Truth Magazine

By S. Leonard Tyler

The battle of Armageddon is the theme song of many religious leaders in the present world. They seem to feel capable of and delight in fixing the times, seasons, periods, cycles, phases and happenings of the age to point forward, as a count-down, to the great battle of Armageddon. They, as it were, open the door and allow us to peer into the greatest of all events to come. This is the speculative stance picturesque in their eschatological imaginations to the battle of Armageddon. Some of the most fantastic expectations, imaginable dreams, greatest illusions, and wildest fantasies find fulfillment in their assumed assemblage of all nations, prepared with the most modern nuclear implements of warfare, to fight the great battle in “the valley of Megiddo.” They have all of the faithful of the Lord allied against all of the wicked of Satan literally and physically fighting this final battle of Armageddon. Gog and Magog are identified as a real prince and nation and thrown into the fray. Yes this is, to them, a real carnal, “flesh and blood,” war with all the righteous people battling it out with guns, tanks and bombs with all the unrighteous people.

Billy Graham said, “There is no doubt that global events are preparing the way for the final war of history, the great Armageddon!”(1)

Jerry Falwell, implying Israel’s place in God’s eternal scheme of redemption as yet to be accomplished, compares Genesis 12:1-3 with John 3:16 as being equally promised and believed concludes, “To stand against Israel is to stand against God. We believe that. I love the Jew because God loved the Jew . . . . My deep conviction is that America will not remain a free nation unless we defend the freedom of Israel.”(2)

Hall Lindsey wrote under, “Perfect Parable,” regarding “fig tree” leaves coming again as being May 14, 1948 when the Jewish people became a nation and applied Matt. 24:34 (“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” NASB to this generation. The sign was to him the rebirth of Israel and a generation is about 40 years. He then concludes, “If this is a correct deduction, then within forty years or so of 1948, all these things could take place.” He states that “many scholars” believe this. Writing under, “What’s Your Game, Gog?” Lindsey gives us his view:

We have seen that Russia will arm and equip a vast confederacy. This powerful group of allies will lead an attack on restored Israel. However, Russia and her confederates will be destroyed completely by an act that Israel will acknowledge as being from their God. This act will bring many in Israel to believe in their true Messiah (Ezekiel 38:15ff).

The attack upon the Russian confederacy and the resulting conflict will escalate into the last war of the world, involving all nations.

He goes further by saying, “In this chapter we will trace consecutively the predicted events that lead to the Armageddon campaign: the various sequence of battles, the particular powers who fight each other, and how in turn each is destroyed. The crucial prediction of the revived state of Israel’s part in triggering Armageddon will also be shown.” He then gave a chart of Russia’s moves from phase 1 through phase 5 and, finally, to her Waterloo.(3) He garbles the prophets to give them a literal interpretation and application in order to chart the second coming of Christ, the rapture, tribulation and Armageddon which leads, according to Lindsey, into the millennial kingdom. What an expanded and presumptuous imagination he exerts to reach his conclusions!

Time Setting

Time setting seem to be inherent with those who interpret this text literally. One cannot give a literal interpretation to Revelation consistently without having beasts leading the battles, frogs taking orders from dragons of the sea and multi-headed animals directing the affairs of human beings.

D.M. Canright gives some evidence of literal interpreters and their time setting. He list some as early as the middle of the second century. In the Latin church he sights, “Public and private buildings were suffered to decay, and were even pulled down, from an opinion that they were no longer of any use, since the dissolution of all things were at hand.” He also emphasizes the claims made by William Miller, the founder of Adventism, that the world would end in 1843-4. Mrs. Ellen G. White somewhat settled the point at the time by saying, “I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as he wanted them; that his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures” (he gives her, Early Writings, pp. 67, 68 as a reference. Mr. Miller also said, “I believe the time can be known by all who desire to understand . . . . Between March 21, 1840, and March 21, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation of time, Christ will come.”(4) This is 1982 and Christ has not yet appeared. Thus Mr. Miller and Mrs. Ellen G. White are found to be false witnesses (prophets. They did not know and could not know the time of Christ’s second coming. Therefore, for the same reason, I reject all time setters, for no man knows when Jesus is coming (Mk. 13:32-37).

God’s Plan For Man’s Salvation

God’s plan for man’s salvation is provided by the grace of God for all men who will by faith accept it (Eph. 2:8; Matt. 7:13-14, 24-29). “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lust, we should live soberly and righteously and godly.in this present world; looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savious Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:11-12). Is this compatible with a literal, physical, worldwide, all-nations-involved battle between the righteous and unrighteous at Megiddo? Not to me! It sounds contrary, innately diverse and diabolically opposed to the very essence of the scheme of redemption procured by the precious blood of Jesus our Lord (Eph. 1:3-7).

Some Study Should Be Given

There are some clear, emphatic, and essential rules which must be observed, consciously or otherwise, in biblical interpretation. One is this: Obscure passages should be studied, understood and accepted in the light of plain, understandable texts. The plain, comprehensible passages must never be sacrificed, altered or compromised for some fanciful interpretation of an obscure Scripture. This need is maximized in studying prophetic, figurative and symbolic language. This special study of Premillennialism is a very impressive illustration of such a need.

I doubt if there is a subject where fanciful, imaginative and speculative creativeness finds vent or assumes greater advantage than in the premillennial theory. The essential tenets of the theory are not in the Divine Volume. Interpretations of difficult texts are so far removed from their context that they lose their Divine significance. Thus, the theory becomes purely and only a stigma of the theological, doctrinaire, human mind. Let us consider some plain texts.

Some Plain Propositions To Be Reckoned

The church and kingdom are terms applying to, identifying, encompassing or circumscribing the same people, those belonging to the Lord with special emphasis upon the type of figure used (Matt. 16:16-19; Acts 8:12; Col. 1:13, 18; Heb. 12:28).

The church/kingdom had its beginnings upon the first Pentecost after Christ’s ascension to the Father when He sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:7-16; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:7-8; 2:1-47). This is when “He led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men” and took His seat at the Father’s right hand as the head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23; 4:8; Phil. 2:8-11). Here Christ began His reign as “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:32-36, 47), with all authority “both in heaven and earth” (Matt. 28:18; 1 Tim. 6:15; James 4:12). The apostles also took their seats upon the twelve thrones of spiritual Israel (Gal. 3:7-8, Matt. 18:18, 19:27-28; Eph. 2:20). Thus, the reign and headship of Christ had its beginning.

The reign of Christ began when Christ sat down upon His throne and will continue so long as he sits (Heb. 10:10-13). The late Foy E. Wallace, Jr., repeats this for me, “Let me say it again; He sits while he reigns, and he reigns while he sits. He began reigning when he began sitting; he quits reigning when he quits sitting; but he will reign to the end, so when Christ quits sitting, it will be the end, and he will then quit reigning. What happens to the kingdom? He delivers the kingdom to God, the Father.”(5)

All of the accomplishments under the New Testament must be within the reign or headship of Christ for it went into effect when He became “both Lord and Christ” and will end at His second coming (Eph. 1:20; John 5:28; 1 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:7-10). He is now reigning and must continue to reign until death is destroyed (1 Cor. 15:22-28). Death will be destroyed at the judgment (Rev. 20:11-15) when the kingdom is returned back to the Father.

The purposes of Christ are the purposes of the church under the New Testament rule of Christ. The church is not a substitute or accident or just a lesser kingdom instituted because the Jews rejected Christ. It was designed in God’s mind, foretold by the prophets, and established and sustained by Jesus Christ; therefore, “unto him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations forever and ever” (all the generations of the age of the ages, foot note, Eph. 3:21, ASV.). When “all the generations of the age of the ages” have passed there is nothing left to come -except, the end, even eternity.

The kingdom of heaven and the church of the Lord apply to a spiritual relationship shared by those who, by faith, obey Christ, being baptized into Christ (John 3:5; Acts 2:38-42, 47; Gal. 3:26-27). The kingdom is not meat and drink but righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit (Rom. 14:17). The church is the body of Christ (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 12:27). It is true that the Lord’s people are militantly engaged in a warfare, but not in a physical struggle or carnal war. It is a spiritual warfare with spiritual armor and designs – righteousness against wickedness in heavenly places (Eph. 5:11; 6:11-13; Gal. 5:16-26). Paul wrote the Ephesians to put on “the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles (stratagem, trickery, deceit, SLT) of the devil” (Eph. 6:11-20). Yes, the fight is on against wickedness, sin in high places, ungodliness, and immorality in order to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one. The offensive weapon is “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” The charge is, “Be not overcome with evil but over come evil with good” and “be faithful unto death” (Rom. 12:21; 1 Pet. 1:5-9). Thus, God’s kingdom people, as such, will never fight a physical war, for these texts are applicable now to all mankind and will remain so as long as time and timely things continue. When Christ appears at His second coming, He will render the judgment, consign the destinies of all, both saint and sinner, and close the books (1 Cor. 15:22-28; Rom. 2:5-11; Rev. 20:11-15) .

All Are One In Christ

“There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision . . . but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11). Christ broke down the middle wall of partition to create in Himself of the two (Jew and Greek) one new man, so making peace; reconciliation to God occurs in one body (Eph. 2:11-16; 2 Cor. 5:17-19). There is no distinction between men; under the new covenant both Jew and Greek are justified by faith in Christ (Acts 15:7-11; 10:34-35; Rom. 1:16-18; 3:21-31; Gal. 3:23-29; Col. 3:10-11). The only access anyone has to the Father today is in or through Christ (John 14:6; Heb. 5:8-9; Luke 10:16). This is God’s chosen way by which man is saved (Matt. 7:13-14; 1 Cor. 1:21; Matt. 7:21-27).

Revelation 16:16

“And they gathered them together into the place which is called in Hebrew, Har-Magedon” (ASV., Armageddon AV./. If one approaches this study with a literal interpretation, he begins his search to identify Armageddon. Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary gives just about as clear and concise understanding as any I have read.

Armageddon (the hill or city of Megiddo) Rev. 16:16. The scene of the struggle of good and evil is suggested by the battle-field, the plain of Esdraelon, which was famous for two great victories, of Barak over the Canaanites and of Gideon over the Midianites; and for two great disasters, the deaths of Saul and Josiah. Hence it signifies in Revelation a place of great slaughter, of a terrible retribution upon the wicked. The Revised Version gives the name as ar-Magedon, i.e., the hill (as or is the city) of Megiddo.(6)

The Layman’s Bible Commentary has this to say: “There was no literal mountain of this name, but the reference is probably to the mountains that were near the town of Megiddo, or possibly to the large size of the mound of the city itself. This place stood at the upper entrance to the Plain of Esdraelon by Megiddo the Syrians, and later the Assyrians, must have traveled when they besieged Samaria (II Kings 6, 17) . . . . All down through history this region has been known as a bloody battleground and as a convenient pass for great armies. In a word, Megiddo, had come to stand, in Jewish and therefore in Christian thought, for great and decisive struggle. John uses it here only, and he does not have in mind any thought that at some particular date in time the forces of evil and the powers of good will literally fight it out at this spot. It rather stands for the great final overthrow of spiritual evil by the spiritual power of the Almighty God.”

This is but an example if a literal interpretation is used and is intensified with each application of the supposed powers, nations and kings specified by the prognosticators. In most literal interpretations the suppositions are so expanded that one many search in vain to find any resemblence of fact.

Mr. Ray Summers expresses it well, “If one expects this to be a literal, material battle, he must expect the army to be headed by a committee of three frogs. Both figures are symbolical; neither is literal. There is no reason for making one literal and the other symbolical. The Armageddon in the book of Revelation has no location on the maps of the world; it is logical, not spatial. The battle is between righteousness and evil, the righteousness is the certain victor.”(7) He also wrote, “The three frogs perhaps symbolize some form of evil propaganda since they came from the mouths of three beast, false prophet and dragon, slt). . . True religion has no worse enemies, and Satan no better allies, than false propaganda.”(8) This is just as true today as in years past. Jesus warned His disciples against false prophets (Matt. 24:24. Paul and Peter warn Christians to beware of false teachers (2 Thess. 2:9-10; 1 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Pet. 2:1-2). Those who refuse the message will become victims of their false propaganda or doctrine. Beware! It is presented on T.V., Radio, upon the printed page, and in multitudes of pulpits.

Armageddon Of Revelation

John unmistakably uses figurative language in this text. The dragon, old Satan; the beast, political powers or governments; false prophet, religious propaganda or false religions; the harlot-Babylon, Satan and antiChrist’s seductive, pervertive and deceptive teaching; a person or place full of vice and immoral practices; and the three frogs out of the dragon’s mouth are all figurative expressions. The battle of Armageddon is figuratively used to represent a war between good and evil, righteousness and unrighteousness. It is a spiritual conflict between those who accept the teaching of Christ (believers) and those lead by Satan’s luring devices of fleshly, material designs. Although it is a spiritual conflict, yet Satan uses every force and material influence available – possessions, pleasure, emotional and selfish gratification. He began his battle against Christ (Matt. 4:1-11; Rev. 12:1-6) but has turned his powers against Christ’s followers, the Christians. We must contend for and fight the good fight of faith (Jude 3). It is the flesh against the Spirit (Gal. 5:15-26). Armageddon symbolically represents a battleground, wherever and whenever good or right is confronted with wrong or evil. How consoling is the revelation; the. culminating facts in every picture, symbol and figure show the believers, God’s people as winning the battle. Thus, Christians, through much suffering and conflict, are more than conquerors. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith” (1 John 4-5).

In Revelation 16:16, “They gathered them together into the place which is called in Hebrew Har-Magedon” /ASV.). The beast, false prophet, the deceiver of those who bare the mark of the beast, and those that worshipped his image are readied for battle. The battle which is waged against “him that sat on the horse” and his army results in the defeat of the beast, false prophet and dragon with all their allies /Rev. 19:19-21). The absolute victory over sin and the world comes at Christ’s second coming and the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-15J. This is that final act of Christ pictured throughout the New Testament, His coming to judge all men and pronounce the destiny (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:28; Rom. 2:5-13; 2 Cor. 5:10, 11; Thess. 1:7-10; Rev. 20:11-15). Thereafter, no place can be found in the New Testament for any existence upon this material earth. It shall disappear; John said that it had “fled away”; Peter said, the earth “shall melt with fervent heat” (Rev. 20:11; 2 Pet. 3, 7, 10-13). This is not a purification, it is destruction.

The harder the times, the stronger the temptations, the fewer believers and the more ungodliness; the immorality, vice, and worldly lust which seem to triumph are but challenges for stronger faith, more real, true convictions in Christ and His promises. Christians are today fighting this war-good against evil, righteousness against unrighteousness, even Christ against Satan. The victory will be at the second coming of our Lord. Will you stand with Him in victory? Therefore, we should accept the urgings given in Rev. 16:15 as the gathering was being assembled for battle, “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keep his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” Peter concluded that the trial of your faith is more precious than gold which perishes. Faith offers eternal life, “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet. 1:9). Therefore, let the battle rage but stand like men; the victory is ahead. It is assured to all who through faith submit to the Captian of our souls – we shall win in Christ. This is to me the very purpose of the Revelation letter. The church of Christ, the Lord’s people, shall overcome all her enemies and win the victory of all victories – the salvation of the soul.

Endnotes

1. Till Armageddon, Billy Graham, p. 15.

2. The Fundamentalist Phenomenon, ed. by Jerry Fallwell, p. 215.

3. The Late Great Planet Earth, by Hal Lindsey with C.C. Carlson, paperback Bantam Book, New York, pp. 43, 60, 139, 144, 148.

4. Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced, D.M. Canright, pp. 67, 68, 70.

5. God’s Prophetic Word, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., p. 189.

6. Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, Universal Book and Bible House, Philadelphia, Pa., p. 46.

7. Worthy Is The Lamb, by Ray Summers, Broadman Press, Nashville, Tenn., pp. 189, 90.

8. – – –

1. Why do so many preachers and writers find the subject of Armageddon so fascinating?
2. Why is time setting so unreliable regarding Christ’s second coming?
3. How should one approach the study of the more difficult texts of the Bible?
4. What are some plain propositions of the New Testament regarding the end times? Why are these so important in a study of Armageddon?
5. When are all things to be accomplished under the New Testament? How long is the church to stand through which God receives glory? When will Christ return the kingdom back to the Father?
6. How can one know that the Lord’s kingdom people will never fight a material war of any kind, much less a physical Battle of Armageddon?
7. How should Armageddon be understood? Why?
8. What is essential, if a literal interpretation is placed upon Revelation 16-19?
9. Where can one find salvation? Will there ever be a different way of salvation?
10. Where and how can any person be assured of eternal life?

 

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 4, pp. 50-53
January 28, 1982

By Rodney M. Miller

The close link between dispensationalism and the American political scene cannot be denied. Dispensationalism is the form of premillennialism that has split the country and, actually, the Christian world in the last few years. The key to understanding the dispensationalist, like Hal Lindsey, is to separate the church age and the kingdom age. One could be a thorough premillennialist and not be a dispensationalist. Most of those in the church of Christ are premillennialists and not dispensationalists, such as Mr. Lindsey. The dispensationalism of the Late Great Planet Earth tells us that all the prophecies made to Israel were not fulfilled in the church age; that these prophecies must be fulfilled in literal Israel, the Jew, at the end of time. So, for this reason it is easy to see that the Jewish State of Israel and its political well-being is very important to the community of dispensationalists.

This was of little consequence until the last election, when the Moral Majority exerted its muscles and brought to the voting booth a certain amount of political power. The right of the Moral Majority to exist is not the thrust of this article, although one passing observation is in order. First, the liberal element of religion was a major force of resistance to the Vietnam war in the 1960’s as well as with the Civil rights movement of the 1950’s. No one was concerned about separation of church and state while they were being lead by the liberal theologians of the day. Yet, today, when Mr. Falwell seeks to influence the minds of this Nation, the fear of separation of church and state is bantered by every defeated politician’s lips. Secondly, we flount the right of every special interest group in the world (homosexuals, save the whalers, anti-strip miners, and abortionists) to lobby for their causes; yet, when is that a right for a certain section of the religious community? We may not agree with the political position of that community, just as we will not agree with this article. Why then, does one have the right and the other does not?

First, let us note the close tie between the dispensationalist and the political position on Israel. An article called Video Vicars, by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Charles E. Swann pointed to this close relationship between their religious beliefs and the political policy toward Israel:

Many of the major TV preachers, however – Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and most of the lesser lights of gospel broadcasting do believe in some form of millennialism. The “millennium” is a prophesied thousand-year period of events on the earth surround-ing the Second Coming of Jesus.

But before the millennium begins (some say seven years before), the last trumpet will sound and all the saved will be caught up instantly into heaven. This event is called the “rapture.”

In the classic view of these events, the seven-year tribulation after the sudden rapture of the saints will be filled with two major happenings. The gospel of the kingdom will be preached (by believing Jews), it seems, since all Christians have departed, and Israel will be converted. The second major event is the rise of the Anti-Christ, who will attack Israel. After the defeat of the Anti-Christ, Jesus will come down to establish his earthly throne at Jerusalem.

It is a complicated doctrine, and many of the TV preachers have their own variations on it. What makes these millennialist beliefs important to analysts is their connection to the U.S.S.R. and Israel in the modern world. Evangelical political support for Israel has been noted widely. Support of Israel, to the fundamentalist preachers, simply is cooperation with God in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. A Christian America cannot do otherwise (RMM).

The fundamentalists often identify the Anti-Christ with communism.

TV religion, accordingly, has developed and refined a set of battle cries, an agenda for the 1980’s to conquer the sins of society and restore to America the strength it needs to fight the Anti-Christ.

Notice in this quotation,; “Support for Israel, to the fundamentialist preachers, simply is cooperation with God in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. A Christian American cannot do otherwise.” This was taken from the Sentinel Star, Saturday, August 15, 1981.

Another example of this close connection was the meeting between Jerry Falwell and Prime Minister Menachen Begin in Washington this fall. The AP News reported that “Evangelical Christian leader Jerry Falwell reaffirmed his umcompromising support for Israel Friday at the Washington meeting.” Falwell told Begin that God will treat all nations on the basis of how they treat the Jews, and- saying, “If we could get Adolf Hitler out of hell for 30 seconds,, he’d say Amen to that. I believe the Soviet Union’s fatal mistake has not been her belligerence toward the United States but toward the Jews.” It is easy to see by these two simple statements that their religious belief will be the primary influence in the shaping of foreign policy. But, then again, so are the religious beliefs of the Mormons as well in the primary influence of shaping their political positions, and we have far more Mormons in higher realms of government than we do dispensationalists.

Secondly, we see that these fundamentalistic beliefs of the dispensationalists influence not only the foreign policy, but to some degree internal policy on the domestic level. James Watt, the Secretary of the Interior, who is the supposed guardian of the environment, told the Senate Committee when he was confirmed that future generations didn’t need to be concerned about what we did with our resources, because not many generations remained before Christ came for the second coming and to end the world. Needless to say, that blew the circuits of the liberal opposition to the influence and power of the new right.

In conclusion, what do we make of all of this? Well, by me, not much! It seems that whoever sits on the throne of power will wield its influence. It may be the Catholic who opposes abortion, and so do I. It may be the Mormon who opposes ERA, and so do I. It may be the fundamentalist who opposes homosexuality, and so do I. Or, it may be the atheist who opposes the Catholics, Mormons and fundamentalists, and so do I. Whoever is in power is going to hold his particular brand of presupposing over the people, and I do not find the leaning of the Moral Majority any more frightening than the leanings of the Kennedy era. We simply need to recognize them for what they are and quit worrying about Washington and start baptizing our friends and neighbors.

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 3, pp. 42-43
January 21, 1982

By Robert C. Welch

Some premillennial preachers met with some other preachers and brethren in Louisville, Kentucky in 1952 far the-purpose of discussing some solution to the lack of fellowship. The premillennialists proposed that it could be had if they not be opposed as they taught the doctrine, according to what they were wont to call “teaching all the Bible.” They had the modern Christian Church misrepresentation of the slogan used by early restorationists: This perversion of the slogan, “where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent,” is the interpretation that we not oppose anything said by them even though the Bible does not authorize the doctrine, We proposed to them that since the Scriptures declare that there is one faith then the two of us should study the issue to see what the Bible teaches on the matter and that an agreement upon what it teaches would be the only way there could be unity or fellowship. We proposed a formal debate. They totally rejected the idea of a debate or even any kind of discussion of the doctrine. In this meeting they demonstrated the reason for our not being in fellowship with them. They persist in their false doctrine and require our silence or acquiescence as they teach it.

Background Developments

The doctrine raised its ugly head as a divisive factor through R.H. Boll and some other men who lived in Louisville. There is little doubt that the theory existed in the minds of many of the preachers of the restoration right on down to the time of Boll. But it had not been made an essential in faith and preaching. Russell (forerunner of Jehovah’s Witnesses) and other denominational men were making wild, emotional speculations about the world-wide troubles which led into World War I. They perceived such troubles as the immediate precursor of the second coming of Christ to reign on the earth for a thousand years. Boll and these men around him took up the cry. Boll was an editorial writer for the Gospel Advocate and began teaching it in the journal. The others on the Advocate staff had a meeting with Boll and got an agreement from him that he would not present his speculative doctrine on its pages. They argued that his private adherence to the theory would not affect them. He began, however, in just a little while, to teach it again and was put off the staff. It was then that he began his own paper with this doctrine as the main theme and reason for its publication. He, of course, was teaching it from the pulpit and in his school classroom all the while. Another very influential preacher and writer lived in Louisville who was also on the Advocate staff, M.C. Kurfees. The relations grew very cold and bitter between them. The actual break in fellowship, began in Louisville, but not with the congregations, where;these twolabored. E.L. Jorgenson was preaching the doctrine at the Highland church in the city. Several of the members were opposed to the doctrine and were opposed to his preaching it. These brethren were withdrawn from in ,the mid-teens. They formed another congregation. Much was said about it in brotherhood papers, especially the Gosepl Advocate. Boll’s own paper, however, Word and Work, had little to say bout this break. The.reason is, evident, they were the ones who made it a test of fellowship. They did say,. in the July, 1918 issue:

In reference to a report which recently appeared inthe Gospel Advocates: Those who are interested to know the truth concerning the good work of the Highland Church of Christ and the situation so far as concerns any division existing there, can obtain the facts from any of the “acting elders, “from E.L. Jorgenson, or from any other member of the congregation. Already, inquiries are being received.

From this there was a gradual growth of estrangement between the churches in Louisville and over the nation. This process of severence of relationships reached a climax in the debates between Foy E. Wallace, Jr. and Charles M. Neal in Winchester, Kentucky and Chatanooga, Tennessee. The differences were so wide and the consequences of the doctrine were so destructive to faith that there was little ground left for joint participation. Neal himself left the church.

By the mid-fifties when one of them engaged in debate with me, both recognized the fact that unless there could be a reconciling of teaching there could not be fellowship in body. As this debate was in progress other preachers discussed with the premillennial preachers the matter of fellowship. Perhaps a debate was proposed on that specific topic, but fellowship was not a debatable question then, and is not now. First must be settled the differences in teaching and faith.

Fellowship Between Churches

The scriptural usage of the term fellowship has been abused to apply to relationships between congregations. The idea persists in the minds of some that the congregations are members of the universal body and that there is scriptural fellowship among them. The term as used in the Scriptures applies to relationship of saints one with another, or of a saints relationship to a church. But there is a recognition of one congregation by another to be found in the New Testament. Sometimes this recognition has to do with soundness of faith, as in Jerusalem sending Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11) and Antioch sending men with Paul to Jerusalem /Acts 15/. It involves the recommendation of another church as being worthy of membership of some Christian. It involves recommendation of the preaching and teaching as in special occasions such as gospel meetings. Could a church encourage its members to participate with another congregation in the preaching and practice of error? This is precisely what is involved in the common phraseology, “why we cannot fellowship premillennial churches.” We do not announce the meetings of these premillennial churches because we do not wish to endorse their false

teaching. We do not recommend them to our members who may be moving into that area because we do not want to encourage any saint to participate in the teaching, endorsement and support of false doctrine.

This is not to be compared with the such questions as the bearing. of arms or of the covering. These are questions involving the individual and not the church. The women who believes that she must wear an artificial covering in worship does not make it a test of fellowship with the woman ‘who does not believe it, at least, not to the point of making it ,a church fellowship question. The person who thinks it permissible to bear arms does not make it a church fellowship question. And the person who believes that it is wrong to bear arms does not make it a church fellowship question. If they should go so far as to do so, it would create the same kind of situation which exists with premillennial churches. They do insist that their doctrine must and shall be preached.

The Individual Level

That a person could hold premillennial mews and still be in fellowship with churches where such doctrine is opposed has been the fact in many instances. This was possible because those people did not make it an issue or a test of fellowship. They did not attempt to lead the members into their doctrine, nor impose it upon the church. The very church, which came into being because a group of people were withdrawn from for opposing the doctrine, had within its membership a few who were premillennial in thinking. Some of them actually came from the original premillennial congregation. Then some of these same people, personally known to me, went on to the forming of another church with no question about fellowship. Why could this be possible? They did not make it a necessity that the doctrine be espoused and preached. They held it as a private personal thing. This has been true of a number of other errors. There have been members who could see nothing wrong with the use of an instrument of music in worship, but they did not try to make it a church practice nor to persuade other members into their opinion. There have been many members who have seen nothing wrong with accepting people into the church on their Baptist baptism, but they did not try to make it a churchwide teaching. All three have needed to grow in knowledge of the word and rid themselves of the errors, but because they held their views as private opinions, they retained fellowship with the churches.

Premillennial Churches Cause The Break

This has not been an attempt to show the evils of the, doctrine, because other writers, in these special issues of the paper, have dealt with these subjects. What they have shown is sufficient for us to know that we cannot endorse the churches who promulgate the doctrine and we cannot endorse or support those who teach it. The theory minimizes the importance which the church has in New Testament teaching. It denies the purposes of God and the ability of God and Christ to carry out their purposes. It vitiates the gospel of Christ and substitutes for the hope set before us in the gospel. And they insist that they must preach it.

What the doctrine will do for the faith of people is seen in their compromise with denominations. Not to discuss differences, but in all good will, they exchange pulpits and worship occasions with the denominations in their neighborhoods. For most of their years of separate existence, the churches in Louisville have had Christian Church preachers for meetings and other special occasions. In recent years they have liberalized their view of fellowship so that such men as Carl Ketcherside have been frequent speakers. Two churches known to me have so far departed from their, original moorings that they have gone into fellowship and identity with the Christian Church (one in Louisville and another in Horse Cave, Kentucky).

They, as with Ketcherside, can seek fellowship with the Christian Church and other denominations, but show no inclination toward us. Instead they have antipathy for us. Our stand is too rigid upon the Scriptures for them. They will embrace everybody but us. And we cannot bid them Godspeed in their false teachings and ways, for by so doing we would become partakers of thier evil deeds (2 John 9-11).

Questions

1. What is the basic meaning and the basic doc trine of premillennialism?
2. From whom and where is the origin of troubles in the church over this doctrine?
3. Is it possible to have the scriptural “one body” without unity of faith?
4. Is scriptural fellowship between individuals or is it sometimes between churches?
5. Should a church endorse or recommend another who teaches and practices error?
6. How is it possible to have fellowship with a person who believes error?
7. What does premillennialism do for the faith of those who hold the doctrine?

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 3, pp. 40-42
January 21, 1982

By Weldon E. Warnock

Premillennialists tell us that during the Tribulation (an imaginary seven-year period) God will work among both Jews and Gentiles to save them. J. Dwight Pentecost, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote:

God’s purpose for Israel in the Tribulation is to bring about the conversion of a multitude of Jews, who will enter into the blessings of the kingdom and experience the fulfillment of all Israel’s covenants . . . . It is also God’s purpose to populate the millennium with a multitude of saved Gentiles, who are redeemed through the preaching of the believing remnant (Things To Come, pp. 237-238).

Lewis Sperry Chafter, a staunch premillennialist who founded Dallas Theological Seminary and who is often quoted among those of that persuasion, wrote:

The Scriptures bear testimony to the fact that Israel as a nation is to be saved from her sin and delivered from her enemies by the Messiah when he shall return to the earth . . . . Jehovah will, in connection with the second advent of Christ and as a part of Israel’s salvation, “take away their sins.” This, Jehovah declares, is His covenant with ,them (Rom. 11:27) . . . In Hebrews 10:4 it is stated that it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should “take away” sin, and in Romans 11:27 it is promised that Israel’s sins will yet be taken away . . . . The induction to be drawn from these and other portions of Scripture is that Jehovah will yet in the future, in the briefest portion of time, and as a part of Israel’s salvation, take away their sins (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, pp. 105-107).

Hal Lindsey, graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and a prolific writer of the millennial mania, states:

As Armageddon being with the invasion of Israel by the Arabs and the Russian confederacy, and their consequent swift destruction, the greatest period of Jewish conversion to their true Messiah will begin (The Late Great Planet Earth, p. 167).

But before the seventh seal is opened, Revelation 7 gives us a parenthetical panorama of the evangelistic activity of the Tribulation period . . . . These evangelists are Jews who may have been witnessed to by some Christians prior to the Rapture; when they discover that all the believers are gone, they turn in faith to Christ to become their Messiah (There’s A New World Coming, p. 112).

As anyone can readily see (except the millennialists) in the preceding declarations and pronouncements, positions have been assumed and plain teachings of the Bible have been contradicted in order to provide a second chance for salvation in the Tribulation. But no second chance is offered in the Bible.

No Second Chance

First of all, there in no second chance because there is no tribulation period in which the opportunity for salvation is provided. The Bible nowhere teaches a seven-year tribulation, called “the Great Tribulation.” Foy E. Wallace said, “If the millennialists can find a passage in the Bible or the Almanac that refers to ‘wrath’ or ‘trouble’ or ‘battle’ they jump to the tribulation; the millennium and Armageddon.” Jesus said, “When the Son of man shall come . . . . then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations” /Matt. 25:31-32). “When” and “then” are adverbs of time and show the judgment will take place at the coming of Christ. This leaves no time for a tribulation.

Second, there is no second chance because the Scriptures show that the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles is through the gospel of Christ – now, in this dispensation. Paul said: ‘ . . . now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). The theme of the Roman letter is that salvation is through the gospel for all (Jew and Gentile) who believe (Rom. 1:16). Righteousness is through the gospel (Rom. 1:17) which is “by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference” (Rom. 3:22). “For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek . . . . For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:12-13). Paul stated, “The word is nigh thee . . . (Rom. 10:8). God’s message of salvation is not far off, but is near, ready for those who will accept it. No future, second chance is offered in the gospel.

Third, there is no second chance because the gospel Paul preached is the only hope of Israel. Before king Agrippa Paul stated, “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews” (Acts 26:6-7). Later, under house arrest in Rome, Paul declared before the chief Jews, “. . . because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain” (Acts 28:20).

The hope Paul preached was not what Israel hoped for. Israel hoped for an earthly Messiah and an earthly kingdom, a false hope. The hope for which true Israel hope was spiritual in nature, coming through the promise to Abraham and realized in Christ through the gospel. This is the hope of Israel! If Paul had preached what Millennialists are preaching, he would not have been bound by a chain, but adored and praised by his fellow-Jews.

Fourth, there is no second chance for the Jews or the Gentiles because conversion must come within the scope of the Great Commission. Jesus said that Great Commission embraces all nations (Matt. 28:18) and every creature (Mk. 16:15). Peter alluded to this at the house of Cornelius and said, “The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:36). Hence, there is no doubt that the Jews are included in the Commission.

But notice that the Great Commission ends with this age when Jesus said “. . . lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). There are no provisions for another age. We are living in the last days (Acts 2:16-17), the last times (1 Pet. 1:20) and the last hour (ASV) (1 Jn. 2:18). Jesus is speaking to us in the last days (Heb. 1:2), not some future era. He was manifested in these last times (1 Pet. 1:20), not a future time and he is speaking to the dead (spiritually dead) in this last hour (Christian Dispensation) (Jn. 5:25), not some future hour.

Fifth, there is no second chance for the Jews or Gentiles because it would require another covenant as there is no such provision in the present covenant. Salvation is in the present covenant, the New Testament, is through the cross of Christ. “By which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). “And to Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling” (Heb. 12:24). “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20).

However, the cross concerns itself with the church or church age as it was the rejection of the Jews that made the cross possible, according to millennialism. But they inform us the church age will cease when Jesus comes to rapture the church at the beginning of the so-called “Tribulation.” Hence, the cross could not be preached during the Tribulation, but some other provisions must be made for the saving of the Jews and Gentiles. Oswald T. Allis wrote:

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that if the Dispensational doctrine regarding the nature of the promised kingdom and the meaning of the word “at hand” is accepted, it leads logically to the view that the Cross, as an atoning sacrifice for sin, concerns the Church age and the Church saints only. As preached at the first advent it did not include or involve the Cross; as preached at the second advent it will not include or presuppose the Cross. It was the rejection of Jesus by the Jews which made the Cross necessary; and it was this rejection which made the Church age possible. So it is for the Church age and for it alone that the Cross is of supreme importance. Only Church saints can say, “Who love me and gave Himself for me.” This we maintain is logical, thorough going Dispensationalism. We feel obliged to point it out, not because Dispensationalists are thoroughly logical and draw these disastrous conclusions fully and clearly, but because we believe that a doctrine which leads to such conclusions cannot be true (Prophecy and the Church, p. 234).

Furthermore, it was because the first covenant was faulty that the second one was established (Heb. 8:7). But since the millennial theory necessitates still another covenant, the inevitable conclusion is that the second covenant, the New Testament, is also faulty. But James tells us it is perfect (Jas. 1:25) and none other will, therefore, be sought, premillennialists notwithstanding.

Sixth, there is no second chance because there is no probation after Jesus comes the second time. Listen to the apostle Peter: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night . . . . the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Pet. 3:9-10). The time to repent is during the period of God’s longsuffering, before Jesus comes again. There is no opportunity to repent after Jesus comes because the earth will be no more. As Foy Wallace said, “That certainly turns the second chance theory, for anybody, Jew or Gentile, into a tail spin.”

Seventh, there is no second chance because God is no respecter of persons. “For there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11; cf. 1 Pet. 1:17; Acts 10:34). How can God be impartial by saving those in the Tribulation with a second chance while condemning those who died unsaved prior to the Tribulation?

Eighth, there will be no second chance because the means of conversion will be removed from the earth. Assuming there is a tribulation, there will be no saints on earth to preach the gospel as the church will be raptured and there will be no Holy Spirit present to convict the sinner. Millennialists, by and large, believe in a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the sinner. But He will be removed according to their interpretation of 2 Thess. 2:7. Allis states:

If the church consists only of those who have been redeemed in the interval between Pentecost and the rapture, and if the entire Church is to be raptured, then there will be no Christians on earth during the period between the rapture and the appearing. Yet during that period 144,000 in Israel and an innumerable multitude from the Gentiles (Rev. vii.) are to be saved. How is this to be brought about, if the Church has been raptured and the Holy Spirit removed from the earth (Ibid., p. 12).

This presents a most difficult problem for the millennialists and so they have had their .imaginations running in all directions in trying to find some plausible answers. Thus far, they have found no biblical solution (and they won’t, either).

Ninth, there is no second chance because when Jesus returns the door of salvation will be shut. In the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), when the bridegroom came and entered the house, the door was shut (v. 10). The meaning is that when Jesus comes again the door of opportunity of entering His kingdom, the church, will be forever shut.

Tenth, there is no second chance because the passages used by the millennialists to try to prove a second chance have been misapplied. Some of their favorite passages are Jer. 30:7, Joel 2:32 and Rom. 11:26-27 for the Jews and Isa. 2:2; 60:3, 5 and 62:2 for the Gentiles. Revelation 7 is the alleged fulfillment of these proof-texts (?).

But Jeremiah 30:7 means that Jacob (Israel) shall be saved (delivered) out of Babylonian captivity and eventually serve God through a Davidic king (Jesus in the gospel age). Joel 2:32 is quoted by Peter on Pentecost and applied to those on that occasion (Acts 2:16-21). Romans 11:26-27 teaches, in light of the context, that salvation comes to the Jews in the same manner it does to the Gentiles – by gospel obedience. The word “so” is an adverb of manner and means, “in this way or manner shall all Israel be saved.”

As to the salvation of the Gentiles, the Isaiah texts have reference to the blessings afforded the Gentiles through the gospel of Christ. This was first realized at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10).

The seventh chapter of Revelation depicts the church on earth, spiritual Israel (144,000); and the church in heaven, the innumerable host who had served the Lord faithfully through trials and tribulation while on earth. Such is the view of R.H. Charles, Albertus Pieters, Ray Summers and others. The language is symbolic and has no connection with a future salvation of Jews and Gentiles.

In conclusion, there is nothing for the Jews or the Gentiles in the future. The gospel of Christ is final to all men. -today and forever. May we hearken unto it now. “Wherefore, even as the Holy Spirit saith, Today if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts . . .” (Heb. 3:7-8).

Questions

1. Briefly state what the millennialists have in common, such as Pentecost, Chafer and Lindsey, concerning the subject under discussion.
2. In what period of time is the future salvation of the Jews and Gentiles alleged to take place? How long is the period?
3. According to Lindsey what may turn the Jewish evangelists to Christ?
4. How does Matt. 25:31-32 show that there can be no future period or age for salvation?
5. How do 2 Cor. 6:2 and Rom. 10:8 (under point two) show that there is no second chance?
6. Why would Paul have not been in chains if he had preached what millennialists are preaching?
7. Why cannot the Great Commission (under point four) be preached in the so-called Tribulation?
8. Under the fifth point what made the cross possible? In what age does the cross belong? How would this preclude the preaching of the cross during the Tribulation?
9. How does 2 Pet. 3:9-10 show there can be no second chance?
10. If God provides salvation for many in a future period, how would this indicate that God is a respecter of persons?
11. According to Allis under point eight, why cannot there be conversions to Christ in the Tribulation?
12. How does the parable of the Ten Virgins show there can be no second chance?
13. What does “so all Israel shall be saved” in Rom. 11:26 mean?
14. Who are the 144,000 in Rev. 7?

Guardian of Truth XXVI: 3, pp. 38-40
January 21, 1982