The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

I graciously just received a copy of the DVD, The Late Great Planet Church: The Rise Of Dispensationalism released March 2009. I would like to give a bit of a review of the 2 hour video put together by Nicenecouncil.com.

Obviously, the title of the DVD is a play upon the famous 1970 dispensational book by Hal Lindsey The Late Great Planet Earth.

My first impression was simply with the quality of the DVD. Many Christian DVDs seem to be low-grade, typically by the poor lighting & single angle camera shots. This DVD makes good use of lighting & transition between scenes.

As the video began, it accurately presented the Dispensational view & it makes the typical claims against it. Read the rest of this entry »

or The Feasts are the Key to the Revelation

All Christians recognise Christ’s fulfilment of Passover (crucifixion) and Firstfruits (ascension), followed by Pentecost. Futurists, who major in all things Jewish, recognise that Trumpets and Atonement follow, but they push them into the future.

Read the rest of this entry »

The habitual liar & hyperpreterist Jason Bradfield has recently posted a YouTube video to “challenge” William Hill, the host of Covenant Radio (CR) on Hill’s posting of a statement clarifying CR’s position on hyperpreterism.

Now, Jason starts his video by claiming that the former CR host, Jeff McCormack was NOT a hyperpreterist — McCormack was CERTAINLY a hyperpreterist & there is documentation in Jeff’s own words that declare it.  So, Jason starts off either ignorant of the truth OR once again lying.

The statement on CR’s site outlines the 3 main beliefs of hyperpreterism;

Yet, Jason skips right over the MEAT of the statement, calling it “vague”.

Jason then goes on to directly insult Hill by saying, “We don’t need you”.  Ok???? So why did you do the video if you think Hill & CR are so insignificant?  Is Hill going around saying how much people “need him”???  Who thinks like this, but an arrogant hyperpreterist who MUST have as their overarching premise that the Church & the world NEEDED THEM to show all of us dummies what the Bible supposedly REALLY says.

Next Jason claims I (without naming my name — since I am a curse word among the “movement”), claims that I “spend most of my life tracking them down & spreading lies & slander & putting them in a bad light”.  Jason, I have & MAINTAIN a full time job & have a family & many, many other interests.  Secondly, Jason please be more specific — what LIES & SLANDER have I spread???  In your very video you either ignorantly tell the viewers that McCormack wasn’t a hyperpreterist, or you LIE to them.  You put yourself in a “bad light”.  You have been caught in so many lies over the years Jason it isn’t funny.

Then Jason tries to take issue with this  portion of the CR statement as if it is a contradiction:

[Hyperpreterism] is NOT a heresy just because we don’t like it, nor is it a heresy because it is “new”, nor is it a heresy because the majority oppose it. Hyperpreterism is a heresy because it is unlike anything ever taught in the history of Christianity…from the very founding to now.

Claiming that the complaint against hyperpreterist is “because its new”.  No, actually forms of hyperpreterism ARE NOT very new — hyperpreterism borrows much from the Gnostics which were around at the very founding of Christianity — however, Gnosticism like hyperpreterism are NOT Christian.

Jason glosses over most of the statement as “ad hom stuff” but the FACT is hyperpreterism MUST have as its overarching premise, the ARROGANT concept that 2000 years of Christianity has either been duped or covering up the supposed “truth” of hyperpreterism.  Yes, I’d call that arrogant.

Continuing to ignore the bulk of the CR statement, Jason glosses over the part about hyperpreterist tactics & instead complains that Christians can appeal to Christian history but hyperpreterists aren’t allowed to — Why aren’t they allowed to?  Because there is NO CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIAN until perhaps Max King that has EVER taught any kind of systematic form of hyperpreterism.  When hyperpreterists appeal to Christian history they cherry pick quotes & ignore that the theologians overall belief was diametrically opposite of how the hyperpreterist tries to depict them from the lifted quotes.

Jason says the “part that irks” him the most about the CR statement is that part that addresses the history of hyperpreterism.  Jason implies that he takes issue with the reference of Max King & hyperpreterism’s “church of Christ” beginnings.  He implies that the only reason the “church of Christ” link is mentioned is “because Mr. Hill’s audience is Reformed & wow we don’t want to associate with these weird ‘church of Christ’ people” — What Jason DOESN’T tell us is that hyperpreterism’s main leaders have & still are men with “church of Christ” backgrounds: Max King, Tim King, Don Preston, William Bell, Terry Hall, Jack Scott, Larry Seigle, Virgil Vaduva, Kurt Simmons, & even Ed Stevens.  Why? What is the connection?  Is it really just a coincidence? (see here)

Finally we get to the REAL reason Jason did this video.  There was a cultic community in upstate NY back in the 1800s called the Oneida Community which practiced & taught a form of hyperpreterism.  Now remember, the CR statement says the modern form of hyperpreterism started in the 1970s.  Well, Jason is upset because he thinks it is unfair to associate the Oneida Community with modern hyperpreterism.  Jason then tries to imply the beliefs of the Oneida Community were in line with modern day so-called “partial preterists” — like R.C. Sproul.  Really???  Sproul advocates anything like the Oneida Community???

Jason then points out that the Oneida Community’s beliefs are “not the view of Max King, Sam Frost, or Don Preston” — who said it was Jason????

Jason, the hint may be in something you said even about yourself — you claimed you are “Calvinistic” but not “historically Reformed”.  I agree.  the Oneida Community was not “historically hyperpreterist”, but it was certainly hyperpreteristic in that like modern hyperpreterism it HAD to advocate that historic Christianity was woefully wrong.

To conclude, Jason “challenges” Hill by offering Hill a $500.00 check to “provide original source material demonstrating that the Oneida Community’s millennial position…timing of the judgment is the same as Max King, Sam Frost, & Don Preston” — Jason???  WHO SAYS IT WAS????  I think you & your family would be better served that you keep your money to provide for them…especially since your “challenge” is based on something no one even claimed.  And to claim you “can’t think of another way to get” Hill’s attention than your offering him money is very insulting as if he is all about monetary gain.  Is this a projection of your own mentality Jason???

Lastly, Jason finishes up his presentation with one more lie — claiming that he brought up to me the Oneida issue on a Christian forum called CARM & that I “backed out of the conversion”.  Jason, are you failing to tell everyone you kept getting banned by the moderators on CARM because you couldn’t speak without insult?  I didn’t “back out”, but rather told you as I am now, you are setting up a false premise — no one has claimed the Oneida Community advocated the exact same things as you modern hyperpreterists.

You complete your insult to Hill by claiming he has only posted the CR statement so that he can get certain guests on his show.  CR had all sorts of guests on the show with or without the statement.  CR even had people on the show while one of its co-hosts was a full blown hyperpreterist. Jason, just because you may not have principles doesn’t mean others don’t & that they will do things based on principle no matter whether it makes you happy or not.

Actually, I think it is CR & Hill that “don’t need you” Jason.  They certainly don’t need to hear all of the lies & false premises you packed into to this video.  I wonder if any of your hyperpreterist buddies will take you to task?

Covenant Radio: covenantradio.com

Jason’s video: youtube.com/watch?v=vBiFgHJfauo

Keith Mathison’s statement on Oneida Community:

preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/2004_mathison_noyes.html

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

This will be my last post on this book as I have finished it. I will be compiling all the notes into one document to post at The PreteristSite.

Here is part of Brown’s commentary with which I would have some disagreement with his historicist (and futurist) approach of certain passages, but there is much in here worth noting and helpful.

Pages 442 through 447

OBJECTION THIRD:—’A full and distinct narrative of the Lord’s appearing from heaven is detailed by the prophet [in the Apocalypse] just before the millennium, and forms its immediate introduction. (Rev. xix. 11.) On the other hand, after the millennium, there is not found one syllable in the prophecy expressive of such an advent. The testimony of this fundamental vision [to the premillennial advent] is decisive and complete.’

“It may be affirmed, no doubt,” adds the acute author just quoted, “that the advent in chap. xix. is figurative only, and that a real advent occurs after the millennium, when Satan has been loosed, and the fire descends from heaven. But the stubborn fact remains unaltered, that the vision expressly reveals an advent in the former place, and in the latter passes it by in silence. to have to explain away the advent where it appears openly and in plain terms, in the prophecy; and we have to introduce it where the Holy Spirit gives no token of its occurrence. It is difficult to see how any interpretation could be censured with more justice, as both adding to and taking away from the words of the prophecy. Let any Christian read the two chapters in question (Rev. xix., xx), laying aside every previous notion, and with a simple desire to the voice of God’s Spirit, and I see not how he can escape from the evident conclusion. The second advent of our Lord, as described in the latest prophecy of Scripture, does not follow, but precedes, the millennial kingdom.”

This is strong language certainly, and it will be admitted that the objection is put as forcibly as possible. Let us examine it then.

What is this “full and distinct narrative of the Lord’s appearing from heaven,” which is “detailed” in Rev. xix.? It is as follows:—

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew but himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called the Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. and he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. … And I saw the beast, and the kinds of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” (Rev. xix. 11-16, 19-21.)

Truly, there is “detail” here; but this is the very thing which show it not to be the personal coming of Christ. For where, let me ask, is there one undisputed, unequivocal announcement of Christ’s second personal coming in which such details occur, or any details at all? All we read is just the fact of his coming.

[omitted extensive Scriptural citations, some of them being futurist interpretations that I would not hold to]

But further, what can you possibly make of this as a vision of the second advent? Will Christ personally and visibly fight against “the beast and the kings of the earth, and their armies,” personally and visibly gathered together against him? “We know,” says Mr. Gipps, “the overwhelming effects produced by the manifestation of Christ’s glory, or of portions as it were of that glory, upon those who beheld such manifestation, some of whom were his own saints, such as in Dan. x. 6-9; and at his transfiguration, Mark ix. 6, Luke ix. 32-34. We are informed of the appearance of one of his angels at his resurrection, and of its effect upon the guard of Roman soldiers (Matt. xxviii. 3, 4); of the effect of his appearance to Paul and his companions (Acts ix. 3-7, xxii. 9-11); and lastly, of his appearance to John himself (Rev. i. 17), the glory of which was so overwhelming to him, although he was the beloved disciple, and leaned upon Jesus’ breast when manifest in is humiliation as man, that John fell at his feet as dead. Can we, I would ask, when we read these accounts, conceive, that when Jesus comes in person in his own glory, and that of his Father, with all his holy angles, any created being, any worm of the earth, any sinful child of man, will either date or be able to make war against him in his person? The very absurdity involved in this idea would of itself prove to my mind that the event foretold in chap. xix. 11 &c., cannot be the second or any personal coming of Christ.

But it may be said, if this be not the second advent, where does it occur in the Apocalypse after this? “After the millennium,” says Mr. Birks, “there is not found one syllable in the prophecy expressive of such an advent.” True, for this is symbolical and figurative; and it would be somewhat difficult to conceive how the personal descent of Christ from earth to heaven could be symbolically represented. But when I read thus, “And I saw [after the millennium] a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face (or presence) the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them,” and connect this with Peter’s announcement, “The day of the Lord will come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away, and the earth and its works be burnt up” (2 Pet. iii. 10), I see the Lord personally present in the one passage, while the other informs me he has only then come. Thus no attempt is made in the Apocalypse to picture by symbols the personal advent, but in place of it he is beheld in his great white throne—just come; with which agree the words of Jesus himself, “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. xxv. 31.)

OBJECTION FOURTH:—’When the beloved disciple beheld the redeemed in vision, sitting on thrones, with golden crowns upon their heads, and heard the halleluiahs which they poured into the ear of the Lamb, the last note, it seems, of their song of praise was, “We shall reign on the earth.” (Rev. v. 10.)’

This passage is quoted in almost every defence of the premillennial theory, but without an attempt to show that it proves any thing which we deny—as if the sound of it were quite enough to convince the reader that it belonged exclusively to that scheme. Now, in order to make this out, two things must be proved. First, That the reign here anticipated means the personal reign of those who sang this song of praise to the Lamb; and secondly, That it mean their reign during the thousand years, and not in the eternal state. Many, who reject the premillennial theory as wholly unscriptural, understand the words, “We shall reign on the earth,” to refer to the glory of the redeemed in “the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.” In this case, the passage proves nothing in favour of the premillennial scheme. But I am not satisfied with this view of the passage. I agree with Druham, Marck, Vitringa, Lowman, and the majority (I take it) of exact expositors, who take this to be a vision of the Church, not in its disembodied state, but as it now is, upon earth, with the Lamb slain enthroned in the midst of it, and “inhabiting its praises” (Ps. xxii. 3), “sending forth into all the earth” those mystic “horns and eyes” of his—that sevenfold plenitude of power and wisdom, for the ingathering of his elect “out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,” and for the protecting, ruling, and perfecting of the gather Church “unto the day of redemption.” In this case, the anticipation of the Church, in the words we are considering, relate more to the ultimate triumphs of Christ’s cause upon the earth during the present state, than to the glorified condition of the saints. It is not “the spirits of just men made perfect,” anticipating this resumption of their bodies in the resurrection-state, and their reign with Christ in glory on the earth when that state arrives; but it is the infant Church of Christ in flesh and blood, struggling against tribulation, and persecution, and peril, and sword, for Christ’s sake, killed all the day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter, unable, without miracles of divine interposition and relief, to survive the combined and protracted assaults of her enemies, much less to overpower them, to carry all before her, to subdue the world under her religion and her Lord, and reign with undisputed sway over the whole earth. Yet this is anticipated as certain, and joyously sung by the choir of throned elders—bright earnest of the ‘reign for ever and ever,’ when that which is perfect being come, that which is i part shall be done away.

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

Here is part of Brown’s commentary with which I would have some disagreement with his historicist approach of certain passages, but there is much in here worth noting and helpful.

Pages 433-442

OBJECTION SECOND:—’The coming of the Lord announced in the following passage can be no other than his personal coming; and as the time of this coming is when “the time of the Gentiles have been fulfilled,’ that is at the fall of Antichrist and immediately before the millennium, it follows that this is the time of the second advent.’

Matt. xxiv. 29-31: “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 the 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 coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heave to the other.” (Compare Luke xxi. 24-27.)

That these words point ultimately to the personal advent of Christ and the final judgment, I have not the least doubt. But the first question ought to be, What is the direct and primary sense of the prophecy? Those who have not directed their attention to prophetic language will be startled if I answer, The coming of the Lord here announced is his coming in judgment against Jerusalem—to destroy itself and its temple, and with them the peculiar standing and privileges of the Jews as the visible Church of God, and set up “the kingdom of heave” (or gospel kingdom) in a manner more palpable and free than could be done while Jerusalem was yet standing. I say this application of the words, as their direct and primary sense, will probably startle those unacquainted with the prophetic style. But all hesitation on the subject will cease if we will but allow the Scripture to be its own interpreter. And,

1. Our Lord decides the sense of his own words, when he says of this entire prophecy, almost immediately after the words quoted, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away till all these thing be fulfilled.”—(Matt. xxiv. 34.) Does not this tell us as plainly as words could do it, that the while prophecy was meant to apply to the destruction of Jerusalem? There is but one way of setting this aside, but how forced it is, must, I think, appear to every unbiased mind. It is by translating, not “this generation“, but “this nation shall not pass away;” in other words, the Jewish nation shall survive all the things here predicted! Nothing but some fancied necessity, arising out of their view of the prophecy, could have led so many sensible men to put this gloss upon our Lord’s words. Only try the effect of it upon the perfectly parallel announcement in the previous chapter: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers…… Wherefore, behold, I send you prophets and wise men and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagougues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation” (Matt. xxiii. 32, 34-36.) Does not the Lord here mean the then existing generation of the Israelites? Beyond all question he does; and if so, what can be plainer than that this is his meaning in the passage before us? In this case, the coming of the Lord here announced is just his figurative coming to “judge” and destroy Jerusalem, with all the judicial consequences of that coming.

2. Language equally strong with that of this prophecy is not only used in a figurative sense, and in a great variety of cases—showing that the figurative sense is a fixed and recognised sense in prophetic style—but it is expressly applied to this very event of the destruction of Jerusalem, where we have inspired authority for so understanding it. I have already shown that the judgments of the Lord on Babylon, Egypt, Jerusalem, at the time of the captivity, and the Sardian church, are announced in language quite as strong as that of the passage before us. I here add one other example:—

Rev. vi. 12-17: “And the sun become black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is ruled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bond man, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of His wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?”

Who that is ignorant of the prophetic style would not be startled to learn that the personal advent of Christ, and the last judgment, is not the primary and proper subject of this sublime prophecy, and that the fall of Paganism in the fourth century of the Christian era is the historical event here symbolically announced? Yet the great majority of commentators, including some of the staunchest premillennialists, so expound this prophecy. I am not here contending that this is the event predicted. All I say is, that, strong as the language is—as strong as that of the prophecy we are examining—some of the ablest and most judicious commentators understand by it a figurative coming of Christ, and a figurative “day of wrath” against the Pagan world.

All the commentators I refer to admit that this and similar comings to judgment are but preludes to the personal advent and the personal judgment: and such, I freely admit, is the prophecy before us. But I think it must now be allowed, that if it can be shown that our Lord meant nothing else primarily or immediately but the judicial overthow of Jerusalem, there is nothing in the mere grandeur and strength of his language to prevent us taking that view of it. Now, I have show, from our Lord’s own solemn declaration, that the generation then existing were to witness the fulfillment of the whole; and I have only now further to show that in other prophecies which we have inspired authority for applying to the destruction of Jerusalem, the same prophetic style is employed as in this prophecy.

“And it shall come to pass afterwards,” says Joel—or “in the last days,” as Peter renders the phrase—”that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh….. And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible say of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name o the Lord shall be delivered.” (Joel ii. 28-32)

The Apostle Peter, quoting the whole of this passage, expressly declares that the first and the last parts of it were fulfilled at the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit, and the conversions immediately following it. Evident therefore it is, that the “great and terrible day of the Lord”—is no other, according to inspiration itself, than the day of Jerusalem’s judicial destruction.

Again,

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap.” (Mal. iii. 1,2.)

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children.” (Chap. iv. 5, 6.)

Taking the questions contained in the first of these passages by themselves, who would ever doubt that the refer to the second coming of Christ and the last judgment? And yet it is absolutely certain that they do not. He whom Messiah calls in this prophecy, “my messenger”—afterwards called “Elijah the prophet”—is so expressly declared to be John the Baptist, both by the angel who announced his birth (Luke i. 17), and by our Lord himself once and again (Matt. xi. 13, 14; xvii. 10-13), that no doubt of this being the right application of the words can remain on the mind of any who bow to such authority. Of course, in that case, “the great and dreadful day of the Lord” can be no other than what Joel describes in identical terms—the say of Jerusalem’s judicial destruction. When it is said, “The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple—but who may abide the day of his coming?” the prophet refers indeed to Christ’s first coming, but stretches it onwards till after his ascension, and the awful reckoning which he made with the Jewish nation and Church for rejecting him, by the destruction of their whole state through the instrumentality of the Romans.

I might add the following: “Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come” (Matt. x. 23)—which Mr. Birks actually stretches out to the second advent!

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

I am reproducing a great deal of material again. Brown presents a different view of the “little while” in Revelation that I find intriguing.

Page 414–421

When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison—for a little season—and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them to go to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven from God, and devoured them.”—(Rev. xx.7, 3, 8, 9.)

Many writers seem to think, that the whole of what is here described will be accomplished with such rapidity as not to deserve the name of a period in Church history. For this, however, there is no ground, either in the passage itself, or in any analogy from past experience. The “little season” expressly assigned to these movements plainly shows it to be a distinct period; and as it is mentioned in immediate connection with the thousand years, and as following directly on it, we must take its littleness, in point of duration, relatively to that long period. were it to extend through one, two, or three centuries, it would still be comparatively “little,” if we take the other period for a literal millennium. “Since it cannot be imagined,” says Faber, “that the whole world will plunge at once from piety to impiety, both common sense and general experience may teach us that a considerable time will elapse ere the children of men will become so thoroughly depraved as to enter into a regular combination for the purpose of extirpating the samll remnant of God’s faithful people.”

“To deceive the nations” here, as we have seen, does not mean every kind of deception. Shut up “that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled,” and now loosed and going forth “to deceive” them once more, the deception must be of the same character in both cases—to organise a new apostasy, and through them to make a fresh attempt against the Church of God upon earth.—There is no sufficient reason for taking “the nations that are in the four quarters (or corners) of the earth” to mean some particular nations at its remote extremities, so to speak. Under this impression, coupled with the mystic names “Gog and Magog,” some have given lists of uncivilized nations answering, in their opinion, to the description. The expression is clearly employed to correspond with the figurative description of the Church, as “the camp of the saints and the beloved city—”images (says Scott) borrowed from the affairs of Israel in the wilderness and in Canaan. The Church being represented under this figure, as occupying one central sacred spot—once a realtity, but now, under the gospel, only a figure,—her enemies are described as sweeping from the ends of the earth towards this spot; and of course, in order to this, Satan is described as going out thither to collect his forces. Thus understood, the expression denotes the nations universally, or over the whole extent of the earth.—The names “Gog and Magog” carry us back to the account which Ezekiel gives (xxxviii., xxxix.) of an unprovoked, formidable, but abortive attack on the people of Israel peacefully settled in their own land, by some power or powers called by these same names. Fraser, Faber, and others, take both attacks to relate to the same event; but looking, not only at the passages themselves, but at the usual way in which Old Testament events are referred to in the Apocalypse, we are led, with the majority of commentators, to an opposite conclusion—that the events are in character analogous, rather than in fact the same.

The object of Satan is very explicitly stated—”to gather them together to battle.” The temptations from which he was restrained being strictly of this nature, he is now loosed just to organise a confederacy against the Church again. By what steps he will proceed, and on what precise questions the quarrel will ostensibly be raised—whether he will set up a new religion, or whether, as seems more probable, he will breathe into them an anti-religious spirit, that cannot rest so long as God has any open friends, and Christ any witnesses, and the Church exists as a visible body—we cannot tell, and shall in vain attempt to determine. One thing only is certain—he will succeed in raising a mighty party, “the number of whom is as the sand of the sea” (an expression, however, not to be pressed too far; see Gen. xli. 49; Judges vii.12; and 2 Sam. xvii. 11). One may wonder at such success; but the past of the struggles of the serpent’s seed and Christ and his people, teach us to wonder at nothing which he gets liberty to do. The bright latter-dat has set; the generations that adorned it have died; and other generations have arisen that “know not Jospeh.” In process of time they may come to deny that matters were ever much better than they are, and laugh at every assertion of the sort. Impatience of the yoke of religion will in all probability come to be the uniting principle and animating motive of this vast party. “No oppression,” says Freser, “is so grievous to an unsanctified heart as that which arises from the purity of Christianity. A desire to shake off this yoke is the true cause of that opposition Christianity has met with from the world in every period, and will, it is most likely, be the chief motive to influence the followers of Gog in his time.”—Their “going up on the breadth of the earth,” denotes their sweeping all before them in their advances against the Church; while their “compassing the camp of the saints and the beloved city,” seems to be an allusion to the close investment of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, king of Assyria. The daring and blasphemous assumptions of that heathen monarch and his men of war, their undoubting confidence of success and their profound and godless security, up to the moment when the angel of the Lord smote the host—will doubtless find their like at this final investment of “the beloved city.”

“As it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; the did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”—(Luke xvii. 26–30.)

“Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”—(1 Thess. v. 2, 3)

“There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?”—(2 Peter iii. 3, 4.)

“When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”—(Luke xviii. 8.)

And just as faithful Hezekiah and his people, shut in to an enemy sufficient to overwhelm them, could only “lift up their prayer for the remnant that was left,” saying, “This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy for the children are come to the birth, and there is no strength to bring forth: incline thine ear, O Lord, and hear and open thine eyes, O Lord, and see; and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which that sent to reproach the living God (Isa. xxxvii. 3, 17)—so will the faithful in this final struggle feel their case utterly hopeless but for some signal interceding position from on high. Accordingly, they are represented as “crying to him day and night,” and because he “beareth long with them” (Luke xviii. 7), some will give it up in despair, while the hearts of others will fail them for fear of being left to the will of their enemies.

In these circumstance, of confidence on the one side and fear on the other,—when the enemy is saying,”I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil,”—the tremulous cries of the remnant that is left enter into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. “Shall not God avenge his own elect, that cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you, he will avenge them speedily.” No manifest sign of interposition, it would seem, will be given. As “the sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar,” and “then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Gen. xix. 23, 24). so when the last enemy of the Church shall be ready to swallow up the camp of “the saints and the beloved city,” then “fire shall come down from God out of heaven, and devour them.”

Whether there will be any interval, or of what length, between this act of signal vengeance and the Personal Appearing of Christ, we have not sufficient ground to determine. Fraser, Faber, and those who take their views of “Gog,” suppose that the “seven months” which Ezekiel speaks of, as spent burying the carcasses of these victims of justice, are an indication that “the last day will not quite immediately follow” this judgment. Their grounds, however, are not convincing, and the probability is that this will be the immediate precursor of “the last trumpet;” for the final judgment of the devil himself is recorded in the very next verse, and just before the account of the last judgment.

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

I find myself here reproducing an entire chapter of awesomeness. Brown totally decimates a very common premill argument. Bravo.

Chapter VI. (pages 367 through 373)

The Way of Salvation No Less Narrow During the Millennium Than Now.

Very loose is the language indulged in upon this point,&mdashlanguage which, though repudiated by some, is nevertheless the prevailing strain in the contrasts which are drawn between the present and the expected millennial dispensation.

“Concerning the number of true believers under this dispensation,” say Dr. M’Neile, “we read, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen. Enter ye in at the strait gait, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate and narrow is way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in they name; and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity.’ Concering the character of true believers, we read, ‘Love not the world, neither the things of the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. The friendship of the world is enmity with God; whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God. Therefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.’ These passages of Scripture avowedly belong to this dispensation. They have applied in every age, and do still apply to the true disciples of the Lord Jesus: But if the world become Christian, the world will no longer persecute Christians. If all the families of the earth be blessed with eternal life, the way of life will be no longer narrow. If the world become Christian, then Christians cannot separate from the world.. It is obvious, that in the passage from our present state to a state of universal holiness, these characteristic saying of the New Testament must cease to have any application, and become obsolete, not to say false.”

The least consideration,” says Mr. Maitland, in the note already quoted, “will serve to show that the New Testament supposed a suffering< ./em> kingdom, and that its encouragements, exhortations, warnings, were addressed to a people conflicting with the world, the flesh, and the devil. The Master, as he delivered it, said, ‘I am come to send fire on earth, not peace, but a sword;’ and this supposition is the whole revelation founded. Now, if we turn to the promises of God concerning the state of the world, after his ancient people shall have been brought in and made the light of the nations (as given in Isa. xi., xxv., lx., and elsewhere), and carry the exhortation and warnings of our dispensation to a people conditioned as they shall be, we shall at once see how ill adapted they would be to their times and circumstances. Christ says to his Gospel-church in every line, if not in word yet in spirit, ’Watch and pray lest ye enter into temptation: Behold I come as a thief—a snare: be ye therefore like servants which wait for their Lord.’ Take this thought with you to the sixtieth of Isaiah, and mark the incongruity. If such precepts as these are still needed, the condition there described could not exist. Holy fear and jealousy, from the surrounding dangers, would effectually check the tide which we see flowing there. Their condition is evidently one not militant but triumphant.”

When,” says Mr. Wood,, “the nations say, ‘Come and let us go up to the house of the Lord,’ shall it be true, then, that ‘strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it?”

Once more,

“Surely,” says Mr. Brooks, “the kingdom will be already come, when all the kingdoms of this world shall have become the kindom of our Lord and and of his Christ. With what propriety, then, could men any longer be exhorted to ’seek’ and to ‘lay up treasure,’ and ‘hope for’ that which they will already be in possession of!”

The confusion of thought which all thse passages manifest, is such as can only be accounted for by the difficulty of defining a state which is made up of the most ikncongruous elements. Let us try to bring order out of it.

1. When the world ceases to persecute Christians, it will only be that on a great scale, which on a small one has seen hundreds of times in the past history of the Chrch, and, on a scale smaller still, occurs in the domestic circle every day. “The had the churches rest,” says the historian of the Acts, after Saul of Tarsus had been transformed out of a bloody persecutor into a glowing Christian, and “walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multipled.” (Acts ix. 31.) such rest, and such blessed consequences of it, have been more or less experienced in the Church from age to age since that time. And what will the millennium be, in one blessed feature of it, but this same rest,and these same consequences of it, over the whole earth? But what in this case, it will be said, becomes of such passages as these, “In the world ye shall have tribulation;” “I am not come to send peace on earth,but a sword;” “The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father”? Why, just what becomes of them when “one of a fami8ly,” after having been the object of incessant and virulent opposition from an ungodly housuehold, is blessed to the faining of every one of them—when “those who spake against him as an evil-doer, do,by his good works which they behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” Of course the father is not now “divided against the son.” they are “all of one mind; they live in peace, and the God of love and peace is with them.” There is manifestly no difference at all between this case and that which we expect during the millennium over the whole earth. The extent is nothing. The principle is the only thikng of consequence, and who does not see that that is the same in both cases? Yet they build out of this an argument for a new dispensation! As well might one say, that the change which came over the Church when Constantine extended to it the protection of the empire, was a new dispensation. (Comapre Isa. xi. 9; ii. 3, 4; xxxii. 15﹣18.)

2. The argument for an entirely new state of things during the millennium, from the words, “Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it,” while it resembles the former one in shallowness, grates more upon the ear, and is more vicious in its tendency. It proceeds on a misapprehension of the real point of our Lord’s statement, and unduly magnifies what is the least important part of it. What makes “the narrow way” to narrow, is not that “few find it,” but it is because of it narrowness that it is found by few. It is not because “many there be that go in thereat,” that the way they take is called “the broad way,” but it is because of its breadth that so many frequent it. The one way means just the course which pleases the flesh, is congenial to the carnal taste of eery natural man, and consists in following the bent of corrupt nature; therefore it is called broad—easily trodden, as its “gate” is said to be wide—easily got in at. The other way means just the opposite of this—resistence to all the desires of the natural man, the mortification of the flesh, obedience to the promptings of the opposite principle—the new, spiritual, heaven-born natrue. If this be correct, it follows, not only that men during the millennium, just as much as now, willo naturally prefer the “broad” to the “narrow” ay, if they be born in sin as we are, but that, left to themselves, every one in all time will walk in the former, and none at all in the latter; that the wonder is, not that “few,” but that any find it, and that these few fine it purely in virtue of a supernatural principle, emancipating them from the “earthly, sensual, devilish” desires to which, in common with all other men, they are naturally in bondage. Now, as this is the secret of any man’s finding the narrow way, so is it the secret of every man’s finding it who is ever conducted to “life” upon it. What, then, is the difference between the present and the millennial state, in respect of this way? Just the difference between grace plucking more brands out of the fire than now—between a less and a greater number of converted and holy persons:—that is all.

Will it be said, The way will no longer be narrow, when, instead of few, many find it? That, as I have said, is to make its narrowness to arise from its unfrequentness. And by so saying, you do something far worse than make the cause the effect, and the effect the cause; you put the real narrowness of the one way and breadth of the other out of sigh altogether, and represent the millennial state as on in which men will not find the way of life to be what it is to us—a state in in which they will not have to struggle against the corrupt tendencies of the natural man—a state in which the corruption of nature either will not exist at all, o r will not have those characteristics which make it what it is, and which have been always the same since the fall. If this is not what you mean, your argument is inept, and your language fitted only to deceive.

But surely it will not then be said, “Few there be that find it,” and if not, will not this statement be then inapplicable? The answer, if answer the question needs or merits, has been furnished already. “The father is” no longer “divided against the son,” when the father joins the son in the bonds of the gospel. When the sword of persecution is sheathed in any land, the Saviour’s words, “I am not come to send peace on earth, but a sword,” before realized there, cease of course to be descriptive of the actual state of things in that land. In these and similar statements of Scripture, it is the principle of eternal hostirily between him that is born after the flesh and him that is born after the Spirit which is to be seized upon. In this originates all the actual opposition to the cause of Christ and the members of his body which is displayed. It varies, of course, in the forms which it takes, in the places where it occurs, and in the extent to which it is permitted to go: sometimes the worse triumphs over the better, and puts it down; at other times it is the reverse; and the time is coming when those that are born after the flesh shall be the tail and not the head, all the world over. But who would ever spreak of such statements as the above being superseded, either now—wherever true religion triumphs, in families, cities, or countries—or hereafter over the whole earth? So with the “few” that now find the narrow way, compared with what will be witnessed during the millennium. As the way will be the same then—and narrow then in the same sense and for precisley the same reasons as now—so it will be nothing else than grace triumphing then over nature in more person, and to a greater extent, than now.

3. “If the world, says Dr. M’Neile, “become Christian, then Christians cannot separate from the world.” Is it possible that such a fallacy shoudl stumble any one acquainted with Scripture language? What definition of “the world” from which Christians are commanded to separate, is given in the very passage which he quotes? “Love not the world,” says the beloved disciple, “neither the things that are in the world. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” Will none of these exist during the millennium, or require to be separated from? Take riches—one of “the things (now) in the world,” and the love of which must be in this passage forbidden, seeing it is said to be “the root of all evil.” Will this not be “in the world” during the millennium? or will money be anything else than than what it is now, or will the “love of money” be more lawful? “The lust of the flesh”—will that be extinct during the millennium, or may it be then cherished? “The lust of the eye”—will that also be gone? And “The pride of life?” Or will they be any thing else then than now? The question, it will be observed, is not, Will men then rise superior to those things? but, Will they have them to resist? Dr. M’Neile’s argument, if good for any thing, is this, that men during the millennium will not need to be warned against the love of the world—not becuase they will have so much of the Spirit that hte world will make no impression upon them, though even that were no reason why they should never be warned—but because there will then be no world to love, no lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and pride of life, to require warnings against. And when we have got this length we are still not far enough; for unless it will then be lawful to “love” the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, since the “creature” will exist during the millennium, and be quite as attractive, I should suppose, as ever it has been since the fall, there will be the very same reason then as now for the apostle’s counsel, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.”

The reader will now know what to gether from Mr. Brooks’ question, “With what propriety could men any longer be exhorted to ’seek’ and to ‘lay up treasure,’ and to ‘hope for’ that which they will be in possession of?” As this is spoken of the millennial condition of mortal men, it either means that they will, in the state of mortality, be in possession of heaven, and heaven’s treasures, so as no longer to need hoping for them, as poor mortal men now have, who, with all “the frist-fruits of the Spirit” they enjoy, are dorced to “groan within themselves, waiting” for a very different state;—or else it has no meaning. I am inclined to think, that neither solution is perfectly correct. All the meaning which the statement has, is to the effect just expressed; but as I feel persuaded the author does not and cannot go that length, the rest must be set down to the nature of the expectation actually entertained, which in vain will any one attempt intelligibly to express.

In fine, the millennial state, according to the foregoing representations of it, will not be our Christianity at all. It has none of the characteristics of a state of grace; or, if this should be protested against as an unfair inference from their statements, let them give up contrasting the present with what they call the millennial dispensation. As well, I preat, may the term the change from teh persecuted to the peaceful state of the Church before and after Constantine, a change of dispensation; as well may they call the change from the Bloody Mary to Elizabeth of England, and similar changes in Scotland, and all the other kingdoms of Protestant Christendom, new dispensations. True, the change will be vastly more extensive, permanent, and glorious, tha tis to characterize the millennial period. But will there be one element in it that has not already been realized, and is not from time to time witnessed, on a smaller scale? Not one. when “the sovereignty of the world has become our Lord’s and his Christ’s” (Rev. xi. 15); when the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, is given to the people of the sains of the Most High; when Christ’s dominion is from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth; when men are blessed in him, and all nations call him blessed; when they have beaten their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks—nation not lifting up sword agaiknst nation, and none learning war any more:—then, of course, all the earth will be at rest and be still, save in the unwearied activities of welld oing. But even then, as the flesh will lust against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so salvation in every case will then be as much a triumph of grace over nature as now.

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

Page 346–347

But the Jewish idea, under which this prediction [Malachi 1:11] is couched, is not merely that “incense and a pure offering” shall be offered to God by all nations, but “in every place”—as if they would have the temple service at home, and not need to go to Jerusalem for it. Now we have seen, that in other places the reverse of this is expressly predicted. In Isaiah and Ezekiel, the catholicity of the Church’s worship is expressed by all nations flowing to Jerusalem, and going up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of God of Jacob; whereas in Malachi instead of them going to the temple, the temple is represented as coming to them. If, then, we would not make the prophets contradict themselves, we must understand both representations as designed to announce just the catholicity and spirituality of the Gospel worship.

Obvious, isn’t it?

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

In further reading, it seems to me that David Brown might have actually leaned towards a historical postmillennial view. What do I mean by that? I am a Neo-Postmillennialist—that means that I believe we are now in the Millennium and that we are progressing towards a world that will be globally changed by the Gospel. Classic/historical Postmillennialists tended to believe in a distinct future golden age after which Christ will return.

Page 338-339

That the unbelieving Jews should look for a rebuilt temple, a re-established priesthood, the restoration of their bloody sacrifices, and an Israelitish supremacy—at once religious and civil—over all the nations of the earth, when their Messiah comes, is not to be wondered at. With these views of Old Testament prophecy, their fathers rejected Jesus and put him to death, as he neither realized their expectations, nor professed to do so; but, on the contrary, directed his whole teaching to the uprooting of the prevalent conceptions of Messiah’s character, work, and kingdom, and to the establishing of views directly opposite. Unless they had been prepared to abandon their whole scheme of Old Testament interpretation, they could not consistently have acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah. But that any Christians should be found agreeing with the unbelieving Jews in their views of Old Testament prophecy—that there should be a school of Christian interpreters, who, while recognizing Jesus as the promised Messiah, and attached in all other respects to evangelical truth, should, nevertheless contend vehemently for Jewish literalism, and, as a necessary consequence, for Jewish altars, sacrifices, and supremacy—is passing strange. It is true that this Judaistic element was not wholly expelled from the minds of the apostles before the day of Pentecost; it is true that even after this it had its advocates in some of the infant Churches—as the Galatian and Colossian; and it is true that, even when extruded thence by the zeal with which Paul attacked it, and the light which he poured upon the Old Testament by his rich expositions, it still lingered, and struggled for a footing, and succeeded in entrenching itself in a number of shallow minds, and forming small sects who precise tenets are still a matter of dispute among ecclesiastical historians. But characterized as they were by low views of the Person and Work of Christ, as well as of every thing else in religion, their existence was brief and outside the orthodox Church; nor have such Judaizing opinions ever been able to raise their head, save in a few isolated cases, till the present day. The most remarkable fact of all is, that those who held the premillennial theory in the second and third centuries, seem not to have believed in any literal, territorial restoration of the Jews at all,—much less in their millennial supremacy over all nations, and the re-establishment of their religious peculiarities.

There are some great points there, but I do not agree with his insults against some early Christians as “shallow” if he is referring to such thinkers as Justin Martyr. Since he does not name who he is referring to, I felt I had to make it clear that while I agree with his theological points here, I cannot countenance saying Justin Martyr had a shallow mind or low view of the Person and Work of Christ.

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

In further reading, it seems to me that David Brown might have actually leaned towards a historical postmillennial view. What do I mean by that? I am a Neo-Postmillennialist—that means that I believe we are now in the Millennium and that we are progressing towards a world that will be globally changed by the Gospel. Classic/historical Postmillennialists tended to believe in a distinct future golden age after which Christ will return.

Pages 328–330

These remarks will, if I mistake not, throw light upon the remainder of this vision, which is evidently to be interpreted upon the same principles. Once claimant for the throne of the world has been disposed of. He has been in possession of the ground, indeed, long before his Rival, in some sense; and might pretend to a de facto right to keep the ground. But right de jure he had none, and that is the only right recognised in heaven. He is accordingly, at the time appointed, swept away; and the stage being now clear, the rival Claimant—even the Son of Man, borne upon the clouds—is seen advancing to the Eternal Arbiter, still sitting on his awful throne, and is introduced to him by the angelic officers of state: “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.” (Verse 13.) For what purpose is this? That he may be seen putting in his claim to the sovereignty of the world, and getting that claim recognised by Him that sitteth upon the throne. “Ask of me,” says the Ancient of days, in effect, “and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for they possession.” (Psal. ii. 8.) The prophet sees this done. “And,” he adds, “there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” (Verse 14.)

Who does not see that this has nothing to do with the second personal advent of Christ? The coming of the Son of Man here is not, be it observed, a coming to men at all, but a going to God; nor is it any local coming even to Him. It is simply the advancement and the recognition of his claim to rule the world, clothed in state forms,—in the symbolic drapery of an august installation or inauguration. From what locality his rule is to issue, the vision says not a word, nor gives a hint. It is just the rule itself—”that all people, nations, and languages, should serve and obey”—wrested out of the hand of a base usurper, and committed to “Him whose right it is to reign.” It is just that in symbolic language which Zechariah expresses in naked terms, referring to the same period: “And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be on Lord, and his name one.” (Chap. xiv. 9.) It is the removal of all Redeemer’s public rivals, in consequence of which “the Lord alone is exalted in that day.” (Isaiah ii. 11, 17.) Enemies, we shall by and by find, will still exist; but they will not be exalted or lift up the head. They will be still, and know that he is God. They will yield him feigned submission: but universal submission he will have. The only difference, then, between his rule now and in the latter day, is in the presence now, and the extinction then, of a public party in opposition to him together with the native consequences of these very different states of things. Now, it is said to him, “Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” (Ps. cx. 2.) Then, it is said to him, “O Lord our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. They are dead; they shall not live; they are deceased; they shall not rise: therefore has thou visited and destroyed them, and made all memory of them to perish.” (Isa. xxvi. 13, 14.)

Another bag of hurt delivered to premillennialism. There’s more where that came from.