The other day I visited a Hardshell web page that I periodically visit, the
"March To Zion" (
here) website. I have referred to this website more than once over the past several years and have had to correct some gross errors of one of its editors, elder Ben Winslett (who is also pastor of Flint River PB church of Alabama). We have also corrected him and his associates for misrepresenting what their forefathers meant when they stated in their articles of faith that all the elect will be
"regenerated and converted." Under the heading
"Sylvester Hassell On The 1000 Year Reign" the writers begin with these introductory words (emphasis mine):
"Hassell presents three historic viewpoints of the 1000 year reign, as mentioned only in Revelation chapter 20. Primitive Baptists, as with most predestinarians and historic theologians, are basically a-millennialists."
That is true, but not universally so. Many "Primitive Baptists" have been premillennial including elder Sylvester Hassell, co-author of their history, a Hardshell history, along with his father, Cushing Biggs Hassell. Yet, the elders who run this website, posted the article because it supposedly shows that Sylvester was not Premillennial, and suggesting that he was Amillennial as themselves. I was curious about this because I had posted citations from Sylvester Hassell where he shows he was likely Premillennial. I will re-post them again at the end of this posting.
Wrote the editors at March to Zion:
"This writing examines the basic principles of each of the three main opinions, pre-millenialism, a-millenialisism, and post-millenialism.
(Note: words in quotations are just that, quotations of other writers whom Hassell quotes)"
That is true and it is hard to say which one was held to by either C.B. Hassell or Sylvester Hassell from reading this section in their history. It seems to me that one or both of them likely, at the time of writing this section (which C.B. says was in 1876), favored the Postmillennial view. The writer of this section was C.B. Hassell and not Sylvester. We cannot assume that Sylvester agreed with the view of his father, if indeed his father had a firm conviction on the question. Further, if Sylvester disagreed with his father on some things he says, he may have decided to not say anything disagreeable in the footnotes (which were written by Sylvester). After all, as we will see, the elder Hassell had criticisms of all three views.
We have shown in previous years some things from the writings of Sylvester from 1935 (shortly before his death) that showed that Sylvester did hold strongly to the Premillennial view. But, the heading of the article in "March To Zion" says "Sylvester On The 1000 Year Reign" and the citations from the history are supposed to say that Sylvester Hassell did not believe in the coming Millennium. Further, as stated, this section was written by C.B. and not by Sylvester.
So, with these things in mind let us begin with the following citation from the book "History of the Church of God" (which was written and co-authored by both C.B. Hassell and his son Sylvester), and from that section that the article in question cites from.
"The present writer has read, with deep attention, the most recent and elaborate arguments advanced against the Bible doctrine of the everlasting duration of future punishment; he has compared these reasonings with themselves, with the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, and with the latest and most authoritative lexicons, and he is constrained to declare his belief that, for the very perfection of sophistry, these infidel treatises have no equal in the entire range of human literature. The same methods of explanation would make anything mean nothing." (pgs. 263-264)
Who is "the present writer"? Why does the history not rather say "The present writers"? The reason is the writer is singularly C.B. Hassell. Many people do not realize that the history is far more the work of the elder Hassell than that of the younger, though the younger gets most of the credit. In fact, sometime later in the history we have Sylvester telling us that he is now the writer (his father died before the history was enlarged as planned), as C.B. is telling us in this section of his history. Further, as I have shown in previous postings, C.B. Hassell believed in means in being born again and of the necessity of being of the Christian faith to be saved, that all the elect would hear the gospel and believe it. Sylvester is the one who later jumped on the no means bandwagon and began to teach the no means view and took the anti means side in the division over that issue in the latter end of the 19th century, although he tried to take a middle ground.
See these postings regarding these things:
Says Cushing Biggs in the history (emphasis mine):
"The Jewish rabbis thought that, as the world was created in six days, and on the seventh God rested, so there would be six millenaries (or six thousand years), followed by a Sabbatical Millennium” (one thousand years). If there were exactly 4,000 years before the birth of Christ, this opinion, if true, would make the dawn of the Millennium about 2000 A.D.; but, as we have stated before, there are 200 different opinions of the exact interval between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ, so that the matter is, as to its date, quite uncertain. Whether the thousand years of Satan’s confinement in the bottomless pit, mentioned six times in the twentieth chapter of Revelation, are to be before or after the second advent of Christ, does not very plainly appear from the Scriptures, and is still a warmly contested point with the ablest Bible scholars."
One must be careful in reading such writers who often will speak in the third person when speaking of a doctrinal position that others hold. If C.B. (or Sylvester) held firmly to either pre or post millennial, it seems he would have so stated it in the context of the above words. He does not seem to deny that the 1000 years are literal. But, Amillennialists generally do not believe the "thousand years" to be literally a thousand years for they say the Millennium began with the death of Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant by the blood of Christ and ends with his second coming, which now is about two thousand years or two millenniums.
C. B. Hassell confesses to be strongly inclined to the Postmillennial view and to the historical approach to the Book of Revelation. And, like many Postmillennialists, he believed that the thousand years would be literally a thousand years. He also, like they, believes that this Millennial age will be a time when the whole world is under the rule of Christians!
He also, as we will see, speaks of Dr. John Gill being Premillennial and offering strong arguments in favor of it, a statement which leads me to think that the elder Hassell was willing to allow that it may be the correct view. Notice what he wrote:
"John Gill (A.D. 1697-1771), perhaps the most learned, able, sound, upright and humble Baptist minister since the days of Paul, was thoroughly persuaded that Christ would come personally upon the earth again just before the Millennium, and destroy His enemies, and reign personally with His saints on earth a thousand years; and, in the second volume of his Body of Divinity, he advances a large number of powerful Scripture arguments in support of this position."
The next citation from the History gives us these words from C.B. Hassell:
"But it is the opinion of the great majority of Bible scholars that there will be but one more personal advent of Christ, and that it will be after the Millennium."
Notice that he does not say that it is his opinion. Further, I don't know how C.B. could possibly know which view has been more favored throughout the history of discussion on the point. I do not believe that "the great majority of Bible scholars" have taught that Christ's second coming was after the Millennium.
Next, C.B. mentions the view that the seven churches of the Apocalypse give a prophetic chronology of the church from Pentecost to the second coming, a view that seems that only Premillennialists believe. Though he does not say it is his view, he does not denounce it either. Wrote C.B Hassell:
"We learn, therefore, that Christ requires His churches to be faithful in doctrine, in practice and in discipline. Many suppose that the seven churches prophetically represent the seven successive ages of the general church. Vitringa regards Ephesus as representing the church from A. D. 30 to 250; Smyrna from 250 to 311; Pergamos from 311 to 700; Thyatira from 700 to 1200 ; Sardis from 1200 to 1517; Philadelphia from 1517 to 1617; and Laodicea from 1617 to the present time. Laodicea, it may be remarked, used to be the capital of the greater Phrygia, and a place of great size, splendor and luxury; but it is now a perfect mass of ruins." (pgs. 250-251)
Next, C.B. Hassell writes, citing Postmillennialist Philip Schaff:
"The Apocalypse is not a prophetical manual of church history and chronology in the sense of a prediction of particular persons, dates and events. This would have made it useless to the first readers, and would make it useless now to the great mass of Christians. It gives, under symbolic figures and for popular edification, an outline of the general principles of Divine government and the leading forces in the conflict between Christ's kingdom and His foes, which is still going on under ever- varying forms." (251-252, citing Schaff)
But, it seems that C.B. Hassell would not agree with Schaff on all he says in the words cited by C.B. for he inclined to the historical view of the Apocalypse, seeing church history written in advance, the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls being a linear development of God's providence from the first coming of Christ to the second coming. Further, C.B. does not say he agrees with it; And, it is quite evident that he cites from scholars who say things he does not agree with. Certainly Schaff is wrong to so limit the events and scenes of the Book of Revelation to "general principles of divine government" so that very little is specific or literal. It is self evidently wrong for the Book of Revelation is full of specific times, places, peoples, and events.
Next, C.B. Hassell writes:
"There are three methods of interpreting the book of Revelation — the Praeterist, the Futurist and the Historical (or continuous). The Praeterist maintains that the prophecies in Revelation have already been fulfilled— that they refer chiefly to the triumph of Christianity over Judaism and paganism, signalized in the downfall of Jerusalem and of Rome, Against this view it is urged that if all these prophecies were fulfilled some 1,400 years ago (the Western Roman Empire fell A. D. 476), their accomplishment should be so perspicuous as to be universally manifest, which is very far from being the case. The Futurist interpreters refer all the book, except the first three chapters, to events which are yet to come. Against this view it is alleged that it is inconsistent with the repeated declarations of a speedy fulfillment at the beginning and end of the book itself (i. 3 ; xxii. 6, 7, 12, 20). Against both these views it is argued that, if either of them is correct, the Christian church is left without any prophetic guidance in the Scriptures, during the greater part of its existence; while the Jewish church was favored with prophets during the most of its existence. The Historical or Continuous expositors believe the Revelation a progressive history of the church from the first century to the end of time. The advocates of this method of interpretation are the most numerous, and among them are such famous writers as Luther, Sir Isaac Newton, Bengel, Faber, Elliott, Wordsworth, Hengstenberg, Alford, Fausset and Lee. The ablest living expositors of this class consider the seven seals, seven trumpets, seven thunders and seven vials as all synchronous, or contemporaneous, or parallel, a series of cyclical collective pictures, each representing the entire course of the world (as connected with the church) down to the end of time; just as the seven churches in the first three chapters represent the universal church, the message to each pointing to the second coming of Christ. So the introduction in the first chapter, and the conclusion in the last chapter, refer to the beginning and the end of time, and to the second coming of Christ. Three times in the last chapter is His quick coming predicted. For these reasons the book of Revelation has been called the " Book of the Prophecy of Christ's Coming." (252-253)
So, from the above writing, what does it tell us about the views of C.B. Hassell or his son Sylvester? To me it seems that he favors the "Historical" or "Continuous" view of the book of Revelation. Against that view he mentions no arguments against. And, it meets his criteria, for the Book of Revelation means something for every generation existing between the first and second comings of the Lord. Each generation can see where they are on the "time line" of the Book of Revelation. He shows he is not Amillennial for he believes the Millennium is future and will last a literal thousand years.
Wrote C.B. Hassell further:
"Scarcely are any two leading interpreters agreed as to the exact events alluded to by each prophecy; no doubt many of the prophecies are still future, and cannot be understood until their fulfillment. While the prophecies may have one, or more than one, typical, imperfect, historical fulfillment, there can be no question that they also imply a higher spiritual fulfillment." (253)
Notice how the words of C.B. Hassell seem to favor tolerance on the question of eschatology and of unfulfilled prophecy. He also asserts two premises that I have also asserted many times through the years of teaching. First, he says some prophecies cannot be fully understood till the time of their fulfillment (or immediately preceding their fulfillment), and I have also called attention to the fact that many of the old saints confessed that some prophecies would be understood more perfectly by the saints who live at the time of the end. Second, he states that prophecies may have more than one fulfillment, which I have stated before, talking about dual fulfillment of certain prophecies.
Also, I would observe that it should not encourage anyone to fail to study prophecy and eschatology because so many disagree on some of the prophecies. The same was true with most in regard to the first coming of Christ and of fulfilled prophecies. The fact of so much disagreement does not negate our own personal responsibility to study the matter and seek the right interpretation.
Wrote C.B. Hassell:
"These scholars believe that the very difficult passage in Rev. xx. 1-10 has the- following meaning: That "Christ has in reserve for His church a period of universal expansion and of preeminent spiritual prosperity, when the spirit and character of the noble army of martyrs shall be reproduced again in the great body of God's people in an unprecedented measure (as Elias is said to have lived again in John the Baptist), and when these martyrs shall, in the general triumph of their case, and in the overthrow of that of their enemies, receive judgment over their foes, and reign in the earth; while the party of Satan, called 'the rest of the dead,' shall not flourish again until the thousand years be ended, when it shall prevail again for a little season. Three considerations favor this interpretation: It occurs in one of the most highly figurative books of the Bible; this explanation is perfectly consistent with all the other more explicit teachings of the Scriptures on the several points involved; the same figure, that of life again from the dead, is frequently used in Scripture to express the idea of the spiritual revival of the church (Isa. xxvi. 19 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 12-14; Hosea vi. 1-3; Rom. xi. 15 ; Rev. xi. 11). And three considerations bear against the literal interpretation of Rev. xx. 1-10: The doctrine of two literal resurrections, first of the righteous, and then, after an interval of a thousand years, of the wicked, is taught nowhere else in the Bible, and this passage is a very obscure one; it is inconsistent with what the Scriptures uniformly teach as to the nature of the resurrection-body, that it is to be spiritual, not natural, or ordinary flesh and blood (1 Cor. xv. 44), whereas this interpretation represents the saints, or at least the martyrs, as rising and reigning a thousand years in the flesh, and in this world as at present constituted; and the literal interpretation of this passage contradicts the clear and uniform teaching of the Scriptures that all the dead are to rise and be judged together at the second coming of Christ (John v. 28, 29 ; Rev. xx. 11-15; Matt. xxv. 31-46 ; Acts xvii. 31 ; 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Thess. i. 6-10), which is to be immediately succeeded by the burning of the world, and the revelation of the new Heavens and earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness (Psalm cii. 26, 27 ; Isa. li. 6 ; Rom. viii. 19-23 ; Heb. xii. 26, 27 ; 2 Peter ill. 10-13 ; Rev. xx. and xxi.)." (359-360)
I think this shows that C.B. Hassell favored the Postmillennial view. Also, keep in mind that at this time there was great excitement about eschatology. The 19th century gave birth to the Millennarian movement of Baptist William Miller (and thus "Millerism") who predicted Christ would come between 1843-1844. It is also the century that gave us the idea of a secret rapture of believers before the day of wrath and tribulation, and when many began to advance the idea of two second comings of the Lord (or one coming in two stages). It is also the century that gave us many books on eschatology. It also was a century when Christianity was becoming more pervasive in society and in the world. Things seemed rosy for a time when Christians would usher in the Millennium by their evangelistic efforts. Alexander Campbell, father of the Campbellite schism, changed the name of his paper "Christian Baptist" to "Millennial Harbinber." Postmillennialism was popular but Premillennialism was also gaining in popularity. Many think that the horrors of the first world war, "the war to end all wars," was a catalyst for many bible scholars abandoning Postmillennialism. The world was not getting better and a 1000 years of peace and prosperity did not seem possible apart from the coming of Christ first. Sylvester may have been one of those.
My previous writing on Sylvester's view on the Millennium can be read under
"Hassell on the Millenium." (
here) I quoted from the same source which can be read under
"Questions and Answers" (see
here). It is copied from the
"Gospel Messenger" and from the
"Advocate and Messenger," being compiled by R.H. Pittman, Luray, Virginia April, 1935. The answers given to the questions appearing in this book
are mainly the work of that
Authoritative Historian, Scholar and Editor, Elder Sylvester Hassell. When Pittman answers any question you see the initial "P" after each answer.
It will be seen that Sylvester Hassell was a Premillennialist in 1935. So, the big question is this; was he a Premillennialist in 1876 when C.B. Hassell wrote the above in his history? If he was inclined to Postmillennialism, as his father seems to be, when did he change his mind?
Here is the evidence that Sylvester Hassell was Premillennial (emphasis mine).
Q. What is meant by the binding and loosing of Satan (Rev. 20:3)?
A. He is not bound now or excluded from the earth, but he goes to and from in the earth, seeking whom he may devour (Job 2:2; I Pet. 5:8) and deceives the whole world, tempting them and leading them into sin (Rev. 12:9); but in the future he will be excluded from the earth a thousand years by God's almighty Power, and then truth and righteousness, peace and happiness will prevail, the nations not then being deceived by him. When the thousand years are expired, Satan, according to God's purpose, will be loosed or allowed to roam over the earth again a little season, and he will again deceive the nations, and lead them, in the last great apostasy, to attempt to destroy the people of God, and God will then manifest His righteous wrath and infinite power in casting him and his angels and all his wicked followers into the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Rev. 20:21).
Q. In Rev. 20:5 it is said, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished," does not "the rest of the dead" mean the non-elect dead?
A. I think so.
(Note: C.B. Hassell had stated that the idea of a separation in time between the resurrections of the just and the unjust was contrary to what he believed was taught elsewhere in scripture, that both classes would be raised in one general simultaneous resurrection. Sylvester does not agree with that (nor do I of course; there are several scriptures besides Rev. 20 that show that the two classes are not raised at the same time).)
Q. Who are the nations that will be deceived by the Devil when he is loosed out of his prison where he has been confined a thousand years (Rev. 20:7-10)?
A. The non-elect, unredeemed, unregenerate, ungodly people then living in the world.
Q. Is the present time the millennium (or thousand years) of Christ's greatest spiritual reign on the unrenewed earth? (Rev. 20:1-6).
A. Certainly not, for the Devil still deceives the whole world, and is inciting the nations to wage the most colossal and awful war ever known in history (Rev. 12:9; 13:14; compared with Rev. 20:3); the present time is the Devil's bi-millennium, or the two thousand years of his reign on earth, by the sufferance of God, since the birth of Christ.
So, the editors at March To Zion should inform their readers on the true views of Sylvester Hassell and quit insinuating that he was Amillennial as they mostly are today.
It is possible that the answers given above could be said by a Postmillennialist. So, it is not clear that Hassell was Premillennial. It is clear that he was not Amillennial. But, from what he wrote elsewhere on the second coming of Christ, I believe he was Premillennial.
