[This doctrine is discussed here, partly to bring out more fully the bearing of our epistle (8: 6-13 and 12: 26-28) upon it, and partly because the doctrine is rife, aggressive and therefore challenges discussion; also, because it is believed to be unscriptural, false and pernicious.]


The millennium is the thousand year-period (of Rev. 20 1-6) in which Christ is supposed to conquer the world and hold it under his sway--the era of his supreme reign upon the earth and of fulfilled prophecy as to the world's conversion.

"Premillennial Advent" means simply that Christ comes in visible person for a visible reign with his risen saints at the beginning of this thousand years; not at or after its close; and moreover, not to find the world converted, but to convert it--at least, that portion which he does not destroy in the glorious brightness of his coming.

Hence "Premillennial Advent" carries with itself these collateral points of belief: viz., the gospel dispensation inaugurated by the gift of the Holy Ghost and under Christ's command to evangelize the nations, will not convert the world, and Christ never expected it would. It has failed hitherto; must fail to the end: was never any thing but a waiting (not a working) dispensation, its one supreme Christian duty being to pray and wait for Christ's visible coming to evangelize the nations. Also, that this coming will develop new agencies and powers, specially in the line of desolating judgments upon the wicked; of appalling majesty and splendor; and of the co-operative work of the risen, immortal saints, ruling and reigning with Christ. These are the cardinal points of the system; to these I propose to restrict the present discussion.

There are many minor points, held variously and vaguely, too vaguely to justify the waste, of time inevitable to their discussion; e. g., as to the wicked on the earth at Christ's coming--how many and who are to be destroyed, and who are to survive to be subsequently converted: as to the raised saints, whether all the sainted dead, or only a part, and what part. As to the new converts--whether to be made at once immortal like the raised saints, or left (as now) in their mortality; as to the incompatibility of adjusting this one planet to the natures and wants of both mortals and immortals--how this incompatibility is to be obviated; how the laws of the heavenly world are to be mixed up with the laws of this earthly world.--All these questions it were vain to ask, for a scheme born of fiction and baseless of fact should not be expected to concern itself with either defining or proving such points. Sober-thinking men have indeed a right to demand definite answers to these questions, for if the premillennial scheme be true, all these questions must be met. It must be very reasonable to withhold confidence from a scheme which encounters not only such shadowy indefiniteness, but such obstinate incompatibilities.

Passing, however, all these minor points, we come to the main points as above presented--viz.:

Christ's next coming is to be before the millennium; for the purpose of converting the world; bringing with him some (or all) of the righteous dead, raised to life immortal and to wield evangelistic forces with success never known before.

Against this scheme, I maintain:

I. It is extra-scriptural, and therefore necessarily built on misinterpretation and perversion of scripture, and upon human fancy. By "extra-scriptural" I mean that it lacks scriptural authority at every point where, if true, it ought to have it.

To make this statement definite and to verify it, I specify three general heads:

1. It lacks authority in the only passage which speaks of the millennium and gives us the scenes at its opening.

2. It lacks authority in Old Testament prophecy.

3. It lacks authority in the teachings of Christ.

1. It lacks authority in the only passage which speaks of the millennium and gives the events at its opening, viz., Rev. 20: 1-6.--Let it be well considered that if the system is taught in the scriptures it should be here, this being the only passage which even names the millennium or gives its opening events. Here ought to be (if true) the glorious coming of the Son of God, breaking through the heavens; here, the risen bodies of saints, seen bursting open their graves; here, the evangelistic work which they are to do with such surpassing power.

This is the passage:

"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old 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: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw 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 worshiped 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 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 he priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."--Rev. 20: 1-6.

Now since these six verses have to bear the weight of this whole premillennial system, they ought to be strong; ought to be explicit, outspoken, unambiguous, unmistakable. What are the facts?

(1) Christ's visible, personal coming is not here--not a word of it. The revelator saw no such coming at the opening of the millennial period. He tells us what he did see, viz., a mighty angel coming down from heaven with a great chain in his hand; also the old serpent; but not a hint that he saw the glorious Son of God bursting through the heavens.

Here my argument is that if such a visible coming at this precise point were to become a fact, it was entirely too great and vital to be omitted in this foreshowing of the tact. Is it credible that John should see the mighty angel and the old serpent, and yet not see the Son of God himself--beyond all comparison the most august spectacle of the entire scene--the most august indeed in its nature which the world was ever to see?--After the thousand years had passed--after observe; not before--John did "see a great white throne and Him that sat on it, whose presence he dare not attempt to describe save by its effects--so majestic that "from his face the earth and the heavens fled away, and there was found no place for them."

Plainly it is a capital lack in the scripture testimony that the only passage which speaks of the things to be seen at the opening of the millennium says not a word of Christ's visible coming then.

Next Page (2/5)

[ Go Back ]

Planetpreterist.com