Part 3 of 4
[Note: The reader must appreciate that many theological terms, such as “postmillennial” did not exist during the time of Isaac Newton. He lived in the century just following the introduction of the printed Bible and Europe was only then discovering its languages for the first time. Although scholars were well acquainted with the biblical text and patristic literature – usually in Latin- it was sequestered from the general population. That changed in the 17th Century at the dawn of “the age of books,” the King James Bible, and Newton’s physics.]
The two Prophets must ascend up to heaven in a cloud, before the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of Christ. – Isaac Newton, Observations, Ibid., p. 78
[In the] figurative language of the prophets, “riding on the clouds,” [is set] for reigning over much people . . . p. 6
[In prophetic language] “wings,” [are set] for the number of kingdoms p. 7from Isaac Newton’s Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse, 1733 (Anodon Edition, 2019),
(the bracketed words indicate that the citations are extractions from Newton’s long list of the symbolic prophetic terms in the Bible).
Original Sin as “Theological Entropy”
In terms of Bible prophecy, the Christian doctrine of “the Curse” as manifested in amillennialism (and derivatively by premillennialism) becomes a sort of “theological entropy” as argued in the last installment. It is the belief that the consequences of Original Sin cannot be overcome in time and on Earth, but must await until the Resurrection. The Atonement of Christ served only to make the Resurrection possible, which is set to occur at some indeterminate future time at the Father’s good pleasure. Premillennialism differs from amillennialism only in the timing of that event.
Consequently, the world must continue to become worse and worse in which “because iniquity shall abound” the “love of many shall wax cold” – and “were those days not shortened . . . no flesh would be saved” (Matthew 24 et al).
Princeton’s Cornelius Van Til (whose writings North discusses at length in many of his books) – an old school Calvinist – was an early 20th Century advocate of this pessimistic view of history.
Amillennialists, like Van Til, have long countered the Postmillennialist’s optimism with the “second Satanic rebellion” of Revelation 20, in which “Satan is loosed” from his “bottomless pit” and is allowed to recruit “Gog and Magog” to surround the “camp of the saints” at the end of Christ’s glorious 1000 year reign: presumably the current city of Jerusalem where millenarians assert Christ will be seated upon an earthly throne. The siege is ended by the summary execution of Satan’s hordes with “fire from heaven.”
The Amillennialist poses the challenging question: “How can this occur in the postmillennial scheme in which the ‘triumph of the Gospel’ has created Paradise on Earth, only to be, yet again, overcome by man’s fallen nature?”
The Wheat and the Tares
Postmillennialists do not deny the Rapture. It will come on the day of judgment. It will be a postmillennial Rapture. Why a postmillennial Rapture, the amillennialist may say? Why not simply point out that the Rapture comes at the end of time, and let matters drop? The answer is important: we must deal with the question of the historical development of the wheat and tares. We must see that this process of time leads to Christian victory on earth and in time. It leads to victory in history. It leads to victory in the pre-consummation New Heavens and New Earth (Isa. 65:17-20).
Dr. Gary North, Dominion & Common Grace, ICE, 1988, p. 68
North, in one of his most brilliant contributions to Christian doctrine – in true Van Tillian fashion, ironically – answers Van Til’s challenge with an exposition on Christ’s Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13, et al):
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn (Matt. 13:24-30). (emphasis added)
What North proceeds to do is offer the concept of Dominion through Differentiation in Epistemological Self-consciousness (“epistemological self-consciousness” is a Van Tillian concept in his system of “Presuppositional Apologetics”). Dominion makes that differentiation possible. The results of dominion create the “epistemological self-consciousness.”
In more layman’s terms, the difference between the tares and the wheat become manifest when the wheat begins to bear fruit. “Fruit” is the result of good works and is the means by which “good works” can be known. Good works occur when the Christian exercises righteous dominion. But that cannot be recognized in a value judgment (or known epistemologically) until those “works” are manifested by actions which result in visibly temporal consequences. This is a process which occurs throughout history. The judgment by God at the end of history is only possible because the believer has exercised judgment in history:
As history progresses, the saved and the lost differentiate themselves ethically. The righteous become dominant, not through the exercise of lawless power, but through obedience to biblical law. A continuous ethical separation takes place over time. (Ibid, p. 77)
And how about the unrighteous? How do they obtain power? I now cite North at length:
Christ’s parable of the wheat and tares emphasizes historical continuity prior to the final judgment. The kingdom of God will not be interrupted by any radical break that separates evil people from righteous people. They mature side by side. Removing the evil people – the suggestion of the servants would hurt the righteous. This points to the need for social cooperation and the division of labor in history. Men need each other’s skills and services in order to work out their earthly destinies. The unrighteous people are protected from destruction in history for the sake of the righteous. Christians are called by God to take dominion in every area of life. God expects Christians to rule righteously, meaning in terms of His revealed law. If they order their lives and institutions in terms of God’s law, they will find that they exercise greater and greater authority. They will not be in earthly bondage to humanists forever. This was the lesson of Joseph in the prison, the three Hebrew youths in Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace, Daniel in the lions’ den, and Jesus on the cross. In the case of Jesus’ death, the worst injustice in history led to His attainment to total cosmic power. “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given to me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). As history progresses, the saved and the lost differentiate themselves ethically. The righteous become dominant, not through the exercise of lawless power, but through obedience to biblical law. A continuous ethical separation takes place over time. Eventually, men begin to apply God’s standards to earthly situations, and they will recognize the difference between churls [citing a term from Isaiah in the KJV:JWS] and righteous people. Liberal (generous) people will devise liberal things, and stand in terms of what they have devised. As men develop their skills in making godly judgments, they will gain greater authority. The satanists will not dominate history through power, nor will Christ and His angels uproot the tares (let alone the wheat) in history before both wheat and tares have fully matured. Thus, neither the amillennial vision nor the premillennial vision is correct. The church wiIl not be defeated in history before Christ returns physically to rule. The gates of hell shall not stand against the offensive onslaught of Christ’s church.
Christ declared that the recipients of common grace could not be destroyed because like the prohibition of uprooting the tares, “lest we uproot the wheat also” providence offers “space” for the wheat and the tares to grow “side by side” without the interference of “judgment” as a discontinuous event. The wheat enjoy the blessing of growth in spite of the competition from the tares. In a sense, the tares help the wheat by holding the soil together. Thus, “the earth helps the woman” (Rev. 12) and prevents the tares from interfering with the ultimate fruitfulness of the wheat.
The unrighteous obtain power by also obeying Divine law as revealed in nature:
The unregenerate have the work of the law in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15). This does not lead them to repent, but it offers them a tool of earthly dominion. If they abide by what their consciences tell them, they can prosper. They hate God, but they love wealth. For a time, their love of the external blessings can overcome their hatred of God and the concomitant love of death (Prov. 8:36b). Furthermore, in times of increasing special grace, Christians will also obey God’s law. The principles of biblical law become common practice. External covenant blessings become widespread. It is in these periods of increasing external blessings in response to men’s external obedience that biblical law can produce civil righteousness among the unregenerate. (p. 95)
As men become epistemologically self-conscious, they must face up to reality – God’s reality. Ours is a moral universe. It is governed by a law-order which reflects the moral character of God. When men finally realize who the churls are and who the liberals are, they have made a significant discovery. They recognize the relationship between God’s standards and the ethical decisions of men. In short, they come to grips with the law of God. The law is written in the hearts of Christians (Heb. 8:10-11; 10:16). The work of the law is written in the hearts of all men (Rom. 2:14-15). The Christians are therefore increasingly in touch with the source of legitimate earthly power: biblical law. (p. 96)
Covenant-breakers must do good externally in order to increase their ability to do evil. They need to use the lever of God’s law in order to increase their influence. These rebels will not be able to act consistently with their own epistemological presuppositions and still be able to exercise power. They want power more than they want philosophical consistency. This is especially true of Western covenant-breakers who live in the shadow of Christian dominion theology. In short, they restrain the working out of the implications of their own epistemological self-consciousness. Believers in randomness, chaos, and meaningless, the power-seekers nevertheless choose structure, discipline, and the rhetoric of ultimate victory. (p. 129)
All Men Bear the Image of God
Elsewhere, North has explained to his readers that “common grace” is this inward witness which God has given to all men as a part of their created being (i.e. the “image of God”) and which makes it possible for the unbeliever to function and even succeed in God’s temporal order. But it has nothing to do with salvation, which must come from “efficacious grace” as manifested in regeneration. [A topic addressed in our last installment.]
If the effects of biblical law are common in cursing, then the effects of biblical law are also common in grace. This is why we need a doctrine of common grace. p. 51
To further consider what North is describing here might be found in the following example:
In the ancient world, pagans abhorred physical labor and sought to enslave their weaker neighbors so that they might spend their days in revelry and orgiastic indulgence.
In contrast, Moses imposed the 4th Commandment, a covenant standard which required a work/rest cycle of six days to one. The notion of “six days of labor” or labor at all, to a pagan war culture, was anathema. Nevertheless, work, especially menial work, implies time and effort toward achieving a goal. The Divine imposition of six days of work created a culture of economic success and hence power.
In the context of our discussion on Revelation 20 and its bearing on Christ’s Parable, the unrighteous benefit from a steady expansion of “common grace” as a residual power derived from the fruits of the believer’s “special grace.” The wicked – Gog and Magog – who hide their rebellion, benefit from the blessings of economic progress and technological advancement. From lapses of self-control, they may confiscate the wealth of the righteous and manufacture weapons to launch further attacks upon them. This process represents a downward spiral until all capital is used up and the society collapses from the lack of righteous producers.
This is precisely what is described in Revelation 20-22. One thousand years have elapsed since the last era of plunder. The righteous are at ease in Zion. They have no walls nor gates. They are vulnerable and require Divine intervention to end the siege.
After that intervention, the saints learn that they must have walls with foundations. The walls have gates. They are always open because there is no night there, but they must have gatekeepers. The New Jerusalem comes to Earth when the saints learn to properly safeguard their “city” from Satan’s devices.
Revisiting Newton’s Lexicon of Prophetic Symbols
Newton alludes to this process in the context of “the Great Tribulation” and how it is brought to an end:
An Angel must fly thro’ the midst of heaven with the everlasting Gospel to preach to all nations, before “Babylon” falls, and the Son of man reaps his harvest. The two Prophets must ascend up to heaven in a cloud, before the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of “Christ.” (Observations, p. 78)
We see, then, that with Newton it is the moral influence of the Gospel as a thing which is “preached” which makes the kingdom of heaven possible. It is not military action, as such, or “fire from heaven” which establishes the kingdom – or the “camp of the saints.” Thus, it is not the use of “force” but moral suasion that fulfills the Great Commission.
But notice that this “everlasting Gospel” is not one of salvation, but rather a “gospel of the kingdom” which is declared. The preaching of this Gospel is then followed by the “ascension” of the “Two Prophets.”
Interestingly, Newton identifies the “Two Prophets” as the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia in Revelation 1-3, “with their offspring” (p. 89). This is perhaps the closest Newton ever comes to openly expounding the Desposynic doctrine. When these churches “ascend up to heaven” – not in a Rapture – but in an enthronement for dominion, it is then that the world can become the kingdoms of Christ.
How do these persecuted descendants “ascend” to rule?
After lying in the streets “dead for 3 1/2 days” – which Newton interprets to be a different iteration of the 3 1/2 years (1260 days/years or 42 months of the Great Tribulation) – they are “given the kingdom” which grows to “fill up the whole Earth.” As cited frequently in this series:
[After which] the judgment is to sit, and they shall take away his dominion, [not at once, but by degrees,] to consume, and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall, [by degrees], be given unto the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.
Daniel 8:26-27 (Newton’s commentary in brackets)
Revelation as Prologue
I argue, as does Newton, that this event is not chronological but occurs as a recapitulation of the same scenario described multiple times throughout the Book of Revelation, but from different vantage points. The New Heaven and New Earth come when the New Jerusalem has a “wall” and gates. Gog and Magog cannot come into the city because the gates are guarded by “the angels,” the Desposynic bishops.
And what about the fire? What does the “fire from heaven” represent? What “force” destroys Gog and Magog? Or as North poses the question:
What kind of power does the gospel offer men for the overcoming of the effects of sin in history?
Ibid., p. 144
(to be continued)
