasts of the future were regulated, partly because
the indications—real or supposed—of the ancient prophets always admitted of new
combinations and constructions. But even here certain positions were agreed
upon in large sections of Christendom. Amongst these was the expectation that a
FUTURE, kingdom of Christ ON EARTH should have a fixed duration—according to
the most prevalent opinion a duration of A THOUSAND YEARS. From this fact the
whole ancient Christian eschatology (Doctrine of the last things) was known in
the latter times as Chiliasm (The Greek word for thousand is "Chilia," G. E. J.)—a name which is not
strictly accurate, since the doctrine of the millennium was only one feature in
its scheme of the future. That a philosopher like Justin, with a bias toward
Hellenic construction of the Christian religion, should nevertheless have
accepted its chiliastic elements is strangest proof that these enthusiastic
expectations were inseparably connected with the Christian faith down to the
middle of the second century.
"After the middle of the second century
these expectations were gradually thrust into the background. They would never
have died out, however, had not circumstances altered, and a NEW MENTAL
ATTITUDE been taken up. (Notice that a NEW mental attitude was taken up after the middle
of the second century.) The spirit of the philosophical (Greek philosophy) and the
theological speculation and of ethical reflections, which began (Notice this)
to spread through the churches, did not know what to make of the OLD HOPES of
the future. To a NEW GENERATION (Notice this) they seemed paltry, earthly and
fantastic, and far-seeing men (I wonder how far they saw) had good reason to
regard them as a source of political danger. (Notice this.) But more than this,
these wild dreams (Wild to them) about a glorious kingdom of Christ began to
disturb the organization (Be sure to remember this) which the churches had seen
fit to introduce." End of quotation.
Now let us sum up what we have found from this quotation from the
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (The words enclosed in parenthesis are mine. I
inserted them to call attention to some important things.)
1.
The early churches held to the hope that Christ would return to
earth and, set up a glorious kingdom and reign on this earth for a thousand
years. The encyclopaedia says it was undoubtedly a strong point in the
primitive church.
2.
This shows that the doctrine of the millennium, or thousand years
reign, is not a new doctrine as many today think.
3.
It was inseparably connected with the Christian faith down to the
middle of the second century. After that a fight began to be made on the
doctrine.
4.
After the middle of the second century a new mental attitude had
developed, brought about through PHILOSOPHICAL and theological speculation. The
OLD HOPES to which the early churches held seemed paltry and fantastic to this
new generation.
5.
The old doctrine of the millennial reign was disturbing to the
new organizations which some of the churches had introduced. The Montanist
party, so called because of a leader named Montanus, contended for the continuance
of the old millennial hope, and against the hierarchical tendencies of these
new organizations.
At this point it is needful to bring before the reader the history
of the Alogi and Montanistic parties.
The
Alogi and Montanists
As early as the year 170 a church party in Asia Minor —the
so-called Alogi rejected the whole body of apocalyptic writings and denounced the
Book of Revelation as a book of fables. All the more powerful was the reaction.
In the so-called Montanistic controversy (160-220) one of the principal issues
involved the continuance of the chiliastic (Millennial) expectations in the
churches. . . . After the Montanistic controversy chiliastic views were more
and more discredited in the Greek church; they were, in fact, stigmatized as
Jewish, and therefore as heretical. Encyclopaedia Brit., Vol. 15, page 496.
On page 198 of Dr. Newman's history we have a short article about
the Alogi. We have learned that they rejected the Book of Revelation and the
doctrine of the thousand years reign. Now, let us see what heretics they were.
(Note: The encyclopaedia spells the name Alogi, Dr. Newman Alogoi.)
"The Alogoi. This term was applied by Epiphanius to those who
in the second century opposed the Logos (Word) doctrine of John's Gospel. They
are said to have rejected not only the fourth Gospel, but the Johannean
Apocalypse (Revelation) and the Johannean Epistles as well. Ephiphanius relates
that they not only denied the eternity of the Logos as a person of the Godhead,
but attributed the Johannean Gospel and the Apocalypse to Cerinthus, who is
elsewhere represented as the archenemy of the Apostle John. . . They are
represented as having arisen in opposition to the Montanistic
prophecy." End of quotation.
From this we see that the Alogoi party, which fought the doctrine
of the thousand years reign, also denied the eternal existence of Christ, and
rejected all the writings of the Apostle John. Let our Non-millennial friends
take notice of this. Now, let us see what Mr. Newman says about the Montanistic
party which stood for the millennial doctrine to be continued.
"We may regard Montanism: a. As a reactionary movement
against the innovations that were being introduced into the churches through
the influence of Gnosticism and of paganism in general; especially against the
emphasizing of knowledge (Greek philosophy) at the expense of faith, laxity of
discipline in the churches, and consequently of' morals in the members, against
the merging of the churches: in the world, against THE GROWTH OF
HIERARCHY," etc., page 202. We have seen that one of the reasons that some
insisted on giving up the old millennial hopes of the early churches was that
the doctrine was disturbing to the organization some of the churches had seen
fit to introduce. The Montanists protested against these innovations, or
organizations which were promoting the growth of the hierarchial system. They
contended for the continuance of the old millennial doctrine. But the other
party which had introduced these innovations which were promoting the growth of
hierarchy objected to the millennial doctrine because it was disturbing to
their new innovations and organizations. Here we have the beginning of the
departure from the truth which was to end in the full development of the Roman
Catholic hierarchy. The Non-millennial doctrine and the growth of the
hierarchy were working hand in hand. It is no strange thing that state churches
and episcopal forms of church government have always been antagonistic to the
idea that Christ is coming back to the, earth to reign a thousand years.
Doctor
Whitby's Testimony
At this point I wish to introduce the testimony of Dr. Whitby
concerning the position of the early Christians on the thousand years reign,
and the position of Roman Catholics on the doctrine.
"The doctrine of the millennium, or the
reign of saints on earth a thousand years, is now rejected by ALL ROMAN
CATHOLICS, and by a greater part of Protestants, and yet it passed among the
best of Christians for two hundred and fifty years for a tradition apostolic;
and as such is delivered by many of the fathers of the second and third
centuries, who spake of it as the tradition of our Lord and His apostles, and
of all the ancients who lived before them; who tell us the very words in which
it was delivered, the Scriptures, which were then so interpreted, and say that it
was held by all Christians who were exactly orthodox." "Graves' Seven
Dispensations," pages 562, 563.
Here we have further proof that the early churches believed that
Christ and His saints will reign on this earth a thousand years. We also see
that the Roman Catholic Church rejects the doctrine. I shall bring proof later
that the Catholic Church sought to crush out the doctrine of the millennial
reign by persecution.
Mr. Kempin tells us on page 60 that the doctrine of the millennial
reign was expressly condemned in the original articles of the Church of
England. The doctrine of the millennial reign is contrary to the political and
religious ambitions of state churches. Instead of waiting for Christ to come
back to earth and take over the reins of the governments they want to keep
Christ away from this earth and do this reigning for Him themselves. It is easy
to see why the new generation who rose up after the middle of the second
century were disturbed by the old hope of the millennial reign. That doctrine
was not in keeping with their political ambitions and designs.
The
Opposition to the Doctrine in the East
The first opposition to the doctrine of the millennial reign had
its origin in Greek philosophy. Mr. Kempin said this doctrine never thrived in Greek
soil, pages 60, 61. Had he gone into an investigation as to why it did not
thrive in Greek soil he might have found something that would have been an
eye-opener for him. The encyclopaedia tells us the spirit of PHILOSOPHICAL and
theological speculation and of ethical reflections, which began to spread
through the churches, did not know what to make of the OLD HOPES of the future,
page 496, vol. 15.
To understand this opposition to the doctrine of the millennial
reign which sprang out of Greek philosophy we need to study the influence of
the culture of the city of
Alexandria in Egypt. All the opposition to the millennial reign can be traced
back directly, or indirectly, to the philosophical influence this city had on
Bible expositors. Dr. Newman says, "Alexandria, the capital of the
Ptolmies, became the greatest literary, PHILOSOPHICAL, and SCIENTIFIC center of
ancient times," Newman's Church
History, vol. 1, page 27. Mr. Kempin has already told us (page 57) that
Origen, who opposed the millennial reign was a scholar of Alexandria. He also
told us that Dionysius, whom he credits with putting an end to the millennial
doctrine in the East, was a bishop of Alexandria. On page, 288 in Dr. Newman's
history we read: "Dionysius of Alexandria (200-265) was another
distinguished pupil of Origen, and after a considerable interval (during which
Heracles conducted the work), succeeded him as head of the catechetical school
of Alexandria. The reputation of the school was well sustained by this great
teacher, who, after fifteen years of service, exchanged this position for the
bishopric of Alexandria."
In order to fully understand the reason why Origen, Dionysius, and
Jerome, an admirer and pupil of Origen, opposed the doctrine of the thousand
years reign, and the manner in which they opposed it, we need to study about
Philo and his allegorical method of interpretation.
Philo,
and the Allegorical Method
On page 59 of Dr. Newman's history we read this about Philo:
"Philo enjoyed all the educational privileges that Alexandria afforded.
Thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Greek philosophy and familiar with Greek
literature, he was yet a devout Jew. He was of the opinion that the Greeks
derived from the Jewish Scriptures all that was wise, true and lofty in their
thinking. It was his task, as it had been the task of others of his type, to
show the complete harmony of the divine revelation of the Old Testament with
all that is best in Greek philosophy." (Let the reader remember the
admonition of Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil you through PHILOSOPHY, and
vain deceit," Col. 2:8.) On page 28 of Dr. Newman's history we read,
"In Philo, who lived in the New Testament time, we meet with the most
elaborate effort to blend Hebrew and Greek thought, and by the application of
the allegorical method of interpretation to explain away EVERYTHING in the Old
Testament that was out of harmony with the refined Spiritualism of the current
modified Platonism." (Plato was a Greek philosopher.) On page 60 Mr.
Newman says this about the allegorical method which Philo had adopted:
"This, as applied to ancient documents, was not an invention of Philo, or
of his Jewish-ALEXANDRIAN predecessors. It had been employed for centuries by
the Greeks in the interpretation of Homer. . . . Everything that is opposed to
his PHILOSOPHICAL conceptions of God and the universe and to his sense of
propriety in the recorded deeds of God yields readily to this universal
solvent. . . This corrupting feature of Philo's work was laid hold of by early
Christian writers." On page 182 Mr. Newman further says about Philo:
"He adopted an allegorical method of interpretation, according to which
the literal meaning of the Old Testament was of no account, and a given passage
could be made to mean anything whatsoever, according to the fancy of the
interpreter." I wonder if this is not why Peter told us, "No prophecy
of scripture is of any private interpretation," II Peter 1:20.
This allegorical method of explaining away everything he did not
like, which method Philo borrowed from the Greeks, was the same method that
Dionysius of Alexandria employed in his efforts to outdo those who believed in
the millennial reign. The encyclopaedia has this to say about Dionysius:
"Dionysius of Alexandria succeeded in healing the schism asserting the
ALLEGORICAL (Philo's method) interpretation of the prophets as the only
legitimate exegesis. During the controversy Dionysius became convinced that the
victory of the mystical theology over Jewish Chiliasm (Millennialism) would
never be secure so long as the Book of Revelation passed for an apostolic
writing and kept its place among the homologoumena of the canon. He accordingly
raised the question of its apostolic origin; and by reviving old difficulties
with new ingenious arguments he carried his point. The Greek Church kept
Revelation out of its canon, and consequently Chiliasm remained in its
grave." (That is on Grecian soil. This explanation Mr. Kempin did not give
us. It did not suit his point.)
This allegorical method of Philo's, borrowed from Greek
philosophy, was used by Dionysius, Origen, and other millennial opposers of
the early centuries. In fighting down and suppressing the doctrine of the
millennial reign these men were making way for the introduction of new things
in the churches which brought about the growth of hierarchy. Dr. Newman tells
us that the Montanists, who insisted on the continuance of the old millennial
hopes of the early churches, protested against the growth of hierarchy in
their time. Newman's history, page 202, and Encyclopaedia Brit., volume 15,
page 496. I have heard modernists use this same allegorical method to explain
away the Scriptural account of creation and to try to uphold the theory of
evolution. The Non-millennialists of today use the same method to explain away
the reign of Christ on the throne of David, the restoration of Israel to Canaan
land, the millennial reign and everything that does not conform to their
conceptions of things. The modernists of today are following this same old line
of Greek philosophizing, and allegorizing, to explain away the plain,
clear-cut prophecies of the Word of God and keep the people from believing the
truth of God. As the Alexandrian school of philosophy and theology turned many
of the early churches away from the hope of the primitive churches and prepared
the way for the development of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, so are the
modernists and Non-millennialists of today keeping the people in ignorance of
the important truths of prophecy, and are leading the way back to Rome and preparing
the way for the coming of the beast. In this connection I wish to quote from a
speech recently made by Bishop Oxnam, the head of the Federal Council of
Churches.
Oxnam
Sees Women as Key to Church
Philadelphia.—"When the women of the churches want the union
of the churches, the union of the churches will come," Methodist Bishop G.
Bromley Oxnam of New York told 1000 women here at the luncheon of the
department of woman's work, Philadelphia Council of Churches.
He called for union of all Protestant denominations into one
Church of Christ, which would then unite with the Eastern Orthodox (Greek Catholic.--G. E.
Jones) and afterwards help create one Holy Catholic church to which all
Christians may belong.
Bishop Oxnam went on to say, "I would be glad to kneel at any
altar and have the hands of Harry Emerson Fosdick placed on my head,
symbolizing the passing of the independence and freedom of Baptist tradition to
the new church."
Comment
Bishop Oxnam is the man who said the God of the Old Testament was
a dirty bully. Fosdick is a rank modernist who calls himself a Baptist. He does
not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, His resurrection, or His second
coming. But he tells us he is looking for the coming of another messiah, who
will bring peace to the earth. He says this messiah may now be in his crib in
some unknown village. These modernists and millennial haters are wanting a
union of all churches. This church federation of theirs will bring all false
religion under beast worship. "All that dwell upon the earth shall worship
him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life," Rev.
13:8.
The
Opposition in the Western Churches
"The Western church was also more conservative than the
Greek. Her theologians had, to begin with, little turn for the mystical
speculation. . . . This, however, holds good of the Western theologians only
after the middle of the third century. The earlier fathers, Irenaeus,
Hippolytus, Tertullian, believed in Chiliasm simply because it was a part of
the tradition of the church, and because Marcian and the Gnostics would have
nothing to do with this conception. It is the same through the third and
fourth centuries with those Latin theologians who escaped the influence of
the Greek speculation. Commodian, Pettavensis, Lactantius and Severus were all
pronounced millennarians, holding by the very details of the primitive
Christian expectations. As to the canonicity and the apostolic origin of the
Johannine apocalypse (Revelation) no doubts were ever entertained in the West.
. . . This state of matters, however, gradually disappeared after the end of
the fourth century. The change was brought about by two causes—first, Greek
theology, which had reached the West chiefly through Jerome, Rufinus and
Ambrose; and second, the new idea of the church wrought out by Augustine on the
basis of the ALTERED POLITICAL situation of the church. (Christianity had now
been made the state church by Constantine and his successors, and a partial
union of church and state had been brought about.—G. E. J.) Augustine was the first
who ventured to teach the Catholic Church, in its EMPIRACAL form, was the
kingdom of Christ, that the millennial kingdom had commenced with the appearing
of Christ, and was, therefore an accomplished fact. By this doctrine of
Augustine the old millennarianism, though not completely extirpated, was at
least banished from official theology. (That is the theology of the state
church.) It still lived on, however, in the lower strata of Christian society;
and in undercurrents of tradition it was transmitted from century to century.
At various periods in the history of the middle ages, we encounter sudden
outbreaks of millennarianism, sometimes as the tenet of a small sect, sometimes
as a far-reaching movement. And, since it was suppressed, not as in the East,
by mystical speculation, its mightiest antagonist, but BY THE POLITICAL CHURCH
OF THE HIERARCHY, we find that wherever Chiliasm appears in the Middle Ages it
makes common cause with all enemies of the SECULARIZED (state) church. . . In
the Anabaptist movements it appears with all its old uncompromising
energy," Encyclopaedia Brit., Vol. 15, page 496.
Comment
In the above quotation from the encyclopaedia we find a number of
things to which I want to call attention:
1.
The doctrine of the millennial reign prevailed longer in the
Western churches than among the Greek churches.
2.
The Latin theologians who escaped the influence of the Greek
teaching still held on to the same old hope of the early churches.
3.
A change was finally brought about in the West by two causes. The
first cause was the importation of the Greek philosophical speculation. The
second was the altered political situation the churches found themselves in
after Christianity had been made the religion of the state. That was done by
Constantine. Mr. Newman said Constantine offered to every convert to
Christianity twenty pieces of gold and a baptismal robe, page 307. He also
legalized bequests to Christian churches, page 307.
4.
This changed political situation required the formulation of a new
position as to the millennial reign.
5.
The Christians (so called) had ceased waiting for Christ to return
and reign on earth, and they abandoned their hope of reigning with Christ in
the future, and considered themselves reigning with Christ in this present
age. This is the doctrine Mr. Kempin has taught all through his book and the
thing Non-millennialists all teach today. It had its origin in the false
doctrine of Augustine. It came to them through Roman Catholicism.
6.
Augustine was the first to teach that the Catholic Church in its
EMPIRACAL form was the kingdom of Christ, and that the reign is now going on.
That is exactly what Mr. Kempin and every Non-millennialist teaches.
7.
The secularized church (Roman Catholic) suppressed the doctrine
of the millennial reign by political force.
8.
On page 311 Dr. Newman tells us that Augustine and Ambrose (both
Non-millennialists) advocated the forcible suppression of paganism and heresy.
Of course, they thought it heresy to teach the old millennial doctrine.
9.
Since the millennial doctrine was suppressed by the political
power of the state church, then those who believed in the reign of Christ and
His saints on the earth suffered persecution for their belief.
10.
The secularized church, which did not believe in the millennial
reign, was the power that persecuted those who did believe in the millennial
reign.
11.
Let us put the Scriptural test to this and see who is right. Those
who follow Christ and the truth do not persecute, but they suffer persecution.
"All that live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution," II
Tim. 3:12. "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake:
for theirs is the, kingdom of heaven," Matt. 5:10.
12.
Lactantius, who is listed by the encyclopaedia as one who believed
in the old millennial doctrine of the primitive churches, did not believe in
persecution. "Lactantius in the time of Constantine wrote: 'Religion
cannot be compelled; nothing is so voluntary as religion,'" Newman's Hist., page 311.
13.
The Anabaptists, from whom present-day Baptists came, held on to
the millennial doctrine with uncompromising energy.
14.
Those who held on to the millennial doctrine through the middle
ages were the common foes of the secularized, or state church.
15.
Non-millennialism, which had its beginning in Greek philosophy,
has been perpetuated through the Roman Catholic church and her offspring, and
others who have been influenced by the allegorical method first employed by the
Greek philosophers, then by Philo, and last by the opposers of the millennial
doctrine in the second, third, and fourth centuries.
Mr.
Kempin Witnesses against Himself
Without intending to do so, Mr. Kempin unconsciously witnessed
against himself on the millennial question. The same period of time when he
almost has the old millennial doctrine banished from the earth is the same
period of time he almost has salvation by faith banished from the earth. On
page 42 he says, "In between the period of the martyrs and the
Reformation, historians bear witness to the Dark Ages when the gospel was
supplanted by an authoritarian church which made tradition equal to revelation.
During this long night of spiritual darkness, salvation by faith in Jesus
Christ was practically an unknown thing save by a few men and women who dared
to stand out against the Church of Rome." Then on page 60 Mr. Kempin says,
"After this we do not read of millennarianism for a long time. At various
periods of the history of the Middle Ages, says Harnack, we encounter sudden
outbreaks of millennarianism, sometimes as the tenet of a small sect, sometimes
as a far-reaching movement." So the same period of time that Mr. Kempin
has the doctrine of a millennium almost unknown is the same period of time
that he has the doctrine of salvation by faith unknown. According to Mr. Kempin
the gospel was supplanted by the authoritarian church. I have shown from
quotations from the encyclopaedia that the same authoritarian church
suppressed the preaching of the millennial reign by force. Mr. Kempin says that
salvation by faith in Christ was unknown save by a few men and women who dared
to stand out against the Church of Rome. On page 497 the encyclopaedia tells us
that wherever Chiliasm (Millennialism) appears in the middle Ages it makes
common cause with the enemies of the secularized church, that is, the Church of
Rome. So the same few who dared to stand out against Rome and preach salvation
by faith in Christ were the same few who brought the doctrine of the millennial
reign down through the centuries. Rome was the enemy of the doctrine of the
1000 years reign as well as the enemy of salvation by grace through faith in
Christ. Had the doctrine of the millennial reign never been suppressed in the
early centuries in order to make way for the new organizations which produced
the growth of hierarchy, against which the millennial believers protested, it
is doubtful if the world would ever have had the system of the Roman Catholic
Hierarchy. The supposed far-seeing men in the second century who feared the
millennial doctrine because they thought it brought a political danger, and
because it was disturbing to their new organizations, were not far-seeing
enough to know that they were preparing the way for such a system as the Roman
Catholic Hierarchy. The Lord knew His business when He gave to His people the
Book of Revelation, and, had its teachings been followed, people would have
been better able to see the trend of affairs.
Antioch
against the Alexandrian Method of Interpretation
After telling about the opposition to the millennial doctrine
among the Greek churches, and their rejection of the Book of Revelation from
the canon, the encyclopaedia goes on to say, "In the Semetic churches of
the East (the Syrian, Arabian and Ethiopian), and in that of Armenia, the
apocalyptic literature was preserved much longer than in the Greek church. . .
. Chiliasm (Millennialism) survived amongst them to a later date than in
Alexandria and Constantinople," page 496, Vol. 15. The reader will
remember that the missionary church that sent out Paul, Barnabas and Silas as
missionaries was the Antioch church in Syria. From this place came the main
opposition to the new theology, the allegorical system, and the Non-millennium
doctrine that came from the philosophical school at Alexandria. On page 297 of
Dr. Newman's History we read the following:
"Reference has been made in an earlier chapter to the
catechetical school of Alexandria, founded by Pantaenus and made illustrious by
Clement, Origen, Heracles, and Dionysius. Antioch did not so early become a
seat of Christian learning, but from 270 onward under Lucian, it came into
rivalry with Alexandria as a center of theological thought and influence. In
the great Christological controversies of the fourth and the following
centuries Alexandria and Antioch were always antagonists. Alexandria representing
a mystical transcendentalism and promoting the ALLEGORICAL interpretation of
the Scriptures; Antioch insisting on the grammatico-historical interpretation
of the Scriptures, and having no sympathy with the mystical modes of
thoughts." In other words, the school at Antioch objected to the
allegorical method adopted from Greek philosophy, by which all the literal
meaning of the prophets were explained away and made to fit in with the higher
philosophical and so-called science of the Greeks, so the Alexandrian school of
thought promoted the rationalism and the modernism of that day. On the other
hand, the Antioch school endeavored to hold to the primitive faith which had
been delivered to the saints.
I think enough has been presented to show that the first
opposition to the millennial reign came from the Alexandrian school of thought
which was endeavoring to follow the philosophy and false science of the Greeks.
Dionysius, to whom Mr. Kempin gives credit for overcoming the millennial
doctrine, was at one time the head of this school. So was Origen, another
opposer of the doctrine that Christ and His saints would reign on earth a
thousand years. Jerome and Augustine in turn were influenced by the corrupting
influence of the allegorizing method which the Alexandrian theologians had
adopted from Philo, who himself, had borrowed it from the Greek philosophers.
Is it any wonder that Paul said, "Beware lest any man spoil you through
philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of
the world, and not after Christ?" Col. 2:8.
John-Polycarp-Ireanus
Chain
I shall now establish a chain of believers in the reign of Christ
and His saints on earth reaching from John the Revelator to Irenaeus who lived
in the closing days of the second century.
On page 181, Vol. 18, of the Encyclopaedia Britannica there is an
excerpt from a letter written by Ireneaus to Florinus. I quote as follows:
"I can now point out the place where the blessed Polycarp
used to sit when he discoursed, and describe his goings out and his comings
in, his manner of life and his personal appearance and the discourses which he
delivered the people, how he used to speak of his intercourse with John and the
rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. To
these things I used to listen, and, at the time, through the mercy of God
vouchsafed to me, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart, and
constantly by the grace of God I brood over my accurate recollections."
After this quotation the writer of the encyclopaedia comments as
follows:
"These words establish a chain of tradition
(John-Polycarp-Irenaeus) which is without parallel in early church
history."
All writers credit Polycarp and Irenaeus as believing that Christ
and His saints would reign on this earth after the resurrection of the saved
for a thousand years. Mr. Kempin himself (page 56) mentions Irenaeus as one who
believed the doctrine. For some reason he failed to mention Polycarp. In the Seven Dispensations by J. R. Graves we
read the following about Justin Martyr and Irenaeus:
"Dr. Cave, though seemingly opposed to his faith, admits
that Justin expressly asserts that after the resurrection of the dead is over,
our Saviour, with all His holy patriarchs and prophets, the saints and martyrs
should visibly reign a thousand years, and also adds that Justin and Irenaeus
held the millennium in an innocent and harmless sense. Dr. Elliott calls him a
man to whose learning and piety testimony has been borne by nearly all the succeeding
fathers," page 561.
On the same page this quotation from Irenaeus is given:
"It is fitting that the just, rising at the appearing of God,
should in the renewed state receive the promise of the inheritance which God
covenanted to the fathers, and should reign in it. . . . It is but just that in
it they should receive the fruits of their suffering, so that WHERE for the
love of God, they suffered death, THERE they should be brought to life again,
and WHERE they endured bondage, THERE also they should reign. For God is rich
in all things, and all things are of Him; and therefore I say, it is becoming
that creation being restored to its original beauty, should without any
impediment or drawback be subject to the righteous."
On the same page it is said that Chillingworth says that Irenaeus
made the doctrine of Chiliasm (Millennialism) apostolic tradition. Eusebias and
Jerome (both Non-millennialists) both affirm that he (Irenaeus) believed in the
thousand years reign according to the letter of the Revelation of John; and
Whitby allows that he taught that Christ will everywhere be seen, his proof
being Matt. 26:29, and adding that this cannot be done by Him while He remains
in the celestial regions."
Here is the passage Ireneaus offered as his proof. "But I say
unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day
when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." This certainly shows
that Christ will again drink of the fruit of the vine in a future time.
Justin
Martyr
Justin Martyr is another whom Mr. Kempin lists as a believer in
the millennial reign. Dr. Newman tells us that he was a student of the Greek
philosophies, but after his conversion to Christianity he renounced all that.
"Justin and Athenagoras, who yet, after they adopted Christianity rejected
Platonism at the word of demons," page 272. The encyclopaedia tells us
that the fact that a philosopher like Justin should nevertheless have accepted
its chiliastic elements is strongest proof that these enthusiastic expectations
were inseparably connected with the Christian faith down to the middle of the
second century, page 496.
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Polycarp all suffered martyrdom for
their faith. I have yet to read when any of the Alexandrian school ever
suffered martyrdom for their faith.
I think I have furnished sufficient proof that the early
Christians believed that Christ would return to this earth to reign with His
saints for a thousand years. I have traced the original opposition to this
doctrine to the Alexandrian school of thought, which was spoiled through
philosophy and vain deceit against which Paul warned us, Col. 2:8. They palmed
off on the religious world the mystical allegorical method of the prophets by
which a passage of Scripture can be made to mean anything the interpreter might
want it to mean. It is true that the sacrifices and ordinances of the law were
typical. But I have shown that the law had no connection with the Abrahamic
covenant. The covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, belong
to a separate body of the Scriptures than that of the law. The predictions of
the prophets concerning the restoration of Israel to the Promised Land and the
rebuilding of the throne of David were not based on the law and its promises
and types, but upon God's promises to the fathers before the law age ever came
in. It is one thing to use an animal sacrifice as a type, but the direct predictions
of the prophets cannot be allegorized and explained away. To do so is to make
the Bible a jumbled confusion, and to do violence to the Scriptures. Peter
plainly tells us that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
II Peter 1:20. Then we must take them as predictions with literal fulfillment.
PART
FOUR
OTHER
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED
In the last part of this book I wish to take up some other
objections which are often brought against the doctrine of the thousand years
reign. Let me say in the beginning that when we find a plain statement of a
thing in the Bible that it is dishonoring to God and His Word to go to hunting
objections to that plain statement. The Bible plainly says, "They shall be
priests of God and Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years,"
Rev. 20:6. Since this is the plain inspired statement and interpretation of Rev.
20:4 then we should accept it and not go to hunting up supposed difficulties.
None
but Martyrs in the Reign
We often hear it said that none but the martyrs will be in the
thousand years reign. Those who offer this criticism, or objection, have
certainly not read the passage closely. Let us read it: "And I saw
thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:
And
I saw the souls of them which were beheaded for the witness of
Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither
his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their
hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years," Rev.
20:4.
Those who live and reign with Christ include two groups. They
include the group referred to as the ones John saw sitting on thrones. John
commenced with that group in Rev. 4:4 when he saw the elders sitting on their
seats, or thrones. The Revised Version always renders this thrones instead of
seats. The second group in Rev. 20:4 are the martyrs of the tribulation age who
shall be put to death for refusing to worship the beast. John first mentions
them in Rev. 6:9-11.
Then John goes on to explain "This is the first resurrection."
Then he tells us that over such the second death hath no power, but they shall
be priests of God and Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. Who
would be so foolish to say that only the martyrs will escape the second death?
All the people included in Rev. 20:4 are people over whom the second death
shall have no power. If only martyrs are included in Rev. 20:4 then none but
martyrs will escape the second death. Then all who are included in the
resurrection called the first resurrection shall reign a thousand years. To say
that only martyrs will have part in the thousand years reign is to say that the
first resurrection only includes the martyrs. If the first resurrection be
regeneration, as some tells us, then is it only the martyrs who experience
regeneration? If the first resurrection be a bodily resurrection of the saved,
then will only the martyrs have their bodies resurrected at the second corning
of Christ? Since Rev. 20:6 is an
inspired explanation, of Rev. 20:4, then all who are included in Rev. 20:6 are
also included in Rev. 20:4. If only the martyred dead are included in Rev.
20:4, then all who have died in any other way than by martyrdom are doomed to
suffer the second death. Who is ready for such a conclusion? Why will not the
brethren cease their fault-finding and accept the old doctrine?
David's
Throne Is in Heaven
Some think they can read where David's throne is in heaven. They
are poor readers. Let us examine the passage.
"His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne AS the sun
before me. It shall be established forever AS the moon, and AS a faithful
witness in heaven," Psalm 89:36, 37. The word AS is a comparative word.
The throne of David is compared to three things. Its endurance is like that of
the sun, moon, and a faithful witness in heaven. In Judges 6:1-6 we read where
the Midianites invaded the land of Israel. It is said, "They came up AS
grasshoppers for multitude." That certainly does not mean that the
Midianites were grasshoppers. They were only compared to grasshoppers. So it
is in Psalm 89:36, 37. David's throne is compared to the sun, to the moon, and
to a faithful witness in heaven. It does not say it shall be established FOR a
faithful witness in heaven, but AS (that is, like) a faithful witness in
heaven. Jeremiah tells us that "Jerusalem shall be called the throne of
the Lord," Jer. 3:17. Why try to explain away these positive statements?
The
Last Day
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one
that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will
raise him up at the last day," John 6:40.
There are none mentioned here but those who shall believe and be
saved. No unsaved are included in this statement. But the objection is that if
they are to be raised at the last day, then they must be raised at the same
time as the wicked. Whether our Lord has reference to the last literal day of
this present age, or to the period of time known as the Day of the Lord, in
neither case can the resurrection of the wicked be made to come then. Concerning
man in his natural or unsaved state, Job says, "Man lieth down, and riseth
not: till the heavens be NO MORE," Job. 14:12. If two men leave home and one tells his wife
that he will be back the last day of the year, and the other - says that he
will not return until the year be no more, then the men will not return at the
same time. One would return the last day of the year. But the other does not
return the last day, because the year is to be no more when he returns. Rev.
20:4-6 shows us that the resurrection of the righteous comes before the
thousand years reign. But it is not until the heaven and earth are fled away
that the last resurrection takes place, Rev. 20:11, 12. The resurrection in
Rev. 20:5, 6 is not the resurrection of Rev. 20:11, 12. The one in Rev. 20:5, 6
is of those over whom the second death has no power. The one in Rev. 20:11-15
is the one over whom the second death does have power. They are the rest of the
dead who live again after the thousand years.
Every
Eye Shall See Him
"Behold he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,
and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail
because of him," Rev. 1:7.
This verse must be considered in the light of its context. In verse 5 Christ is called the prince of the
kings of the earth. In verse 6 we are told that He has made us to be kings and
priests. So the coming of Christ as King of kings, not His manifestation as
Bridegroom, is under consideration in this verse. In Rev. 19:11-21 we have
John's prophecy of Him coming as King of kings.
The reference to those who pierced Him refers to the Jews as a
people. That will be the time when Israel shall receive Him.
Matthew 24:31 "And he shall send his angels with a great
sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from
one end of heaven to the other."
It has been wrongfully supposed that this had reference to the
coming of Christ for His sleeping saints. By reading Isa. 27:13 we find it has
reference to re-gathering, of the dispersed elect of Israel. "And it shall
come to pass in that day, that the GREAT TRUMPET shall be blown, and they shall
come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the
land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem,"
Isa. 27:13. Israel is especially under consideration in Matt. 24:15-31.
Russellism
The critics of the millennial doctrine often call this doctrine
Russellism. But it is far from being Russellism. We teach that the wicked will
not be raised until after the thousand years are over, whereas the Russellites
teach that they will be resurrected in the thousand years and given a chance to
believe and be saved in that time. Pre-millennialists put a thousand years
between the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. Non-millennialists
and Russellites do not put a thousand years between the resurrection of the
just and unjust. They, not we, are like the Russellites. The Pre-millennial
truth is the only doctrine that will successfully refute the second chance
theory of the Russellites.
A
New Doctrine
Many say the doctrine of the millennial reign is a new doctrine. I
have brought proof to show that it is as old as the teaching of the New
Testament. It was believed by the primitive churches. It was held by the
Anabaptists from whom we Baptists claim to have descended. In 1660 A.D. over
20,000 Baptists presented a confession of their faith to the king of England.
In this confession they declared their belief in the order in the resurrection
and the thousand years reign. See Seven
Dispensations, pages 405 and 487. It has never been a popular doctrine,
however, in the prominent theological institutions and the systems that tend
toward institutionalism and episcopacy. Those institutions that reject the
doctrine of Christ reigning on earth a thousand years are leaning more and more
to modernism, even as the Alexandrian school in Egypt which rejected the
millennial reign in the early centuries. The preachers who are pulling out from
the modernism of the Northern Convention are almost without exception
Pre-millennialists.
In the First World War I was associated for nine months with some
men in the Y.M.C.A. who were educated in Rochester Seminary at Rochester, New
York. These men were rank modernists and bitter opponents of the old Pre-millennial
doctrine.
The Battleground
of Our Day
As the millennial reign was one of the main battlegrounds in the
third and fourth centuries, so it is becoming more and more the battleground
today between those who stand by the old Book and the old doctrines and the modernists
of our times. It is a ringing challenge to everyone who loves our Lord and
believes in preaching the whole truth to stand by His colors. It is no time for
compromisers or pacifists. It is high time for those who claim to be with us to
quit lending aid and comfort to our enemies. Some of our own brethren are
insisting that we quit preaching on prophecy and limit our preaching to
repentance and faith. Dionysius and his Alexandrian bunch threw the Book of
Revelation out of the Bible. Our brethren are doing practically the same
thing. If we are not to study, teach, learn from, and preach from that book,
then how much better off are we than if the book was discarded from the Bible
altogether? Can't the brethren see the logic of their position? If they were
right in their position then they would not be out of harmony with any part of
the Bible and the preaching of the Book of Revelation would not be disturbing
to them. It was disturbing to the unscriptural organizations of the Greek
churches in the early centuries, so they rejected the millennial reign and
threw the Book of Revelation out of the canon. It is disturbing to some of our
brethren today and they want us to cease teaching the thousand years reign and
quit teaching the Book of Revelation. They make no effort to learn the contents
of the book and teach the same to the people, and they would hinder and silence
the mouths of those who are doing their best under the Spirit to post
themselves on the teachings of the book and give to the people that part of the
Word of God. They had better be careful. Any time any man would shut the mouth
of a preacher from preaching anything that is taught in God's Word, and that
God commands to be studied and taught, he is tampering with the things of God.
Does God oppose Himself? Did He reveal unto us some things that will hurt His
cause if they are studied and taught? What is wrong with these brethren? Have
they lost all judgment? Are they wiser than God? Do they know better than God
what is good for His cause? When they advocate that we quit preaching
everything but repentance they are putting their wisdom up against the wisdom
of God. Paul said to Timothy, "All scripture is given by inspiration of
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto
all good works," II Tim. 3:16, 17. Does this sound like there are parts of
God's Word and doctrines that are unprofitable, and that should be let alone?
Can't these brethren see that in their contention they have already made a long
step toward modernism? The spirit that would prompt us to pick and cull the
Word of God at will is modernistic and dangerous. These brethren would have us
to cease preaching prophecy. But Peter said, "We have a more sure word of
prophecy whereunto ye do well to take heed," II Peter 1:19. So they set
themselves in opposition to the words and admonition of Peter. I ask, is not
this the spirit of modernism? If they neglect the prophetic part of the Scriptures
then can they be throughly furnished to all good works? If they fail to teach
that part to the people do they not fall short that much in their duty toward
God and the people? Does it not become all the worse when they do it purposely
and through prejudice and seek to justify themselves in so doing? Isn't it
still worse when they criticize the other man for trying to give the people all
the Word of God, and seek to shut His mouth?
That part of the Word of God that deals with prophecy is very
important. Almost half the Bible is prophecy. Unless a servant of God is
informed on prophecy he is unable to know how to avoid unscriptural alliances
and entanglements. Many movements that look innocent enough may be headed in
the wrong direction. Jesus said, "Judge not according to the appearance,
but judge righteous judgment," John 7:24. No movement can be rightly
judged save in the light of God's Word. When men neglect to study or preach the
prophetic part of God's Word they may be neglecting the very thing that God
put in His Word to enable them to see and understand the character and the
trend of that movement. The only way to keep out of the Devil's traps is to
keep ourselves and others informed on all that the Word of God teaches, and to
watch and pray. That is why Peter admonishes us to take heed to the sure word
of prophecy. The Devil knows that if he can keep the people ignorant of the
prophetic part of the Word of God he can better put over his programs and
deceive more people. We have seen that Rev. 13:7 tells us that the beast is to
have power over all nations. If these people who are clamoring for a world
government knew where their movement was headed, and the serious consequences
involved in the matter, they would certainly keep themselves free from the
movement. This is a concrete example of the dire consequences of preachers
failing to keep themselves informed on prophecy and instructing the people. In
Rev. 13:8, we read that the time is coming when all whose names are not in the
book of life will worship the beast. This shows where the federated church
movement is headed. If many who are wrapped up in that movement knew where it
was headed, and the consequences, they would clear their skirts in that
respect. Many who are standing as
watchmen are not sounding the warning. They have seriously failed in their duty
of instructing the people on this line. What will be their excuse when they
meet their Lord? How shall they answer to those over whom they are supposed to
watch for their failure to give them instructions and keep them informed? Who,
today, besides Pre-millennialists are seeking to warn the people about such
movements and telling them where they are headed? If Pre-millennialists did not
preach on coming prophetic events and post the people, then who would? In
Jeremiah's day the supposed wise men opposed his prophetic warnings and
declared that God had not spoken by him. Jeremiah said of them, "How do ye
say, we are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain
made he it; the pen of the scribe is in vain," Jer. 8:8. So far as the
prophetic part of God's Word is concerned, it may as well not have been written
for the Non-millennialists and Postmillennialists. Who is to blame for the
widespread ignorance of the people on prophetic truths and what is coming on
the earth? Brother, will you not in all fairness ask yourself the question,
"Is it I?" If people are uninformed on the meaning of present-day
events, how much are you to blame? Can
you afford to close your mind and eyes to the prophetic truths of God's Word?
Can you let prejudice and preconceived ideas of your own stand in your way? Can
you truthfully and wholeheartedly say, "If the Bible teaches that there is
going to be a thousand years reign of Christ and His people on the earth I
would like to know it, and I would like to learn all I can about it?"
Unless you can answer this question in the affirmative you still have a rebellious
attitude toward some parts of God's Word. If you are not open to learn any
certain truth that is taught in God's Word, then there is something wrong. Can
you say, I want to know about this if it is taught in God's Word? Test yourself
here. Are you sure it is conviction or prejudice that is holding you back? The
question is not, Have I ever heard it preached before? The question is, Does
the Bible teach it? Neither is the question, Is it Russellism?'' Is it Baptist
doctrine? but Is it Bible doctrine? If I have to deny and cut out a part of
God's Word to be a Baptist, then I will cease to be a Baptist. But I can with
confidence say, I can still be a Baptist and believe in the doctrine of the
millennial reign and all other Bible doctrines.
If you can say from your heart that you want to know and believe
this doctrine, if it is Bible doctrine, then you can know. Start with the fact
of the thousand years reign. "They shall be priests of God and of Christ,
and shall reign with him a thousand years," Rev. 20:6. Quit trying to pile
up difficulties before this plainly stated Bible fact. Commence with the fact
and work out from there.
CONCLUSION
In closing this work offer to the reader this line of thought to
pursue that will help him in his study:
1.
Make up your mind that you will believe whatever the Bible says
even if you do not understand all about it.
2.
Make up your mind that a plainly stated truth in the Bible cannot
be disproven by some other part of the Bible.
3.
Remember that all prophecy of God's Word must have its fulfillment
sometime, somewhere, Matt. 24:25.
4.
Remember that the system that cannot embrace all Bible truth is
not big enough.
5.
Any interpretation of the Bible that must discard a plainly stated
truth in God's Word is a wrong interpretation.
6.
God's Word plainly states that certain persons "Shall reign
with him (Christ) a thousand years."
7.
This statement from God's Word demands your honest attention and
may not be waived aside.
8.
Since it is in the Bible, then what will you do with it?
9.
All animals ate herbs, not flesh, in the beginning, Gen. 1:30.
10.
Another age is coming in which animals will eat grass again, Isa.
11:6, 7.
11.
Do you have a place for this in your system of interpretation?
12.
There will be weaned and sucking children in that age, Isa. 11:8,
9.
13.
Serpents will be harmless to these children then, Isa. 11:8, 9.
14.
What will you do with this prophecy and at what age will you put
it?
15.
Isn't it a fact that all children must have parents?
16.
Does not Jesus teach that glorified people do not marry and will
therefore not bear children? Luke 20:34-36.
17.
Then must we not look outside the ranks of the glorified saints
for the parents of the children in Isa. 11:8, 9, and Isa. 65:23?
18.
Do these things seem marvelous to you? Then read Zech. 8:3-6 and see
where the Lord says it is not marvelous in His eyes.
19.
Does not a kingdom have to have subjects as well as heirs and
rulers?
20.
Since "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God," I Cor. 15:50, then must not those who are heirs and rulers of the kingdom
be in their resurrected or glorified bodies?
21.
Does this not show that the saints must have their resurrection
before they can do their reigning?
22.
Is not the resurrection of the body of the saints under consideration
in the 15th chapter of First Corinthians?
23.
If flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, then must
not the saints who are to reign with Christ and inherit the kingdom have their
resurrection before they do their reigning?
24.
Is this not exactly what Premillennialists teach about the first
resurrection and the thousand years reign?
26.
Do not confuse the heirs of the kingdom, who must be in their
resurrected bodies, with the subjects of the kingdom who will be in their
natural bodies.
27.
Are the heirs of a kingdom and the subjects of a kingdom the same
people?
28.
There are three phases of the kingdom to be reckoned with, Mark
4:26-28.
29.
The millennial reign is only one of these phases.
30.
Jesus taught that the twelve apostles should sit on twelve thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel, Matt. 19:28.
31.
This makes necessary the re-gathering of those twelve tribes, so
Jesus taught the re-gathering of Israel.
32.
This makes necessary the resurrection of the apostles before they
can reign over re-gathered Israel.
33.
This puts the resurrection of the saints before their reigning,
even as taught in Rev. 20:5, 6.
34.
The apostles are to sit on their thrones when Christ sits on His
throne, Matt. 19:28.
35.
The apostles cannot do their judging until Christ returns, for we
read in I Cor. 4:4: "Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord
come."
36.
Jesus says He will sit on the throne of His glory when He comes in
the glory of His Father and the angels with Him, Matt. 25:31.
37.
Since the twelve apostles are to sit on their twelve thrones when
Jesus sits on His throne, then they will sit on their thrones when Jesus comes
back and sits on His throne.
38.
When Jesus comes back the saints will have their resurrected
bodies, I Cor. 15:22, 23.
39.
Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God then the
twelve apostles must be resurrected before they can sit on their thrones and
inherit the promise Jesus gave to them.
40.
Jerusalem is to be called the throne of the Lord, Jer. 3:17.
41.
At that time the twelve tribes, over which the twelve apostles are
to reign, including both Judah and Israel, are to be re-gathered to their
land, Jer. 3:17, 18.
42.
There were mysteries about the kingdom that were not made known to
the old prophets, Matt. 13:35.
43.
One of these mysteries was that the kingdom was to have three
phases, Mark 4:26-28.
44.
They only saw the kingdom enduring without an end, Isa. 9:7.
45.
They foresaw the events of the millennial age, but did not see
that phase as separate from the eternal phase.
46.
It remained for the New Testament to make known the three phases,
Mark 4:26-28, and to give us the length of the phase of that kingdom on this
present earth, II Peter 3:7, 8, and Rev. 20:4-6.
47.
Let the reader carefully examine the outline above, giving careful
attention to the references given.
(The End)