What do you think?
Rate this book
The Early Church and the End of the World
The claim has been made by a number of prophecy writers that the early church was predominately premillennial on millennial issues and exclusively futuristic on almost everything else. This means that early Christian writers who commented on prophetic passages like the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) believed and wrote that the biblical authors were always referring to events in the distant future just before the return of Christ. While these claims have been made with certainty, there has always been a lack of clear historical documentation to back them up. Sometimes the historical record has been stretched and exaggerated to fit an already developed theory. But since the futurist perspective has been promoted as an early church reality by so many for so long, few people today actually question it. The Early Church and the "End of the World" is the first book to question the prevailing futurist view by a careful study of the historical record.
- GenresChurch HistoryTheology
180 pages, Hardcover
First published May 12, 2011
69 people want to read
About the author
Gary DeMar
79 books77 followersGary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. In 2007, he earned his Ph.D. in Christian Intellectual History from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandson. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 8, 2021
This is an excellent resource of primary sources from early church fathers, translated and organized to show:
1. That Dispensationalism doesn’t have a leg to stand on being an historical hermeneutic.
2. Many early church fathers through the Reformation have interpreted Bible prophecy (mainly Matthew 24) from a preterist position.
3. A strong case can be made from ancient commentaries that Revelation was dated before A.D. 70.
DeMar and Gumerlock’s work can be treated as a reference manual of documented quotations with an exhausted bibliography of early church writers commenting on Bible prophecy being fulfilled prior to or about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
1. That Dispensationalism doesn’t have a leg to stand on being an historical hermeneutic.
2. Many early church fathers through the Reformation have interpreted Bible prophecy (mainly Matthew 24) from a preterist position.
3. A strong case can be made from ancient commentaries that Revelation was dated before A.D. 70.
DeMar and Gumerlock’s work can be treated as a reference manual of documented quotations with an exhausted bibliography of early church writers commenting on Bible prophecy being fulfilled prior to or about the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
August 31, 2018
DeMar and Gummerlock respond to Dispensationalist claims that there is no evidence that the early church interpreted New Testament passages preteristically (as though they had already been fulfilled) and in fact the church fathers were premillenial. But DeMar and Gummerlock show rather convincingly that these claims are spurious and not based on a full review of the evidence or are at the very least overly confident assertions.
For example, DeMar and Gummerlock show that many first-century writers did in fact interpret much of the New Testament preteristically. They even translate passages of early church fathers that have never been published in English before, to demonstrate that those that argue that preteristic interpretations only began in the 17th century.
Perhaps most importantly they show that those that argue for a near-certain dating of Revelation to the reign of Domitian in the 80s or 90s AD are not only overly confident, but are in fact based on a rather obscure and much-debated translation of a passage by Irenaeus. There is, in fact, a wide range of evidence that shows that Revelation was written before 70 AD.
For example, DeMar and Gummerlock show that many first-century writers did in fact interpret much of the New Testament preteristically. They even translate passages of early church fathers that have never been published in English before, to demonstrate that those that argue that preteristic interpretations only began in the 17th century.
Perhaps most importantly they show that those that argue for a near-certain dating of Revelation to the reign of Domitian in the 80s or 90s AD are not only overly confident, but are in fact based on a rather obscure and much-debated translation of a passage by Irenaeus. There is, in fact, a wide range of evidence that shows that Revelation was written before 70 AD.
August 29, 2021
This was a great source for quotes from primary sources on eschatological understanding in the early church through the medieval era. Contrary to what is commonly held, a partial-preteristic understanding did/has existed throughout the time of the Church. I think the authors do a fair job at presenting a balanced understanding of the quotes on both futurist and preterist positions. The acknowledge when the quotes do not fully hold a preterist approach, not pretending that everyone they quote fully understands Scripture through a preterist hermeneutic. But they also point out that a lot of the dispensationalist who quote the early church are using them out of the context which they are speaking. It is a fair, balanced look at primary sources and I would wholly recommend this book!
October 28, 2011
The Early Church and the End of the World asks this fundamental question: What did the earliest of the early Christian writers actually believe about prophetic events?
Chapter 1 addresses Biblical Minimalist, particularly from Dispensationalist, Thomas Ice's book "The History of Preterism," The End Times Controversy. This chapter shows the inconsistency of not only Ice, but anyone who would argue the validity of their theology based on anything besides Scripture alone. While the earliest of Church Father's writings are insightful, they are not in anyway inspired and prone to err.
Chapter 2 addresses Ice's attempt to establish the early Church as having been predominantly Premillennial by skipping the first three centuries and beginning with Chrysostom (c.347-407). DeMar shows from Eusebius' "Proof of the Gospel" which is an apologetic on what those before him believed, that preterism was indeed to some extent present early in the Church's understanding of key prophetic events.
Chapter 3 Ice claims the early Church was either silent on the fulfillment of key prophetic events in the 1st century or documents that seem to support that were written post A.D. 70. This position is shown to be questionable at best. Ice clings to the futurist eschatology of patristics like Martyr to support his view. One has to wonder why Ice does not also accepts Martyr's view that true Israel is now the Church.
Chapter 4 is a brief survey of early church history and shows that while there were a few writers who taught a form of premillennialism, there was scant attention given to the Bible in the development of their views on the millennium. Their is hardly a single point in common to tie the early church's form of premillennialism to today's dispensational premillennialism. The two are completely incompatible.
Chapter 5 looks at the writings of the early Church. Many applied the fulfillment of prophetic events prior to Jesus' return to either Jerusalem's destruction or their own time. Dispensationalism teaches that all these events are future to us, but still say the early Church is historical proof for their position. The chapter concludes that we should follow the teachings of Scripture about Jesus' return above the teachings of men.
Chapter 6 shows interpretations of portions of Matthew 24 that resemble modern (partial) preterist interpretations have enjoyed continuous representation in the church from the earliest centuries of Christianity through the Middle Ages. While prterism has gained more adherents in recent times, the opinion that preterist interpretations of prophecies contained in the Olivet Discourse arose only recently is inaccurate.
Chapter 7 deals only with the external evidence for dating the book of Revelation, more specifically, comments by early Christian writers concerning its date. From testimonies by patristic authors, it is shown that there were at least four opinions regarding the date of Revelation. Some dated it as early as A.D. 41-54 and others as late as A.D. 98-117 with A.D. 54-68 and A.D. 81-96 being the two most popular opinions on Revelation's date.
Chapter 8 introduces, translates, and explains passages from three Latin Apocalypse commentaries written between the 6th and 8th centuries. The Domitianic dating of Revelation was popular during the time of these Latin Apocalypse commentators, but was by no means an exclusive position or one that enjoyed unanimous agreement. Some held that John wrote Revelation during the reign of Claudius or Nero.
Chapter 9 looks at early Syrian and Greek interpretations of Acts 2:19-21 and shows several commentators that expressed the fulfillment of that prophecy to be the Passion of Christ, while others were of the opinion it was partially fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. Dispensationalist have little fondness for such interpretations, but the truth is this line of interpretation has a very long history.
Chapter 10 addresses the debate of Revelation's dating, looking at the internal evidence of Revelation and the external evidence based on a statement made by Irenaeus. The debate is over what Irenaeus meant when he wrote "For [it] was seen no very long time since... towards the end of Domitian's reign. Is [it] a reference to when John saw the revelation, or would [it] be better translated [he] i.e. John.
Even though it was not a main point of any one particular chapter, this book helps to show the importance of knowing our Christian history and Christian heritage. Church history is not as clean cut as we would like it to be, godly men have often found themselves on opposite sides of the dividing line, but that is no reason to act like it does not exist. I believe it is true that if we do not know our history, we are doomed to repeat it.
One point of interest for me was finding out that there are a greater number of early Church documents that have never been translated. As great as it was to find out that preterist interpretations have been around since the beginning of Church history, I think it would be equally fascinating to find out what else our predecessors taught as sound doctrine.
This was an enjoyable book. I hope that you will pick up a copy for use in your own study of Church history.
Chapter 1 addresses Biblical Minimalist, particularly from Dispensationalist, Thomas Ice's book "The History of Preterism," The End Times Controversy. This chapter shows the inconsistency of not only Ice, but anyone who would argue the validity of their theology based on anything besides Scripture alone. While the earliest of Church Father's writings are insightful, they are not in anyway inspired and prone to err.
Chapter 2 addresses Ice's attempt to establish the early Church as having been predominantly Premillennial by skipping the first three centuries and beginning with Chrysostom (c.347-407). DeMar shows from Eusebius' "Proof of the Gospel" which is an apologetic on what those before him believed, that preterism was indeed to some extent present early in the Church's understanding of key prophetic events.
Chapter 3 Ice claims the early Church was either silent on the fulfillment of key prophetic events in the 1st century or documents that seem to support that were written post A.D. 70. This position is shown to be questionable at best. Ice clings to the futurist eschatology of patristics like Martyr to support his view. One has to wonder why Ice does not also accepts Martyr's view that true Israel is now the Church.
Chapter 4 is a brief survey of early church history and shows that while there were a few writers who taught a form of premillennialism, there was scant attention given to the Bible in the development of their views on the millennium. Their is hardly a single point in common to tie the early church's form of premillennialism to today's dispensational premillennialism. The two are completely incompatible.
Chapter 5 looks at the writings of the early Church. Many applied the fulfillment of prophetic events prior to Jesus' return to either Jerusalem's destruction or their own time. Dispensationalism teaches that all these events are future to us, but still say the early Church is historical proof for their position. The chapter concludes that we should follow the teachings of Scripture about Jesus' return above the teachings of men.
Chapter 6 shows interpretations of portions of Matthew 24 that resemble modern (partial) preterist interpretations have enjoyed continuous representation in the church from the earliest centuries of Christianity through the Middle Ages. While prterism has gained more adherents in recent times, the opinion that preterist interpretations of prophecies contained in the Olivet Discourse arose only recently is inaccurate.
Chapter 7 deals only with the external evidence for dating the book of Revelation, more specifically, comments by early Christian writers concerning its date. From testimonies by patristic authors, it is shown that there were at least four opinions regarding the date of Revelation. Some dated it as early as A.D. 41-54 and others as late as A.D. 98-117 with A.D. 54-68 and A.D. 81-96 being the two most popular opinions on Revelation's date.
Chapter 8 introduces, translates, and explains passages from three Latin Apocalypse commentaries written between the 6th and 8th centuries. The Domitianic dating of Revelation was popular during the time of these Latin Apocalypse commentators, but was by no means an exclusive position or one that enjoyed unanimous agreement. Some held that John wrote Revelation during the reign of Claudius or Nero.
Chapter 9 looks at early Syrian and Greek interpretations of Acts 2:19-21 and shows several commentators that expressed the fulfillment of that prophecy to be the Passion of Christ, while others were of the opinion it was partially fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. Dispensationalist have little fondness for such interpretations, but the truth is this line of interpretation has a very long history.
Chapter 10 addresses the debate of Revelation's dating, looking at the internal evidence of Revelation and the external evidence based on a statement made by Irenaeus. The debate is over what Irenaeus meant when he wrote "For [it] was seen no very long time since... towards the end of Domitian's reign. Is [it] a reference to when John saw the revelation, or would [it] be better translated [he] i.e. John.
Even though it was not a main point of any one particular chapter, this book helps to show the importance of knowing our Christian history and Christian heritage. Church history is not as clean cut as we would like it to be, godly men have often found themselves on opposite sides of the dividing line, but that is no reason to act like it does not exist. I believe it is true that if we do not know our history, we are doomed to repeat it.
One point of interest for me was finding out that there are a greater number of early Church documents that have never been translated. As great as it was to find out that preterist interpretations have been around since the beginning of Church history, I think it would be equally fascinating to find out what else our predecessors taught as sound doctrine.
This was an enjoyable book. I hope that you will pick up a copy for use in your own study of Church history.
January 27, 2024
Very good book, it shows that all the dispensational narrative about church history is a bunch of distortion or lies. It also demonstrates that preterist understandings about NT prophecy were common thing in church history, starting early as the second century. I highly recommend.
March 29, 2022
A helpful survey, though drenched in Demar's typical tone.
December 17, 2012
An excellent resource
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews