aI have read with care and interest Professor Beet’s article on this question. The great advantage of his way of looking at it is that it makes everything simple. According to him, the Gospels and Epistles teach that the world will continue in its ordinary course, without any startling revolution, until the return of the Lord. That return will be unique in its manner; it will be accompanied by the resurrection of all men, believers and unbelievers, just and unjust; it will be immediately followed by the last judgment, which will decide the eternal fate of every human being.
a – Durant l’été 1887 le journal anglais British Weekly, avait lancé un débat contradictoire sur la question du Millenium ; avec trois intervenants millénaristes (Fausset, Guiness, Godet) et trois intervenants amillénaristes (Beet, Edwards, Brown).
In support of this view of the end of all things, Professor Beet quotes a number of passages from the Gospels and the Epistles, such as Matthieu 13.30 ; 24.3 ; 25.31 ; also 2 Thessaloniciens 1.6-11 ; 2 Corinthiens 5.10 ; Jean 5.28-29 ; 6.39-40, 54.
« We find everywhere the same teaching, » says Professor Beet, « Christ’s sudden and visible return from heaven to earth, to raise the dead, good and bad, to judge all men, and to bring in eternal retribution. » In arriving at this result, however, Professor Beet is met by two passages which cause him considerable difficulty. The first of these is 1 Corinthiens 15.23, « Every man in his own order; Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming; then [cometh] the end » These words seem to make a distinction between the resurrection of believers at the coming of Christ and the general resurrection at a later period, here designated « the end ». But the Greek word rendered « then » implies only a brief interval, and if Paul here speaks only of the resurrection of those who are in Christ, the reason is that in this whole passage he is considering the future solely from the point of view of those who will share in the kingdom of God.
The other passage is Apocalypse 20.1-10, in which, before the mention of the general resurrection and the final judgment (v. 11-15), we are told of a special resurrection of the martyrs and of those who had not received the mark of the Beast, also of a judgment which shall be committed to them, and of their reigning with Christ a thousand years. This crisis in human history is brought on by a glorious appearance of the Lord and of the armies of heaven, of which we have a splendid description in Apocalypse 19.11-16. All this seems to imply that before the general resurrection and the final judgment there will be a visible appearance of Christ on the earth, and a resurrection of believers; after that a period of extraordinary blessing to the world. In Apocalypse 20.7-10, we read that a last revolt will take place before the glorious final coming of the Judge.
Confronted with these prophecies, Professor Beet calls attention to the obscure and mysterious character of the Apocalypse. He thinks that the first return of Christ, described in ch. 19, and the Millennium which follows it, may be regarded as facts of the spiritual world, which will produce no alteration whatever in the ordinary course of terrestrial things. Christ will win a great moral victory over Satan; this victory will be followed by a time of remarkable blessing before the close of the present economy. This is the sole conclusion which Professor Beet draws from these passages.
It would, no doubt, be quite possible to explain in this purely spiritual sense the Apocalyptic description of the coming of Christ before the Millennium (ch. 19) were it not that certain features are mingled with the account which it is extremely difficult to explain in a strictly moral sense. Such are, e.g., the coming of the celestial armies along with Christ, the bodily resurrection of believers who have resisted the Beast, the judgment and the reign which shall be given to those who have been first raised. Such facts could hardly transpire without a very startling revolution in the ordinary course of things. But even this difficulty might be passed over in consideration of the unique character of the Apocalypse, if the words of the Apostle Paul could be made to fit in with this view. This, however, appears to me impossible. Professor Beet has written a commentary on 1 Corinthians; he must, therefore, be aware that the true reading in 1 Corinthiens 24.15 is not: « Then the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom… when he shall have put down… »; but, « then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom… when he shall have put down … » The two facts, the putting down of hostile powers and the delivering up of the kingdom that shall follow, must therefore be placed, according to the Apostle, before the end. That is his reason for saying, not, « when he shall deliver up, » but « when he shall have delivered up. » Thus we see that between the resurrection of the faithful at the Parousia, spoken of in ver. 23, and the « end » referred to in ver. 24, there must come the putting down of powers, and the delivering up of the subjugated kingdom. The Parousia and the end (ver. 24) cannot therefore, according to St. Paul, be brought so close together as Professor Beet imagines. And it is a striking fact that this period of judgment spoken of by St. Paul corresponds exactly to the reign and the judgment which we read in Revelation as committed to the faithful, and which is there also placed between the first resurrection and the end. This interval, so exactly marked off by Paul, corresponds in every respect to the Millennium of the Apocalypse.
The correspondence of these facts, which appears to me incontestable, may be yet further confirmed. St. Paul tells us that the judgment of hostile powers will end in the destruction of death: « the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. » What is this destruction of death, if not that general resurrection which shall rob Death of all his ancient victims, and deprive him of the power of making more? Now in the Apocalypse the general resurrection is precisely the event which follows the Millennium (Apocalypse 20.11, etc.). We see from this that the teaching of the Apocalypse is exactly the same under a dramatic form as that of St. Paul under a didactic form. Both alike present the following order of things to come: – A visible appearance of the Lord, accompanied by the resurrection of the faithful, and followed by the reign of believers and the judgment of hostile powers (cf. here 1 Corinthiens 6.2-3). At the close of this reign and of this judgment exercised by the faithful will come the general resurrection and the final judgment. We find this identical conception in both the sacred writers. It places the Millennium between a visible Parousia of the Lord and the general resurrection followed by the final judgment.
Many other passages in the Epistles of St. Paul might, it seems to me, be cited in support of this conclusion. Nothing can be clearer than that in 2 Thessaloniciens 2. it is the visible Parousia of Jesus which will put an end to the reign of the man of sin. « Then shall that wicked be revealed (the man of sin, verse 3) whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming. »
This is evidently to take place in the course of the present economy, for St. Paul says that « the mystery of iniquity doth already work. » How then can we place such a condition as the Millennium before the Parousia? It is the millennium of Satan, the reign of the man of sin, which, according to St. Paul, as well as to the Revelation, will precede the Parousia. If Professor Beet admits that the divine Millennium will precede the period of the rule of Anti-Christ, he has no right, in opposing the general opinion which places a final revolt, that of Gog and Magog, at the close of the Millennium, to assert the impossibility of such a crisis after so long a period of blessing.
The idea of two resurrections seems to me very clearly brought out by St. Paul in Philippiens 3.11 – « If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. » St. Paul certainly does not mean to speak of the general resurrection to which he is sure to attain, no matter what his life may be; he means a special resurrection which is to be the privilege of sanctified believers. He also, makes use of the special term, ἐξανάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν, meaning by that the coming forth of the risen saints from the midst of the dead who remain dead. We can hardly fail to see a trace of the same distinction in our Lord’s words in Luc 20.35, « they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead » (τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν). This points to an elect number of risen ones who shall come forth from the great multitude of the dead to take part in the happy era which is about to begin, and in which the rest of the dead are not to share. Even in Matthieu 25.31, there appears to me to be some indication of a double second coming of the Lord. Jesus has been speaking of the judgment of His Church in the parables of the virgins and the talents, and He resumes in these words: « But (or now) when the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory, and before Him shall be gathered all nations. »
That is the universal judgment. It seems to be distinguished from that of the Church, described already and connected with a later coming of Christ as Judge of the world. It seems to me equally difficult to apply to the coming of Christ for final judgment the picture in Luc 17.22, etc., which describes a rapid passage of our Lord through humanity, in which He will take one and leave another, separating even those who have been most closely united. This seems much more like an intended choosing out, like that of the first coming, which finds the world in its ordinary condition and all men given up to their worldly occupations, than a definite separation, like that which will succeed the general resurrection and be completed at the final judgment.
Professor Beet’s error, as it seems to me, arises from a wrong comprehension either of the Parousia which will precede the reign of a thousand years, or of that reign itself. The Parousia, which takes place between the present state of the world and the Millennium of Paul and of the Apocalypse, ought not to be regarded as a thing that will last. It is a purely transient event, a momentary disturbance of the world as it lies intoxicated with carnal things, a touch of red-hot iron that sends a thrill through the diseased frame. Then all will [go on as it was before; only the mind of humanity will have been transformed by this divine manifestation. Not, indeed, that an outward apparition of the divine can of itself sanctify the heart; but when the way has been prepared for it by such terrible experiences as those which will precede it, then it may have a decisive effect. Proof of this may be seen in the effect made upon the mind of Paul by the appearance of the Lord on the road to Damascus. Then will begin what is called in the Revelation the reign of a thousand years. This reign will be the great period of Christian civilisation, a demonstration of the happiness which humanity might have enjoyed on earth, if only it had yielded earlier to the sway of Christ. It will be a splendid witness to the goodness and wisdom of God, as well as to the long folly of man. It will be what St. Paul, speaking in a purely spiritual sense, calls « a life from the dead » (Romains 11.15).
Physical death will continue to rule even during this reign of God on the earth, as Isaiah expressly informs us (Ésaïe 65.20) when describing this condition of things, this crown of the earthly history of humanity. There will be no mingling here below of immortal risen ones with sinners who have still to die – an opinion which Professor Beet wrongly ascribes to millenarians. The existence of the risen saints will be passed in a higher sphere (cf. 1 Thessaloniciens 4.17). The living may perhaps be able to hold more free communion with them than is possible now between the dwellers in earth and heaven. But neither in the Epistles of Paul, nor in the Revelation, is there the least indication of the visible and permanent presence of the Lord and His elect on the earth during all that period. Sin must still exist along with death, although in a less open form, and this explains the possibility of a final revolt, even after such a time of blessing. No one who knows the inveterate wickedness of the human heart can deny that such a thing might be possible.
As the most advanced believer, if he fails in watchfulness, is not beyond the reach of the most deadly fall, whether caused by spiritual pride or by the intoxication of the senses, even so a humanity cradled during many generations in the calm peacefulness of the Christian life might well grow weary at last of the sweetness of the manna, and in a moment of lukewarmness or pride give ear to a last suggestion of Satan, and make supreme and thorough proof of its natural corruption.
These are the conclusions to which a study of the Scriptures has led me. They do not seem to be compromised by the fact, to which Professor Beet several times refers, that the Gospels and the Epistles are silent as to the two comings of the Lord, before and after the Millennium, and as to the distinction between the two resurrections. To the prophets of the ancient covenant, the coming of our Lord to the world and His glorious second Advent appeared like one and the same event.
It was thus, no doubt, with regard to the two comings of the glorified Lord, in the minds of the Apostles who had been witnesses of His coming in the flesh. It was only little by little, and in certain particular circumstances, that the distinction between these two events became plain to the minds of those whom the Lord willed to enlighten on this point, which, after all, was one of secondary importance.