Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

The persons whom Jude calls these, were the ungodly professors of the Gospel of that age (vers. 4, 8, 10—13.) From this I collect, that the Lord will execute judgment upon the ungodly professors of that age, and of all other ages, at the time when he comes with his saints. Inference: As the ungodly professors of that age, and of succeeding ages, have died, they must be raised from the dead at the time when the Lord comes with his saints, in order that he may, at that time, execute judgment upon them. But what is called the first resurrection is more than a thousand years before the time when the Lord will execute judgment upon the ungodly (Rev. xx. 12-15); and, consequently, it must also be more than a thousand years before the time of the Lord's coming with his saints; and, therefore, before the resurrection of the saints, which will take place then. (1 Thess. iv. 14—17.)

XX. Rev. i. 7: "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. Even so, Amen."

:

As this passage occurs in the introduction of the Book of Revelation, previous to the directly prophetical part, so it is, I conceive, to be understood, not figuratively, but literally. Viewing it in this light, I collect from its obvious meaning, that not only those who pierced Jesus, but all, both ungodly and godly, will see him when he comes in the clouds; that is, at his second coming (Acts i. 9, 11).

Inference: All who pierced Jesus, and all others, both ungodly as well as godly, who shall have died before he comes, must be raised at the time of his coming, in order that they may see him at that time. Consequently, the resurrection of the ungodly and that of the godly will take place at one and the same time; namely, at the coming of Christ. Therefore, as the time, when the dead small and great stand before Christ upon the throne of judgment, must be the same as the time when they are all raised; it must also be the same as the time of his coming. But what is called the first resurrection, is more than a thousand years before the time when the dead

small and great are raised and stand before him; and, consequently, it must also be more than a thousand years before the second coming of Christ.

I have thus brought before my reader numerous passages, all of which, I believe, undeniably treat of the second coming of Christ, and the events connected therewith; nor am I aware that there is any difference of opinion upon this point; so that in appealing to them, I have not had in the first instance to prove that they do refer to the subject under consideration. They all appear to me to harmonize perfectly with one another in establishing these plain points: First, That the resurrection of the ungodly will take place at the time of Christ's second coming, as the resurrection of the godly will. Secondly, That the time of the judgment described in Rev. xx. 11-15, will be that of the coming of the Lord. Thus I find, on the one hand, that if I take these two points and compare them with the passages I have adduced, there is a perfect harmony pervading them all. On the other hand, if I interpret the first resurrection to signify the resurrection of the saints at the coming of Christ, I find such a jar, such a difficulty, such a contradiction to the obvious meaning and inference of each and all of them, that I am obliged to interpret away the plain meaning and obvious inference of them all; and to have recourse to a system of setting up a variety of hypotheses of my own making, in order to remove the otherwise insuperable difficulties which they, one and all, present to the proposed interpretation of the first resurrection; both of which practices are, I feel convinced highly injurious to the mind which is led to adopt them. My own mind is, therefore, convinced, that the above two points respecting the resurrection of the ungodly, are in accordance with the mind of the Spirit; and that the millennarian interpretation of Rev. xx. 4 cannot be so; but that the Holy Ghost, by the event which he describes as the first resurrection, does not signify the resurrection of the saints at the second coming of Christ; but some event as much before the second coming of Christ, as it is before his sitting upon the throne of judgment (Rev. xx. 11-15).

CHAPTER III.

SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS, ADDUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE MILLENNARIAN INTERPRETATION, CONSIDERED.

CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTER.

I. The asserted rule of literal interpretation. II. On Zechariah xiv. III. The assertion that the preposition ex, out of, is used in passages which foretell the resurrection of the saints, examined. IV. Passages which indicate the resurrection of the saints to be distinct from that of the ungodly, do not, however, indicate that the one will take place at a different time from the other. V. The omission of any notice of the resurrection of the ungodly in some passages which treat of that of the saints, does not prove that the former will not take place at the same time as the latter. VI. The inference from 2 Pet. iii. 8, that the day of the Lord will be a period of one thousand years, not well grounded.

CONTENTS OF THE NOTES.

Y. On the preposition ex.-Z. On the word resurrection in Phil. iii. 11. -AA. The word if in Phil. iii. 11.-BB. The order of the events noticed in 1 Thess. iv. 13-18.-CC. On the term day.

As I have seen several arguments advanced, under the idea that they favour the Millennarian interpretation of the first resurrection, and, after having maturely weighed them, feel convinced that they do not afford any real support to it, I shall endeavour in this chapter to bring before the reader both the arguments themselves, as far as I am acquainted with them, and the reasons which lead me to the above conclusion respecting them.

I. It is urged, that we ought to adopt a literal interpretation of the first resurrection in Rev. xx.

Before I consider this argument in reference to the passage itself, I would make a few observations respecting the literal method of interpretation, which Millennarian writers profess to adopt as a general rule. In a work of this kind which I have lately seen, the author, upon proceeding to notice Rev. xx. 4, observes,—"It is an admitted canon of interpretation, that when the

literal meaning of Scripture can be taken, consistently with the analogy of faith, we ought not to have recourse to a figurative one." This, therefore, being laid down as a well defined and general rule of interpretation, the proposers of it are, of course, bound to adhere strictly to it. The expression, "consistently with the analogy of faith," appears to me, however, so vague, as to leave the method of interpretation as undefined as before; because different persons are not agreed as to what is consistent with this analogy; but their views upon this point will vary according to those which they have adopted upon the question which may be at issue between them. Accordingly, when I endeavour to trace the system of interpretation which Millennarian writers actually follow, with respect to passages which bear upon the subject of the first resurrection, it appears to me that their view of consistency with the analogy of faith, is in effect consistency with their own interpretation of Rev. xx. 4, 5.

The rule of interpretation is laid down by other Millennarians thus: "We are bound to give a literal interpretation where it is possible, according to the nature of things." This appears more defined and intelligible, if the nature of things meant the nature of things as they are at present. When, however, they actually apply their own rule, it is evidently equally vague with the one already noticed. Thus they refer to Isai. xi. 6-8, and assert that it must be understood literally, in agreement with the above rule. The rule, however, appears to me entirely inapplicable to the instance; for a literal fulfilment of the prophecy is not possible according to the nature of things. The beasts of prey, as they are now constituted, could not lie down with the lamb, &c., they could not but tear and devour them. Neither is it possible that the lion should eat straw like the ox (ver. 7). Not only are the teeth of all carnivorous animals so constructed as entirely to unfit them for this, but also their internal structure would make it impossible for them to subsist upon such food. Hence the literal fulfilment of this prophecy is impossible according to the nature of things. God can, indeed, by his Almighty power entirely alter the nature of things-he

can alter the savage nature of wild beasts-he can en tirely change both the conformation of the mouth, and the internal structure of carnivorous animals. But this would not be the nature, but an entirely new nature of things. Thus with regard to the first instance to which it is applied, the asserted rule, instead of being well defined, is, in effect, reduced to this: "We are bound to expect a literal fulfilment of this prophecy. For though it is impossible according to the present nature of things; yet God can entirely alter the nature of things, and thereby make it possible." The rule must be thus altered, because, as it is laid down by themselves, a literal fulfilment of Isai. xi. 6-8 cannot take place.

:

Let us, however, observe how vague such a rule would be. Another person would take Isai. lv. 12, 13, literally. He might say, "I allow that it is impossible, according to the nature of things, that the mountains and hills should break forth into singing, &c., as it is also impossible that the lion should either eat straw, or subsist upon it if he could eat it. But God can entirely alter the nature of things and his Almighty power can as easily make it possible for the hills to break forth into singing, as for the lion to eat straw like the ox; and he has declared that the former shall take place as expressly, as he has declared that the latter shall. Consequently, we are bound by the above rule to expect a literal fulfilment of the prophecy." Here, however, Millennarians discard their own rule; and, instead of considering themselves bound by it, hesitate not to exercise their judgment, and to say, that Isai. Iv. 12, 13, is to be understood not literally but figuratively; but Isai. xi. 6-8 is to be understood not figuratively but literally.

In effect, they do not, as it appears to me, at all adhere to their own rule; nor do they adopt the literal meaning according to any general system, but as it suits their view of the first resurrection. As far as I can trace their system in practice, it appears to be this: Their own minds are convinced that their interpretation of the first resurrection and the Millennium must be right. Hence, instead of their view upon this subject being brought to the test of other Scriptures which treat of the resurrection of the dead, and whose meaning is

« AnteriorContinuar »