Here is another extract, quoted from pages 89-103 of my book "Ancient Dispensational Truth."
Ancient Teaching of a Rapture
Before the Great Tribulation
It has been widely claimed that the doctrine of a rapture before the tribulation could not be correct because it had never been taught before the 1800s. And these people contend that anything the church never taught in its first eighteen centuries, could not be correct.
This is false on two fronts. First, We read “I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.” (Psalm 119:99) This, actually, should be true of every generation, for when we have learned everything our teachers can teach us, our studies are not completed. Rather, our real studies are just now ready to begin. For we start with the knowledge set before us, and build up from there, using meditation upon God’s testimonies. So whoever first taught a given doctrine, or how long it has been taught, are immaterial. The only thing that counts is whether or not the scriptures teach it.
But this claim has another error. And that is that it simply is not correct. On page 178 of his book, “Dispensationalism before Darby.” William C. Watson listed about two dozen writers who, in the 1600s and 1700s, taught a rapture significantly before the Lord returns to judge the world for its wickedness. But all of these were late comers. For the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation was taught, and sometimes very clearly taught, in ancient times, as we shall see in this chapter.
We need to be aware of one detail to actually understand the following quotations from these ancient writers, and why they were actually teaching a rapture before the great tribulation, even though their writings included comments about “the church” suffering persecution under the Antichrist.
If we carefully examine all their writings, they always give the time of the Antichrist as three and a half years, which they call the “great tribulation,” as you will see below. This writer has not found even one exception to this rule. These same ancients clearly taught that Daniel’s seventieth week remains to be fulfilled in the future. But they only foresaw the great tribulation as the last half of this week. So, as will become evident below, they only taught that the tribulation would last three and a half years, or a half week, instead of seven years, as is commonly taught today. Thus, from their viewpoint, their position was truly pre-tribulational, because they taught a rapture before the “great tribulation.” But what they taught was actually what today would be called a mid-tribulation rapture.
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 only short comments in articles about other subjects, or have been lost.) This is thought to have been published between the years 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,” by Irenaeus, 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,” by Irenaeus, 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.” On the surface, this would seem to flatly contradict his other statement. But this is not the case. 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,” by Irenaeus, 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,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 26, paragraph 1.)
This is the only place Irenaeus used the word “church” in regard to these events, other than 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,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 26, paragraph 1.)
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,” by Irenaeus, 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,” by Irenaeus, 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,” by Irenaeus, 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.” And in these statements, he changed the words “the church,” or “we,” to “the saints.”
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 at the moment when “the Church shall be suddenly caught up.” But when speaking of times after this, that is, 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.”
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,” by Irenaeus, 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,” by Irenaeus, 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,” by Irenaeus, 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,” by Irenaeus, 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 at 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.’
(continued)
