Revelation
Rev. xx. 1 — 8.
Reearpine the meaning of this passage, there is the widest and most irreconcilable variance between post-millennialists. I am sure I could number up at least fifty, — many of them strange enough. Hardly two of our opponents agree as to the meaning of the prophecy.
Some, as Grotius, Lee, Bush, consider its meaning to have been long since exhausted. Others, as Gipps, Wordsworth, think that it commenced at the first coming, andrefers simply to regeneration.* Vint makes it to be going on just now, and renders the words,
* The latter of these two has just published his views in his Hulsean Lectures. He is a most zealous anti-millennarian, as well as a strong high-churchman, showing us no favour. I thank him for the following statement: — ‘‘ The erroneous application of the
present passage to a mere bodily resurrection, Xc., is ascribable to low and inadequate notions of our baptismal privileges and “blessed and holy are they who have embraced the principles and shared the privileges of the Reformation.”* Marck (of Leyden), Thomas Scott, Dr Hamilton, Mr Brown, &c., consider it to be a revival of principles, not of persons, and to be still future; all of them, however, save Mr Brown, believing in a positive restraint of Satan.
These writers are all at war with each other. Hach one contradicts his fellow. They have landed
‘themselves in difficulties out of which there is no
possible extrication, — save by returning to the sober and consistent path of natural interpretation. Let go the literal, and men haye the most ample scope for spiritualizing, or Platonizing, or Origenizing. Let go the literal, and you have unlinked yourself from the great centre of gravitation, which alone could preserve you in a safe and regular orbit. And ifa specimen is asked, we point to the writers referred to. In them we find aberrations, wide enough and strange enough to convince any one that there do exist theories, more fruitful of danger, and more beset with contradictions, than chiliasm, What led all these
obligations, and of the sacred duties and inestimable blessings of church membership and church unity; and wherever unworthy notions are entertained on these points, there the doctrine ony & millennium may be expected to prevail,” — P, 57,
* Pp, 163.
good and able men into all these varieties of speculation? The inextricable difficulties with which their figurative theory was entangled. They felt the puzzle. They laboured hard to clear their feet, but it was in vain. The natural sense of the passage was too strong for them. It mastered them. They could not master it. And hence the inextricable difficulties in ’ which they have been landed. Hence the singular and most satisfactory refutations which they furnish of each other. Such must inevitably be the devious and conflicting courses of those who pursue the same track of exposition. “One way of clearing all is open, and only one, — to give tt up.” Or if this be thought too large a demand upon them at once, may we not ask them to write more diffidently? Seeing they cannot agree among themselves, ought they not to feel their position rather insecure, and to wait till they can harmonize a little better with each other, before pronouncing their own principles “immoveable”? To us, their principles, as exhibited in their interpretations, seem better to deserve the name of “move-. able,” or something stronger and more descriptive.* In connection with this passage I may first notice Mr Brown’s theory regarding the binding of Satan
* Mr Brown speaks as if this were the one solitary passage that can be adduced in favour of the literal first resurrection. This during the millennium, “This binding means merely,” says Mr Brown, “that he will not be able to forma party in the earth as heretofore; that he will have no tools to do his work, and that his trade will be at an end.”* “This,” Mr B. says, “is the glorious sense we are to put upon the seizure and chaining of the enemy.” A total cessation of Satanic influence he will not allow to be the “glorious sense” of this prophecy. Less success, but not less power than before, is all that he sees in this passage. Let us compare the inspired words themselves with this interpretation, and see how
they accord together.
is incorrect. There are at least ten or twelve others which we could point out. On these the present text sheds a fuller light, bringing out their meaning more distinctly, but that is all. We admit this, however, that in the first centuries great stress was laid upon this passage. It was considered the stronghold of chiliasm. So strong and decided was its testimony deemed, that the anti-chiliasts deemed their only escape from it was the total denial of the Apocalypse. Chiliasm and the Apocalypse were deemed inseparable. They could only get quit of the former by rejecting the latter. They never thought it possible to deny that the Apocalypse taught chiliasm. This was not disputed; and hence those who disliked chiliasm could not tolerate the Apocalypse. It was not till the church had learned to Platonize, or had taken lessons in the school of Origen, that she could condemn chiliasm without disputing the inspiration of the Revelation. It is curious to observe that Limborch (the Arminian divine of Amsterdam) speaks also of this passage as the only one upon the subject, (loco dilounico obscuro ac symbolico) and gives it as his opinion that it would be better to be silent, and determine nothing about it. — ( Theol. Christ. p. 271.) * Mr Brown. Pref. p. vi.
1. The passage declares that Satan is to be “laid hold on.” We cannot but suppose that this means that something is to be done personally to Satan; some arrestment made of him, some restraint laid on him. Mr Brown denies this. Satan is still to roam abroad as widely as before! His range is not to be limited at all! His power, his energy, his territory, are to remain the same. He is still to “go to and fro in the earth, and to walk up and down in it.” (J obi. 7.) Only he is not to succeed as he has hitherto done. His temptations and assaults are to be the same, but his success is to be very different. Formerly he prevailed to deceive the nations; but then he is not so to prevail, however great and unwearied his efforts may be. “His trade will be at an end,” but his skill and power and range will not be diminished. The church will be able to withstand him, and “will not permit him to gain an inch of ground to plant his foot on over the wide world.”* Now we ask, is this “laying hold of Satan” at all? Granting that the language is figurative, can the “laying hold of Satan” mean the strengthening of the church to resist his attacks? The expression seems to denote something done to Satan personally — some positive restraint put on him, so as to prevent his “going to
* Pi oly.
and fro in the earth,” and so as to put it out of his power even to attempt his former stratagems or assaults. Whatever the figure may strictly mean, it points, at least, to some personal restraint put upon Satan, so as to prevent him using his power, — not to his want of success in using his power. For instance, we read, “Herod laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison.”* This, of course, must refer to John’s arrestment, not to his want of success in preaching. We do not mean to say that prophetical and figurative words must have the same meaning as historical and literal ones. But the main idea must be preserved in both. The individual said to be laid hold of, must be in both cases the individual laid personally under restraint. But take another instance in this very book. We read, “I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding (xgarovvras) the four winds of the earth,” (vii. 1.) We raise no discussion as to what these angels are, or as to what are the four winds. Take any sense of them given by any commentator. The main idea contained in the figure is the restraint put upon these agencies. They are arrested, pent up, prevented from going
* Matt. xiv. 3. The words in both places are precisely the same, — very remarkably so: éxearne. — idyoe, — the only difference is that in Matthew it is téero éy Qvraxn, in Revelation it is
la
Pearcy auroy tis Toy xbvecoy.
forth at all upon the earth. Surely no oné would say that these winds were still to be left roaming in their stormy freedom over earth and sea, and that all the figure means is, that they are not to succeed in laying all things waste as heretofore; that each object with which they came into contact was to be so consolidated, that all their violence would be ineffectual? Were their power, universality of range, not to be interfered with? Or was it not expressly on these that the arrestment was laid?
The laying hold of Satan then must refer to his personal seizure in some way or other, — the limitation of his territory. All sound commentators have admitted this. Take Dr Guyse as a specimen.
“The angel threw him down into the great unfathomable deep of confinement and horror (Matt. viii. 39, and Luke viii. 31), and shut him up as a close prisoner in hell as in a dark and dismal dungeon, and kept him in safe custody there, the emblem of which was setting a seal over him, in allusion to the custom of securing doors by a seal, The devil might no longer, as in times past, go about like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour, till those thousand years should be expired; and after that, his restraint must be taken off for a very short space of time. And Satan being released, by divine permission from the total restraint that Christ had laid upon him for a thousand years, will then pursue his own malicious temper and designs, as he had done before.
2. The passage in question adds this farther, regarding the angel’s seizure of Satan, “he bound him a thousand years.” This seems to us very strongly to confirm the idea of personal restraint put upon him. Indeed we know not how such an idea could have been expressed in different or stronger terms. ‘To bind a person with a great chain, is a forcible and obvious enough figure for personal arrestment. This is surely its natural meaning. It is the sense which would occur to an unbiassed reader of the passage. He would wonder to be told that when Satan is bound with a strong chain, he is not bound at all, but roams the wide earth as freely as for the last 6000 years, and that the chaining and the binding merely refer to his being unsuccessful in his efforts upon mankind. He does his utmost still, but he does not succeed! He has the same scope, the same liberty, the same weapons, the same fiery darts; only he fails now in all his efforts. After every exertion he is unable “to form a party in the earth.” “Tis trade is at an end.” Is this all that is meant? We think not. We think that this interpretation, so far from conveying the meaning of the figure, leaves out the very idea for
2B which the figure was introduced. In Scripture we read often of binding; but it always has reference to personal restraint. It may perchance include in it the idea of want of success; but it can only do so -because of the restraint which prevents the putting forth — of efforts. How often do we read of Paul being “bound;” but surely this does not mean merely that he had no success in his ministry. We grant that he had no success while he lay in prison. He could not preach, he could not traverse cities and regions while lying in chains in the Mamertine dungeon. Of course when he did not preach, he met with no success. But who would suppose that this was the meaning of his being bound? Or who would even suppose that this was included in the expression? His being bound was one thing; but his having no success was something totally different. But apart from this illustration, there is a passage in this very book, which may help to bring out our, meaning more fully: “Loose the four angels who are bound in the great river Huphrates” (ix. 14.) We do not ask the exact sense of this passage, or what the angels mean, or. what the Huphrates means. We know. that there is a figure here; and we simply take for granted that the angels mean certain agencies, and the Euphrates a certain
locality. Does this passage then not tell us that these four agencies had been “bound,” and that they were to be “loosed”? And do not the succeeding verses describe the effect of this loosing, viz. their going forth to destroy, and devour; which going forth had been prevented by their previous restraint or binding? Can this passage possibly mean that these agencies had never been really bound, never prevented from roaming abroad, but merely that their destructive efforts were neutralised? If that is impossible, is it not still more impossible that Satan’s binding can mean merely his want of success, when there are so many additions to the expressions used, which absolutely fix us down to the idea of personal seizure and restraint? Oan the binding merely mean that ‘his trade is gone’? Can the loosing merely mean that his “trade has come again”? We might admit that such a result would be blessed; but we cannot admit that this is the sense of the prophecy before us.
3. This passage declares that Satan shall be “cast into the bottomless pit.” Mr Brown’s view would infer that he shall not be cast into the bottomless pit; that this casting into the pit merely means that he will have no tools to do his work — that he wiil be unable to form a party — that his trade will be at an end. If this be the meaning, then of course the bottomless pit must mean the surface of the earth, or the wii or in short any thing but that which it is called — n acvooog. The words certainly seem to imply his being thrown into some place of durance, whatever that may be. And to deny this meaning to the figure, seems to exclude the very idea which it was intended to express. Let us turn to a few parallel passages. We read thus elsewhere, “And the fifth angel. sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth; and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit; and he opened the bottomless pit, and there arose a smoke out of the pit, &. (ix. 1, 2). Here are three distinct localities, heaven, earth, the bottomless pit. We are told that at a certain period this pit was opened, that out of it came smoke and locusts; that. these locusts went abroad upon the earth. Surely this must mean that these locusts were previously shut up, restrained, prevented from taking wing over the earth. It cannot mean that they had been roaming abroad unhindered, endeavouring to do their work of devastation, but not succeeding in accomplishing it. It cannot mean that hitherto they had not been able to form a party, that they had found no tools to do their work, that their trade had not yet begun. This would be destroying the figure entirely, making it announce the very opposite of what it was
intended to do. Again, we read this in another pas-
€
sage, “the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, shall make war against them,” (xi.7). What can be meant by the bottomless pit, and the beast coming out of it? Does it refer to no locality? Does it predict no real “coming up” of any kind? Can it possibly mean that the beast’s imprisonment in that locality, was merely his having less success in evil; and that his coming up out of it is merely his having more success? Was the beast all along raging through the earth, but unable to accomplish his ravages? Did it really mean merely, that previously he had been unable to form a party, but that now he had found tools to work with — now his trade had begun? Is the bottomless pit a nonentity? Are ascent and descent unmeaning words? Does “coming out of the bottomless pit” imply nothing peculiar? Does being “cast into the bottomless pit” imply nothing in regard to locality? Is it possible that the one merely means “meeting with some success,” and the latter “meeting with no success”?
But this is not all. A similar statement occurs in this very chapter, with regard to Satan’s doom at the end of the millennium: “the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (xx. 10.)
Again we read, “whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the lake of fire.” (xx. 15.) Again also we read, “these both were cast alive into a lake of fire, burning with brimstone.” (xix. 20.) These expressions help to explain each other. It is surely a real “lake of fire,” and it must surely be a real “bottomless pit.” It is a real casting in of the ungodly into that lake; surely it must be a real casting in of the devil into the bottomless pit. Nay further, as all admit that the devil is really cast into the lake of fire at the close of the millennium, what reason can be given for his not being cast into the bottomless pit, at its beginning? Does the figure mean one thing in one verse, and something else in another? or, must it not mean the same thing in both?
Were we to argueas Mr Brown does, and to explain the figure in his way, we could prove that the devil is never cast into the lake of fire; nay, that there is no lake of fire, no abyss, no hell, no “departing into everlasting fire.” Satan’s being cast into the bottomless pit, at the beginning of the millennium, does not mean, according to Mr Brown, any personal seizure or restraint, but merely that he shall have less success, have no tools to work with, no party to head, no.trade to drive; well then, if this be true, is it not plain that his being cast into the lake of fire, at the end of the millennium, must merely mean, that throughout eternity
he shall not be able to form a party, have no tools to
INTO THE ABYSS. 3¢5
work with, that his trade will be at an end? If so,
then there is no hell for Satan to dwell in for ever —
no everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, It is very obvious, that the ante-millennial casting of Satan, and the post-millennial casting in, must
be the same in kind. It may be contended that the
localities are different, for in the one case it is the
bottomless pit, («€vocos); in the other, it is the lake
of fire, (Arun rou wugos). But the difference of locality
cannot alter the reality of the “casting in;” or rather,
we should say, it confirms it, for it brings before us two distinct localities, and unless we are prepared to say that these localities are unreal, we cannot say that
the casting in is a mere figure.
Nay, further, the casting in before the millennium,
is far more fully and particularly described than that which is to take place afterwards. Figure is heaped on-figure, to fix the former with accuracy, so that no
one might be able to call it a mere figure. In the
latter case it is simply said that “the devil was cast
into the lake of fire.’ That is all. How obvious,
then, that if it is necessary to explain away one of
these expressions, it must be the latter, not the former,
that must undergo this process. You may contrive
to evade the latter expression, for it is a very brief
one, but you cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, get rid of the former, it is so plain, so full, so particular, so loaded with expressive words. We come then to this conclusion, that if the casting in of the devil into the bottomless pit be a mere figure, denoting that his trade was gone, the figure must be interpreted in the same way of the beast and the false prophet, and all the ungodly, as well as of Satan himself, at the close of the millennium. How then shall we prove that “the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God”? Why may not all these expressions mean merely that their trade is gone?
4, This passage further asserts that he is to be “shut up, and a seal set upon him.” Mr Brown maintains that he is not to be shut up nor restrained, that no “physical expulsion” is implied. It is difficult to imagine how such strong language can be explained as to be made to mean the very opposite of what it naturally means. It is more difficult to understand why any one should be anxious to explain all this away. Satan’s want of success may be a “glorious sense;” but his entire expulsion from the earth is yet more glorious. For the church to be told that her old enemy was not to prevail against her, however fiercely he might assail her, is certainly blessed; but — to be told that this enemy is to be bound and shut up,
that he is not to be permitted to come nigh nor molest her, seems to us more blessed still. And if the words most manifestly indicate the latter sense, why should any one be so desirous of taking a less blessed when there is a more blessed meaning? why should not the more glorious sense be preferred, if it is also the more natural and obvious? But let us take an illustration of the words. In Dan. vi. 16, 17, we read as follows: — “The king commanded, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions;.... and a stone was brought and laid upon the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords.” Such is a literal scene, similar in kind to what John here describes. There can be no doubt as to the object which the king had in view in laying the stone to the den’s mouth, and sealing it with his own seal. It was personal durance in the ease of Daniel; and so we argue it must be personal durance in the case of Satan, The one scene may be called literal and the other figurative, but the idea in both is the same. When a literal scene and a figurrative scene are painted in the same words, can we fail to perceive that the reason is that the latter contains the same idea as the former? In Daniel’s case it was personal seizure, and shutting up, and sealing; in Satan’s case it must be the same. Personal restraint,
personal shutting up, must be denoted. And how can
378 THE LOOSING.
this be resolved into the mere idea that Satan can find no tools to work with, and that his trade is gone?
5. It is further declared in this passage, that after this imprisonment of.a thousand years, Satan must be loosed a little season, or, as it is stated in the 7th verse, “Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth.” Here then there is a “loosing,” a “loosing out of prison,” and a “going out to deceive the nations.” This completes the scene, and shows us the whole event, or series of events, from first to last. What can this loosing mean if he was never really chained? Is loosing to be made to mean “being successful?” This cannot be, for it is added, he shall “go out and deceive the nations.” This tells us of his swecess; but would this have been necessary if loosing had expressed the same idea? Granting Mr Brown’s interpretation, then binding does not mean personal seizure; casting into the abyss does not mean ‘personal expulsion from the earth; loosing does not mean personal release; and going out cannot mean personal effort to deceive the nations. We cannot see how upon this theory, demoniacal possession and expulsion can be explained. Surely Satan’s possessing a man is a personal thing? Surely his casting out by
Christ was a personal casting out and physical expulsion from the man? But why may not all this mean merely that Satan had more or less influence with the man? Why may not his casting out merely mean that the man resisted him successfully? But surely Christ’s casting out the devils was a literal physical expulsion? And what Christ did at his first coming for individuals, we understand from prophecy that he is to do, when he comes the second time, for the whole earth. This is the natural meaning of the passage before us. The casting out of Satan from the earth is evidently as literal and personal an expulsion as his casting out of these demoniacs.* We do not see how Mr Brown can separate these passages in the Apocalypse and in the Evangelists from each other. He
surely cannot say that the casting into the abyss in
the Gospels is one thing, but the casting into the abyss
* We may observe the pleading of the devils mentioned in Luke viii. 26 — 36; “they besought him that he would net command them to go out into the abyss” or bottomless pit, es rny abvoooy. It is evident from this that the devils knew the doom that was awaiting them one day at the hands of Christ. They knew that they were to be cast out into the abyss, and they were afraid lest Christ should immediately inflict that doom upon them. What a clear light this passage casts upon the one under discussion. And it is curious to notice that our common marginal references here are to Rev. xx. 3. In the parallel narrative of Matthew, the devils are said to have cried out, “Art thou come to torment us before the time?”’ — that is, to torment us by casting us into the abyss.
in the Apocalypse is quite another. They are both manifestly the same. Nor will he surely venture to explain away the historical passage. He cannot introduce here his theory about Satan having no longer any tools to work with, and about his trade being at an end. Yet the two passages must go together. The same sense must be affixed to both.
6. Our passage evidently implies that this binding of Satan is penal. It is not merely something preventive or prohibitory, but it is the positive infliction of punishment upon him during the thousand years. The abyss is his prison-house, and there he endures the infliction of God’s vengeance. The penal character of the incarceration in the abyss is clearly pointed out by the passage itself, but still more by those which we have cited from the evangelists. In these we see that he is sent into the abyss to be “tormented.” Mr Brown’s theory makes no provision for this. There is nothing penal in his view of the matter, — no positive infliction from the hand of God, — no “tormenting,” such as that from which the devils shrunk back. Not to be able to form a party, — to find no tools to work with, — to lose his trade, — these may be evils, but they cannot be called the infliction of torment. That is something far more terrible — more overwhelming. No
exposition of the passage can be regarded as the true
THE ANGEL. ook
one which does not include this idea. And as Mr Brown’s interpretation takes no notice of this, nay, excludes the idea of positive penal infliction, we would reject it for this reason alone, even did there exist no others, such as those on which we have already been dwelling.; 7. This passage says that Christ, or at least that the “angel which came down from heaven,” laid hold on and bound Satan. Mr Brown says it is the church that does all this.* No doubt he adds that it is Christ’s doing in and by his church, but still that, ostensibly, it is the church that is to accomplish this. Now there is not one hint given us in the whole passage about the church being the agent in this matter. Every thing seems to declare the opposite. It is done for her, but it is not done dy her. It is altogether without her, The angel does the whole himself, No assertion can be more unsupported than this of Mr Brown. Why he makes it we can hardly guess, unless it may be that his general system constrained him to it. On what grounds he makes it, he does not tell us. We have merely his assertion, nothing more, To us the statement appears not only unscriptural but dangerous. God has taken special care to let us know the power and skill of our great adversary. He has Kee 312, also been at pains to tell us that he is such an enemy as we ourselves cannot overcome. God, or rather we should say Christ, must personally and directly wage war with him. Just as in the days when Christ was on earth, so is to be till he comes again. The poor — demoniacs could not cast the devils out of themselves. Christ alone could do this. He did it directly.. He did it not mediately, but «immediately, by the positive forth-putting of his power upon Satan. Just as the Holy Spirit’s work upon the soul is direct, immediate, and physical, so Christ’s work in reference to Satan is direct, immediate, and physical. If Mr Brown’s theory does not admit of this, it is surely defective and un-Calvinistic in no small degree.
8. The passage before us makes this statement, “This is the jist resurrection.” This is evidently the Holy Spirit’s explanation of the previous scene. That scene presented to us a mighty multitude “living and reigning” with Christ. Then the explanation is added, “this is the first resurrection;” just as in the first chapter it is said, “The seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” In both cases the explanatory clause is added, not to carry out the symbol or add another to it, but to tell in plain and literal language what the preceding vision was. If
so, then “resurrection” must be used in its natural sense in the 20th chapter, just as “churches” are used
in their natural sense in the first. Otherwise it would
be no explanation at all, but the opposite. It would
be a mystification of the whole. Take it simply, however, and see how it stands. “This is the first resurrection’ — that which is so often alluded to elsewhere,
—that which Christ calls the “resurrection of the
just” and the “resurrection of life,’ which Paul called
the ‘better resurrection,’ the “resurrection from
among the dead,” which he strove so earnestly to attain unto.* Or let us set the expressions under each
other, thus: —
avraroo0bncsras col ev TH avaoradosu ray Oinciay. Lu. xiv. 14.
THs avaoracens TIS ex vexowy. Lu. xx. 3d.
Or ra ayada roimouvres eg Gvaoracw Cayo. Jo. v. 29.
gITWG RATAVTHOW big THY ELavacracw ray vexeay. Phil. ie bls
iva ugeirrovos dvaordoews tUywow. - Heb. xi. 35.
durn 4 avacraais n wewrn. Rev. xx. 5.
[ueKOLe10g As Gryiog 6 Eymv mwecos ev TF AUVOTHE! Ty,
mewrn Rey. xx. 6.
* Whitby, however, exclaims “how inglorious, how despicable is the resurrection these men (millennarians) expect, compared with the resurrection promised in the Scriptures!” This is somewhat in the strain of those who call us “filthy dreamers,”
oS t THE FIRST RESURRECTION.
These passages surely throw light upon each other. Nor can we imagine any reason why the “resurrection” spoken of in each should not be the same event. It would certainly require very strong proof to demonstrate that they are not. It is not enough to prove that the latter two may mean something else. It ought to be shown from the words themselves that they must mean something else.*
* It is very striking to observe that Moses Stuart, while condemuing millennarianism, and whilst going far enough in making void other parts of the Apocalypse, is obliged to acknowledge that this is literal, The language compels him. He cannot get over it. He would fain have driven his system through it if he could. But its plainness refuses to give way to any system.
“The point of antithesis which seems to decide the whole case, is, as is remarked in the Commentary, the distinction between the first resurrection and the second. It appears to be a distinction of order or succession, but not of kind. There is indeed one other particular of difference or contrast, viz. the second resurrection will be general, universal, comprising both the righteous and the wicked, while the first will comprehend, as the writer’s language seems to intimate, only saints and martyrs who have been specially faithful unto death. This distinction the writer has made prominent. He expressly assures us that the other dead would not be raised when the thousand years should commence, but only at the end of the world when all will be raised, The express contrast here made between the partial and the general resurrection, and the manner in which this contrast is presented, show that the design is not to comparea spiritual with a physical resurrection, but to contrast the partial extent of the latter at the beginning of the millennium, with its general or universal extent at the end of the world.
Putting now all these considerations together, I do not see how
Yet Mr Brown declares that “it is ¢ncapable of any consistent and appropriate literal application.”* And this ultra-figurative interpretation he calls a more “glorious sense.”
9, This same twentieth chapter foretells towards its close a literal resurrection, as all admit. The natural inference is that this is the second resurrection. The case stands thus. At the end of the chapter there is mention made of a literal resurrection; at the beginning of the chapter there is mentioned an event called “the first resurrection.” What more natural than to infer that both of these resurrections are literal? The latter is so undoubtedly, and why should not the former be the same? Can any reason be given for this
we can, on the ground of exegesis, fairly avoid the conclusion that John has taught, in the passage before us, that there will be a resurrection of the martyr-saints, at the commencement of the period after Satan shall have been shut up in the dungeon of the great abyss.
“§ Doubtful, however, philologically considered, I think we cannot well name it. I have already given reasons why we seem to be constrained to admit the sense of a bodily resurrection, like to the last and final one. The exigencies of the passage are apparently such as absolutely to demand this; at least a great portion of recent commentators have judged them to be such. Indeed, if this be not a position wm the interpretation of Scripture which ts fully and fairly made out by philology, I should confess myself at a loss to designate one which rs, from among the many difficult passages of the Scriptures.” Pp. 75, 76.
APS S56.
386. NEOLOGY SPIRITUALIZES
diversity?: The great reason usually put forth for interpreting the former spiritually, is that the book in which it occurs is a symbolical book. But then, if this have any force, the latter resurrection must be spiritualized as well as the former, in which case there can be no literal resurrection at all. Accordingly, Hug, a thorough-going Neologian, adopts Mr B.’s “olorious sense” for both resurrections, — “a resurrection of the dead is here only one of those terrible images which the prophets sometimes used to represent a total change of things, the revival of the national state, and of the religious constitution of the Jews.”* Bush also, who stops short of nothing to which his system naturally leads him, adopts the spiritual view of the latter as well as of the former resurrection. It is strange but striking to read the following distortion of the word of God : —
“Keeping steadily in mind the idea above insisted on, that the ‘dead’ in this connexion are the spiritually dead — the dead equally before and after their physical decease — we shall have no difficulty in grasping the drift of this part of the oracle. It simply affirms the universality of the judgment in relation to
* Introd. to the N. T., vol. ii, p, 670. Hug seems to indicate that he was following the system of Eichhorn, a worse Neologian than himself. See p. 675.
its true subjects. No matter by what form of dissolution they passed out of the present life. Whether they met their fate by being engulfed in the waters of the sea, or sunk under the stroke of pestilence or any other species of wasting disease — the true prophetical sense of death — mortality — it is a matter of no account in bar of the certainty of their being summoned to judgment,”*
This is sad consistency; yet it is consistency. He holds his system like a ploughshare, and drives it right through every revelation of God — right through every creed of man.
Another spiritualizer expounds the figures differently. He makes abyss to mean “the unknown world, comprising the immense unexplored, undefined, boundless regions which stretched away beyond the limits of the Roman empire;” Satan, to mean, “heathenism or idolatrous worship;” the binding of Satan, to have been done (not by the church as Mr B. thinks) but by Charlemagne in the year 814.+
10, Our passage declares that “the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” Mr Brown interprets this to mean “the extinct party,” «. e. of the ungodly. But what then becomes
* P. 828.
* Vint on Prophecy, pp, 44, 122, 149.
388 ‘ PERSONALITY
of the words, “the rest of the extinct party lived not again,” The words “the rest” are quite fatal to this sense, even did the other words admit of it. If it be said “the rest of the extinct party lived not again,” this implies necessarily, that some of this extinct party had already lived again, and been made partakers of the blessedness previously spoken of. For mark the connection between the apostle’s two statements. He first tells us of the saints, that “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” Then he adds, “but the rest of the dead lived not again, until the thousand years were finished.” Surely this is obvious enough. It appears to us considerably more “immoveable,” than those things to which Mr Brown has ventured to apply this word.*
11. Our passage throughout uses language of a very
personal and individual nature: we mean to say that
* Mr Stuart’s criticism is as follows : —
“First reswrrection, so called in distinction from the second. Of cuorse it is one which precedes it in respect to time; it is not necessary that the two resurrections should differ in other respects. Indeed the obvious implication here is, that they do not substantially differ; for what else can the of 02 Acswol cay vexeuyetx #fneuy Mean, except that the rest of men must wait until the second resurrection, before they would be raised up in like manner as those had been who were partakers of the first resurrection?” P,; 362.
“If then, as it would seem, we must reject all these meanings, how can we well avoid coming to the conclusion, that ?Zycay it presents to us everywhere persons, not things; persons, not parties; persons, not systems. The mere reading of the words will convince any one of this. Yet Mr Brown repeatedly affirms that it is the opposite. He does not, however, prove it. His exposition of the passage hangs wholly upon this, and we should have expected more distinct and elaborate proof of what appears to us so totally the reverse of the whole drift and meaning of the words. We regard this peculiar style of exposition as peculiarly out of place, in a passage where word seems heaped on word, to bring out into vivid view the personality of Satan. Nay, more, we regard it as both dangerous
and unscriptural. He has clearly enough expressed “his apprehensions in reference to the principles of his opponents. He will allow us here to express our apprehensions in reference to his. He stands on slippery ground. Instead of being “immoveable,” as he thinks, they certainly appear to us most moveable and unsound. Throughout all Scripture, and especially throughout the Apocalypse, the personal agency of here must mean reviving or rising from the dead? The use of ¢azw elsewhere in the Apocalypse shows very plainly, that it may mean revived, lived again, in reference to the body which had been dead. Thus the Saviour speaks of himself, in Rev. ii. 8, as
being he who had been dead, xuy 2Znoz, and had revived, lived again, after the death of the body.” P. 475.
Satan is strikingly presented to us. Indeed, we are never allowed to lose sight of it. It is never merged in a party or a system, but held out in awful reality. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” This is something far more terrible and appalling than conflict with a system or party. It speaks of deadly warfare led on by Satan himself in person — a warfare as distinctly personal, as that which he maintained with Christ himself in the wilderness, or Adam in paradise. Yet Mr Brown, after quoting the passage, “the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,” says, “this refers not to any Satanic temptations distinct from those which spring from other sources; but evidently to all that the Christian has to struggle against here; and as all this is just called Satan” (!) — “all being part and parcel of what he brought in, and what is under his active presidency, so victory over, and deliverance from all this, is just called getting their feet upon Satan’s neck.”* We wonder how any real believer in Satanic influence could have written the above comment. It is a statement of the most unguarded kind, precisely similar to those which we * P. 302, find in works which deny the personal agency of the devil. It cannot be justified upon the plea that the book is a figurative one, for it is in the Epistle to the Romans that it occurs. Nor can it be defended on the ground of necessity; for there exists no necessity for disallowing the natural sense, and admitting the distinct personality of Satan here. Besides, the words so naturally refer to the first promise, regarding the “bruising” of the serpent’s head, and have been so explained by all sound expositors, that we are the rather surprised at the peculiar and unnecessary vagueness which Mr Brown has thrown over them. We shall not employ towards him language betokening any suspicion of his opinions regarding Satanic influence, — for we have no such suspicion, — but we must be permitted to express our unfeigned wonder at such an unsound and wncalvinistic exposition.
Mr Brown seems very unwilling to admit the doctrine of any personal restraint being put upon Satan, by any direct forthputting of the power of God. All the restraint he allows of is that of infusing strength into the saints to resist him successfully. That we receive strength for successful resistance cannot be questioned. This is precious and blessed truth. But is this all? Does God lay no hand on Satan directly for his restraint? Is it always through us. that he works on Satan? No; this would be but a poor explanation of those striking texts, in which God is said to deal with him directly and personally. The text above referred to seems strong and explicit enough upon this point. “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” Can words be plainer? Does this mean that God is not to bruise Satan? Does it mean that God is not to put forth any power durectly upon Satan himself? So Mr Brown’s words would seem to teach. Yet to us, this direct forthputting of Jehovah’s overcoming power upon Satan personally, seems the main idea of the passage. Strike out this, and you rob the text of all meaning; you dilute into a vague generality what is a most striking and awful personality. Hence, such commentators as Calvin seem to have no doubt as to the nature of the “bruising,” while such as Grotius adopt a sense very similar to Mr Brown.* Mr Brown must forgive us for expressing our dislike and suspicion of the doctrine he is maintaining. He knows the danger of encroaching upon the personality and directness of the
Holy Spirit’s agency, and he must bear with us, if we
* Hoc autem vult dicere apostolus, Satanas est qui per novosallos doctores eam que, inter vos Christianos ex Judaeis et ex Gentibus vocatos, erat, concordiam cepit rumpere. Sed non diu durabunt ejus astus; facile pars major et sanior cateras ad sanitemreducet.” — Grotius on Romans.
tell him that his view of Satan’s agency, and of God’s method of overcoming Satan, takes for granted some principles by no means dissimilar to those of some who in our day are tampering with the Spirit’s agency. He asserts, without a shadow of proof, that our doctrine of the total cessation of Satanic influence during the millennium is “subversive of the fundamental principles, and opposed to the plainest statements of God’s word.”* We fear that this strong and uncalled-for language is more applicable to his theory than to ours. But, if the doctrine of the total cessation of Satanic influence during millennial days be “subversive of the fundamental principles of God’s word,” then it may be as well to know who hold this doctrine. It is somewhat remarkable, that almost all - sound commentators, whether pre-millennialists or not, maintain it. Mr Brown evidently charges it against pre-millennialists alone; but surely he cannot be ignorant that the great majority of post-millennialists hold the doctrine also. Take, for instance, the Rev. Archibald Mason, in his Sixteen Discourses on Rom. xi. 25, 27. His orthodoxy is well-known and unimpeached; yet he holds the doctrine of the total cessation of Satanic influence. Thus he writes: — “by the appointment of God, by his own divine * P, 303.
power and mediatorial authority, Jesus will lay him under almighty and invincible restraints, as a great criminal is bound and laid in irons. The place into which he shall be cast, is the bottomless pit, the place of punishment prepared for him and his angels..
In this bondage and misery he will be most securely detained throughout the whole period of the church’s millennial purity and glory..... As this is the season when the Lord will take for his inheritance all nations, Satan will not be permitted to go to and fro in the earth, or to walk up and down in it, seeking whom he may devour.... the security of his imprisonment is also declared, “and shut him up, &c.: when he shall be seized, bound, and cast into prison, he shall be shut up in it as a close prisoner; his prison shall be sealed with the seal of the living God, and it shall be impossible for him to escape.”* Mr Mason was no pre-millennialist. In the work above quoted he sets himself to refute that doctrine. Yet he declares himself in favour of a total cessation of Satanic influence during the millennium. He does not hesitate to interpret the binding of Satan literally. And in all this he was not singular. Yet Mr Brown says of such, that their doctrine is “subversive of the fundamental principles, and opposed to the plainest
* Pp. 233, 234.
~
statements of God’s word,” and he closes his eighth chapter thus: —
“The absence of all those difficulties with which we have to struggle on our way to heaven, and the total cessation of Satanic influence over or in them — that have not only no support, but are opposed to the whole teaching of Scripture, and, ¢f true, would make not only a new dispensation, but a new Christianity.”*
This is strong language. Surely it is undeserved — might we not say, unbecoming? We may just add, that while almost all sound commentators, whether millennarians or not, concur with us on this point, all neologian critics adopt Mr Brown’s view. Among many we quote one: “Hrrant itaque (says Kuttner), isti qui putant singulis etiam ecclesiae membris et coetibus nullam plane ab hoste hoc vexationem vel tentationem, millennio hoc durante esse metuendam.’+ If we are wrong in our opinion on this point, we err at least in good, sound, orthodox company. Not so Mr Brown. Yet he tells us that our doctrine is “subversive of the fundamental principles, and opposed to the plainest statements of God’s word.”{ If it be so,
* Pp, 431.
+ Hyponnemata in loc. p. 827. +1 may here notice the singular candour of Ridgeley, in
speaking of millennarians, and commenting on this very passage. “We must take it for granted that some of those Scrip-
one cannot but wonder that so many rigid Calvinists should have held it, and neologians chiefly set their - face against it.
12. Our passage declares that a time is coming when Satan’s connection with this earth is for a time to be dissolved. This Mr Brown denies; and in connection with it, he has a statement to the following effect :- —
“Such is the Scripture doctrine of Satan’s connection with men. He is so tied to and bound up withtures which relate to this matter are hard to be understood, and therefore a humble modesty becomes us in treating on this subject, rather than censure those who differ from us, as though they were departed from that faith which is founded on the most obvious and plain sense of Scripture, especially if they maintain nothing that is derogatory to the glory of Christ; which rule we shall endeavour to observe in what remains to be considered on this subject.” (Vol. i. p. 466.) He devotes twenty folio pages to the refutation of millennarianism, which are a model of controversial writing for clearness and mildness. On the other hand, Dr Hamilton thus writes: “had we been told, a few years ago, that in this century, amidst all the Scriptural knowledge that is possessed, and surrounded with the blaze of British literature and science, a dozen men capable of reading the Bible in English, and still more, a dozen of men favoured with the advantages of a liberal education, could be found capable, not only of swallowing all the nonsense and jargon of millennarianism, but actually of avowing before the church and the world their belief of such pure and unmingled absurdity, the intelligence would have been scouted as a burlesque upon our countrymen, and a libel upon human nature. Time, however, has more than realized the worst part of this startling and humbling estimation.” — -Defence, p. 327.
the fallen system of things, that as it came in by him, so it holds of him, and is never parted from him. We shake off sin and him together; we are in bondage to sin and him at once. Sin and he are inseparable companions — on earth and in hell, The tyranny of both is destroyed in regeneration; the partial power of both remains till death, in the regenerate — but that of the one never more, and never less, than that of the other, and at death the believer sees the backs of both together.”*
We confess ourselves somewhat at a loss rightly to understand the drift of this. So far as we do understand it, Mr Brown seems to mean that sin and Satan are so inseparable, that it is empossible to believe that there can be sin wpon the earth of Satan be not there. His conclusion from this is, that as sin still exists upon the earth during the millennium, Satan cannot be bound or expelled. This statement, as put by Mr Brown, is rather ambiguous, but if must mean one of two things. It must either mean that where Satan is, there sin is; 2, e. wherever you find Satan there you may be sure he will produce sin. This, however, cannot be Mr Brown’s meaning, for it has no bearing upon his argument, — it gives no help to his main reasoning. It must then mean the converse of this,
* P. 302.
that wherever sin is there Satan is; te, wherever you find sin there you may be sure Satan is, otherwise there would be an effect without a cause. This, of course, if it were true, would be very helpful to the writer’s argument. Nay, it would be almost irresistible. For if we were quite sure that sin cowld not exist without Satan to originate or to aid it, then we might certainly infer that Satan could not be totally restrained during the millennium wholly without sin. The argument would stand thus: “wherever sin is, there Satan must have been in order to originate it, for sin cannot be where Satan is not; but sin exists during the millennium, therefore Satan cannot be in the bottomless pit, but must be at large.” Our objection to this is two-fold. 1. It takes for granted that sin and Satan are inseparable. Not one solitary text is quoted to prove the assertion. It is the writer’s opinion; but it is no more. Yet we who do not believe it are said to hold “principles subversive of the plainest statements of God’s word.” 2. It places the doctrine of human sinfulness on a new and very questionable foundation. It teaches us that sinfulness is more owing to Satan than to the sinner himself. “It came in by him,” says Mr Brown, “it holds of him, and is never parted from him.” Is this Scriptural? Is it not written “By man came death”! — “Thou
hast destroyed thyself”? If this means “by Satan came death,” “Satan destroyed man,” then where is man’s sinfulness? where is his guilt? where is his personal responsibility? Yet unless we believe this new doctrine regarding the inseparability of sin and Satan, we are said to hold what is “subversive of the fundamental principles and opposed to the plainest state-. ments of God’s word.” Whether it be Mr Brown or we who hold these “‘ subversive” principles, our readers can determine. “We speak as unto wise men, judge ye what we say.” Mr Brown speaks of our “revolting speculations.” Truly this opinion of his is a speculation; whether it be “revolting” or not, we say not; but we may at least call it novel, unsound, and wn-Calvinistic. We do not believe that sin and Satan are inseparable, God has nowhere said so, We ask but for one text. Mr Brown tells us he is suspicious of a doctrine founded on one text.* We are more suspicious of a doctrine that has not so much as one text to rest upon.
It appears to us most clearly that sin and Satan are separable. Man sins even without Satan. Man has within him a hell of sin altogether apart from the devil and his influence. Human depravity can exist without Satan to cause it or to aid it. The world
*.P..229.
4.00 MAN SINS WITHOUT SATAN.
might overflow with sin, even were Satan removed. * One human heart contains in it enough of poison to infect the universal earth. And if this be admitted, Mr Brown’s argument fails in coherence. If men cannot sin without the presence of Satan, we admit his conclusion as to Satan’s liberty during the millennium, For there would then be an effect without a cause. But if man can sin without Satan, then where is the force of the reasoning? Let us put the statement in another form. It will be clearer if we substitute the concrete for the abstract,’ so that both terms may be concrete. It will then run thus: “depraved man and Satan are inseparable, the former cannot exist without the latter; and as some depraved men are to exist during the millennium, Satan must be at work.”’+
* Dr Hamilton, inferring from the statements of a millennarian, that he meant to teach that the world owed much of its wickedness to Satan, thus exclaims at the idea of the inseparability of sin and Satan: “‘ He (the millennarian) broadly insinuates that the wickedness of the world is not owing to the depravity of man, but to the strength and subtlety of Satan, and that the devil has the graceless portion of our race as completely at disposal as a planter his negroes”! — Defence, p. 331.
+ We repeat then our belief that “depraved man and Satan are separable.” Many a godly man has believed this as well as we. Many an orthodox commentator has interpreted Scripture under this idea. Many an anti-millennarian has held that
the passage in the twentieth of Revelation clearly reveals the separation between the two. Indeed we do not know of any save
We cannot conceive any passage more distinctly and forcibly declaring God’s purpose to separate man and the devil for a season, than the one in question. It foretells a time when this separation shall take place, and shall continue for a thousand years. It foretells a time when man shall be alone upon the earth without a tempter. And has this no meaning? Does it teach us no lesson? Does it reveal no deep purpose on the part of God? Is it not to prove that even without a tempter man will sin, — that such is the nature of sin, so deep are its roots, — such a frail sinning thing is man, even with no devil to spread the snare, — no tempter to whisper sin, or strew sin’s flowery path for him, — man will sin! The world’s past history has proved man to be thoroughly corrupt; but then in all this corruption Satan has had his part. Satan has mightily helped man onward in his sinning course. The world’s future history is yet to teach that man needs no devil to make him sin, — no
fiery darts, no cunning wiles to suggest evil or turn
Mr Brown who holds this doctrine of inseparability.. It is peculiar to himself. And possibly he looks upon it with a far too favourable eye, because of the help it seems to afford him in the present warfare. Were he to give it up, there would be an important argument lost. It is at the best only an‘ a priori argument, not a direct textual one; but still it might be helpful were it sound,.
2D
:
his heart away from the God that made him. In our belief of this, as one of God’s purposes to be fulfilled in millennial days, we are not singular. Millennarians and anti-millennarians have united in holding it. Mr Brown is singular in denying and condemning it.
13. Our passage very distinctly declares that a time is coming when the saints shall be exalted to honour and blessedness, nay, when these very saints that had suffered for Christ should receive honour at his hands.* Mr Brown’s theory proceeds upon the denial of this. He thinks that it is not the martyrs themselves that are rewarded, but others in their room; that it is not those who endured the shame that reap the honour, but others in their room.t Now suppose we apply this principle to similar passages, and see how it fits. We read for instance, “if we suffer, we shall also reign with him;” does this mean merely “‘if we suffer, others shall reign with him, and this will be our reward”? Or again, “if we be dead with him, we shall also liva with him;” does this
* We do not enter into the question as to whether this honour is restricted to the martyrs, Granting that this passage speaks only of the martyrs, still it does not exclude other saints. We might admit that the martyrs alone are here referred to, and yet prove from other texts, that “‘ this honour have all his saints.”
+ Pp. 341-2-5. Mr Brown dwells at considerable length on this; as indeed it behoved him to do, for it is his stronghold here.
mean, “if we be dead with him, we shall be rewarded by others living with him”? Or again, “if we suffer with him, we shall be also glorified together;” does this mean “if we suffer, others will be glorified with him’? If such an interpretation in these passages cannot stand, why ought a similar one in the Apocalypse to be reckoned not only tenable, but be exalted as the “glorious sense”? When the saints are represented as singing this song, “thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, and we shall reign on the earth,” can this mean, as Mr Brown’s interpretation would have it, “thou hast redeemed ws, and others shall reign upon the earth”?* The natural meaning of the passage is certainly, “we who are now singing this song of redemption, — we, and not others in our room, — shall hereafter reign upon the earth.” If such be the natural sense, why should the non-natural be adopted? Mr Brown gives no reason for departing from the natural; nor can we imagine any save one, — it would involve the reign of the saints upon the earth. So offensive does this doctrine seem to many, that new senses must be devised for the plainest pas-
* Dr Guyse, though sufficiently anti-millennarian, does not seem to have found his way to Mr Brown’s sense. He paraphrases the passage thus, “we shall gain the victory over all our
spiritual enemies, sin, Satan, and the world, even while we are upon earth.” — Puaraphrase, vol. vi. p. 238.
4.04 REIGNING NOT BY PROXY.
sages, lest their voice should seem to speak in its behalf. When we read in the epistle to Timothy, “if we suffer we shall also reign with him,” we understand that the sufferers and the reigners are the same individuals, and that the reign is the reward of the suffering. Why then, when we hear the song in the Revelation, do we not conclude that the singers and the reigners are the same? for they sing “we shall reign on the earth.” And how can this inference be evaded when we read in this same book, “they shall reign for ever and ever’? Is this reigning by proxy — this reigning by successors, to be carrried on for ever and ever? Or when Christ says, “to him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne,” does this mean that if we overcome, another shall sit on Christ’s throne for us? Is there to be no literal rewarding of the same individuals that got the promise and underwent the suffering? Is it to be always a mere rewarding by proxy? And if reward goes by proxy, is punishment to do the same ?*
14; Our passage speaks of certain specific acts done
* There are epithets in Mr Brown’s book again and again applied to the literal scheme of interpretation, which (if fit to be used at all) are far more applicable to this refined spiritualization, by which the very essence of the whole passages is evaporated, and the chief idea contained in them picked out and cast away.
at once. Mr Brown denies that there are any such acts, conceiving that the words refer to a long series of actings spread out over a thousand years. To lay hold of the dragon, to bind him, to cast him into the abyss, to shut him up, to set a seal upon him, are certain specific acts done at once, done at the commencement of a certain era, in order to secure the future tranquillity of that era. Mr Brown thinks, that this laying hold, this binding, &. are to be spread out over the whole era. He will not allow them to be certain steps taken at the outset to ensure the after peace of the earth, but that they are themselves the pacification, or at least, that they make up the long series which keeps up that pacification. This appears to us a contradiction of the inspired statement. John says that Satan is bound in order that the saints may reign. Mr Brown says that the binding goes on for a thousand years, and in truth it turns out that the binding and the reigning are one. Surely this is very unlike what John would have us understand? We might almost say that it is giving a direct negative to the apostle’s words. And we believe that in saying so we have nearly all commentators upon our side. Those at least who believe the scene to be a future one, look upon the binding, &., as a special act done at the beginning of the millenniwm, preparatory to the peace s
and blessedness that ensue. This may perhaps appear a very minor point, and this criticism an unimportant one. We are persuaded that the reverse is really the case. The true meaning of the passage may be said to be involved in it. To overlook it would be to miss one of the chief ideas intended by the Holy Spirit to be conveyed to us in the wondrous prophecy. It is not safe to transmute into generalities what bears throughout the plain characters of something very full and specific.* God writes no wordinvain. His language is most minutely accurate, and worthy of being searched into with all nicety and care. There may be instances in which only one idea can be gathered from a somewhat extended figure. But these are rare, far rarer than many suppose. And admitting the existence of such cases, still the question arises here, “is
this one of them?’+ If minuteness of interpretation
* Thus Dr Owen writes in regard to Col. ii. 15, a passage which might be far more easily generalized than the present, “‘ whereas he is said to spoil principalites and powers, making a show of them openly, I no way doubt but Satan, the head of the apostacy and the chief princes of darkness, were led openly in sight of the holy angels, asconquered captives.” — Christologia, chap. xix.
+ Kuttner, a neologian, affirms this in the following curious sentence. ‘“S7 quis hanc visionis norit swummam, non est quod de omnibus hujus imaginis particulis ad rem ipsam applicandis et explicandis nimis laboret, siquidem tantum ornatus causa addita esse videntur.” See his comment upon the passage in question.
be «mpossible, then we shall yield, and admit that nothing can be meant but the extinction of one party and the up-rising of another; but if there be nothing impossible in a much more minute exposition of the text, we shall not reckon ourselves at liberty to generalize. In saying this we are not taking our stand upon exclusively millennarian ground. No doubt we would carry our interpretation farther than anti-millennarians do. But in general they go a considerable way along with us. They will not go so far as we do, but they go much farther than Mr Brown. His theory of generalization exceeds anything we have seen, at least in any author that has a name for soundness or sobriety, as an interpreter of the divine word. Yet he speaks of his principles as “immoveable,” and applies strong enough epithets of condemnation, which we need not cite, to those who have ventured upon a different line of exposition. In a very large number of cases Mr Brown differs totally from his own post-millennial friends, having shot far beyond his fellows in his course of generalizing or spiritualizing. And this we think, of itself, should have disposed him to a little more caution and self-distrust. For if he be right, then not only are millennarians totally wrong, but no less wrong, no less unsound must be the great
mass of post-millennial commentators.
15. Mr Brown tells us that a doctrine professing to found itself upon one passage of Scripture alone must he looked upon with suspicion.* We know not why. We do not understand how one utterance of God should not be sufficient for us. If this doctrine of Mr Brown’s be true, what would Adam have done with his one promise? And how “suspicious” must the promise of a Messiah have appeared to all the antediluvian patriarchs! We wonder that one who admits the full inspiration of the word of God, as we know Mr B. most thoroughly does, should have committed himself to a statement so hazardous and questionable. We.do not admit that there is but one passage relating to the point in question, but even had there been only one, it would have been enough. Even Mr Stuart, with all his neologian irreverence for Scripture, would not concede this point to Mr Brown. He thus argues : —
“JT will now suppose, merely for the sake of argument, that it is not alluded to elsewhere. Does it then follow, that we are not to admit it from the passage before us? Why should it, in case this passage is plain, and fairly incontrovertible, as to its meaning philologically investigated? That it is so I am on the whole constrained to believe. Vitringa himself does
* Ps 299:
not elsewhere reason in such a way as he does here, in respect to other passages of the New Testament. He does not call in question the doctrine, that the mediatorial kingdom of Christ will be given up ‘when the end cometh; nor does he doubt that Christ, 2. e. ‘the Son himself, will be subject to Him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all,’ (1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28,) because these doctrines are taught but once in the Scriptures. He does not call in question the doctrine that ‘saints shall judge the world, and judge angels,’ because no Scriptural writer, except Paul, has presented this doctrine in such a shape. He does not call in question the resurrection of the body, under such modifications as Paul has taught, in 1 Cor. xv., although no other part of the Bible presents us with these. Yet these are doctrines of high and sacred import, not lightly to be received, and certainly not to be rejected lightly. Why then, if the meaning of the text before us is clear, should we reject the doctrine of a jirst resurrection, even if no other scriptural writer has expressly taught it?
“But it seems to me, that the passage before us is mot the only one in the Scriptures which teaches or intimates, that there will be a fist and a second resurrection. I refer the reader to Phil. iii. 8 — 11; Luke xiy. 14; Is. xxvi. 19;1 Cor. xv. 23, 24; 1 Thess. iv.
16. In particular does Paul seem, by his aragy7.. emeira... cirx, in 1 Cor. xv. 23, 24, to have adverted to a first and second resurrection. See De Wette in loc. On the subject of such resurrections, see vol. 1. § 10, p. 176 seq. of this work, and the Com. on ev. xx. 4, 5.”*
In conclusion, let me set down the passage in suc- ’ cessive clauses and placing opposite texts that may illustrate them, that the reader may be led to try for himself, whether a minute and somewhat literal exposition be impossible or absurd, or “subversive of the fundamental principles of God’s word.” The passages in the second ‘column are not always given as strict interpretations, but sometimes merely as kindred texts which may suggest the true meaning.
1. “I saw an angel come down 1. “The Son of Man shall from heaven.” — Verse 1. send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend.” — Matt. xiii, 41. 2. “Having the key of the 2. “I have the keys of hell abyss.” — do. and death.” — Rev. i. 18. 3. “A great chain in his 3. “The angels that kept not hand,” — do. their first estate, he hath reserved for (not ¢n) everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” — Jude 6. 4, “He laid hold on the drag- 4. “No man can enter into a
* Pp, 476 — 478.
on, that old serpent, &c., and
bound him a thousand years.” — 2.
5. “And cast him into the
bottomless pit.”’ — 3.
6. “And shut him up, and set
a seal upon him.” — 3.
- 7. “That he should deceive
the nations no more, till the
thousand years were finished.” — 3.
8. “After that he must be
loosed a little season.” — 3.
9. “I saw thrones,” — 4,
10. They sat on them.” — 4,
11. “Judgment was given to
them.”’ — 4,
12. “I saw the souls of them
that were beheaded for the wit-PASSAGES. 411
strong man’s house, except he
first bind the strong man,.” — Mark iii. 27.
5. “They besought him, that
he would not command them
to go into the bottomless pit.” — Luke viii. 31.
“The devil that “deceived
them was cast into the lake of
fire.’ — Rey. xx. 10.
6. “The Lord shall punish
the host of the high ones that
are on high, (¢.e¢. ‘ spiritual
wickedness in high places’), and
they shall be gathered together
as prisoners are gathered in the
pit, and shall be shut up in the
prison.” — Isaiah xxiv. 21,
7. “The God of peace shall
bruise Satan under your feet
shortly.” — Rom, xvi. 20.
8. “After many days shall
they be visited.” — Isa. xxiv. 22.
9. “I beheld till the thrones
were cast down” or set. — Dan.
vii. 9.
10. “In the regeneration,
when the Son of Man shall sit in
the throne of his glory, ye also
shall sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” — Matt. xix. 28.
11, “Know ye not that the
saints shall judge the. world:
know ye not that we shall judge
angels?”’ — 1 Cor. vi. 2.
12. “I saw under the altar the souls of them that wereness of Jesus, and for the word of God,” &c. — 4.
13. “They lived.” — 4.
14, “And reigned with Christ
a thousand years.” — 4.
15. “The rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” — 5.
16. ‘* This is the first resurrection,’” — 65,
17. “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection.” — 6,
18. “On such the second death
hath no power.” — 6.
~-PARALLEL PASSAGES.
slain for the word of God, and
for the testimony which they
held.” — Rev. vi. 9.
13. “In Christ shall all be
made alive,’ 1 Cor. xv. 238.
“Thy dead men shall live,) together with) my dead body shall
they arise.” — Isaiah xxvi. 19.
14. “If we suffer we shall also
reign with him.” — 2 Tim. ii. 12.
“We shall reign on the earth.” — Rev. v.10. “They shall reign
for ever and ever.” — Rev. xxii.
5.
15, “They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise.” — Isaiah xxvi. 14.
16. Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the
just.”” Luke xiv. 14, ‘“‘ Many of
them that sleep in the dust of
the earth shall awake.”’ — Dan.
xii. 2::
17.. “They that have done
good, shall come forth to the
resurrection of life.’ — John v.
29.
18. “He that overcometh
shall not be hurt of the second
death.” — Rev. ii. 11. “They
which shall be accounted worthy
to obtain that world, and the
resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in
marriage, neither SHALL THEY
DIE ANY MORE, being the child
ren of the resurrection.” — Luke
xx. 35,
19. “They shall be priests of
God and of Christ, and shall
reign with him a thousand
19. “Thou hast made us unto
our God kings and priests: and
we shall reign on the earth.”” —
Rey. v.10. “The Lord of hosts
shall reign in Mount Zion, and
in Jerusalem, and before his
‘years,’’ — 6.
ancients gloriously,.”” — Isaiah
Xxiv. 23.
But I must now quit this passage. I have not
entered upon its exposition: but have merely been trying to remove one of the false expositions with which it has been overlaid. Ihave sought to brush away the clouds which in so many curious forms have been drawn over it; and in truth it needs no more. Its light is so innately intense and powerful, that when the clouds are swept off, it shines unbidden, He who but reads it, may learn its meaning, as he may learn the meaning of the creation and the fall.
ity, but rts clearness, that has so long perplexed interwith its own simple brilliance.
For vt ts not tts obscurpreters,