Page images
PDF
EPUB

serpent which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled." Rev. xx. 1—3.

Thus are we brought to that "consummation" to which the expounding angel directed Daniel's faith, when "that determined" should be poured upon the desolator--to the Times of the Restitution of all things," until which Peter declared the heavens must receive our Lord-to the blessed epoch announced by Paul, when the Saviour shall utterly destroy the Man of sin "with the brightness of His Coming," to the period predicted by our Lord Himself when "the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled,"-and when " the end of the age" shall arrive, for which His disciples longed, and which was afterwards announced by an angel, with awful solemnity, in the hearing of him who was peculiarly beloved: "And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea, and upon the earth, lifted up his hand to heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven and the things that therein are, and the sea and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer; but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." Rev. x. 5—7.

SECTION XX.

FIRST RESURRECTION AND REIGN OF THE SAINTS.

HAVING in our investigations arrived at the end of this age, we proceed farther to inquire, what the Spirit of God has been pleased to reveal concerning " that which is to come." One distinguishing feature of that age, is declared by the apostle Paul when he reminds the saints at Ephesus, that God "hath made known unto us the mystery of His will according to his good pleasure,

which he hath purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in Him. Ephes. i. 9, 10. "And I saw thrones," continues the apostle John, after the account of the destruction of the Antichristian nations, and the binding of Satan, "And I saw thrones, and they [or persons] 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, 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. (But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years

*From the word here translated "rest" being in the Greek the same with that translated "remnant," Rev. xix. 21; Dr. Hamilton, (p. 213,) maintains the parties spoken of to be one and the same. To charge a Doctor of Divinity with unworthy quibbling would be unseemly; but really when attempts are made to set aside and decry a Scriptural doctrine, and to support an opposite opinion by such an artifice, suspicions will involuntarily arise. What would be thought of the wisdom or candour of him who should gravely maintain that Infidels and Christians must be precisely the same class of men, because he had found in some highly approved theological work, "a remnant" of the one mentioned in juxta-position with "the rest" of the other the remnant and the rest meaning the same thing? Or, how many would be persuaded that "oil" and "blood" are exactly the same, although he should adduce the fact, that in the Scripture account of the legal ceremonial services, "the rest" of a portion of both are mentioned, within a dozen chapters of each other? Yet such is the nature of the evidence by which Dr. Hamilton would establish that the slain, (Rev. xix. 21,) are the whole of those described (xx. 5.) as the rest of the dead who live not again till the thousand years be finished; and we much regret to add that Dr. Wardlaw has here followed the same course. Independently of the fact that it is a literal slaying of the former that is spoken of-for "all the fowls were filled with their flesh"-the sophism may be rendered still more apparent, by bringing together other instances from the New Testament, in which the Greek term that is here translated "rest" and "remnant" For by following the same line of argument these Doctors might establish, beyond the power of controversy, not merely the identity of "the remnant" slain, with the "rest" of the dead who lived not again; but they might also prove that both are the very party described, Rev. ix. 20, as" the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not of the works of their hands;" and that still we have in Rev. xi. 13, these men, the very "remnant who were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven."—" Hoi Loipoi,' the identical remnant who were slain !" exclaims Dr. Hamil.

occurs.

were finished.) This is the FIRST RESURRECTION. 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 of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Rev. xx. 4-6. Thus, then, are we brought to the consideration of the muchdisputed doctrine of the pre-millennial resurrection of the saints, and their after reign with Christ during the Millennium.*

ton, with an air of triumph. We wonder it did not occur while he thus deceived himself, or endeavoured to practise upon the credulity of his readers, that the remainder of one thing could not be the "identical remnant" of another, and that the character of these remnants differ just in proportion to the dissimilarity of the objects to which they apply, this being ascertained only from the connection in which they are found. "The rest" or "remnant" in English, with its equivalent in Greek, merely denotes what is not included, whether this be, as in Matt. xxii. 6," the remnant" of unworthy men who rejected the invitation to the wedding of the king's son-or, as in Mat. XXV. 11, "the other" virgins who were denied access to the Bridegroom's presence-or the lusts of "other" things which render the word unfruitful, as in Mark iv. 19-or, as in Luke xxi. 26, "the rest" of the things about which Christ enjoined His disciples to take no thought.

* We hope to be forgiven by the Examinator in the Instructor for having preferred the method adopted, although it has brought us thus late to the examination of the passage he has kindly prescribed (p. 482,) as that on which "all discussion should begin, and all demonstrations should finally seek their foundation," We beg to assure him, that it was from no contempt of his prescriptive authority that a different course has been pursued, but simply from a belief that it might be proper first to establish the period of Christ's Return, and from a conviction that the doctrine of our Lord's Millennial advent and reign, is supported by such an abundance of Scriptural Evidence as that it would have stood perfectly secure, even although we were interdicted all reference to the passage in question. The only point here declared, which is not elsewhere revealed, is the duration of this reign; and Commentators, both those who maintain and those who oppose the doctrine of the personal presence of Christ, are, after all, at variance with respect to the meaning of the "thousand years." Some suppose, that the thousand years are given as a round number, merely indicating a long but indefinite time; others believe that they are to be understood as literal years, and therefore predict the precise period of the Millennium; and a third class maintain, that being prophetic years, having a year for a day, they intimate a period of 365,000 civil years. Although fully aware that there are arguments not destitute of weight in favour of the interpretation of literal years, to us the opinion scarcely appears consistent with other Scriptures. When we consider the frequency with which the prophets speak of

Much of the supposed difficulty with respect to the nature of this Resurrection and Reign probably arises from a too frequent neglect of the light which it receives from other parts of Scripture, and the entire oversight even of the preceding context, predicting the coming of Christ and the destruction of his enemies, to which we have adverted. The numerous prophetic annunciations of Messiah's future abode on earth-the evidence already adduced of this being the period of his Personal Return-and the declarations, yet to be noticed, of the resurrection of the dead saints and change of those alive at his coming-these not only constrain us to believe, but to wonder it should ever have been denied, that this resurrection is literal and the reign personal, and that those who live and reign with Christ are his arisen and glorified saints, redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; part of whose heavenly song, in prospect of this honour, being, "We shall reign upon the earth." Rev. v. 9, 10. Indeed, having already so fully proved the Return of Christ before the Millennium, farther examination of this passage to ascertain its meaning may be deemed superfluous. Still, however, it may add confirmation to the faith of some who already believe, enable the doubtful to decide, and convince others who have hitherto been prejudiced against this glorious truth, to attend for a little to some of the reasons adduced for understanding it spiritually, and to examine what farther light may be derived from other scriptures concerning the First Resurrection; for, happily, on this important and interesting doctrine, we have "line upon line, precept on precept."

It is sometimes said, by those who deny a personal the continuance of Christ's Millennial reign on earth, as " for ever," and, in some cases, as " for ever and ever," we are constrained to think such expressions too strong to be used in reference to a period of a thousand literal years. This objection appears still more forcible, when it is remembered, that, in some instances, the "for ever" is put in contrast with the time of Israel's dispersion, as if that were comparatively but a little while. The only additional circumstance here ascertained then is, that this reign is for a limited time-the exact duration of which will not perhaps in this state be known till the event declare.

P

reign, that the book of the Revelation being figurative, it is improper to suppose that this is to be literally understood. But the adoption of such a principle of interpretation is not more subversive of a literal than of a spiritual resurrection and reign. For, if the figurative nature of the book, or to speak more correctly its symbolical nature, form an objection to our understanding them in one sense, it may be made equally to exclude them in any other. Nor is this the whole of the evil such a mode of interpretation would occasion. We should, besides, be led not only to reject the literal resurrection of the rest of the dead, "small and great," after the Millennium, but also to deny the literal destruction of Antichrist-the binding of Satan--his future release, and the re-extension of his power--his ultimate punishment--and the final judgment. Not only are all these contained in this symbolical book, but symbols are used in the account of them; as in the description of the beast, and the marking of his followers-the angel's key-the chaining of Satan and setting a seal upon him--and the opening of books for the purpose of judgment. But the use of these symbols does not in the least affect the reality of the events to which they refer; and still less, therefore, will the symbolical charac ter of the book change the nature of real events, in the account of which symbols are not used.*

* On this vision seen by John, Dr. Wardlaw remarks, as formerly noticed:-" Did the words occur in a historical or epistolary composition, it would justly be pronounced unnatural, (unless we were specially warned of the writer's purposed deviation from his ordinary style,) to explain them symbolically. Now in a professedly symbolical book, there is the very same force of objection against their being interpreted literally. The interpretation is not in harmony with the avowed and universally admitted style of the writer, and the principle on which his entire work is constructed." He therefore asks, "Why are we, in the text, (Rev. xx. 4,) to understand literal thrones of earthly dominion, and a literal corporeal resurrection of men to sit upon those thrones, when all around is symbolical and figu rative?" (p. 498.) We have already proved the pre-millennial Return of Christ from both "historical" and "epistolary" compositions, and might, therefore, without reference to this " symbolical book," require the Doctor's assent to its truth. But we have farther to remark on his principle of interpretation, that the book of Revelation is not so completely symbolical as to demand that all its statements be so interpreted; neither does the Doctor always think they do. In

« EelmineJätka »