Iranaeus 130-202AD, Antichrist A Man, A Literal Temple, Destroyed At Jesus Second Coming.

[Biblewriter]

Elliott was a Reformation historicist. Kelly was a Darbyite futurist.

Spurgeon commented, "Kelly is a man who, born for the universe, has narrowed his mind by Darbyism".

Futurity, which has not occurred, cannot refute history, which has.

Easy to say, if you have not read his book.

 

[David Kent]

William Kelly wrote a highly detailed point-by-point refutation of Horae Apocalyptica, in his book titled "Lectures on the Revelation," which was published in the 1860s. You can read this online at: Revelation 1 - 3.

There was a Kellyite Assembly near here, about ¼ mile, which closed down about 5 years ago. They are one of the Exclusive sects of the Brethren, I was told by one brother who attended there. There was an exclusive meeting about 100 yards from where I used to live but I never heard of them till I moved here and one of our members attended meetings there from time to time. I mentioned this to an undertaker I knew and he said they were the only ones apart from the JWs who did not allow the undertakers to stay in the service.

But have YOU read Elliott. Remember that Historicism is the one teaching that was not began by Jesuits, unlike preterism and futurism. In his appendix Elliot gives refutations of a couple of forms of Preterism and a couple of Futurism. When he first wrote that in his first edition Dispensationalism had only just begun and hadn't made much progress so it wasn't included.

Remember what Paul said about doctrines that are introduced in the last days. Just in case you don't here it is:

• 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

I did have a set of Elliott 2nd edition I think. I still have volume 2, a masterpiece of work on the 2 witnesses and a history of Christ's witnesses and martyrs during the dark ages in those pages. I lost the 4th volume years ago, I think my grandson has volumes 1 and 3,

About 5 years or so ago, I did a search online to see if i could buy a complete set. I found two, one was over $6000 and the other, a leather bound set was over $8000. a bit beyond my price range.

I am fully aware of the Brethren teaching. As a child, I always attended the locl Brethren Sunday School. My parents were both teachers. But mu dad later left the Brethren after seeing discrepancies he saw with their teaching and what the scripture says. He gave the elders a list of questions and asked them to comment on them. After keeping them for a couple of months they returned them saying "There will be no comment." At that my dad left the movement. (I did not know this till several years ago when my sister told me.)

When I was saved, I went to a local Brethren Assembly. At that time my dad said "Beware of the Brethren teaching on the second coming, it is false." I ignored him and when I moved, I went to another Brethren assembly where I met my wife, who was concerted at a Brethren girls summer camp, from a very socialist atheist Family. We went to a number of meetings on the second coming both in London and in our local assembly. At the last one of these we attended one of the elders was speaking on one of Daniel's prophecies, I can't remember which one. My wife said "He was saying this will happen then that will happen and then that, etc. I was expecting to see it all written down, but I can't see it." I looked at it carefully and said "You are right, it isn't." Then I remembered my Dad's words, "Beware of the Brethren teaching on the second coming, it is false." and we never went to one of those meetings again and I did further research and agreed with him.

 

[Biblewriter]

There was a Kellyite Assembly near here, about ¼ mile, which closed down about 5 years ago. They are one of the Exclusive sects of the Brethren, I was told by one brother who attended there. There was an exclusive meeting about 100 yards from where I used to live but I never heard of them till I moved here and one of our members attended meetings there from time to time. I mentioned this to an undertaker I knew and he said they were the only ones apart from the JWs who did not allow the undertakers to stay in the service.

But have YOU read Elliott. Remember that Historicism is the one teaching that was not began by Jesuits, unlike preterism and futurism. In his appendix Elliot gives refutations of a couple of forms of Preterism and a couple of Futurism. When he first wrote that in his first edition Dispensationalism had only just begun and hadn't made much progress so it wasn't included.

Remember what Paul said about doctrines that are introduced in the last days. Just in case you don't here it is:

• 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

I did have a set of Elliott 2nd edition I think. I still have volume 2, a masterpiece of work on the 2 witnesses and a history of Christ's witnesses and martyrs during the dark ages in those pages. I lost the 4th volume years ago, I think my grandson has volumes 1 and 3,

About 5 years or so ago, I did a search online to see if i could buy a complete set. I found two, one was over $6000 and the other, a leather bound set was over $8000. a bit beyond my price range.

I am fully aware of the Brethren teaching. As a child, I always attended the locl Brethren Sunday School. My parents were both teachers. But mu dad later left the Brethren after seeing discrepancies he saw with their teaching and what the scripture says. He gave the elders a list of questions and asked them to comment on them. After keeping them for a couple of months they returned them saying "There will be no comment." At that my dad left the movement. (I did not know this till several years ago when my sister told me.)

When I was saved, I went to a local Brethren Assembly. At that time my dad said "Beware of the Brethren teaching on the second coming, it is false." I ignored him and when I moved, I went to another Brethren assembly where I met my wife, who was concerted at a Brethren girls summer camp, from a very socialist atheist Family. We went to a number of meetings on the second coming both in London and in our local assembly. At the last one of these we attended one of the elders was speaking on one of Daniel's prophecies, I can't remember which one. My wife said "He was saying this will happen then that will happen and then that, etc. I was expecting to see it all written down, but I can't see it." I looked at it carefully and said "You are right, it isn't." Then I remembered my Dad's words, "Beware of the Brethren teaching on the second coming, it is false." and we never went to one of those meetings again and I did further research and agreed with him.

I, too, was brought up in the Plymouth Brethren, And was taught that the fellowship I was part of was the only place where the Lord was "in the midst." Such a doctrine, obviously, could not be demonstrated from scripture, so they "proved" it by pointing out that they were the only group that still taught all the doctrines of the "original" Plymouth Brethren. But I did something unheard of. I actually began to read what these "Original" Plymouth Brethren wrote, and in time assembled undeniable proof that we were simply not still teaching what those brethren taught.

To others, this would be a nonsense issue. But to them, it was a bombshell. So much so that they asked me to withdraw from their fellowship. I did this with great sorrow.

But my experience in assembling this proof gave me the knowledge of how to research the history of ideas. And in my personal research I have assembled hard proof that neither futurism nor Dispensationalism are new doctrines. In fact, all the basic elements of both systems of thought can be found in some of the very oldest surviving Christian documents on the subject.

The very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length used the word Dispensation, or its plural form dispensations, more that eighty times. And it used this word in reference to specific time periods in which God dealt with mankind in different ways. It named three past dispensations, plus the present one, and posited possible future ones. And it said that a failure to understand the dispensations of God kept men from being able to understand the prophetic scriptures. It also taught a rapture before the great tribulation, and a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week. And it very clearly insisted that the Antichrist would be an end time individual that would sit in the temple in the earthly city of Jerusalem.

Likewise, the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture very clearly and distinctly taught, and insisted, that Daniel's seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future.

This is only a very short summary of extensive documentation I have already published in this sub-forum.

 

[Truth7t7]

I, too, was brought up in the Plymouth Brethren, And was taught that the fellowship I was part of was the only place where the Lord was "in the midst." Such a doctrine, obviously, could not be demonstrated from scripture, so they "proved" it by pointing out that they were the only group that still taught all the doctrines of the "original" Plymouth Brethren. But I did something unheard of. I actually began to read what these "Original" Plymouth Brethren wrote, and in time assembled undeniable proof that we were simply not still teaching what those brethren taught.

To others, this would be a nonsense issue. But to them, it was a bombshell. So much so that they asked me to withdraw from their fellowship. I did this with great sorrow.

But my experience in assembling this proof gave me the knowledge of how to research the history of ideas. And in my personal research I have assembled hard proof that neither futurism nor Dispensationalism are new doctrines. In fact, all the basic elements of both systems of thought can be found in some of the very oldest surviving Christian documents on the subject.

The very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length used the word Dispensation, or its plural form dispensations, more that eighty times. And it used this word in reference to specific time periods in which God dealt with mankind in different ways. It named three past dispensations, plus the present one, and posited possible future ones. And it said that a failure to understand the dispensations of God kept men from being able to understand the prophetic scriptures. It also taught a rapture before the great tribulation, and a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week. And it very clearly insisted that the Antichrist would be an end time individual that would sit in the temple in the earthly city of Jerusalem.

Likewise, the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture very clearly and distinctly taught, and insisted, that Daniel's seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future.

This is only a very short summary of extensive documentation I have already published in this sub-forum.

Post your claim of early Christian fathers or writings teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture?

 

[Biblewriter]

I have repeatedly posted all pf this before, in this forum. But as you seem to be new to the discussion, I will post it again.

The very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length that has survived to our day is the last twelve chapters of “Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus. (There were older such commentaries, but all of them were either short or have been lost.) This one is thought to have been published between 186 and 188 A.D., and says:

“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons ‘as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;’ so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 1.)


Here we find a clear teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture. But Irenaeus also wrote:

“For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule;” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 35, paragraph 1.)

Here we see this same ancient writer just as explicitly saying that “the resurrection of the just” “takes place after the coming of Antichrist.” This appears to flatly contradict his other statement. But is this correct? First, we need to notice that Irenaeus did not say that “the resurrection of the just” takes place after the reign of Antichrist. He only said it “takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule.” To see the significance of this, we need to consider another statement from this same ancient document:

“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.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 30, paragraph 4.)

Here we find first, a distinct statement that Antichrist would reign for three years and six months. But also a distinct statement that this three years and six months would be after “this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world.” Thus we see that Irenaeus placing “the resurrection of the just” “after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule,” was not saying the rapture would be after the three and a half year reign of Antichrist. Rather, he placed the rapture at the beginning of that three and a half year reign. That is, he was saying that the time of “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be” was the three and a half year reign of Antichrist.

Irenaeus very clearly put the church in at least the first part of the time of Antichrist, as we can see in the following:

“‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.’ It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 26, paragraph 1.)

This is the only place Irenaeus used the word “church” in regard to these events, other that the place where he explicitly said “the Church shall be suddenly caught up” before the “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” But he used the word “we,” which certainly seems to have the same meaning, here:

“But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit.” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 30, paragraph 4.)

 

[Biblewriter]

These last two statements make it very clear that Irenaeus placed the rapture at least after “the coming of Antichrist.” We have already noticed that in statements about events before the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, he used the words “the church” and “we.” But in his statements about persecutions during the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, he changed this terminology. We remember that in his statement about the church being “suddenly caught up,” he called the tribulation “the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” He used the term “the righteous” again when he spoke of the faithful in that time in this statement:

“For that image which was set up by Nebuchadnezzar had indeed a height of sixty cubits, while the breadth was six cubits; on account of which Ananias, Azarias, and Misaël, when they did not worship it, were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end. For that image, taken as a whole, was a prefiguring of this man’s coming, decreeing that he should undoubtedly himself alone be worshipped by all men.” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 2.)

We remember that Irenaeus used this same term in speaking of the beginning of the kingdom, saying, “bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” He also used a second term for these faithful ones during that time, calling them “saints” in the following statements:

“Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: ‘And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom.’ Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: ‘The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,’ that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 3.)

“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,” Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 4.)

We need to notice that both of these statements are about the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, and thus speak of a time after Irenaeus placed the “resurrection of the just.”

Why are the exact words Irenaeus used significant? Because a doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture requires words like “the church” or “we” in statements about the godly during events up to and through the time “the Church shall be suddenly caught up.” But when speaking of times after the rapture, the proper (and scriptural) terms for godly people are “the righteous” or “saints.” Again, the doctrine requires a different term for those who are resurrected at the time of the rapture, for that resurrection includes Old Testament believers who were thus not members of the church. And this is exactly what Irenaeus did, calling the resurrection by its scriptural name of “the resurrection of the just.”

 

[Biblewriter]

Now some will want to discount any claim that Irenaeus was intentionally using well selected terminology in these statements. But he used the same precision in his comments about recognizing the Antichrist when he appeared. For, as we have already noticed, when he was speaking of true believers he said “But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him” But when he was speaking of men who might be deceived by the Antichrist, he stuck strictly with the scriptural terminology by referring to them as “those,” “these,” “they,” and “them,” as we see in the following statements:

“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,” Book V, chapter 30, end of paragraph 1.)

“These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 30, beginning of paragraph 2.)

Thus we see that Irenaeus used precise terminology that clearly distinguished between these two groups. He again used the scriptural words “those,” along with “ye” and “he,” rather than his own words, when speaking of the need for the inhabitants of the land of Judea to flee when they see the abomination of desolation.

“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be. (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 2.)


Finally, Irenaeus made one more statement that touches this matter, saying:

“Has the Word come for the ruin and for the resurrection of many? For the ruin, certainly, of those who do not believe Him, to whom also He has threatened a greater damnation in the judgment-day than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; but for the resurrection of believers, and those who do the will of His Father in heaven.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 27, paragraph 1.)

In this passage Irenaeus implies a simultaneous judgment-day for unbelievers and resurrection of believers. Some will assume that this proves he was not saying that the rapture will be before the tribulation. But this is in full accord with the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture. For there will be people who turn to God during the time of the tribulation, and they will be persecuted and slain for their faith. These will be resurrected at approximately the same time as when Christ comes in power and glory to judge the world. (The scriptures do not say their resurrection happens when He comes. But Revelation 20:4 says “they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” So we know that their resurrection takes place at least approximately the same time as He comes.

So now we are faced with two choices. We can either assume that Irenaeus was exceedingly careless as to his wording, and simply did not mean what he said. Or we can assume that the precision of his wording was not a mere coincidence, but that he chose his exact words carefully and with intent. In that case, we are forced to conclude that Irenaeus meant exactly what he said when he wrote:

"And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’"

 

[Biblewriter]

Again, there is an ancient sermon titled “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.” The age 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 Sevelle. Based on events the sermon said were impending, various scholars have estimated its date from as early as 373 to as late as 627. 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. (“Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition,” by Paul J. Alexander, University of California Press, 1985, pg. 147.) 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 this unknown author Pseudo-Ephraem. This sermon was divided into ten sections, and said in section 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.” (“On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.” Author unknown, but called pseudo-Ephraem, section 2. From “The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition,” by Paul J. Alexander, ed. By Dorthy deF. Abrahamse, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985, 2.10. Cited there from “Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Altertums und dem Anfang des Mittelaters,” C. P. Caspari, ed. Briefe, Christiania, 1890, 208-20.)

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 section 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.” (“On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World,” section 10.)

These people say the rapture is in this section, instead of section 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 section 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 section 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.” (On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World,” section 8.)

But this argument is simply 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.”

 

[jgr]

Likewise, the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture very clearly and distinctly taught, and insisted, that Daniel's seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future.

Here's an equally old or older Christian commentary on scripture that very clearly and distinctly taught, and insisted, that Daniel's seventieth week was fulfilled immediately after the 69th.

182AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27 ; The 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel) "182 AD Clement of Alexandria "Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. And his promise being accomplished in the time of Darius, the feast of the dedication was held, as also the feast of tabernacles. There were in all, taking in the duration of the captivity down to the restoration of the people, from the birth of Moses, one thousand one hundred and fifty-five years, six months, and ten days; and from the reign of David, according to some, four hundred and fifty-two; more correctly, five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, and ten days. From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation." That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said. (Stromata, book 1, chapter 21)

 

[David Kent]

I, too, was brought up in the Plymouth Brethren, And was taught that the fellowship I was part of was the only place where the Lord was "in the midst." Such a doctrine, obviously, could not be demonstrated from scripture, so they "proved" it by pointing out that they were the only group that still taught all the doctrines of the "original" Plymouth Brethren. But I did something unheard of. I actually began to read what these "Original" Plymouth Brethren wrote, and in time assembled undeniable proof that we were simply not still teaching what those brethren taught.

One of the earliest PB was Benjamin Wills Newton and he was not a dispensationalist, or pretribulation rapturist. The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony still follow his teachings and publish his books. Darby moved in on the Plymouth meetings and fell out with BWN, on the face of it because Newton dad repressed a Friday evening meeting but more probably because he disagreed with BWN over prophecy. Darby excluded BWN who then went to Bristol and joined George Mueller and played no further part in the Brethren.

Newton wrote that he he read noting in Darby's writings that a Papist wouldn't write, and that he thought Darby may be a papist plant. My book on the the origins of the Brethren is by Rowden and he quotes from some previously unpublished MSS, some by BWN. He calls them The Fry letters, or Fry MS, I can't remember which. Some time ago I found these on line and in one of them he said he thought Darby was a Jesuit.

Some years before this, my pastor at the time said he had heard that Darby was a Jesuit. I said "No", but asked my dad if had heard that, as he had studied a lot about Darby. He said "No, I haven't but it wouldn't surprise me as he certainly taught Jesuit doctrines. "

 

[David Kent]

The very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length used the word Dispensation, or its plural form dispensations, more that eighty times. And it used this word in reference to specific time periods in which God dealt with mankind in different ways.

"The oldest surviving Christian comentary," the writer who you don't name of course, may have wrote on dispensations, all through history writers have. Many of the great historicist writers like Guinness and Elliott spoke of dispesations, as far as I can gather, meaning the OT dispensation and the NT dispensation.

 

[David Kent]

182AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27 ; The 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel) "182 AD Clement of Alexandria "Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. And his promise being accomplished in the time of Darius, the feast of the dedication was held, as also the feast of tabernacles.

That is interesting as he seems to take Darius as the Artaxerxes in Ezra and Nehemiah. Which is obviously correct. As also is the Ahasuerus in Esther.

 

[Biblewriter]

Here's an equally old or older Christian commentary on scripture that very clearly and distinctly taught, and insisted, that Daniel's seventieth week was fulfilled immediately after the 69th.

182AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27 ; The 'Seventy Weeks' of Daniel) "182 AD Clement of Alexandria "Cyrus had, by proclamation, previously enjoined the restoration of the Hebrews. And his promise being accomplished in the time of Darius, the feast of the dedication was held, as also the feast of tabernacles. There were in all, taking in the duration of the captivity down to the restoration of the people, from the birth of Moses, one thousand one hundred and fifty-five years, six months, and ten days; and from the reign of David, according to some, four hundred and fifty-two; more correctly, five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, and ten days. From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by: desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation." That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said. (Stromata, book 1, chapter 21)

This post is erroneous on several counts. First, the "Stromata" was not a connentary on scripture, it included a few comments on a passage of scripture, which is a very different matter. And these comments are very short. But that is really only a detail.

The great problem with your analysis is that Clement of Alexandria, whenever he wrote this, clearly taught a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks. For he had Christ dying during the 69th week, and the 70th week being fulfilled in the events thought to have taken place in A.D. 70, which would be approximately 40 years after the crucifixion. You cannot fit these two events into a single week, or even into two weeks. So this analysis unquestionably included a gap. the only difference from this and the gap seen by Irenaeus and Hyppolytus, is how long this gap lasted.

 

[jgr]

This post is erroneous on several counts. First, the "Stromata" was not a connentary on scripture, it included a few comments on a passage of scripture, which is a very different matter. And these comments are very short. But that is really only a detail.

Surely you jest.

A commentary on Scripture is a commentary on Scripture, whether short or long. Clement's was of sufficient length to establish the contiguity between the events of the 69th and 70th weeks:

"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord."

No gap there.

Daniel 9:26-27 have always referenced events associated with the 70 AD destruction. But they have also always first referenced sufficient events of the 70th week to establish its contiguity.

Nothing new, and no disembodied 70th week, there.

 

[Biblewriter]

Surely you jest.

A commentary on Scripture is a commentary on Scripture, whether short or long. Clement's was of sufficient length to establish the contiguity between the events of the 69th and 70th weeks:

"And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord."

No gap there.

Daniel 9:26-27 have always referenced events associated with the 70 AD destruction. But they have also always first referenced sufficient events of the 70th week to establish its contiguity.

Nothing new, and no disembodied 70th week, there.

A commentary on scripture, in the sense in which the word is generally used, is not a comment on a particular subject in the scriptures, but a commentary on a large part of Holy Writ, usually, on an entire book of the Bible. But that is, as I said, a minor point.

In the portion of what Vlement said that you quoted this time, you omitted two of the three critical statements that show what Clement was really saying. The first of these was "That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras." This clearly establishes Clement's opinion that the seven weeks came before, not after, the sixty-two weeks. Then came his statement that you quoted the second time, that "Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those 'sixty and two weeks,' as the prophet said." These two statements clearly prove that Clement was saying that the week in which our Lord came was either the sixty-ninth week or the seventieth week. For his words "and 'in the one week,' was He Lord," seem to imply, but do not definotely state, tha he considered the week in which Jesus came to be the seventieth week. But then you also omitted the fact that he then added that "The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius."

This very clearly and explicitly delayed at least the last half of the seventieth week approximately 40 years, until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

So it is simply a fact that cannot be rationally debated, that even Clement of Alexandria included a gap in the fulfillment of the seventy weeks. So the only difference between his analysis, and that of Irenaeus and Hypolytus, was the length of the gap. The presence of this gap was (and still is) obvious to all who actually knew the history of the period. Forthere is no way to put the destruction of the temple and the city within seven years of the time Messiah was "cut off."

NOTE:
The very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture, as opposed to merely comments on a scriptural subject, was a commentary on Daniel written by Hyppoolytus. Modern scholars think this was written sometime between the years 202 and 211.

This was very clearly NOT within seven years, or even within twice that time, of the time when

 

[jgr]

A commentary on scripture, in the sense in which the word is generally used, is not a comment on a particular subject in the scriptures, but a commentary on a large part of Holy Writ, usually, on an entire book of the Bible. But that is, as I said, a minor point.

In the portion of what Vlement said that you quoted this time, you omitted two of the three critical statements that show what Clement was really saying. The first of these was "That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras." This clearly establishes Clement's opinion that the seven weeks came before, not after, the sixty-two weeks. Then came his statement that you quoted the second time, that "Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those 'sixty and two weeks,' as the prophet said." These two statements clearly prove that Clement was saying that the week in which our Lord came was either the sixty-ninth week or the seventieth week. For his words "and 'in the one week,' was He Lord," seem to imply, but do not definotely state, tha he considered the week in which Jesus came to be the seventieth week. But then you also omitted the fact that he then added that "The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius."

This very clearly and explicitly delayed at least the last half of the seventieth week approximately 40 years, until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

So it is simply a fact that cannot be rationally debated, that even Clement of Alexandria included a gap in the fulfillment of the seventy weeks. So the only difference between his analysis, and that of Irenaeus and Hypolytus, was the length of the gap. The presence of this gap was (and still is) obvious to all who actually knew the history of the period. Forthere is no way to put the destruction of the temple and the city within seven years of the time Messiah was "cut off."

NOTE:
The very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture, as opposed to merely comments on a scriptural subject, was a commentary on Daniel written by Hyppoolytus. Modern scholars think this was written sometime between the years 202 and 211.

This was very clearly NOT within seven years, or even within twice that time, of the time when

Whatever the computations were that Clement used in relation to the 70 weeks, it is evident that he considered their associated prophesied events to be completed and fulfilled in their entirety by no later than 70 AD. Thus the greatest "gap" that could occur would be some 40 years.

There is no resemblance between Clement's fulfilled chronology, and that of the dispensational disembodied unfulfilled futurized 70th week.

 

[David Kent]

This very clearly and explicitly delayed at least the last half of the seventieth week approximately 40 years, until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem.

I once had a pastor who said the 70th week was of unknown duration and ended in AD70
Most of the early writers that I have read give just 3½ years remaining after the crucifixion. Which is correct as the 69 weeks ran out at the baptism of Jesus when he was annointed. Any other interpretaion whether ancient or modern is in error.

70 weeks.
7 weeks for the temple and city to be rebuilt from Cyrus to Darius.

62 weeks from Darius to the Baptism of Jesus.

3½ weeks personal ministry to the Jews. to the crucifixion.

3½ weeks continued ministry to the Jews through the apostles till the conversion of Cornelius. Then the ministry was to both Jews and gentiles. You seem to be educated, why cannot you understand that. 70 weeks have been fully fulfilled.

 

[Biblewriter]

Whatever the computations were that Clement used in relation to the 70 weeks, it is evident that he considered their associated prophesied events to be completed and fulfilled in their entirety by no later than 70 AD. Thus the greatest "gap" that could occur would be some 40 years.

There is no resemblance between Clement's fulfilled chronology, and that of the dispensational disembodied unfulfilled futurized 70th week.

Again, the only difference between the gap of Clement of Alexandria, and that of ALL the other ANCIENT writers that touched on the issue, was the length of the gap whose exisance even Clement of Alexandria could not deny.

 

[jgr]

ALL the other ANCIENT writers that touched on the issue

That would be Irenaeus and Hippolytus, with a 500 year gap. No others come anywhere close.

 

[Biblewriter]

That would be Irenaeus and Hippolytus, with a 500 year gap. No others come anywhere close.

The only other ancient writer that even touched on the issue was Clement, with his 40 or so year gap.