- May 15, 2005
- 11,935
- 1,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
Many attempt to discredit Dispensationalism by claiming that the church never taught it before about 1830. Such a claim is ridiculous, because the famous church historian Eusebius, who wrote in the mid fourth century, said that there had been many early church writers who held the same opinions as Papias. (The Church History, by Eusebius, book 3, chapter 39.) But of all these many early writers, only the writings of a few of them have been preserved. Since we know that there were many such writers, and we do not know what they wrote, then any claim that none of them ever taught any particular doctrine is pure nonsense.
But in addition to the foolishness of making claims about what these lost writings did or did not say, we also find clear statements about differences of opinion in the oldest Christian comments on Bible prophecy that were preserved. The oldest of these was the Epistle of Barnabas. Some scholars assign this epistle a date as early as 100, but others point to internal evidence that it could not have been written before about 130. In this epistle we read:
Ye ought therefore to understand. And this also I further beg of you, as being one of you, and loving you both individually and collectively more than my own soul, to take heed now to yourselves, and not to be like some, adding largely to your sins, and saying, The covenant is both theirs and ours. But they thus finally lost it, after Moses had already received it. For the Scripture saith, And Moses was fasting in the mount forty days and forty nights, and received the covenant from the Lord, tables of stone written with the finger of the hand of the Lord; but turning away to idols, they lost it. (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter IV)
The next oldest statement we have about such differences of opinion concerning Bible prophecy was made by Justin, who is called Justin Martyr because he was martyred. Chapter eighty of his Dialogue With Trypho, which is believed to date from about the year 170, begins as follows:
And Trypho to this replied, I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? Or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?
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 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 with Tyrpho, by Justin Martyr, chapter LXXX.)
The next oldest of the Christian comments we have that reveal disagreement on Bible prophecy were made by Irenaeus, and are thought to have been written sometime between the years 186 and 188. Chapter thirty of the fifth book of his famous work called Against Heresies begins as follows:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end),I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] Others then received this reading without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture, under that such a person must necessarily fall. Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against." (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXX, section 1.)
Again, chapter thirty-five of this same work begins:
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]. (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXXV, section 1.)
Irenaeus did not explicitly state that some in his day were actually attempting to allegorize these prophecies, but the very form of this statement would make no sense if such doctrine was not being taught. Indeed, we see the essence of the doctrine of Irenaeus was denouncing last part of the conclusion to the first part of the Epistle of Barnanas, which is, For if I should write to you about things future, ye would not understand, because such knowledge is hid in parables. These things then are so. (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter XVII)
When taken together, these statements conclusively prove that even by the time of the writing of these documents, which are the very oldest Christian comments on Bible prophecy that have been preserved, there was no agreement between Christians on such major points as whether the covenant belonged to the Church alone, or to both the Church and Israel, whether or not Jerusalem would be literally restored, whether Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally or allegorically, and even what was the correct text of the Revelation.
But because they are completely ignorant of all this, many Preterists, many Amillennialists, many Covenant Theologians, and many who hold the doctrine of the post tribulation rapture claim that the church never taught any view except their own during its first millennium and a half or more. All such claims are inappropriate and vain, for the only thing that is significant is what the Bible itself says. But in addition to their being unprofitable and vain, all of these claims are completely incorrect.
As we consider these documents, we need to remember that none of them is primarily about Bible prophecy, although they discuss it. The point of the Epistle of Barnabas was to oppose Judaizing teachers in the church. Justins point in his Dialogue With Trypho was to evangelize Jews. And Irenaeus was demonstrating the errors of Gnostacism. So none of these documents contains anything even resembling a full treatment of Bible prophecy.
But before we begin this examination, let it be perfectly clear that we consider it wholly unacceptable to attribute any authority whatsoever to these documents, other than their historical value. It is serious bad doctrine to claim that the writings of any man, or of any group of men, are authoritative. Our only true and proper authority is the word of God itself, the Bible.
But in addition to the foolishness of making claims about what these lost writings did or did not say, we also find clear statements about differences of opinion in the oldest Christian comments on Bible prophecy that were preserved. The oldest of these was the Epistle of Barnabas. Some scholars assign this epistle a date as early as 100, but others point to internal evidence that it could not have been written before about 130. In this epistle we read:
Ye ought therefore to understand. And this also I further beg of you, as being one of you, and loving you both individually and collectively more than my own soul, to take heed now to yourselves, and not to be like some, adding largely to your sins, and saying, The covenant is both theirs and ours. But they thus finally lost it, after Moses had already received it. For the Scripture saith, And Moses was fasting in the mount forty days and forty nights, and received the covenant from the Lord, tables of stone written with the finger of the hand of the Lord; but turning away to idols, they lost it. (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter IV)
The next oldest statement we have about such differences of opinion concerning Bible prophecy was made by Justin, who is called Justin Martyr because he was martyred. Chapter eighty of his Dialogue With Trypho, which is believed to date from about the year 170, begins as follows:
And Trypho to this replied, I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? Or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?
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 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 with Tyrpho, by Justin Martyr, chapter LXXX.)
The next oldest of the Christian comments we have that reveal disagreement on Bible prophecy were made by Irenaeus, and are thought to have been written sometime between the years 186 and 188. Chapter thirty of the fifth book of his famous work called Against Heresies begins as follows:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end),I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] Others then received this reading without examination; some in their simplicity, and upon their own responsibility, making use of this number expressing one decad; while some, in their inexperience, have ventured to seek out a name which should contain the erroneous and spurious number. Now, as regards those who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent, we are at liberty to assume that pardon will be granted them by God. But as for those who, for the sake of vainglory, lay it down for certain that names containing the spurious number are to be accepted, and affirm that this name, hit upon by themselves, is that of him who is to come; such persons shall not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again, as there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture, under that such a person must necessarily fall. Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against." (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXX, section 1.)
Again, chapter thirty-five of this same work begins:
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]. (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXXV, section 1.)
Irenaeus did not explicitly state that some in his day were actually attempting to allegorize these prophecies, but the very form of this statement would make no sense if such doctrine was not being taught. Indeed, we see the essence of the doctrine of Irenaeus was denouncing last part of the conclusion to the first part of the Epistle of Barnanas, which is, For if I should write to you about things future, ye would not understand, because such knowledge is hid in parables. These things then are so. (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter XVII)
When taken together, these statements conclusively prove that even by the time of the writing of these documents, which are the very oldest Christian comments on Bible prophecy that have been preserved, there was no agreement between Christians on such major points as whether the covenant belonged to the Church alone, or to both the Church and Israel, whether or not Jerusalem would be literally restored, whether Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally or allegorically, and even what was the correct text of the Revelation.
But because they are completely ignorant of all this, many Preterists, many Amillennialists, many Covenant Theologians, and many who hold the doctrine of the post tribulation rapture claim that the church never taught any view except their own during its first millennium and a half or more. All such claims are inappropriate and vain, for the only thing that is significant is what the Bible itself says. But in addition to their being unprofitable and vain, all of these claims are completely incorrect.
As we consider these documents, we need to remember that none of them is primarily about Bible prophecy, although they discuss it. The point of the Epistle of Barnabas was to oppose Judaizing teachers in the church. Justins point in his Dialogue With Trypho was to evangelize Jews. And Irenaeus was demonstrating the errors of Gnostacism. So none of these documents contains anything even resembling a full treatment of Bible prophecy.
But before we begin this examination, let it be perfectly clear that we consider it wholly unacceptable to attribute any authority whatsoever to these documents, other than their historical value. It is serious bad doctrine to claim that the writings of any man, or of any group of men, are authoritative. Our only true and proper authority is the word of God itself, the Bible.
