Hi docs,
I'm thinking the timing of Christ's return was not an issue of controversy and division in the early church. They were united on many things, and the return of Christ was one of them.
You're correct that the early church was united on many things. However, the existence of the epistles indicate that there was variance when it came to specificity. I think that one of the dangers of the advent of the Roman Catholic sect was that they made binding doctrines out of what was merely conjecture.
If someone was to read about the life of Polycarp, a leader of the church of Smyrna who had been discipled by the apostle John (the beloved...and writer of the Revelation), we see that within a few decades of John's death, there were already disputes over some of the most basic teachings of the church.
When you read theologians approach Polycarp and some of the other early church leaders, they often approach it from the vantage point of nearly two thousand years of sectarian ideals.
Polycarp (who was born in 69 A.D.) traveled to Rome to meet with a leader of the church of Rome (Anicetus). Modern theologians often claim that they met to try and settle a dispute about celebrating what is now called "Easter." This is based upon a division in the church regarding the date in which the believers in Rome would celebrate the Lord's Supper.
Yet, in the texts, it becomes clear that this had nothing to do with "Easter" but a celebration of what many call "communion." Simply put: Anicetus practiced celebrating the Lord's Supper on the SUNDAY following the Passover.
Yet, Polycarp explained that the practice in Asia -- as handed down to them by John and others who walked with the Lord -- was on 14 Nisan (the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan -- and the day in which the people "put away the leaven"). This corresponded to the Passover and the night-and-day in which Jesus was betrayed and crucified.
In other words, Polycarp was stating that the "Lord's Supper" or "communion" was essentially a Passover seder with the added revelation that Jesus was the Passover Lamb. Thus, the breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine was celebrating his death. This coincides with what Paul wrote in I Corinthians 11:26 ("For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim THE LORD'S DEATH until he comes").
Ultimately, the meeting between Polycarp and Anicetus went well despite not really coming to a conclusion on a specific date to celebrate the Lord's supper. Instead, they simply celebrated the "Lord's Supper" together -- remembering His death -- DESPITE it neither being 14 Nisan or the Sunday following it. This, again, corresponds with Paul's point about "special days" in his epistle to the Galatians.
Unfortunately, as a few decades passed, unsettled conjecture turned into assumptions. Those assumptions turned into traditions. And, sadly, traditions turned into dogma. This was the beginning of the apostacy of the Roman church.
Eventually, another leader in Rome, Victor, became dogmatic about not only traditions of the "Lord's Supper" and its dating but how it related to his authority. In fact, he attempted to excommunicate anyone who disagreed with his dogmatic demands. Polycrates, a student of Polycarp, replied with a firm rejection of Victor's demand. Polycrates cited the practice of everyone from the apostle Philip (and his daughters), John, Polycarp and other eyewitnesses of Jesus and the apostles who celebrated the Lord's Supper on 14 Nisan (i.e., "the day when people put away the leaven").
Victor was infuriated at someone who would challenge his supposed "authority" and demanded that Polycrates and anyone else who rejected that dogmatic demand be excommunicated. At this point, another church leader, Irenaeus (also from Smyrna but working in the church in Lyon), opposed Victor by defending Polycrates and others who celebrated the Lord's Supper on 14 Nisan (by this time, they were labeled "Quartodecimans" -- "Fourteeners"). Irenaeus argued that Victor was attempting to excommunicate believers and leaders in Asia and elsewhere for essentially following the practice of the apostles and other eyewitnesses.
So, Victor of Rome failed. Yet, years later, it became a big issue when Constantine effectively excommunicated anyone who practiced anything aside from the dogmatic traditions of Rome. Hence, the Roman dogmatic apostacy -- born out of assumptions that turned into traditions -- was complete.
What does this have to do with the coming of the Lord or tribulation?
Well, for one, I do take issue with any claim that the "church" was united behind a specific dogmatic view of Christ's return. You've repeated a claim about the rapture having "only appeared" in the 1830s. Yet, we don't have a whole lot of writings of Christians throughout the ages to know specifically what they believed, taught and instructed. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church was meticulous with such matters; but, it was apostacy born out of tradition that guided much of its dogma.
Moreover, even post-reformation protestant churches embraced practices that are generally regarded as unbiblical -- such as the baptism of babies. This practice isn't found in Scripture. It isn't even found in the earliest writings of the church (and, rather, to the contrary, we find warning against baptizing children and youth). So, the lack of "written in stone" (or on papyrus) doesn't necessarily equate to something being wrong.
Yet, in fact, one of the early church writers that I've mentioned DID seem to indicate a belief in a "gathering" of the church before the coming "great" tribulation. Irenaeus of Smyrna was born around 130 A.D. He was also a friend of Polycrates (also born around 130 A.D. -- and related to seven other church overseers). Irenaeus even knew and listened to Polycarp (born in 69 A.D.). Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John. Polycarp also knew, listened to and interacted with "other apostles" as well as other eyewitnesses of Jesus. That's quite a pedigree!
So, Irenaeus, a church overseer who defended Polycrates from excommunication by Victor of Rome, wrote his own letters to believers. They are now called "Against Heresies" and contain clarifications because various churches -- particularly those around Rome -- were rejecting truth and turning toward dishonest dogmatic positions that were rapidly becoming "traditions." In this letter against heresies, Irenaeus wrote about being "changed" and the Lord's return.
Irenaeus wrote about our physical transformation from mortality/flesh to immortality/spirit:
"For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. Elijah, too, was caught up [when he was yet] in the substance of the [natural] form; thus exhibiting in prophecy the assumption of those who are spiritual, and that nothing stood in the way of their body being translated and caught up. For by means of the very same hands through which they were molded at the beginning, did they receive this translation and assumption…. Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality." - "Against Heresies," Book 5 Chapter 5
Later in Book 5, he wrote, "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." - "Against Heresies," Book 5 Chapter 29
While the term "rapture" wasn't used, the term "CAUGHT UP" is -- and it is tied in this context with "suddenly" changing from mortality to immortality prior to the period of the "great tribulation." In fact, I have never really cared for the term "rapture" but, rather, the notion of "gathering" or "catching up." That is, this is the concept that Jesus would gather his Bride before the period God pours his wrath upon the entire Earth.
If we are going to dive back into the 1830s, then we also need to go back to 174 A.D. too -- more than 1,650 years earlier (and within the same century that the apostle John died). I think that it is interesting that Irenaeus knew the men who knew John (who wrote the Book of Revelation).
In fact, Irenaeus (in the very same context of his work) actually offers his own thoughts on John's Revelation in the same letter! He equates the "666" in Revelation 13 (i.e., the calculated number of the beast's name) as a number that symbolizes the 600 years of Noah's life -- when the world was in such darkness that God would destroy it -- with the height and breadth of the image set up by Nebuchadnezzar (60 cubits high and 6 cubits wide).
Moreover, interestingly enough, Irenaeus is the earliest writer (outside of the Essenes) who equated the end of this world in the 6,000th year at whence Christ would physically return to the Earth and begin a thousand-year reign. That would result in quite a bit of waiting from what was roughly the 4000th year since Adam (depending if you used the Babylonian Judaic, Essene or other Biblical calendars).
I've written all of this to say that I don't think that it is necessary to take a dogmatic position on the very specific nature and timeline by which the Lord will return. While I believe that the return of the Lord is imminent (and physical), I also am aware that I don't know the specific manner by which this will all happen. I lean toward a "catching away" or "gathering" of the Bride before God pours out His wrath on the whole world. Yet, I'm entirely aware of the possibility that this won't happen.
Over the decades on SermonIndex, I've studied this topic over and over again. When I used to state that I wasn't entirely certain, some of the brethren would see that as a cop out of sorts -- trying to achieve a middle ground or use less diligence in studying this topic. This couldn't be further from the truth! I have studied this topic with all earnestness. Yet, despite it all, my position just hasn't changed too much from what it was as a college student in 2003. I'm still studying it intently and with all earnestness. However, I'm not entirely convinced. Moreover, I don't think that my salvation is dependent upon being entirely convinced of a specific timeline or set of events. Rather, like John, I still say "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" I long to see his face.
By the way, in terms of the actual message by brother Zac Poonen, I should point out that earthly tribulation is relatively agreed upon by all eschatological circles. It was something that Jesus promised we would face (i.e., "In this world, you WILL have tribulation...").
The individuals mentioned earlier all died -- many in terrible ways. It's written that Polycarp of Smyrna, at a very old age, was burned alive for refusing to burn incense to the Emperor (at which he scoffed the very idea of such idolatry). As he didn't burn (or burn quickly enough), he was pierced by a spear and shed so much blood that it was stated that it put out the fire.
As Polycarp was the leader of the Church of Smyrna after the time of John, it gives me pause when I read the letter to the Church of Smyrna in Revelation 2: "Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life" (Revelation 2:10-11).
In fact, Polycarp mentioned the dedication to the Lord of various believers who suffered with the Lord and were put to death. He mentions Paul and a few others -- including Rufus (who was mentioned in Paul's epistle to the Romans and was possibly the son of Simon of Cyrene per Romans 16:13 and Mark 15:21).
We should all be willing to suffer for the sake of Christ. Whether we live and die prior to the Lord's return (like everyone else before us) or if we are blessed to see His return, we should be willing to suffer (and God will give us grace through it all).
I apologize for such a lengthy response. I actually started to write a response a couple of days ago before simply discarding my attempt. I just feel that we should be clear when we believe that the concept of a "catching away" is a relatively modern invention. The claim is repeated often in books, websites and sermons. Yet, it's not necessarily true. More importantly, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is untrue either.
We can all agree that there are many long-held traditions -- some ancient and others much newer -- that just aren't biblically sound. Yet, those traditions often have a way of becoming dogma on the basis of the tradition rather than the veracity of Scriptural soundness. So, we're really left with Scripture as the primary source for essential truths of the faith.
A desire for Scriptural soundness while maintaining true love and unity among the brethren is what makes our faith simple, childlike and pure. Moreover, the knowledge of the Lord's return -- no matter how we think it might specifically come about -- should motivate us to make the most of the opportunity rather than burying our talent in the earth.
