p. 9 | GEO. B. THOMPSON by GEO. B. THOMPSON

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 24, 1907

GEO. B. THOMPSON

By GEO. B. THOMPSON

Millennial Dawn—No. 6

GEO. B. THOMPSON

No discussion of the doctrine of a future probation would be complete without a consideration of Rev. 20: 5, which reads as follows: “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” This scripture stands in connection with the record of the binding of Satan during the thousand years, and seems to have been written expressly to upset the heresy of a future probation. It completely overthrows the whole system of Millennial Dawn theology concerning the so-called “second chance” in the millennial age.

Two resurrections are here brought to view, as a first implies a second. The period which intervenes between these two resurrections is clearly stated to be a thousand years. Some live, but the “rest” remain in the embrace of death “until the thousand years are finished.” Those who live in the first resurrection are the righteous. “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection.” Rev. 20: 6. And this resurrection of the overcomers takes place at the second coming of Christ, when he appears attended by all the angels in heaven, to reap the harvest of the earth and gather into his garner the sheaves separated forever from the tares of sin. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” 1 Thess. 4: 16.

As the “dead in Christ,” the righteous, all live in the “first resurrection,” which takes place when Jesus comes, the “rest of the dead” can refer only to the wicked. This is the only millennial period definitely marked off in the Bible, and is the very period Millennial Dawn advocates have in mind when they talk of that “golden age” in which the lost will have a “second probation,” or “another chance,” under more “favorable circumstances;” when the heathen will hear the gospel, and be converted. But we are told in this scripture in language so plain that it is not possible to misunderstand the meaning, that the heathen, the Sodomites, Amalekites, and others who are especially mentioned as having a “second chance,” are all dead. During this entire millennial period, in this so-called “golden age,” instead of being alive and listening to the gospel, they are sleeping in the tomb. The one thousand years is bounded at either end by a resurrection, making mistake impossible as to when it begins or ends. It is ushered in by the resurrection of the righteous, and closes with a resurrection of the wicked, who “live not” until this millennial period has passed. How, then, are these unnumbered millions of the incorrigible to hear the gospel? Can these corpses believe and repent? If the work of the church is to proclaim the gospel to the lost during the one thousand years, it will be a gloomy task indeed. As well go out now into the cemetery and conduct evangelistic services, and expect converts. And this is the “second chance,” to which the rebels against the government of heaven are bidden to look forward. Surely it is a vain hope. So long as this text stands in God’s Word, there can not be the faintest hope held out to sinners of a “golden age” in which all will have “another opportunity” to forsake, their ungodly ways, and serve the Lord. The advocates of the Millennial Dawn see this (nobody, it would seem, could help seeing it). Something must be done to save their entire system of faith from being wrecked by this plain statement of the Word. In some way the troublesome scripture must be disposed of. And this is the way they do it:— “In this verse (Rev. 20: 5) the words, ‘But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished,’ are spurious. They are not found in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic, Vatican Nos. 1209 and 1160, nor the Syriac manuscript. We must remember that many passages found in the modern copies are additions which do not properly belong to the Bible. Since commanded not to add to the Word of God, it is our duty to repudiate such additions as soon as their spurious character is established. The words indicated probably crept into the text by accident, in the fifth century; for no manuscript of earlier date (either Greek or Syriac) contains this clause. It was probably at first merely a marginal comment made by a reader, expressive of his thought upon the text, and copied into the body of the text by some subsequent transcriber who failed to distinguish between the text and the comment.”—“Plan of the Ages,” Vol. I, pages 288, 289 (note). The statement that there are “many

passages” in “modern copies” of the Bible which do not “properly belong” in the inspired record is a claim similar to that put forth by that modern phase of infidelity known as the “Higher Criticism.” The tendency of all such statements is to cast suspicion upon the Word, and weaken faith in the Bible as an unerring guide. While there may be a few instances where slight discrepancies have crept into what is known as the Authorized Version, these have all been detected, and corrected in subsequent translations.

It is necessary for them to impeach this witness, else the fable of a future probation is revealed. But there is no authority for discrediting the inspiration of the text, unless it be the statement of the author of the book from which the preceding extract is taken; and this is hardly sufficient. The English edition of the Revised Version makes no reference to this text as being “not found” in ancient Greek manuscript. The American Revised Version, which is admitted by the ripest scholars in the land to be the best translation of the Holy Scriptures extant, does not give the slightest hint that a part of the text is omitted in the “most reliable Greek manuscript.” Rotherham’s translation, another excellent work, though noting elsewhere “doubtful” renderings, says nothing about this text’s being spurious. The Interlinear translation also puts this text on the same basis as other portions of the Holy Scriptures. It is found in Young’s translation also, without any hint of its being some “marginal comment.” Sawyer’s translation contains it, also the Twentieth Century New Testament. In the translation from the Greek text of Von Tischendorf it is found unquestioned. The Emphatic Diaglott based on Griesbach’s text gives this verse, and in a foot-note says: “These words (the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished) were probably omitted by oversight in Vatican manuscript [No. 1160] as they are found in A. B. C., though not in the Syriac.” By “A” is meant Codex Alexandrinus; by “B,” Codex Vaticanus, No. 2066, of the seventh or eighth century; by “C,” Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. Finally, the best Greek text, that of Wescott and Hort, contains the passage, and neither have the Revised Versions nor any of the critics, so far as we know, even questioned it. The revisers adopted for their revision the text “for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating,” and when that differed from the Greek text “from which the Authorized Version was made,” the rule was that “the alteration be expressed in the margin.” (See Preface to Revised New Testament, Division II, Paragraph 4.) But there is not even an indication of doubt over Rev. 20: 5. The “Hand-Book of Christian Theology” (Methodist), commenting upon this passage in discussing this question whether or not in the resurrection all are raised simultaneously, raises no question as to the authenticity of the text. Neither Drs. Adam Clarke nor Bliss, in their comments on this scripture, offers any objection to its genuineness. They had access to these Greek manuscripts, and had some opportunity to know if these words were only a “marginal comment” which got mixed in accidentally. All these, and scores of other good scholars, who have had opportunity for the most extended research, pronounce the text genuine. The fact that they cut out a few other texts, and leave this one without any hint as to its so-called doubtful origin, is the strongest evidence possible of its authenticity. The clause in question is considered spurious only by those who have a doctrine to prove which the text condemns.

Satan is bound by circumstances in the earth, made desolate at the coming of Christ. At that time the saints are all taken to heaven, and the wicked are slain. Then, confined in the earth, compelled to wander amid the ruin which his own hands have wrought, with none to tempt or annoy, he will indeed be “bound.” At the end of this millennium of darkness and chaos, he is loosed through a reversal of the events which bound him. The city of God, with all the saints, descends from heaven on the earth (Rev. 20:1-3; Zech. 14:4, 5), and the wicked dead are raised. Satan again has access to his children, and begins his work of deception. He marshals his legions into battle array, and surrounds the camp of the saints. This is the first and only time the entire family of Adam stand on the earth together. But does the church, the “royal priesthood,” begin the work of preaching to them the gospel? Does a power which they “will strive in vain to resist” seize hold of them? Is a “second chance” held out to them?—Not by any means.

“And they [the wicked] went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” Rev. 20:9. They are consumed, root and branch. Mal. 4:1. Sin and sinner are no more. The entire universe is clean, and the great controversy is forever ended.