Almost anytime you get into a lengthy discussion with someone who holds to a modern view of eschatological futurism, and you begin to explain to them a more historical, preteristic approach, regardless of how well you make you case, and how logical your Scripture use is, it is almost always inevitable that you'll hear, "How could church history have been wrong for 2000 years?"
Yes, this is a legitimate question, I agree. Here we are 2000 years since the time that Christ and the Apostles walked the Earth, and we have to wonder when some brand new theological doctrine surfaces, just how it may be that the teaching has not been understood or taught in the church previously.
Of course, my initial response to such an inquiry would be to ask if they are even aware of what all of the positions are that have been taught or understood during the past 2000 years in all of the various orthodox churches? With that knowledge, then yes, let's examine if what I am espousing really something new, or is it just new to them.
Is it something that has a long history in the church, but has since been overshadowed by some other traditional view, and is now long lost by modern church teachers? Sadly, the modern church goer tends to know little more than what their pastor has taught from the pulpit. Even sadder still is that most pulpits these days have no real teaching or substance.
The amount of historical and theological ignorance is rampant these days, even among pastors. It exists in the ivory towers of scholarship, but rarely does it make it down to the people. This wasn't always the case as is evident if you go back and read the transcripts of sermons from pulpits even 50 years ago, and much more if you go back a hundred or more years.
So when you are talking to a Christian fried, and they respond in such a manner to your views, most likely, they are basing their statement on the fact that it isn't commonly held or taught widely enough in today's day and age for them to be aware of it. Or more specifically, it isn't taught in their limited current circle of friends, teachers, or denomination.
So really, their views, doctrines and faith tend to be mostly in the knowledge and understanding of certain teachers that they follow, and usually stems from fairly recent centuries and traditions. Oftentimes I have a hard time relating to such people and the limited scope of knowledge so prevalent in the church.
I look back and where God brought me from, and where he took me through to get to where I am currently. I was raised a typical Southern Baptist. Between the age of 19 and 21 I rebelled and was part of the charismatic movement, playing drums in the praise band and everything — I blame my wife for that time period, but that is another story.
At 21, with some other Christian musician friends of ours, we started a Bible study. After a while the group, still mostly musicians, decided to buy this old burnt out building and repair it and turn it into a Christian coffee house where all of our individual bands could play regularly. The work was long, and the Bible study continued. Instead of just random studies, we tended to study through books about the Bible.
One of the first I recall, and one that was most impactful on us, was A.W. Tozer's Knowledge of the Holy. His theology was way more old school than we all were familiar with, and it blew us away. From there we somehow started getting our hands on modern Reformed works. Eventually by really old dead Reformed guys.
All of us came from charismatic backgrounds at this point, but this historical theology we read was unlike anything we heard from our church pulpits. From there we started studying church history. As the months went on, and as the building work went on in our spare time, the depth of study continued.
Well, but the time the building was ready to be used, our thoughts about it went from making it a Christian coffee house with bands, to instead making it a small church. What we were learning was not something we could find anywhere being taught in our local area, so we started a church ourselves. Yeah, probably not the "right" way to do it, but it was what it was.
It was during that time, that I got a strong hunger for consuming books, particularly those written centuries ago. Most of us started living by this idea that if a book was written less than 200 years ago, it probably was not worth reading. We consumed the great works by the Reformers and Puritans, and a love for most all things in ancient Church history.
Of course, spending much of about two decades of life surrounded by friends and church peers who were of a similar mindset and study habits, it can make one think that all Christians are like that, knowing as much of the past. Obviously this is not true, not even most of the time…actually pretty much none of the time.
So, it is really not surprising to find that most people are totally ignorant of many historical things, including our topic today. When you being to get into a deeper discussion on Scripture and doctrine with people, you quickly find how little they know in general about the Bible, and much less about historical theology and church history in general.
Sadly, there are many today that actually assume that these types of "traditional" doctrines have always been taught in a manner and understanding that is very similar to what they are today, so they need not look back into these things. Some things have just always been taught by the church, and these issues surrounding apocalyptic and prophetic type themes have never really been debated or any other radically different views held or expressed.
For this lesson we will be examining various beliefs and teachings from some leaders in earlier church history, to see some of the implications and applications that they made between Scripture and of their understanding of the significance of the AD 70 Jewish war and utter destruction of Jerusalem. It is thoughts like this that need to be answered:
If the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled so much of biblical prophecy, then why is this not reflected in the views of the early church? Why is it that all of the early fathers, when referring to Revelation and Matthew 24, see these as future events? (H. Wayne House & Tommy Ice)
If what they claim was true, then they may have quite an argument; though even then it could be given a reasonable answer, we won't go that direction today. The fact is, their claim is not as true as they try to make it, and there is much in the early church writings that would greatly differ with their interpretation of many of these prophetic issues.
In fact, the way the earlier church leaders applied many related things would truly sound so alien and bizarre to most modern Christians who have grown up knowing nothing but the modern dispensational eschatology of the past century.
And for those who protest against a supposed new view by saying "how could 2000 years of church history have been wrong," it is they who need to understand that there has been a vast array of beliefs on such topics over the centuries.
Is the sentiment of Tyndale Theological Seminary professor Ron Bigalke, Jr. true when he states:
(Greg) Bahnsen and (Kenneth) Gentry desire their readers to believe many ancient fathers were preterists regarding Daniel's Seventy Weeks, the first portion of Christ's Olivet Discourse, and/or Revelation. This statement has proven to be false. (Ron J. Bigalke, Jr., professor at Tyndale Theological Seminary)
Quite a bold statement, so let's put it to the test some. While there are a vast number of topics that could be discussed about differing eschatological views, I am choosing to stick with just looking at the understanding and application of Scripture to the events of AD 70 in church history. The significance of this basic historical event seems to have all but disappeared from the mind of modern church teachers and lay people.
Without a knowledge of this pivotal event that happened to the very people who heard the message from Jesus and the Apostles, today's readers miss the historical value and instead they come up with fantastical stories of apocalyptic scenarios, battles, beasts, demonic leaders and more.
Of course, I am of the firm belief that what transpired in AD 70's war of the Jews was the culmination and fulfillment of the bulk of what Jesus and the Apostles spoke of and warned about throughout the New Testament, and my goal is to show that this view was not as uncommon in church history as some desire to think or are ignorant of in general.
Let's jump right in by looking at some views on Daniel's Seventy Weeks. Some might say, "Wait, the topic is the AD 70 war and destruction of Jerusalem, why even discuss Daniel's Seventy Weeks?" Such a question just would just show how poorly the Scripture narrative and how it fits together is understood.
When people think of Daniel, they think of horns, leaders, the Antichrist, a super powerful, yet secretly evil ruler who makes pacts and alliances, and brings about war, and all kinds of crazy beasts and things. But they fail to see other details and time statements that pinpoint the events discussed. If you lay aside the fantastical views and thoughts, and look at some of the plainer details, you see things like:
Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. (Daniel 9:24 ESV)
The holy city Jerusalem and its people are decreed some events to be accomplished in seventy weeks of years. At the completion of that time, transgression and sin will be dealt with, righteousness will come, and a most holy place established. You know, all that stuff that Christ said was coming and/or happening with his ministry in the first century.
I don't have time to go into the details, but if you continue on reading on the seventy weeks, you find the rebuilding of the temple, the appearance of an anointed one who puts an end to sacrifice and offerings after a three and a half year time period, who is then cut off in the middle of that final 70th last week of the countdown, an abomination that makes desolate, and a city destroyed.
Again, putting aside the fantasy of a future-to-us rebuilt temple and antichrist prince making a covenant, and instead knowing what happened in AD 70 to the Jews and the temple, the pieces begin to make sense that Daniel is speaking of the coming of Messiah, his 3 ½ ministry, his being killed, the end of offerings because of that, and the ultimate destruction of the city.
And then moving on into Daniel, and getting to the last chapter, he is told of a future time of trouble – a great tribulation if you would – where those whose names are in the book shall be delivered from the tribulation. A time of a resurrection where some are given everlasting life, while others are given everlasting contempt, and a coming of righteousness not known before are also to occur.
Then we are told when all of these things would be accomplished, that it would be after a 3 ½ year period when the shattering of the power of the holy people is complete. Ignorance of the AD 70 war has blinded most people to the clear-cut reference here of the 3 ½ year war that took place between AD 66-70, leading up to the utter destruction of the Jewish temple, that place where all of their covenant promises and power came from.
Without knowing that significant event in history, it disconnects Daniel's words from relating to it, and instead opens the doors leading to fantasy stories like we have today. But did the early church grasp such a crazy view as I am suggesting? Clement of Alexandria, who lived into the early third century says:
And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfillment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. (Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215))
Clement also goes on to discuss the abomination of desolation mentioned in Daniel, applying it to the first century and the seventy weeks as a whole as culminating in the persecution of Nero, Vespasian and the war in general. See, he knew the significance of the AD 70 war to the prophetic record. Tertullian, who lived around the same time as Clement, also places the conclusion of the 70 weeks similarly, stating:
Vespasian, in the first year of his empire, subdues the Jews in war, and there are made 52 years, 6 months. For he reigned 11 years. And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the 70 weeks predicted in Daniel…" (Tertullian (AD 145-220))
Add to them the early church father Origin, who likewise held the same understanding, stating:
The weeks of years, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled. (Origen (AD 185-254))
Elsewhere, Tertullian connects the coming of Christ in Daniel for the purpose of, per Daniel, destroying the city of Jerusalem, stating:
Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of his passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, "both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin."
And so, the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen. (Tertullian (AD 145-220))
So this is but a few examples from the very earliest of years in church history, that see the connection between the coming of Messiah, Daniel's seventy weeks as completed in the first century, and those events tied to the AD 70 destruction of the temple.
In similar fashion, connections with AD 70 are found in discussions of portions of the book of Revelation. Andreas of Cappadocia, writing in the late fifth century, reveals what must have been a commonly held view in his time, when he discusses Revelation chapter 6 and 7:
There are not lacking those who apply this passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus…These things are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the Romans upon the Jews…these things happened in part to Jewish Christians, who escaped the evils inflicted on Jerusalem by the Romans… (Andreas of Cappadocia Caesarea, On Revelation (AD 431-506))
Pretty much the same idea is held by the 6th century Revelation commentary from Arethas of Caesarea, who comments also on part of chapter 6 & 7, stating:
Some refer this to the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian… Here, then, is manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were to befall the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ. (Arethas of Caesarea, Commentary on Revelation, 6th Century)
I am sure modern prophecy teachers would find it quite odd for someone so long ago to consider this supposed future to us end time apocalyptic book in any such manner that would associate it with the AD 70 war, but the view was not uncommon then, or now.
Even into the medieval period, the idea of applying at least portions of Revelation to the events of the first century were not uncommon. Around 1152, Anselm of Havelberg wrote Dialogues, in which he discussed the seals mentioned in Revelation. The red horse released from the second seal, sent to take peace from the earth, was understood by him to be applied to the earliest persecution during the time of the first century Apostles.
Around the year 1230, Alexander Minorita of Bremen wrote an Apocalypse commentary, and he clearly viewed the rider of the red horse to be Nero, also during the first century was. Stating:
And I looked and there went out another horse that was red. That was the reign of Nero, red with the blood of many humans. And he who sat upon it, namely Nero himself, it was given to him, that is, permitted by God to take peace from the earth. (Alexander Minorita, Exposition of the Apocalypse, c. 1230))
And later, when commenting on the third seal, he likewise applies it to the wat, stating about the black horse:
That signified the reign of Vespasian and Titus. Black, because they had risen up obscurely. And it should be noted that the proceeding horse was red because then the blood of Romans was shed. Here it is black because he blackened other people with death.
And he who sat upon it had a pair of balances in his hand. This was Titus presiding over the empire from the authority of his father. He would weigh the punishment upon Jerusalem, that is, so that might come upon her all the righteous blood which was shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel even to the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, as Matthew 23:35 says. (Alexander Minorita, Exposition of the Apocalypse, c. 1230)
Less than a hundred years later, in 1319, Peter Auriol the archbishop of Aix, in his writing on Revelation viewed the red horse as the Roman Empire, and its redness also to the deeds of Nero. Stating:
And so it was given to Nero to sit upon the red horse, upon the Roman Empire, that he might remove peace from the earth and that they might kill one another on account of the murders he committed even against Romans…
Therefore, a great sword was given to him, since it was given to him by divine permission, that he might kill the great Apostles and that he might begin the first great persecution against the faithful. (Peter Auriol, Compendium of the Literal Sense of the Entire Divine Scripture, c. 1319)
And like Alexander, Auriol also saw the third seal and the black horse as Vespasian and Titus sieging Jerusalem in the first century.
And so the black horse represents the kingdom of the Romans under Vespasian and Titus, either by reason of their animosity, since the color black is a sign of animosity in a horse, or because in that time the Roman kingdom blackened and exterminated Judea. (Peter Auriol, Compendium of the Literal Sense of the Entire Divine Scripture, c. 1319)
To the list of commentators who held this same view of Nero as the red horse and Titus as the black horse, can be added Nicholas of Lyra in his commentary from the early 1300s, as well as the late 1500s commentary by Francisco Ribera. There are even those in these centuries who, while not they did not agree with the view, they address it directly because it was a commonly held view, so they had to address it.
And then we consider the millennial reign of Christ mentioned in Revelation. The modern teaching is typically that it will be a literal 1000 years, with a literal Christ on a literal throne, reigning as an earthly king would. It seems such a view was not necessarily what the early church always held to. Justin Martyr from the early 2nd century, who apparently holds to a more literal idea, in discussing if it is literal, reveals much when he professes:
…that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are Christians, think otherwise. (Justin Martyr (100-150))
So by his admission, there were many in the church in his time, just a few decades after the events of AD 70 happened, that believed the millennial reign mentioned in Revelation was not referring to a literal earthly reign. In the late 4th century, Ephiphanes likewise admits that most did not take it as literal:
There is indeed a millennial reign mentioned by St. John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon these words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense. (Ephiphanes (315-403))
Backing up a few decades, we get the idea that some believe that the teacher Papias was a founder of this odd new literal view. Papias was a young child when Jerusalem was destroyed, and he lived beyond it and into the 2nd century. Eusebius explains it like this:
This same historian (Papias) also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennial after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth;
which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations.
For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away into similar opinions; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments. (Eusebius Pamphilius (AD 260-340))
Time does not permit me to continue going through the various portions of the book of Revelation to show how so many commentators scattered through most all early and middle centuries had assigned many portions of the book to having been fulfilled in the war against the Jews and the demise of Jerusalem AD 70.
All of this to say, no, the church over the early centuries was not unified in a belief that would even come close to lining up with the mythological type views taught by leading prophecy teachers of today. While there was a literal type view that had a resemblance to aspects of today's view, there was likewise widely held views that differ from that view were apparently prominent at times.
Likewise, on the issue of the dating of the book of Revelation, the early church views are not as united as some say. In general, two key views on the life of John are often held. The one more commonly today is that John lived a very long life, was exiled under the reign of Domitian in the late years of the first century, surrounding the AD 95 timeframe, and that it was during that time when he wrote the book of Revelation.
This means that he wrote the book decades after the AD 70 destruction, and therefore, the book of Revelation really has no relation to that event. And while we have no clear comments regarding their views on the dating of the book, the commentators we just read from obviously would hold to a pre-AD 70 date, since they are applying verses of the prophetic book to the events of AD 70.
Another view on John's life and the dating of the book is the view that John was martyred before AD 70, meaning the book of Revelation was penned prior to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Many wish to claim that such a view has little historical merit, but as we see, it was an early understanding.
Clement of Alexandria, less than a hundred years after the event states that John was on Patmos during the reign of Nero:
And to give you confidence, when you have thus truly repented, that there remains for you a trustworthy hope of salvation, hear a story that is no mere story, but a true account of John the Apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant (Nero) he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to journey by request to the neighboring districts of the Gentiles… (Clement of Alexandria (150-215))
And then we look again to Epiphanes of the 4th century, who in his writing entitled Heresies, states that the book of Revelation was written under the reign Claudius Caesar, known more commonly as Nero Caesar.
In a Syriac writing entitled the History of John, dated to have been written in the fourth century, it likewise states that John was in exile under Nero's reign:
After these things, when the Gospel was increasing by the hands of the Apostles, Nero, the unclean and impure and wicked king, heard all that had happened at Ephesus. And he sent and took all the procurator had, and imprisoned him; and laid hold of S. John and drove him into exile; and passed sentence on the city that it should be laid waste. (History of John, the Son of Zebedee, 4th century)
Another Syriac writing, a translation of the New Testament by Polycarpus in 508, was revised in 616 by Thomas of Harkel, and included a preface to Revelation which stated:
The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the Island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor. (Preface, Revelation, AD 616)
There is also a text called the Muratorian fragment, dated to have been written somewhere between the second and fourth century, and is has a pretty bold statement on the writing of John. While some scholars debate its meaning, others see it as clearly stating that John wrote Revelation to the seven churches first, and that later, Paul followed his pattern in similarly writing his epistles to seven churches.
In other words, the author of the fragment understood and taught that John wrote Revelation, and then later, Paul wrote his seven epistles. Since Paul died before AD 70, this fragment is teaching that John also wrote Revelation prior to AD 70.
And then there is the statement by Tertullian, writing around AD 202, where some scholars agree that he links the death of Peter and Paul, and the exile of John together under the time of Nero:
How fortunate is that church, upon which the apostles poured out all their teachings with their own blood, where Peter suffers a passion similar to the Lord's, and Paul is crowned with the death like that of John (the Baptist), where the apostle John afterwards, submerged in boiling oil, suffered nothing and is exiled on an island. (Tertullian, On Prescription against Heretics, AD 202)
Jerome later says the same thing by quoting this statement by Tertullian, teaching:
Moreover, Tertullian relates that he (John) was sent by Nero into boiling oil. (Jerome, Against Jovinian, AD 393)
Revisiting Papias, who we mentioned earlier, and who lived from AD 60 – 130, reported in his writings that John was slain by the Jews. There are only fragments of his writings today, but in the early fifth century, Philip of Side in Pamphylia, who obviously had more than fragments from Papias, wrote a 36-volume Christian History. In there, he tells the story of Papias, stating:
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a disciple of John the Theologian and friend of Polycarp, wrote The Lord's Gospel in five books…Papias says in the second book that John the Evangelist and his brother James were slain by the Jews. (Philip of Side, Christian History, AD 439)
And George the Sinner, in the mid ninth century, wrote his book called Chronicle, and he appears to have also had access to the writings of Papias, for he details the same story, saying:
John has been deemed worthy of martyrdom. For Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eyewitness of him, saying in his second book of the Dominical Oracles, that he was killed by the Jews, having evidentially fulfilled, with his brother the prediction of Christ concerning them. (George the Sinner, Chronicle, c. 840)
Another report, coming from Aphraates of Ninevah in the mid fourth century, likewise states that John was martyred, and appears to associate it with the previous reports, stating:
Great and excellent is the martyrdom of Jesus…to him followed the faithful martyr Stephen whom the Jews stoned. Simon also and Paul were perfect martyrs. James and John trod in the footsteps of their Master Christ. Also other of the Apostles thereafter in divers places confessed, and proved themselves true martyrs. (Aphraates of Ninevah, c. 344)
John Crysostom, in a homily on the Acts of the Apostles which he preached in Constantinople around the year 400, mentioned that the war against the Jews started –
Only after the Apostles were dead. (John Chrysostom, AD 400)
And then consider the Syrian Martyrology, which is a book containing the names and feast days of a number of church martyrs. In it, they list December 27th as the day they celebrated the martyrdom of the apostles James and John that took place in Jerusalem. So not only do they note his martyrdom prior to AD 70, but they note it as taking place in Jerusalem.
All of these historical external evidences are rarely, if ever, mentioned in the discussion on the dating of the book of Revelation. I often wonder if this is an intentional ploy to avoid what an early date could mean to the modern system of fear and fantasy.
For placing the death of John prior to the AD 70 destruction would force the holding of a view that his book of Revelation was written before the AD 70 destruction as we see many did proclaim, and such a view could therefore see Revelation be properly applied to the events of that war that took place with that same generation to which Jesus spoke.
So to hold that the book of Revelation was written later, in the 90's, is to go, as E. Lipinski puts is:
…against the more ancient testimony of Papias and against the weight of the tradition preserved by the Syrian church. (E. Lipinski, The Apocalypse and Martyrdom of John at Jerusalem, 1969)
The late dating of the book and death of John is therefore not as clearly a cut and dry case as some would suggest, and there is obviously quite a bit of early testimonies for even an early date for Revelation.
So now, we've seen views held on Daniel and Revelation in the early church that would not align with the modern futurist view, and in fact would be seen and understood as significant and directly connected to the events of AD 70. We now move on to look at other New Testament portions that also link to this significant event.
Matthew 24 is a hot spot and was mentioned directly in our earlier quote from the Tyndale professor who stated it is not considered fulfilled by early church teachers, so let's see what we find on this. Matthew 24:14 is the fairly well-known verse that tells us:
And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Mat 24:14 ESV)
This is something most everyone these days thinks is still left unfulfilled, but it seems Clement of Rome (not to be confused with Clement of Alexandria who we discussed earlier), as well as other early teachers, understood this verse differently. Clement, writing in the first century, lays out how Peter and Paul suffered and were martyred, claiming that Paul had fulfilled this, stating:
After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west. (Clement of Rome (AD 30-100))
I am sure most of you already understand how their use of "world" is different from how we tend to think of it, and only encompasses the known world, their large region around the Roman empire. And while there are other verses in scripture that can be used to make the same point about the fulfillment of this part of Matt. 24, it is nice to see that someone in the lifetime of Paul also took note of the fulfillment.
This same Clement also taught that Jesus was, past tense, "…made manifest at the end of the days in order to save us." This same concept of Christ appearing and working in the end of the days, or in the last days' time period as stated in the book of Hebrews, all but falls upon deaf ears for modern readers.
Because they have lost touch with the significance of the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and how that ends the old covenant system and begins the new, they miss the significance of what is being said when the Bible speaks of the last days, and instead push them into our future as a last days of the world.
So we see Clement of Rome writing in the last decades of the first century, shortly after the temple's destruction, stating Paul fulfilled Jesus' words on the gospel going out and then the end, meaning he understood the end to be past also.
Then just a few decades later, Clement of Alexandria states that Jesus in Matthew 24 was clearly telling his followers about the coming destruction of the temple and the things surrounding it in that generation of his hearers.
And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes, in order that the accomplishment might be among those to whom the word was spoken. (Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215))
He sees the words and prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24 as plainly speaking of the destruction of the temple, and that it was accomplished in the time frame allotted by Jesus to his listeners.
Crysostom, also known as John of Antioch (347-407), lived in the late fourth century, and in his commentary on Matthew makes these points regarding the topics of the chapter and their application to the events in the first century of Christ's hearers:
Crysostom (John of Antioch) (347-407)
- Matthew 23:36 – For I will ask them, did He send prophets and wise men? Did they slay them in the synagogue? Was their house left desolate? Did all vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it.
- Matthew 24 starts with the disciples questioning about the coming destruction of Jerusalem.
- Matthew 24:1-2 – And these two things did they ask him, when shall these things be? That is, the overthrow of the temple and, what is the sign of thy coming? But Luke says the question was one concerning Jerusalem, as though they were supposing that then is also his coming.
- The hearing of wars and rumors of wars is speaking of wars outside of Israel, and not to be of their concern until the war within the city, upon the holy city, is evident.
- That God himself takes part in the war on the Jews, in that not only is the battle of physical armies mentioned, but also famines, pestilence and earthquakes, showing that God himself is in the battle against them.
- That the faithful will not be harmed, but will go on living so that they fulfill the gospel being preached to the whole world before the end; and he states that by "the end" it means end of the downfall of Jerusalem.
- He goes on to show how Paul indeed went on to preach into "all the
earth" and "to every creature under heaven" and how it was "bringing forth
fruit in every creature under heaven. " Stating:
- Which also is a very great sign of Christ's power, that in twenty or at the most thirty years the word had reached the ends of the world. "After this therefore," says He, "shall come the end of Jerusalem." For that he intimates this was manifest by what follows.
- He states that the abomination spoken of by Daniel is indeed the armies spoken of by Luke that surround Jerusalem and made it desolate.
- Matthew 24:16-18 – is speaking of the calamities coming upon the
Jews. When the armies come, do not seek refuge inside, do not return inside to
grab clothing, but flee. In praying that their flight be not in winter or
Sabbath, he states:
- His discourse is addressed to the Jews, he is speaking of the ills that should overtake them. For the apostles were not to keep the Sabbath day, neither be there when Vespasian did those things. For indeed the most of them were already departed this life. And if any was left (…some of you standing here here…), he was dwelling then in other parts of the world.
- He professes that this "great tribulation" was upon the Jews in that first century. He states that it was Jewish flesh being spoken of when it said "had the days not been shortened, there should no flesh be saved." He discusses how the elect believing Jews among them were led out from among the unbelieving ones before their destruction, and how the temple and law were indeed made to cease.
- That all of these things would come upon that generation of Jews Jesus was speaking to, having made mention of the stain of blood on them.
Many early writers declared the understanding that indeed Daniel's abomination of desolation was fulfilled as Luke declared, when the armies surrounded the city, and not in some future antichrist act as is believed by many today. The well-known fourth century teacher Augustine stated:
Matthew 24:15 – Luke, to show the abomination spoken of in Daniel will take place when Jerusalem is captured, recalls these words of the Lord in the same context: When you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with an army, then know that the desolation is at hand.
For Luke very clearly bears witness that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled when Jerusalem was overthrown. (Augustine, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, Vol 6, pg 170)
And then there is Athanasius, who was a 4th century teacher, and one that has written a lot of relevant information to our topic. We will consider pieces from two writings in particular, The Festal Letters and his writing On the Incarnation.
He states that AD 70 laid waste of the city, calling that event the "end of the shadow." He states that prophet and visions ceased in Israel when Christ came, and remarks on how the temple falling is proof of the coming of the Word.
So the Jews are indulging in fiction, and transferring present time to future. When did the prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them. (Athanasius (AD 296-372))
Without an understanding of the prophetic understanding of the last days of Israel and the temple, or the related end of the covenant itself, modern believers would never have made such a connection as Athanasius has here. Instead of seeing the temple's fall as the judgment from God, brought down as promised and prophesied as far back as Genesis, they would most likely see it as a temporary set-back until God restores the Jews to glory.
Augustine points out that the prophet and vision were given to Israel in order to speak of the coming Christ, so what need is there for them any longer? Why is the shadow needed when that which it represents is here? And this includes the temple at Jerusalem.
And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that is signified had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow? On His account only they prophesied continually, until such time as Essential Righteousness has come… For the same reason Jerusalem stood until the same time, in order that there men might premeditate the types before the Truth was known. (Athanasius (AD 296-372))
See, unlike most today, he, and many early church fathers as we have seen, understood the essential connection between the timing of the promised coming of the Christ and the end of all that which represented the shadow. Out with the old…covenant, and in with the new….covenant.
Athanasius further goes on to discuss the Jews lack of belief that the Christ has already come, and as they look forward to his future coming, he questions it, asking to what end this coming is for?
What more is there for their expected one to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the God-denyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed.
What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do? What is there left out or unfulfilled that the Jews should disbelieve so light-heartedly? The plain fact is, as I say, that there is no longer any king or prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them;
yet the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the Gentiles, forsaking atheism, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, Ch. VI)
And then there are his comments on things like Satan, when he states:
Now, however, that the devil, that tyrant against the whole world, is slain, we do not approach a temporal, my beloved, but an eternal and heavenly. (Athanasius, Festal Letter 256, Pt 3)
The devil is slain? Death is already destroyed? That is sure different than the beliefs and teachings of today, where all bad things are blamed on the devil, including physical death. He is the scapegoat and excuse Christians use for even their own sin. And then, consider what Athanasius says about death itself:
For no more does death reign, but instead of death henceforth is life, since our Lord said, "I am the life," so that everything is filled with joy and gladness…but now that death and the kingdom of the devil is abolished, everything is entirely filled with joy and gladness. And God is no longer known only in Judaea, but in all the earth. (Athanasius, Festal Letter 256, Pt 3)
Again, how many in today's church do you ever hear profess that death and the kingdom of the devil are abolished? He obviously had a different understanding of death, and not just considered it to be the physical act of dying. Elsewhere he states:
For the death of Isaac did not procure freedom to the world, but that of our Savior alone, buy whose stripes we are all healed. For He raised us up the falling, healed the sick, satisfied those who were hungry, and filled the poor, and what is more wonderful raised us all from the dead: having abolished death… (Athanasius, Festal Letter 6, Pt 9)
Again, death and resurrection to him appear to be something other than the typical physical acts most think of in this age. To him, resurrection is a reality to us now, something not often stated in the church.
See, he seems to understand how all of these things, prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures, were tied to the same time frame of when the old things passed, and the new came in, just as Daniel placed them all together as we saw earlier. He seems to grasp that the last days spoken of in Scripture, are the last days of the shadow, which ended when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Augustine sees the destruction of the Jews and Jerusalem as proof that the Scriptures are true, for they predicted these events, and are not just some made up tale by the Christians. Saying
But the Jew who slew him (Christ), and would not believe in Him, because if behooved Him to die and rise again, were yet miserably wasted by the Romans, and utterly rooted out from their kingdom, where aliens had already ruled over them, and were dispersed through the lands, and are thus by their own Scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ. (Augustine, City of God, Bk 18, ch 46)
The writings of Barnabas from the first century likewise connects the destruction of the people as being the fulfilment of prophecies.
Moreover understand this also, my brothers. When ye see that after so many signs and wonders in Israel, even then they were abandoned, let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the scripture says, many called but few chosen…
Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh to this end, that He might sum up the complete tale of their (Jews) sins against those who persecuted and slew his prophets.
Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of Israel should be betrayed. For the scripture says; and it shall be in the last days, that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of the pasture and the fold and the tower therefor to destruction. And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. (Barnabas, 1st century, 4:14, 5:11, 16:3-4)
The words of Severus regarding the temple and scattering of the Jews likewise show he understood the connection of the destruction being a sign of the prophesied end and finality of the old system and people.
Thus, according to divine will, the minds of all being inflamed, the temple was destroyed, three hundred and thirty-one years ago. And this last overthrow of the temple, and final captivity of the Jews, by which, being exiles from their native land, they are beheld scattered through the whole world, furnish a daily demonstration to the world, that they have been punished…on other occasions they were often given over to captivity on account of their sins, yet they never paid the penalty of slavery beyond a period of seventy years. (Severus (353-429))
When you study the early church writings, yes, you get a variety of views on things at times, just like you do today, though maybe not quite as many divergent and odd views as today. But on many things, there can be found a fairly common understanding that has all but vanished in the modern church.
When new traditions take center stage, it tends to push aside older traditions that eventually become all but forgotten. This is especially true when it comes to the significance given to the events surrounding the AD 70 war and destruction of the city and their relation to New testament prophecy.
Within the modern church, the average person in the pew as well as the teacher in the pulpit, with no real knowledge of the events surrounding AD 70, will continue reading the New Testament with blinders. They will totally miss the point and misapplying the things that Jesus and the Apostles taught would shortly come to pass upon that generation of hearers of their words.
With that disconnect in place, it is no wonder that today there are so many different applications of Scripture to various future prophetic schemes of which no one in church history would have ever conceived.
With a proper understanding of the Old covenant promises and end, it is easy to understand that the main thrust of most all of the teaching in the New Testament is pertaining to that prophesied end that was upon them in that first century. Not the end of the world, but the end of the days of the allotted time table of God. The time when the old world and covenant would end and the new creation and covenant would begin.
The time when the old system and temple would cease and be destroyed, and the new system and temple inaugurated. The time when the true priest of God would come and replace the shadow of the earthly priesthood. The time when the responsibilities of old fleshly Israel would be fulfilled by the true Israel – Christ the Son.
The time when the enemy would be put down, and the people released from the bondage of death. A time when the spiritual forces would be put down, and Christ would reign and his people would be deemed Sons of God.
God had a specific time table, and Daniel's 70 weeks set the time when the promises of books like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hosea and the like would come to pass. All of it pointed to the first century time, being that time of the end of the time table when all would come to pass and be fulfilled when the power of the holy people was shattered.
Without understanding the coming shattering that was to take place, and the timetable, and not knowing that it did take place in history, the words and story about it in the New Testament will definitely be confused. Many in church history understood the connection and application, it is time for the modern church to reconnect with the significance of AD 70 to the biblical story.