Jovial (14 June 2015)
"The Early Church and the timing of the rapture - part 4 - HOW YOACHIM CHANGED PROTESTANT THOUGHT ON PROPHECY FOR 500+ YEARS"

I covered 2 time periods and will address the third herein.

Yoachim to Reformation (13th century to 1517 AD)

Yoachim of Fiore proposed an idea that changed thought on Prophecy.  He proposed an interpretation of 1 year for each day in Revelation, and proposed that the Catholic Church (of which he was part of) was the "beast" and it would reign for 1,260 years. His theories had a big impact and survived a long time. At first, many predicted the Second Coming at 1260 AD; 1,260 years after His birth. When that passed, they decided the 1,260 years didn't start until His death in 30 AD, so they corrected that to 1290 AD, then 1293 AD, then 1294 AD, etc. When those dates passed, people began asking, "When was the term "pope" first used, and dated the 1,260 years from that. Then some people started dating the 1,260 years from the Nicean Council in 325 AD or the split between Rome and the Orthodox some time after that.  The theory was so attractive to many Reformers and Protestants who disliked the Vatican that they didn't want to let go of the theory, but kept re-dating the start time based on different dates until they ran out of credible dates.

Yoachim's theory did the opposite of Tyconius.  Both men spiritualized Revelation.  But Tyconius saw Ceasar as the bad guy and the Catholic Church as HOW Messiah reigned on earth.  Yoachim was a reformer who saw the Catholic Church as corrupt and in need of reform, and the cause of the tribulation period of 1,260 years.  Both theories were wrong, and both were an attempt to fit the Bible into man's culture rather than the other way around by interpreting everything in light of one's opinion of the Catholic Church.

Many men after who adopted Yoachim's interpretation discarded the literal interpretation of a personal man who would be the False Messiah and reign for 1,260 days. Instead, they viewed the False Messiah as an OFFICE, not a PERSON, namely, the office of the Pope. They began viewing the BEAST as the Catholic Church. This idea caught on with some pre-Reformation reformers, and caught on even bigger with Protestants in the post-Reformation period.  Yoachim himself believed in both; that the Catholic Church would reign for 1,260 years and that there would be a personal False Messiah that would reign for 1,260 days. He saw the False Messiah as the 7th head of the Beast and predicted he would join forces with Muslims. But many who came after Yoachim took his 1260 year concept that had already started and dropped the idea of a literal personal False Messiah of the future.

In “Acts of the Disputation in the council of the Empire at Regensburg,” it records that in 1240, Eberhard of Salzburg echoed Yoachim by applying the Little Horn prophecy to the pope.  Dolcino built on Yoachim's theories, adding his own ideas, resulting in what I discussed at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/may2015/jovial517-2.htm .  Dolcino's acceptance of both the historical and future interpretation of Revelation may be why he added a rapture to Yoachim's theory, but most people did not. Let's face it, if there is a rapture at the end of the tribulation period, then there is one at the end of the 1260 years, which starts the 1260 days and another one at the end of the 1260 days.  So one could argue that two raptures had to be part of a theology that merged both views together.

But many could argue that Dolcino could have had an alterior motive for his philosophy.  He fought several wars and tried to recruit an army, and his theology about the rapture could be said to have been an attempt to manipulate people into joining his army via a promise of bypassing the tribulation period coming soon.  Isn't the idea that ONLY HIS followers would be raptured a bit suspicious?  And that he, not Messiah, would reign on earth also suspicious?

Yoachim and Dolcino were a bit of an exception, since most people who adopted Yoachim's theory rejected the idea of a future personal false messiah, a future tribulation period, and a future beast, and thus did not believe in a future pre-trib rapture since they did not believe in a separate future tribulation period.  Mixing this theory with a future personal false messiah caused it to lose its propoganda value against the Vatican, and for many, the whole reason they embraced the theory was to project the Catholic Church in a bad light.  It was easier to convert people to believing in the idea if it is presented in simple ways, by telling people, "The False Messiah is not a person, but an office."  It gets a bit complicated to say, "Prophecy can have multiple fulfillments. Here's my complicated explanation why........" and if they are still awake an hour later, you try to rest.  Tough sell.  Far easier to deny the literal fulfillment and sell the spiritualized one. 

Overall, people should not embrace a theory because it makes a denomination they don't like look bad, but many people did.  The idea that the 1000 year reign had come served the corporate interests of the Vatican.  Yoachim's theory served the corporate interests of the Protestant revolt.  Many people embraced both theories out of bias.

Reformers who followed Yoachim's theory adopted the idea that the tribulation started in the 1st century AD, or 2nd century AD, or thereabouts, and would last 1,260 years. Therefore, most of those who adopted Yoachim's views did not view a pre-trib rapture as a future event, because they believed that the tribulation period had already started. Those loyal to the Catholic Church tended to stick with the two views I discussed earlier ; either Pre-Millenialism (omitting any pre-trib rapture) or the view that the Millenial period had already come.  Thus in the first few decades of the Reformation, Protestants were doing more to kill the idea of a future tribulation period than the Catholic Church was, since it was allowing both the literalist Pre-Millenial view as well as the Preterist view to be discussed.

After Dolcino, not a lot changed until the Reformation. Most writers say little about the end times during this period, though a few did write commentaries on it, including Richard Rolle (1290 - 1349AD) and Nicholas of Lyra (French: Nicolas de Lyre) (1270 – 1349). But I have not found anything that anyone said that was significantly different than the authors that came before them.

At the same time Yoachim's theories were generating excitement, there were rumblings in the Jewish community about expecting the Messiah to return in the 13th century AD or thereabout. In the Zohar, at Zohar II (on Bereshit), 9b, it predicts 1200+ years of exile for Israel after the destruction of the temple (circa 70 AD).

By the time you get to Napolean (a Mason) imprisoning the pope in 1796, all attempt to use Yoachim's theory pretty much had to be discarded. And of course I've written before how the Masons and Catholics are bitter enemies of each other. After all, by then, the Vatican had pretty much ruled for over 1,260 years by anyone's understanding of the start of the papacy, and the beast of Revelation is not put in prison part of the way through its reign.

Several Revelation style events happened in this period including

  • 1309-1378 AD : Vatican moved from Rome to Avignon, France and did not reside in Rome during those years.   but the dates are in dispute.  For example, Pierre Jurieu claimed in The Accomplishments of Prophecy that it lasted from 1305 to 1440.
  • 1315-1317 AD : Famine
  • 1336-1453 AD : 100 Years War
  • 1347-1350 AD : Black Plague 
  • 1378-1416 AD : Two rivaling popes claimed the throne
  • 1382 AD : Wycliff translates Bible into English
  • 1453 AD : Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire

 

Shalom,

Joe