III. The Breakdown of Historic Premillennialism

Mention has been made of the fact that the chief point of divergence among the Old World expositors, and also here in America, concerned the millennium—whether that blessed time would be brought about by man’s endeavor, or by divine interposition; whether by the gradual conversion of the world, or through a cataclysmic end of the age; whether the attendant resurrection was simply spiritual—the revival of the spirit of the martyrs—or the literal, bodily resurrection of the righteous dead; and whether the coming of Christ to establish His kingdom was essentially a spiritual effusion, increasingly pervasive during the thousand years, at the close of which He would appear; or whether He would inaugurate His reign by a personal, visible, glorious, and transcendent descent from heaven.PFF4 417.1

The issue was not merely whether the advent would be premillennial, or postmillennial. That is an oversimplification. Actually the contrast between natural means and direct divine intervention parallel the contrast between naturalism and super-naturalism. As to the more recent alliance between postmillennialism and modernism, Kromminga has well remarked:PFF4 417.2

“Modernism banishes the supernatural, and Postmillenarianism can and does postpone all obtrusively supernatural occurrences until the glorious final state of the Church shall have run its course. In so far it holds little or nothing that would clash with the modernistic outlook upon future earthly human history.” ^{14D. H. Kromminga, op. cit., pp. 233, 234. 14}PFF4 417.3

Instead of “modernism,” simply read “eighteenth-century rationalism,” and you have the situation at the beginning of the nineteenth century in England.PFF4 417.4

1. LITERALISTS BECOME CHAMPIONS OF THE WORD

On the other hand, the militant premillennialists of that time entered the lists against a spiritualizing away of Bible truth. They fought valiantly for the Word, its inspiration, its super-naturalism, its prophecies, and its literal promises; hence their stress on literalism, and their designation as Literalists. They sought to return to the first love of the early church, when she was constantly watching for her absent Lord. And so they met in groups to study the Word; they preached, they wrote, they published, they supported missionaries, and they sought to help their fellow men.PFF4 418.1

2. EXTREME LITERALISM LED TO GRAVE DEPARTURES

Unfortunately the insistence on the letter of Scripture on the part of some of these champions of the Bible led to extremes of literalism that stressed a Judaizing chiliasm and eventually produced an ultra dispensationalism that would deny the unity of the church, the unity of the covenant of grace, and the unity of the Scripture. And, strange as it may seem, their eagerness to vindicate the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament prophets led to views that eventually would deprive the church of any application of a large part of the Scriptures, including the Gospels. But the breakdown of the Historical premillennialism of the older type, which was built on the progressive fulfillments of prophecy of preceding centuries, was due to various causes-only partly to the disagreements on different points of prophetic interpretation. Now for the causes for this change.PFF4 418.2

3. DIVERGENT VIEWS ON PROPHETIC FULFILLMENTS

There had been sharp divergence of view (virtually confined to the British Advent Awakening) as to whether the number in Daniel 8:14 was actually 2300, or 2400 as a minority contended, ^{15Discussed in Vol. I, pp. 176-180 and in Vol. III, chap. 20.} but with both views the periods ended at approximately the same time. There was also disparity of view as to whether the last prophetic time period was the 2300 years, ending in 1843, 1844, or 1847, or whether the prophesied 1335 years extended 75 years beyond the close of the 1260 years, and would terminate about 1867-with the close of the 2300 as merely an important midway mark.PFF4 418.3

And then there was wide diversity of view as to whether the close of the 2300 years was to bring the “cleansing” of the church, or of Palestine from Mohammedanism. The latter concept, entailing the restoration of the Jews, was usually tied in with interpretation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8 as Mohammedanism, and with the sixth trumpet (with its 391-year period), and the vanishing Euphrates of the sixth vial.PFF4 419.1

And again, there was the nature of the hour of God’s judgment-whether this meant just the threatened “judgments” of God upon the Papacy and Mohammedanism (pertaining principally to political transactions on earth), or the transcendent scenes of the second advent and the great assize contemplated through the centuries.PFF4 419.2

4. FAILURE OF PREDICTIONS DAMPENS ENTHUSIASM

Undoubtedly the failure of earlier predictions that some had based on the Napoleonic wars, caused a loss of confidence, with some, in the Historical fulfillment of prophecy. And the passing of certain times of expectation, such as 1836-widely taught by Bengel on the Continent, and even Wesley in Britain ^{16On Bengel, see Prophetic Faith, Vol. II, pp. 709-712; and on Wesley, pp. 693, 694.} had the effect of dampening enthusiasm.PFF4 419.3

Among the Literalists, who centered the last-day prophecies around the restoration of literal Israel, the hope was strong that Palestine would be opened to the Jews, and great enthusiasm marked the missionary organizations, aimed at the evangelizing of the Jews. But the apparently promising political situation passed, and the Jews proved to be far from eager to being “converted” to Christianity in any numbers. Possibly this led many to look farther into the future for the restoration of Israel—for their conversion after the second advent.PFF4 419.4

5. IRVINGISM PRODUCES SERIOUS DEFECTION

Another disruptive factor was the defection of one of the brightest lights of the British prophetic awakening, the saintly but gravely misguided Edward Irving, whose troubles with his “Irvingite,” or Catholic Apostolic, Church broke his heart and discredited his standing, because of its “unknown tongues” and its system of “angels,” “apostles,” et cetera. Irving was originally an Historicist in exposition, but his translation of Lacunza’s book helped materially in gaining a hearing for Futurism.” ^{17On the origin of Catholic Futurism, see Prophetic Faith, Vol. II, pp. 484-505; Vol. III discusses Irving on pp. 514-526; Lacunza, on pp. 303-324, 657, 658; Maitland, pp. 542-544; Newman and the Tractarians, pp. 663-669.} His translation appeared just at the time Samuel Roffey Maitland was introducing to Protestants this counterinterpretation, which was devised by the Jesuits to clear the pope of the Anti Christ charge and which was to stand John Henry Newman and the Tractarians in such good stead. ^{18Prophetic Faith, Vol. III pp. 663-669.}PFF4 420.1

6. CATHOLIC COUNTERINTERPRETATIONS INTRODUCED

Still another factor was the disruptive influence of the Catholic Futurist and Preterist counterinterpretations among Protestants. Preterism had already begun to break Protestant unity on the basic identification of Antichrist and on the year-day principle, as certain Protestants of influence on the Continent began to deny the very principles that made the Reformation such a mighty power. Introduced into England by Samuel Lee in 1830, ^{19Ibid., pp. 596, 597.} it led a trend toward a rationalistic view of prophecy.PFF4 420.2

While some were looking for events to mark the approaching end of the prophetic periods of the 1260, 391, and 2300 years, Preterism paved the way toward the denial of their inspired character through the ancient argument of the Sophist Porphyry—that the book of Daniel was written by some Jew in the time of the Maccabees. For Preterists the Little Horn was simply Antiochus Epiphanes, the 3i/2’ times” but literal years, and the 2300 merely literal days. Others revived the paralleling quibble that the Apocalypse was produced by some presbytern amed John, not the beloved apostle—and therefore not canonical because not apostolic. ^{20On Porphyry, see Prophetic Faith, Vol. I, pp. 326-330; on the Apocalypse, see Vol. I, pp. 324-326.}PFF4 420.3

Now the other Jesuit doctrine, Futurism, was being introduced into Protestant ranks. Irving’s translation of Lacunza and Maitland’s writings gave it circulation among the British Literalists. About 1830 it began to make definite inroads.PFF4 421.1