Early Church Fathers Were Premillennial, Pre-Tribulation Rapture

[Ukulelemike]

John, cast your mind back to AD 50 when Paul wrote the 2 letters to the Thessalonians. Jesus' Olivet prophecy was still unfulfilled; the generation that rejected its Messiah was still living, still in control of Jerusalem, & still worshipping in the temple.

 

Jesus would not return while the temple was standing. Paul presumably told the Ts Jesus prophecy, so that we need not think his word to the Ts is secret to us.

 

I recommend reading both letters as an entity, ignoring the chapter breaks.

It stil doesn't tell us WHO sat in the temple shewing himself he was God?

[JerryNumbers]

We will meet the Lord in the air.  But the Brethren teaching that He is only coming to the air, is false.  He is returning to the earth and we will meet Him in the air.

 

What matters is what the Bible teaches, & when Jesus comes for His own He will not touch foot on this earth. That will happne the next time.

[Covenanter]

It stil doesn't tell us WHO sat in the temple shewing himself he was God?

 

Scripture does not record the events of AD 70, but prophesies them. Clues are given in Revelation about names, so that Christians at the time would know. I cannot tell you WHO, but we understand that the Jerusalem Christians did recognise the signs & leave before the destruction. They understood & heeded Jesus' warning. I do not need a name. I believe the Scriptures. While they were in the city, judgement was delayed - as in the time of Lot. And the rain did not fall until all were safely in the ark.

 

And where was the temple of God for the antichrist to sit in? Scripture is very clear that the new covenant temple is built with true believers - NOT with stones. Mat. 24 was fulfilled before this generation passed, even if WE do not fully understand some of the details.

 

And, Invicta, the Pope never sat in the true temple; the true temple comprised the persecuted believers.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Covenanter

[Invicta]

Scripture does not record the events of AD 70, but prophesies them. Clues are given in Revelation about names, so that Christians at the time would know. I cannot tell you WHO, but we understand that the Jerusalem Christians did recognise the signs & leave before the destruction. They understood & heeded Jesus' warning. I do not need a name. I believe the Scriptures. While they were in the city, judgement was delayed - as in the time of Lot. And the rain did not fall until all were safely in the ark.

 

And where was the temple of God for the antichrist to sit in? Scripture is very clear that the new covenant temple is built with true believers - NOT with stones. Mat. 24 was fulfilled before this generation passed, even if WE do not fully understand some of the details.

 

And, Invicta, the Pope never sat in the true temple; the true temple comprised the persecuted believers.

 

When did the Bishop of Rome become the Pope?

 

It was gradual.  

 

The first Bishop of Rome was Linus, a colleague of Paul.  2Ti 4:21  Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.

 

The second or third Bishop of Rome was Clement Php 4:3  And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

[JerryNumbers]

Of course a RCC pope never set in the temple for they did not form their false teaching church until after the year 300.

[Covenanter]

Of course a RCC pope never set in the temple for they did not form their false teaching church until after the year 300.

 

Of course - so the common teaching that 2 Thes. 2 predicts the rise of the RCC taking over the church (aka the living temple of God) is false. Rome is of course antichrist, but THE antichrist lived & died in John's day.

 

And also, the idea that in order to fulfill the prophecy, Israel has to build a new temple is nonsense when the temple was still standing at the time of Paul's prophecy - and would stand for another 20 years.

[Covenanter]

The epistle of Barnabas (extremely unlikely to be Paul's companion) does speak of millennial prophecy in terms of a 7,000 year week:

 

Barnabas is probably the earliest of the early church fathers cites in the OP.

 

The relevant chapter reads:

Barnabas 15:1
Moreover concerning the Sabbath likewise it is written in the Ten
Words, in which He spake to Moses face to face on Mount Sinai; And
ye shall hallow the Sabbath of the Lord with pure hands and with a
pure heart.

Barnabas 15:2
And in another place He saith; If my sons observe the Sabbath then
I will bestow My mercy upon them.

Barnabas 15:3
Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And
God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the
seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

Barnabas 15:4
Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

Barnabas 15:5
And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son
shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall
judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

Barnabas 15:6
Yea and furthermore He saith; Thou shalt hallow it with pure hands
and with a pure heart. If therefore a man is able now to hallow
the day which God hallowed, though he be pure in heart, we have gone
utterly astray.

Barnabas 15:7
But if after all then and not till then shall we truly rest and
hallow it, when we shall ourselves be able to do so after being
justified and receiving the promise, when iniquity is no more and all
things have been made new by the Lord, we shall be able to hallow it
then, because we ourselves shall have been hallowed first.

Barnabas 15:8
Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot
away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present
Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have
made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make
the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another
world.

Barnabas 15:9
Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which
also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended
into the heavens.

 

Presumably he accepts a 4000 BC date for creation & therefore is prophesying the coming of Christ around 2,000 AD. He quotes 2 Peter 3:8, but ignores the context & the last part of the verse. He seems well versed in Scripture, but read the whole letter & you will see he is generally confused in his interpretation.

[swathdiver]

When did the Bishop of Rome become the Pope?

 

It was gradual.  

 

The first Bishop of Rome was Linus, a colleague of Paul.  2Ti 4:21  Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.

 

The second or third Bishop of Rome was Clement Php 4:3  And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

 

  The Popery didn't even exist then.

[Ukulelemike]

Scripture does not record the events of AD 70, but prophesies them. Clues are given in Revelation about names, so that Christians at the time would know. I cannot tell you WHO, but we understand that the Jerusalem Christians did recognise the signs & leave before the destruction. They understood & heeded Jesus' warning. I do not need a name. I believe the Scriptures. While they were in the city, judgement was delayed - as in the time of Lot. And the rain did not fall until all were safely in the ark.

 

And where was the temple of God for the antichrist to sit in? Scripture is very clear that the new covenant temple is built with true believers - NOT with stones. Mat. 24 was fulfilled before this generation passed, even if WE do not fully understand some of the details.

 

And, Invicta, the Pope never sat in the true temple; the true temple comprised the persecuted believers.

What is very telling, however is that neither history, nor even Christian writers of the time, tell us who it was. History records much about when Epiphanes sat in the temple and profaned it-if Christians of the time saw this happen and recognized it as the fulfillment of such important prophecy, why is there not any record of it, of who it was and how it occurred?

[Steve Schwenke]

"falling away" should have been translated "departure" as was the case in the five English translations prior to the King James.

Thus it would indicate a "departure" of the Saints (harpazo) as well as a "departure" to a different Gospel (Antichrist, "the Lie").

So you are willing to change the KJV to prove your point?  I thought we all agreed that the KJV was the preserved word of God on this forum. 

If you have to change a word in the Bible to prove your point, either you need to find another way to prove your point, or maybe your point is not right to begin with.

Personally, I think in your zeal to defend the pre-trib rapture of the church you have unwittingly crossed a boundary line.

Remember what happened to Eve in the garden?  The devil got her to change what God had said, and it led her into further temptation.

I am just saying that you are on a dangerous path when you begin to decide how the AV Bible "should have been" translated.   If you can be the judge here, then you will eventually decide to change the Bible elsewhere....and then where will we be???

 

In Christ,

[Steve Schwenke]

 

How does this fit in all this?

 

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4

 

2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

² That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

³ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

⁴ Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

 

OK, I'll try, but I will have to extend my comments beyond v. 4 to make sense of the passage.

V. 1 - Paul is "beseeching them" - that is he is appealing to their common believe that Jesus Christ would return, and that we would be gathered to Him.  This is the issue that binds them together, and that now he wants to address

 

v. 2 - This doctrine of the Lord's return should not shake us or trouble us.  The false doctrine that was being taught then, as seen in II Timothy 2:16-18 is that the resurrection had ALREADY OCCURED, and that it was a "spiritual resurrection" and not physical.  This false doctrine taught that the return of Jesus Christ was not LITERAL but "spiritual" in that Christ had "returned" spiritually in the hearts of the believers.  (That teaching is still with us today....).  Some people were apparently forging letters in Paul's name to advance this false doctrine.  We should not be troubled by them.  The Day of Christ is not a fearful thing for the believer, because (v. 1) we will be gathered to him.

 

v. 3 How then, and WHY should we not be troubled by this false doctrine?  Because the apostle Paul gives us clues as to the timing of "the Day of Christ."  There is no date setting here, so please do not think that I am an advocate of setting dates.  But we can discern the times and seasons, and we should be observant enough to see what is happening around us. 

1.  "except there come a falling away" - this is nothing more than an apostacy, a global apostacy.  It was Kenneth Wuest, the great Bible corrector who suggested that this is a reference to a pre-trib rapture, and he did so by running to "the Greek."  But the rapture of the church is never referred to as a "falling away" but rather as a "catching up."  We don't FALL off the earth, the Lord TAKES us off the earth.  This is a false interpretation of the text. 

2.  It refers to a great "falling away" from the truth, as is evident from the rest of the text (see v. 9-12 - "lying wonders, deceivableness, believe a lie, etc.").  It is my opinion that we are living in those days, because the apostacy is now evident within our own circles, and across the globe, according to the accounts I receive from missionaries.  When those who have historically been the guardians of the truth (i.e. the Baptists) start falling into apostacy in regards to Bible doctrine and Bible practice, then that should be a clear indicator of where we are!

3.  The next clue is that the "man of sin" would be revealed.  Historically, the Baptists and even men like Martin Luther identified the Pope as the Antichrist, and the man of sin.  I happen to think that they are correct.  The point here is that if in fact the prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD, as some suggest, then the church would have known who the "man of sin" was.  Since there is no record of this identity by the early church, then it cannot be so.  It must point to a future event, Ian's comments notwithstanding. 

So what else does the Bible say about this man?  Revelation 13 tells us that this "beast" will have a deadly wound that will be healed.  To summarize what I believe, I believe the "man of sin" is killed, and resurrected somehow demonically, and at that point he becomes the "son of perdition."  The "son of perdition" is the antithesis to "the son of God." 

The Bible refers to two mysteries regarding this subject:  The mystery of Godliness (I Timothy 3:16), and the mystery of iniquity.  Just as we can never fully understand in our finite minds how Jesus Christ could be all God and all man at the same time, and then die physically to be later resurrected, so can we never fully understand how a man could be "the son of perdition".  That is, this person will be 100% human, but also 100% DEVIL at the same time.  The son of perdition is the exact opposite of Jesus Christ. 

Thus, I believe the text here means that the man of sin will be revealed AS the son of perdition.  While we have seen many "antichrists" in the world, this man will be THE antichrist referred to in Rev. 13.

 

4.  We are not to allow ourselves to be troubled until we see this revealing - or unveiling.  Now this opens up another question - will believers know who the antichrist is before the rapture?  I think so.  I believe the HOly Spirit will identify him to the church prior to our "catching away".  But the world will only see this demonic character as the "messiah" who will bring in world peace (Rev. 6).

 

Verse 4 - How can we identify this "man of sin?"  He claims to be God.  His claim is so strong that he proves it by entering into a physical building that the Jews refer to as "the temple" (i.e. this is not a spiritual application to our bodies), and this demonic man sits down in the Holy of Holies, on the mercy seat, and claims that he is God.  After all, if he was NOT God, would not the REAL God kill him???  This fits with Rev. 13:5 - the blasphemies that come out of the mouth of the resurrected "son of perdition."

 

I do not believe the church will be on the earth when he goes into the temple and sits down on the mercy seat.  I believe that it will be clear to the Bible-Believing Christian who this man is because he will oppose the true God, and exalt himself above the true God.  The non-discerning Christian and the lost person won't have a clue as to what is happening.  At some point of the 7 year tribulation period, this demonic "son of perdition" will make that claim, and sit down in the Temple. 

 

Anyway, John, I don't know if this answers your questions or not....hopefully it does.

 

I recommend Larkin on this point.

 

In Christ,

[Covenanter]

What is very telling, however is that neither history, nor even Christian writers of the time, tell us who it was. History records much about when Epiphanes sat in the temple and profaned it-if Christians of the time saw this happen and recognized it as the fulfillment of such important prophecy, why is there not any record of it, of who it was and how it occurred?

 

Whatever difficulties we mayhave in identifying the man of sin, we have no difficulty in identifyingthe temple in question, nor should we question:

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: (2T 2:8)

It is what Jesus prophesied: 

What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. (Mark 12:9)

 

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. (Mark 13:26)

 

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Rev. 1:7)

 

What about Paul's "Man of Sin"?

 

The link includes hostile comments.

[Steve Schwenke]

Whatever difficulties we mayhave in identifying the man of sin, we have no difficulty in identifyingthe temple in question, nor should we question:

And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: (2T 2:8)

It is what Jesus prophesied: 

What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. (Mark 12:9)

 

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. (Mark 13:26)

 

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Rev. 1:7)

 

What about Paul's "Man of Sin"?

 

The link includes hostile comments.

Ian, Rev. 1:7 has not yet occurred, nor has Mark 13:26.  Nobody has seen the Son of Man coming in the Clouds, nor has EVERY EYE seen him.  It is yet future.

[John81]

OK, I'll try, but I will have to extend my comments beyond v. 4 to make sense of the passage.

V. 1 - Paul is "beseeching them" - that is he is appealing to their common believe that Jesus Christ would return, and that we would be gathered to Him.  This is the issue that binds them together, and that now he wants to address

 

v. 2 - This doctrine of the Lord's return should not shake us or trouble us.  The false doctrine that was being taught then, as seen in II Timothy 2:16-18 is that the resurrection had ALREADY OCCURED, and that it was a "spiritual resurrection" and not physical.  This false doctrine taught that the return of Jesus Christ was not LITERAL but "spiritual" in that Christ had "returned" spiritually in the hearts of the believers.  (That teaching is still with us today....).  Some people were apparently forging letters in Paul's name to advance this false doctrine.  We should not be troubled by them.  The Day of Christ is not a fearful thing for the believer, because (v. 1) we will be gathered to him.

 

v. 3 How then, and WHY should we not be troubled by this false doctrine?  Because the apostle Paul gives us clues as to the timing of "the Day of Christ."  There is no date setting here, so please do not think that I am an advocate of setting dates.  But we can discern the times and seasons, and we should be observant enough to see what is happening around us. 

1.  "except there come a falling away" - this is nothing more than an apostacy, a global apostacy.  It was Kenneth Wuest, the great Bible corrector who suggested that this is a reference to a pre-trib rapture, and he did so by running to "the Greek."  But the rapture of the church is never referred to as a "falling away" but rather as a "catching up."  We don't FALL off the earth, the Lord TAKES us off the earth.  This is a false interpretation of the text. 

2.  It refers to a great "falling away" from the truth, as is evident from the rest of the text (see v. 9-12 - "lying wonders, deceivableness, believe a lie, etc.").  It is my opinion that we are living in those days, because the apostacy is now evident within our own circles, and across the globe, according to the accounts I receive from missionaries.  When those who have historically been the guardians of the truth (i.e. the Baptists) start falling into apostacy in regards to Bible doctrine and Bible practice, then that should be a clear indicator of where we are!

3.  The next clue is that the "man of sin" would be revealed.  Historically, the Baptists and even men like Martin Luther identified the Pope as the Antichrist, and the man of sin.  I happen to think that they are correct.  The point here is that if in fact the prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD, as some suggest, then the church would have known who the "man of sin" was.  Since there is no record of this identity by the early church, then it cannot be so.  It must point to a future event, Ian's comments notwithstanding. 

So what else does the Bible say about this man?  Revelation 13 tells us that this "beast" will have a deadly wound that will be healed.  To summarize what I believe, I believe the "man of sin" is killed, and resurrected somehow demonically, and at that point he becomes the "son of perdition."  The "son of perdition" is the antithesis to "the son of God." 

The Bible refers to two mysteries regarding this subject:  The mystery of Godliness (I Timothy 3:16), and the mystery of iniquity.  Just as we can never fully understand in our finite minds how Jesus Christ could be all God and all man at the same time, and then die physically to be later resurrected, so can we never fully understand how a man could be "the son of perdition".  That is, this person will be 100% human, but also 100% DEVIL at the same time.  The son of perdition is the exact opposite of Jesus Christ. 

Thus, I believe the text here means that the man of sin will be revealed AS the son of perdition.  While we have seen many "antichrists" in the world, this man will be THE antichrist referred to in Rev. 13.

 

4.  We are not to allow ourselves to be troubled until we see this revealing - or unveiling.  Now this opens up another question - will believers know who the antichrist is before the rapture?  I think so.  I believe the HOly Spirit will identify him to the church prior to our "catching away".  But the world will only see this demonic character as the "messiah" who will bring in world peace (Rev. 6).

 

Verse 4 - How can we identify this "man of sin?"  He claims to be God.  His claim is so strong that he proves it by entering into a physical building that the Jews refer to as "the temple" (i.e. this is not a spiritual application to our bodies), and this demonic man sits down in the Holy of Holies, on the mercy seat, and claims that he is God.  After all, if he was NOT God, would not the REAL God kill him???  This fits with Rev. 13:5 - the blasphemies that come out of the mouth of the resurrected "son of perdition."

 

I do not believe the church will be on the earth when he goes into the temple and sits down on the mercy seat.  I believe that it will be clear to the Bible-Believing Christian who this man is because he will oppose the true God, and exalt himself above the true God.  The non-discerning Christian and the lost person won't have a clue as to what is happening.  At some point of the 7 year tribulation period, this demonic "son of perdition" will make that claim, and sit down in the Temple. 

 

Anyway, John, I don't know if this answers your questions or not....hopefully it does.

 

I recommend Larkin on this point.

 

In Christ,

Thank you, this explains much. In doing some readings, I've noticed many pre-trib folks say the anti-Christ won't be revealed or known until after the rapture. Many also seem to skip over these verses while a few say this isn't referring to the rapture at all.

 

It would seem to me, if these verses are referring to the rapture then it would have to mean the antichrist would be revealed and known prior to any rapture of Christians.

 

More to think about. Thank you!

[Steve Schwenke]

Thank you, this explains much. In doing some readings, I've noticed many pre-trib folks say the anti-Christ won't be revealed or known until after the rapture. Many also seem to skip over these verses while a few say this isn't referring to the rapture at all.

 

It would seem to me, if these verses are referring to the rapture then it would have to mean the antichrist would be revealed and known prior to any rapture of Christians.

 

More to think about. Thank you!

Praise the Lord!  Glad to know I can be useful from time to time!

 

In Christ,