Featured And they Sing the Song of Moses . . .

Summary of first period

On the whole, in reviewing our Sketch of this 1st and earliest Period of Apocalyptic Interpretation, the following points may remain in our minds as among its most marked and important characteristics.

1st, that the Apocalyptic figurations were supposed to be such as began to have fulfillment from the time of St. John, or commencement of the Christian æra. I believe there is no one expositor of the period just past under review that entertained the idea of the Apocalyptic prophecy overleaping the chronological interval, were it less or greater, antecedent to the consummation; and plunging at once into the times of the consummation, and of the then expected Antichrist. See e.g. Irenæus and Victorinus on the 1st Seal,; Tertullian on the 5th Seal; and also Methodius, &c. [127]

2. As regards the 1st Seal, and the interpretation of its white horse and horseman by Irenæus, and then Tertullian and Victorinus, as symbolizing Christ’s victories by the gospel, we have to note that though it is Victorinus who first conjoins this its explanation with that of the contrasted horse and horseman of the three next Seals, as symbolizing the “bella fames and pestis” that were to follow after the first gospel preaching and triumphs, antecedently to Christ’s second coming, so as predicted by Christ in Matt. xxiv., yet seems probable that Victorinus’ predecessors, as well as his successors, like him combined this view of the1st Seal with that of the next 3 Seals, and with similar reference to Christ’s prophecy respecting those antecedents to his second coming. Which being so, and as this is a primary and cardinal point in Apocalyptic interpretation, it will be well here to bear in mind Irenæus’ own caution, expressed with reference to another of the Apocalyptic mysteries; (I mean the Beast’s name viz. that “if meant to be known at the time it would doubtless have been declared by him who saw the Apocalypse.” As part and parcel of an interpretation of all the four first Seals taken from Matt. xxiv., whereof the explanation of the next three Seals as symbolizing war, famine, and pestilence constitutes another essential part, it is disproved at once by the impossibility of the 3rd Seal’s symbol, with its choenix or 5 lbs. of barley for a denarius, together with plenty of wine and oil, ever meaning famine. [128]

3. As to the great subject of Antichrist, while there was a universal concurrence in the general idea of the prophecy, there was in respect of the details of application a considerable measure of difference; - these differences arising mainly out of certain current notions of the coming Antichrist as in some way Jewish as well as Roman, and the difficulty of combining and adjusting the two characteristics. The Roman view followed of course Apocalyptically from Antichrist’s being figured as the Roman Beast’s 8th head, after the healing of his deadly wound; (for all identified the Beasts of Apoc. xiii. and xvii.; [129] ) and joined too in closest union with the seven-hilled Harlot: as well as from Daniel’s depicting him as a little horn of the 4th or Roman Beast. Of his supposed Jewish connection no Apocalyptic evidence occurred to the early patristic expositors: save only that Irenæus thought Dan’s omission in Apoc. vii. from the sealed tribes might arise from that being the Jewish tribe of Antichrist’s origin; a notion in which none, I believe, followed him. The idea arose chiefly doubtless from a vague expectation of his being a Pseudo-Christ, such as Christ told of in Matt. xxiv. 5, which reads: “For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many,” the thought being that the Jews might receive this impersonator as their long sought Messiah: conjoined by some of the Fathers, as Irenæus and Hippolytus, with the idea that the abomination of desolation of which Christ then spoke as predicted by Daniel, and which would in fact have the Jewish sanctuary as its place of manifestation, was not only the one prophesied of in Dan. ix. 27, as what would synchronize with the end of the 70 hebdomads, but that associated prediction which that verse refers to in Dan. xi. 36, which reads: “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.” Whence the conclusion that the ending epoch of each, and ending epoch also of the 70 hebdomads, would be at the end of Antichrist’s 31/2 years, at the consummation.

Now we have ourselves elsewhere asked, Was there not this in the designation of the desolating abomination in Dan. xii. 11 which might serve to distinguish it from the desolating abomination of Dan. xi. 31 which reads: “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” and Dan. ix. 27, “: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”; and the latter be meant distinctively by Christ, not the former? [130] And I wish here to state it as not improbable that they were asked, and to the same effect, by some also of the patristic expositors of the æra I am referring to. For alike Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and I may add too Tatian, all before the end of the 2nd century, and also Julius Africanus, at the commencement of the 3rd century, explained Daniel’s 70 hebdomads, and their abomination of desolation, as having had their full accomplishment on Christ’s death, and the consequent desolation of Jerusalem by the Roman armies; and so having no reference whatsoever to any desolation by the then future Antichrist. [131] Nor of the few who with Irenæus and Hippolytus referred that last hebdomad and its abomination of desolation to the end of the world and Antichrist, do I find that any but Hippolytus expounded the 70th and last hebdomad as broken off from the preceding 69 by a great chronological gap. Certainly no such gap is spoken of by Irenæus. [132] And as Apollinarius of Laodicea, who lived a century and a half later under Valens, made the 70 hebdomads to have had commencement with Christ’s first advent, and so to come down continuously to an epoch 490 years later, which he expected might be the time of Antichrist’s coming and the consummation, [133] so might some such view very possibly have been that by which Irenæus referred the last week to the consummation. (I refer not to Judas Syrus, another and earlier writer on the subject mentioned by Eusebius, because how he managed to make the period of the 70 hebdomads end nearly at his own epoch of the 10th of Severus, or about A.D. 203, does not appear: though I infer from Eusebius’ words that he too computed continuously. [134] ) Hippolytus stands alone, as I said, [135] in the exprest view of the 69 hebdomads reaching to Christ’s first coming, and the 70th beginning separately, at some vast chronological gap, just before his second coming. [136]

 

Summary part 2

Reverting to those early expositors’ notices about Antichrist, let me observe further that in regard to his religious profession, though the expectation of its being Judaism was prevalent among them, yet the idea was also ever kept up (an idea derived from St. John’s epistles) that heretics professedly within the Church might be considered also as Antichrists: moreover that when the great and chief Antichrist came, he would sedulously affect external resemblance to Jesus Christ; agreeably with the lamb-like Apocalyptic symbol. [137] Such a notion as that of a professedly atheistic or infidel Antichrist was as yet unknown. - Again, as to Antichrist’s Roman connection, while all admitted this, and thus the Pseudo-Sibyl and Victorinus spoke of him as the resuscitated Roman emperor Nero, and also Irenæus, and yet more strongly Hippolytus, suggested that he might very probably on this account have for his name and number Lateinos, yet then and thereupon their views differed. For the Pseudo-Sibyl and Irenæus thought that he would be prominent in Rome’s destruction, transferring its empire to Jerusalem: Hippolytus, on the contrary, that he would be the restorer of the Roman empire in a new form, somewhat like a second Augustus. To which his opinion I must again beg my readers’ special attention; the rather, because, while expressing it, as I find from the original Greek, [138] he had the more usual reading before him in Apoc. xvii. 16 of ta deka kerata kai to qhrion, not, as his Latin translation first seen by me represents it, ta deka k. epi to qhrin; the reading adopted, as it seems, by Tertullian. But how so? Because it was the old imperial Rome that Hippolytus evidently looked on as that which both Beast and horns would unite to burn: this being a mere temporary burning from which the Beast would in a new form next resuscitate it; and quite distinct from the everlasting fire from God described in Apoc. xviii., as its subsequent and final doom. On the Apocalyptic Babylon’s meaning Rome all agreed. - Once more, as to the time of Antichrist’s duration, though all reckoned it literally as 31/2 years, (how but for this could they have looked for Christ’s coming as near? [139] ) yet, very remarkably, the testimony of Cyprian and of his Biographer was incidentally given even thus early to the year-day principle as a Scriptural one: all ready for its application to the prophetic chronological periods at God’s own fit time afterwards. [140]

4. As to the Apocalyptic Judaic symbols there seems to have been a general reference of them in this æra to the Christian Church or worship. so Irenæus, Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius expounded the Apocalyptic temple and altar: so Tertullian, Methodius, Lactantius the Apocalyptic 144,000 sealed ones out of the 12 tribes, and Apocalyptic New Jerusalem. A point important to be marked in the primitive exposition. [141]

On which point, and the general subject of the intent of Scripture symbols and figures, we have to remember that Origen, already briefly noticed by me, lived and taught about the middle of the third century. [142] And, had he fulfilled his declared intention of giving the Christian world an Apocalyptic commentary, [143] we can scarcely doubt but that it would have been of a character more mystical than those we have yet had to do with; though Victorinus’ exposition of the symbols of the primary Apocalyptic vision furnishes us indeed with a partial specimen. Origen’s principle of anagogical [144] or spiritualizing exposition, (a principle not altogether to be exploded, but needing in its application to Scripture analogy, and good sense, abundantly greater than Origen cared to use,) [145] could not but have been largely applied by him to the apocalyptic prophecy: especially as one involving constantly symbolic language, besides those allusions to Babylon, Israel, Jerusalem, which we saw, were always, according to him, to be construed anagogically in Scripture. But this commentary he in effect did not write: and it remained for others fully to apply his principles to Apocalyptic exposition in a later æra.

5. On the millennary question, all primitive expositors except Origen, and the few who rejected the Apocalypse as unapostolical, were premillennarians; and construed the first resurrection of the saints literally.

E B Elliott is an Historicist pre mil.

 

Sorry I was giving a reply which mostly confirmed you post,
You can read most of it here A history of apocalyptic interpretation

 

"I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."

Justin Martyr.

 

Do you have direct quotes from each of them to prove this? The more I search most of them, pretty much all Im finding is that they didn't say enough to know, and the ones that do say it will be in the 7000th year....

 

oh ok. I understand.

 

Right, as if nearly 2000 years later we are actually closer and more faithful to the truth then those taught by the apostles.

 

My apologies for not replying sooner. I got involved with another topic and forgot all about this one.

All I can say to that is that Psalm 139:14 has a direct relationship with Revelation 15:3, which is more that can be said for Deut 32. I believe you have fallen into the exact same trap that you have accused John Gill and others of falling into. You believe that everything happened in AD 70 and so you shoe-horn every text to try and make it fit.

I don't believe so. The song is indeed the thankful response of saints who are 'more than conquerors through Him who loved us,' but I see no good reason to place the event in AD 70.

Vs. 19-21. ‘Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. [/QUOTE]
When did the cities of the nations fall in AD 70?
And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of God’s wrath. Then every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And great hail from heaven fell upon men, each hailstone about the weight of a talent. Men blasphemed God because of the plague of hail, since that plague was exceedingly great.’

These verses concern the final judgement of God at the Last day. The ‘Great City’ symbolizes the world as it is opposed to God, especially as it is represented by luxury and worldly riches. We shall see it again as Babylon the Great in Chapters 17 and 18. Jerusalem is figured as the ‘Holy City’ in 11:2 and 21:2. However, we see in 11:8 that Jerusalem is also described as the great city. As Augustine showed in his great book, The City of God, it is not the physical city, but the people of God who are the true Jerusalem. In the unlikely event that the book was written before AD 70,hose who were the first readers of the book would have associated Babylon and the 'Great City' with Rome, where God's people were so cruelly persecuted under Nero. The dividing of the city into three parts is an idiomatic expression meaning utter destruction. The cities of the nations represent those that are apart from God. Cain went ‘Out from the presence of the LORD’ and built himself a city (Gen 4:16-17). Judgement has come to all the seed of Cain. All the ideologies and philosophies that have opposed the knowledge of God are demolished. The ‘Cup of God’s wrath’ appears many times in the O.T. (eg. Isaiah 51:17; Nahum 1:6) as well as in 14:19-20. It symbolizes both temporal and final judgements that God imposes on those who stand against Him. But there is no such cup for those who trust in Christ, for He has drained the cup on their behalf, down to the very dregs (eg. Luke 22:42; John 18:11).

The reference is the islands fleeing away and the mountains disappearing symbolizes the destruction of the whole world on that day (2 Peter 3:10). The hailstorm reminds us of the plague upon Egypt, when everyone who did not take refuge from the storm was killed (Exod. 9:19, 25-6). Only those who have taken refuge in Christ Jesus will be safe on the Last Day (cf. Isaiah 32:2). Yet even now, when God’s judgements are both final and visible, there is no repentance towards God- there is hatred towards Him from the unredeemed right to the end.

You have a problem here. If you take 1,000 years and 144,000 as being figurative numbers, as I believe you are right to do, how can you take 1,600 as being exactly literal just because it suits you to do so? Forty is the number of punishment (40 lashes, 40 years in the wilderness), squared to mean the wrath stored up through the Old and New Covenants.

You will find that γῆ can sometimes mean a country, but the more usual words for 'country' are patris or chora. γῆ can certainly mean 'land,' but more often it refers to the world. There is Matthew 5, were γῆ appears four times, each time being translated 'earth' but actually meaning 'world' as in 'the meek shall inherit the earth.' Or as in the Lord's prayer, '...in earth as it is in heaven.' 188 times γῆ is translated 'earth' in the KJV, almost invariably meaning 'world.' Check it out for yourself.

I believe this very criticism applies to you. I thought only Dispensationalists were obsessed with Israel; it seems I was wrong.