Chapter I: A Review of a series of Prophetic Studies by Dr. John Wilmot, Published in the Toronto "Gospel Witness"

Chapter II. Review of "The Interpretation of Prophecy" By Dr. Patrick Fairbairn

Chapter III. Some Difficulties Elucidated

A Review of a series of Prophetic Studies by

Dr. John Wilmot, published in the Toronto "Gospel Witness"

God’s literal is spiritual

Again the author confuses application with fulfillment. He speaks of Micah 7 as a fulfillment of Exodus 12 but it cannot be so unless Exodus 12 was either a vision or an allegory. Micah makes application of literal history to God’s dealings with his people in the spiritual realm. And God’s planning of the history for this purpose does not alter the fact. Dr. Wilmot seems to suggest that all Old Testament history was natural and all New Testament teaching spiritual and that the Old Testament history was written for the sake of the Church in the New Testament. But what about the "Church in the wilderness"? Did not God deal spiritually with them? Abraham "saw Christ’s day" and rejoiced. And if Abraham saw it, are we not warranted to believe that many other Old Testament saints saw it also; e.g., Jacob, Moses, David? The children of faith in the Old Testament saw in the literal history, the foreshadowment of the truths of Redemption and Substitution. So again, God’s literal was spiritual—to them.

Because O.T. history foreshadowed N.T. doctrine, the author seems to suggest that O.T. prophecy has no other purpose than to set forth spiritual teaching and has no literal significance at all. And he suggests that the one case is analogous to the other. But the analogy completely breaks down. In the one case there is type and antitype and in the other antitype only and the type does not in fact exist!

The history was certainly a record of literal and earthly happenings illustrative of Gospel doctrine. And, by analogy, the O.T. prophecy (which is but history written beforehand) is a foretelling of literal and earthly happenings also illustrative of Gospel and heavenly doctrine. This surely is the true analogy.

Most fulfilled prophecy has been fulfilled with literal exactitude. When God said that His people should be redeemed after 430 years of sojourning, he brought them out from Egypt "on the self-same day." And when He said He would take Judah into captivity for 70 years He did so literally. And when He says Satan shall be bound for 1,000 years, who are we to say that He does not mean it. If fulfilled prophecy is not our guide in the understanding of unfulfilled prophecy, then we have none and are left floundering in the dark.

Dr. Wilmot deals with Acts 3:17-26 as a principal plank in his argument but Peter’s words are perfectly plain if they are not misconstrued. He is speaking to the men of Israel (v. 12). He says "Repent ye therefore . . . so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord (Newberry—margin). And He shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached." Here Dr. Wilmot seems to make "sending" and "preaching" the same thing but they are here, surely, in contradistinction. "He shall send Jesus Christ . . . whom the heavens must receive, etc." It is the same Jesus Christ who is in heaven that is to be sent.

In order to support his contention the Dr. makes "until" mean "during" without any reason or warrant. Peter’s meaning, however, seems clearly to be that God will send Jesus Christ at the appointed time and in the meantime repentance and forgiveness of sins will bring times of refreshing from His presence.

Then in verse 26 the author puts an entirely wrong meaning on the expression "raised up." But there is no doubt about the meaning in verse 22 and surely in the same context it means the same thing. As God raised up Moses, so He raised up Jesus Christ and sent Him first to Israel. As He Himself testified, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel", and he preached to them "Repent ye and believe the Gospel." And the blessing proclaimed would have been enjoyed in their turning away from their iniquities. The passage is quite clear. if accepted in its literal and obvious sense.

God said to Abraham when he was a stranger in the land of Canaan, "Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee" (Gen. 13:17). And again in chapter 15:7, "I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it." And seeing that Abraham at that time did not possess of the land so much as to set the sole of his foot on, he not unnaturally asked "Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" Whereupon the Lord confirmed to him by a covenant of Sovereign Grace that he should possess the whole land. And in Rom. 4 Paul makes clear that this was an unconditional covenant of Grace. Abraham must, therefore, possess the land unless God’s solemn oath is to be broken. But—

"As well may He His being quit
As break His oath or word forget."

When, therefore, can this promise to Abraham be fulfilled but after the resurrection? If God does not fulfil His promise to Abraham, what warrant have I to believe that He will fulfil any of His promises. If one promise of Grace can be annulled, then they all may be. It was "to Abraham and his seed that the promises were made." Abraham as well as his seed must possess the land as God promised; and as Jesus said, "Many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God." What God promised to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob He will fulfil to them; what God promised to Israel He will fulfil to Israel and I believe what He has promised to me He will fulfil to me. That is my hope.

In referring to these very promises in one of his articles, Dr. Wilmot still denies the possibility of literal fulfillment. He also makes charges against millennialists which he must know to be incorrect in view of the fact that he himself was once one of them. In this, therefore, his criticism can scarcely be regarded as fair criticism. He says, "The obvious literalistic character of this statement would seem to refer to the earthly Canaan millennially restored, in which case it is proposed that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will receive a temporal, carnal and moral (? mortal) inheritance while they themselves will be gloriously fitted for an eternal, spiritual and immortal state." Now, no one suggests that eternal, spiritual and immortal beings will ever enter upon a carnal inheritance. But this charge arises from the author’s confusion of terms. He supposes, as we have previously seen, that everything literal is, necessarily, carnal. But may I remind him that eternal, spiritual and immortal beings do constantly, even now, minister in this present sin-cursed world? The angels are "all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to them which shall be heirs of salvation." And they are none the less real because they are invisible. Our Lord Himself, in His immortal body, spent 40 days in this present world. And whether He was seen or unseen by His disciples, depended upon His sovereign will. Under the Old Testament dispensation He often visited this world and spoke to and was seen by many of His servants.

If, therefore, immortal beings can minister here while the world is under the curse and Satan is its god, surely there is nothing so extraordinary in such beings ministering in the restored world with the curse removed and Satan in chains. And all will be visible then as our Lord said to Nathaniel, "Hereafter, ye shall see heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

Another pitfall into which Dr. Wilmot seeks to have fallen in his articles is the confusion of Abraham’s fatherhood with his inheritance. He says that the many nations (or great multitude) of which Abraham was to be the father are the company of believers gathered out by grace from all nations. Yet he says, that the gathering out of this same company fulfills the promise to Abraham that he should be the heir of the world. He surely cannot be both father and heir of the same company. The promise to Abraham that he should be the father of many nations was fulfilled to Abraham naturally, as well as spiritually through Christ. And the promise that he should be the heir of the kosmos shall be fulfilled literally. When Christ, the Seed, reigns, Abraham, together with all of God’s saints shall reign with Him over the earth. This is the promise to all redeemed souls.

When the Dr. says that Peter by reference to the Holy Nation means the Church, he surely forgets that Peter’s epistle was written to "the sojourners of the disaspora" and is reminding them that they are still God’s holy nation. God’s determination concerning Israel is that they should be "an holy people unto the Lord" and He has never abandoned that purpose. Peter, therefore, is but reminding them of their standing as God’s holy nation.

The author says that the repeated promise to the fathers and to David is condensed by Paul into one sentence, that God would "raise unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus." Yet he goes on to say that "the Scriptures give no hope that a later generation of Jews would be nationally saved at the appearing of Jesus Christ" and he quotes Habakkuk 1:5 in support. Has God then raised unto Israel s Saviour who cannot save? God knew before He chose Israel as a nation that they would be a stiffnecked and rebellious people by the chose them notwithstanding to be a holy people unto Himself. Has He now because of their rebellion which He foreknew, utterly abandoned His purpose concerning them? Habakkuk evidently did not think so for after his warning in chapter 1:5 (clearly referring to the last days) he says, "Art not Thou from everlasting O Jehovah my God, mine Holy One? We shall not die. O Jehovah, Thou hast ordained them for judgment; and O Mighty god, Thou hast established them for correction."

Again Dr. Wilmot makes great play on the reference in Amos 9:11, to the "tabernacle" of David and suggests that if its rebuilding is understood literally, then the Tabernacle first erected in the wilderness and re-erected by David must again be set up. But he surely must know that the word sukkah (tabernacle) used in Amos is as often translated "booth" as it is "tabernacle" and in Job (long before the tabernacle was set up in the wilderness) it is translated "covert." The word has no reference whatever to the Tabernacle of Israel in the wilderness but simply refers, metaphorically, to the dwelling place of David which was Mt. Zion—and this will, as God says, again be set up. And although the Dr. makes much of his misinterpretation of Amos 9:11,he makes no reference whatever to verses 13-15 which must follow in consequence of David’s tabernacle being restored.

Again, Dr. Wilmot entirely misinterprets the expression "in that day" in Amos 9:11. Surely the meaning is that when all the rebellious sinners in the nation have perished (v. 10—see also Zech. 13:9) then "I will raise up, etc." And James in the Acts accordingly translates "In that day" as "After this I will return and build", etc. And this, he says, is in perfect agreement with the gathering out of a people from the Gentiles in this dispensation preparatory to the gathering of the residue in the age to come.

The author’s method of exposition seems almost like that of Swedenborg where everything has an esoteric meaning and scarcely anything means just what it says. In his efforts to turn the Word of God from its plain meaning he becomes so involved in the language he uses as to make it difficult at times to understand what he means at all and it is with relief that we turn back to the simplicity of the Scriptures when read in their literal and most obvious sense.

Paul Tillich says he wants to "de-literalize" the Bible. If we, therefore, de-literalize a part of it, do we not blunt it as an instrument wherewith to combat those who would de-literalize the whole.[1]

Rev. K. Runia, TH.D., says of Neo Gnosticism "The theologian masters God’s Word and makes it say what he thinks. The words of the Bible are no longer allowed to have their own meaning but are just emptied of their original meaning and then re-filled with the philosophical presuppositions of man." Is not this also the principle on which the A-millennialists deals with the Word. It is an exceedingly dangerous procedure.

If "every word of God is pure . . . purified seven times" we should expect to find the words used to be the very best calculated to convey the meaning intended, as indeed they are. The Word of God is what it claims to be—a Revelation and not something entirely veiled in allegory and symbolism.

Dr. Wilmot says, "It is decreed that He (Christ) is to have the uttermost part of the earth for His possession, which is to be the ultimate achievement of His evangelical commission (Ps. 2:8; Acts 1:8)." One might venture to ask the Dr. when he thinks this will be achieved. Today at least three-quarters of the world openly deny Christ’s sovereignty and this proportion in increasing, not decreasing.

In dealing with the Olive Tree in Romans 11, the Dr. seems to forget that the Tree is Israel and the root Christ, their Messiah. Paul says "some (only) of the branches were broken off", and only when the door of the Kingdom was opened to the Gentiles were the Gentile branches grafted in. Some 10,000 persons in the early days of the Church were Israelites. Then the great mystery was revealed of the Gentiles being made "fellow-heirs and partakers of God’s promise in Christ." They were grafted into Israel’s Olive Tree. And Paul says, this being so, how much more shall the natural branches be grafted into their own Olive Tree. "And so all Israel shall be saved . . . For this is my covenant with them when I shall take away their sins." Isaiah 27 from which this word is quoted shows what the covenant is—"He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root; Israel shall blossom and bud and fill the face of the world with fruit." Since she has been scattered among the nations, she has not been allowed to take root, according to God’s word, "I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth" (Amos 9:9). God has never suffered them "to take root" out of their own land given them by covenant promise. Not until they return thither and "abide not still in unbelief" shall they be grafted again into their own Olive Tree. "And so all Israel shall be saved."

In a vain effort to show that the Messiah is not and never will be any more to Israel than to the rest of mankind the author quotes the Scriptures, "The desire of all nations shall come" and "all nations shall call Him blessed", and implies that these Scriptures are fulfilled in the Gospel ministry in this age. But Jesus Christ is not and never yet has been "the desire of all nations." The nations all desire peace and continually clamor for it but seek it in estrangement from the Prince of Peace and can never thus find it. Not until Christ is enthroned will the nations achieve their desire for peace. Moreover the nations do not and never have "called Him blessed." It is astonishing how even Godly men, in an effort to bring future things into the present can so blind their eyes to the facts as they are and contend that such Scriptures as these are fulfilled at a time when the whole world, as such, is crying, "We will not have this Man to reign over us." Praise God, there is a time coming when "All kings shall fall down before Him and all nations shall serve Him" but that time is not in this age (see Zech. 2:11).

Dr. Wilmot rightly rejoices in the immutability of God’s electing grace, and that God’s purpose in the election of grace will stand despite all the waywardness and rebellion of the human heart. But while the Dr. sees this so clearly regarding God’s saints as individuals, he fails to see the same truth as regards the nation of Israel. God chose Israel in Sovereign Grace to be a Kingdom of Priests and an Holy nation, and as we have before shown all their rebellion and stiffneckedness cannot and will not vitiate this purpose, because "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

The author quotes the Lord’s oft-repeated words to Israel, "Not for your sakes, but for My Holy Name’s sake", but he proceeds immediately to divert them away from Israel and apply them to God’s individual saints in all the nations. But God spake these words to the nation of Israel and not only staked His Holy Name but His very existence on their fulfillment (see Psalm 89 and Jer. 31). If therefore God’s promises made in Sovereign Grace to Israel are not fulfilled, then His Holy Name would remain for ever tarnished.

God said concerning Israel, "They shall all know Me, from the least even unto the greatest of them" and His promise through the prophet is, "This word shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed for ever." Here is hereditary salvation by Grace—a thing which has never been promised to God’s people among the Gentiles but must be fulfilled in Israel because God has spoken it.

That the

will be sure both to the nation and to the Gentile Church, Paul has made clear in Romans 4: 16, "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham." If the nation is not to receive the promise of grace, what is the meaning of the words "only" and "also"? If Dr. Wilmot’s surmises were correct, these words should be omitted. But they are there and accordingly bring to nought his entire thesis.

In order to fit in with his thesis, he makes the Lord’s word to Nathaniel in John 1:51, read, "From this time forth, etc.", and makes them applicable to God’s children now. Now while it is conceded that the words ap arti may sometimes bear this signification (and are sometimes so translated) it is clear that they cannot always do so. It is quite obvious that they do not bear this meaning in Matt. 26:64 and I think it is equally clear that they do not bear it here. I feel quite sure that Dr. Wilmot himself has not yet seen heaven open and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. But I am sure he will when he shares in the millennial blessedness of all God’s saints. The translators were correct in rendering the words in both these cases by "Hereafter."

Dr. Wilmot falsely accuses Millennialists when he says, "Is such (worship in spirit and in truth) to give place when Christ comes again to a re-introduction of the "beggarly elements", the "shadows", etc. So it is taught by those who treat Ezekiel’s prophecy as a setting forth with literal intention of a future earthly millennial age." No! Dr. Wilmot; you were once a millennialist but you did not teach this; neither do we. The Lord said, "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." Whether therefore it were Abraham or Moses or David or Isaiah or Ezekiel or Paul; all worshipped God in spirit and in truth; else they did not worship Him at all. The form of worship only differs in different ages according to God’s sovereign appointment. And who are we to dictate the form to Him? "Who hath known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?"

Dr. Wilmot scorns the idea of sacrifices in the millennial age being memorials. But the Passover itself was a memorial of deliverance from Egypt and the Lord’s Supper is a memorial of Calvary. Would it be very different if a new ritual were introduced as a similar memorial. He brushes aside the possibility of the reinstitution of sacrifices as described by Ezekiel because, he says, such re-institution is described by Paul in the Hebrews as a "drawing back unto perdition." But what he fails to see is that the sacrifices described in detail by Ezekiel are not a return to the rites and ceremonies of the law. Most of these sacrifices would contravene the law of Moses and are entirely new institutions, clearly intended for an age of Grace. As the Lord’s Supper was a new ritual for a new age, so Ezekiel’s sacrifices are a new ritual for a new age.

In contending that the size of the Temple described by Ezekiel is so great as to be impossible and therefore must be understood in a figurative sense, he says that the Septuagint substitutes "cubits" for reeds to escape the difficulty. This is incorrect. In the measurements of the oblation, the word "reeds" in the authorized version is in italics. The fact is that the word isn’t there and the only standard of measurement given in connection with the oblation is that of cubits. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that where figures only are given with no standard of measurement, cubits should be understood. The Septuagint has simply supplied the omission. There is no difficulty whatever in the size of Ezekiel’s Temple and City when the measurements are rightly understood.

The author further says that as the spiritual meaning of God’s ordinances under Moses is given in the New Testament, should not the explanation of Ezekiel’s prophetic ceremonialism be sought in the same evangelical truth? That both point to Calvary we would not dispute but the historical ceremonialism commanded of God through Moses was duly performed in actual fact. Why then regard the prophetical ceremonialism commanded of God through Ezekiel as fiction and as something never to be realized. The Dr. refers to the latter as "Ezekiel’s enigmatic visions." On the contrary, the whole vision is given in such detail as to present nothing more enigmatic than the description of the Tabernacle in the wilderness or of Solomon’s Temple, provided it is understood literally. Any other attempted interpretation must leave it, of course, an insoluble enigma.

Again, Dr. Wilmot argues against Christ exercising a Priesthood on earth, on the basis of Paul’s words in Hebrews 8:4-6, and asks "Is He then to abandon the ‘more excellent ministry’ for an inferior?" But why should His ministry when He sits "as a Priest upon His Throne" (Zech. 6:13) be inferior to His ministry now "at the right hand of the Throne of God?" What Paul is saying, in effect, is that His present Priesthood could not be exercised upon the earth. But when Kingship and Priesthood are joined (as in Melchisedec), then such exercise will be possible. When enthroned as "a great King over all the earth" He will also exercise His Melchisedec Priesthood "as a Priest upon His Throne."

The Dr. complains that Ezekiel speaks of a Levitical system of Priesthood. This is true, but we are told that Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec in Abraham; so it will be no wonder that the Levites should serve in the restored Temple under the changeless High Priesthood of Melchisedec. While Ezekiel speaks of the reinstitution of a Levitical Priesthood, he does not predict any revival of the Levitical law.

In dealing with the word "until" the Dr. seems to contradict himself. He goes to some lengths in an effort to show that the use of the word in Romans 11 does not imply that the partial blindness of Israel will cease when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in. But when he refers to the use of the word in 1 Cor. 11: 26, he contends that the observance of the Lord’s Supper will cease for ever when He comes. Why this difference? This, of course, only serves to show that neither case can be proved simply on the use of the word "until." But Paul makes quite clear in the context of Romans 11 that the blindness of Israel will cease because "all Israel shall then be saved"; whereas our Lord in Luke 22:18, 29 and 30 makes it equally clear that the Lord’s Supper will not cease at His coming but will again be graced with His personal presence with His disciples when His Kingdom shall come.

Dr. Wilmot reminds us that Isaiah’s words, "The glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see together" is quoted by Luke as "all flesh shall see the salvation of God" and he interprets this as fulfilled in the Gospel. It should be noted that the word "it" in Isaiah is in italics. "Him" would better clarify the meaning. Jesus Christ is the glory of the Lord (Kabod Jehovah). When Simeon gazed upon the infant Jesus, he said, "Mine eyes have seen Thy Salvation." Jesus is God’s salvation. So whether we take Isaiah’s version or Luke’s, the meaning is the same and the inspired penmen direct us to a person. But all flesh have not yet see Him together. To interpret this of the Gospel ministry, of which multitudes of men are still ignorant, is only to belittle the Word of God. When He comes in glory, however, "every eye shall see Him." Then all flesh shall see Him together and Isaiah’s prediction will have its complete fulfillment.

The Dr. repeatedly states that there are no references to the Millennium in the New Testament. This is an astonishing statement for any servant of God to make when the millennium (1,000 years) is specifically mentioned six times in one chapter with a number of passing references elsewhere. As to the meaning of the millennium, the Dr. may honestly differ from other Bible students but to say that it is not mentioned in the New Testament is a flat contradiction of the Word of God itself and ill becomes such an honored servant of Christ.

We are tempted, however, to ask, Is the Old Testament any less authoritative than the New? The Old Testament teems in all its parts with references to Christ’s personal reign on earth and therefore little more was necessary in the New Testament than to show the duration of such reign and this John has done with superlative clearness.

In dealing with 1 Corinthians 15:24, Dr. Wilmot maintains that the word "then" means "at that time" and that therefore the "end" will immediately follow the resurrection of those "that are Christ’s." Now the two words in this passage (epeita and eita) translated in the authorized version as "afterwards" and "then" have the same significance. In the revised version and in the Englishman’s Greek New Testament they are both rendered "then." Cranmer and Tyndale also render them both as "then" whereas Wycliffe renders them both "afterward"; while in Weymouth’s paraphrase the second is rendered "Later on." The word simply imports the sequence in a given category of events and bears no relation to time at all. If we were giving a category of the invasions of Britain, for instance, we should say, first the Romans, then the Saxons and then the Normans, but such a statement would cover 1,000 years. So similarly the Apostle is speaking of resurrection and he says, Christ first, then they that are Christ’s and then the end (the second resurrection). Now it is clear that the first "then" (or "afterward") covers approximately 2,000 years and it is not surprising, therefore, if the second "then" should cover 1,000 years, as in fact it does.

In order to support this incorrect exegesis, the Dr. refers to the word "then" in Matthew 13—"then shall the righteous shine forth, etc." and he rightly says the meaning there is "at that time." But the word there translated "then" is an entirely different word (tote) which does, of course import time and corresponds to the more common meaning of our word "then."

In speaking of the Kingdom of Christ and of God, Dr. Wilmot refers to the "stone cut out of the mountain" (Dan. 2:34) filling the whole earth and he explains this as the conquests of the Gospel during this age. He says it is coextensive with the Gospel preached unto the "uttermost part of the earth." It is astonishing how blind to obvious facts even Godly men can be when they have first rejected one part of Holy Scripture. Daniel says Christ’s Kingdom is to "fill the whole earth" and David says that Messiah shall reign from "sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth." And yet today about a third of the people of the nations deny His very existence while at least a further third utterly repudiate His authority.

The author says that the figure of the stone which smote the image "befits the first rather than the second advent." But the smiting by the stone resulted in the utter destruction of the image, and its component parts became "as the chaff of the summer threshing floors and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them." Did our Saviour accomplish this at His first advent? He Himself says, "I am not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them." And again, "The Son of Man is not come into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved." If the kind of exegesis adopted by Dr. Wilmot is allowed, then the Scriptures can be made to mean anything.

While Dr. Wilmot contends vigorously that God means what He says, he is obliged to admit that He does not always say exactly what He means. But these two things stand or fall together. If God does not say what He means, then He does not mean what He says and Dr. Wilmot’s entire thesis reveals one vain effort to prove this. As a contemporary periodical has said, "If God does not mean what He says in Romans 11 and in Revelation 20, when does He mean what He says? If there is to be no reign of Christ on earth as seen in Rev. 20 and elsewhere, why not also allegorize Genesis 1-3 and join the so-called Higher Critics?"

In his article on "Gaps and Guesses" the Dr. credits millennialists with teaching the theory of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. But he was once himself a Millennialist but so far as I am aware, he never taught the gap theory of Genesis 1. It seems hardly fair, therefore, on his part to label millennialists without distinction as advocates of something which a very large number of them repudiate.

He further argues that because the Millennium is not mentioned by Peter in his second Epistle, therefore there is no millennium. He might with similar "logic" argue that because Micah in his 5th chapter (which predicts so clearly the birth, ministry and exaltation of the Messiah) does not mention the atonement, therefore there is no atonement. A similar argument might be applied to Isaiah 9. Or he might argue that because none of the first three evangelists record the miracle of the water into wine, therefore it did not happen. This is, in fact, exactly how the modernists do treat the Gospel by John. They argue similarly that Paul overthrew by his teaching much that Christ and the Apostles had taught previously.

Into this same snare Dr. Wilmot seems to fall when he rejects the clear testimony of John concerning the Millennium simply because Peter does not specifically mention it. Such reasoning is equally fallacious whether in relation to history or prophecy. To set one part of Scripture in opposition to another part only betrays a biased mind and a lack of understanding of the Scripture as a whole.

There are many passing references to the Millennium in the writings of Paul. He says that God hath not put into subjection to angels "the oikoumene to come whereof we speak." What is the "oikoumene to come" which will be in subjection to Christ if not "the kingdoms of this world" which are to become His kingdom (Rev. 11:15); and Paul in perfect harmony with this writes to the Corinthians, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world (kosmos)?" Again to the Romans Paul speaks of the promise to Abraham that he should be the heir of the world (kosmos) and he says to the Galatians, "If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise."

The author’s article on "The Millennial Administration of the Ascended Messiah" is a gathering together of various Scriptures in almost hopeless confusion. Referring to 1 Peter 1:11, he says that any interlude before Christ enjoys "the glories that follow" is eclipsed altogether. Of course! Christ is now in glory at the right hand of the Father but the glory which he has there and the glory He will receive when He occupies the Throne of His father David do not cancel out each other.

"Glories upon glories has our God prepared,
With the souls that love him one day to be shared."

He further says that the Apocalypse communicated by the Lord Jesus Christ to the Churches was not literally intended but "signified" and therefore symbolical and figurative; as if the word "signified" necessarily precluded all literal understanding whatsoever. But this word is used three times by John in his Gospel in connection with the method of our Lord’s death. Was there anything mystical, or other than literal, about that? He was crucified as He repeatedly "signified." The same word is used by Festus in Acts 25 in connection with the setting out of a prisoner’s crimes. Was there anything mystical about that? Is it suggested that the things written on a prisoner’s charge-sheet were not intended to be taken literally!? Furthermore, at the close of the Apocalypse the Lord Jesus says He sent His angel to testify these things in the Churches. "Testify" (marturea) simply means to bear witness and is more often so translated. The apocalypse is an unveiling—not an obscuring—of the glory of Christ and His saints.

Again, Dr. Wilmot says "heaven and not earth is the scene of the millennium" and "the reign of Christ and His saints being heavenly and spiritual is not on earth." This seems a flat contradiction of the Scripture. The song of the redeemed given by John is "Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood . . . and we shall reign on the earth." We cannot refrain from asking, Was Christ literally slain? Were His saints literally redeemed to God by His blood? Is our kingship and priesthood a reality or merely a myth? If these things are real and literal, then why should the reign on earth be regarded as mystical and symbolical? Such exegesis makes the Word of God a plaything for the modernist who denies the literality of both redemption by blood and resurrection.

The Dr. further argues that the millennium is not earthly because "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God." But the "Kingdom of God" has many aspects. We enter the Kingdom of God by regeneration but we still retain our "flesh and blood’ existence until death. The kingdom which flesh and blood cannot inherit therefore is the heavenly and eternal kingdom. Dr. Wilmot says our heavenly bodies would not be suitable to earthly conditions but we have before shown that heavenly and eternal beings do in fact minister in the earth now and there seems, therefore, no reason why saints and angels in their heavenly and spiritual bodies should not minister in the millennial earth.

Although Dr. Wilmot contends that heaven is the scene of millennial blessedness, he quotes Daniel that "the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High." He seems to forget, moreover, that the Messiah’s Millennial Kingdom is expressed by Daniel in the words, "that all peoples, nations and languages should serve Him." Will there be languages in heaven?

He further maintains that Satan was bound at Calvary and the millennium (only 2,000 instead of 1,000 years) is proceeding now. The binding of Satan, he says, was a restraint so that all his actions are subject to the over-ruling power of God. But Satan always had been restrained to this extent, as witness the record of Job. It would seem, therefore, that the binding of Satan at Calvary accomplished nothing more than was already effective. But when the Lord comes in majesty Satan will be bound and cast into the abyss, so "that he should deceive the nations no more." If, as the Dr. contends this was effected at Calvary, one is prompted to ask, Who is it that is deceiving the nations now and mustering their forces "against the Lord and against His Christ"?

Dr. Wilmot confuses "quickening" with "resurrection." He refers to John 5:21 as indicating two resurrections but it doesn’t. On the other hand in Revelation 20, which clearly does speak of two resurrections, he makes one a quickening and insists therefore, that there is only one resurrection and that despite the repeated testimony of Scripture that there are two. Quickening is the passage from death to life which occurs in every believer who is born again by the Spirit whereas resurrection is a rising again. The Scriptures never confuse the two—they are always distinct. The quickening of the soul into divine life is never referred to as resurrection; neither in the Scriptures referred to nor elsewhere.

Dr. Wilmot says that Israel are no longer God’s chosen people. How different this from the testimony of Paul in Romans 9. He is speaking of Israel "according to the flesh" and he says they are Israelites. He speaks in the present tense throughout. Theirs are "the adoption, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises." God chose Israel in an act of Sovereign Grace irrespective of anything in them, in order to accomplish in them His pleasure, saying "This people have I formed for Myself; they shall show forth My praise", and He will not forsake the work of His own hands.

When Dr Wilmot says that the New Testament provides "not the slightest confirmation of" the restoration and conversion of Israel at the coming of Jesus Christ, he either overlooks entirely such passages as Acts 15: 16 and Romans 9-11 or, as seems more likely, puts an entirely untenable construction upon them.

In dealing with Zechariah 14, the author seems to be harassed by some measure of doubt He says "the great mountain" of Zechariah 4:7 is "perhaps Babylon the Great . . . that cloven Olivet might itself symbolize . . . the Rock of Ages cleft for me and the living waters . . . the life of the Spirit poured out." He further explains the expression, "At eventide it shall be light" as "agreeable to our Saviour’s invitation . . . I am the Light of the World; he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the Light of Life." He then gives expression to his doubt by saying "There is no exaggeration or fancifulness in such meaning of highly symbolical Scriptures, any more than with the types of Moses which were substantial in themselves but spiritually realized in Christ."

We would not, of course, question that the cloven Olivet may symbolize the Rock of Ages or that the living waters are illustrative of the life of the Spirit just as the Mosaic sacrifices symbolize the atoning work of Christ. But as it is acknowledged that the typical sacrifices were substantial in themselves, why should it be denied that there is any substance in the cloven mountain and the flowing waters, etc. Surely the latter are as substantial as the former except that the one is prophecy and the other history.

This denial of any literal substance in the prophecies runs through the entire series of these articles. In support of this theory the writer says, "The greatest historical event at the beginning of their (Israel’s) nationhood is interpreted of spiritual redemption." He then proceeds to suggest that Micah 7:15-20 is the spiritual interpretation of Israel’s coming out of Egypt and he applies it to the whole redeemed family of God as though Israel, as such, had no further part or lot in the matter. In support of this he quotes Micah’s words as "Who is a God like unto Thee that pardoneth iniquity and passeth by transgression." But that is not what Micah has said. The correct quotation is passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage" (nachalah). Now Moses says that "Jehovah’s portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His heritage (nachalah)." And Micah, commenting upon this says, "Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob and the mercy to Abraham which Thou hast sworn unto our fathers." Micah is saying, in effect, that what Jehovah did for Israel naturally when they came out of Egypt, he will do for the remnant spiritually because he has covenanted to do so. And Micah adds that "the nations shall see and be confounded."

Dr. Wilmot states that all the promises to Israel of temporal blessings "were realized in the post-exilic return of the national remnant." But in Isaiah 14:2 the Lord’s promise to Israel on their restoration to the land was that "they shall take them captives whose captives they were and they shall rule over their oppressors." Perhaps he will explain how this was fulfilled in the post-exilic return.

In his 18th article he says that the Scriptures emphasize Israel’s return to the Lord rather than to their land. But the two are inseparable. Isaiah 14 and many other Scriptures look forward to a return to the Lord and to the land. When all Israel returns to the Lord, the whole land will be restored to Israel. He says that their salvation as believers in Christ is in contrast to the earthly inheritance which their fathers corrupted, the former being obtained through the merit of Christ’s sufferings.

What the Dr. altogether fails to realize is that the salvation of the nation of Israel was just as much the fruit of Christ’s death and resurrection as was the gathering of His elect out of all the nations (John 11:49-52). Israel’s national restoration and their spiritual salvation are not contradictory but complementary to each other.

In his article on "One Church, One Coming, One Crown", Dr. Wilmot in attacking particularly the errors of ultra-dispensationalism, sets forth some very important truths. He says, "There is no more justification for dividing the favored beneficiaries of God’s redemption into separate groups with ultimate graded spheres of blessing than for divorcing from Abraham’s covenanted blessings the generations of believers; pre and post Abraham, who partake of his faith." With this we heartily agree and regard it as a foundational doctrine. He further states that Jews "are only included as beneficiaries of the promise if they, as the Gentiles, become the seed of Abraham in Christ . . . Thus Abraham, and all God’s believing people of the past dispensation were already in the Church." To this also we add our "Amen." But what he consistently fails to appreciate is that God has promised that, in His own time, the whole nation of Israel will become, not only the natural seed of Abraham as they already are, but also the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ. And so God’s promise to them will be fulfilled that they "shall be unto Me a Kingdom of Priests and an Holy Nation" notwithstanding all their backsliding which, He says through Hosea that He will heal and will "love them freely." God’s promises of ultimate blessing to them as a nation are as entirely of Grace as are the promises to the Church.

Dr. Wilmot speaks in the clearest terms concerning "the unity of the faithful from first to last", a doctrine which we of the S.G.A.T. have always held most tenaciously. Here Dr. Wilmot has no quarrel with us nor we with him. This blessed doctrine is set forth by him most ably in his exposure of the errors of those whom he calls the "mystery dividers."

Yet he goes on to say, "Contrary to such as ascribe to them (the twelve tribes) a restored Jerusalem on earth, their names are inscribed in Jerusalem in heaven, and on the "gates" of "entry." But what is there "contrary" between a restored Jerusalem on earth whose name is Jehovah Shammah (Ezek. 48:35) and the glory of the Celestial City? Both will be visibly united during Messiah’s reign. As we have before shown, he seems to allow one glory of Christ to exclude another, forgetting that "on His head are many crowns

In dealing with Revelation 21:24-26 he is obliged to "water down" the text and make it mean something far short of what it says. He says, "the nations of them that are saved" does not mean nations as such but some "saved from among all nations." Similarly he contends that "the kings of the earth" means only "some in high places as ‘kings.’" And this despite his contention that God means what He says. To support this interpretation he states that the commission that disciples should be made of all nations did not mean nations as such but individual sinners from among them. So this age of Gospel witness, the purpose of which is to "gather out from the nations a people for His (Christ’s) name" is confounded with the gathering of nations in the age to come. The witness of David, as before shown, is that "all kings shall fall down before Him and all nations shall serve Him" and the witness of Zechariah is that "many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day."

In dealing with "Daniel’s Parenthesis" Dr. Wilmot again looks at the scripture which he is endeavoring to expound to the exclusion of other Scriptures dealing with the same matter. Daniel 9 must obviously be understood in the light of chapters 2, 7 and 8. Dr. S. P. Tregelles, in his masterly analysis does this. Dr. Tregelles’ work on Daniel is now being reprinted and we will not, therefore, comment largely at this stage on the subject but leave our readers to judge as between Dr. Tregelles and Dr. Wilmot when they are able to have the two expositions side by side.

We will, however, stay to point out one inconsistency in Dr. Wilmot’s interpretation on a point which Dr. Tregelles does not specifically touch. There can be little doubt that our Saviour’s reference to the Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24 refers to Daniel’s mention of it in chapter 9:27 (as well as those in 8:13 and 12:11). The compilers of the Oxford Bible references evidently thought so for Daniel 9:27 is the only reference given from Matt. 24:15. If, therefore, Daniel’s 70th week ends with the Crucifixion as Dr. Wilmot contends, then the Abomination of Desolation must have been set up at about the time of Christ’s baptism. Yet the Lord definitely refers to it in Matthew 24, towards the close of His ministry, as being yet future.

The author endeavors to overcome this difficulty by separating between the expressions "He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease" and "for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate" and inserts between them some 70 years. In the other references to these two things by Daniel, however, they are clearly bracketed together as being synchronous. In Daniel 12:11 the Angel says, "From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be, etc. ." Again in Daniel 8:13 one asks "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" It was one vision. So whilst Dr. Wilmot refuses to admit a parenthesis which the Scriptures clearly require, he inserts a shorter one of his own between things which the Scriptures consistently refer to as one event.

Moreover, he contends that the causing of "the sacrifice and oblation to cease" (Dan. 9:27) is the work of Christ Himself by His sacrifice whereas in chapter 8:11, this same event is clearly spoken of as being the work of the Man of Sin.

Again, he seems to bring himself into confusion when speaking of "Daniel’s people." He emphasizes the fact that Gabriel’s message was concerning Daniel’s people but he seems to make this expression mean different things according to the whim of the moment. He says of the nucleus of the New Testament Church, "They were the first citizens of the commonwealth of grace to whom believers were added without distinction for they all are Daniel’s people. Daniel belongs to them and they to Daniel. There is no promise in Gabriel’s prediction of an earthly establishment again for Israel as a nation." Yet he also says that "confirming the promises of Daniel 9:24, the Gospel was preached to Israel first, that is to Daniel’s people" (italics ours throughout). But to whom was the Gospel first preached? Not just to believers but to the whole nation. They are Daniel’s people and that is what Gabriel meant by the expression. And the promise is to the nation in the day of the fulfillment of the prediction.

On the strength of Galatians 3:16, Dr. Wilmot seems to suggest that there are no covenant promises to Abraham’s natural seed at all. Whilst, however, many of the promises to Abraham point clearly to the personal Seed which is Christ (e.g., Gen. 12:7 relating to the land and 22:18 relating to the blessing of the nations) it is equally clear that many of the promises to Abraham refer to a plurality of seed, e.g., Genesis 17:7, 8—"I will establish my covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant . . . and I will be their God."

Space forbids any further references but let us briefly examine these three. The first promises the land to the Seed (singular) which is Christ. Now Christ, God’s Son, created the heavens and the earth. All are His. He said, "All things that the Father hath are Mine." Nevertheless, as Abraham’s Seed, the land is to be given to Him. And in harmony with this, Isaiah refers to it as "Immanuel’s land." And the promise to our Lord’s mother was "Jehovah shall give unto Him the throne of His father David and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever." When the throne is occupied by Him, the land also will be His in fulfillment of the promise.

The second reference is to the blessing of the nations. "In thy Seed (singular) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:18). When the Seed which is Christ shall rule over the land, then all nations (as such) will be blessed in Him.

The third reference (Gen. 17:7, 8) is clearly to a plurality of seed. To Abraham’s seed in their generations is promised the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and the Lord adds, "I will be their God." So when the Seed (Christ) possesses the land, the seed in their generations shall also dwell there.

The first promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:3) was "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." And in Genesis 13:15, it is added, "All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy Seed for ever." So says Paul, "To Abraham and to his Seed were the promises made." So then Abraham also must possess the land and, as we have before shown, this can only be after the resurrection when "they that are Christ’s at His coming" shall "ever be with the Lord."

Dr. Wilmot, scorning belief in the Millennium, says it implies "that Jewish nationalism will somehow effect results in excess of Christian evangelization. But the Millennial reign will also be one of Christian evangelization because all Israel will then be Christian, having joyfully received Jesus Christ, their Messiah. There is only one Gospel, whether in this age or the next and Jewish "nationalism" will be no longer in evidence then as it was in the days of Christ and His Apostles.

The Dr. manifests a constant tendency to carnalize the Millennium as witness his reference to "Canaan’s toys." If, however, believers today can be spiritually minded in the midst of worldly carnality, how much more so when everything will be "holiness to the Lord" (Zech. 14:20, 21) and when "the knowledge of the glory of the Lord shall cover the earth."

He suggests that the 1,000 years referred to in Revelation 20 may "indicate a prolonged and indefinite period" and he supports the suggestion by Deuteronomy 7:9-12 and similar passages. The relevancy of such passages, however, is far from apparent. Nothing could be more indefinite (as regards the period) than 1,000 generations—an impossible period in the history of man; whilst nothing could be more definite than 1,000 years.

Under the title "Dispensationalist Misconstructions" Dr. Wilmot maintains that David’s Throne is now in heaven and that Christ now occupies it. In support of this he refers to Acts 2:29-36. But nowhere in that passage does Peter suggest that Christ now occupies David’s Throne. What is made clear is the following—

(1) God had sworn with an oath to David that Christ should sit on His throne.

(2) David therefore predicted the resurrection and ascension of Christ as a necessary prelude to this.

(3) Christ is at the Father’s right hand until He makes His foes His footstool.

(4) then, by inference, the way will be prepared for the occupation of David’s throne.

Psalm 80 to which the author also refers teaches precisely the same thing. After speaking of the promised stability of David’s throne the Psalmist mourns "Thou hast set up the right hand of his adversaries; thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice." And not until God’s enemies and Israel’s enemies are overturned will Messiah come forth to occupy the throne of His father David. Before Dr. Wilmot speaks of the misconstruction of Scripture by Millennialists he must, I feel, look a little nearer home.

Speaking of Isaiah 53 he says, "We search in vain for any Biblical futurist ascription of this chapter to the Jewish nation." We would venture to assist him in his search. The last 27 chapters of Isaiah’s prophecy is one continuous utterance and the whole of Isaiah’s prophecy, as he tells us twice at the commencement thereof, concerns Judah and Jerusalem. Chapter 53 is the center of the last prophecy of this book and at the beginning of this middle sub-division (chps. 52-54) the Prophet cries, "Awake! Awake! Put on thy strength 0 Zion; put on thy beautiful garments 0 Jerusalem the holy city . . . Shake thyself from the dust . . . loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, etc." This refers clearly to the earthly Jerusalem for the heavenly Jerusalem will never sit in the dust nor be in bondage. Paul says "Jerusalem which is above is free." Then in chapter 54 Isaiah says (still speaking of Jerusalem) "All thy children shall be taught of the Lord and great shall be the peace of thy children." And Micah in his wonderful prophecy concerning the birth and reign of the Messiah says, "This Man shall be the peace." So the great work of the suffering Messiah apprehended as in Isaiah 53 will bring about the great peace of Jerusalem’s children declared in chapter 54.

And Jeremiah, speaking of the time when this shall be, says, in chapter 31, "Behold the days come saith the Lord that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah . . . they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother saying ‘know the Lord’ for they shall all know me, from the least unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah, for I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more." And in writing to Hebrew believers, Paul confirms this with exquisite precision.

Referring to Isaiah 11:11-16, Dr. Wilmot declares that this was fulfilled when a remnant of Israel returned from their 70 years captivity in Babylon. But Isaiah tells us explicitly that this re-gathering of Israel of which he there speaks will take place "in that day" when "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard shall lie down with the kid . . . and a little child shall lead them; when the cow and the bear shall feed and their young ones shall lie down together and the lion shall eat straw like the ox . . . for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." Had all this happened when the remnant of Israel returned from Babylon? No! The restoration of Israel here spoken of is something far greater. Indeed Isaiah says that the outcasts of Israel shall then be gathered "from the four corners of the earth."

Again, the Dr. refers also Jeremiah 32:37 to the return of Israel from the 70 years captivity. But what about the following verses? There God says, "I will give them one heart and one way that they may fear Me for ever . . . And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them . . . but I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from Me. Yea! I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul." Did the Lord do this when He brought the people back from Babylon? He is speaking of the same people throughout the passage. The "they" and the "them" refer to "the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

Dr. Wilmot says, "It is historically recorded that the unparalleled tribulation spoken of in our Lord’s prediction, was visited upon the Jews when the Roman destruction took effect about 70 A.D., and he quotes largely from Josephus in proof of this. Dr. Tregelles has rightly pointed out that all history necessary for the right understanding of Scripture prophecy is found in the Scriptures themselves. God has not given us an incomplete revelation. We would far rather rest our faith upon Scripture prophecy alone than upon the questionable statements of an unbelieving historian.

The Dr. might have avoided this pitfall if he had paid attention to the word "then" so oft repeated in Matt. 24. We have previously referred to Dr. Wilmot’s confused use of the words eita and tote, both translated "then" In Matt. 24 it is tote throughout, indicating events which either synchronize or follow immediately one upon another. In verse 25 this is made most emphatic—"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened . . . and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven." The use of the word "then" (tote) throughout this chapter requires that the placing of the Abomination of Desolation is followed immediately by the "great tribulation", on account of which "those days shall be shortened." And immediately after those days the Son of Man shall come in the clouds of heaven. This exposes the nonsense of Josephus and entirely invalidates Dr. Wilmot’s exposition.

Dr. Wilmot accuses Millennialists of wanting to change the "so" in Romans 11:26 to "then." We have no such desire. The word "so" clearly refers to the manner of Israel’s salvation. Paul says, "So all Israel shall be saved, as it is written." They shall be saved by the Deliverer coming out of Zion and turning away ungodliness from Jacob. Paul had no need to emphasize the time when this should be accomplished because Isaiah, from whose prophecy he quotes, had already made that crystal clear. Isaiah says, "The Redeemer shall come to Zion and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah. As for Me, this is My covenant with them, saith Jehovah. My Spirit that is upon thee and My words that I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith Jehovah, from henceforth even for ever. Arise shine for thy light is come and the glory of Jehovah is risen upon thee. For the darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the peoples but Jehovah shall arise upon thee and His glory, shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light and kings to the brightness of thy rising." He goes on to speak of camels and dromedaries from Midian and Ephah; gold and incense from Sheba; flocks from Kedar; ships from Tarshish; and says "The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish . . . and they shall call thee ‘The city of Jehovah, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel’ . . . Thy people shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land for ever . . . that I may be glorified."

If this does not describe the deliverance and exaltation of a nation, then words surely have lost their meaning. Moreover, all this is to happen when "the darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the peoples." This our Saviour further describes in Matthew 24:29 and 30 as being when "the Son of Man shall come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." This is His glory which Isaiah says shall be seen upon Israel in the time of her deliverance.

It is grievous to observe throughout these articles a looseness in dealing with Scripture which was foreign to Dr. Wilmot’s earlier expositions of Holy Writ. On occasions he quotes from other writers, both sacred and profane, and makes confusion worse confounded. This only serves to show the paucity of his arguments. He links together belief in a millennium with a hope of salvation after death. This kind of confused thinking is totally unworthy of such a stalwart in the Christian Church as he has been.

The two Scriptural truths rejected by him are—

(1) the personal reign of our Saviour over the earth, and

(2) the restoration of Israel, as a nation, to the favour of God.

All relevant Scriptures are made to bend to the support of these two principal denials of truth, in some cases without any regard to the contextual setting of such Scriptures.

Our prayer is that Dr. Wilmot may be delivered from the obscurity which seems to have clouded his mind and that he may be brought back to the "simplicity which is in Christ", that he may again expound the Word with that same simple clarity which characterized his utterances some quarter of a century ago.

Since this Review appeared in "Watching & Waiting," Dr. Wilmot has commented upon it in the Toronto Gospel Witness. His remarks, however, do not meet fairly and squarely the arguments set out in the Review. He has simply reiterated some things he has previously said and has brought in some extraneous matter associating my name with some opinions of other people with which I do not agree.

I would invite Dr. Wilmot to expound clearly, verse by verse, passages dealing with the millennial glory of Israel, such as Isaiah 60, Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel 37, Micah 4 and 5 or Zechariah 12-14 and then, if he can, show their relevancy to the Church of Christ in this age.

However this controversy would now appear to be moving out of the sphere of textual criticism and into the sphere of personal criticism and in these circumstances it is perhaps better for all concerned that it should now cease, and that thinking men should prayerfully ponder what has been said, in the light of the Scripture of Truth.

[Table of Contents]

Review of "The Interpretation of Prophecy"

By Dr. Patrick Fairbairn

The author of this work, in following the line of many other anti-millennialists and postmillennialists, frequently sets one Scripture against another. When Dr. Fairbairn says that Christ is greater than Moses, he is, of course, quite right but when he intimates that Christ’s words are more authoritative than those of Moses and that the Apostles’ teaching takes precedence over that of the Prophets, he is quite wrong. The Scriptures do not themselves allow this. The Apostle says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (God-breathed) and is profitable." Peter says of the Prophets that "holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The Holy Ghost is the author of the whole. Christ also said, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me: but if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?"

Dr. Fairbairn has unwittingly laid a foundation for the modernist of today to build upon. If there are degrees of authority in the Word of God, then it follows that some parts are not absolutely authoritative and the modernist argues that if some Scriptures are less authoritative than others, then they are unreliable and may be discarded.

While it is true that the New Testament unfolds and amplifies the Old, it is equally true that the study of the Old Testament prepares for the understanding of the New. Dr. F. begins his study of "the prophetical future of the Jewish people" with Matthew. He should have begun it with Genesis. He may then have reached far different conclusions.

It was the lack of understanding of the Old Testament which made the first coming of Christ a stumbling-block to Israel. They had not received the prophecies concerning His sufferings and death. So, similarly, it is the lack of understanding of the Old Testament that often makes the second coming of Christ a stumbling-block to the Gentile Church when they reject the prophecies concerning His earthly glory and majesty.

As we have before pointed out, Dr. Paul Tillich and the Bishop of Woolwich and others of their ilk want to "de-literalize" the Bible, so that having made it entirely mystical, they can interpret it as they choose. The A-Millennialist and the post-Millennialist adopt the same principle, only with less intent.

Scriptures are misquoted and therefore misinterpreted. I give just one example. Mr. F. quotes Acts 2 : 30 as saying that Christ is already "exalted to sit on the throne of David." This passage says nothing of the kind. The above quotation, put in quotation marks by Dr. Fairbairn, is not there. On the contrary the inspired penman emphasizes the fact that "David is not ascended into the heavens." How then can Christ exalted in the heavens sit on David’s throne? What the passage does teach is as follows:

1. God has promised David that Messiah should be his seed and heir according to the flesh.

2. That this necessitated the resurrection of Christ, of which David prophesied.

3. That Jesus, having risen from the dead is now exalted at God’s right hand in fulfillment of David’s further prediction in Psalm 110.

4. He is there, as David’s heir, until all His enemies are placed beneath His feet.

Then (and not till then) will He occupy David’s throne. It was said by Solomon who foreshadowed Him, when he ascended the throne of David (which was also "the Throne of Jehovah"—see 1 Chron. 29:23) that "there was neither adversary nor evil occurrent (happening)" because God had put all David’s enemies "under the soles of his feet" (1 Kings 5:3, 4). What was effected temporarily and in measure upon Solomon’s accession will be performed absolutely and permanently on the accession of the Messiah.

Jesus will then sit on David’s throne, not only as "King of the Jews" but as "King of kings and Lord of lords" for David says of Him, "All kings shall fall down before Him; all nations shall serve Him." Even a child can understand this. It is only the sophisticated mind that makes it mean something different.

The loose way in which the Word of God is here dealt with is most deplorable. God says, He has magnified His Word above all His Name and that "every Word of God is pure." Jesus said, "My words shall not pass away And yet Dr. F. intimates that whole passages of the prophetic Scriptures may be ignored so far as their detail is concerned and that only the principles enshrined in the predictions endure in the succeeding ages. This means that so long as the prophets adhered in all their utterances to imperishable principles, they might predict anything and still be certain of the fulfillment of the principles involved. This, of course, reduces the prophetic Scriptures to the level of fictitious allegories and places God Himself in the role of a fortune teller who is quite impotent to bring about the things he has predicted.

Dr. F. goes so far as to suggest that the working of the minds of some of God’s prophets as they wrote the Scripture was of a similar kind to that which Shakespeare depicts as working in the distorted mind of Macbeth when contemplating murder; with the result that their prophecies were highly colored and exaggerated in description. Is this, in fact, what we are to understand by Peter’s words that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?

If a modernist had written such things we should have characterized them as near blasphemy. Fairbairn’s method of interpretation of Bible prophecies is precisely the same, in principle, as the modernist’s interpretation of the whole Bible.

Dr. F. speaks of Ezekiel writing in "his peculiar fashion "concerning the details given in his vision of the Temple, etc. The clear inference from his remarks is that all the detail may be ignored. Yet God says, "All Scripture

is profitable." It is sheer unbelief to ignore any of it. Our Saviour spoke of the necessity of its "jots and titles." This author, however, makes little attempt to expound any of the Old Testament prophecies in detail and in the few cases in which he does attempt an exposition he completely ignores the important time-marks of the prophecy and also its contextual setting. Many things which are spoken of as synchronous in the Old Testament the author rends asunder and appoints his own imagined time for their fulfillment.

We will take but one example. The author refers to Isaiah 59:20 together with Romans 11:26. He says (without any Scriptural authority) that Zion is the Church, out of which and to which the Redeemer comes through the Gospel. This, he says, will eventually bring about a "fulness" both of Jews and Gentiles. He makes no reference, however, to what follows the verse in Isaiah (including the following chapter). The concomitant events he entirely ignores because, one can only suppose, he could not explain this of the Church. "Zion" in the Scripture is Zion, whether the earthly or the heavenly or both but it is never the Church militant except in type.

What these passages clearly imply is that the Redeemer shall come out of the heavenly Zion to the earthly Zion to deliver his chosen nation and bring them into the glory of the following chapter (Isaiah 60).

Had Dr. Fairbairn lived today he would probably not have written as he has. Instead of his predicted "fulness" in this age, one sees a world-wide apostasy which the Scripture says will increase until "all the world wonders after the Beast." The fulness will be seen in God’s appointed time when "the oikoumene to come" will be under the governance of Immanuel.

Dr. F’s arguments regarding the fulfillment of the prophetic Word are precisely the same in principle as the modernists’ arguments regarding the truth of the historic Word. The modernist says that the historical record must not be taken literally but is given solely for the purpose of conveying moral and spiritual truths and is not necessarily historically accurate. Dr. F. says that the prophetic Word must not be taken literally but is given only to convey the principles of God’s moral and spiritual government in its application to the future and therefore may not be fulfilled in its specific detail. Both arguments accord with the modernist principle that what is said is not itself the Word of God but only contains or conveys the Word of God. In essence it denies the inspiration of the words of Scripture and suggests that the writings are only intended to convey Divine thoughts and principles.

If the doctrinal part of the Word of God were similarly dealt with, then all that the "Banner of Truth" stands for would fall to the ground.

Dr. F’s description of the Millennium is excellent—as clear as any I have read—but he expects it before Christ appears in glory. He describes it thus, "The subversion of anti-Christian falsehood and domination, the bringing to nought of the world’s power and wisdom, the abolition of all that in the social and political condition of things is opposed to truth and justice, and, along with these, the formal elevation of the pious and God-fearing portion of mankind to the place of influence and authority, and the establishment through all lands of the pure and benign principles of the Gospel" (p. 477). He speaks of the reconciliation of the world "to the rule of the saints." He says, "If there shall be power to make the people generally willing to obey, how much more of power—power to reach the greater things of God—will be required for those who in such a time will be called to rule in the affairs of men and ride on the high places of the earth" (p.p. 478 and 479). But he strenuously denies any manifested presence of Christ in the millennial earth.

He further says, "When the people of Christ are thus represented as possessing the kingdom it must be because they are ostensibly to bear sway upon the earth; the reins of government are to be in their hands" (pp. 479 and 480). Speaking of the "brightness of Christ’s coming" referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2, he says, "Since even worldly kingdoms are to be actively employed in affecting it, the coming spoken of cannot be that of the final advent or any external manifestation of Christ’s power and glory."

All this mis-construction of Scriptures arises from his supposition that the "first resurrection" spoken of in Rev. 20 is only figurative and is not a literal resurrection at all. Thus he plays again into the hands of the higher critic who denies the literality of all resurrection. Dr. F. says that the "first resurrection" simply sets forth "the mighty revival and spread of living Godliness destined to characterize the latter days."

In speaking of Daniel’s visions he declares that the age of despotic rulers and dictators is long past. Had Dr. F. been living today he could scarcely have written such things. He further denies the possibility of the rise in the last days of any atheistical or anti-God power out of the professing Church. He regards the Pope as antichrist and he looks forward only to a resurgence of Godliness and the coming in of Millennial conditions. Again, had he been alive today and read such works as "Honest to God" and "The God above god" and had seen the hand of the Pope outstretched towards the heathen religions and to the atheists, he could not have written as he did. The system of Dr. F’s interpretation has been utterly falsified by the effusion of time.

Much greater blindness must attach to those who still adhere to this system of interpretation in spite of the fulfillment before their eyes of such passages as 2 Thessalonians 2 and 2 Timothy 3. Paul makes clear that the apostasy having once set in will continue and increase until the Lord comes in glory to overturn it. Those who preach a millennium before His coming are only preparing the way for the coming of the Man of Sin and the institution of Satan’s counterfeit of the Kingdom of God.

Dr. F. even denies the personality of the Devil as seen in the Apocalypse. He says it is to be understood only in a figurative sense as the influence of evil and that the fall of Satan there depicted simply sets forth the triumph of good over evil. And this despite John’s clear identification of the Dragon as "that old Serpent, called The Devil and Satan" (Rev. 20).

Can we wonder then, if professed men of God interpret the Word thus, that the higher critic should also deny the personality of the Serpent in Eden and, indeed, of Satan in all the Scripture. If the Devil of prophecy is impersonal, how can we prove that the Satan of history is not also impersonal?

Dr. F. constantly contrasts the "real" and the "ideal." The writings of the prophets, he says in effect, were ideal and therefore we must not look for reality in them. This accounts for his almost wholly fanciful interpretation of the Apocalypse and other Scriptures.

Referring to Micah’s prophecy concerning the Messiah’s birthplace, he contends that if that prophecy is understood literally, then Jesus Christ was not the promised Messiah because He did not reign as King. This is sheer unbelief arising out of impatience. The prediction says that "Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel." And when He did come forth, it was told His mother that "The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever." If the prophecy means anything then the eventual ruling must be as literal as the coming forth.

Dr. F. declares that even Daniel did not understand his own visions. And this despite the clear record that "God gave Daniel understanding in all visions and dreams." It is true that Daniel had to exercise patience and to chasten his spirit in prayer whilst he wrestled for understanding but Gabriel declares eventually "I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding . . . therefore understand the matter." And in connection with the final vision it is written that Daniel "understood the thing and had understanding of the vision." It can, therefore, only be unbelief to suggest that he did not understand.

In endeavoring to maintain that the stone smiting the image in Daniel 2 refers to Christ’s first coming, Dr. F. seems to amend the vision to suit his purpose. He speaks of the stone "pressing" and "bruising" the image. The Word declares that the stone smote the image and "brake it in pieces."

To sum up then, the author first lays down his own imagined principles of interpretation (with little reference to Scripture) and then proceeds to bend all the Scriptures dealt with to fit the false principles so laid down.

It is a matter of profound regret that the Banner of Truth Trust has seen fit to reproduce such a work as this which so grievously soils the banner and misappropriates the trust.

Dr. H. Bonar, who was contemporary with Professor Fairbairn, answers him in "The Coming and Kingdom of Jesus Christ", 1849.

Some Difficulties Elucidated

Certain Old Testament Scriptures quoted in the New Testament sometimes seem to be given a meaning which the original passages in the Old Testament seem not to bear in their contextual setting. This gives rise to the question whether they are not to be understood in a mystic sense rather than in the obvious and literal sense which, at first sight, they would seem to sustain.

We refer to such Scriptures as Acts 15, 16 and 17 and Amos 9:11; Romans 9:25 and 26 and Hosea 1:10 and 2:23; Romans 11:26 and Isaiah 59:20 and 21; 1 Corinthians 15:54 and Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14; Isaiah 65:17-19 and 2 Peter 3:13.

Some of these have already been referred to and commented upon in the preceding chapters and we need not, therefore, refer to them again In considering the remainder it is perhaps desirable that we should give a brief summary revealed in Holy Writ of

At Creation God gave to Adam the complete sovereignty over the earth and all that was therein (Gen. 1:28). In the exercise of that sovereignty Adam gave names to the whole animal creation and God brought the creatures to Adam for that purpose. This sovereignty was forfeited by sin and the destruction of men

the brute creation eventually became one of God’s "four sore judgments" (Ezek. 14:21). Immediately, however, there was the promise of the "Seed of the woman" whom Paul subsequently refers to as "the second Adam" who was Himself to have, as Man, the sovereignty forfeited by the first Adam. "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth" (Ps. 72:8) and also over "all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, etc." (Ps. 8 and Heb. 2:6-9).

The promise to Noah was very different. Here the fear of man was put upon the brute creation and they were delivered into his hand. We need not enlarge upon the many and varied cruel purposes for which man has used them in the exercise of his sinful government.

For the accomplishment of His purposes in the earth, God, in His sovereignty, chose Abraham and promised to make of him a great nation and a universal blessing. This promise was made in sovereign grace and in the first instance without any reference to his Seed. That the nation was to be the nation of Israel is clear inasmuch as both Abraham and Isaac are included in the term "Children of Israel" in Exodus 12:40.

Subsequent revelation, moreover, showed that the fulness of this blessing was to come through the Seed, which is Christ. The promise is again given to Abraham unconditionally of universal blessing and universal sovereignty as well as of an innumerable seed. Paul interprets this promise as indicating that Abraham should be "heir of the world (kosmos)" and emphasizes its unconditional nature. And this blessing God confirms with an oath and stakes His own existence upon it.

Many similar promises are given subsequently to Israel with the condition of obedience attached but, as Paul points out, the law which was 430 years after cannot disannul the promise to make it "of none effect." Moreover, the promise concerning David’s Seed and His dominion is given him unconditionally and again, the very being of God is staked upon it. (Ps. 89).

Israel did not fulfil the condition of obedience but ran after other gods until God gave them up, with the government of the earth, into the hands of the Gentiles, and eventually scattered them over all the face of the earth.

In the meantime, however, the promised Seed arrived through whom all the promises were to be fulfilled. "All the promises of God are in Him Yea and in Him Amen, to the glory of God" (2 Cor. 1:20).

In fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham and many other similar promises throughout the Old Testament, the great mystery of the Gentiles being partakers of God’s promise in the Messiah is unfolded through the Gospel and thus all believers become Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. Many of the promises to Israel are therefore quoted in the New Testament in support of the universal preaching of the Gospel and the ingathering of God’s elect. James, for example, says that with the opening of the door of the Gospel to the Gentiles agrees God’s promise to restore the tabernacle of David, "that the residue of men might seek after the Lord" (Acts 15:14-17).

are applicable alike to Israel and the New Testament Church. In the Old Testament Israel were God’s ekklesia (Acts 7:38). And just as "they are not all Israel which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6); so they are not all the Body of Christ which are members of the professing Church. Only by a vital union with Christ as Abraham had (John 8:56) and David (see Psalms 16, 40, 22: etc.), and all true Gentile believers (1 Cor. 1:2, etc.), can these spiritual blessings be realized and enjoyed. And God, in His grace, has "made known to us the mystery of His will, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ" (Eph. 1:10).

But the bringing of the Gentile believers into the blessing of Abraham, Israel and David, does not and cannot vitiate the promises of God to them. So the promises to Abraham, to Israel to David and to all believers from all nations will be fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ. It is in Him that the promises are secured. God has in sovereign grace blessed His elect people with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ and yet some of these blessings are often attached to conditions, e.g., Christ has "become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him." But the same sovereign grace which appointed the blessing, in due course works in the subjects the required obedience. They are "elect ... unto obedience" (1 Pet. 1:2).

So, similarly, the same sovereign grace which gave the blessings to Abraham and Israel initially, will eventually bring the nation into that condition which is often subsequently attached to the promises. "They shall be willing in the day of My power." So all Israel shall be saved when His grace has wrought in them that weeping and supplication described by Zechariah.

The promises of God are made, in all ages, not to the unbelievers but to the faithful remnant. At the time of Israel’s defection from God as a nation, the prophets spoke to the faithful remnant—the election of grace—and assured them of ultimate blessing notwithstanding the intervening judgments. The Apostles likewise spoke to "the faithful in Christ Jesus" (see Eph. 1:1, etc.). So Peter, who wrote to the circumcision reminds the faithful remnant of their standing in God’s covenant (1 Pet. 2:9 and 10). He quotes from Hosea but only so far as the quotation is applicable to the diaspora. He tells them that whereas they had been cast off as "Lo-ammi", they are now the people of God but Hosea, predicting the re-habilitation in Grace of the remnant of the entire nation says "it shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them, ‘Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them ‘Ye are the sons of the living God;’" thus foretelling their eventual return to the Land.

Moreover Paul, when writing to both Jew and Gentile refers to the embracing of the Gentiles in the covenant of grace with Israel (Even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles—Rom. 9:24-26) referring again to Hosea’s prophecy. Israel is the substantive; the Gentiles are the accretions; but all will enjoy the blessings of the covenant. The New Testament Church has no blessings but what are already assured to Israel. We are to "sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the Kingdom of God." They are not invited to sit down with us. Abraham and Israel again constitute the substantive; we are the guests.

In the Millennial reign of Christ, the earthly Zion and the heavenly Zion will be brought into close proximity. The promises concerning Zion, therefore, in the Old Testament may refer to either or both according to the contextual setting.

The Lord says through Isaiah that "in this Mountain shall the Lord make unto all peoples a feast of fat things . . . And He will destroy in this mountain . . . the vail that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of His people shall He take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it." The Lord, moreover, says to the faithful remnant through Hosea, "I will ransom them from the power of hell; I will redeem them from death." And Paul makes perfectly clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that these promises are fulfilled at the first resurrection. Therefore the feast of fat things in Zion; Israel’s song of deliverance "in that day" and the resurrection of the just when the Deliverer shall come out of Zion must synchronize.

There is a reference to two creations and the word implies that the same God who will create the new heavens and earth, creates first Jerusalem a rejoicing and her people a joy. The glad anticipation of the one should produce likewise joy and gladness in the other. The reference in chapter 66:22 merely states that the permanency of Israel’s seed and name is as sure as the permanency of the New Creation.

To sum up then; as the seed of David, Jesus will occupy David’s throne according to God’s promise; as the seed of Abraham, He will be the heir of the kosmos; "all nations shall serve Him"; as the second Adam, He will have control of all creation, when "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard shall lie down with the kid. . . and a little child shall lead them"; as the Son of God, He is "appointed heir of all things"; and in sovereign grace all His people are made joint-heirs with Him. And so, "He is head over all things to the Church which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all." All these promises are "in Him Yea and in Him Amen, to the glory of God by us", and we must not magnify one to the exclusion of the others.

He is the Son of God; He is the King of Israel. Satan challenged the first in the wilderness, but Christ was "declared to be the Son of God with power . . . by the resurrection from the dead." Satan challenged the second at the cross but this will also be made manifest when he comes in glory and Israel will again say, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Ps. 18:26 and Luke 13:35). Then all creation will join in the song of the angels, "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, goodwill toward men

[Table of Contents]

[1]  B. W. Newton in Aids to Prophetic Enquiry has, as the title to chapter 2, "no poetic exaggeration in the language of Scripture;" moreover he resists what he calls "the non-natural" use of the meaning of words.

Providence Baptist Ministries © 2006 PBM Desktop Publications © 2006 All rights reserved Revised: February 14, 2005