Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Understanding the premillennial idea of the events to transpire at the end of this time, perhaps you are wondering why premillennialists and amillennialists differ so much from each other in their concept of what is to happen at the end of this period of time. Both amillennialists and premillennialists are agreed that the problem centers around whether to interpret the prophecies literally, as these quotations show:

“No question facing the student of Eschatology Is more important than the question of the method to be employed in the interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures. The adoption of different methods of interpretation has produced the various eschatalogical positions and accounts for the divergent views within a system that confront the student of prophecy. The basic differences between the premillennial and amillennial schools and between the pretribulatlon and postribulation rapturists are hermeneutical, arising from the adoption of divergent and irreconcilable methods of interpretation” (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, p. 1 as quoted by Rodney Miller in The Lion and the Lamb on Planet Earth, p. 17).

“One of the moat marked features of Premillennialism in all its forms is the emphasis which it places on the literal Interpretation of Scripture. It Is the insistent claim of its ad. vocates that only when interpreted literally is the Bible interpreted truly; and they denounce as `spiritualizers’ or ‘allegorizers’ those who do not interpret the Bible with the same degree of literalness as they do. None have made this charge more pointedly than the Dispensationalists. The question of literal versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one which has to be faced at the very outset” (Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, pp. l6-17).

Premillennialists adhere to a very literal interpretation of the Bible prophecies. They are convinced that Bible prophecies can only be properly understood when understood literally.

“Remember this also: The prophecy that hen been fulfilled, has been fulfilled literally. More than half of the predictive prophecies concerning Christ, are as yet unfulfilled. As the fulfilled prophecies were fulfilled literally …so the unfulfilled prophecies will be fulfilled literally!” (Salem Kirban, Guide to Survival, p. 14).

“These men used what may be called the golden rule of interpretation which the Biblical record of fulfilled prophecy indicates is correct:

‘When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.’

This is the method which this writer has diligently sought to follow” (Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, p. 40).

Although premillennialists take great pleasure in the fact that they are about the only ones who try to take the prophecies literally, their literalism is the source of many of their problems.

God never intended that every prophecy of the Scripture be interpreted literally. He did not always speak literally when He foretold the coming of the kingdom of God and the Christ. One needs only to study a few of the fulfilled Old Testament prophecies to know that this is so. For example, Isa 40:3-5 prophesied,

“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted. and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

This passage is quoted in Lk. 3:4-6 and applied to the ministry of John the Baptist. It is a fulfilled prophecy but was it fulfilled literally? Did John literally prepare a highway for Christ to walk upon during His ministry? Did He literally lower every hill and raise every valley in order to make a smooth, straight road for our Lord? Of course not! Yet, if we are going to demand that prophecy be literally interpreted, this is what the ministry of John would have demanded.

Another prophecy in the Old Testament which concerns itself with the kingdom of the Lord is Ezek. 37:24-26. Ezekiel wrote,

“And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.”

Premillennialists quote this passage to state that the land of Palestine will be restored to Israel during the millennium. To interpret this in any way other than literally is to abuse the scriptures, according to them. Yet, one point of premillennialism which is quite obvious is the idea that Jesus Christ will be the ruling monarch during the millennium. However, if we interpret this prophecy literally and consistently, Ezekiel is understood to say that the ruling monarch will be David. David must be raised from the dead in order to literally sit on his throne in Jerusalem for this prophecy to be literally fulfilled. Yet, the premillenialists who say that prophecy must be interpreted literally do not want this part of this prophecy to be interpreted literally.

Hence, I charge that premillennialists do not consistently follow their rule of literally interpreting Bible prophecy. To demonstrate just how much liberty premillennialists take in the interpretation of the Bible prophecy, I would like to give their interpretation of some verses. Remember, the premillennialists are the ones who are telling us that Bible prophecy must be interpreted literally. Rev. 9:17-19 reads as follows: “And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths. For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.” Here is one premillennialists’ interpretation of this passage; note how much he has departed from a literal interpretation of this prophecy:

“I am today inclined to think that they are a human army with weapons and gas masks. They are either an organized army or a spontaneous army, such as 200 million communists taking to arms suddenly in various parts of Asia ….Perhaps the army that the world will face is one of a massive invasion of tanks equipped with flame throwers. It may, however, be a dispersant of nerve gas or some biological warfare” (Salem Urban, Revelation Visualized, pp. 204, 207).

The popular writer, Hal Lindsey, takes similar liberties with the text even though he castigates those who do not literally interpret Bible prophecy. He wrote,

“The thought may have occurred to you that this Is strikingly similar to the phenomena associated with thermonuclear warfare. In fact, many Bible expositors believe that this is an accurate first-century description of a twentieth-century thermonuclear war” (Had Lindsey The Late Great Planet Earth, p. 71 ).

In Otis Gatewood’s review of Lindsey’s book, he appropriately pointed out this inconsistency of the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy.

“Mr. Lindsey would have us believe that Ezekiel 37, 38, 39 refer to the invasion of Palestine by Russia in the last times (pp. 59-71). But the literal interpretation of Ezekiel 37, 38, 39 declares that the weapons of Gog and Magog are swords, shields, helmets, horses, bucklers (Ezekiel 38:41, bows, arrows, handstaves, and spears (Ezekiel 39:9). Can’t you just see Russia, who is now equipped with all the latest jets, atomic bombs, tanks, etc., returning to the use of swords, handstaves, spears, etc. when they invade Israel? How long would they last, with such weapons, against Israel’s modern weaponry?” (Otis Gatewood, Book Review of The Late Great Planet Earth, p. 5).

I think that you can see that premillennialists interpret Bible prophecy in ways other than literally. Whereas they claim that Bible prophecy must be interpreted literally, they find a way to make figurative what they want to be interpreted figuratively. Their insistence upon the literal interpretation of prophecy is weakened by their own treatment of prophecy.

The sad part of the whole system of interpretation followed by the premillennialists is that it denies the inspired apostles’ claim that certain Bible prophecies have been fulfilled. For example, in Acts 13:33 Paul quoted from Psalms 2 stating that it has already been fulfilled in Jesus Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. Yet, premillennialists consistently state that this prophecy has yet to be fulfilled in connection with their idea of the Battle of Armageddon. This convicts the apostles as being false interpreters of Bible prophecy, thus assaulting the doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures. A similar case appears in Acts 2:30-33 where Peter said that Psa. 132:11 had already been fulfilled although premillennialists consistently teach that its fulfillment lies in the future.

At this point, the charge must be made that premillennialism is a system of infidelity because it denies the apostolic interpretation of Bible prophecy which interpretation was given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Let us consider some of the other consequences which result from the adoption of premillennialism.

(Continued next week)

Truth Magazine XXII: 14, pp. 227-229
April 6, 1978

By Dennis C. Abernathy

I know of no subject of more importance than that of conversion. By conversion, I simply mean, the way an alien sinner (Rom. 3:23; 6:23) changes his relationship with Almighty God, whom he has sinned against (Isa. 59:1-2). What is involved in this? Is it the same for everyone, or does God have one way to save you and another way to save me? Must I do anything, or nothing at all?

Now let me say just here, that we care nothing at all for some human scheme or some modern day account of conversion (?) that someone has concocted. Preachers today tell of all kinds of modern day conversions. You can hear death-bed tales, hair-raising experiences, etc. But, dear friend, we must make our choice. We must choose between these modern cases of conversion or the cases we read of in the Book of books. The salvation of our soul is really what the Bible is all about. That is why Christ came to this lowly estate and suffered, bled, and died. In view of this fact it is no surprise to us that we have examples of how we may appropriate this great deed that was done in our behalf. In fact, we have a whole book of examples (of course, that being the book of Acts). To that book, chapter 8:26-39 we now invite your close attention.

In this reading we are introduced to a man who occupied a position of great authority and trust. Verse 27 tells us that this man was “a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, and was in charge of all her treasure.” We find this man on his way home from Jerusalem where he had gone “for to worship.” It is clear that he had a zeal for God, as indicated by his traveling this long distance to worship. It was important to him (which is more than can be said for a lot of Christians today if their actions are indicative of their allegiance).

In verse 26, we meet the preacher on this occasion. His name is Philip. These two are brought together and this Ethiopian man is reading the Scripture (the prophet Isaiah) out loud. Verse 30 tells us that Philip heard him reading. This is another thing that is commendable about this man. Now, it is no uncommon thing today for folks to read when they travel, but it is becoming uncommon to find very many reading the Word of God. Would it not be a good thing if all of us would “give attendance or attention to reading the Scripture” as the apostle Paul directed (1 Tim. 4:13)? But another very important thing we must understand is, for our reading to be profitable unto us, we must understand what we read. This man did not! Philip did not beat around the bush, but just came right out and asked him, “Do you understand what you are reading?” The Ethiopian did not become offended by that question, but answered, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me” (verse 31). He then invited Philip to sit with him and guide him. Listen! The sincere person, looking for the truth will accept all the help he can get. This man wanted to know, what the Scripture said and he sought help at Philip’s hand. Is it a disgraceful thing for you and me to seek guidance in a proper understanding of the Word of God?

This brings us to his question of who was spoken of in Isaiah 53. Philip then proceeded to tell him that it was talking about Jesus. He preached unto him Jesus. When you and I understand the Scripture, it will be because Jesus has been preached because He is the central theme of the Bible. That must have really been a sermon! We do not know how long he preached (I doubt, though, it being a sermonette). There is a lot involved in “preaching Jesus.” His birth, family, teaching, death, burial, resurrection, His commission, ascension back to heaven, etc. One thing we know Philip preached (and evidently stressed upon this man’s mind) was baptism. I know this is so because when they came to some water, the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” Is this a fine attitude? Repentance is to be understood here. Philip answered his question and said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” This good man was quick to answer, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (,vs. 37-38). This is in harmony with what Paul said in Romans, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation” (Rom. 10:910). Is this not teaching that we should confess with our mouths what we believe in our hearts? I think so. To leave the confession out here (as many do) is to have a complete break in the narrative (a completely unanswered question).

Next the record says they stopped the chariot and Philip baptized (immersed) him. Note that they both went down into the water (Philip baptized him) and then they came out of the water. No sprinkling or pouring a little water on his head is mentioned here, is there? After the Ethiopian was baptized, he went on his way home rejoicing. Was this man rejoicing before he was baptized? No! Why the rejoicing now? Because his sins were forgiven! Can you think of anything more to rejoice about than “remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), “washing away of our sins” (Acts 22:16), or “being saved” (Mk. 16:16; 1 Pet. 3:21)? No man ever rejoiced over sins forgiven before baptism under the great commission because until a man is baptized he is still in his sins!

Do you understand this simple case of Bible conversion? You must have the attitude of this Ethiopian man. You must “gladly receive the word” (Acts 2:41) and render obedience to “that form of doctrine” which has been delivered unto you (Rom. 6:17). Remember, if we do what this man did, we will receive what he received. If you have done something other than this you need to change it.

Truth Magazine XXII: 14, p. 226
April 6, 1978

By Wane Walker

David declared in Psalm 14:1, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” There have always been men who have denied the existence of that supreme being whom we acknowledge as Creator and Lord of all. Not only have those who are opposed to religion made such claims, but today men of religion, self-styled theologians, are also saying that God does not really exist except in the minds of those who think He does. Yet, they themselves offer no demonstration or proof for their allegations besides their own philosophy and reasoning. We ought to have more objective evidence one way or the other. Is there any? I believe there is.

First, we have the existence of the universe to contend with. To deny it exists is absurd (although some have tried it) because our own senses indicate it is here. The immediate question that comes to mind is, how did it get here? There is a scientific axiom, called cause-effect, which states that something cannot come from nothing; every effect must have an adequate cause. Christians believe that God was the First Cause. Moses wrote, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). No more reasonable explanation has ever been offered. In addition, the Psalmist affirmed, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Psalm 19:1). The only power great enough to be the cause of all we see and know can only be God.

Next, there is the design of the earth to be reckoned with. Our wonderful world, with the perfect timing of its revolution around the sun and rotation on its axis, the water-evaporation-condensation cycle, the movement of the winds from the equator and back, and the ocean currents, runs like one giant piece of clockwork. Now we all understand that a well-constructed house does not just spring up out of the ground. Nor does a watch, with all its minute organization, gather itself together from sundry bits and pieces. Why is it then that some try to tell us that the earth, in all its beauty and precision, is the result of blind chance? “Every house is builded by some man; but he that builded all things is God” (Heb. 3:4). The world “build” here means to construct or erect, as of a building. The Bible pictures this globe of ours as a huge, well-planned structure whose architect and engineer is God.

Finally, the nature of man is worthy of notice. It is impossible to deny that man has certain capacities which animals do not. For instance, man has a conscience that helps him determine right from wrong; he can appreciate that which he considers beautiful; and he is rational, having the power to reason and communicate logically. Although animals do have powerful instincts, they do not have these characteristics. So we ask, where did man get them? Science cannot even explain where man came from, much less how he became superior to the animals. If-and that’s a big if-evolution were true, man could not have inherited these qualities from his supposed animal ancestors because they did not have them to pass on. Nor does the environment provide an adequate source as some have hypothesized. The only reasonable answer offered so far is the one that includes God. “So God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:27). Certain of the characteristics which God possesses such as morality, rationality, and aesthetics, He gave to man in creation.

We believers need never be daunted by the onslaughts of modern, atheistic philosophy, because evidence for the existence of God is there and it is sufficient. We must also remember that when a person makes the claim, “There is no God,” he is obligated to prove it-and prove it he cannot. And while we cannot “prove” that God does exist, as a mathematician can prove 4×2+4xy-y2=(2x+y)2, or as a chemist can prove 2H2+02=2H20 by formulae, we can show from the evidence that it is more reasonable to believe in God than to disbelieve.

Truth Magazine XXII: 13, p. 221
March 30, 1978

By Robert Wane La Coste

Quite often when making an effort to present a truth from the scriptures, one will retaliate, “That’s just your interpretation of it.” I believe that this statement expresses the excuse given most often as to the why of religious differences today. The idea is: “everyone has a right to see things their own way, and because we all see differently, we could never have unity on what the Bible teaches.”

My friends, this is a grave error. Suppose everyone had a right to “see” the traffic light any way they wanted to-just make your own interpretation of what it meant. I believe I would become a pedestrian and fast (and make it a point not to go near a traffic light)! But the fact is, the Bible teaches truth. In most cases it is as clear as a red or green traffic light. We could all see it, if we really wanted to, but the fact is that many people want to be “religious” and still believe what they want to believe. So they “interpret” the Bible the way they want to “see it.”

As an example of this, get the following “interpretation” herein of an individual who read what Jesus said on the talents. This individual was a Mormon who years ago believed it scriptural to have many wives. “It is this way,” says the man. “Jesus in his parable of the talents calls his servants and gives unto them different talents. One he gave five, to another he gave two, and to another he gave one. Now these talents may well represent wives. When the Lord returned he found that the servant to whom he had given five wives had increased by rearing many children. The second servant had also as many children, but the man with the one wife had been unfortunate. The Lord took the one wife from him and gave her to the one who had five and said unto him, ‘Well done thou good and faithful servant; take thou this other man’s wife. Thou hast been diligent with a few wives, I shall make thee Lord over many.’ But the one who had a wife and did not increase his family shall never be permitted to enter into the joy of the Lord” (Letters of a Mormon to his son, pp. 23-24).

Now who will believe this man’s interpretation? Can I interpret the parable of the talents like the above and still please God? To be consistent with their ideology that we all “have a right to our interpretation,” some would have to allow this man and others to commit fornication! Who can believe it? Surely God has said something in this parable, but we are not ready to give in to this foolishness whatsoever!

The fact of the matter is, this parable is self-explanatory. Many young children know the truthfulness and the simplicity of this teaching by the Savior. Those who advocate “a right to your own interpretation” really just want a license to pervert scripture and they would do well to admit it. We should learn to take Jesus’ word as is, minus any private interpretation. The Apostle Peter wrote concerning this same scripture, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:20-21). Peter tells us plainly that when this sacred word was given it was not written by these men with their fancies, personal desires or interpretations. They wrote exactly what God wanted them to write. What makes men so naive today as to believe that they can freely do that which holy men of God were forbidden to do? No man has the right to be wrong with the Word of God. Peter also wrote, ‘7f any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). In taking the truth as is, one may “know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

Truth Magazine XXII: 13, pp. 220-221
March 30, 1978