Daniel 7:11-13 The Beast and the beginning of the end of gentile kingdoms | Adult Sunday School

Good morning. Yeah, a little music. I could hum a tune, hum a measure of the Bumblebee. No, I can't. Good morning. Welcome to Kootenai Community Church Adult Sunday School. Let's open in a word of prayer.

Lord, it's with delight that we again look into your Word and expectant that you will teach us. Father, we always want to worship you as we study your Word and to give back to you the delight and the awe and the love we have that you have spoken to us through it.

Thank you this morning, Lord, for these visions that Daniel had that were genuine and that you have sent down through the ages to comfort us, for prophecy is a comfort and we are grateful for it. Help us to see what you would have us see.

Teach us that we might honor you and live our lives in daily devotion to you, showing the world that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly someone to trust and to follow and to love. We ask you these things in Jesus' name.

Amen. So, how dangerous is it when you finish where the Bible starts the next section, you know? That's okay. That's okay. I've always been strange. We're going to read Daniel chapter 7, verses 1 through 14.

And then we will start. Daniel chapter 7, 1 through 14, page 1151. In the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions in his mind as he lay on his bed. Then he wrote the dream down and related the following summary of it.

Daniel said, I was looking in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea, and four great beasts were coming up from the sea, different from one another. The first was like a lion and had the wings of an eagle.

I kept looking until its wings were plucked, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man. A human mind also was given to it. And behold, another beast, a second one resembling a bear, and it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth.

And thus they said to it, Arise, devour much meat. And after this, I kept looking, and behold, another one like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird. The beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it.

After this, I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong. And it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet.

And it was different from all the beasts that were before it. And it had ten horns. While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them. And three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it.

And behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth uttering great boasts. I kept looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His vesture was like white snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool.

His throne was ablaze with flames. Its wheels were a burning fire. A river of fire was flowing and coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands were attending him, and myriads upon myriads were standing before him.

The court sat, and the books were opened. Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.

As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time. I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like the Son of Man was coming.

And he came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away, and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.".

Daniel 7:11-12 and the Sudden Destruction of the Fourth Beast

So last time we were together, we looked at the Bible. What do you think? Yeah. The thrones that were set up, we looked at the river of fire, the multitudes that were worshipping him, and we looked at the different kinds of judgments there are, the judgments that have been, the judgments that are to come.

And I still have that material to send out to you, and I have Kathy's address. I will send that out to you this week if you're interested in it. And this week we're going to start on verse 11 and look at this boastful person.

Now what causes boasting? Pride. What's this month celebrate? Do you just get the impression that we are really celebrating the wrong things? You know, as a nation we're celebrating the wrong things. This particular person, as all conservative scholars agree, is the first iteration or the first presentation of the Antichrist.

Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire. That's verse 11.

Daniel could not take his eyes off of this panorama unfolding before him, and it shifted from heaven back to earth, back to heaven, back to earth. This verse speaks of sudden destruction in the same manner as the stone destroying the kingdoms in chapter 2, verse 35.

Some critics suppose that the beast mentioned here was the Seleucid kingdom and that the mouth is Antiochus Epiphanes who was killed in battle in 164 B .C. The kingdom of God did not follow that destruction, you will notice.

However, in fact there was a slow gradation of destruction at this time as Rome took over. This verse and section are paralleled in Revelation chapter 19, verse 20. And it says there, it says, So in this, in Daniel he says he was destroyed, this beast was destroyed and given to the burning fire.

In both cases the beast and in Revelation also the false prophet were cast alive in the lake of fire at the second coming of Christ. So the destruction of this beast does not parallel the slow decline of Rome either.

After Rome conquered Greece, the western part of the kingdom declined until it was overthrown by the German barbarian Odoacer in 476 B .C. Actually, we know the date, September 4th, 476 A .D. Neither does the beast's destruction answer to the fall of the eastern Roman Empire.

After the fall of the west, the east ascended to some splendor, I think I have, you can go ahead and put that picture up there, it shows how the, okay that other one is there. So there's the eastern and western Roman Empires, and I probably should have brought that, but if you look the brown and the green, although I'm color blind so I hope I'm saying the right colors, to the left on the lower part and on the upper part I think it's purple, and then to the left is, is that violet?

Yeah, okay, so that's the dividing line, kind of the dividing line. So neither does the beast's destruction answer to the fall of the Roman Empire. After the fall of the west, the east ascended to some splendor, but finally fell to Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire on May 29th, 1453.

And it was a slow gradation, actually the empire was becoming much too difficult to manage for the resources that were available in 400 AD, 500 AD. And so in 286, Tile Cletion actually started the split up of the empire, and then by 476 it was formally done.

And they actually acted as two separate, they began to slowly but surely act as two separate empires, who plundered one another, who traded with one another, who sold, who, you know, those kinds of things, the same things that we do with England, or we do with China, or any other nation.

And so that's how, and then so the eastern half began to gain ascendancy for another thousand years. So verse 12, any questions about verse 11? Comments? Verse 12, for as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time.

There's going to be a lot of scripture read today, which should delight you, but I want to actually delve into and show you what, everything that connects with these different parts of scripture in Daniel and the progressive revelation all the way to the book of Revelation.

Each of the successive, okay, let me read verse 12. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time. Each of the successive kingdoms took over the kingdom before them, but something of the conquered kingdom remained.

There were still remnants and elements of the Babylonian kingdom and the conquering Medo-Persian kingdom. Remnants of the Medo-Persian kingdom still existed in Greece after Greece conquered them, after Alexander took them over.

And the influence of Greece continued in the Roman Empire, especially the negative influences, even after Greece was conquered. But when Christ's forever kingdom takes over, all elements of any previous Gentile or any other kingdom will be destroyed completely.

Christ's kingdom will take center stage and be complete and fulfilled. So it is that each of these three kingdoms maintain some minor foothold in the conquering kingdom. Kind of a funny story. One of the things that's carried over into the Americas, the United States, after the Revolution, was the spelling that came from Britain.

And Noah Webster put his dictionary together trying to get South Carolina to spell words the same way as New York spelled them. So that when you wrote a contract, the words actually were the same. So how many of you have seen the 1828 dictionary?

That was his summa cum laude effort to try and get the nation to spell things the same way. Now in the South, they still spell things different because when you say something is far away, they may turn around and look for a burning building.

Well you said far and that's what they meant. That's right. So each of these kingdoms remained a little bit in the kingdom before them. But when Christ ascends, there will be no extension of life of the revived Roman Empire.

The stone of the empire of the Lord Jesus Christ will utterly destroy the empire of the nations, of the empire of the Gentiles. So looking at some of the revelations, some of the successive revelation that comes down through the ages in the scripture.

The Final Judgment and the Sheep and the Goats

Revelation chapter 19, 19 and 20, so you can take these down and read them later. And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against him who sat on the horse and against his army.

And the beast was seized and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped his images. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.

It is my belief, and now this is extra scriptural. This is just my belief. And I think I can substantiate it. I won't do it today. But when you watch wars and happenings like that on the big screen or read about them, battles take a long time.

When the Lord Jesus Christ comes back, this is going to be a really quick battle because the opposing powers are so terribly mismatched. We have the sovereign God of the universe and the puny humans. It's going to be over in just a moment's notice.

And that should delight us. That should be exciting to us to know just what the man, the human element that's going to be overcome by the God, the sovereign God of the universe. Matthew chapter 25 verses 31 through 46.

This is a long section. But when the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him and He will separate them from one another as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

And He will put the sheep on His right. Who are the sheep? Are there any in here? Okay good. He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right, come you who are blessed of My Father.

Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Are you looking forward to those words? Foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink.

I was a stranger and you invited Me in. Naked and you clothed Me. Yes I know I read this before, but I have it actually in the right Bible this time. Okay. I was sick and you visited Me. I was in prison and you came to Me.

Then the righteous will answer Him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and tired? Feed you or thirsty and give you something to drink. And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in or naked and clothe you?

And when did we see you sick or in prison and come to you? The King will answer and say to them, truly I say to you to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.

Then He will also say to those on His left, depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink.

I was a stranger and you did not invite Me in. I was naked and you did not clothe Me. Sick and in prison and you did not visit Me. Then they themselves also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?

Then He will answer them, truly I say to you to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. These will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.

And those, that's the dividing line that will happen at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ's eternal kingdom. The goats and the sheep will be separated. We want it to happen now, don't we? But we would do it wrong.

Trust me. No, don't trust me. Trust the Word. We would do it wrong but the Lord will do it exactly right when the time comes. So any questions about verse 12? Comments? Verse 13, I kept looking in the night visions and behold with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man was coming and he came up to the ancient of days and presented before Him.

So this is a statement of the return of Jesus and is actually indicative of His deity. Elsewhere in Scripture, Christ is referred to or referenced to as coming with clouds. Acts chapter 1 verses 9 -11,.

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them.

And they also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven. Revelation 1 -7,.

Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him, so it is to be. Amen. Revelation 14 -14, Jesus is often referenced as with clouds.

And then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and sitting on the cloud was one like thus a son of man, having a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Matthew 24 -30,. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

Mark 13 -26,. Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds and with great power and glory. Luke 21 -27 says the identical thing. Scripture often uses cloud terminology to refer to deity. I mentioned that earlier.

I want to show you that. Exodus 13 -21 -22,. The Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night.

He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night from before his people. Exodus 19 -9,. The Lord said to Moses, Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe in you forever.

Then Moses told the words of the people to the Lord. Another reference to clouds in the deity of Jehovah. 1 Kings 8, 10 and 11, It happened that when the priests came from the holy place, the cloud filled the house of the Lord so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud.

For the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. Isaiah 19 -1, The oracle concerning Egypt, Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt. The idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

Often the coming on a cloud or coming with a cloud is referenced to when he judges, when he judges things. Behold, he goes up like clouds in Jeremiah 4 -13 and his chariots like the whirlwind. His horses are swifter than eagles.

Woe to us for we are ruined. Further evidence of the claims to deity can be found in the fact that Jesus calls himself the Son of Man. This title is used 84 times in the four gospels but only by Jesus and only to speak of himself.

In the rest of the New Testament the phrase the Son of Man with a definite article is used only once in Acts 7 -56 where Stephen refers to Christ as the Son of Man. This unique term has its background in the vision in Daniel 7 where Daniel saw one like a Son of Man who came to the ancient of days and was given dominion and glory and kingdom that all people's nations and languages should serve him.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away. It is striking that this Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven. It is, this passage clearly speaks of someone who had heavenly origin and who was given eternal rule over the whole world.

The high priest did not miss the point of this passage when Jesus said, he said this, Jesus said, hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.

This was like a dog whistle to them. He's blaspheming. He claimed deity when he said that. Yes he did. The reference to Daniel 7 -13 -14 was unmistakable and the high priest and his council knew that Jesus was claiming to be the eternal world ruler of heavenly origin spoken of in Daniel's vision.

Immediately they said he has uttered blasphemy he deserves death in Matthew chapter 26, 65 and 66. Here Jesus finally made explicit the strong claims to eternal world rule that were earlier hinted at in his frequent use of the title of Son of Man to apply to himself.

He wanted people in the New Testament era in the time of his passage here on earth, those three years, to make no mistake of who he was. So he used the language that the people that he was speaking to would clearly understand.

Sometimes we don't understand it as well that's why we have to look at the historical context. The language was very clear to them. This guy is claiming to be God. He needs to die. Yes. Because that was the term Daniel used.

Daniel set the stage for the end times prophecy that begins to be progressively revealed and continues its progressive revelation throughout scripture. And in the end times the Jews knew that the person who comes and calls himself the Son of Man and talks about clouds, that's our Messiah.

But they didn't see the whole picture and we're going to talk about that too. There's a gap that they didn't see. They saw over the top of the first and second coming in many cases. Here the Lord Jesus Christ, excuse me, even though here there is no article before the phrase Son of Man and even though liberal scholars claims this means he was just a man, this is an Old Testament depiction of Jesus Christ receiving the final kingdom.

This is his reception of the final kingdom that Daniel saw in his day. Here the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, which was Jesus' favorite depiction of himself during his earthly ministry, approaches the Father who is called the Ancient of Days and is formally presented before him.

Then the God-Man, Jesus Christ, takes on the outward form of man as he approaches the Father. This prophecy of receiving the everlasting kingdom is of yet a future event. It appears that Daniel did not include the events between the first and second comings of Christ.

If we agreed with liberal scholars, we can claim that Daniel was in error. Some of these prophecies symbolically fulfilled in church history. But the third, excuse me, and if we agreed with liberal scholars we could also claim that he was in error and that some of these prophecies are yet were fulfilled in church history.

But the third and most likely conclusion is that these prophecies are yet future. They do not seem to be fulfilled by the first coming of Christ, the decline of the Roman Empire, or any other actual historical event.

Some believe that the church ascendancy was responsible for the decline and the fall of the Roman Empire. But this has no foundation in history. Edward Gibbon, now don't misunderstand me, I'm not serving up to you Edward Gibbon who was an atheist, but his history was pretty comprehensive and remarkable.

I've been reading in it. His massive history, he said this in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and that is where it started in 395. 476 is when it finally fell. After a diligent inquiry, he said this, I can discern four principal causes of the ruin of Rome which continue to operate in a period of more than a thousand years.

Number one, the injuries of time and nature. Number two, the hostile attacks of the barbarians and Christians. Number three, the use and abuse of the materials, the way the Roman Empire misused by their government power all of the taxation and the equipment and the property of the Roman Empire.

Sounds like that's being repeated. Number four, don't lose your place, the domestic quarrels of the Romans. Bread and circuses, keep them quiet. And then he said of these pilgrims, speaking of people who have looked into this and of every reader, the attention will be excited by a history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

The greatest, perhaps the most awful scene in the history of mankind. I doubt that, but he thought it was. The various causes and progressive effects are connected with many of the events most interesting in human annals.

The artful policy of the Caesars, their version of our president, who long maintained the name and image of a free republic. So Rome maintained the image of a free republic long after it was not free.

There was no free speech. There was no free right to private property. Contracts were not properly seen to. The Roman Empire actually fell long before because her tenets of her way of operation, her constitutions, if you will, were not being observed.

This is common in history. Yes Peter. That's Edward Gibbon's atheistic tendency and hatred of Christians. So today you can be called a Christian based on where you live. Or you're not a Catholic so you're a Christian.

It was the same back then. Nothing new in history. Nothing new has come upon us. So the artful policies of the Caesars who long maintained the name and image of a free republic. The disorders of military despotism, conquering places all over the world and then not being able to maintain those conquerings, which they shouldn't have.

The rise, establishment and sects of Christianity. That's in like third place. The foundation of Constantinople. The division of the monarchy, which happened in 476. The invasion and settlements of the barbarians of Germany and Scythia.

The institutions of the civil law. The character and religion of Mohammed, the Mohammedans, the Muslims. And Scythia, excuse me, the temporal sovereignty of the popes when the church was married to state power.

The restoration and decay of the western empire of Charlemagne. The crusades of the Latins in the east. The conquests of the Saracens and Turks. The ruin of the Greek empire. The state and revolutions of Rome in the middle age.

So these are all the things in Gibbon's book, The Fall of the Roman Empire, that he saw as what contributed to the final fall of Rome in 476 and in 1453. It wasn't as simple as the Christians did it. Now while the church may have had some influence on the dissolution of the Roman Empire, it was by no means the primary cause.

And when we get to verse 23 in Daniel 7, we will see that the Roman Catholic Church does not fill the shoes of the one who devours and crushes the whole earth, as Daniel says. The only way to come to that conclusion would be to spiritualize this entire section of Daniel.

Jesus himself, the one who wrote the scriptures in Luke 4 .18 and 19, partially quotes Isaiah 61 .1 and 2. So can you put that next slide? I think that's it. I thought I saw it. Yeah. He partially quotes Isaiah 61 .1 and 2, which bespeaks the first and second coming.

But he leaves off the phrase at the end of verse 2 which speaks of the second coming, the second advent, quoting only the first coming portion. Luke says in 18 and 19, chapter 4, verses 18 and 19, the Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. That was the Lord Jesus Christ quoting most of Isaiah chapter 61 .1 and 2.

Isaiah says this, the Spirit of the Lord is upon me because the Lord has appointed me to bring good news to the afflicted. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God to comfort all who mourn.

That is a reference to the second coming. And it skips millennia. It skips millennia. It was at this point, some people had asked me earlier on, I had mentioned that the church, early church was premillennial.

When I say early church, I mean really early, like the people who studied under the apostles, Papias and Irenaeus and Polycarp. And so this reference that Jesus makes with the skipping over of millennia and his final coming plays into the idea of premillennialism.

And so I thought I'd put together some historical references that have come down to us. Let me preface this with this. We get our doctrine from the Scriptures. History is a good and fruitful pursuit to understand how things worked, to see patterns, to understand what happened in countries, to understand how to apply it to our day-to-day, and just to be a nerd because you know when the fall of Constantinople was right down to the day.

And probably very few people do know that. So for the nerds in here, this is going to be wonderful. So there was premillennialism in the early church. And I can provide you with the location of this information that I got if you would like it.

So the most striking point in the eschatology of the Antinousine Age, before the Council of Nicaea, is the prominent, now you're going to see this word when you look into this, Kiliasm, which is the Latin word for a thousand.

Millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodying any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.

While Caius, Origen, Dionysus, the great, Eusebius, and Jerome, and Augustine opposed it. Our argument is this, this man makes this argument, we think it probable that those who had close association with John would also have a correct understanding of what John meant by the millennium.

First let's look at two individuals who had connection historically with John, Papias and Irenaeus. Papias from 60 to 130 was the bishop of Heropolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor. He was a contemporary of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.

According to this author, Papias represented a millennial tradition which had its antecedents in Palestine. Papias' dependence on the oral teachings of the apostles and elders has been documented by Irenaeus and Eusebius.

Eusebius points out that Papias received the doctrines of the faith, quote, that came from the friends of the twelve apostles. Eusebius also said of Papias, it is worthwhile observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him.

The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles clearly meaning the evangelist. Papias thus saw himself as possessing the teachings of the apostles.

As Eusebius notes, and Papias, here's what Eusebius said, and Papias of whom we are now speaking confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them. Irenaeus also refers to Papias as a hearer of John.

It appears that Papias had a close connection with the apostles and John in particular. So did Papias hold a particular millennial view? Yes, he did. Papias was a premillennialist. Eusebius records that Papias believed the things that came to him from the unwritten tradition and the teachings of the Savior.

Beware of that. Again, we get our doctrine from the Scripture. From the teachings of the Savior, among these beliefs were that there will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth.

Thus, with Papias we have a case of a Christian who had close access to John the apostle and was convinced that the kingdom of Christ was future and earthly. Next, Irenaeus who was born in Asia Minor around 130 and later became the Bishop of Lyon.

As a youth, Irenaeus had listened to Polycarp who likely had personal contact with John and other apostles. Irenaeus was not as directly associated with John as Papias, but he had a historical connection through Polycarp and it's still significant.

Irenaeus knew someone who knew the apostle John. As with Papias, Irenaeus was also a strong believer in premillennialism. In fact, it was a major weapon in his battle against Gnosticism and its unbiblical dualism between matter and spirit.

Irenaeus used premillennialism and the idea of an earthly kingdom to fight the Gnostic view that matter was evil and that God was not interested in redeeming the earth. Eerdman points out that the book Adversus Hieracies or Against Heresies is also one of the most important sources of millennial expositions of the Antinocene literature.

So with the cases of Papias and Irenaeus, we have two people who had a historical connection with John the apostle and who strongly affirmed premillennialism. Is it likely that these two men were simply wrong about the millennium?

Is it probable that they misunderstood John? We think not. It is more likely that they held to premillennialism because John taught the view. Another historical factor we must keep in mind is that those in geographical proximity to John also believed in premillennialism.

John spent his later years in Ephesus in Asia Minor. The book of Revelation was likewise written to seven churches in Asia Minor. The fact that premillennial views were widespread in that region is therefore significant.

Eerdman refers to premillennialism of Asia Minor in the second century as Asiatic Millennialism. He notes that the decisive authority of Asiatic Millennialism is John from whom the elders claimed to have obtained their information.

Moreover, John as stated again by Papias ascribed the origin of millenarianism to Christ. Why don't they use the same word every time? Apparently Webster didn't get to these guys. Others associated with Asiatic Millennialism include Tertullian, Commodian, and Lactantius.

In fact, the pervasiveness of premillennialism in the early church in general was so great that Philip Schaff, who was not a premillennialist, said this in his History of the Church. The most striking point in the eschatology of the Antinocene Age is the prominent Kiliasm or Millenarianism.

That is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion but a widely held current opinion of distinguished teachers such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.

So if premillennialism was the inclined view or the intended view of John the Apostle, it seems natural to think that those who knew him or were associated with him would also affirm premillennialism.

So if John the Apostle lived in age of minor, it appears likely that those Christians in his area of influence would share the views of John on the millennium. When such factors are considered, the witness of church history provides strong support for the premillennial position.

On the other hand, for amillennialism or postmillennialism to be correct, we have to believe that those who had close connections with John, either personally or geographically, were woefully wrong regarding their views of the millennium.

In our view, this is improbable. In closing, he says this, we understand that the case for a particular millennial view does not rest solely on what certain Christians in the early church believed. Scripture, not church history, determines the correctness of a theological view.

It seems that the historical argument is on the side of premillennialism, since people close to John held premillennial views and because premillennialism was the overwhelming view of those in age of minor and the church as a whole of the second century.

So I believe this was Michael Vlach, V-L-A-C-H, if you want to look it up. Again, I do not get my doctrine from Michael Vlach, although I'll bet he's a lot smarter than me. So we need to be very careful when I'm presenting this before you in Kootenai Community Church's Adult Sunday School.

That is not Scripture, that is history, and you still must study Scripture. Peter, you look like you're about to ask a question. Yes. You just served up a really nasty fastball there. I can say this, that I hold to the premillennial view, this is going to sound like a politician's answer, but bear with me.