Eschatology Q & A: What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Different Millennial Views?

Lëmi asks (October 31, 2007):  "Could you explain briefly all the millennial positions pointing out their main strengths and weaknesses?"

Thanks for the question Lëmi.  Although I could write a book-length answer to your question (and hopefully will one of these days), I'll do what I can to give you as concise an answer as possible.

Lets start with premillennialism.  As for its strengths, there seem to be two.  One is the fact that Revelation 19 depicts the return of Christ, while Revelation 20:1-10 depicts the reign of Christ on the earth.  If these chapters describe consecutive events (a point with which I would take issue) then this would place the millennial age after Christ's return.  A second apparent strength is that a number of church fathers state that this was the teaching passed on to them by the eyewitnesses to the ministry of the apostles, although this was not the only view in the early church (see Charles Hill's Regnun Caelorum)--Click here: Amazon.com: Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity: Books: Charles E. Hill

There are several serious weaknesses with premillennialism.  The first weakness is that premillenniarians have to explain how it is that people make it through the return of Christ and yet remain in natural bodies.  Jesus taught that his return marks the end of the age (Matthew 13:39) and that after his return, people no longer marry or are given in marriage (Luke 20:34-36).  At Christ's return, he judges the world, making it tough for someone to be judged and yet not eternally condemned or rewarded with eternal life (Matthew 25:31-46).  This is especially problematic for premillennarians, since they claim that their view is based upon a "literal" interpretation of prophecy.  Where, then, is the one-thousand year gap between the return of Christ and the judgment (which, according to premillennarians takes place at the end of the millennium) when Jesus teaches that judgment takes place at his return?  Those who take the Bible "literally" find themselves having to insert a gap into the biblical text which isn't there. 

The other problem with premillennialism is, if it be true, there is a great apostasy on the earth after one thousand years of Christ's rule (Revelation 20:7-10).  If there cannot be people on earth in natural bodies during the thousand years (which supposedly comes after Christ returns), then who are the people who revolt against Christ at the end of the millennium?  And that after Christ's own rule?  It makes much more sense to see Revelation 20:1-10 as a description of the entire inter-advental age, since the scene takes place in heaven where the thrones are (vv. 1-6), before shifting to the earth in verses 7-10.

As for dispensational premillennialism, both the strengths and weaknesses of premillennialism generally apply.  But if we consider dispenationalism on its own terms, its main strength is a stress upon progressive revelation (the careful consideration of how God interacts with his people throughout the different stages of redemptive history).  We can also say that one of its strengths is its emphasis upon the imminent return of Christ. 

As for weaknesses, there are many.  One is that the presuppositions of dispensationalism (which, despite protests to the contrary, is a hermeneutic) cannot be sustained.  The belief that God has distinct redemptive purposes for Israel and for the Gentiles is highly problematic in light of a text like Ephesians 2:11-22.   Another serious problem with dispensationalism is the way in which the "literal interpretation" of Scripture is worked out in practice.  The dispensational stress upon "literalism" actually amounts to an Israel-centered hermeneutic, largely taken from the Old Testament prophets which then predetermines what the New Testament authors can tell us about Israel.

As I have argued elsewhere (Click here: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur), this approach is seriously flawed.  The New Testament presents a Christ-centered reading of redemptive history and reinterprets the place of Israel in that redemptive history in light of the coming of Jesus Christ, who is the true Israel.

As for postmillennialism, remember that both postmillennarians and amillennarians hold in common the idea that the millennial age precedes the return of Christ and the consummation.  So the structural strengths and weaknesses of each will be similar.  The essential difference between postmillennialism and amillennialism is in how we understand the nature and character of the millennial age.

Postmillennialism's greatest strength is the rhetorical stress upon optimism regarding the kingdom of God and its ability to transform the nations of the earth before Christ returns.  Postmillennarians extend the kingdom of God beyond spiritual matters (word and sacrament) to the transformation of culture--a point with which I would disagree.  Postmillennarians generally believe that Jesus returns to a saved earth, he does not return to save the earth (as amillennarians believe). 

This means that the biggest weakness of postmillennialism is the determination of the beginning of the millennial age--"when do the thousand years begin?"  Some have seen this in the conversion of Israel, the overthrow of Antichrist (usually defined as Romanism or Islam) and the conversion of the nations.  Obviously, these things have not yet happened.  Therefore, the biggest weakness of postmillennialism is the denial of an imminent return of Christ--which explains why so many postmillennarians are attracted to preterism, the understanding Christ returned in judgment upon Israel in A.D. 70.

As for amillennialism, it has no weaknesses whatsoever, since it is the biblical position (I'm being facetious).  In all seriousness, Amillennialism's strength is its understanding that imminent return of Christ is the consummation of all things and marks the fullness of both the kingdom of God and the age to come.  Christ will return to judge the world (Matthew 13:36-43; Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9), raise the dead (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17; 1 Corinthians 15:54-57) and make all things new (2 Peter 3:3-15).  He does not return to set up a kingdom (as in premillennialism), but to usher in the eternal state and create a new heaven and earth--the final consummation.

The biggest weakness of amillennialism is in the details--what does John mean by the binding of Satan?  Can we really say Satan is bound now? (I say "yes").  What about the first resurrection in Revelation 20?  Is John referring to regeneration, or the bodily resurrection?  These things require a fair amount of explanation, especially since most American evangelicals know only the premillennial view.

 

That's a very brief answer.  For more information, I would suggest my two books:  A Case for Amillennialism (Click here: Riddleblog - A Case for Amillennialism - Understanding the End), and Man of Sin (Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist), or the book by Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Click here: Amazon.com: The Bible and the Future: Books: Anthony A. Hoekema)

Some Interesting Links . . .

Yeah, this is just what we need--an MBA for church bureaucrats.  Villanova is offering an MBA specifically designed for Catholic priests to prevent embezzlement.  Click here: The Church M.B.A. | Liveblog | Christianity Today

The Holy Father loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!  In addition to good works, Benedict XVI has approved a document instructing the Roman faithful to engage in evangelism.  Do we really need an encyclical to tell us to share the gospel?   Rome thinks so.  But shouldn't Rome be worried about getting the gospel right before encouraging the faithful to share it?  Click here: Good Works Not Enough | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Here's a blast from the evangelical subculture past.  You better not take the mark!  Click here: YouTube - 666 - DeGarmo and Key

Its early in the new year, but the Virgin Mary has already made an appearance on someone's living room wall in Portland (Click here: Family Sees Virgin Mary On Living Room Wall - Portland News Story - WMTW Portland), while a Christ-like image has appeared on a Potato.  Click here: MyFox Orlando | Houston Woman Finds Christ-Like Image in Potato.  Looks like 2007 will be a lot like 2008!

You Have Been Set Free from Sin -- Romans 6:15-23

The Fourteenth in a Series of Sermons on Paul's Epistle to the Romans

One of the most important themes in Paul’s theology is union with Christ.  Through faith, all believers are united to Jesus Christ and thereby receive all of his saving benefits.  In Romans 6, Paul makes the point that because we are “in Christ,” we have been crucified with Christ, buried and entombed with him by virtue of our baptism, and raised from the dead with Christ to newness of life.  We have been set from sin’s horrible consequence (which is death), from it’s shameful guilt (which is condemnation) and its desperate tyranny (which is slavery to the flesh).  And so to establish a basis for sanctification, Paul reminds us that in Christ we have died and rise to newness of life.  This is why Paul’s discussion of sanctification begins with the exhortation for all Christians to reckon ourselves dead to sin, but alive to God (Romans 6:11).

Having established in Romans 5:12-21 that Adam is federal head of the human race under the covenant of works, and that Jesus Christ is the federal head of all those under the covenant of grace, in Romans 6:1-14, Paul addresses the subject of sanctification.  To properly understand Paul’s doctrine of sanctification, we must understand that what is said throughout Romans 6, 7, and 8, only makes sense in light of the important distinctions set out in the last half of Romans 5.  The havoc Adam’s disobedience brought upon the human race, must be seen in light of Jesus Christ’s obedience through which the many are made or reckoned as righteous.

As Paul sets forth his gospel, it becomes clear that all those freely and instantaneously justified through faith also begin the process of sanctification through that same act of faith at the time of their justification.  The point is important, so I’ll say it again:  Paul cannot conceive of someone who is justified, who is also not undergoing the process of sanctification.  Although in evangelical circles we commonly hear people speak of a two-stage Christian life–someone “accepting” Jesus as their Savior, but not yet making him Lord of their lives–such a notion would be inconceivable to Paul.  For Paul, we are either in Adam or in Christ.  If we remain in Adam, we are subject to sin, condemnation and death.  If we are in Christ, we are set from these very things because we have died and risen to newness of life.

To use one writer’s phrase, we have been transferred from the realm (dominion) of Adam to the realm or dominion of Christ through faith, something Paul will later tell us is a gift of God which arises in direct connection with the preaching of the gospel (cf. Romans 10:17).  At the time of this transfer from Adam to Christ, something definitive occurred, seen in the way in which Paul speaks of these events as completed acts (the use of the aorist tense).  It is because we are now under the dominion of Christ, we must look to the pattern of Jesus Christ’s life, death, burial and resurrection as the pattern for our own sanctification.  As Jesus was crucified, died and was buried, so are we.  And even as Jesus was raised from the dead, so too are we!  This is the lens through which we must think about our sanctification.

To read the rest of the sermon, click here:  click here
 

Then I Saw a New Heaven and Earth -- Revelation 21:1-22

The Thirtieth in a Series of Sermons on the Book of Revelation

As the Book of Revelation progressively unfolds, the apostle John gives us a panoramic vision of the history of redemption.  He has taken us from the coming of the Messiah all the way to the end of the age.  But after describing the final judgment in Revelation 20:11-15, in the final two chapters of this great book, John now gives us a glimpse of the New Jerusalem and the so-called eternal state.  What is described here is what we commonly speak of as heaven.

The first 20 chapters of Revelation have told quite a story.  Through the use of dramatic apocalyptic symbols taken directly from the Old Testament and then set against the backdrop of the first century Roman empire, John has “revealed” the story behind the story, taking us from the demonically-empowered Roman empire waging war upon the church of Jesus Christ, to the final chapters of redemptive history which describe the coming destruction of the Babylon the Great, the fate of the beast and the false prophet, the defeat of Satan, and the final judgment.

Recall that in the previous section of Revelation (chapter 20, verses 11-15), John describes the final judgment and that terrible day when the books are opened and all of the dead are judged according to what they have done.  Having established a covenant of works with Adam in the Garden of Eden at the very beginning of the redemptive drama, at the end of time God will judge all men and women according to their deeds, whether good or evil.  For those who know not Christ, this will be a day of absolute terror, when all of their public and private sins are revealed, and when they hear the final and irreversible verdict of eternal punishment in the lake of fire, along with the Devil and all those who have served him. 

But for the Christian believer, on the other hand, judgment day is not future, it is past.  Indeed, when Jesus Christ died on the cross that first Good Friday, he was punished for all of our sins and for all of our transgressions–sins past, sins present, sins future.  Because Jesus Christ bore the judgment of God we will not face God’s wrath on the final day.  Therefore, when we appear before God’s throne on the day of judgment, we will not hear words of condemnation.  Rather, because of Christ’s saving work on our behalf, we will hear words of blessing–“well done, good and faithful servant.  Enter into that kingdom which has been prepared for you from before the creation of the world” (Matthew 25:21).  And now in Revelation 21-22, John describes the glorious inheritance which awaits all of the people of God.

To read the rest of this sermon, click here 

Mike Huckabee and the Two Kingdoms

Now that Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls--quite a surprise to me--his candidacy raises very important issues regarding the two kingdoms (the "kingdom of God" and the "city of man").  Huckabee was governor of Arkansas for more than ten years, so one might assume that Huckabee no longer sees himself as called to the gospel ministry.  Not so.  Click here: Huckabee Steps Back Into the Pulpit at Evangelical Church in N.H.

Here's why Huckabee and so many on the Christian Right make me nervous--they often confuse the two kingdoms.  Here's an example of what I mean.  On January 6, while campaigning in New Hampshire for president of the United States, Mike Huckabee preached a sermon at a church called the Crossing.  In his sermon, Huckabee stated "When we become believers, it's as if we have signed up to be part of God's Army, to be soldiers for Christ."  This raises a number of red-flags.

First, if Huckabee is called to public service (a legitimate and noble calling), then he should resign his office as minister.  That would clarify things greatly.  In effect, Huckabee should do what the minister in the movie the Patriot did when he took up arms against the Tories--he took off his clerical collar before going to war.  This made things very clear.  Ministers don't wage war.  Citizens can if the cause is just.

Second, it makes me very, very, nervous when a presidential candidate gets in a pulpit and preaches a sermon during the midst of an election in which he is running for office, especially when the church service seems much like an election rally.  It makes me even more nervous when candidate Huckabee speaks of God's army and being a soldier for Christ in that same sermon.

In all fairness, Huckabee made an effort to preach a sermon and not give a political speech.  But why does a candidate who feels he is called to be president of the United States, also feel called to preach a sermon using militaristic metaphors, if not to whip up potential voters?  If not confusing the kingdoms (which I think Huckabee did), it certainly muddies the waters.  Not good.

Third, since evangelicals often don't evaluate things theologically, they tend not to see a man confused about what God has called him to do (either be a public servant or a minister), and instead see value in having a "man of God" as president.  This, many think, will ensure that the traditional values agenda is duly addressed from the right perspective.  After all, it is argued, America is a "Christian nation" and must maintain these values.  Huckabee, it is believed, will do this.

When viewed from the perspective of the two kingdoms, every Christian is simultaneously a citizen of both kingdoms and our theological beliefs should inform how we behave as citizens.  But there's no distinction of kingdoms with Huckabee in a pulpit, and Huckabee's "soldiers in God's army" are people who will serve his political cause.  In other words, they'll vote for him and encourage others to do the same.  Fine for a political rally.  Not fine for a church service.

Let say that as for me and my house, we'll have nothing to do with Mike Huckabee.  I don't like his populist rhetoric.  I want to hear talk about budget cuts, tax cuts, size of government cuts, etc.  I want to hear a candidate tell me how he will protect my civil liberties and not mortgage the future of my children by taxing and spending.  Furthermore, I will not support a candidate for president who wants the nanny state to protect me by keeping me from smoking--Huckabee supported a national "no smoking" initiative.  By the way, other than a very occasional cigar, I don't smoke.  I happen to think the nanny state can be as dangerous to my health as a two-pack a day habit. 

Who Said That?

“I liked gravy poured on top of a big glob of mashed potatoes, I liked biscuits a lot, and a lot of them. I liked going to the state fair and having a fried Twinkie. They were my choices. They were bad choices.”

You guys know how this works!  Leave your guess in the comments section below.  Please, no google searches. 

Update on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 07:55PM by Kim Riddlebarger

These words come from the formerly chubby man who would like to be president, Mike Huckabee.  Huckabee lost about 100 lbs.

Some Interesting Links on a Friday . . .

Here's a very interesting discussion (from November 2007) dealing with the current state of American Evangelicalism, featuring our friends Michael Horton and Darryl Hart (along with others).  Very good stuff.  Click here: Touchstone Archives: Evangelicalism Today

Richard Roberts didn't take the news too badly about getting fired from ORU.  He's going back to being a full-time televangelist.  I didn't realize he ever stopped being one.  Oh, he's also tied of lies and accusations.  Click here: Richard Roberts announces return to full-time ministry | Liveblog | Christianity Today 

I guess my mullet wig won't help me escape the police (those of you from Christ Reformed who have our new directory will get the joke).  Click here: Wig Can’t Fool Cops | The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register

A while back, my wife and sons got me a USB turntable, so I can play all my old vinyl through my computer and my stereo.  My sons can't believe how much better an old record sounds than a new CD.  Someone else has noticed too.  Click here: The Death of High Fidelity : Rolling Stone

Speaking of music, I'm going to take great delight and make raspberry sounds as I record some new CD's (which I bought and paid for) on to my hard-drive.  Why?  Because the idiots at the RIAA are now telling me its a crime to do so.  Sorry fellas, but if I bought it, I'm going to do with it whatever I want (for my own personal use, of course)!  Those CD's will be on my hard-drive and there's nothing you can do about it!  Click here: Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use - washingtonpost.com

I'm not superstitious about such things, but it would be kind of creepy to have 666 as the prefix to your phone number.  Click here: 666 Phone Prefix Cast Out Of Allen Parish - New Orleans News Story - WDSU New Orleans

"Prophet" Pat Is At It Again

Pat the "prophet" Robertson is at it again.  For 2008, he's predicting a recession and major upheaval in the financial markets.  He's also predicting increasing violence and chaos around the world.  He even claims God told who who the next president will be.  Click here: Pat Robertson predicts violence, recession for 2008 | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

But before you go all sell of your stocks, don't forget that in 2006 God supposedly told Pat that a Tsunami would hit the Pacific Northwest, and that in 2007, God "told" Pat that millions of Americans would die in a terrorist attack.

I have two simple questions.  How can Robertson spew these falsehoods with a straight face?  God told Pat Robertson no such thing!  And why on earth does anybody pay any attention to this guy?

Well, I know the answer to the last question--the media thinks the guy is a total doof.  And yes, I am paying attention to him (I'll admit it) because his continuing false prophecies make the point about the importance of the sufficiency of Scripture.  If God has revealed himself in Christ, why do we need Pat Robertson?

I just wish the guy would shut up!  Retire already! 

The Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, Article 5

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ (Phil. 1:29).
_____________________________________
 
At this point, the Canons deal with the difficult question as to why some people believe the gospel when it is preached to them, while others reject that same gospel.  The authors of the Canons are very careful to follow the biblical testimony about this matter and so they assign all the blame for eternal loss to humanity while giving all glory to God for the salvation of any of Adam's fallen children!

It is often objected, “if salvation depends entirely upon the grace of God, and not all are saved, then God is somehow unfair in his dealings with his creatures."  We often hear the question, "why didn’t God chose everyone?”  Others have objected, “it seems as though God is somehow preventing people from believing!” 

If the starting point set out by the authors of the Canons is correct—human sinfulness and total inability—then the only reason why any perish is because of the guilt of their sin.  Those who are lost eternally bear all responsibility for their own sins.  On top of that, they are also guilty for their participation in the sin of Adam, who acted as their federal and biological representative in the Garden of Eden.  Simply put, people suffer eternal loss (hell) because they are sinful and will not believe the gospel.  They do not suffer eternal loss because God deals unfairly with them.

Since all of us are dead in sin and unable to respond to the gospel on our own, our salvation must be seen as a free gift from God.  This is what Scripture clearly teaches, as the Canons so clearly indicate.  We are saved “by grace through faith, this is not of ourselves.”  It is “God who works in us to will and do of his good pleasure!” 

The Scriptures also teach that God has not only ordained the ends [who will be saved] but he ordains the means by which they will be saved [the preaching of the gospel].  And the chosen instrument through which sinful men and women receive the merits of Christ (which alone can save them from eternal loss), is faith alone.  This is what God has ordained and what the Canons set forth.

But the question remains, "why do some believe in Jesus Christ and others reject him?"  This is the real question here and humanly speaking it is difficult to answer.  Unless God gives to us an answer to this question, we cannot know why some believe and others do not, we can only guess.

The answer given us in Scripture as to why some believe and others do not, is crystal clear--God in his grace, gives the gift of salvation to those whom he has chosen to be saved, and that through faith, God’s elect embrace the Savior who has been proclaimed to them through the foolishness of preaching.  This pattern is set forth by Paul in the first chapter of Ephesians (vv. 3-14):  

    3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.  11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Yet, those whom God does not elect are justly passed over and left to the consequences of their own sins and their guilt in Adam.  Dead in sin and under God’s just condemnation, they freely and willfully reject the savior and therefore, tragically, perish eternally.  This is clearly taught in Romans 9:10-24.

    10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”  14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

At the end of the day, if we think that we are of the elect and are Christians because of something good that God sees in us, or because of something that we have done which causes God to respond to us, we will necessarily depreciate the grace of God.  We will not see salvation as a free gift, but as a reward.  In fact, the degree to which we attribute our salvation to something good in us is the same degree to which we see ourselves higher than we ought and the degree to which we depreciate the wonderful grace of a merciful God.

Sick 'Em Senator Harry!

One of the great joys of researching family history is running across a scoundrel (we have some) or a "character" in the family tree.  US Senator from Virginia, Harrison Holt Riddleberger (1844-1890) is truly a character! My second cousin four times removed, Senator Riddleberger was affectionately known by his constituents as Senator "Harry."  (Click here: Harrison H. Riddleberger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Senator Riddleberger had been a Captain in the Confederate calvary and was at Gettysburg, serving in Lee's headquarters guard. An attorney by trade, Harry became editor of a controversial newspaper in the Shenandoah, and was later author of the "Riddleberger Bill" which dealt with reparations to the State of Virginia when West Virginia was formed after the Civil War. He was also one of the founders of the Re-Adjuster party (composed mostly of freed blacks and Republicans in a region of Democrats), a short-lived political party in the years of Reconstruction. He served one term in the US Senate (1883-1889).

Senator Harry was certainly an enigma. One newspaper report describes him angrily protesting the US Senate holding a session on a Sunday--something as a Christian man he whole-heartedly opposed.  To express his disgust with his fellow senators, Harry showed up to vote completely inebriated and was forcibly escorted out of the Senate chamber by the sergeant of arms.

But his most "illustrious" moment was probably the day he arranged two duels with political opponents shortly before before becoming Senator.  Harry didn't like being called a "liar and a scoundrel" in an editorial.  So, he sought a little frontier justice . . .

The following appeared in the NY Times (October 16, 1881):

__________________________________ 

Riddleberger’s Two Duels

Exchanging harmless shots with Wise –

An unfought duel with Mr. Beirne.

Richmond, Va., Oct. 15 – A hostile meeting took place this afternoon, at 4 o’clock, about 10 miles from Richmond Station, between Capt. H.H. Riddleberger and the Hon. G.D. Wise. Four rounds were fired without either being hurt. Mutual explanations and amicable adjustment followed.

In yesterday’s first edition of the State there appeared an editorial, written by Richard f. Beirne, junior editor, in reference to the alleged confession of W. Leigh Wilson about the Blair letters, in the course of which Mr. Beirne denounced Capt. H.H. Riddleberger as being unworthy of belief. In the later edition of the same paper there appeared the card of the H. George D. Wise, telegraphed last night, also denouncing Capt. Riddleberger as a liar and a scoundrel. Since that time the public has been much excited, in anticipation of hostile meeting between the men named, and during today there has been much anxiety to hear news from them. At about 6 o’clock this evening Capt. Riddleberger and two friends were seen to alight from a carriage at the office of the Whig, and soon thereafter it became generally reported that he had had a meeting with both. From the best information now obtainable the following particulars are given:

Immediately upon the appearance of the paper containing Mr. Beirne’s editorial Capt. Riddleberger sent that gentleman a challenge to mortal combat, and only a short time after the second edition, with Capt. Wise’s card, made its appearance, the latter gentleman received a similar invitation from Capt. Riddleberger. All the men left the city last evening to avoid arrest, and all the arrangements were speedily made for the two affairs. Messrs. Beirne and Riddleberger, accompanied by their respective friends, met at 8 o’clock this morning, near Ashland, in Hanover County. But when everything was in readiness and the seconds proceeded to load the weapons it was found that, by an oversight of Mr. Beirne’s friends, no caps had been provided for the pistols. The result was that hostilities were, for the time, suspended, as it was impossible to obtain the necessary ammunition within any short time. Capt. Riddleberger would wait no longer and left the ground in order to fulfill the engagement he had with Capt. Wise. The place chosen for the second meeting was near the Henry County turnpike, about 10 miles from Richmond. Both men were promptly on the ground at 4 o’clock this evening. In this case nothing had been left undone or unprovided, and in a few moments the principals were placed opposite each other at a distance of 10 paces, armed with regular smooth-bore dueling pistols and prepared for deadly work. Upon the first fir Capt. Wise’s weapon snapped, but he remained unhurt by his opponent’s fire. This was followed by two other rounds, without either of the combatants being hurt. It is reported that Capt. Wise’s hat was perforated by a ball, while Capt. Riddleberger’s coat was pierced by a ball. At the end of the third round the friends of both stepped forward and declared the vindication had been ample, and that hostilities should cease. A mutual explanation was then made, and an amicable adjustment reached. Both gentlemen are reported to have behaved bravely, holding their positions without change during the whole time occupied by the three rounds. Capt. Wise was accompanied by Mr. Richard Dunlop as second and Dr. George B. Johnston as surgeon. Capt. Riddleberger’s second was Capt. A. Rogers, and his surgeon Dr. J.A. Wheat. Col. A. W. Jones, of Georgia, was with the party as referee. All the persons concerned, except Capt. Riddleberger and Col. Jones, are of this city. Capt. Riddleberger had been previously announced to address a Readjuster meeting here tonight, and he reached the city in ample time and fulfilled his engagement.

Later information is to the effect that Mr. Beirne and his second, Mr. Ryan, of the State staff, having replaced the caps which had been lost, made an attempt to have another meeting with Capt. Riddleberger, but failed. They were arrested about 3 p.m. at a point three miles from the scene of the Wise-Riddleberger encounter, where they were awaiting its result. They were each placed under $1,000 bonds to keep the peace. Capt. Wise was arrested after his fight with Riddleberger. The latter has not yet been arrested.

The New York Times

Published: October 16, 1881

Copyright The New York Times