Posted on 06/13/2012 1:12:26 PM PDT by wmfights
It has been said that one can use church history to prove just about anything. There is some wisdom to that old adage and that is why we must be careful when we use church history to support what we believe. Also, evangelicals have often rightly declared that as important as church history is, our doctrinal beliefs must first and foremost be grounded in Scripture. Thus, the proper perspective is to pay close attention to church history and learn from it, but also understand that Scripture takes priority over church history when it comes to what we should believe.
With that in mind, however, I do think church history is helpful when it comes to the controversial issue of the nature of the millennium that is discussed in Rev 20:1–10. On six occasions in this passage the Apostle John speaks of a reign of Christ that is a “thousand years.” Throughout church history, Christians have sparred over what John meant by a thousand-year reign of Christ. Premillennialists say this reign takes place on earth after the second coming of Christ but before the eternal state. In this case, the millennium is future from our current standpoint in history. Amillennialists, on the other hand, say the millennium is a spiritual reign of Christ that takes place in this current age between the two comings of Jesus. Thus, the millennium is not a future reign of Jesus but a current reign.1
So how can church history help us on this controversial issue of the millennium? It can benefit us as we look at the millennial beliefs of those who had some connection with the Apostle John, the one who penned Rev 20:1–10. It can also help as we look at the beliefs of those in close geographical proximity to Asia Minor where the Apostle John lived later in his life. Our argument is this—we think it probable that those who had a 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 some connection historically with John—Papias and Irenaeus. Papias (A.D. 60–130) was Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor. He was a contemporary of Polycarp.2 According to Martin Erdman, Papias “represented a chiliastic tradition which had its antecedents in Palestine.”3 Papias’s dependence on the oral teachings of the apostles and elders has been documented by both Irenaeus and Eusebius.4 Eusebius points out that Papias received “doctrines of the faith” that came from the “friends” of the twelve apostles.5 Eusebius also said of Papias, “It is worth while 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.”6 Papias,
1 Postmillennialists agree with amillennialists that the millennium takes place between the two comings of Christ, but argue that this reign of Christ must mean that the world will get progressively better until it has been Christianized. 2 Polycarp (A.D. 70–155) was Bishop of Smyrna and most importantly for our purposes, was a disciple of John the Apostle. Because of his connection to the apostle John, Polycarp was viewed as a protector of true doctrine. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp was converted to Christianity by the apostles. He was made a bishop and had communicated with many who testified that they had seen Jesus. 3 Martin Erdman, The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2005), 107. For our purposes here we are following the lead of Erdman in viewing chiliasm and premillennialism as mostly synonymous. 4 Ibid. 5 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III. 39.2. 6 Ibid., 39.5. 2
thus, saw himself as possessing the teachings of the apostles. As Eusebius notes, “And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them.”7 Irenaeus also refers to Papias as “a hearer of John.”8
It appears that Papias had close connections with the apostles and John the Apostle in particular. So did he hold a particular millennial view? He did—Papias was a premillennialist. Eusebius records that Papias believed things that “came to him from unwritten tradition” and “teachings of the Saviour.” 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.”9 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 (c. 130–c. 202) was born in Asia Minor and later became the bishop of Lyon. As a youth Irenaeus had listened to Polycarp who probably had personal contact with John and other apostles.10 Irenaeus was not as directly associated with John as Papias, but the historical connection through Polycarp is still significant. Irenaeus knew someone who knew the Apostle John. As with Papias, Irenaeus was also a strong believer in premillennialism. In fact, premillennialism was a major a weapon in Irenaeus’s battle against Gnosticism and its unbiblical dualism between matter and spirit.11 Irenaeus used premillennialism and the idea of an earthly kingdom to fight the gnostic view that matter was evil that and God was not interested in redeeming the earth. Erdman points out that “The book Adversus Haereses is also one of the most important sources of millennial expositions in the ante-Nicene literature.”12
So with the cases of Papias and Irenaeus we have two people who had a historical connection with John the Apostle who affirmed premillennialism. Is it possible that these two men were simply wrong about the millennium? Did they misunderstand John? Of course it is possible, but is it likely? We think not.13 It is more likely that they held to premillennialism because John himself taught this view.
Another historical factor we must keep in mind is that those in geographical proximity to John also believed in premillennialism. John lived his later years in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Erdman refers to the premillennialism of Asia Minor in the second century as “Asiatic millennialism.”14 He also notes that “the decisive authority of Asiatic millennialism is John, from whom the elders claimed to have obtained their information. Moreover, John, as again stated by Papias, ascribed the origin of millenarianism to Christ.”15 Thus, the evidence indicates that Christians of Asia Minor held to premillennialism. Other 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 once declared:
7 Ibid., 39.7. 8 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V. 33.4. 9 Ecclesiastical History, 39.11–12. 10 Erdman, 108. 11 For a detailed discussion of how Irenaeus used premillennialism as a weapon against Gnosticism see Erdman, 107–29. 12 Ibid., 109. 13 Eusebius himself believed Papias was mistaken. 14 Ibid., 107–134. 15 Erdman, 111. 3
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, 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 current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.16
If premillennialism was the intended view of John the Apostle it seems natural to think that those who knew him or had a close association with him would also affirm premillennialism. And, if John the Apostle lived in Asia Minor it appears likely that those Christians near his area of influence also would have similar views as John on the millennium. We cannot be absolutely certain of these estimations, but they do appear probable. 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 with their views of the millennium. In our view, this is possible but not probable.
In closing, 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. But it seems to us that the historical argument is on the side of premillennialism since people close to John held premillennial views and premillennialism was the overwhelming view of those in Asia Minor and the church as a whole of the second century.17
16 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids. Eerdmans, 1973), 2:614. 17 We are not saying that every single Christian of the second century was a premillennialist, but premillennialism was clearly the dominant view
After confirming that a belief/doctrine is clearly established in Scripture, it's nice to read the evidence that premillenialism was widely believed in the Apostolic Era and the immediate generations following.
“The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, 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.”
~ ~ ~
Yes, they’re wrong. Jesus is coming spiritually for the millennium. There will be many signs and wonders but He isn’t returning to the earth physically to reign.
Where do people get the above idea? There is an intermediate coming of Christ, it is spiritual.
Some Christians and non-Christians reject the pinnacle of the faith now, how sad but watch what God can do. The millennium is the Eucharistic Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
FWIW, you might want to read the article before stating your church’s particular teaching.
Yes, they’re wrong. Jesus is coming spiritually for the millennium. There will be many signs and wonders but He isn’t returning to the earth physically to reign.
Where do people get the above idea?
See:The WORD of G-d:
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Ps. 90:4; Eccl. 6:6; 2 Pet. 3:8; Rev. 20:2-7
They thought it was going to happen real soon, like even in their life time. Paul thought so but then he later relented.
Dr. Andy Wood is doing an excellent series on the future Millennial Kingdom, and here is an obvious proof of a literal, future, earthly kingdom of Christ from The Coming Kingdom, Part 2:
-snip-
Thus, the next place in God's word that speaks to the reality of a future messianic kingdom are those sections that reveal God's covenants with His special nation Israel. A covenant in ancient times is similar to a legal contract today, which binds the parties to the agreement to perform in a specific way. In the biblical covenants, the God of the universe legally obligated Himself to fulfill specific promises directly for Israel and indirectly for the world. Let us briefly explain the content of these covenants and then note their contribution to a promised future earthly kingdom.
Israel's foundational covenant, known as the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18), unconditionally promises three elements to Israel: land extending from modern day Egypt to Iraq (Gen. 15:18-21), seed or innumerable descendants (Gen. 15:4-5; 22:17), and blessing (Gen. 15:1). These three promises are amplified in subsequent covenants (or sub-covenants) that God made with the nation. The land provision is amplified in the land covenant (Deut. 29‒30). The blessing component is amplified in the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). Here, God promised to write His laws on the hearts of the Jews.
Regarding the seed promises, from Abraham’s many seed would ultimately come a singular seed (Gen. 3:15; Gal. 3:16) or descendant who would procure all of the promises found in the Abrahamic Covenant for Israel consequently ushering in blessing for the nation and world. This seed aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant’s promises is later amplified in what is known as the Davidic Covenant. After God rejected Saul, who was the nation’s first king, God selected David from among Jesse’s sons (1 Sam. 16:1) leading to David’s anointing as the nation’s second king (1 Sam. 16:13). In time, God entered into a covenant with David, which promised that through David’s lineage would come an eternal house, throne, and kingdom (2 Sam. 7:13-16). In other words, God through David’s lineage would usher in an eternal dynasty and throne. The Old Testament continually reaffirms that there would eventually arise a Davidic descendant who would usher in all that was unconditionally promised to both Abraham and David (Ps. 89; Amos 9:11; Hosea 3:5; Isa. 7:13-14; 9:6-7; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24).
Literal
These covenantal obligations make an enormous impact upon the reality of a future earthly kingdom when it is understood that these promises are literal, unconditional, and unfulfilled. Several reasons make it apparent that these promises should be construed literally. The promises are terrestrial or earthly in nature. In fact, Abraham was told by God to walk around the very land that he and his people would one day possess (Gen. 13:17). The promises are made exclusively with national Israel rather than the church, which was not yet in existence (Matt. 16:18). Regarding the seed, they concern David’s physical line. There is nothing in the context of 2 Samuel 7 which would lead the reader to the conclusion that these promises are to be understood as anything other than literal and earthly. Since these promises to David are an amplification of the seed component of the Abrahamic Covenant, they share the Abrahamic Covenant’s literalness and terrestrial nature. Unconditional
In addition to being literal, these covenantal obligations are unconditional. An unconditional promise is the opposite of a conditional promise, which requires some sort of performance on the part of one of the contracting parties before the other party is obligated to perform. If these promises were conditional, Israel would be obligated to do something before God was obligated to fulfill His covenantal obligations. However, these promises are, in actuality, unconditional. In other words, the ultimate performance in fulfillment of these promises rests solely in what God has obligated Himself to do regardless of the performance of Israel.
The late prophecy scholar Dr. John F. Walvoord identifies four reasons as to why these covenantal promises are unconditional. [1] First, Walvoord notes the typical ancient Near Eastern, covenant-ratification ceremony, which God used to establish the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 15). In this ceremony, severed animal carcasses were placed into two rows and the parties to the covenant passed through these rows. Such a solemn occasion testified to the fact that if the parties did not fulfill their obligations under the covenant, then they, too, were to be severed just as the animals had been (Jer. 34:8-10, 18-19). What is unique about the Abrahamic Covenant is that Abraham never passed through the severed animal pieces. After God put Abraham to sleep, He alone, as represented by the oven and the torch, passed through the animal pieces (Gen. 15:12, 17). This signifies that God alone will bring to pass all the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant unilaterally.
Second, there are no stated conditions for Israel’s obedience in Genesis 15. If Israel had to do something before God could perform His obligations, such a condition would have been mentioned. Because there are no stated conditions for Israel to perform before God can perform, the covenant must solely rest upon God for performance. Third, the Abrahamic Covenant is called eternal (Gen. 17:7, 13, 19) and unchangeable (Heb. 6:13-18). Thus, the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant cannot rest upon the performance of fickle and sinful men. Because only God is eternal and unchangeable, He alone will bring the covenant promises into fulfillment. Fourth, the covenant is trans-generationally reaffirmed despite Israel's perpetual national disobedience. No matter how wicked each generation became, God kept on perpetually reaffirming the covenant to Israel (Jer. 31:35-37). If the covenant were conditioned upon Israel's performance, it would have been revoked long ago due to Israel's disobedience rather than continually reaffirmed.
Unfulfilled
In addition to being literal and unconditional, the covenant, even up to the present hour, remains unfulfilled. While some might make the argument that some parts of the covenant have achieved a past fulfillment, when construed literally, the bulk of the covenant remains unfulfilled thus awaiting a future realization. Some challenge the covenant’s unfulfilled aspects by contending that it was fulfilled either in the days of Joshua (Josh. 11:23; 21:43-45) or during the prosperous portion of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs. 4:20-21; 8:56). [2] However, several reasons make this interpretation suspect. [3] For example, the extended context indicates that the land promises were not completely satisfied in the days of Joshua (13:1-7; Judges 1:19, 21, 27, 29, 30-36). In addition, the land that Israel attained in the conquest was only a fraction of what was found in the Abrahamic Covenant. [4] Also, the land promises could not have been fulfilled in Joshua’s day since Israel had not yet conquered Jerusalem (Josh. 15:63). The conquest of Jerusalem would have to wait another four hundred years until the Davidic reign (2 Sam. 5).
[Source: Thomas L. Constable, 'Notes on Numbers,' www.soniclight.com]
Although Solomon gained a large percentage of the land, his empire only extended to the border of Egypt (1 Kgs. 4:21) rather than to the promised river of Egypt (Gen. 15:18) according to what God initially promised Abraham. [5] Regarding the notion that the land promises were fulfilled under Solomon’s reign, Constable observes:
"This does not mean that the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled in Solomon’s day (Gen. 15:18-20), for not all of this territory was incorporated into the geographic boundaries of Israel; many of the subjected kingdoms retained their identity and territory but paid taxes (tribute) to Solomon. Israel’s own geographic limits were “from Dan to Beersheba” (1 Kings 4:25). [6]
Moreover, the Abrahamic Covenant promises that Israel would possess the land forever (Gen. 17:7-8, 13, 19). This eternal promise has obviously never been fulfilled due to Israel’s subsequent eviction from the land a few centuries after Solomon’s reign (2 Kgs. 17; 25). Furthermore, if the land promises were satisfied in Joshua’s or Solomon’s day, then why do subsequent prophets treat these promises as if they are yet to be fulfilled (Amos 9:11-15)? Certainly the New Covenant's promise of God writing His laws upon the hearts of Israel has never been fulfilled. Israel's national disobedience is well chronicled in the pages of Scripture. In fact, Israel largely remains a Christ-rejecting nation to the present day.
The bottom line is that if the Abrahamic Covenant and its related sub-covenants are literal (interpreted in ordinary, earthly terms), unconditional (resting upon God alone for performance rather than Israel), and unfulfilled (never fulfilled historically thereby necessitating a future fulfillment), there must be a future time in history in which God will make good on what He has covenantally obligated Himself to do. God must do what He said He would do since it is contrary to His nature to lie, fabricate, or equivocate in any sense (Num. 23:19). Thus, such a future fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant and related sub-covenants heightens the biblical expectation of a future, earthly kingdom.
Endnotes
[1] John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH: Dunham, 1959), 149-52.
[2] Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2007), 52-53, 178-79.
[3] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, rev. ed. (Tustin, CA: Ariel, 1994), 521-22, 631-32; John F. Walvoord, Major Bible Prophecies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 82.
[4] See the helpful map showing what was promised in the Abrahamic Covenant in comparison to what was attained in the conquest in Thomas L. Constable, “Notes on Numbers,” online: www.soniclight.com, accessed 13 January 2012, 98.
[5] Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 533.
[6] Thomas L. Constable, “1 Kings,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor, 1985), 497.
The only "spiritual" kingdom is the one that exists presently with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in those who know Christ as Savior. And in the millennial kingdom, not everyone will know Christ as Savior, so from that fact alone, we know that the future millennial kingdom of Christ will not be "spiritual" and is something totally separate from the present "spiritual" kingdom of Christ.
The only way to allegorize the literal, thousand-year kingdom of Christ into some ethereal "spiritual" kingdom is to deny all the Scripture that tells us that there will be a literal, millennial reign of Christ.
I wouldn't want to tell the Lord Jesus Christ that He can't do something or is only Spiritual. I wouldn't want to say that He can't reign over the earth as King.
After all, "He will divide the booty with the strong" Isaiah 53. And Job said (Job 19):
23 “Oh, that my words were recorded,
that they were written on a scroll,
24 that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead,
or engraved in rock forever!
25 I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes , and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!>
It might have to do with words in the Holy Scriptures like these.
As far as I know, the Roman Catholic church didn't rule infallibly on it. The trend has been for the last few hundred years against it being a literal 1000 years.
“FWIW, you might want to read the article before stating YOUR CHURCH’S particular teaching.”
~ ~ ~
wmfights, hi,
There is only one faith, one Church, you should believe the same. Those men in the article, some of them Apostolic
Fathers...ALL...believe in the real Presence, Our Lord’s
presence in the Eucharist.
It wouldn’t be correct to mention them without acknowledging this fact. That makes them Roman Catholic.
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
And yet the amillenialists would seek to discredit Premillenial Evangelical Christians as a "recent fad".
LOL, that's a good joke!
If we truly believe that Scripture is the final authority and is the rule of our faith we have to read Scripture with an open mind and heart. I thought this article was particularly interesting because the author lays out the evidence of how strong the premillenial view was among a large number of Apostolic Era Christians. One of the arguments that amillenialists often use to try and discredit Premillenial Evangelical Christians is that this belief is a recent phenomenon. It isn't and it was taught by the Apostle John.
Thanks for the ping!
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, 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.
“Yes, they’re wrong. Jesus is coming spiritually for the millennium. There will be many signs and wonders but He isn’t returning to the earth physically to reign.”
Where do people get the above idea?
The WORD of G-d:
See:
Ps. 90:4; Eccl. 6:6; 2 Pet. 3:8; Rev. 20:2-7
shalom b’SHEM Yah’shua HaMashiach
~ ~ ~
2 Peter 3:8
But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
NONE of the above verses you sited say Jesus is returning
to reign in HIS PERSON during the 7th Day. And, those verses speak of a period of time, a 1000 years but who is to say the time period is literal? The Church Fathers don’t say the “millennium” which is the 7th Day, is a 1000 years, it could be...we’ll see.
Using Old Testaments words to preach Protestantism is a part
of Messianic Judaism. This sect and believe it or not there
are breakaways, was started by a Baptist minister a very short time ago. He wanted to convert those who believe in Judaism to Protestantism.
God bless you Uri’el,
The millennium was very popular in some areas, not so much in others. It boiled down often to the culture of the area. Those who were influenced by Greek thought and philosphy viewed it close to the amil position, those who were more influenced by eastern thought the premil.
If you have an e reader, you can down load the whole set of writings of the ECF for cheap. I would also encourage you to read Augustine, not just the parts that we all like to pick out. Or you can read Pelekin’s works on the history of theology for the thumbnail version. The latter has a nice write up of the influence of the millennium theology and why the lines ended up where they are.
For the record, I am a LCMS Lutheran and not premil.
“If we truly believe that Scripture is the final authority and is the rule of our faith we have to read Scripture with an open mind and heart.”
~ ~ ~
Who is “we?” John nor any of those first Christians spoken of in the article accepted anything of Protestantism that came along centuries later. “Bible Alone” and “Private Judgment” are are both heresies.
The Remnant is Roman Catholic. God is going to personally show the entire world soon. Pride stops men now. Do not take it personal, it was the “reformers” who rejected the Church in 1517. The Bible is a Catholic book. And never a reply to how is it all those men mentioned, their absolute belief in the Holy Eucharist.
The Church, not the Bible is God’s authority on earth.
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and ground of the TRUTH.
Going on the “Bible Alone” heresy, show in Scripture,
Jesus Christ is returning in the new time, the 7th Day
in His person to reign.
It’s not true. God’s reign will be spiritual.
Adam, by Jewish and some early Christian beliefs, was appointed a week (corresponding to Creation week) - or seven thousand years, the last of which is Christ's thousand year reign on earth, the Lord's Sabbath (Revelation.)
The Sabbath is also prophecy:
The Epistle of Barnabas dates back to the first few centuries after Christ’s resurrection. It is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and also mentioned by Origen. It was part of the Codex Sinaiticus but is not part of the Catholic canon today. Nevertheless, it reveals the discernment of these early Christians.
The last day of the week, the Sabbath, in the Christian view is Christ’s millennial reign on earth.
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection. Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. – Revelation 20:4-6
But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple. But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. – Matt 12:5-8
At the top of Genesis 4, after Adam is banished to mortality, the perspective changes to Adamic man, to our space/time coordinates. Adam's clock starts ticking. The first indication of the change in observer perspective is in the curse itself (emphasis mine)
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.