19

T H E S I G N M I N I S T R I E S N E W S L E T T E R / S U M M E R 2 0 0 1

AmillennialismAmillennialismProphecy Under Fire

Meet a Berean

E x a m i n i n g i t s “ O r i g e n s ”

Prophecy Under FireCr i t ics & Cr i t iques

Meet a Berean

Parousia — page 2

church age as the millennium. There are twodivergent views within this camp concern-ing the believers’ 1000-year reign withChrist spoken of in Revelation 20:4-6. Onegroup sees this as speaking of the interme-diate state of believers between death andresurrection. It refers to “the reign of thesouls of the blessed dead with Christ in theintermediate state.”5 The second groupholds that the entire church age, from thefirst coming of Christ until His second com-ing, is to be equated with the Millenniumand that “the church militant on earth… isnow reigning with Christ in the sense thatwe are now living in the midst of the mil-lennium…”6

This shift to what came to be called amil-lennialism began slowly during the secondand third centuries, and then picked upsteam until by the middle of the sixth centu-ry there were only a few remaining pocketsof belief in a literal thousand-year kingdomon earth. Indeed, as Earle E. Cairns, profes-sor emeritus at Wheaton College, points out,“The absence of premillennialism in theMiddle Ages is as prominent as the absenceof postmillennialism in the ante-Nicenechurch.”7 The dominance of amillennialismcontinued up to and beyond the Reform-ation, and only in the 19th century was theview of a literal thousand-year reign uponthe earth revived. Just why did this shiftfrom a literal kingdom of 1000 years to aspiritualized kingdom of unlimited durationoccur in the early church?

he early church fatherswere very prolific in their

writing. Many of these earlydocuments have been pre-

served for us today. Theirwritings give us a picture

of the beliefs, lifestyle andstruggles of the early church.

While not all of the early church fatherswrote on the return of Christ and His subse-quent kingdom to follow, those that did leftus a clear picture of the eschatological hopeof the early church. In reading the earliest fa-thers, one quickly learns that regarding thetemporal kingdom of Christ, the fathers werechiliastic. Chiliasm (pronounced “kileeazem”)is the correct term for designating the theo-logical position of the earliest fathersconcerning the Lord’s temporal kingdom.Chiliasm comes from the Greek word thatmeans a thousand. Therefore, to be chiliastic isto believe that Christ is going to establish atemporal kingdom on earth after His return,one thousand years in duration. Citing nu-merous sources and historical references,Larry V. Crutchfield, professor of EarlyChristian History & Culture at ColumbiaEvangelical Seminary, lists numerous churchfathers and early church documents as pro-ponents for chiliasm.1

In contrast to this “great cloud of witness-es” for the chiliastic (one thousand yearkingdom) view of the early church, there arevirtually no early church documents prior toAD 325 which support a different view. In

AmillennialismAmillennialismE x a m i n i n g i t s “ O r i g e n s ”

fact, the writings of the early church are sooverwhelmingly chiliastic, that it led thegreat church historian, Phillip Schaff, towrite:

The most striking point in the escha-tology of the ante-Nicene age [beforethe council of Nicea] is the promi-nent chiliasm, or millennarianism,that is the belief of a visible reign ofChrist in glory on earth with therisen saints for a thousand years,before the general resurrection andjudgment.2

The historical evidence indicates that chil-iasm (premillennialism, as it is called today)was the predominant belief of the church ofthe first three centuries. “And to make fewwords of it,” as Thomas Burnet, royal chap-lain to king William III of England, said, “wewill lay down this conclusion, that theMillennial kingdom of Christ was the general doc-trine of the Primitive Church, from the times of theApostles to the Nicene Council; inclusively.”3

The Change to a Spiritualized KingdomAfter the Nicene Council (AD 325), we notea significant shift from the expectation of amillennial reign following the return ofChrist to a spiritualized kingdom of unlim-ited duration before the Lord’s return. Thisview holds that “at the second coming ofChrist the resurrection and judgment willtake place, followed by the eternal order ofthings…”4 This view sees the current

by Gary Vaterlaus

T

Parousia — page 3

The Tap Root: A Defective HermeneuticHermeneutics, as defined by Roy B. Zuck ofDallas Seminary, is “the science (principles)and art (task) by which the meaning of thebiblical text is determined.”8 There are basi-cally two methods of biblical interpretation.One has been called the literal, face value, orhistorical-grammatical method. This methodinvolves taking the biblical text for what itsays, and seeking to discover the author’s in-tended meaning. Words and phrases aretaken in a literal fashion, while at the sametime recognizing that there are figures ofspeech used in Scripture. The otherhermeneutical method has been called,broadly speaking, the allegorical method.The allegorical method seeks a meaning be-yond the literal reading of the text, seekingto discover the “deeper” sense of Scripture,and often interpreting words and phrases inother than their literal sense. An offshoot ofthe allegorical method is spiritualizing thetext, whereby one attempts to see the high-est or ultimate end as the intendedmeaning.9

It has been demonstrated that the prevail-ing method of biblical interpretation duringOld Testament times and in the time ofChrist was a literal method. Thomas Horne,former Professor of English and Art Historyat Brown University, writes:

The allegorical interpretation of thesacred Scriptures cannot be histori-cally proved to have prevailed amongthe Jews from the time of the captiv-ity, or to have been common with theJews of Palestine at the time of Christand his apostles.10

Jesus and the apostles themselves also prac-ticed a literal hermeneutic. Whenever Jesusquoted the Old Testament he used it in ahistorical, factual manner, not in an allegor-ical fashion. The Old Testament citations bythe writers of the New Testament alsodemonstrate a literal understanding of thetext, though allegory and typology (patternfulfillment) are practiced in a very limitedsense.

The hermeneutic of the early apostolic fa-thers was greatly influenced by theirenvironment and culture. We must realizethe difficult situation that they faced.

Dwight Pentecost, of Dallas Seminary, sum-marizes:

They were without an establishedcanon of either the Old or NewTestaments. They were dependentupon a faulty translation of theScriptures [The Septuagint]. Theyhad known only the rules of inter-pretation laid down by the rabbinicalschools and, thus, had to free them-selves from the erroneous applicationof the principle of interpretation.They were surrounded by paganism,Judaism, and heresy of every kind.11

By the third century, there were basicallythree schools of diverse hermeneutical posi-tions which had arisen. F.W. Farrar, biblicalscholar and an Anglican clergyman, ex-plains:

The Fathers of the third and latercenturies may be divided into threeexegetical schools. Those schools arethe Literal and Realistic as representedpredominantly by Tertullian; theAllegorical, of which Origen is theforemost exponent; and the Historicaland Grammatical, which flourishedchiefly in Antioch, and of whichTheodore of Mopsuestia was theacknowledged chief.12

Not surprisingly, we find that as the allegor-ical method of interpretation began to takehold, the view of an earthly millennial reignof Christ began to wane. It was the biblicalschool in Alexandria, Egypt that fosteredand promoted the allegorical method of in-terpretation. It was the methods of thisschool that provided one reason forthe eventual abandonment of a lit-eral thousand-year kingdom onearth within the church.

The catechetical school inAlexandria was foundedby Pantaenus in the latesecond century, butits best knownleaders wereClement ofAlexandriaand his pupil,Origen.

Dr. Thomas Cornman, a professor at MoodyBible Institute, describes the Alexandrianschool:

It is the Alexandrian school and theleader of that school that shaped thethinking of Origen. This traditioncannot be seen as separate from thephilosophical developments of theAlexandrian community but ratherwas an extension of them into thesphere of Christianity. The philo-sophical, cultural and geographicinfluence of the city and its peoplecame to bear on the hermeneuticaland theological systems of Clementand his pupil Origen. While thisinfluence may be considered good orbad depending on one’s theologicalpersuasion, it provides a new direc-tion as viewed against the simplicityof an earlier age when the words ofScripture were sufficient as the canonof faith.13

Origen was raised in the city of Alexandria.The influence of the Alexandrian mindsetwas significant in the development of histheology and his approach to Scripture. AsSchaff wrote:

Alexandria was full of Jews, the liter-ary as well as commercial centre ofthe East, and the connecting linkbetween the East and the West. Therethe largest libraries were collected;there the Jewish mind came intoclose contact with the Greek, and thereligion of Moses with the philoso-phy of Plato and Aristotle. TherePhilo wrote, while Christ taught in

By the third century,there were basically three

schools of diverse hermeneuticalpositions which had arisen.

BY GARY VATERLAUS

Parousia — page 4

scriptures a threefold sense; (1) asomatic, literal, or historical sense,furnished immediately by the mean-ing of the words, but only serving asa veil for a higher idea; (2) a psychicor moral sense, animating the first,and serving for general edification;(3) a pneumatic or mystic, and idealsense, for those who stand on thehigh ground of philosophical knowl-edge. In the application of this theo-ry he shows the same tendency asPhilo, to spiritualize away the letterof scripture, especially where theplain historical sense seems unwor-thy, as in the history of David’scrimes; and instead of simply bring-ing out the sense of the Bible, he putsinto it all sorts of foreign ideas andirrelevant fancies. But this allegoriz-ing suited the taste of the age, and,with his fertile mind and imposinglearning, Origen was the exegeticaloracle of the early church, till hisorthodoxy fell into disrepute.16

Indeed Origen’s allegorical approach toScripture led him into many doctrinal errors.His teachings, for which he eventually wasdeclared a heretic, included a belief that thesouls of men had existed in a previous state,a denial of the bodily resurrection, and a be-lief in universal salvation—that all men,even demons, will be finally restoredthrough the mediation of Christ.

Origen’s approach to hermeneutics alsoaffected his eschatology. His rejection of abodily resurrection led to a spiritualized es-chatology. A.C. McGiffert, WashburnProfessor of Church History at UnionTheological Seminary, accurately summa-rizes Origen’s eschatological system:

Origen had an elaborate eschatology.He believed in or at least hoped forthe final restoration of all rationalcreatures, not only men but alsodemons, including even the archfiendhimself. The pains of hell are disci-plinary in purpose and will be tem-

Jerusalem and Galilee, and his workswere destined to exert a great influ-ence on Christian exegesis throughthe Alexandrian fathers.14

Philo was a Jewish philosopher who soughtto reconcile Greek philosophy, particularlythat of Plato and the Stoics, with the OldTestament. Philo found the allegoricalmethod of interpretation useful in his questto show that the Jewish faith was not as bar-barous as the Greeks might think. Thisinfluence of Greek philosophy and allegori-cal interpretation greatly influenced thethought and life of Origen. KarlfriedFroehlich, former Professor of ChurchHistory at Princeton Theological Seminary,writes:

Searching the biblical texts for cluesto their higher spiritual meaningbecame the normative task of theChristian exegete, and with this taskcame the appropriation of the fullarsenal of Hellenistic allegoricaltechnique: the philological study ofwords and phrases, etymology,numerology, figuration, natural sym-bolism, etc.15

Though others in the Alexandrian schoolwere well-known and significant forces inthe church at that time, it was the brilliantOrigen who was the first to develop a sys-tematic hermeneutic and utilize thathermeneutic in the development of his doc-trinal positions. Schaff notes:

Origen was the first to lay down, inconnection with the allegoricalmethod of the Jewish Platonist,Philo, a formal theory of interpreta-tion, which he carried out in a longseries of exegetical works remarkablefor industry and ingenuity, but mea-ger in solid results. He considered theBible a living organism, consisting ofthree elements which answer to thebody, soul, and spirit of man, afterthe Platonic psychology.Accordingly, he attributed to the

AMILLENNIALISM

porary only, not everlasting. Whenthe present world has come to an endthe material substance of which it iscomposed will be employed for theformation of another world in whichthe spirits of men not yet perfectedwill be still further disciplined and soit will go on until all have beenredeemed when matter being unre-deemable will finally be destroyed.The future life will be a life of thespirit; the flesh will have no part in it.The joys of heaven and the pains ofhell will be mental not material.17

Origen’s hermeneutics and the resultingspiritualized eschatology also affected thosewho would follow in his footsteps. The greatchurch father Augustine, also from NorthAfrica, was greatly influenced by theAlexandrian school and Origen’s writings.Augustine identified the kingdom of Godwith the hierarchical church of his day. Heargued against chiliasm which those, he said,“that are really and truly spiritual” oppose.He taught that the binding of Satan (Rev.20:1-3) began with the spread of the churchand that the church “now on earth” is thekingdom which will last for a thousandyears. To Augustine, the First Resurrectionrepresents the conversion of the soul.18

Cairns sums up Augustine’s eschatologicalview and its impact on the future church:

It can readily be seen that Augustinelooked for Christ’s coming after thepresent millennial age in which thechurch was to become increasinglyinfluential. While his view is notclear-cut, it seems to have moreaffinities with Roman Catholic andcontemporary postmillennialism thanwith amillennialism. There was noplace in his eschatology for the Jewsor a future earthly kingdom. He canbe credited with the final shatteringof the premillennial system of theante-Nicene church, and his views oneschatology became the acceptedview until the Reformation and, in

Indeed Origen’s allegorical approach to Scripture led him into many doctrinal errors.

Parousia — page 5

Marcion sought to ridChristianity of every trace ofJudaism. Other Church fatherssuch as Justin Martyr, JohnChrysostom and Ignatiusspoke with great contemptagainst Jews and Judaism. Withthe eventual triumph ofChristianity in the fourth cen-tury as the state religion, itsindebtedness to Judaism had toa great extent been forgotten.Judaism was now thought to beobsolete. Because Jewish people hadrejected Jesus as their Messiah, whatneed did believing Gentiles have toassociate with or be indebted tothose of a dead, legalistic religion?The Jewish roots of the Church hadthus virtually been severed. A GentileChurch, largely Grecianized throughthe influence of Platonic thought,now stood in its place.21

Origen and others saw the destruction ofJerusalem in AD 70 as an indicator of God’srejection of the Jews for their crucifixion ofJesus. Origen wrote:

And we say with confidence thatthey will never be restored to theirformer condition. For they commit-ted a crime of the most unhallowedkind, in conspiring against the Saviorof the human race in that city wherethey offered up to God a worshipcontaining the symbols of mightymysteries. It accordingly behoovedthat city where Jesus underwent thesesufferings to perish utterly, and theJewish nation to be overthrown, andthe invitation to happiness offeredthem by God to pass to others—theChristians…22

The Jews were looked on as the enemies ofGod, a rejected people, unworthy of any fu-ture in God’s plans. Christianity was seen asthe bona fide replacement of Judaism. A fu-ture earthly kingdom that focused on therestoration of the Jews was unthinkable.

Marcion was a leader in this “de-Judaizing” of Christianity. A businessmanfrom Rome, he could see no parallel whatso-

some respects, even after that greatevent.19

At the foundation of Augustine’s eschatol-ogy is the principle of allegorizing Scripturewhich, as we have seen, developed in theAlexandrian school and was perfected byOrigen. Dr. John Walvoord, of DallasSeminary, is very pointed when he states:

It is clear that in arriving at his con-clusion regarding the millenniumAugustine used the principle of spir-itualizing Scripture freely. While hedid not use this principle in inter-preting Scripture relating to predesti-nation, hamartiology, salvation, orgrace, he found it suitable for inter-preting prophecy. A candid examina-tion of his interpretation leaves theexaminer with the impression thatAugustine did not give a reasonableexegesis of Scripture involved.20

The primary root that fed the growth of aspiritualized kingdom concept in the earlychurch was the replacement of a literalhermeneutic with an allegorical one.However, there were four sub-roots that fedthe need for a new hermeneutical approachto Scripture: (1) an anti-Jewish bias; (2) anoverreaction to heresy; (3) a false view of thematerial world; and (4) the conversion of theEmperor to Christianity.

Feeder Root 1: An Anti-Jewish BiasComposed primarily of Jewish believers, theapostolic church was in many ways consid-ered a sect of Judaism. However, as thegospel spread to the reaches of the RomanEmpire the church became more and morecomposed of non-Jews and the importanceof the church’s Jewish beginnings dimin-ished significantly. In fact, as early as thesecond century, there was a notable anti-Jewish sentiment building within thechurch. Marvin Wilson, professor of Bible atGordon College, sheds some light on thisshift within the early church:

The Church was born in a Jewishcradle, but it rapidly became de-Judaized. By the middle of the sec-ond century an anti-Jewish polemicarose within the Church as men like

BY GARY VATERLAUS

ever with the God of justice of the OldTestament and the God of goodness re-vealed in the New Testament. He sought tocompletely divorce the Old Testament fromChristianity and adopted his own version ofthe canon. Though he was condemned as aheretic, the response to Marcion had veryimportant consequences for the church’s at-titude toward the Jews. Froehlich writes:

Marcion (AD 144) rejected the JewishScriptures as the work of a wrathful,evil God who was opposed to thelove of God proclaimed by Jesus andPaul. He reduced the acceptableScriptures to ten Pauline epistles andthe Gospel of Luke purged of Jewishcontaminants. The Church con-demned Marcion and his principles.But the decision against Marcion alsohad a disturbing consequence. Bymaking the Jewish Scriptures res-olutely a Christian book: the “OldTestament”, which had only onelegitimate continuation: the “NewTestament”, the emerging Christianmovement defined itself once morein sharpest antitheses to the Jewishcommunity. In fact, the tighter thegrip of Christians on the JewishScriptures, the deeper the estrange-ment from the community of livingJews. For the patristic tradition afterthe triumph of Christianity, the Jewsbecame the “people of witness” forGod’s wrath on unbelievers.23

This anti-Jewish development in the earlychurch greatly influenced its eschatologicalview. Since a view of a literal thousand-yearkingdom on earth holds that there is still afuture kingdom for the Jews, and that Godhas not rejected the nation of Israel and yet

A future earthlykingdom that focused

on the restoration of theJews was unthinkable.

Parousia — page 6

protest against the growing loosenessof the Catholic penitential discipline.

4. …a visionary millennarianism,founded indeed on the Apocalypseand on the apostolic expectation ofthe speedy return of Christ, but giv-ing it extravagant weight and a mate-rialistic coloring… [They] pro-claimed the near approach of the ageof the Holy Spirit and of the millen-nial reign in Pepuza, a small villageof Phrygia, upon which the NewJerusalem was to come down.24

Concerning the church’s reaction toMontanism, D. Matthew Allen, of theBiblical Studies Foundation, notes:

Indeed, the Montanists’ fanaticalexcesses worked to discredit premil-lennialism among early church lead-ers, and opposition to premillennial-ism began in earnest as a result of theMontanist movement. Caius of Romeattacked millennialism specificallybecause it was linked to Montanism,and he attempted to trace the beliefin a literal millennium to the hereticCerinthus.25

It is clear that the formal church’s denuncia-tion and rejection of the Montanists,Ebionites and others included not only therightful rejection of their heretical and fa-natical beliefs, but also a misplacedopposition to their millennial position. Thus,the third root that fed the growth of a spir-itualized kingdom concept in the earlychurch was the unwarranted rejection of aliteral thousand-year kingdom because of itsassociation with heretical splinter groups.

Feeder Root 3: The View ofthe Material WorldPlatonismAs mentioned earlier, the fathers from theschool of Alexandria were greatly influencedby the philosophy of the Greeks, particular-ly Plato. Platonic thought held that thespiritual was supreme over the material. Thisinfluence is noted by Schaff. He writes,

The Platonic philosophy offeredmany points of resemblance to

will fulfill His covenants with them, thisview came to be rejected in this growing an-ti-Jewish church culture. Amillennialism, onthe other hand, fit nicely into the view thatthe church is the new Israel, and that Christis now reigning from heaven with the newpeople of God, the church. Origen,Dionysius and others rejected chiliasm asbeing an overly “Jewish” interpretation ofthe Scriptures. Thus, the second root thatsupplied the nourishment for a spiritualizedkingdom viewpoint was the anti-Jewish biasthat developed in the early church.

Feeder Root 2: An Overreactionto HeresyDuring the early years of Christianity, thechurch was overrun by sects advocatingheretical doctrines. Indeed, many of thewritings of the early church fathers were de-nunciations of these heresies. Among thesenon-orthodox groups were several that heldto chiliastic views. According to PhilipSchaff, these included the Ebionites, theMontanists, and the heretic Cerinthus. Whilemuch of the teaching of these heretics wasrightly condemned, often their biblical es-chatological views were condemned as well.It was only natural, however, to look withsuspicion upon all of the teachings of thosewho were advocating non-orthodox viewsregarding such things as the trinity, the na-ture of Christ, the role of the law, etc.Montanus is noteworthy as one who devel-oped a significant movement in the latterpart of the second century, which continuedin some parts until the sixth century. The ba-sic tenets of Montanism conflicted withmany of the practices of the churches of thatday. According to Schaff, they included:

1. …a forced continuance of themiraculous gifts of the apostolicchurch… It asserted, above all, thecontinuance of prophecy.

2. …the assertion of the universalpriesthood of Christians, even offemales, against the special priest-hood in the Catholic church.

3. …a fanatical severity in asceticismand church discipline. It raised a zealous

Christianity. It is spiritual and idealis-tic, maintaining the supremacy of thespirit over matter… From the time ofJustin Martyr, the Platonic philoso-phy continued to exercise a directand indirect influence upon Christiantheology… We can trace it especial-ly in Clement of Alexandria andOrigen, and even in St. Augustine,who confessed that it kindled in himan incredible fire.26

This abhorrence of the material led to manyunhealthy and even heretical views. Amongthese were the denial of the physical aspectof the resurrection by Origen and an exces-sive asceticism as taught by the Ebionitesand many other sects, including many of theGnostics. In addition to these erroneousviews, the elevation of the spiritual over thematerial led to the rejection of the materialnature of the millennium. Augustine rejectedthe idea of a physical millennial kingdomwhen he wrote:

This opinion [a future literal millen-nium after the resurrection] might beallowed, if it proposed only spiritualdelight unto the saints during thisspace (and we were once of the sameopinion ourselves); but seeing theavouchers hereof affirm that thesaints after this resurrection shall donothing but revel in fleshly banquets,where the cheer shall exceed bothmodesty and measure, this is grossand fit for none but carnal men tobelieve. But they that are really andtruly spiritual do call those of thisopinion Chiliasts.”27

Premillennialists, while holding to an earth-ly millennium of 1000 years, do not teach amillennium of revelry and “fleshly ban-quets”, as Augustine mistakenly thought.Thus, Augustine rejected a literal thousand-year kingdom on earth in part due to afaulty understanding of the nature of anearthly millennium.

GnosticismThe Gnostic heresy arose early in the histo-ry of the church. Gnosticism was taught bya variety of religious sects that professed sal-

AMILLENNIALISM

Parousia — page 7

vation through secret knowledge, or gnosis.The movement reached its high point duringthe second century in the Roman andAlexandrian schools founded by Valentius.One of the tenets of Gnosticism, accordingto Schaff, was “Dualism; the assumption ofan eternal antagonism between God andmatter.”28 The Gnostics saw the materialworld as evil and rejected the idea of a phys-ical resurrection or physical nature ofeternity. Schaff explains their view:

The material visible world is theabode of the principle of evil. Thiscannot proceed from God; else hewere himself the author of evil. Itmust come from an opposite princi-ple. This is Matter, which stands ineternal opposition to God and theideal world.29

Though condemned by the church fathers,Gnosticism nevertheless had a profound in-fluence in the thought and theology of thechurch:

The number of the Gnostics isimpossible to ascertain. We find themin almost all portions of the ancientchurch… They found most favorwith the educated, and threatened tolead astray the teachers of thechurch.30

The influence of Gnosticism in the earlychurch has been linked to the developmentof asceticism and there is no doubt its ab-horrence of the material world contributedto the rejection of an earthly Millennialkingdom, particularly in the influentialAlexandrian school. Thus, the third rootfeeding the amillennial shift in the earlychurch was the influence of Platonic andGnostic thought, which viewed the physicalas evil, and would thus preclude any sort offuture physical kingdom on the earth.

Feeder Root 4: The Conversionof the EmperorThe early Christian church suffered intensepersecution from the Roman government.Believers who refused to bow down toCaesar suffered punishment, imprisonmentand death as a result of their loyalty toChrist. All of this changed dramatically when

BY GARY VATERLAUS

in AD 307 the emperor Constantine was con-verted to Christianity. In 313 he issued theedict of Milan which proclaimed freedom ofreligion for all inhabitants of the Roman em-pire. Now, rather than being the persecuted,the church was the honored. This had a pro-found impact on the eschatological hope ofthese early believers. Rather than looking tothe return of Christ to put down the RomanEmpire (whom most identified as theAntichrist) and set up a righteous kingdomon earth, they were now enjoying the fa-voritism of the Empire and began to equatetheir new prosperity with the millennialkingdom. The focus of the church changedfrom looking for ultimate comfort in theworld to come, to enjoying the comfort theynow experienced in the present world.Cairns comments on this dramatic change:

The more prosperous circumstancesof the church, ushered in by the free-dom of religion granted byConstantine in the Edict of Milan in313 and his favoritism to the churchby state subsidies, exemption of theclergy from public duty and militaryservice, and the legal setting ofSunday as a day of rest, caused manyChristians to cease thinking of theRoman state as Antichrist or his fore-runner and to expect that the socialand territorial expansion of thechurch since Christ’s First Advent wasthe kingdom. The church became athome in the world as membersgained material possession andprominence, such as Eusebius enjoyedin being at the right hand ofConstantine at the Council of Nicaea.Eusebius wrote a laudatory biographyof Constantine and in hisEcclesiastical History sought to pre-sent the story of the church fromChrist’s Ascension to her present riseto prominence. The earlier churchfathers, such as Papias, who had heldto a premillennial hope were castigat-ed for their errors. Church and statewere two arms of God to serve Himin His developing kingdom. Jeromeinsisted that the saints would not havean earthly premillennial kingdom and

wrote: “Then let the story of thethousand years cease” (Commentaryon Daniel, on Dan 7:25).31

While the anti-Jewish bias of the earlychurch and the reaction to heretical teach-ings both played an important role in thegradual shift from a literal thousand-yearkingdom to a spiritualized kingdom of un-limited duration, it was the new-foundacceptance and elevation of the church inthe fourth century which proved to have thegreatest impact. As Schaff writes:

But the crushing blow came from thegreat change in the social conditionand prospects of the church in theNicene age. After Christianity, con-trary to all expectation, triumphed inthe Roman empire, and wasembraced by the Caesars themselves,the millennial reign, instead of beinganxiously waited and prayed for,began to be dated either from thefirst appearance of Christ, or fromthe conversion of Constantine andthe downfall of paganism, and to beregarded as realized in the glory ofthe dominant imperial state-church.Augustine, who himself had formerlyentertained chiliastic hopes, framedthe new theory which reflected thesocial change, and was generally

The focus of thechurch changed fromlooking for ultimatecomfort in the worldto come, to enjoyingthe comfort they now

experienced in thepresent world.

Parousia — page 8

accepted. The apocalyptic millenni-um he understood to be the presentreign of Christ in the Catholicchurch, and the first resurrection, thetranslation of the martyrs and saintsto heaven, where they participate inChrist’s reign…

From the time of Constantine andAugustine chiliasm took its placeamong the heresies, and was rejectedsubsequently even by the Protestantreformers as a Jewish dream. But itwas revived from time to time as anarticle of faith and hope by piousindividuals and whole sects…32

The fourth root, which completed the emer-gence of the view of a spiritualized anddestroyed the idea of a future Messianickingdom on earth, was the prosperity thechurch enjoyed as it was accepted into theRoman Empire.

ConclusionIn this article, we first examined the tap rootthat contributed to the rejection of a literalthousand-year kingdom on earth, the domi-nant view for the first two centuries of thechurch, in favor of a spiritualized kingdomunlimited in duration (amillennialism). Thesingle factor: the adoption of an allegoricalhermeneutic, which replaced the literal orface value hermeneutic of Jesus and theapostles. Four sub-roots fed this hermeneuti-cal shift. First: the anti-Jewish bias of theearly church developed as a result of achurch dominated by gentile believers.Second: an overreaction to heresy, which in-cluded the condemnation not only ofheretical doctrines, but chiliasm as well.Third: the adoption of Platonic and Gnosticteachings on the evil of the material worldwhich led to a rejection of a material, earth-ly future kingdom. And fourth and finally:the adoption of Christianity as the state reli-gion of the Roman Empire. The church nolonger looked for the coming of Christ toestablish His kingdom and rescue believersfrom persecution, but instead saw the new-ly-found freedom and prominence of thechurch as the fulfillment of the promises ofa future kingdom.

The growth of what came to be calledamillennialism was not a result of a carefulstudy of the Scriptures, but rather a reactionto the social, political, and theological ten-sions of the age. While many of the earlychurch fathers are to be commended fortheir bold witness for Christ in the midst ofthe threat of imprisonment and death andfor their examples of perseverance and god-liness, they were, nevertheless, fallible andcapable of error, just as we are. They adopt-ed a theology which they felt best fit thecurrent events, rather than holding to theScriptures as the only source of authority. Acareful study of the Bible, taken at face val-ue, will lead one to a belief in a literalthousand-year kingdom on earth (premillen-nialism, as it is now called). Floyd Hamilton,who attacks premillennialism, concedes:

Now we must frankly admit that aliteral interpretation of the OldTestament prophecies gives us justsuch a picture of an earthly reign ofthe Messiah as the premillennialistpictures. That was the kind of aMessianic kingdom that the Jews ofthe time of Christ were looking for,on the basis of a literal interpretationof the Old Testament.33

There is simply no justification for discard-ing the promises of the Old Testament to thenation of Israel, allegorizing the teaching ofRevelation 20, or discounting the beliefs ofthe apostolic age. Like the apostles and theearliest church fathers, we must continue tolook for the appearing of Christ, who willput down all rebellion, and establish HisKingdom over all the earth.

ENDNOTES1. Larry V. Crutchfield. The Early Church fathers and the

Foundations of Dispensationalism, Part I (Posted on theDispensational International Research Network web-site). He lists the following facts: Clement, bishop ofRome (flourished c.90-100); Ignatius, bishop of Antioch(died c.98/117); Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (c.70-155/160); Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c.60-c.130/155); The Didache (composed before the end ofthe first century A.D.); the Epistle of Barnabas (comp.c.70/117-138); The Shepherd of Hermas (c.96/140-150);apologist Justin Martyr (c.100-165); Irenaeus, bishop ofLyons (120-202); Hippolytus, bishop of Rome (d.c.236); Tertullian, apologist, moralist, and theologian(150-225); Pothinus, bishop of churches in Lyon andVienne (c.87-177); Melito, bishop of Sardis (d. c.190);

AMILLENNIALISM

Hegesippus, church historian (second century);Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis (c.175); Cyprian, bish-op of Carthage (c.200-258); Commodian, ChristianLatin poet in North Africa (c.200-c.275); Lactantius,Latin Rhetorician, Christian apologist and historian(c.240-c.320); Victorinus of Petau, bishop of Petau nearVienne (d. c.304); Methodius, bishop of Olympus (d.311); Julius Africanus, Christian writer and chronogra-pher (d. c.240); Nepos, an Egyptian bishop (c.230-250), and his successor, Coracion (c.230-280).

2. Phillip Schaff. The History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2(New York: Charles Scribner & Company, 1884), p.482

3. Thomas Burnet. The Sacred Theory of the Earth (London: J.McGowan, 1681), p. 346 (italics his)

4. Dr. J.G. Vos. Blue Banner Faith and Life, Jan.-Mar., 19515. Loraine Boettner. The Millennium (Phillipsburg, New Jersey:

Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company), p.117

6. William H. Rutgers. Premillennialism in America (Goes,Holland: Oostervaan & Le Cointre, 1930) p. 71

7. Earl E. Cairns. Eschatology and Church History (WheatonCollege Faculty Bulletin, June, 1957)

8. Roy B. Zuck. Basic Bible Interpretation (Colorado Springs:Victor Books, 1991), p. 19

9. While the Old Testament speaks of Israel and the NewTestament speaks of the church, those who spiritualizeScripture insist that the people of God is the real issue.Thus, passages in the Old Testament spoken directly toIsrael, in the New Testament can be applied directly tothe church because both are the people of God. This isan example of spiritualizing the text.

10. Thomas Hartwell Horne. An Introduction to the Critical Studyand Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 1 (New York:Robert Carter and Brothers, 1859), p. 324

11. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1958), p. 20-21

12. F. W. Farrar. History of Interpretation (New York: EP Duttonand Company, 1886) pp. 47-48

13. Thomas Cornman. The Development Of Third-CenturyHermeneutical Views In Relation To Eschatological Systems(Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,September 1987), p. 282

14. Schaff. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 3815. Karlfried Froehlich. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 1816. Schaff. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 40917. A.C. McGiffert. A History of Christian Thought (New York:

Scribner’s, 1946), p. 23118. Augustine. City of God, XX, 6-919. Earle E. Cairns. Eschatology and Church History, Part I

(Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1958), p. 14220. John Walvoord. Amillennialism in the Ancient Church, Part IV

(Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1949), p. 42421. Marvin R. Wilson. An Evangelical View Of The Current State

Of Evangelical-Jewish Relations (Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society, June 1982), p. 149

22. Origen. De Principiis, Book 4, Chap. 2223. Froehlich, ed. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, p. 1124. Schaff. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 328-33325. D. Matthew Allen. Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers

and Their Views of Eschatology (Posted on theDispensational International Research Network website)

26. Schaff. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 56727. Augustine. City of God, XX, p. 728. Schaff. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 355.29. ibid., p. 356.30. ibid., p. 353.31. Cairns. Eschatology and Church History, Part I, p. 14132. Schaff. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 484-533. Floyd Hamilton. The Basis of the Millennial Faith, (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1942) p. 38.

Parousia — page 9

Prophecy Under Fire • Critics & Critiques

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum offers at theconclusion of his review of The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church by

Marvin Rosenthal the following summation:

[T]his reviewer will venture aprophecy of his own. This work (ThePrewrath Rapture of the Church) willhave its day for a short season, and itwill attract many if only because it isnovel; novel ideas, no matter howwild, always attract a following ini-tially… But it (the prewrath position)will not become the major view ofthe church…1

Perhaps one of these days, Fruchtenbaumcan enlighten us as to whether he thinkspretribulationism is “the major view of thechurch.” After one hundred plus years, “thechurch” certainly has not adopted pretribu-lationism universally. Similarly, Tim LaHayewrites in 1998,

In the eight years since its (ThePrewrath Rapture of the Church byMarvin Rosenthal) publication, Iknow of no one (prophecy scholars)who has adopted it, but I have readseveral damaging critiques. I doubtthe author will live long enough tofind pre-Wrath rapture the recog-nized position… Despite its initialsuccess due to originality and mar-keting hype, its major flaws will dropit in the sea of oblivion long before itbecomes a major position.2

These comments are recorded inLaHaye’s book, Rapture Under Attack. Thisauthor continues to be amazed that the dis-tinguished publishing company known asMultnomah would allow a book to be pub-lished with so clearly a misleading title.LaHaye does not offer one shred of evi-dence to support his titular claim that the

Rapture is under attack. Clearly, the manconfuses the doctrine of the Rapture of thechurch with pretribulationism. We wouldagree that the pretrib Rapture position isunder a major attack. However, amongthose who hold to the Rapture of thechurch (discounting disagreements abouttiming) the belief is unabated.

After ten years of on-going criticism, wethink its time to check our critics. In this andfollowing issues of our newsletter, we shallput contemporary prophets under fire. Inlight of prophetic forecasts of the demise ofthe prewrath position, how is the prewrathposition doing on the world-stage? Are theprophets of doom correct? Are their criti-cisms legit? We hope you will enjoy thisnew feature called Prophecy Under Fire.

Showers’ Forecast Is All WetMarvin Rosenthal and Robert Van Kampen,as architects of the prewrath position, havereceived on-going criticism from pretribula-tionists. In reading the critics, we posit thatPretribbers are consistent in their argumen-tation against the prewrath position, for themost part. In light of this fact, Renald E.Showers’ critique of the prewrath position ina Dictionary of Premillennial Theology willserve as our focus.

We are grateful that Showers correctlysummarized the heart of the prewrath posi-tion in his article, which demonstrates hisfamiliarity with Rosenthal and VanKampen’s writings; something we are unableto say about most critics of the position.Naturally, we part company regardingShowers’ objections to the position. Underthe heading Problems with the View, Concerningthe Great Multitude, Showers writes,

The prewrath view asserts that thegreat multitude from all nations, kin-dreds, people, and tongues is thechurch, which has just been rapturedin conjunction with the second com-ing of Christ during the time

between the sixth and seventh seals.There are two problems with thatidentification.

1. One of the twenty-four elders indi-cated that the people who make upthe great multitude come out of theGreat Tribulation (Rev. 7:13-14).This means that all the people whomake up the great multitude will beon earth during the Great Tribulation,making this a partial rapture of thechurch. It would include only thosechurch saints living on earth duringthe Great Tribulation. It would notinclude all the church saints who liveand die before the Great Tribulation,and who, therefore, will never be in it.By contrast, the Bible indicates thatall church saints will be rapturedtogether as one body at the same time(1 Thess. 4:13-18).

2. The Greek present tense of themain verb in the elder’s statementindicates that the people who make upthe great multitude do not come outof the Great Tribulation as one groupat the same time, but one by one, con-tinuously, through out the course ofthe Great Tribulation, apparentlythrough death. This again contrastswith the manner in which the churchwill be raptured form the earth.3

Showers states that his first problem concernsthe composition of the universally innumer-able multitude. The reader should notice theabsence of an explicit quote from Scripture.Showers could have easily ended this debateby giving a simple scriptural quote. Rather,what is given are assumptions without ex-plicit scriptural support.

First, we offer a correction to Showers’summation: the prewrath position would ar-gue that the universally innumerablemultitude contains the church, but is not lim-

by Charles Cooper

Parousia — page 10

ited to the church. That is, believers of all theages are present at this great gathering. Thereis no direct explicit New Testament text thatrequires the resurrection of Abraham, Isaacand Jacob be separate from the resurrectionof the apostle Paul, Martin Luther or mygrandmother. This is an unnecessary presup-position of pretribulationism that does nothave explicit biblical support. Pretribbers ar-gue that since Paul says in 1 Thessalonians4:16b that “the dead in Christ shall rise first”this effectively limits the Rapture to thosewho have died after the pouring out of theSpirit at Pentecost. For in their thinking, on-ly “church age believers” are “dead in Christ.”

This is patently fallacious. The lack ofNew Testament terminology in the OldTestament cannot be used as a basis for whatis or what is not true in the Old Testament.To demand New Testament terminology inthe Old Testament is foolish. This faulty rea-soning led C. I. Scofield to conclude thatOld Testament saints were not saved byfaith, which Charles C. Ryrie declares thatScofield wrote in an unguarded moment.4

Rather, Ryrie goes to great length to showthat dispensationalists teach, “that salvationis always through God’s grace.”5 To escapethe charge that dispensationalists teach twoways of salvation, Ryrie and others are quickto insist that “[t]he basis of salvation in everyage is the death of Christ…”6 Therefore, ac-cording to pretribbers, Old Testament saintsare saved by the “death of Christ,” but theyare not “dead in Christ.”

Yet, the apostle Paul writes in Galatians 3:8,

And the Scripture, foreseeing thatGod would justify the Gentiles byfaith, preached the gospel before-hand to Abraham, saying, “All thenations shall be blessed in you.”

Notice, please, Paul’s connection between“the gospel” and the phrase “All the nationsshall be blessed in you.” The Old Testamentsaints preached the same message with dif-ferent words, but the outcome is the same.The same can be said about the resurrec-tion. Old Testament saints died in faith,believing that God would raise them fromthe dead.

In fact, the Lord Jesus states in John 6:39,“And this is the will of Him who sent Me,

that of all that He has given Me I lose noth-ing, but raise it upon the last day” (emphasisadded). In the sixth chapter of John, the Lordstates four times, “I will raise it (him) up onthe last day.” The point is this: all the right-eous dead (who have died up to that point intime) will be raised at the same time. Closerexamination of John 6:39 bears this out.

The emphasis is on the “all.” The Fathergave all. The Son keeps all, and the Son rais-es all. In each case, the all happens at the sametime. What Jesus meant is confirmed byMartha in John 11:24. Martha states, “I knowthat he will rise again in the resurrection onthe last day.” The use of “the” before the termresurrection indicates that Martha understoodthe Lord’s words to refer to the final generalresurrection at the end of the age. The apostlePaul indicates in 1 Corinthians 15:24 that thenext phase of the resurrection will occur atthe Parousia of Christ (the Rapture). Thereader should notice that Paul offers no clueto a possible separation of the resurrection ofOld and New Testament saints. In a chapterspecifically dedicated to delineating the order(groups) of the first resurrection, it is unimag-inable that Paul would not say one wordabout the Old Testament dead. This in and ofitself does not prove our point, but it is com-pelling.

Pretribulationists’ insistence that the resur-rection of Old Testament saints will occur atthe Second Coming of Christ in close prox-imity to Armageddon is based on atheological presupposition that does nothave explicit biblical support. To the con-trary, Daniel 12:1-2 specifically indicatesthat the general resurrection of the dead willfollow the unparalleled future distress, whichJesus calls “a great tribulation.” This accordswith both Matthew 24 and 1 Corinthians15. Matthew 24 places the Lord’s Parousia(coming) after the unparalleled future distressis cut short and 1 Corinthians 15 places theresurrection at the Parousia (coming) ofChrist.

Is this in fact what the Elder meant? Hedoes state that the universally innumerablemultitude “are the ones who come out of thegreat tribulation.” However, it is an assump-tion on Showers part to conclude, “all thepeople who make up the great multitudewill be on the earth during the Great

Tribulation.” Nothing in the text necessitatesthis conclusion. Again, this is an assumptionon Showers’ part that is necessary to supporthis conclusion.

The use of the definite article the with“great tribulation” suggests that John’s readerswere familiar with the concept and the peri-od of time it represents. The phrase is used inMatthew 24:21, but it does not have the def-inite article. Since the apostle John is the onlyapostle to receive both the Olivet Discourse(Mark 13:3) and the Revelation of Jesus, wehave a basis upon which to draw the conclu-sion that he is referring to the same eventdepicted by the Lord in Matthew 24.

It is without debate that the Lord inMatthew 24:21 is referring to the sameevent Daniel 12:1-2 describes as an unparal-leled time of distress. A time Daniel depictsto last three and a half years, which the Lordsays, will be cut short. Therefore, John’s de-piction that the universally innumerablemultitude “come up out of the great tribula-tion” is correct. The phrase out of is atranslation of the Greek proposition εκ. Thisis the same word hotly debated inRevelation 3:10. The context of Revelation7:13-14 makes John’s meaning here clear. InRevelation 7:13, one of the twenty-four el-ders asked John two questions: “who arethey, and from where have they come?”Please notice that the question states, “fromwhere have they come.” It does not say,“from where are they coming.” The impor-tance of this point will be seen later.

The answers to the Elder’s questions aregiven in reverse order. First, the where ques-tion is answered, then the who questionfollows. Now one would expect a wherequestion to be answered with a certainplace—the locality, but the Greek can alsorefer to origin—the source. The GreatTribulation is not a place, but an interval oftime. This interval of time is the source ofthe universally innumerable multitude.

Therefore, there is no basis on the part ofShowers to say that the universally innumer-able multitude consists of only those on theearth at the time of the Great Tribulation.Rather, Revelation 5:9 states that Christ pur-chased for God the Father a universallyinnumerable multitude. Notice, “Worthy artThou… for Thou… didst purchase for God

PROPHECY UNDER FIRE

Parousia — page 11

with Thy blood men from every tribe andtongue and people and nation.” The verb didpurchase indicates a once-for-all purchase. Inother words, there was one transaction.Every individual ever saved or yet to besaved was purchased at the same time. Sincethe death of Christ is the basis of all who aresaved, the universally innumerable multitudereferenced in Revelation 5:9 must includethe saints of all the ages. This is most likelythe referent of “a number which no onecould count.”

The second objection Showers has withthe prewrath identification of the universal-ly innumerable multitude containing thebelievers of all ages up to the Rapture con-cerns the rate of removal. This issueconcerns the important phrase, “the oneswho come” (οι ερχοµενοι ). This is the re-lationship of the universally innumerablemultitude to the Great Tribulation. Theycome out of it. Pretribulationists are fond totranslate this critical phrase: “those who arecoming,” thereby insisting and emphasizingthat this universally innumerable multitude

come one by one over an interval of time. Robert L. Thomas attempts to defend this

conclusion by arguing that a “contextualwarrant exists” to emphasize the durative oron-going nature of this phrase.7 However, inreality, it is Thomas’ theological bias that“warrants” his conclusion. There is no gram-matical basis to insist on the translation“those who are coming.” “The comers,” “theones who came” or as indicated in theNASB, “the ones who come” reflect the bestsense of the text. Revelation 7:15 states, “Forthis reason, they (the whole group) are be-fore the throne of God…” Notice, “they arebefore the throne,” not “they are coming be-fore the throne.”

The universally innumerable multitude isnot coming one by one. Equally, there isnothing in Revelation 7:9-17 to warrant theconclusion that this great number consists ofmartyrs. These are conclusions forced on thetext from an improper interpretation of thecontext. It defies logic that such a greatnumber of individuals could be saved andkilled within a three-and-a-half year period

that would not even be considered the GreatTribulation.

Therefore, we have shown that Showers’criticism of the prewrath position lacksteeth. He, like so many others, offers onlydogmatic statements that are assumed to betrue but woefully lack any sort of explicitscriptural foundation. Only those who wantto be pretribulational in their eschatologycould ever be happy with such poor scrip-tural support.

ENDNOTES1. A.G. Fruchtenbaum, A Review of The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the

Church (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries) 73.2. Tim LaHaye, Rapture (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers,

Inc., 1998) 102.3. R.E. Showers, “The Prewrath Rapture,” in Dictionary of

Premillennial Theology, ed. Mal Couch (Grand Rapids:Kregel Publications, 1996) 356-357.

4. C.C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, (Chicago: Moody Press,1965) 112.

5. Ibid. 113.6. Ibid. 123.7. R.L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992)

495.

BY CHARLES COOPER

Meet a Berean • Pastor Randy Umberger

As members of our staff travel aroundthe country, we meet many peoplewho tell us their wonderful stories

of conversion to the prewrath position. Wethought you might like to read some ofthem. In the next several issues of Parousia,we would like to introduce you to some ofthese remarkable people. Remarkable becausethey demonstrate that spirit the apostle Paulfound in the ancient city of Berea (Acts17:10-11). One such “Berean” is RandyUmberger, Pastor of Blue SpringsCommunity Church in Marianna, Florida.Here is his story:

“You do not want to be here when all ofthis begins to happen.” I said those wordsbefore I knelt down and led a friend toChrist. The year was 1973. I was twelveyears old. Not just any twelve-year-old ei-ther. I was a card carrying, dyed-in-the woolpretribber. My copy of Hal Lindsey’s TheLate Great Planet Earth was completely worn

out. I had read it several times and had muchof its contents memorized. The church that Igrew up in was very evangelistic and placedgreat emphasis on end-time events. Ofcourse the view they proclaimed was thepremillennial, pretribulational one. We al-ways had several conferences a year focusingon prophecy. So, needless to say, I was in-doctrinated at a very early age.

I began preaching at the age of sixteen. Itraveled throughout North Carolina, Virginia,and Maryland doing “revivals” (I have sincelearned that revival must be sovereignly sentdown and not worked up). Everywhere Iwent I always preached at least one messageon the Second Coming. It always got people“to the front.” I never questioned the pret-ribulational position until…

The year was 1984. I was a student atLuther Rice Seminary. I was taking a NewTestament class from a very dear man whohad a passion for God’s Word. The subject

of end-time events came up one day in class.I listened as the professor began to ask somevery probing questions that challenged thepretribulation view. I quickly realized thathe did not believe that view and backed uphis position with Scripture. He challengedme with one very honest and simple ques-tion, “Why do you believe in a pretribulation

continued on back

Nonprofit Org.U.S. Postage PaidGrand Haven, MIPermit No. 383

Parousia is produced and published four times a year by The Sign Ministries, P.O. Box 113, West Olive, MI 49460; (800) 627-5134; info@signministries.org; Editor: Rev. Charles Cooper;Associate Editors: Dean Tisch, Sandy Ksycki, Dirk Eichhorst; Creative Director & Designer: Scott Holmgren; ©2001 The Sign Ministries. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced or transmitted without publisher’s written permission. Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible, ©1977, 1987, 1988, The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.The Sign Ministries is a ministry of Sola Scriptura. Visit our website at: www.signministries.org

THESIGN Ministries

P.O. Box 113West Olive, MI 49460

A Ministry of Sola Scriptura

ADDRESSSERVICEREQUESTED

Rapture of the church?” Ofcourse I could have replied,“Because that is what the Bibleteaches.” Yet, I knew in my heart,that the reason I believed it wasnot because “I” had searched theScriptures and found it to be so.The reality was that I believed itfor three very simple reasons.The first was because I grew upin a church that taught it, so I ac-cepted it as fact. The second wasbecause it was the popular andpredominant view of the time.Honestly, to have believed andpreached anything differentwould have seriously thinned outmy opportunities to preach. Thethird reason was because Hal

Lindsey said so, and he couldnever be wrong!

That day, I started a study thatchanged my life. I searched theBible, comparing Scripture withScripture. I did word studies onthe different Rapture passages. Iread church history and consult-ed every commentary I couldfind on the subject. When it wasall said and done, I was firmlyconvinced that I had been wrongall along. There were still a fewloose ends that I still did nothave figured out, but in the end Iwas… I was a…? Hmmm. Whatwas I? I was not pretrib, midtrib,or posttrib. I wasn’t sure what Iwas.

It was not until 1993 when Ipurchased a copy of The Sign thatI knew what I was. I wasprewrath! Robert Van Kampen’sbook, along with MarvRosenthal’s Pre-Wrath Rapture ofthe Church, tied up the loose endsfor me. When it all became clearto me, I realized that even whenI warned people as a pretribberto repent before He returned, Iwarned them of the wrath ofGod that was coming. I startedwith Revelation 8 and movedforward. I still do so. Only now, Icall believers to prepare for thewrath of the Anti-Messiah.

Continued study, especially inthe area of the Feasts of Israel,

has only enhanced and plantedme more firmly in the prewrathposition. My walk with Christhas been approached with agreater seriousness. This shouldbe the result of a proper view ofend-time events as taught in 1Thessalonians 5:6-9 and 2 Peter3:11-12. I lost some relation-ships over my shift, but I alsogained some. You may wonderwhat I did with my worn outcopy of The Late Great PlanetEarth? I can only say that it musthave been “secretly” raptured at atime when I least expected it. Ithas not been seen or heard fromsince 1984.

Meet a Berean • continued from inside