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.
Everything that I have studied is that we will go through the 3.5 years of the tribulation period.
Do you have any Scripture to support the theory that the "tribulation" and the "wrath" are two distinct things?
If one does a word search for wrath in the bible it is alway associated with the great and dreadful day of the Lord, which is the return of Christ to earth.Tribulation is not associated with God it is always associated with man with this present world system.
Figuratively verses would be under the shadow of His wings gathering them as a hen under her wings. We all know God ain't no chicken and He don't have no wings.
"So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath (Gr. thumos), and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff." (Luke 4:28,29)
"For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time." (Rev. 12:12)
"Behold, I [Jesus] will cast her upon a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation (Gr. thlipsis), unless they repent of her deeds." (Rev. 2:22)
Well, since the passage I quoted was from Isaiah 13:10, and it had to do with the judgment against ancient Babylon, when did this literally happen?
How 'bout this one:
{Babylon] will never be inhabited, Nor will it be settled from generation to generation; Nor will the Arabian pitch tents there, Nor will the shepherds make their sheepfolds there. (Isa. 13:20)Is that "literal" or "figurative" language?And the land will tremble and sorrow; For every purpose of the Lord shall be performed against Babylon, To make the land of Babylon a desolation without inhabitant. (Jer. 51:29)
I have read such a quote from, I believe, Justin Martyr, when he was discussing the millennium, but I can't find one in Irenaeus.
However, in Irenaeus as in Martyr, there is no indication that they are speaking of any other DOCTRINE but of various points of THAT PREMILLENNIAL doctrine. In other words, premillennialists discussing points of dispute with other premillennialists.
You make a gross assumption that Irenaeus was speaking of post-millenialism or of amillennialism. There is no indication of that whatsoever.
In fact, it is not even likely that those opinions would receive any kind of approval by Irenaeus (they didn't exist then). Irenaeus is very firm when he says:
1. If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question](Irenaeus, V, 35)
He is speaking against gnostics who attempt to allegorize scripture.
Sadly, this makes it appear that the later tendency to allegorize prophecy was an idea that came to them from gnosticism.
There is no doubt that Irenaeus was a premillennialist:
But in the times of the kingdom, the earth has been called again by Christ [to its pristine condition], and Jerusalem rebuilt after the pattern of the Jerusalem above, of which the prophet Isaiah says, "Behold, I have depicted thy walls upon my hands, and thou art always in my sight,"(323) And the apostle, too, writing to the Galatians, says in like manner, "But the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."(324) He does not say this with any thought of an erratic Aeon, or of any other power which departed from the Pleroma, or of Prunicus, but of the Jerusalem which has been delineated on [God's] hands. And in the Apocalypse John saw this new [Jerusalem] descending upon the new earth.(325) For after the times of the kingdom, he says, "I saw a great white throne, and Him who sat upon it, from whose face the earth fled away, and the heavens; and there was no more place for them."(326)
If Ireneaus was speaking of others with different opinions than his, he WAS NOT speaking of others given to ALLEGORIZING scripture. He didn't approve of that at all.
Incidentally, he says that John wrote Revelation near the death of Domitian (96 AD.) Importantly, he says that IF JOHN had known the name of the anti-christ that John would have told the name rather than give a number (666.)
This is so true and proves that Revelation was not written prior to 70 AD. John lived afterwards in Ephesus and had plenty of time to clear up that name if he had known it.
Thank you so much for the fascinating post!
The wrath here spoken of by Jesus in Revelation is after the tribulation period, after the millennial rein, the devil will be set loose. We were speaking of the tribulation period and the wrath of God period prior to the 2nd coming. Jesus in Rev 2:22 will place them in a bed that will result in tribulation it does not say that He will cause the tribulation.
I love your spirit and skill with facts! THANKS.
You might like my post:
#961
at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1681341/posts?page=906
listing a bunch of sources against Contrary Replacementarianism and some excerpts from some of them.
Sorry, that was Justin Martyr, not Irenaeus.
Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such [Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt, etc] will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. (Dialogue, c. 80)In fact, it is not even likely that those opinions would receive any kind of approval by Irenaeus (they didn't exist then). Irenaeus is very firm when he says:
Since no one here to my knowledge is speaking of allegorizing, I'm not sure of the relevance of the comment. However, if you read Irenaeus in context you will see that what he has in view are resurrection saints living the kingdom with Christ. He does not countenance the idea that these are "tribulation saints" or any such natural person living and dying in the eternal kingdom. So we do see that he ends up "spiritualizing" (as opposed to allegorizing) the prophecies made to Israel and applies them to the future resurrection church.
Irenaeus was, as we can see, what we might characterize as a historic premil. He clearly believed that the promises made to Israel had been fulfilled in Christ and His church. He was a spiritualizer.
If Ireneaus was speaking of others with different opinions than his, he WAS NOT speaking of others given to ALLEGORIZING scripture. He didn't approve of that at all.
Not according the Irenaeus himself. He was certainly given to allegorizing when he suited him. For we read:
But as to those animals which do indeed chew the cud, but have not the double hoof, and are themselves unclean, we have in them a figurative description of the Jews, who certainly have the words of God in their mouth, but who do not fix their rooted stedfastness in the Father and in the Son; wherefore they are an unstable generation. (Against Heresies, 5.8.4)That's an interesting application of the law to the Jewish people, don't you think?
Irenaues also believed that Christ was more than 50 years old when He died based on a certain "allegorizing". He wrote:
yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words. (Against Heresies, 2.22.1)He then applied this "allegorizing" method and speculation about how old Jesus looked to come up with the number "50" and apply it to Christ's earthly lifespan.
Hmmm, that's an interesting parsing of words. Let's look at it again:
"Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds."
I cannot see how your interpretation is allowed unless I first adopt your presuppositions about the distinction in question. IOW, I have to accept the thing being proved as true in order to understand the steps in the proof. Not a very good method.
But it plainly, "literally" speaks ot the wrath of Satan. And it also is plainly, "literally" speaking of the tribulation of Christ. The only way to arrive at what you want is to impose another meaning on the words. Thus the quite arbitrary distinction between tribulation and wrath in this alleged future seven-year "great tribuation" period.
LOL!!! In the words of Polycarp...
"...forasmuch as ye know that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
You meant 19th century. JN Darby and his vision-inspired Irvingite friends in Scotland were not that old. This was also the age of the Millerites, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and a number of other lesser cults. Many of them shared a carnal view of future events.
As to "whispers of it ... in the 12th and 13th centuries", I don't think it was a whisper so much as laryngitis. No one heard of these folks until they were invented by the modern dispensationalists intent on validating their pedigree.
BTW, have anyone specific from the "12th and 13th centuries" in mind?
I'm looking through some of these writings now to see if anyone articulates at least a smattering view. Beyond a one or two sentence statement (some of which I thought of posting), I can't make head nor tails out of their eschatology position.
Paul chastised the Thessalonians for thinking they had missed the Rapture.
He did not deny the Rapture (which he discussed in 1st Thessalonians) but explained certain events needed to occur first, like the apostasy of the Church.
Ofcourse, it is by the will of God, it is God's will that none perish! (2Pe.3:9)
The key word is 'articulated'.
These doctrines were taught in the early church because they are Bible doctrines.
The Reformed church was a move back to the early century of salvation by faith and a rejection of traditon for scripture.
In many areas, however, they held to traditon and did not go fully to sola scriptura.
The key difference in the Pre-Mill, vs the Amill and Postmill. view is the hermenutic.
No literal/figurative reading of the scriptures will lead to any other interpretation then that of Pre-Millennialism.
What the Jews did to get rid of the 1st Advent scriptures of Christ, heretical christians did for the 2nd advent, allegorization.
Well, that is a great approach to sola scriptura!
Lets just ignore a Book in the Bible.
The two most important Books in the Bible are Genesis and Revelation.
The first tells us how man got in the mess he is in, and second, how he gets out of it.
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.