Church History Might Not Be On Your Side

Much of the confusion and questioning of today about eschatology arises from the fact that the Church did not make a distinction between passages related to (1) the “this generation” AD 70 coming of Jesus (Matt. 24:30; 26:64) and what is described (2) as a yet future second physical coming of Jesus. (See my “Slam Dunk” article). The Nicene Creed states, “And He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead.” The Apostles’ Creed reads, “He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”

New Testament Eschatology

Since the futurist perspective has been promoted as an early church reality by so many for so long, few question it. New Testament Eschatology challenges this prevailing futurist view with a careful study of the historical record. The evidence shows that many early church writers understood the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 to be the end of the Old Covenant world.

Buy Now

Which verses were used to identify Jesus’ coming to judge the living and the dead?[1] The creeds do not tell us because there is no record (as far as I can tell) of texts they might have employed. Commentaries I have on the Apostles’ Creed list passages, but these are from those commenting on the creed. An Exposition of the Creed by John Pearson was first published in 1659, with revised and enlarged editions that followed until 1847. It’s said to be “one of the most influential works on the Apostles’ Creed in the Anglican Church.” The prooftext passages used by the author are Hebrews 10:37; Matthew 16:27-28; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17; Philippians 3:20; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 26:64; Acts 17:31; Hebrews 9:27; Jude 14-15; Acts 1:11; Matthew 25:31-33; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; 1 Peter 4:5. Preterists of all persuasions apply some of these verses to Jesus’ coming before that generation passed away (e.g., Matt. 16:27-28; 2 Thess. 1:7; Matt. 26:64; Heb. 9:27; 2 Thess 2:1; 1 Peter 4:5 [2]) and some to a future physical coming of Jesus. The early church does not appear to distinguish between these two comings. Cyril of Jerusalem [3] (c. 313-386) wrote a commentary on Matthew 24 that is not preterist.

Kenneth Gentry says this about Cyril: “In his catechetical lecture, Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 375) speaks of the faith of the universal church and the ‘holy apostolic faith,’ in a way that closely resembles the Nicene Creed (Catech. Lects. Q7.3; 18:32).”[4] If Cyril “speaks of the faith of the universal church and the ‘holy apostolic faith,” then what should we think about his anti-preterist views regarding Matthew 24?[5]

Prophecy Wars: The Biblical Battle Over the End Times

There is a long history of skeptics turning to Bible prophecy to claim that Jesus was wrong about the timing of His coming at “the end of the age” (Matt. 24:3) and the signs associated with it. Noted atheist Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) is one of them and Bart Ehrman is a modern example. It’s obvious that neither Russell or Ehrman are aware of or are ignoring the mountain of scholarship that was available to them that showed that the prophecy given by Jesus was fulfilled in great detail just as He said it would be before the generation of His day passed away.

Buy Now

Cyril alludes to the common idea that the eschatological cross, the ‘sign of the Son of Man’ of Matthew 24:30, would shine more brightly than the sun.”[6] Cyril taught that the events in Matthew 24 were being fulfilled in his day. His Catechetical Lectures read like those of modern-day futurists who contend that our generation is the generation that will live to see the end.

But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, three he shall humble, and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself. At first indeed he will put on a show of mildness (as though he were a learned and discreet person), and of soberness and benevolence: and by the lying signs and wonders of his magical deceit a having beguiled the Jews, as though he were the expected Christ, he shall afterwards be characterized by all kinds of crimes of inhumanity and lawlessness, so as to outdo all unrighteous and ungodly men who have gone before him displaying against all men, but especially against us Christians, a spirit murderous and most cruel, merciless and crafty. And after perpetrating such things for three years and six months only, he shall be destroyed by the glorious second advent from heaven of the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the true Christ, who shall slay Antichrist with the breath of His mouth, and shall deliver him over to the fire of hell.[7]

Le Roy Froom states, “Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures on the articles of the creed follow the form of the Apostles’ Creed, as then in use in the churches of Palestine, which approximated the Nicene form. In this work he supports the various articles with passages of Scripture, and defends them against heretical perversions. His Catecheses form the first popular religious compendium available.”[8] If this is true, then Cyril’s views are contrary to all forms of preterism based on the Olivet Discourse, and that includes Gentry’s.

[1] I cover this question in detail in my book with Francis X. Gumerlock New Testament Eschatology: What the Early Church Believed about Bible Prophecy (Powder Springs, GA: 2024), chap. 11.

[2] Matthew Poole: “That is ready; not only prepared for it, but at hand to do it, Jam 5:9.”

[3] “It is in the fifteenth of these discourses, regarding the clause ‘And shall come in glory to judge the quick and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end,’ that Cyril discusses Daniel 7, 1 Thessalonians 4, 2 Thessalonians 2, Matthew 24, and related texts, stressing the various factors centering in the second advent.” (Le Roy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1950), 1:412.

[4] “The Historical Problem with Hyper-Preterism” in When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism, ed. Keith A. Mathison (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004), 21.

[5] Catechetical Lecture 15: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310115.htm

[6] Mattias Gassman, “Eschatology and Politics in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Epistle to Constantius,” Vigiliae Christianae (2016), 128.

[7] Lecture XV. On the Clause, and Shall Come in Glory to Judge the Quick and the Dead; of Whose Kingdom Shall have no End.

[8] See Le Roy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1950), 1:410-415.

American Vision’s mission is to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation. American Vision (AV) has been at the heart of worldview study since 1978, providing resources to exhort Christian families and individuals to live by a Biblically based worldview. Visit www.AmericanVision.org for more information, content and resources