Posted on 09/09/2006 4:04:19 AM PDT by xzins
The second foundation stone supporting the pretribulational rapture of the church is the biblical doctrine known as premillennialism. Premillennialism teaches that the second advent will occur before Christ's thousand-year reign from Jerusalem upon earth. In the early church, premillennialism was called chiliasm, from the Greek term meaning 1,000 used six times in Revelation 20:2-7. Charles Ryrie cites essential features of premillennialism as follows: "Its duration will be 1,000 years; its location will be on this earth; its government will be theocratic with the personal presence of Christ reigning as King; and it will fulfill all the yet-unfulfilled promises about the earthly kingdom."1
Premillennialism is contrasted with the postmillennial teaching that Christ will return after He has reigned spiritually from His throne in heaven for a long period of time during the current age, through the church, and the similar amillennial view that also advocates a present, but pessimistic, spiritual reign of Christ. Biblical premillennialism is a necessary foundation for pretribulationalism since it is impossible for either postmillennialism or amillennialism to support pretribulationism.
Without question, premillennialism was the earliest and most widely held view of the earliest centuries of the church. The dean of church historians, Philip Schaff has said, "The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age [A.D. 100-325] is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, . . . a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papia, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius."2 German historian Adolph Harnack has said, "First in point of time came the faith in the nearness of Christ's second advent and the establishing of His reign of glory on the earth. Indeed it appears so early that it might be questioned as an essential part of the Christian religion. . . . it must be admitted that this expectation was a prominent feature in the earliest proclamation of the gospel, and materially contributed to its success. If the primitive churches had been under the necessity of framing a 'Confession of Faith,' it would certainly have embraced those pictures by means of which the near future was distinctly realized."3
Premillennialism began to die out in the established Catholic Church during the life of Augustine (A.D. 354-430). Ryrie summarizes this change: "With the union of church and state under Constantine, the hope of Christ's coming faded some. The Alexandrian school of interpretation attacked the literal hermeneutic on which premillennialism was based, and the influence of the teaching of Augustine reinterpreted the concept and time of the Millennium."4 Premillennialism has always survived, even when it has not been dominant or widely known. Chiliasm, though suppressed by the dominant Catholic Church, nevertheless survived through "underground" and "fringe" groups of Christians during the 1,000 year mediaeval period. During the Reformation, Anabaptists and Hugenots helped to revive premillennialism, until it was adopted on a wide scale by many Puritans during the Post-Reformation era.
The last 200 years have seen the greatest development and spread of premillennialism since the early church. Starting in the British Isles and spreading to America, consistent premillennialism, known as dispensational premillennialism, has come to dominate the Evangelical faith. This form of premillennialism has given rise to the most rigorous application of the literal hermeneutic which has lead to the championing of pretribulational premillennialism in our own day.
Even though the strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear statement of Revelation 20:1-7, where six times Christ's kingdom is said to last 1,000 years, the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament also support a premillennial understanding of God's plan for history. Jeffrey Townsend has given an excellent summary of the biblical evidence for premillennialism in the following material:
Developed from the Old Testament
"The OT covenants with Abraham and David established unconditional promises of an Israelite kingdom in the ancient land ruled by the ultimate Son of David. The OT prophets, from the earliest to the latest, looked forward to the establishment of this kingdom. Its principle features will include: regathering of the Jews from the nations to the ancient land, mass spiritual regeneration of the Jewish people, restoration of Jerusalem as the principal city and her Temple as the spiritual center of the world, the reign of David's ultimate Son over the twelve reunited tribes dwelling securely in the land as the pre-eminent nation of the world. Based on OT Scripture, a this-earthly, spiritual-geopolitical fulfillment of these promises is expected.
Developed from the New Testament
The NT writers do not reinterpret the OT kingdom promises and apply them to the church. Instead the church participates now in the universal, spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants without negating the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant promises to Israel. The NT authors affirm rather than deny the ancient kingdom hope of Israel. Matthew, Luke, and Paul all teach a future for national Israel. Specifically, Acts 1 with Acts 3 establishes that the restoration of the kingdom to Israel takes place at the second coming of Jesus Christ. Romans 11 confirms that at the time of the second advent, Israel will have all her unconditional covenants fulfilled to her. First Corinthians 15 speaks of an interim kingdom following Christ's return but prior to the eternal kingdom of God during which Christ will rule and vanquish all His enemies. Finally, Revelation 20 gives the chronology of events and length of Christ's kingdom on this earth prior to the eternal state.
In sum, the case for premillennialism rests on the fact that the OT promises of an earthly kingdom are not denied or redefined but confirmed by the NT. The basis of premillennialism is not the reference to the thousand years in Revelation 20. That is merely a detail, albeit an important one, in the broad pattern of Scripture. The basis of premillennialism is the covenant-keeping nature of our God, affirmed over and over again in the pages of Scripture. God will do what He has said He will do, for His own glory among the nations. And what He has said He will do is fulfill the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants to a regathered, regenerated, restored nation of Israel at the second coming of Jesus Christ, and for a thousand years thereafter, prior to the eternal kingdom of God."5
Premillennialism is merely the result of interpreting the whole Bible, Genesis to Revelation, in the most natural way -- literally. Many of the critics admit that if the literal approach is applied consistently to the whole of Scripture, then premillennialism is the natural result. If the Old Testament promises are ever going to be fulfilled literally for Israel as a nation, then they are yet in the future. This is also supportive of premillennialism. Premillennialism also provides a satisfactory and victorious end to history in time as man through Christ satisfactorily fulfills his creation mandate to rule over the world.
Premillennialism is a necessary biblical prerequisite needed to build the later biblical doctrine of the rapture of the church before the seven-year tribulation.
1 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1986), p. 450.
2 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Scribner, 1884),, Vol. 2, p. 614.
3 Adolph Harnack, "Millennium," The Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1883), XVI, pp. 314-15. Cited in Renald E. Showers, There Really Is A Difference! A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, N.J.: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1990), p. 117.
4 Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 452.
5 Jeffrey L. Townsend, "Premillennialism Summarized: Conclusion" in Edited by Donald K. Campbell & Jeffrey L. Townsend, A Case For Premillennialism: A New Consensus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), pp. 270-71.
This is a very good balanced view of premillennialism.
The author manages to accomplish his purpose without attacking anyone else.
This is a very good balanced view of premillennialism.
The author manages to accomplish his purpose without attacking anyone else.
Not to mention, trying to fully unerstand or 'interpret' the entire bible outside of the Premillenial View is impossible...
That is because for the first three centuries the dominant hermeneutic was a literal/figurative one.
It was under first Origen and then later Augustine, that the hermeneutic switched to a allegorical one.
It was a return to the literal one that sparked the Reformation, although the Reformer's were not consistent in its application.
Huh?? Well, what was it, literal or figurative?
This is like saying, "the ice cream flavor of the week is vanilla/chocolate."
lit·er·al (adj.) : Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
fig·u·ra·tive (adj.) : Based on or making use of figures of speech; metaphorical: figurative language.
Containing many figures of speech; ornate.
Represented by a figure or resemblance; symbolic or emblematic.
When the Bible says, "For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine," is that "literal" or "figurative" language?
Actually, Schaff outlines the demise as having to do with the excesses of the Montanists. After recounting the views of some early chialists, Schaff states:
Tertullian was an enthusiastic Chiliast, and pointed not only to the Apocalypse, but also to the predictions of the Montanist prophets. But the Montanists substituted Pepuza in Phrygia for Jerusalem, as the centre of Christ’s reign, and ran into fanatical excesses, which brought chiliasm into discredit, and resulted in its condemnation by several synods in Asia Minor.Just as the ancient Montanists discredited premillennialism with their excesses, the modern dispensational premillennialists have introduced their own excesses, e.g., the radical distinction between Israel and the Church, which was unknown among ancient chiliasts. For example, Schaff says about Justin Martyr:
Justin Martyr represents the transition from the Jewish Christian to the Gentile Christian chiliasm. He speaks repeatedly of the second parousia of Christ in the clouds of heaven, surrounded by the holy angels. It will be preceded by the near manifestation of the man of sin (a[nqrwpo" th'" ajnomiva") who speaks blasphemies against the most high God, and will rule three and a half years. He is preceded by heresies and false prophets. Christ will then raise the patriarchs, prophets, and pious Jews, establish the millennium, restore Jerusalem, and reign there in the midst of his saints; after which the second and general resurrection and judgment of the world will take place. He regarded this expectation of the earthly perfection of Christ’s kingdom as the key-stone of pure doctrine, but adds that many pure and devout Christians of his day did not share this opinion. After the millennium the world will be annihilated, or transformed. In his two Apologies, Justin teaches the usual view of the general resurrection and judgment, and makes no mention of the millennium, but does not exclude it. The other Greek Apologists are silent on the subject, and cannot be quoted either for or against chiliasm.Unlike modern dispensationalists, Justin was decidedly non-Jewish in his views on the future millennium.
Another interesting description by Schaff was of Papias:
Papias of Hierapolis, a pious but credulous contemporary of Polycarp, entertained quaint and extravagant notions of the happiness of the millennial reign, for which he appealed to apostolic tradition. He put into the mouth of Christ himself a highly figurative description of the more than tropical fertility of that period, which is preserved and approved by Irenaeus, but sounds very apocryphal.Interesting set of chiliasts indeed.
Schaff also briefly discusses the Jewish chiliast, who sound more like modern dispensationalists than garden variety premils.
The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Cerinthus.
So, there are early Christians who viewed the millennium as a happy time, and there are others who went overboard.
And this matters because????
Premillennialism certainly includes an entire group that believes in a post-tribulation rapture & return of the Lord. (There are also mid-tribulationists as well.)
I wouldn't necessarily make this assumption but, if so, so what? The early church fathers held erroneous views about many things (E-u-c-h-a-r-i-s-t?). Would Charles Rylie go on record as saying he believes in transubstantiation because Iraeneous did? It's a very weak argument. (I won't bring up my other argument.)
For the first 300 years of the early church the fathers never recorded the basic systematic theology of the church because they were too busy evangelizing. I know. I've looked. The author would like us to think the late date of other views is a bad thing (and I don't believe they were non-existent) but actually some of our greatest theology of the church was finally pulled together and articulated around 300-400AD.
Paul chastised the Thessalonians for their "ignorant" views of the "last days" and this certainly predates the church fathers. I wouldn't base my entire argument on what the majority of the early church fathers believe. Otherwise we're worshiping in the wrong church.
The point remains that premillennialism was the earliest view of the church. Peter and Paul were among the earliest leaders of the church. As you said, evangelism was the earliest mission of the church.
Because there were later theological ideas does not negate the earliest ideas.
And it certainly is not true that premillennialism is only a recently developed view.
Let's get this straight. Premillennialism was never the view "of the church". There was never an early creed of confession adopted by the church that was distinctively premillennial.
As Schaff says of Irenaeus, "He regarded this expectation of the earthly perfection of Christ’s kingdom as the key-stone of pure doctrine, but adds that many pure and devout Christians of his day did not share this opinion." There were "many" who did not hold his views on the millennium, so it could never have been the view "of the church." Premillennialism was merely an "opinion" of some early church fathers.
So most of these sorts of comments amount to overblown rhetoric.
Because there were later theological ideas does not negate the earliest ideas.
So what different does it make that some folks in the early church (as opposed to the "early church") held nascent premil ideas? The best you can say is that there were some scattered ideas along these lines. But the early church saw lots of odd ideas pop up and fade away, alike Arianism.
None of this really helps the modern dispensationalists, whose basically carnal views on future Israel were almost universally condemned by the early church, even premils. They were only adopted by the heretical groups like the Ebionites. Note Schaff's comment:
The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Cerinthus."... a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom". Sounds like modern dispensationalism to the tee.
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. What's the difference between "trib" and "wrath"?
It doesn't negate the earliest ideas but it doesn't mean that the earliest ideas were correct. Look at what this author reasoning is...
Just because most of them may have held a particular belief doesn't make it right. Protestants have always rigthfully held the church fathers in high regards. But in the end all we can do is use the Bible to argue as our actual source. I think there is more of an argument in the dating of Revelation than there is basing it on what the church fathers felt. But I wouldn't hang my hat on any of it.
The Orthodox, on the other thread, feel just as skeptical about the writings of Revelation as I do. If anyone has the best handle on the early church fathers and what they had to say, IMHO, it's the Orthodox. Appartently they are very suspicious about the whole book and rarely discuss it.
Right. It's like the debate over the Textus Receptus vs. the minority text. Just because something may predate something else does not make it more truthful.
And as pointed out, there was plenty of error in those first 300-400 years floating around.
Both premil and postmil POVs existed in the early church. Just like now.
The truth, however, has not changed. The victory was won on the cross. Christ reigns today over heaven and earth. And one day at the end of time He will return in glory. We have no idea when that will be, but we are told to keep our houses in order for His return.
Life is for the living. God instructs us to be fruitful and preach His word, warning us not to foolishly look to the skies to ponder mysteries known only to God.
bttt
Everything that I have studied is that we will go through the 3.5 years of the tribulation period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.