Pretrib Discussion

[Biblewriter]

(continued from posts 59 and 60)

Again, there is an ancient sermon titled “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.” The date and author of this sermon is unknown, but it is known to have been in Church libraries before the year 800. Most of the surviving copies of this sermon say it was written by Ephraem, but one says its author was Isadore of Seville. Based on events the sermon said were impending, various scholars have estimated its date from as early as 373 A. D. to as late as 627 A.D. Paul J. Alexander gave what seems to be the most satisfactory analysis of its date, concluding that the original had to have been written in or near the fourth century, but that copiers had added other material sometime around the seventh century. As scholars do not believe the unknown author could have been the famous Ephraem the Syrian, (who is also known a Ephraem of Nisbis) they call the unknown author of this sermon, Pseudo-Ephraem. The sermon was divided into ten paragraphs, and said in paragraph 2:

“Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: ‘Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!’ For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”

It would be difficult to make a more clear statement of the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture. But even so, some still deny that it was pre-tribulational, because of an interpretation they put on paragraph 10 of the same sermon, which said:

“And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the Antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world, after the resurrection of the two prophets, in the hour which the world does not know, and on the day which the enemy of son of perdition does not know, will come the sign of the Son of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth.”

These people claim that the rapture is in this paragraph, instead of paragraph 2, because of the words “Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of judgment has come!” But this is a serious error. Are we to think this unknown writer was unfamiliar with John 5:24, where Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” The “hour of judgment” is not for the saints of God. It is for sinners. These people would not have made this error if they had noticed who this paragraph says will be with the Lord as He comes. It is “all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders.” Thus we see the previously raptured saints of God coming with the Lord when He comes to judge the world. This was stated twice over, first calling them “the whole chorus of the saints,” and then “those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders.” It was completely consistent to have the rapture before “the whole chorus of the saints” coming with the Lord when He comes “with great power and much majesty” for “his hour of judgement.”

Finally, these same people also claim that the sermon has the church still in the world at the time of the Antichrist, because the sermon also says, at the end of paragraph 8:

“But those who wander through the deserts, fleeing from the face of the serpent, bend their knees to God, just as lambs to the adders of their mothers, being sustained by the salvation of the Lord, and while wandering in states of desertion, they eat herbs.”

But this argument is based on another error. These people interpret every reference to people turning to God to mean the church. But those who believe that the rapture will be before the tribulation have always taught that some will repent and turn to God after the church has been removed. We remember that Irenaeus had referred to these with the words that this tribulation “is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” So the fact that the sermon has some bending “their knees to God” as they flee “from the face of the serpent” does not in any way prove, or even imply, that it was teaching that the church would still be in the world at that time.

So there is no reason to even question that the unknown writer of this sermon actually meant what he so plainly said, that “all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.”

Thus we se that the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation goes all the way back to the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) which has survived to the present day, and that it continued to be taught at least until near the end of the fourth century.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Here is a section quoted from pages 82 to 87 of my book, "Keys to Bible Prophecy."

The rapture of the church

For Christians of the present time, all other prophetic events pale into nothingness beside this one great event, which the scriptures speak of in numerous places.

Jesus spoke of it, saying, “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 14:2-3)

But we also read, “that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.” (1 Thessalonians 3:13)

In the first passage above our Lord says “I will come again and receive you to Myself.” The second one speaks of “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.” It is obvious that His coming to receive us to Himself has to take place before His coming “with all His saints.” The words used by the Holy Spirit do not allow any other conclusion. But how long before “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.” will He “come again and receive” us to Himself?

The answer to this question begins with the promise, “Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” (Revelation 3:10) The Greek word translated from in this verse is ek, (word number 1537 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary) which indeed means from, but in the sense of away from or out of.

Some imagine that this only means "out of" after being "in" the “hour of trial.” But Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines ek, as it is used in Revelation 3:10, to mean “to keep one at a distance from.” Indeed, this becomes obvious when we consider the word “keep” in this phrase. This word is translated from the Greek word tereo. (word number 5083 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary) It literally means to guard, but in the scriptures was usually used in the sense of our English word keep, and is so translated more than two-thirds of the times tereo occurs in the Greek text of the New Testament. So it is clear that the real meaning of this promise is to be kept out of “the hour of trial.”

(To really understand this, we need to consider another promise made concerning a part of the same time period. The Lord said to Israel and Judah, “Ask now, and see, Whether a man is ever in labor with child? So why do I see every man with his hands on his loins Like a woman in labor, And all faces turned pale? Alas! For that day is great, So that none is like it; And it is the time of Jacob's trouble, But he shall be saved out of it.” (Jeremiah 30:6-7) In this case, the Hebrew word translated saved is yasha’. (word number 3467 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary) This Hebrew word means saved in the sense of succor. In the KJV, this Hebrew word is rendered save 149 times, deliver 13 times, help 12 times, and once as rescue. We notice this to clearly understand that this Hebrew word carries an entirely different sense from the Greek word tereo used in Revelation 3:10. In one case, the Lord promised to help some of His own get through a time of trouble designed for themselves. In the other, He promised to keep others of His own out of a time of testing designed for others.)

But what is this “the hour of trial” that they will be kept out of? The Greek word translated hour in this passage is hora. (word number 5610 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary) This Greek word literally means hour, but is often used figuratively for a period of time. But what hour are they promised to be kept out of? It is not just some general period of time. It is a specific one. It is “the hour of trial.” It is specifically called “the hour,” for the word “the” is in the Greek text, as the word ho. (word number 3588 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary - Unlike English, in both Biblical Greek and Hebrew, definite articles are normally used only for stress. If the word “the” is in the original text, it means the thing being referred to is a particular thing, not just something in general.) But what “hour of trial” is this specific time that they are they promised to be kept out of? It is “the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.”

There is a specific “hour of trial” coming “to test those who dwell on the earth.” When we see the reason this hour is coming we understand the term “hour of trial.” For the Greek word here translated "to test" is peirasmon. (a singular infinitive of peirasmos, word number 3985 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary) This literally means exactly as it is translated, to test. So we see that this scripture explicitly tells us that there is a particular time of testing coming, and that the purpose of that time is “to test those who dwell on the earth.” Its purpose is not to test the saints of God, but “those who dwell on the earth.” This is a moral class, those whose hearts are on the earth, rather than in heaven. This moral class is named in these words eight times in the Revelation, and always in a negative light.

But we are also told where this time of testing will come. It “shall come upon the whole world.” The Greek word translated whole in this clause is holos. (word number 3650 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary) This Greek word literally means whole, or all, that is, complete. That is, there is no part of the world that will be exempted from this time of testing. So there is coming a specific time of testing, and it is coming upon the whole world. But the Lord’s own are promised that they will be kept out of that time of testing. Now if this time is coming upon the whole world, but the Lord’s own will be kept out of it, they cannot be in the world during that time of testing. So we see that Revelation 3:10 says the Lord’s own will be removed from the earth before this time of testing begins.

(continued)

Thank you for actually offering some Scripture. It is actually refreshing for a Pretribber to do so. The only problem is: the text that you are presenting makes absolutely no reference to your supposed future rapture.

Let us look at Revelation 3:7-13: “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

You suggest that “keep thee from the hour of temptation” is referring to the catching away of the saints from the earth at the coming of Christ. However, there is not the slightest mention of the Lord’s appearing in the wording of this expression nor is there even a hint of a rapture of the saints. In fact, there is also no mention or inference of an end-time 7-year tribulation in the verse. It is rather speaking of the preservation of these first century Philadelphian saints from the existing evil of their day. What Pretrib infuses into this passage doesn’t add up, make sense or fit the context.

If a rapture was indeed the actual reward for this early church’s faithfulness, then, why did they not experience it? After all, they are commended for being obedience and faithfulness. You cannot divorce the reward from the obedience that earned the reward here. Pretribs say the reward is the rapture. Well: did the Philadelphians receive this reward? Evidently not; neither will they. That particular local church is long gone, and they will not be raptured at the second coming in the future but rather resurrected (as the dead in Christ). But the resurrection is nothing particular to Philadelphians; it is an event that every single church in Revelation would one day experience. It is something that all the dead in Christ will enjoy. But none experience a rapture 2,000 years ago.

Whatever the trial in view was Christ promised this early church that they would escape it. If a rapture was what Christ was pushing at, and if they had fulfilled their side of the bargain, then they would assuredly have experienced what Christ had promised them. But they didn’t! We all know: Christ is not one to break His promise. He is not a liar. He is not a deceiver. What is more, Christ doesn’t make empty promises. The fact is, despite their obedience and perseverance, they all eventually died and went the way of all believers to heaven upon death. This is evidence enough to prove that that wasn’t what He was speaking about. Are Pretribs suggesting that the Philadelphians kept their part, but Christ fell short with His? Did Jesus break His Word? This theory doesn’t make any sense.

Historically, we know that persecution overwhelmed the Church generally in Asia Minor but Christ preserved the Philadelphian congregation from the worst ravishes of the tribulation that unfolded. Jesus therefore kept His word. This proves the Posttrib position that this has already been fulfilled.

They need to see that the subject matter (namely the keeping) in Revelation 3:10 is reciprocal: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee.” Jesus was telling them: because the church in Philadelphia had been faithful, Christ was going to be faithful in return. He is basically promising to safeguard or watch over His faithful flock. This was an actual literal promise to an existing church 2,000 yrs ago. But Pretrib makes this promise totally irrelevant to the ones it was actually directed towards. They render it a worthless and baseless assurance.

Christ exhorting this church to watch and be ready did not suggest that this church would experience the rapture. Evidently, they didn’t. He didn’t say that He would come in their day, He just said: “Behold, I come quickly.” He didn't promise to return in their day; He only informed them that when He did it would be sudden.

And because no one knows the day or the hour, He exhorted them to “hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

They held fast and they are now experiencing the reward in heaven.

From a Pretrib perspective these early Philadelphian Christians experienced no actual reward from Christ for their faithfulness? Pretrib renders this an empty promise.

What was the reward that the Church at Philadelphia experienced (that was obviously unique to them and different from the other 6 churches)?

If the reward for being faithful was merely not living in the last 7 yrs of time was the reward meaning they would miss this Pretrib tribulation then it was a reward all of the churches over this past 2,000 yrs ago everywhere have equally experienced. But it wasn’t. It was particular to this local church and it was expressly related to their actual obedience.

Here are 4 elementary question on the only text you want to talk about which you can’t even answer. That certainly brings major red flags to the stage.

Where is the Church (as the collective body of Christ) mentioned here?
Where is a rapture mentioned in Revelation 3:10?
Where is a 7 yr trib mentioned in Revelation 3:10?
Where is a 3rd coming mentioned in Revelation 3:10?

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal research involved mostly the first few centuries of the church's history. But William C Watson is a university level professor of seventeenth and eighteenth century English history. As such, he is an expert on the literature of that period. He wrote a book similar to mine, but covering a different period of history. As I noted, the doctrine of a rapture of the church was taught in the very earliest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived up to the present day, and it continued to be taught until at least near the end of the fourth century. Bt William C. Watson has conclusively proved that this doctrine was revived soon after the King James Translation of the Bible first made Bibles readily available at a price common men could afford.

His book, "Dispensationalism Before Darby," has an entire chapter on the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation. He fills pages 135 to 177 of his book, that is, 42 pages, with quotations of various writers that taught this during these two centuries before John Nelson Darby was born in the year 1800.

On page 178 he summarizes this with a list of more than twenty writers from this period that taught this concept. As I do not own the copyright to his book, I do not have the authority to quote extensively from it.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Actually, I have posed extensivey on the subject, right here in this venue.But yor constant barrage of inane questions makes rational discussion nearly impossible.

No! Pretribbers are used preaching to the choir and do not like being questioned. Questioning exposes the holes in the doctrine. My direct questions are carefully worded to get beneath all the fizz-and-bubble.

 

[sovereigngrace]

My personal research involved mostly the first few centuries of the church's history. But William C Watson was a university level teacher of seventeenth and eighteenth century English history. As such, he is an expert on the literature of that period. He wrote a book similar to mine, but covering a different period of history. As I noted, the doctrine of a rapture of the church was taught in the very earliest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived up to the present day, and it continued to be taught until at least near the end of the fourth century. Bt William C. Watson has conclusively proved that this doctrine was revived soon after the King James Translation of the Bible first made Bibles readily available at a price common men could afford.

His book, "Dispensationalism Before Darby," has an entire chapter on the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation. He fills pages 135 to 177 of his book, that is, 42 pages, with quotations of various writers that taught this during these two centuries before John Nelson Darby was born in the year 1800.

On page 178 he summarizes this with a list of more than twenty writers from this period that taught this concept. As I do not own the copyright to his book, I do not have the authority to quote extensively from it.

Where is your evidence? I have not seen anything yet.

 

[Biblewriter]

Where is your evidence? I have not seen anything yet.

If you had bothered to look, I just posted it right here in this thread.

 

[Biblewriter]

No! Pretribbers are used preaching to the choir and do not like being questions. Questioning exposes the holes in the doctrine. My direct questions are carefully worded to get beneath all the fizz-and-bubble.

Actually, they are deceitfully crafted to present a false narrative.

 

[sovereigngrace]

If you had bothered to look, I just posted it right here in this thread.

No you didn't! And, yes, I did actually look. Which ECF taught (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ? Not one quote from Irenaeus or Victorinus states that.

I will go into greater depth later on this eve. Please address my response to your Revelation 3:10 comments.

 

[Biblewriter]

Thank you for actually offering some Scripture. It is actually refreshing for a Pretribber to do so. The only problem is: the text that you are presenting makes absolutely no reference to your supposed future rapture.

Let us look at Revelation 3:7-13: “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

You suggest that “keep thee from the hour of temptation” is referring to the catching away of the saints from the earth at the coming of Christ. However, there is not the slightest mention of the Lord’s appearing in the wording of this expression nor is there even a hint of a rapture of the saints. In fact, there is also no mention or inference of an end-time 7-year tribulation in the verse. It is rather speaking of the preservation of these first century Philadelphian saints from the existing evil of their day. What Pretrib infuses into this passage doesn’t add up, make sense or fit the context.

If a rapture was indeed the actual reward for this early church’s faithfulness, then, why did they not experience it? After all, they are commended for being obedience and faithfulness. You cannot divorce the reward from the obedience that earned the reward here. Pretribs say the reward is the rapture. Well: did the Philadelphians receive this reward? Evidently not; neither will they. That particular local church is long gone, and they will not be raptured at the second coming in the future but rather resurrected (as the dead in Christ). But the resurrection is nothing particular to Philadelphians; it is an event that every single church in Revelation would one day experience. It is something that all the dead in Christ will enjoy. But none experience a rapture 2,000 years ago.

Whatever the trial in view was Christ promised this early church that they would escape it. If a rapture was what Christ was pushing at, and if they had fulfilled their side of the bargain, then they would assuredly have experienced what Christ had promised them. But they didn’t! We all know: Christ is not one to break His promise. He is not a liar. He is not a deceiver. What is more, Christ doesn’t make empty promises. The fact is, despite their obedience and perseverance, they all eventually died and went the way of all believers to heaven upon death. This is evidence enough to prove that that wasn’t what He was speaking about. Are Pretribs suggesting that the Philadelphians kept their part, but Christ fell short with His? Did Jesus break His Word? This theory doesn’t make any sense.

Historically, we know that persecution overwhelmed the Church generally in Asia Minor but Christ preserved the Philadelphian congregation from the worst ravishes of the tribulation that unfolded. Jesus therefore kept His word. This proves the Posttrib position that this has already been fulfilled.

They need to see that the subject matter (namely the keeping) in Revelation 3:10 is reciprocal: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee.” Jesus was telling them: because the church in Philadelphia had been faithful, Christ was going to be faithful in return. He is basically promising to safeguard or watch over His faithful flock. This was an actual literal promise to an existing church 2,000 yrs ago. But Pretrib makes this promise totally irrelevant to the ones it was actually directed towards. They render it a worthless and baseless assurance.

Christ exhorting this church to watch and be ready did not suggest that this church would experience the rapture. Evidently, they didn’t. He didn’t say that He would come in their day, He just said: “Behold, I come quickly.” He didn't promise to return in their day; He only informed them that when He did it would be sudden.

And because no one knows the day or the hour, He exhorted them to “hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

They held fast and they are now experiencing the reward in heaven.

From a Pretrib perspective these early Philadelphian Christians experienced no actual reward from Christ for their faithfulness? Pretrib renders this an empty promise.

What was the reward that the Church at Philadelphia experienced (that was obviously unique to them and different from the other 6 churches)?

If the reward for being faithful was merely not living in the last 7 yrs of time was the reward meaning they would miss this Pretrib tribulation then it was a reward all of the churches over this past 2,000 yrs ago everywhere have equally experienced. But it wasn’t. It was particular to this local church and it was expressly related to their actual obedience.

Here are 4 elementary question on the only text you want to talk about which you can’t even answer. That certainly brings major red flags to the stage.

Where is the Church (as the collective body of Christ) mentioned here?
Where is a rapture mentioned in Revelation 3:10?
Where is a 7 yr trib mentioned in Revelation 3:10?
Where is a 3rd coming mentioned in Revelation 3:10?

You are doing the same thing here that you were doing in your inane comments about Daniel 9, concentration on things a passage does not say instead of on what it does say.

I have presented proof sufficient for anyone who is subject to scripture. And no amount of proof will ever be sufficient for anyone who is unwilling to submit to scripture.

 

[Biblewriter]

I did actually look. Which ECF taught (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ? Not one quote from Irenaeus or Victorinus states that.

I will go into greater depth later on this eve. Please address my response to your Revelation 3:10 comments.

Actually, this is not your thread. It is my thread. And I am not going to jump at your every whim.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Actually, this is not your thread. It is my thread. And I am not going to jump at your every whim.

I will take your avoidance as an admission that none of the ECFs believe Pretrib. The ball is in your court. You claim ancient proponents for Pretrib when you have none. While both of these writers were Chiliast, neither were Pretribbers. If I am wrong, show your evidence! That is only fair to ask.

 

[Biblewriter]

I will take your avoidance as an admission that none of the ECFs believe Pretrib. The ball is in your court. You claim ancient proponents for Pretrib when you have none. While both of these writers were Chiliast, neither were Pretribbers. If I am wrong, show your evidence! That is only fair to ask.

I showed it, and you, without taking enough time that you could even possibly have actually considered what I posted, denied what they plainly said. And in doing so, you again voiced your inane argument that all these elements must be combined in a single short passage, or they would not have taught it. This is nothig other than a willful attempt to deceive people who are sufficiently ignorant of the subject to imagine that there is some merit to your cavils.

 

[Biblewriter]

Here is another passage quoted from pages 69-72 of my book, "Ancient Dispensational Truth."


Ancient Teaching that Daniel’s
Seventieth Week Has Not Been Fulfilled

The concept of a future fulfillment of Daniel’s seventieth week is an essential part of Dispensational doctrine, and is totally incompatible with all other forms of prophetic interpretation, such as Covenant Theology, Historicism, Preterism, and Idealism. So it may come as a total surprise to many, as it was to this writer, that this was taught, and very clearly taught, in some of the oldest eschatological Christian writings that have survived to the present day.

The very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day is the last twelve chapters of the very famous five volume work by Irenaeus, which is thought to have been published between the years 186 and 188 A.D.

Irenaeus wrote:

“And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: ‘And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.’ And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week. (“Against Heresies”, by Irenaeus, book 5, chapter 25, “The fraud, pride, and tyrannical kingdom of Antichrist, as described by Daniel and Paul,” paragraph 4.)

Here we see Irenaeus, in describing the events he foresaw as coming in the future, explicitly quoting from Daniel’s prophecy of the seventieth week, saying, “And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.” This is a quotation of Daniel 9:27, the last verse of Daniel’s discussion of what would take place in the seventy weeks of his prophecy. We should note here that the modern practice of using only the exact words of the original in a quotation, simply did not exist at this time. Even in the Bible, there are many quotations in which the original wording has been slightly altered.

Five chapters later, Irenaeus again mentioned this half week:

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that ‘many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ ” (“Against Heresies”, by Irenaeus, book 5, chapter 30, paragraph 4.)

Hippolytus wrote even more clearly on this in the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture which has survived to the present day. This was a commentary on Daniel which is thought to have been written between 202 and 211 A.D.

Hippolytus wrote:

“For after sixty-two weeks was fulfilled and after Christ has come and the Gospel has been preached in every place, times having been spun out, the end remains one week away, in which Elijah and Enoch shall be present and in its half the abomination of desolation, the Antichrist, shall appear who threatens desolation of the world.
After he comes, sacrifice and drink offering, which now in every way is offered by the nations to God, shall be taken away.” (“Commentary on Daniel”, by Hippolytus, Book 4, 35.3, from a draft copy of the forthcoming translation by T. C. Schmidt, which he personally provided to this writer. Used by permission.)

And again, fifteen chapters later, Hippolytus also wrote:

“Just as also he spoke to Daniel, “And he shall establish a covenant with many for one week and it will be that in the half of the week he shall take away my sacrifice and drink offering,” so that the one week may be shown as divided into two, after the two witnesses will have preached for three and a half years, the Antichrist will wage war against the saints the remainder of the week and will desolate all the world so that what was spoken may be fulfilled, “And they will give the abomination of desolation one thousand two hundred ninety days. Blessed is he who endures to Christ and reaches the one thousand three hundred thirty-five days!” (“Commentary on Daniel”, by Hippolytus, Book 4, 50.2, from a draft copy of the forthcoming translation by T. C. Schmidt, which he personally provided to this writer. Used by permission.)

So Hippolytus not only taught that Daniel’s seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future. He said “the one week may be shown as divided in two.” And then said, “after the two witnesses will have preached for three and a half years, the Antichrist will wage war against the saints the remainder of the week.”

Hippolytus also explained how this fits with other statements of time in the prophetic scriptures, writing:

“But he, wishing to persuade these according to every way, raised his right hand and his left hand to heaven and swore by him who lives forever.
“What and to whom did he swear? The Son swore to Father, saying that the Father lives forever and that they truly shall know all these things in a time and times and half of a time, when the dispersal of the Jews has been consummated.
“And so he stretched out his hands, and through this he displayed the passion.
“But when he says, ‘In a time and times and half of the time,’ he signaled that the things of the Antichrist are for three-and-a-half years. For he says a time is one year, but times are two years, and half of a time is half of one year. These are the one thousand two hundred ninety days which Daniel foretold. ‘And so, after the dispersion of the Jews happens, the suffering of the people is consummated, in those days the Antichrist is near, then they shall know all these things.’ ”
(“Commentary on Daniel”, by Hippolytus, Book 4, 56.5-57.1, from a draft copy of the forthcoming translation by T. C. Schmidt, which he personally provided to this writer. Used by permission.)

 

[sovereigngrace]

Yiu are doing the same thing here that you were doing in your inane comments about Daniel 9, concentration on things a passage does not say instead of on what it does say.

I have presented proof sufficient for anyone who is subject to scripture. And no amount of proof will ever be sufficient for anyone who is unwilling to submit to scripture.

Again, you have made no direct response to the Postrib rebuttal. I'm afraid your interpretation simply does not make sense or add up.

The Greek word tēreō actually comes up twice in Revelation 3:10: “Because thou hast kept (tēreō) the word of my patience, I also will keep (tēreō) thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.”

The word means:

to attend to carefully, take care of,
to guard,
to keep, one in the state in which he is,
to observe,
to reserve: to undergo something,

The Greek word tēreō derives from the word tēreō which literally means ‘a watch or guard (from loss or injury, properly, by keeping the eye upon’.

These words, and their generally-accepted meanings, ooze preservation, care and protection. They fit in with the constant biblical theme of God looking after His people in the midst of a dark evil world. What is more, they fit perfectly with the consistent context and usage of the word elsewhere in the inspired text.

A basic analysis of the original Greek text shows us that the meaning and thrust literally reads: “Because thou hast kept or attended to or taken care of the word … I also will keep or attend to or take care of thee.”

Basically: “them that honour me I will honour” (1 Samuel 2:30).

An examination of the usage of the Greek word tereo elsewhere in Scripture shows the error of the Pretrib interpretation. In fact, it forbids such a forced, bias and mistaken meaning.

The Pretribulation interpretation of the word as ‘to remove or take away’ is shown to be totally untenable. It butchers the literal meaning of the word. It gives it a connotation that cannot in any way fit with its usage elsewhere in Scripture. In fact, it forces it to mean the opposite to what it actually means. Applying the Pretrib meaning to other texts that use the same word ends up changing the whole meaning and sense of multiple Scriptures. In fact, many end up saying the opposite to what they are actually saying. Let us look at some examples.

Contrasts

To highlight the irrational and nonsensical nature of Pretrib hermeneutics. We need to apply their mistaken interpretation to other passages that carry the same Greek word.

Matthew 19:17 reads: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, (tēreō) keep the commandments.”

Pretrib would have Matthew 19:17 read: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, (tēreō) remove or take away the commandments.”

This would be absurd. It expresses the opposite meaning to what is intended.

John 8:51 reads: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man (tēreō) keep my saying, he shall never see death.”

Pretrib would have John 8:51 read: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man (tēreō) remove or take away my saying, he shall never see death.”

John 15:10-20 reads: “If ye (tēreō) keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have (tēreō) kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love … Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have (tēreō) kept my saying, they will (tēreō) keep yours also.”

Pretrib would have John 15:10-20 read: “If ye (tēreō) remove or take away my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have (tēreō) removed or taken away my Father's commandments, and abide in his love … Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have (tēreō) removed or taken away my saying, they will (tēreō) remove or take away yours also.”

Ephesians 4:3 reads: “Endeavouring to (tēreō) keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Pretrib would have Ephesians 4:3 read: “Endeavouring (tēreō) to remove or take away the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Philippians 4:7 reads: “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall (tēreō) keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

Pretrib would have Philippians 4:7 read: “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall (tēreō) remove or take away your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

2 Timothy 1:12 reads: “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able (teros) to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Pretrib would have 2 Timothy 1:12 read: “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able (tēreō) to remove or take away that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Jude 1:24 reads: “Now unto him that is able (tēreō) to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.”

Pretrib would have Jude 1:24 read: “Now unto him that is able (tēreō) to remove or take away you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.”

 

[sovereigngrace]

I showed it, and you, without taking enough time that you could even possibly have actually considered what I posted, denied what they plainly said. And in doing so, you again voiced your inane argument that all these elements must be combined in a single short passage, or they would not have taught it. This is nothig other than a willful attempt to deceive people who are sufficiently ignorant of the subject to imagine that there is some merit to your cavils.

You wrote your book unchallenged with a bias Pretrib approach, like every Dispy I have read on the ECFs. See how your thesis stands up to real scrutiny (in front of witnesses): Which ECF taught (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ? Highlight this teaching!!!

 

[Biblewriter]

M

 

[Biblewriter]

Actually

You wrote your book unchallenged with a bias Pretrib approach, like every Dispy I have read on the ECFs. See how your thesis stands up to real scrutiny (in front of witnesses): Which ECF taught (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ? Highlight this teaching!!!

Actually, all three of the ones I quoted taught this, except that at least some of them foresaw only a three and a half year tribulation, rather than a seven year one.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Actually
, all three of the ones I quoted taught this, except that they foresaw only a three and a half year tribulation, rather than a seven year one.

I will respond later. I have to preach tonight.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

ctually, Amillenialism was not taught by even one early Christian writer who wrote before the third century and whose works have been preserved. And even as late as the fifth century, Jerome called fututism "the standard interpretation of all the writers of the Christian church." This statement was not technically correct. but what he meant was that he did not consider the few Amilennialists before that time as actual Christian writers. And indeed all but one Amil writer previous to Jerome that I personally know about was originally conbemned as a heretic.

Chiliasm was largely superseded by amillennialism.Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Augustine contributed to establishing amillennialism as the standard view of the church. Though some of the earliest Christian writers appear to have believed in a thousand year earthly reign of Christ we also have others who disagree. So there is no firm agreement on this issue.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Chiliasm was largely superseded by amillennialism.Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Augustine contributed to establishing amillennialism as the standard view of the church. Though some of the earliest Christian writers appear to have believed in a thousand year earthly reign of Christ we also have others who disagree. So there is no firm agreement on this issue.

Between AD 30-AD 130 there are 13 ECFs that taught on end-times, only 1 was a Chiliast - Papias.