Why the early church didn’t accept preterism.

[eschaton]

Of the early Christians that left us writings, none believed the Olivet discourse had been completely fulfilled. They didn’t believe that “this generation” meant all of the events of the Olivet discourse were fulfilled in the first century. Most believed Luke 21:6, 19:44-48, 13:34,35 had been fulfilled, and some believed the abomination of desolation had also been fulfilled. The tribulation of the saints was acknowledged, but all who wrote about it expected a future tribulation and antichrist.

None of the writers believed the book of Revelation had been completely fulfilled, but a few acknowledged there were some who believed this book described the persecution of the early church and apostles. These were probably the Montanists.

A few believed Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy had been completely fulfilled, but most believed it had been partially fulfilled. None believed that 2nd Thessalonians 2 had been fulfilled, but a few acknowledged there were those who believed it had.

Why should we care what the early church believed? Well, the apostles when out to spread the Gospel and start new churches. Those who heard them told others what they said. There was an oral tradition. Some wrote letters describing their teachings and what was said in the oral traditions. The early church fathers were much closer in time to the apostles than we are, so it might be worth considering what they wrote.

Why did the early church reject a fully preteristic interpretation of the prophecies of the NT? I’ve found that the six-day, six thousand years of human history theory was almost universally accepted. As God created the earth in six days, so He would finish it in six thousand years. They based their beliefs on such scriptures as Col 2:16-17, Heb 10:1, 43-11, Ps 90:4, 2 Pe3:8 Rev 20, and earlier Jewish ideas. There is also support for the idea in the biblical genealogies.

So does this mean the early church was primarily chiliastic (premillennial)? Not necessarily. The early church was prone to interpret the scriptures “spiritually.” They depended heavily on typological or allegorical interpretation, and found several levels of meaning besides the literal. Not all interpreted the thousands of years literally, or even the six days of creation. A few of the fathers mentioned the heretic Cerinthius as the originator of chiliasm.

Besides the Jewish tradition and the scriptures mentioned, what other reasons would the church have to adopt the six-day, six thousand year theory? The church had the idea that there was an overall design or purpose to the scriptures, and that was Jesus Christ. According to Papias:

Fragment IX.
Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantaenus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.

In other words, there was a consistency of scripture that referred to Christ from the beginning to the end of the world. Perhaps we can see something of that in the writings of Aviricius Marcellus.

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf0...#P4488_1728640

Iraenaeus says:

For in six days as the world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all his works.” This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of the things to come. For that day of the Lord is a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.
Irenaeus, Heresies, 5.28.3 (ANF, Vol. 1, 557).

There are a couple of good pages to study these ideas at.

http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm

http://www.northforest.org/classic/k...fChiliasm.html

Alan

[Bill the Cat]

Alan,

There is also the Didache... http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...e-roberts.html

Chapter 16. Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord. Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead -- yet not of all, but as it is said: "The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him." Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

[Xavier]

BTC,

The Didache could date as early as AD 50, which would put it before any fulfillment would have taken place. It certainly is an Early Christian Document, even outside of conservative scholarly opinion.

Yours,
Xav

[Bill the Cat]

BTC,

The Didache could date as early as AD 50, which would put it before any fulfillment would have taken place. It certainly is an Early Christian Document, even outside of conservative scholarly opinion.

Yours,
Xav

Possible, but there is no real way to tell as it makes no discernable reference to any other datable occurrence. Some intros say most date it after 100AD, and others say most date it pre 80. It's really difficult to nail down the date, as the literary characteristics are so simple.

[Xavier]

Possible, but there is no real way to tell as it makes no discernable reference to any other datable occurrence. Some intros say most date it after 100AD, and others say most date it pre 80. It's really difficult to nail down the date, as the literary characteristics are so simple.

Agreed on all points...

[Bill the Cat]

[eschaton]

I believe Diadache is listed at the last link I gave.

http://www.northforest.org/classic/...cfChiliasm.html

[Bill the Cat]

Got a "page can't be found" on that last link

[Xavier]

Got a "page can't be found" on that last link

Try this one: http://www.northforest.org/classic/k...fChiliasm.html

[Xavier]

I believe Diadache is listed at the last link I gave.

http://www.northforest.org/classic/...cfChiliasm.html

Thumbing through a bit, I find this statement:

Discussion of Didache from site linked above

16:3 For in the last days false prophets and seducers shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate;

* The phrase "last days" appears to refer to a time future to the writing of the Didache. But it appears to have direct relevance to the first readers (rather than being written for people thousands of years later) so it must refer to the general apostasy that will plague the church over the centuries.

© source where applicable

Nice job of dismissing the Preterist view out of hand...

"So it must refer"...

[Amazing Rando]

BTC,

The Didache could date as early as AD 50, which would put it before any fulfillment would have taken place. It certainly is an Early Christian Document, even outside of conservative scholarly opinion.

Yours,
Xav

Generally, the folks who date Didache to around AD 50 are the same folks who date the Gospel of Thomas to about that time as well, if I'm not mistaken.

[wfaber]

Got a "page can't be found" on that last link

http://www.northforest.org/classic/k...fChiliasm.html

That is, www . northforest.org / classic / kingisrael / efcChiliasm . html
Trying to prevent Tweb from abbreviating the posting.

[Xavier]

Generally, the folks who date Didache to around AD 50 are the same folks who date the Gospel of Thomas to about that time as well, if I'm not mistaken.

Most date it fairly earlier, but you are correct that those dating to 50 are in the extreme minority. I would think that moderates would pin the date somewhere between 60 and 80 AD. However, I think that the date is nebulous enough that the text shouldn't be used as a "proof" in the sense offered.

[eschaton]

Thumbing through a bit, I find this statement:

Discussion of Didache from site linked above

16:3 For in the last days false prophets and seducers shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate;

* The phrase "last days" appears to refer to a time future to the writing of the Didache. But it appears to have direct relevance to the first readers (rather than being written for people thousands of years later) so it must refer to the general apostasy that will plague the church over the centuries.

© source where applicable

Nice job of dismissing the Preterist view out of hand...

"So it must refer"...

Hi Xavier,

I'm not sure what you mean, but the owner of that page, John Shepard is a preterist who converted to Catholicism. I suppose if I were a preterist I would start praying to Mary too. Just kidding.

AF

[Xavier]

Hi Xavier,

I'm not sure what you mean, but the owner of that page, John Shepard is a preterist who converted to Catholicism. I suppose if I were a preterist I would start praying to Mary too. Just kidding.

AF

I'm just saying that the statement was not incrediblely critical...