Intro

After having dug into many Early Church writings recently (such as the Restrainer and Ephraim and Joseph Mede, etc), I thought I'd summarize some trends in their thoughts.

One of the biggest mistakes made in nearly every generation has been interpreting prophecy in light of their current times instead of interpretting it for what it is.  We should change ourselves, our philosophy and the culture around us to match the Bible, not interpret the Bible in light of our philosophy and culture around us.  We should interpret the Bible for what it is, and try to envision what must change, and how fast it COULD change, to match what we see in Scripture, not try to shoehorn what is in the Bible to match our current political landscape.

Historically, most significant misinterpretation of Prophecy are rooted in trying to fit Prophecy to current events when they don't fit.  Examples include;

• The Ante-Nicean Church often thought the tribulation period was already present since many were being martyred.  They read about the False Messiah and decided it sounded like their current situation.
• Many in the Post Nicean Church thought they were in the Millenium period, for they mapped current events to Revelation and came to that conclusion.
• In the 13th century, Yoachim proposed a theory that lived for about 500 years before it died.   He fit Revelation to current events.  Over time people changed the interpretation to better fit THEIR current events.  It wasn't until current events made the theory impossible that it died.
• Many early Protestants held a historical view of Revelation and fit Revelation to current and historical events and because it gave them propoganda to use against the Catholic Church they wanted to win converts from so badly.
• We do it today.  Nearly every Democratic president has been accused of being the Anti-Christ or False Messiah since Jimmy Carter.  Never mind all those Biblical details that don't fit.  Some people FORCE it to fit because they HAVE to see prophect fit current events.  Such forced interpretations are only going to cause you to look rash and be ashamed when enough time passes to prove you wrong.
  And if modern Christians can make the leap from a Democratic President to "He's the False Messiah", what do you think people under Nero did?  Yes....many of them thought, "This is it!  We're in the tribulation!"
• And many people can't learn from the mistakes of those in the past, because they try to fit the writings of the Church to their philosophy, instead of the other way around.

 

The Pre vs Post Trib Debate and the Writings of the Early Church

Many post-tribbers claim Darby was the first person to teach the rapture.  Many pre-tribbers have tried to respond by finding pre-Darby quotes that prove this wrong.  I think there has been some bias on both sides that have prevented REAL DISCUSSION on this topic to stifle.  WHY?

POST TRIB PROBLEMS: Some post-tribbers can't let go of the "Darby started it all" theory despite some legitimate pre-Darby quotes.  He probably did a lot to popularize the concept, but he didn't originate it.  It was around before Darby, but as a minority opinion.  Of course, before Luther, salvation by faith was a minority opinion, but we know he was right about that, and as recently as 1999, the Catholic Church admitted to that being the correct doctrine.  So sometimes we DO make progress. And for many years the majority opinion was influenced by a small number of sources; the Catholic Church in Rome and the Orthodox branches in the East. But unless we are OPEN MINDED about reading what history recorded, we are never going to get to the truth.

PRE TRIB PROBLEMS: Another problem is with false quotes by pre-tribbers trying to argue with post-tribbers and who damage their own case by referencing authors who weren't pre-trib or quoting passages that aren't talking about the rapture or whose context has a post-trib timing when you go back and read the whole thing.  This does more to hurt their case than help it.  I have attempted to hunt down many works by many people largely because someone told me it was a pre-Darby pre-trib writing.  This has often proven wrong.  When someone tells you "so-and-so" was a pre-tribber, but won't quote the book or chapter or page so you can find it yourself, I have discovered over the years that there's usually something false about the claim. 

Another common source of disappointment is how many people will quote an early church writing of someone talking about the rapture, but not quote him discussing the TIMING of the rapture.  ALL who hold to a literal reading of Scripture believe in a rapture, it is just WHEN it will happen - Armageddon, before the tribulations, after the Millenium (one of Mede's theories), etc.  Its not enough to quote someone talking ABOUT the rapture, it is what they say about the TIMING of it that is important.  For example, if someone quotes Irenaeus as saying, "the Church shall suddenly be caught up", but ignores the "in the end" before it or the harvest references before that or the Armageddon reference right after it, then claims it is a pre-trib rapture quote, you might accept that if your bias is pre-disposed to WANTING to believe someone long ago was pre-trib. But because the text both before and after this statement connects it to the HARVEST and the final victory of Armegeddon, its a post-trib timing surrounding the text, not a pre-trib quote.

Everyone once in a while, those unquoted references are right, so I look them up.  If someone said something about a pre-trib rapture a long time ago, I want to read it.  I found many web sites alluding to Dolcino but not quoting him, perhaps because of the cultic teaching surrounding his claim, which might do more to turn readers off to the idea than convince them it is true.  But often the lack of quotes or references are due to worse reasons; that the claim is completely unfounded.

Sometimes the quotes don't say what people allege they say.  A few examples include;

• "Thou hast escaped a great tribulation" - Shepherd of Hermas.  I've seen this offered as "proof" of a pre-trib rapture, but read the whole passage and it says that if someone has faith, God will protect them from martyrdom so they aren't killed.  It says nothing about a rapture.  It is also debateable as to whether it is referencing the End Times specifically, or just discussing martyrdom in general.  
• Quoting early references to the rapture, but not the text showing the timing.  I discussed this above.
• Quoting something not about the rapture.  Someone once quoted me a text about why God sometimes lets people die early to avoid sickness or other calameties and perhaps die at the age of 25 instead of 95.  He said, "See - there's proof the early church believed in a pre trib rapture."  Even after I showed him the context and how it is talking about dieing at a young age (like in your twenties) he still refused to recant, but most people saw through his distorted quotation.  
• False References.  I saw someone claim Pierre Jurieu believed in a pre trib rapture.  He referenced the book, but wouldn't give the quote.  That is always suspicious.  I read the entire book.  Jurieu didn't even have a pre-millenial philosophy.  He believed the tribulation period started in the 5th century AD and at the time of his writing, the 17th century, the tribulation period was about to end and Yeshua would return perhaps as early as 1689.  He never advocated a pre-trib rapture because he did not believe that the tribulation period was a future event, but a past even almost about to expire.  

Now if you read the above bullet items and thought, "You're arguing against pre-trib", then perhaps you need to re-examine whether you're acting out of bias when you read history.  What I am opposing is historical innacuracy and people wasting my time hunting down references that fail to say what people claim they say.  We need to study history for what it says, and interpret it afterwards.

I have chased down many false alarms like the above. Most were false, and I think the pre-trib argument is being damaged by this approach.  I don't think dishonesty is necessarily to blame, but bias and confusion are. I think some people read through pre-Darby writings with one thought fixed in their mind; finding that pre-trib rapture quote they KNOW is there somewhere.  When they find a 3 word phrase that has room to be viewed as a rapture quote if you isolate that phrase and ignore the context, they claim the author was a pre-tribber regardless of whether an objective reading of the whole passage supports that conclusion or not.  They are so consumed by bias they are incapable of reading history for what it says and are bent on twisting it to fit their view instead of trying to understand WHY they believed what they believed.

We should approach the study of history by trying to figure out what the writer was thinking, and not try to fit it to what we are thinking.  We can deal with how to interpret it later, but trying to fit what he believed to make it sound like it was exactly what you believe when it was not is a mistake.   

Personally, I'd rather teach you BOTH theories and let you figure out which is right, because if I teach you both, I've taught you the truth, even if I didn't know which theory had the truth.  If I teach one and not the other, I could have made the mistake Revelation 22:19 warns about when it says, "if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city."  With a warning like that, do you really want to argue one position stubbornly until you're blue in the face?  Why not exhaust both theories and the pros and cons of both and let people figure out what makes most sense to them?  At least then, you haven't blocked the gate that leads to the truth.

Shalom,

Joe