The Millennium and God's Covenant With the Jews — Philip Powell

The Four Views of Christ’s Return and the Millennium

Okay, well what we're dealing with today, and some may find this a little bit technical, is the signs of the end time and the millennium. And what I want to do is deal with the four different views of the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, and then come down strongly on the view that I favour.

Now, I'm sure you'd agree with me doing that, wouldn't you? Amen? Amen? But I have learned a long time ago, as one of my friends and mentors used to say, that God reserves the right to bless the man who disagrees with me.

I think that's a clever statement, really. But God reserves the right to bless the woman or man who disagrees with me. And that is particularly so with regard to prophecy, I think. Because we're dealing with an area of speculation to a certain extent, although we do have scripture on which to base our views.

And so we're looking at that. Now there are four views of biblical prophecy, and I've asked the question, which do you believe? The fact of the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is beyond dispute.

Professor Jay Pentecost, in his very big volume, it's a voluminous work, some 600 pages, and he's entitled It Sings to Come, in which he deals very, very much with the whole issue of what we call eschatology, the unfolding of end-time events.

And this is what he says, and I think it's a powerful statement. That to which all scripture looks forward, and to which all history presses, is the second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth.

At that time, God's purposes for which the sun came into the world will be realized. Redemption will have been accomplished, and sovereignty will have been manifest on the earth. Now I think you'd say amen to that.

It's an exciting topic, the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now there are four different views, but within these views there are various variations. Now when we talk about the second coming of Christ, I guess most people think in terms of what we talk about, the tribulation.

Will we go through the tribulation? Will we go through part of the tribulation? Or will we escape before any of the tribulation? Or will we go through all the tribulation? Those various views are known as the pre-tribulation rapture, the mid-tribulation rapture, which Barry Smith believes, and which I tend to believe also.

And then the other one is the post-tribulation rapture. Incidentally, in saying the mid-tribulation, let me just qualify that, because that isn't the area that I want to deal with today. But let me qualify that.

The main part of the tribulation only starts halfway. So in both Barry's view and my view, we escape most of it anyway. And that's the way I understand scripture. But those are really incidental aspects of the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The major aspect is to do with what we call the millennium. Now, there are four views. There is what is called the pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ to the earth. Then there is what is known, and it's quite a popular view now, called the amillennial second coming of Jesus Christ.

Then there is the post-millennial second coming of Jesus Christ. We'll look at the definitions in a moment. Not many believe the post-millennial now. And then there is what is called the non-literal or spiritualized view.

And there certainly wouldn't be any of those who believe that among us. It's more the liberal people who really question the Bible altogether that take that view. Now, I'm dealing with this because I think it will help you.

And I think with the notes, and then with the tape, and we'll have it circulating, it will clarify some things. Now, the pre-millennial return of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth. The definition. The pre-millennial view is the view that holds that Christ will return to earth, literally and bodily, before the millennial age begins.

And that by His presence, a kingdom will be instituted over which He will reign. In this kingdom, all of Israel's covenants will be literally fulfilled. It will continue for a thousand years, after which the kingdom will be given by the Son to the Father, when it will merge with His eternal kingdom.

And we'll come back to that in a moment. Because I believe it's the view that the Bible teaches. And it's certainly the view that the denomination that I belong to most of my life, namely the Assemblies of God, has made a tenet of faith of it, actually.

Although I find now that quite a number of ministers within the Assemblies of God don't believe it. And I think that creates an hypocrisy. Because it would be far better to get rid of it, rather than have people within it who are supposed to believe it and don't believe it.

And so that's a very important issue. And the aspect of it is that Christ actually comes to the earth and sets up His kingdom on earth. Now, the other views don't accept that idea. Okay, that's the premillennial return of Jesus Christ to the earth.

And we'll look at that in some detail in a moment. The amillennial second coming of Christ. The way I've worded that, I've deliberately left out His second coming to earth. Because there are people who accept that view, who don't believe that Jesus Christ will actually come back to the earth.

He will only come to the heavens, and there will be the rapture, and we'll go to heaven, and so on. There's various views on the amillennial second coming of Christ. The basic definition is this. The amillennial view holds that there will be no literal millennium on the earth following the second advent.

All prophecies concerning the kingdom are being fulfilled in what is called the inter-advent period, spiritually, by the church. Concerning this view, it has been stated, its most general character is that of denial of a literal reign of Christ upon earth.

Satan is conceived as bound at the first coming of Christ. The present age between the first and second comings is the fulfillment of the millennium. Its adherents differ as to whether the millennium is being fulfilled on the earth, which was the view that Augustine put forward in the 4th century AD.

Incidentally, that was when it first came into acceptance, or vogue. Or whether it is being fulfilled by the saints in heaven, which is a more modern view. It may be summed up in the idea that there will be no millennium, than there is now.

And that the eternal state immediately follows the second coming of Christ. It is similar to post-millennialism, in that Christ comes after what they regard as the millennium. Now I'm starting to write a book.

Pray for me, will you? But what I've done, I've given you a couple of chapters out of that book, in rough draft form. And there are two chapters. One is called Two Wives, One Bride. You might like to read that, and see if you agree with the ideas put forward.

And the other one is The Prophecy and the Millennium. Now you've got them with your notes today. And the one on the prophecy and the millennium, I trace the historic rise of these various views. And in fact, the early church, it is quite clear, from the Encyclopedia Britannica and other works, that the early church accepted only the idea of the pre-millennial return of Jesus Christ.

They called it by a different name. They called it actually by the name, and you won't remember this, but it's called Chileism. It's based on the Greek word for millennium. The word millennium is a Latin word, as you know.

But the Greek word is Chileos. And in actual fact, what they called Chileism, which was a view which was accepted as being the fundamental teaching of the church, that Jesus Christ was coming to the earth to set up a kingdom for a thousand years.

It is, of course, based on Revelation chapter 20. Now, it's interesting to note how the other views arose, both the amillennial view and the postmillennial view, where it really came about when they started to dispute the literal basis of interpreting the scripture.

That's very significant. Okay, the third view is the postmillennial second coming of Christ. This view holds that Christ will return to earth literally and bodily after the millennial age ends. In his book, The Millennial Issue in Modern Theology, the author explains that postmillennialists hold that through preaching the gospel, the whole world will be Christianized and brought to submission to the gospel before the return of Christ.

The name is derived from the fact that in this theory, Christ returns after the millennium, hence postmillennialism. Now, when the view first surfaced around the 12th century AD, through the biblical commentator and philosopher, Joachim, and was later systematized by a liberal free thinker and Unitarian called Daniel Whitby, some of whose works were publicly burned as being heresy, very soon they developed two distinct expressions of the teaching.

One was that the postmillennial, postmillennium, would come in through the preaching of the gospel. The other was, and you must remember that about this time that came around the idea of Darwinian evolution.

And so, the other view sort of tended towards that, that the whole of the human race was evolving to something better. And so, these two views started to surface. Now, when we had the First World War, people's hopes were suddenly shattered.

And from then on, nearly all Bible students rejected the idea of postmillennialism. That's interesting, isn't it? And it's not really a view that is held very much today. Okay, that's just some background.

Now, the other one, which we don't even need to really consider, but let me just put it, I think it's important just to know about it, is on page two of your notes, it's called the non-literal or spiritualized view.

This is a denial of the literal, bodily, personal return of Christ to the earth. And it's held only by the most liberal of Bible students, in whose view promises relating to the second advent of Christ apply only to the perpetual advance of Christ in the church, which includes many particular events.

For example, promises of his second coming are fulfilled by Christ's spiritual presence with his people. So when you hear about Christ's coming, they say, oh yes, Jesus Christ came with us today. And that's the fulfillment of this second coming message.

Now, that, to my view, is pretty crazy. But it has many aspects. For example, promises of his second coming are fulfilled by Christ's spiritual presence with his people, introduced at Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit and fulfilled by the continual spiritual advance in the church.

This view changes the second advent from being an event in itself to simply include all events of the Christian era. According to the author of Things to Come, this view sees the second advent as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, or the day of Pentecost, or the death of the saint, or the conversion of the individual, or any crisis in history or the individual's experience.

Needless to say, such a view is based on the disbelief in the word of God or the spiritualizing method of interpretation. We would reject that right out of hand. Reminds me a bit of a story, you know, of a preacher who was on the platform there.

And he announced his text, came forward and said, Behold, I come quickly. And then forgot what he was going to say. And so he took a few steps back and then remembered his text and walked forward and said, Behold, I come quickly.

And forgot what he was going to say and then stepped back again and came forward, and this time he came a bit too far forward and announced his text, Behold, I come quickly, fell over the platform and landed on the lap of the lady in the front seat.

And he got up and dusted himself down. He said, I'm sorry, madam. She said, it's all right. She said, you warned me three times. I should have been ready. So, the spiritualized view is a bit like that.

You can make anything out of it. But the Bible is very, very clear. The angels, when Jesus ascended to heaven, said, This Jesus, this same Jesus, who is taken from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven.

How did they see him go into heaven? Was it physical? Was it literal? Was it visible? Yes, and that's the way he's going to come back again. I believe that. OK, now, before we get into the thing properly, let's read the basic passage of Scripture, shall we?

Revelation 20 and the Literal Millennium

It's Revelation chapter 20. And here we have the chapter which, I suppose, has created the questions and the arguments and so on, the dispute. Revelation chapter 20. And we'll read the whole chapter, I think.

It's a marvelous chapter. I've come well armed today. I've come with a tape that will last for an hour and a half. So, last week we ran out with the hour. So, how do you feel? All right? All settled down?

OK, good. Revelation chapter 20. Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

There's the first term, like a millennium. Now, incidentally, the word millennium or thousand, in regard to time, appears something like eleven times in the scripture. But it appears six times in regard to this period of time.

And they're all in this particular chapter. So, when somebody tells you, oh, it only appears once, don't believe that. It appears quite a lot more times than once. Certainly six times in this very chapter.

But here is the first time. Bound him for a thousand years, a millennium. And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were finished.

What's the devil doing right now? Deceiving the nations, or the peoples. Right? So, you know, the amillennial view, which says that Satan is already bound. If Satan's bound, who's doing the work? Who's doing the bounder's work?

Sorry. Right? And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, so that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years were finished. But after these things, he must be released for a little while.

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus, and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads, or on their hands.

And they lived and reigned with Christ for what? A millennium, a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again, until the millennium was finished, the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him, what? A thousand years.

Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison, and will go out to deceive the nations, or the peoples, which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

They went up on the breadth of the earth, and surrounded the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are.

And they will be tormented day and night, forever and ever. Will judgment last forever? Yes. A thousand years, after the false prophet and the beast, are cast into the lake of fire, it still describes that they are there.

Not that they were there, but they are there. Verse 11. Then I saw a great white throne, and him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them.

And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the book of life. You got your name in the book of life? And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and Hades, death and hell, delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to its works. Then death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.

This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the book of life, was cast in the lake of fire. So the only security, is to make sure your name is in the book of life. And if your name is in the book of life, you won't be cast into the lake of fire.

Now that is the passage of scripture, which deals with this issue, that we are considering today, the millennium. Now before we get right into it, there are two things that we have to understand, about interpreting the bible.

Literal and Allegorical Methods of Biblical Interpretation

And so I've listed them. There are two foundations, to what we call bible hermeneutics. The word hermeneutics simply means, the method of interpreting the scriptures. It's a very, very important aspect, of understanding the bible.

Because Peter tells us, that no scripture is by private interpretation. And the big problem in the charismatic, and Pentecostal world today, and I don't say that as critical from outside, I say it from within side, because I'm a Pentecostal, and I'm a charismatic.

But the big problem, is that we have shifted the basis, of interpreting the scripture. And we have made it, whatever we feel it means. You know, it becomes, and I'll come to this in a moment, there's been a very big misunderstanding, on the two terms, Logos and Rima.

And actually, I think, I don't know who started it, but I know Yonggi Cho, was one very much involved in it, and most people repeat what Yonggi Cho says, without really thinking the thing through, and I'm sure Yonggi Cho is a good man, but that doesn't mean, he's necessarily right on everything.

And he's, well that's okay, questionable. But anyway, he presents a view, which is really not clear, and not right to the scriptures, about the Rima. And he says, you know, the tendency is to say, well the Rima is the quickened word, the Logos is the written word.

That is not correct. And I've done a detailed study of it, in the scripture, and actually the two terms are used, very, very mostly interchangeably. And that's very, very interesting. But, what we have tended to do, is move away from what we could call, the literal method of interpreting scripture.

Now, let me quickly define that, and then go down to the other method, which is the allegorical method, of interpreting scripture. I trust this is not too technical. I think it's important, and the tapes as they go out, will be helpful.

And I'm sure if, you find it a little technical today, look at the notes, read it through, and then listen to the tape again. The literal method of interpreting scripture, the definition is, that method that gives to each word, the same exact basic meaning, it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking.

It is also called, the grammatical historical method, to emphasize the fact, that the meaning is to be determined, by grammatical and historical considerations. Now, words have meaning, and context has meaning.

So, the literal method of interpreting the scripture, is to look at the actual words, and find out what they mean. They have a grammatical sense, the way words are put together in sentences, have meaning.

God inspired the scriptures, in words. And so, they have meaning. In context, they have a particular meaning, taken on by the context. The grammar, the historical setting, all of that is in very important, and that forms the basis, of what we call the literal method, of interpreting scripture.

Now, the allegorical method, of interpreting scripture, is different. It says, basically, that what is written in the scripture, is all an allegory. That you can't, basically accept it as, substantial fact.

But rather, it illustrates some spiritual truth. Now, that's the ultimate, form of allegorizing of scripture. There's some definitions, that I'd like you to look at. One author in the Protestant Biblical Interpretation, says, that allegorism, is the method, of interpreting a literary text, that regards the literary sense, as a vehicle, for a secondary, more spiritual, and more profound sense.

The author of the book, sings to come, adds this, in this method, the historical import, is either denied, or ignored. And the emphasis, is placed entirely, on a secondary sense. So that the original words, or events, have little or no significance.

So when we come to the issue, of the millennium, where it says, there's going to be a thousand years, they say, oh no, that's an allegory. It's not literal. Now that is the basic difference, in the interpretation.

Another man, in his Biblical Typology, adds this, according to this method, the literal, historical sense of scripture, is completely ignored, and every word and event, is made an allegory, of some kind, either to escape, theological difficulties, or to maintain, certain, peculiar, religious views.

Now, that's the two bases. The literal method, of interpreting the scripture, becomes the basis, of the view, which we believe, which is the pre-millennial return, of Jesus Christ. That he's coming back, to this earth, that he's going to set up a kingdom, for a thousand years, in terms of the book, of the Revelation, chapter 20.

The other three views, in varying degrees, have adopted, what we might call, the allegorical method, of interpreting scripture. Now, of course, the question crops up. Are allegories, then, legitimate?

Yes, they are. Allegories, were used in scripture. Paul says, about Hagar, and Sarah, in Galatians, chapter 3, he says, this is an allegory. Right? Your Bible, will probably say, this is a symbol. Galatians, chapter 4, is the passage of scripture.

But what Paul does there, is not the allegorizing, of scripture. What he does, he takes a literal event. He accepts it as literal. There was a literal Hagar. There was a literal, Sarah. And they had literal sons.

One was called, what? Isaac. The other was called, Ishmael. Now, he takes that, he doesn't question it. So, he's not allegorizing scripture. What he's doing, is taking an event, and he says, this illustrates a spiritual truth.

Now, that's different altogether. We do that with parables. We did that last week, when we talked about the parables, of the goats and the bridesmaids. Okay? We took a parable, and we illustrated spiritual truth.

Jesus did that all the time. The allegorizing method, is not that. The allegorizing method, is destroying, the original sense. And it puts allegory on it. For example, the worst aspect of it, would be, the liberals idea, where they say, oh, well, the story of Adam and Eve, isn't a real story after all.

There wasn't a literal man, Adam and Eve, and a woman, Eve. But it's an allegory. So, they destroy, the actual historic basis. Now, that, you have to understand that. Otherwise, you know, this teaching will, absolutely confuse you.

Because, the Bible does, use allegories. But it does not permit, the allegorizing method, of interpreting scripture. Okay? I, I, I trust that, you know, that is clear. It is not, just think it through, and particularly, with the tape.

Now, arguments in favor, of the method which we, adopt, which is the literal method, of interpreting scripture. I've listed them, there for you. And I want to just expand on them, a little bit. First of all, this is the normal approach, in all language, and language study.

It says, okay, words have meaning. Context has significance. Historical settings, were real. That is what we do, with all language. It does not rule out, figures of speech. For example, the parables. Last week, we talked about the parables.

It accepts, that there are parables. When Jesus, talked about, the ten virgins, five wise, and five foolish. That sort of thing, was happening all the time, in society. But then, he lifts it out of society, and he says, look, this illustrates, a wonderful truth.

He doesn't destroy, the original story. It's a story, which takes place. The same thing, with regard, to the sower, and the seed. Now, that was happening, all the time. But what he does, he takes an event, and he says, look, this has spiritual, significance.

That is quite permissible. Similes, and metaphors. Now, the, probably the worst expression, of this, where, where people try, to, to, destroy, and they do destroy, the very basis, of the gospel, when they reverse, the process.

For example, the great statement, God is love. You agree, with that? Would you agree, with the other idea, that love is God? No. See, what we've done? We've, and this is what, society is doing. They say, okay, the Bible says, God is love.

So, here we are, this is God. Everything's God, if you love. Now, they've reversed the process. The fact, that God is love, tells us, the nature of love. Right? But, you have to understand, the nature of God, to really understand, the nature of love.

Now, love, is, a strong thing. It doesn't, only, express itself, in acts of kindness, but, it also expresses itself, in acts of restraint. It doesn't, only express itself, in forgiveness, but, it expresses itself, also, in chastisement.

So, the person, who comes along, and says, the mum or dad, who chastises their child, doesn't love the child, it's clear, because they gave them a whack. That's nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Because, what they have done, is, they've taken one aspect, of the idea of love, and they've superimposed it, upon the whole, and they've come up, with the wrong conclusion.

Now, this is what we're doing, all the time, in church, folks. We really are. We're saying, you know, a friend of mine, wrote me a letter, I don't know if I brought his letter, I intended to, but, he wrote to me, yeah, I might have it here, in my bible, let me see if I can find it.

And he expressed, the, the, the concern, which has been mine, for a long, long time. And this man, is a man, who has held, very, very prominent, position, in, the denomination, that I've been linked with, all my life, in many, many areas.

And he says, this, and I got this, this letter, this week. He says, these are days of sensationalism, in the Pentecostal, and charismatic world. And I fear, that we are witnessing, a real deception, in the area of doctrine.

Paul's prophetic word, to Timothy, is coming to pass. Many shall depart, from the faith, giving heed, to seducing spirits, and doctrines, of devils. I did not think, at one time, that the end time apostasy, would affect, the Pentecostal church.

Maybe, that was a measure, of religious, denominational pride, or arrogance, to think, that we were impervious. I thought of apostasy, as relating, to the other, more mainline, Christian denominations, where there has been, such a blatant denial, of foundational, Christian truth.

However, in recent times, I have become, increasingly concerned, for the trends, in doctrine. So that whilst, we may not actually, be uttering, our denials, of the truth, and continue, to subscribe, to our statements, of faith, sound as they are, in point of fact, we are in default, by not proclaiming, such truth, and watering down, the gospel.

We state our belief, in the total depravity, of man, yet we now, have our preachers, not actually denying it, but saying that, we must not tell people, they are sinners. Do not preach, God's wrath, or eternal punishment, so that we may, the inward is, a non-threatening, environment.

If that is not, an apostate condition, nothing is. May God help us, Phil, to earnestly, contend for the faith, once delivered, unto the saints. I say amen, to that. But that is, the subtleness, of what's happening.

We're saying, that we've got to, make it acceptable, to people. Now Jesus, didn't make it acceptable, to people. It says, another good friend of mine, John Anderson, says, he says, we are preaching, such messages today, which allow people, to go to hell, thinking good, about themselves.

That's true. And what we've got to do, is stand, and declare, the truth. And really, this allegorizing, method, is the thing, that has influenced, the whole basis, of thinking. Symbols, the literal method, admits, of symbols, types, etc.

But they acknowledge, that they relate, to prior, literal, meaning, of terms. Now we'll come, to this thing about, and his allegory, in Galatians chapter 3, verse 21 to 31. Let me just read it to you.

Galatians chapter 3, I've already alluded to it, but it is very, very fundamental, to our understanding, of the allegorizing method, as distinct, from the literal method. Galatians 3, 21 to 31. Sorry, if I got it wrong, Galatians might be 4, is it?

Yeah, chapter 4, alright. Tell me now, you who desire, to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written, that Abram had two sons, one by a bond woman, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman, was according to the flesh.

See what he's doing? He's accepting, an historic fact, and he's building upon it now. And he of the free woman, through promise. Which things are, the old King James says, an allegory, or symbolic? For these are, the two covenants.

The one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar. So he says, Hagar and Ishmael, represent Sinai. For this Hagar, is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage, with her children.

But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, rejoice O barren, you who do not bear, break forth and shout, you who do not travail, for the desolate, has many more children, than she, who has a husband.

Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. He's just using a parallel. He's using an illustration. That's quite legitimate. That is not the allegorizing, of scripture. That is taking an allegory, and explaining, spiritual significance.

But as he who was born, according to the flesh, then persecuted him, who was born according, to the spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what does the scripture say? Cast out the bond woman, with her son.

For the son of the bond woman, shall not be heir, with the son of the free woman. So then brethren, we are not children, of the bond woman, but we are of the free. Now if you understand, what's going on in Galatians, you can see what he's doing.

The Galatians were under threat, to become back under the law. Right? The law was, that they had to, have circumcision. They had to obey, all the commandments. Both the civil commandments, and the moral commandments, and so on.

And so they came back, under Judaism. And so Paul says, no this is not it. This is not right. And he uses, his old testament analogy, to establish his point. He says, there's conflict, between the flesh, Ishmael, and the spirit, all the way through.

And he says, you do this, within the context of the church, you will have conflict. He said, it's not true. We are children, from above. Now he doesn't say, that we are to disregard, God's moral law. But what he is saying, is that we are not to follow, all the civil details, of circumcision, and all of that, in order to, have salvation.

Can you see the point? Now that is not, the allegorizing of scripture. That is simply taking, an allegory, and using it, to bring out, some spiritual truth. Which is, important. Now the other thing about, this literal method, is that, most of the bible makes sense, when interpreted literally.

You would agree with that. The fifth thing, apart from the literal method, we are left with, human imaginings. If you don't accept, the literal method, of interpreting the bible, then anybody's view, goes.

I have given you, some quotes there. Jerome of Prague, who was a 15th century, martyr said, the faultiest style, of teaching, is to corrupt, the meaning of scripture, and to drag, its reluctant utterance, to our own will.

Page three, making spiritual, scriptural mysteries, out of our imaginations. Farah, in his history of interpretation, says, when once the principle, of allegory is admitted, when once we start, with the rule, that whole passages, and books of scripture, say one thing, when they mean another, the reader is delivered, hand and foot, to the caprice, of the interpreter.

Right? That's what very often happens, and the extension of that, he says that when that happens, the person can be absolutely sure, of nothing except, what is dictated to him, by the church. And in all ages, the authority of the church, has been falsely claimed, for the presumptuous tyranny, of false prevalent opinions.

How true that is. But what the church says, goes. And it's happening now, in Pentecostal circles. They say, I'm the leader here, I'm the pastor, if you don't like, what I say, well you can sort of walk.

In fact, my dad expressed, a very deep concern, about a statement, that was seen to be made, like that, where one pastor said, if you don't like, what we're doing, we release you, to go elsewhere. Well, who has right, to release people?

That's absolute nonsense. Pastors have set themselves up, as if they own the church. And friends, there's only one, who owns the church. And his name is, the Lord Jesus Christ. Now I believe, we should respect, proper authority, and all of that.

But I do not believe, in popacy. Whether it's Pentecostal, or any other. We do not accept that. It has to be, according to the scriptures. If they speak, not according to, these scriptures, it is because, there is no truth in them.

And once you start, doing that, you're on the slippery, slope, down. And it is being done, very, very, much, today. Bernard Ram, in his Protestant, Biblical interpretation says, to state that the principle, meaning of the Bible, is a second sense meaning.

And that the principle, method of interpreting, is spiritualizing, is to open the door, to almost uncontrolled, speculation, and imagination. For this reason, we have insisted, that the control, in interpretation, is the literal method.

Now let me get back, a little bit, to this idea of Remer, and Logos. See, what has tended to happen, is that we've gone, to the scriptures, and we say okay, is there a verse, that is quickened to me. Now, that's alright, to an extent.

But we've got to remember, that the scriptures, were written, with principles in mind. And so what we do, is we don't follow, a little word, that comes. But we follow, the principle, that is taught, in the scripture.

In fact, we were part of a little, a group that was developing, which caused me great concern. Because, very often, and particularly, it seemed that ladies, are appealed to in this regard. The pastor was saying, have you got a word about this?

Now that is dangerous. I have discovered, in my 30 plus years, of Christian ministry, that once you get a pastor, surrounded by a couple, or more women, who manipulate him, with little words, you're in danger.