Writings of the Church typically are divided as;

• Ante Nicean (1^st century - 325 AD)
• Post Nicean (After 325 AD)
• Reformation Period (1517 AD plus next century or two)

Why? Constantine changed Church dynamics, and after the Nicean Council, the Church became inter-twined with the state, and thus the state began corrupting the Church and the thoughts they recorded.  

In terms of periods that affect prophecy and thought on it, I'd divide it into these periods;

• 1^st century - 325 AD: Ante Nicean Period
• 325 AD to 1202 AD:  Post Nicean to Yoachim of Fiore
• 1202 AD - 1517 AD: Yoachim to the Reformation
• 1517 - 19^th Century: Post Reformation
• 19^th century: The Prophetic Revival
• Our Modern Times

This reason for this will become obvious later.  I won't be surprised if someone, out of bias, wants to argue about where the divisions go.  But I agree with the traditional divisions, though this topic has some of its own time markers.

My first post on the 5 doves some 20+ years ago was why I thought maybe the rapture would be a partial rapture, as I went through Revelation 12.  I was adding commentary to someone else who had seen the same thing, but in different verses.  But I haven't been able to find an author in any 1^st to 19^th century time period that agrees with that theory except Dolcino, which isn't a good source to quote since what is recorded of him is a bit cultic.  But whether I can or cannot prove MY theory from history is not important.  What is important is that we get inside the head of the early writers and try to understand what THEY were thinking FIRST, then try to deal with how that fits into our own theology afterwards.  And of course, as many of you who have read what I've written in the past know, I am more concerned about getting you to think through all the issues than whether you end up agreeing with me or not, which is why I sometimes argue both sides of an issue just to get you to think about it all the way through.  Maybe my theory is wrong and needs adjusting - it doesn't matter.  The important thing is to UNDERSTAND history, not USE it to convince everyone of a biased opinion, and it annoys me when I see people quoting from history with ANY bias, whether pre-trib, post-trib, or whatever.

Debates?

There's no debates found about the timing of the rapture in Ante-Nicean writings.  There were controversies then on other issues, such as the timing of Passover, whether one could be forgiven of sins he committed intentionally after he got saved, and several other issues.  But no debate is recorded on this issue.  That does not mean some debates did not exist, just that they did not get recorded.   In Hyppolytus' (170-236 AD) Treatise on the Christ and Antichrist, he emphasizes that he is drawing only from scripture, an indication that perhaps not everyone agreed as early as the 2nd century AD and maybe there was more debate than what the writings left to indicate.  But we don't see one set of writers arguing why post-tribbers are wrong and another set arguing why pre-tribbers are wrong. 

Perhaps they were too busy being persecuted to argue too much about it.  And the constant martyrdom of believers may have put more emphasis on identifying the differences between 1st to 3rd century Christians dieing by martyrdom and end times believers dieing by martyrdom.

Ante-Nicean Period (until 325 AD)

Some writers talk about a rapture, but only in connection with the second coming, and never as preparation to a pre-trib timing.  The Didache (about 100-120 AD), says in chapter 16...

And then shall the signs of the truth appear, first the sign of a rift in heaven (Note how this parallels 4Ezra 6:20, which predicts a sign in the "firmament"), then the sign of the sound of a trumpet (Note this parallels 4Ezra 6:23), and thirdly, a resurrection of the dead.(Paralleling 4Ezra 6:25) Then shall the world see the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven." 

So it mentions the rapture that we all agree will happen just before Armegeddon, but nothing about a pre-trib rapture.  It follows the language of Ezra so closely, one might think it considered Ezra to be Scripture.

Irenaeus (100-150 AD) had this to say,

"Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven... [are] 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."

Note that here Irenaeus connects the TIMING of being "caught up" with

• The harvest of Revelation 19, as seen in the underlined text.
• "The last contest of the righteous" is Armageddon, as seen in the italicized text.  So this text about being "caught up" is surrounded by post trib timing.
• He even said, "in the end" and not "at the start of the tribulation."

So again, this is another reference to a catching into the clouds, with a context that clearly identifies it happening just before Armageddon, without saying they escaped the tribulations.  He never says the rapture causes Christians to miss the tribulation period.  Yet you might find some pre-tribbers quote "the Church shall be suddenly caught up" and leave out the surrounding text, and then go on to claim Irenaeus advocated a pre-trib timing when nothing in his wording said they would avoid a future tribulation as a result of this.  But lets be honest about things folks.  That doesn't get us anywhere.  The timing surrounding the text is clear.

Victorinus also talks (circa 240 AD) of the rapture, connecting it with when "the angel thrust in the sickle", or the harvest of Revelation 19, just like Irenaeus, but more graphically.

Multiple writers talk EXTENSIVELY about the False Messiah, the end times, and second coming, but say NOTHING about a pre-trib rapture.  Some people will argue that this is what we would expect if and only if everyone did not consider such an event to occur, or wasn't sure.  But Joseph Mede wrote 400-500 pages about it (more than these people) and still considered it possible.  Among the more extensive commentators are:

• Hyppolytus (170-236 AD) in Treatise on the Christ and Antichrist
• Commodianus (200-250 AD) From chapters XLI (Of the Time of the AntiChrist) to chapter XLV , he goes into enough detail one would expect the rapture to be mentioned if it were part of his philosophy.
• Cyprian (200-258 AD), who tries to put together the entire sequence of events that will occur during the end times, but omits a pre-trib rapture.
• Didascalia Apostolorum
• Lactantius (250-325 AD)

The biggest oddity from this era is the Shepherd of Hermas, which seems to suggest that if you just have enough faith, you won't be martyred by the False Messiah.  But it stands alone in that and many believers may have felt offended by Hermas, since almost everyone knew someone martyred for the faith in the Ante-Nicean time period. 

Some writers talk about the end times, but not about enough aspects of it to make the lack of a rapture an suspicious thing.  But these writers deal with the topic very thoroughly, as if to try and be exhaustive about all end time events, while leaving that one out.

While the writings of the Ante-Nicean period are not what we would expect for a pre-trib rapture, they don't prove the post-trib position either, but merely provide text consistent with that thoughtline, since no one argues against the pre-trib position.  They don't put forth facts PROVING there can't be a pre-trib rapture, like Ephrem did in the Syriac version of Ephrem the Syrian in a later time period.   Is that because the pre-trib position did not exist?  Or could there be another factor?

I demonstrated in my post about Joseph Mede, that he wrote several hundred pages about the End Times but never discussed the rapture until someone asked him to specifically address the issue.  I explained at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/may2015/jovial531-3.htm how that seemed to be because he was uncertain which rapture theory was true.  Were the Early Church writers uncertain too?  Were they of the same mindset as Joseph Mede?  Or was it the warning of Rev 22:19 that stopped them from talking about it?  Perhaps they simply did not think like the stubborn opinionated population of our modern times and thought about the issue more the way Mede did; exploring possibilities rather than trying to narrow opinions.

Christians were being martyred for their faith.  Trying to teach an audience that when the End Times gets here, you'll be raptured so you don't have to experience being martyred for the faith may have been a tough idea to sell to an audience that was seeing martyrdom happen left and right.  Is that why they avoided the topic?   

But whether it was by intentional omission or lack of belief, there is no Ante-Nicean writer who clearly tells us that because of a pre-trib rapture, believers will be caught up before the False Messiah begins martyring believers.

Connecting Persecution with the End Times

Several writers make a link between persecution / martyrdom and the End Times.

• In Demonstrations, Aphrahat says, "And after the Persecuted, I have written at the end about Death and the Last Times." (Demonstrations 8)  He wrote a chapter on martyrdom followed immediately about a chapter on the End Times, and pointed out that fact in his summary.
• In Justin's Apology, he wrote
  • Martyrdom in his first few chapters
  • Patience and civil Obedience in chapters 16 and 17, concepts closely connected with martyrdom
  • End Times beginning in chapter 18.
• Commodianus writes of the End times, and then follows it with the topics of martyrdom, faithfulness and apostacy.

These are just a few examples, but it was common for writers in the early periods to write about martyrdom and instructions on not abandoning the faith in close connection to the End Times, writing about it either immediately before, or in a minority of cases , immediately after.

 

Other Comments

Nearly all writers took the End Times passages literally, believing in a literal False Messiah who will rule the world near the end until Yeshua returns. One exception I found is Dionysius (200-250 AD) who said Revelation was "impossible to understand in its literal sense."  I have heard some people claim Origen rejected the literal view, but he wrote several comments advocating a literal view.  I'll cover that separately.

Many writers felt a sense of immence to the second coming, partly because many Christians were being martyred.

Persecution

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.x.ii.html gives this chart of when Christians were and were not put to death by the government.....

Persecution

1. Under Nero——a.d. 64.
2. Under Trajan——a.d. 95.
3. Under Trajan——a.d. 107.
4. Under Hadrian (a.d. 118 and)——a.d. 134.
5. Under Aurelius (a.d. 177) and Severus——a.d. 202.
6. Under Maximin——a.d. 235.
7. Under Decius——a.d. 250.
8. Under Valerian——a.d. 254.
9. Under Aurelian——a.d. 270.
10. Under Diocletian (a.d. 284 and)——a.d. 303.

Periods of Comparative Rest.

1. Under Antoninus Pius——a.d. 151.
2. Under Commodus——a.d. 185.
3. Under Alexander Severus——a.d. 223.
4. Under Philip——a.d. 248.
5. Under Diocletian——a.d. 284 till a.d. 303.

Post Nicean

Now things get a little more exciting after the Nicean days. It heats up with Ephraim and the like, but I'll pick that up in my next post.

 

Shalom,

Joe