Chapter 5
Morris starts off this chapter claiming that the doctrine of a future fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniel’s vision is
an essential part of Dispensational doctrine, and is totally incompatible with all other forms of prophetic interpretation, such as Covenant Theology, Historicism, Preterism, and Idealism.
(1)
First, let me again reiterate that I am still learning on these subjects and, especially, am not well read on the different interpretations of the weeks of Daniel 9. Therefore, my critique of this chapter is somewhat limited.
Second, “Covenant Theology” is not a system of prophetic interpretation; rather, it encompasses Historicism, Preterism, I assume Idealism, as well as a fourth system that is a hybrid between Historicism and Futurism (I don’t know of a distinct name for this last system, but I am familiar with it from the Historical Premillennial interpretation). I have not been able to confirm if anyone within CT holds to a strictly Futurist approach.
Third, while Morris is correct that a future fulfillment of the 70th week is incompatible with the specific interpretive systems he mentions, he is incorrect in his implication that it is only compatible with Dispensationalism. Historic Premillennialism has at least some within its ranks who hold to a still-future fulfillment of the last half of the 70th week with the first half starting in the 1st century AD & stretching to the beginning of the Great Tribulation (2). There are even some non-Dispensationalists who hold to an entirely future 70th week. In an examination of various interpretations of the 70 weeks, Richard S. Hess states
Dispensational interpretations of Daniel attempt to match historical chronology precisely with the 7 and 62 weeks of years and argue that years, centuries, and millennia must separate the 69th week from the 70th week. Other recent scholars, such as [Joyce G.] Baldwin, also understand the final week to lie in the future.
(3)
I do not know if Baldwin and the “other recent scholars” hold to Covenant Theology (Baldwin appears to have been Anglican which would indicate she did but I haven’t been able to confirm this), but according to Hess, they are not Dispensational. Of course, holding to an entirely future 70th week is certainly more common in Dispensationalism than any other system but it is not distinct to it. Now let’s look at the details of the chapter.
Morris selects quotations from Irenaeus, Hippolytus and a writer usually thought to be Hippolytus, Apollinarius of Laodicea, and Julius Africanus as evidence of belief in a “future fulfillment of Daniel’s seventieth week.” He also gives some commentary from Jerome on the writings of Apollinarius and Julius.
The relevant portions of the quotations from Irenaeus are
And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘ the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.
(4)
But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds…
(5)
Notice what these quotations do not say, namely, that the first half of the 70th week remains in the future. Irenaeus does not (here) specify when the first half occurs. I do not know what Irenaeus taught on the first half, but Morris has not established that this is an example of the entire 70th week being regarded as future. So Irenaeus’ position is better understood as a example of the Historical Premillenial position (see footnote #2) than as evidence of Dispensational thought.
Next is Hippolytus’s writings and those generally credited to Hippolytus. Morris quotes from Hippolytus extensively so I will only give the quotations most obviously in favor of Morris’ claim.
For after sixty-two weeks was fulfilled and after Christ has come and the Gospel has been preached in every place, time having been spun out, the end remains one week away…
(6)
Now Daniel will set forth this subject to us. For he says “And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be that in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease.” By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations.
(7)
As these things, therefore, of which we have spoken before are in the future, beloved, when the one week is divided into parts, and the abomination of desolation has arisen then, and the forerunners of the Lord have finished their proper course, and the whole world, in fine, comes to the consummation, what remains but the manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God, from heaven…
(8)
It is pretty clear that Hippolytus (and the possible 2nd writer) held to an entirely future fulfillment of the final week with a gap between the 69th and final weeks. But again, the idea of a future 70th week isn’t unique to Dispensationalism.
Next we come to Apollinarius –
To the period of four hundred and ninety years the wicked deeds are to be confined as well as all the crimes which shall ensue from those deeds. After these shall come the times of blessing, and the world is to be reconciled unto God at the advent of Christ, His Son. For from the coming forth of the Word, when Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, to the forty-ninth year, that is, the end of the seven weeks, [God] waited for Israel to repent. Thereafter, indeed, from the eighth year of Claudius Caesar [i.e., 48 A.D.] onward, the Romans took up arms against the Jews. For it was in His thirtieth year, according to the Evangelist Luke, that the Lord incarnate began His preaching of the Gospel (Luke 1) [sic!]. According to the Evangelist John (John 2 and 11), Christ completed two years over a period of three passovers. The years of Tiberius’ reign from that point onward are to be reckoned at six; then there were the four years of the reign of Gaius Caesar, surnamed Caligula, and eight more years in the reign of Claudius. This makes a total of forty-nine years, or the equivalent of seven weeks of years. But when four hundred thirty-four years shall have elapsed after that date, that is to say, the sixty-two weeks, then [i.e. in 482 A.D.] Jerusalem and the Temple shall be rebuilt during three and a half years within the final week, beginning with the advent of Elias, who according to the dictum of our Lord and Savior (Luke 1) [sic!] is going to come and turn back the hearts of the fathers towards their children. And then the Antichrist shall come…
Then shall ensue the final devastation and the condemnation of the Jewish people, who after their rejection of Christ’s truth shall embrace the lie of the Antichrist.
(9)
This seems to me to be a strange quotation to look to for support as Apollinarius starts his count of the entire 70 weeks at the birth of Christ, does not insert a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks, predicted that the final week would end 7 years after 482 A.D., and, finally, declared that the Jewish people would be finally devastated and condemned! This looks nothing like any Dispensational doctrine; the only thing remotely similar to Dispensational teaching, and what Morris draws our attention to, is that, from the perspective of Apollinarius, the 70th week was still future. But does anyone doubt that, were the present day teachers of Dispensational Theology alive at the time of Apollinarius, they would have strongly rejected his doctrine? This is not evidence of any Dispensational thought.
Morris then gives an outline of a document by Jerome in which Jerome essentially documented the views of several writers who taught on the 70 weeks. Of those writers, Hippolytus was the only one to teach a future 70th week. Jerome also claimed both that Julius Africanus taught the 70th week would take place just prior to the world’s end and that Apollinarius disagreed with Julius on the basis that “it is impossible that time periods so linked together be wrenched apart, but rather the time-segments must all be joined together in conformity with Daniel’s prophecy.” (10) Note this further evidence that Apollinarius’ teaching is completely foreign to Dispensational though.
Morris calls attention to Jerome’s apparent mistake of claiming Julius Africanus taught an end-time 70th week. Rather than teaching a future 70th week, Julius ended his calculation of the full 70 years at “the time of Christ.” (11)
Nevertheless, Morris then quotes Julius Africanus as evidence that the idea of calculating the 70 weeks according to the Jewish calendar (i.e. using 360 day years) is not new. But this seems to actually undermine his implication that using a 360 day year is uniquely Dispensational because Julius Africanus is clearly not Dispensational in any way! Morris’ critique of Julius’ work further demonstrates that Julius’ teachings are antithetical to Dispensational thought.
As a side note, we must notice that two errors are introduced into this calculation. The first is seen in the words “from Nehemiah… about the 120th year of the Persian empire.” This is a logical error, for exact calculations leave no room for “abouts.” And we find the second at the end, when he said that “the 1 1/2 week which we suppose must be added to make the whole number, meets the question.” This is a spiritual error, for he presumes to minimize the exact nature of the numbers in the prophecy. He then made an excuse for this by saying, “and that the prophecies are usually put forth in a somewhat symbolic form, is quite evident.”
(12)
It is quite evident that there is nothing of Dispensationalism in Julius’ teachings. Instead, it would be fair to quote him as evidence that interpreting the 70 weeks according to the Jewish calendar is not limited to Dispensational thought; to quote him as evidence of a uniquely Dispensational idea is absurd.
Chapter 6
In this final chapter, Morris seeks to show evidence of early-church writers holding to a pre-tribulational rapture. He gives quotations from Irenaeus, Victorinus, Jerome (regarding his revisions of Victorinus’ work), and an unknown author called Pseudo-Ephraem. But first, he returns to his two-sided argument that first, it does not matter when a doctrine was first taught but second, that arguments against a pre-trib rapture on the basis of it being a recent doctrine are incorrect because the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture was taught by the early church. As before, it seems to undermine the entire book to argue that “whoever first taught a given doctrine, or how long it has been taught, are immaterial.” (13) If it is truly immaterial, why write this book?
He then gives a crucial detail; none of the authors he is about to quote taught what we today know as a pre-tribulational rapture but rather “what they taught was actually what today would be called a mid-tribulation rapture.” (14) He argues that this does not matter since he believes they would have labeled their position as pre-tribulational; they held that only the last half of the final 7 year period is the great-tribulation. But the question is not what they would have labeled themselves. Labels are only helpful in so far as they accurately describe something; to argue that these authors held to a pre-trib understanding because they would have called it that is not a legitimate argument since their (hypothetical) definition of that label is different than our definition of it. Nevertheless, we will now examine the writings in question.
Ireneaus
Morris quotes Irenaeus multiple times as evidence of “a clear pre-tribulation rapture.” (15) I will number each quotation for easier reference.
And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.
(16) #1
For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule;
(17) #2
But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.
(18) #3
‘And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings… These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.’ It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.
(19) #4
Morris states that the preceding quotations show that Irenaeus taught a rapture of the church at the middle of the 70th week, at the beginning of Antichrist’s reign. But, says Morris, the church is raptured prior to what Irenaeus understood as the tribulation, the final half of the 70th week. He tries to back this claim up by examining what Irenaeus said about the second half of the 70th week and notes that he drops the word “church,” using instead “saints” and “the righteous,” and switches from the first person to the third person to refer to the saved on earth during the half-week.
But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit.
(20) #5
For that image which was set up by Nebuchadnezzar had indeed a height of sixty cubits, while the breadth was six cubits; on account of which Ananias, Azarias, and Misaël, when they did not worship it, were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end.
(21) #6
“I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom.” Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth… And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another… and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,” that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth.
(22) #7
And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: “And in the midst of the week,” he says, “the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.” Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.
(23) #8
Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.
(24)#9
These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.
(25) #10
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that reads understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.
(26) #11
Has the Word come for the ruin and for the resurrection of many? For the ruin, certainly, of those who do not believe Him, to whom also He has threatened a greater damnation in the judgment-day than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; but for the resurrection of believers, and those who do the will of His Father in heaven.
(27) #12
Morris believes that this apparent change from “us”/”we” and “church” to “them”/”they,” “the righteous,” and “saints” is indicative of a teaching that the church is no longer present on earth during the final three and a half years. He also tries to show that the Antichrist desolates prior to his reigning with the church present for the desolation but absent from the reign.
Morris has three essential arguments here. 1) Ireneaus taught the church is raptured prior to the “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning…”, 2) That Ireneaus taught the church would be present for the devastation by the Antichrist, but absent from his reign, and 3) that Irenaeus’ switch to the third person and use of “saints”/”righteous” is indicative of a belief in saved people present on earth who are not part of the already-raptured church. I will examine each argument individually.
1) Ireneaus taught the church is raptured prior to the “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning…”
Irenaeus is anything but clear in these selections. This first argument is essentially based wholly off of the first quotation Morris gives. That quotation requires a difference between “the Church” and “the righteous” (Morris’ 3rd argument), otherwise, it is clear that the church is on earth for its “last contest.” But what is it that Irenaeus says the church is caught up from? It appears to be the final tribulation that is “the last contest of the righteous.” The saying Irenaeus quotes, is an explanation of the catching up of the church, not something that follows it. Therefore, this first selection could just as well be understood to mean that ‘in (or during) the end, when (or while) there is tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, the righteous (the church), when they overcome, shall be caught up and crowned with incorruption.’ Which meaning is correct can be determined by examining if Irenaeus makes a difference between “church” and “the righteous.”
2) Ireneaus taught the church would be present for the devastation by the Antichrist, but absent from his reign.
Morris uses quotations 2-5 to argue this point. He especially relies on #3 to show that Antichrist’s reign starts after he devastates “all things in this world.” However, Irenaeus does not say that Antichrist begins to reign after causing devastation but that he will continue reigning for 3.5 years after the devastation. Quote #4 supports this and indicates that the church is present during Antichrist’s reign; after the Antichrist “subject[s] the [7 kings] to his power” and becomes the 8th king, the church will be put to flight by the 8 kings. It would be hard to argue that Antichrist has not yet begun to reign once he is the chief king of the former ten. Notice also that Irenaeus indicates no gap between putting “the Church to flight” and Christ’s return to crush Antichrist.
Following quotation #2, Irenaeus continues
For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one.
(28)
So Irenaeus taught that “in the times of which resurrection” the millennial reign would begin. There seems to be no room following this “resurrection of the just,” which Morris claims occurs before the reign of Antichrist (29), and the Millennial reign.
3) Irenaeus’ switch to the third person and use of “saints”/”righteous” is indicative of a belief in saved people present on earth who are not part of the already-raptured church.
I have already shown that there is little room in Irenaeus’ timeline for this church vs saints/righteous split and have indicated that it is based primarily on a desire to see in Irenaeus something that is not there. But more against it can be said.
In the previous quote, Irenaeus states that “the righteous” will reign in the times of “the resurrection of the just” (which resurrection Morris says pertains to the church). The most natural reading of this section is that the just and the righteous are one and the same group. Otherwise, Irenaeus is teaching that the saved who go through the tribulation rather than the raptured church will finally reign in the millennial kingdom. That Irenaeus does not tell us anything about what the church (supposedly distinct from the righteous) are doing during this time is a strong indicator that he did not see a difference between church and righteous.
Morris says we are
faced with two choices. We can either assume that Irenaeus was exceedingly careless as to his wording, and simply did not mean what he said. Or we can assume that the precision of his wording was not a mere coincidence, but that he chose his exact words carefully and with intent.
(30)
But this presents us with a conundrum. If Irenaeus was in fact precise in his wording in the manner in which Morris claims, then we are forced to conclude that Irenaeus was imprecise with them in another manner. Look at quotation #6. The “wrath against the righteous” arises “towards the [time of the] end,” not during or at it. If we accept the Morris’ proposed divide, this means the wrath in question arises prior to the existence of those the wrath is directed against! The church is still present when the wrath arises (since it is still before the time of the end); any who are saved prior to the rapture are part of the church. Following Morris’ proposed timeline “the righteous” only come in to existence (are saved) following the rapture. But this is not God’s wrath we are discussing; this is the wrath of a finite being, the Antichrist. How can his wrath against those saved after the rapture arise prior to their existence? If we accept Morris’ claims of a division between the righteous and the church as well as a pre-trib rapture, we are left with an obvious logical error in Ireneaus’ teachings. Or we can reject both claims and face no such difficulties.
Again, compare quote #5 with #9 & #10. In both we have a discussion of the unknown name of the Antichrist. But while the first uses “we,” the others use the third person. According to Morris, this means the first is directed at the church, while the others are directed at the regenerate alive in the second half of the tribulation. But those Irenaeus uses the third person to warn are obviously alive before the appearance of Antichrist. They are trying to discover his name but Irenaeus instructs them to wait for “the division of the kingdom into ten” which occurs prior to the Antichrist’s rise. In case it is argued that #9 & 10 are referring to the unregenerate, note first that Morris explicitly says these people belong to the second group (the saved after the rapture) (31), and second that if these are unregenerate people then Morris’ argument from these quotations is destroyed.
Finally, in part one of this review, I pointed out that Irenaeus had no notion of the Israel/church split that Morris holds to (32). To say that Irenaeus distinguishes between the church and saints/righteous, then, is to introduce a group who are neither Israel nor the church, but are yet saved. As Morris presents no evidence of such a group in Irenaeus’ thinking, we can dismiss this possibility.
What then do we make of the switching of nouns and pronouns? The various quotations are from different portions of Ireneaus’ writings; he is not being imprecise but rather his focus is on different doctrines in the various parts and so he uses different words as the emphasis in question requires. He is not making a distinction between different groups.
So then, the idea that Irenaeus teaches a mid-tribulational (or pre-tribulational) rapture of the church is not sustainable from the evidence.
Victorinus
Morris gives two quotations from Victorinus and one from Jerome who was discussing his revision of Victorinus’ work.
‘And the heaven withdrew as a scroll that is rolled up.’ For the heaven to be rolled away, that is, that the Church shall be taken away.‘ (sic) ‘And every mountain and the islands were moved from their places.’ Mountains and islands removed from their places intimate that in the last persecution all men departed from their places; that is, that the good will be removed, seeking to avoid the persecution.
(33)
“And I saw another great and wonderful sign, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is completed the indignation of God.” For the wrath of God always strikes the obstinate people with seven plagues, that is, perfectly, as it is said in Leviticus; and these shall be in the last time, when the Church shall have gone out of the midst.
(34)
Morris argues that these are references to the rapture of the church. He also quotes Jerome to answer an argument that this is a corrupted copy of Victorinus. I do not wish to deny that these are from Victorinus and so am not interested in his quote from Jerome.
I do wish to deny that these are evidence of a pre-trib rapture. First, there is no reason we must see these as the same event. They are from a commentary on Revelation; the first quote discussing Rev 6 and the second discussing Rev 15. As we do not know what chronology Victorinus assigned to the various visions of Revelation, it is up to Morris to show us that these are the same event. He does not do so. The first could very well be Victorinus’ expectation of a rapture just prior to the final destruction of the world while the second is the result of the church fleeing persecution.
Second, assuming these are the same event, it is more likely they both refer to a providential protection of the church on earth during the great tribulation than of a rapture of the church. The second quotation views the church as the active party in the leaving (“have gone” is active voice). It would be entirely incorrect to give credit to the church for God’s action. But it is not incorrect to give credit to God for our (non-sinful) actions, especially when God is actively participating in those actions. The first quotation could very easily be interpreted as God’s miraculous preservation of the fleeing church, and Revelation does speak of God miraculously protecting His fleeing people.
So then, there is no support for a pre-tribulational rapture from Victorinus.
Pseudo-Epraem
Finally, Morris gives three quotations from a sermon by an unknown author who is today known as Pseudo-Ephraem who I will refer to as PE.
Why therefore do we not reject every care of worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!“ For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.
(35)
At first, this appears to be exactly what Morris is looking for, teaching of a pre-trib rapture. But there are two problems with it, one of which Morris addresses and one which he does not.
The argument Morris does not address is that PE says all the saints and elect are gathered prior to the tribulation. If this is a pre-trib rapture, then this same author teaches there are no people left to be saved during the rapture. But PE clearly teaches (see below) that there will be saved people on earth during and at the end of the reign of Antichrist. Which leads us to the problem Morris does attempt to answer.
Morris gives two further quotations from PE which quotations, he says, some use as arguments against a pre-trib rapture in PE’s sermon.
And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the Antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world, after the resurrection of the two prophets, in the hour which the world does not know, and on the day which the enemy of son of perdition does not know, will come the sign of the Son of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth.
(36)
But those who wander through the deserts, fleeing from the face of the serpent, bend their knees to God, just as lambs to the adders of their mothers, being sustained by the salvation of the Lord, and while wandering in states of desertion, they eat herbs.
(37)
Morris claims that these are not evidence of the church on earth during the great-tribulation because the first refers to the unregenerate while the second to those saved after the church is raptured.
In support of his first claim, he references John 5:24 and argues that PE could not have taught the “sleeping ones” are regenerate people since PE would certainly have known that Christ’s judgment is not for the saints of God. But here Morris is not arguing what PE did say but what PE ought to have said. The question at hand is not what PE should have said. Further, even in light of John 5:24, it is perfectly plausible that the sleepers are saved who waking to meet Christ to avoid His judgment, rather than to receive it. In others words, this is the rapture of the church at the end of the reign of Antichrist and what PE previously called “tribulation” is here equivalent with the final judgment of Christ.
Regarding the third quote, Morris claims this is not the church, but those who repent following the rapture. But the first quote from PE shows that this cannot be the case since, at the rapture, every saint and all the elect are gathered. If all the elect have been raptured, since election takes place in eternity past, and there remains no one on earth to be saved. So either the first quotation takes place after this third quotation or it is not a reference to the rapture in the first place.
Conclusion
In these last two chapters, Morris has still failed to show any evidence of uniquely Dispensational thought in the early church. His references to teachings of a future fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniel’s vision are either not unique to Dispensational thought or are decidedly incompatible with the Dispensational doctrine of the final week.
Every writing he appeals to as evidence of early teaching of a pre-tribulational rapture either only teaches it when we ignore what else the writer in question has said or can just as easily be interpreted as either not referring to the rapture at all or as teaching a post-tribulational rapture.
Finally, we must conclude that, in this entire book, the only evidence Morris has found of Dispensational thought from the early church comes from a Gnostic heretic.
Morris includes an appendix at the end of his book that he says shows dispensational thinking and teaching from those immediately prior to John Nelson Darby. I have no interest in interacting here with this appendix as I simply am not very interested in the subject and as there are many much more capable writers who have and continue to write on this particular topic. I will leave it to these better writers to decide if Darby was truly the first to espouse Dispensationalism.
Footnotes
(1) Morris, James C. Ancient Dispensational Truth. Dispensational Publishing House, Inc, 2018, p69
(2) Hamilton, James M. With the Clouds of Heaven. InterVarsity Press, 2014. New Studies in Biblical Theology 32.
Hamilton states “the first half of Daniel’s seventieth week compromises most of church history between the ascension and return of Christ.” (p216) and “John understands Daniel’s seventieth week as the whole of church history between the comings of Christ. In the first half, the church proclaims the gospel until all the elect have heard and believed. In the second half, a time cut short for the sake of the elect, the Antichrist initiates a persecution designed to end the worship of God.” (p217)
(3) Hess, Richard S. “The Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9: A Timetable for the Future?” Bulletin for Biblical Research. 21st Vol., No. 3, Institute for Biblical Research. 2011. p. 330 https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr21c02.pdf. Internet Archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20170228020627/https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/bbr21c02.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct. 2019
(4) Morris, James C. Ancient Dispensational Truth. Dispensational Publishing House, Inc, 2018, Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 70, emphasis and brackets in original
(5) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 70, emphasis in original
(6) Ibid. Hippolytus qtd. in Morris 71, emphasis in original
(7) Ibid. Hippolytus qtd. in Morris 73, emphasis in original
(8) Ibid. alleged to be Hippolytus qtd. in Morris 76, emphasis in original
(9) Ibid. Apolinarius of Laodicea qtd. in Morris 80-81, emphasis and brackets in original
(10) Ibid. Jerome qtd. in Morris 82
(11) Ibid. Julius Africanus qtd. in Morris 82
(12) Ibid. 85
(13) Ibid. 89
(14) Ibid. 90
(15) Ibid. 91
(16) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 91, emphasis in original
(17) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 91
(18) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 91, emphasis in original
(19) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 92, emphasis and brackets in original
(20) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 93, emphasis in original
(21) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 93, emphasis and brackets in original
(22) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 94, emphasis and brackets in original
(23) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 94, emphasis and brackets in original
(24) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 95, emphasis and brackets in original
(25) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 96, emphasis and brackets in original
(26) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 96, emphasis in original
(27) Ibid. Irenaeus qtd. in Morris 96-97, emphasis in original
(28) Irenaeus. Book V, Chapter 35, paragraph 1. NewAdvent.org. Web. Accessed 19 Oct. 2019. Brackets in original
(29) Morris, James C. Ancient Dispensational Truth. Dispensational Publishing House, Inc, 2018, p91 and following
(30 Ibid. p97
(32) Ibid. p95-96
(32) See my comments on Irenaeus in part 1 of this review on chapter 3.
(33) Morris, James C. Ancient Dispensational Truth. Dispensational Publishing House, Inc, 2018, Victorinus qtd. in Morris 98, emphasis in original
(34) Ibid. Victorinus qtd. in Morris 98, emphasis in original
(35) Ibid. Pseudo-Ephream qtd. in Morris 100-101, emphasis in original
(36) Ibid. Pseudo-Ephream qtd. in Morris 101, emphasis in original
(37) Ibid. Pseudo-Ephream qtd. in Morris 102, emphasis in original