Basic HTML Version
692
c. Some of the variations of this theory.
Premillenarians are by no means all agreed as to the
particulars of their eschatological scheme. A study of their literature reveals a great variety of
opinions. There is indefiniteness and uncertainty on many points, which proves that their
detailed construction is of rather doubtful value. While the majority of present day
Premillenarians believe in a coming visible rule of Jesus Christ, even now some anticipate only a
spiritual rule, and do not look for a physical presence of Christ on earth. Though the thousand
years of Rev. 20 are generally interpreted literally, there is a tendency on the part of some to
regard them as an indefinite period of shorter or longer duration. Some think that the Jews will
be converted first, and then brought back to Palestine, while others are of the opinion that this
order will be reversed. There are those who believe that the means used for the conversion of
the world will be identical with those now employed, but the prevailing opinion is that other
means will be substituted. There is a difference of opinion also as to the place where the risen
saints will dwell during their millennial reign with Christ, on earth or in heaven, or in both
places. Opinions differ very much, too, with respect to the continuance of the propagation of
the human race during the millennium, the degree of sin that will prevail at that time, and the
continued sway of death, and many other points.
3. OBJECTIONS TO PREMILLENNIALISM.
In the discussion of the second advent the
premillennial view of it was already subjected to special scrutiny and criticism, and the
succeeding chapters on the resurrection and the final judgment will offer further occasion for a
critical consideration of the premillennial construction of these events. Hence the objections
raised at this point will be of a more general nature, and even so we can only pay attention to
some of the most important ones.
a. The theory is based on a literal interpretation of the prophetic delineations of the future of
Israel and of the Kingdom of God, which is entirely untenable. This has been pointed out
repeatedly in such works on prophecy as those of Fairbairn, Riehm, and Davidson, in the
splendid work of David Brown on The Second Advent, in Waldegrave’s important volume on
New Testament Millennarianism, and in the more recent works of Dr. Aalders on De Profeten
des Ouden Verbonds, and Het Herstel van Israel Volgens het Oude Testament. The last volume
is devoted entirely to a detailed exegetical study of all the Old Testament passages that might
bear in any way on the future restoration of Israel. It is a thorough work that deserves careful
study. Premillenarians maintain that nothing short of a literal interpretation and fulfilment will
satisfy the requirements of these prophetic forecasts; but the books of the prophets
themselves already contain indications that point to a spiritual fulfilment, Isa. 54:13; 61:6; Jer.
3:16; 31:31-34; Hos. 14:2; Mic. 6:6-8. The contention that the names “Zion” and “Jerusalem”
are never used by the prophets in any other than a literal sense, that the former always
denotes a mountain, and the latter, a city, is clearly contrary to fact. There are passages in