EVERY theory or interpretation of the Scriptures which is put forth to prove that the coming of Christ is not near, or that we cannot tell whether it is near or is not, can be shown to be contradictory of the Bible and inconsistent in itself. If any think we are assuming too much in this statement, we ask them to suspend judgment until they have examined our reasons for making it. We do not ask that they shall wait until they have examined all our arguments on the whole question, but only until they have examined our reasons for saying that the question may be certainly and definitely settled.
The most common objection, the one that is most strenuously urged, is, that the world must first be converted; that there must be a millennium of peace and piety, in order that the power of the gospel may be demonstrated in the salvation of the nations of the earth. Now we believe that every idea in this objection is contrary to the word of God.
But we shall be met at the very outset with the further objection that, as this is a subject involving interpretations of prophecy, and as different expositors give interpretations widely differing, yet each, perhaps, plausible, it cannot be settled with certainty, or to the satisfaction of all. One will prefer this exposition, another, that, and so on; and amongst them all, who shall say which is right?
This objection has some appearance of strength, but it strikes at the reliability of the Scriptures. If there is no just means of settling disputes concerning the truths of the Bible, then there is no means of knowing what it really teaches. Then our faith would necessarily rest on conjectures or uncertainties. We cannot believe that it is our privilege to show and plead what a text may possibly be made to teach, but we must accept what it actually teaches. And if it is to be relied upon, the actual meaning may be determined.
Very many people have imbibed false ideas of “Christian liberty.” They seem to think that it allows one to follow his impressions and feelings, instead of rendering obedience to divine precepts; and also to form any opinion of the Scriptures to which those impressions and feelings lead. It is indeed true that no human authority has the right to restrict our liberty in religion or religious belief; but in matters of religion we have not to deal with men, but with God. “He that believeth not God hath made him a liar.” 1 John 5:10. This is surely no small offense. And it is no greater sin to deny the word of God, than to pervert it and turn it from its purpose.
We affirm that if mathematicians proceeded in their investigations as theologians do in theirs, there would be no more uniformity in results in mathematics than there is in theology. Uniformity is produced among the former by an agreement at the starting-point. They are agreed upon first principles. Were it not for this, they could never come to agreement in their calculations. Were one to start on the basis that two and two make four, and another insist that two and two make five, there would be no use in their trying to bring the same result. And the further they proceeded in their calculations, the greater would be the difference. Now we firmly believe, and insist that it can be shown, that every Bible doctrine has at its foundation some specific declarations, plain and unmistakable in their import, which, if heeded, will guide to the certain understanding of that doctrine. But if these are disregarded, it is impossible to tell what may be the result of investigations on that doctrine. Each reader will then follow his own fancy, and uniformity in results is impossible.
We will now make an application of this principle to the doctrine of the temporal millennium,—the supposed Bible doctrine of the world’s conversion. And we will produce two statements, one from Christ and one from Paul, to which all inquiries on this subject must be made to conform. The first is found in Matt. 7:13, 14, and reads as follows: “Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
There are just two ways in which mankind are, and ever have been, walking, and ever will walk, as long as probation continues: the way to destruction and the way to life. Our Saviour has given us definite information in regard to these two ways, not only as to their termination, but also as to the comparative amount of travel on each. We know that, in all past time, his estimate has proved correct; the number that has walked in the way to destruction has been immensely greater than the number who found the way to life. And whosoever advances any theory which would change the relations of these two roads,—which would make the way to life broad, with the multitude walking in it, and the way to destruction narrow, which few shall find,—advances it in direct contradiction of the plain statement of the Saviour. He knew what was in man; he knew the tendencies of the human heart; he knew that few would ever humble themselves before God, and take up the cross and follow him, so as to obtain eternal life. And all his teachings were in harmony with the declaration he here made. Now we insist, and it cannot be denied, that the popular theory of the “temporal millennium,”—of the conversion of all the world,—is based on the direct contradiction of the Saviour’s positive statement. That theory assumes that the time is coming when these words of Christ will not be true; when the way to life will not be narrow, and found by few only; when the way to destruction will not be a broad way, and that many will not walk therein. And this assumption has no direct statement as its basis; it is an assumption, and nothing better. To us it appears as unreasonable and presumptuous as it would for a scholar to assume that, though in time past it had always been true that two and two make four, the time has come or is soon coming in which it will be true no longer—that henceforth two and two will make five. If there is any defect in this reasoning, we shall be pleased to have it shown.
It probably will be urged that certain prophecies teach the contrary. But this we deny; it is only somebody’s interpretations of the prophecies which teach contrary to the words of Christ. But any interpretation which runs contrary to the plain declarations of the Saviour on the same subject ought to be abandoned; it is no better than downright infidelity.
Now we will take a statement of the apostle Paul. He says: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such turn away.” 2 Tim. 3:1–5. Here is a list of nineteen material errors, some of them the grossest sins, which will mark the lives of those who have a form of godliness. We are told in the same chapter that there will be some who “live godly in Christ Jesus.” But the prevailing tendency will be to profess godliness and deny its power, so that the truly godly will be only exceptions to the general statement. That the godly will be a few only among the multitude of professors, and that they will be unpopular, is proved by the fact that they “shall suffer persecution.” Verse 12. Remember that this scene is laid in the last days.
And this confirms the view presented of the statement of the Saviour. Even unto the end it will be true that the way to destruction is broad, and followed by many; and the way to life narrow, and found by few. The theory of the conversion of the world, or of what is termed the “temporal millennium,” can be accepted only by those who lose sight of these plain, positive statements of Christ and his apostle. That theory cannot be harmonized with these statements. Therefore the theory must be wrong.