Posted on 04/22/2008 6:15:22 AM PDT by xzins
Pre-Millennialism and the Early Church Fathers
by Bob DeWaay
In this paper, I will show that the earliest fathers of the church (before 300 AD) primarily believed in a literal millennium. This will be accomplished by consulting the primary sources, the fathers themselves, and other writings about the views of the early fathers. Those early fathers who wrote about this issue will be dealt with one at a time.
The fourth century church historian Eusebius considered Papias to be a primary source for the millennial views of early fathers. He wrote:
In these [Papias' accounts] he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. . . . yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of the man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments.1
The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas (cir. 117/132 AD )5 held to the idea that after six thousand years of history that would correspond to six days of creation, there would be a seventh day “sabbath” rest which would last one thousand years. The following is from the Epistle of Barnabas:
Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, “He finished in six days.” This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, “Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years.” Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. “And He rested on the seventh day.” This meaneth: when His Son, coming again, shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. 6
Hans Bietenhard sees possible Jewish influences such as the Book of Enoch at work here and comments: “On the universal Sabbath all things are brought to rest and a new world begins. From the time of Barnabas onwards millennial expectation was always within the framework of a universal week of 7000 years.” 7
Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho (written cir. 155) describes the belief in a literal millennium as the orthodox doctrine, though admitting that some denied it. He sees the millennium centered in Jerusalem and predicted by Old Testament prophets. Justin wrote, “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”8 Justin did mention that, “many who belong to pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” 9 Evidently there were already others who did not believe in a literal millennium at that point in history, but Justin does not supply their names.
Since the actual debate with Trypho likely took place at Ephesus shortly after 135 AD, Larry Crutchfield sees a possible connection to the teachings of the Apostle John: “If Eusebius was correct, [about Dialogue taking place at Ephesus] the earliest extant Christian defense of the millenarian doctrine took place at Ephesus, not far from Patmos where John's revelation was received.”10 Crutchfield speculates about the possibility that Justin had contact with Polycarp or Papias which may have influenced his teaching: “In any case, whether Justin made contact with either man or not, a sojourn in Ephesus would have thoroughly exposed him to the teachings of the apostle John and the venerable Asiatic bishops [Polycarp & Papias].” 11 Whatever the validity of this speculation, Justin claimed his teaching was based on Scripture, which is the authority he cited in seeking to convince Trypho.
Irenaeus discusses Biblical prophecy in Against Heresies (written from 180 to 199 AD12 ). Irenaeus mentions the “seventh day” in regard to eschatological promises. He wrote, “These [promises given by Christ] are to take place in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes.”13 Irenaeus considered the promise that Jesus made to His disciples at the last supper to one day drink the fruit of the vine again with them “in my Father's kingdom” to be proof of a future, earthly kingdom to be established after the resurrection.
Interestingly, Irenaeus also mentioned the promise of land that God gave to Abraham in this connection: “If, then, God promised him the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just.”14Irenaeus firmly believed that Jesus would literally reign in a rebuilt Jerusalem.15 He also anticipated the allegorizing of Biblical prophecy: “If, however, any shall endeavor to allegorize prophecies of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points.” 16
Shirley Jackson Case summarizes Irenaeus' millennial view:
This period of millennial bliss corresponds to the seventh day of rest following the six days of creation described in Genesis. During this time the earth is marvelously fruitful. Jerusalem is magnificently rebuilt, and the righteous joyfully become accustomed to the new life of incorruption. After this preliminary regime of bliss has passed, a final judgment of all the world is instituted, and the new heaven and the new earth are revealed. In this final state of blessedness the redeemed shall live in the presence of God, world without end. 17
It is notable how closely Irenaeus' understanding is to that of many pre-millennialists today.
We learn of Tertullian's pre-millennialism through his debate against the heretic Marcion (cir. 207-212 AD). Obviously, a physical, rebuilt Jerusalem could have no validity for Marcion since he considered anything physical to have been created by a lesser "demiurge," the God of the Jews. Hans Beitenhard explains Marcion's view, “A little later [after Irenaeus] Tertullian found it necessary to defend the millennial hope against Marcion, who denied that the Christian can have any hope for a world created by the Demiurge. The Demiurge as the God of the Jews would restore the Jews to Palestine, and there they could set up their own Messianic kingdom.” 18
Tertullian rejects Marcion's version of the millennium, but not a literal millennium itself:
But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, ‘let down from heaven,’ which the apostle also calls ‘our mother from above;’ and, while declaring that our politeuma, or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld. 19
Tertullian's idea takes an odd twist when he goes on to claim the heavenly city had been seen suspended over Judea for forty days.20 Also, Tertullian evidently joined the Montanists whose eschatological views were rather bizarre. Beitenhard thinks that, “unwittingly and against his will [i.e. he did not intend to discredit pre-millennialism] Tertullian helped to discredit the millennial hope by joining the Montanists.”21 Nevertheless, Tertullian was a pre-millennialist.
Hippolytus (cir. 170-236) wrote extensively about the end times, including, Commentary of Daniel. Hippolytus took up the idea of a day being one thousand years and applied it to history. He reasoned:
For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God rested from all His works.” For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: “five are fallen; one is,” that is, the sixth; “the other is not yet come.”22
David G Dunbar comments on Hippolytus' view, “Christians ought not to think that the present sufferings of the church are the eschatological woes signaling Christ's return, for that return is not imminent. In support of this argument Hippolytus employs the creation-week typology widely accepted in the west until Augustine.”23 Dunbar goes on to explain how Hippolytus sets the time of Christ's return in 500 AD. 24
Though this date setting is obviously problematic, Hippolytus asserted the idea that there would be a “Sabbath” rest which will be a time when the saints will reign with Christ. Though he does not use the term “millennium,” clearly his schema of a day being one thousand years would make the Sabbath rest last for a millennia. Bietenhard considers Hippolytus a chiliast: “Hippolytus places the millennial hope within the schema of a universal week of 7000 years.”25Interestingly, in another article Dunbar states, “Only in his Chapters Against Gaius does he present a forthright attack on amillennialism, and even here his own position is so muted as to be unclear.” 26 It seems to me that Hippolytus’ position is clear enough in the above quoted Commentary on Daniel.
Lactantius (cir. 250 - 317 AD) also wrote of a literal millennium. His views are based, however, partially on quotations from the Sibylline books. He writes, “But He, when He shall have destroyed unrighteousness, and executed His great judgment, and shall have recalled to life the righteous, who have lived from the beginning, will be engaged among men a thousand years, and will rule them with most just command.”27 An interesting thing about Lactantius is that he supplies more details about the Millennium: “Then they who shall be alive in their bodies shall not die, but during those thousand years shall produce an infinite multitude, and their offspring shall be holy, and beloved by God; but they who shall be raised from the dead shall preside over the living as judges.”28According to Lactantius, resurrected saints shall coexist with mortals. He also includes the idea of Satan being bound for the thousand year period and the existence of pagan nations to be ruled over by the righteous.
Commodianus of North-Africa wrote about 240 AD. He also spoke of a literal Millennium. He writes, “They shall come also who overcame cruel martyrdom under Antichrist, and they themselves live for the whole time, and receive blessings because they have suffered evil things; and they themselves marrying, beget for a thousand years.” 29
Since most of the earliest Fathers either taught a literal millennium (though clearly differing on details) or were silent on the matter, how did amillennialism become the predominant view of the Church from the fourth century on? Evidently Origen was the first to publically break with this tradition. Thomas D. Lea comments, “Before the time of Origen it was reasonably common to find the fathers expressing their belief in a personal second coming of Christ together with a millennial reign of the saints with Christ after their resurrection from the dead. Origen denounced millennialism perhaps because of his view that it overemphasized the sensual and the material.” 30It is beyond the scope of this paper to address amillennialism among the fathers. 31 Though adducing different sources and theories as to details, the earliest church fathers clearly taught pre-millennialism.
End Notes
However, this particular issue of eschatology always results in some losing patience.
Nonetheless, the early church was premillennial. It’s a good point to remember. That is good reason to keep it under consideration among the various perspectives one continues to look at.
This is Sign Language for “I love you.”
I will stand with you ZC.
In my studies, I have found that the first thing to throw away is the theory of replacementism, that the Church has replaced Israel. In order to remove Israel from the Prophecy the 'symbolic', 'spiritual' Israel had to be constructed. But the Prophecy is clear. Israel, in her two Great Houses, Judah and Ephraim, remains the instrument of Jehovah's work on this earth.
Without the construct of replacementism, the 'literal vs. spiritual' argument largely disappears, and the words of the OT and NT can be reconciled. That reconciliation does not allow for anything but a literal reign of Christ from the literal throne of David, in the literal Jerusalem, on the literal planet of Earth.
Thank you so much for the ping, dear brother in Christ!
lol
LOLOL!
I guess this means that Amillenialism is Origenal Sin :)
LOL!
My pastor is a firm panmillennialist.
He says it will all pan out in the end.
Is there any difference between the Am Sign Language “I LOVE YOU” and the satanic symbol? I don’t recall. I know they are at least very similar.
ABSOLUTELY AUTHENTICALLY TRUE:
Nonetheless, the early church was premillennial. It’s a good point to remember.
THX.
G-d created the world to be fulfilled. Our part is to hasten the kingdom by obeying G-d’s commandments. Absent this is only an other-worldly quietism or a militant crusading secularism.
==
GOOD POINTS, imho
The Satanic symbol has the thumb folded over the two middle fingers.
Thanks. I thought maybe that was the difference. But my memory was too fuzzy to assert so.
Thanks much, Dear Sister in Christ.
Your Philip Schaff quote does not say that.
Origen was, then and now, a material heretic.
I am serious about that. Don't like music? There are quite a few pre Nicene Fathers who viewed all music as the work of pagans (which at the time was probably true). Don't like the rich? There are a few who demanded you surrender literally everything to be a Christian.
So that there were a lot of premill Christians isn't surprising. St. Paul talks of them, and basically says for them to stop starring at the sky and get to work! See, there were a great many who thought Jesus was coming very soon, and didn't want to work in the mean time.
Of course not, as trinitarianism is taught in the New Testament.... but, the full-orbed formulary describing (or really apprehending) God as Trinity, 3 distinct Persons, with one essence, worked out from the scriptures, had to await for Athanasius and Nicea (AD 325)(something all cults always seem to condemn)...even though the prevailing view in the Church, arguably, throughout the 4th Century was Arianism...
Both the nature of the Trinity and the nature of Jesus, one Person with two full natures(divine & human), took until the 4th Century and beyond to be apprehended, described, and accepted. This is not to say that the saints listed were not incredible Christians, however, in the patristic period orthodoxy took some time to develop.
My main point was though, while the early Fathers got many things right, they got other things wrong--and proving they had an eschatology of literal Millenniumism doesn't prove at all that they were correct.
If I told you that you are existing in three states simultaneously, would you believe me? [You are, BTW.] ... How is the Trinity reality of God any more difficult to comprehend? A scientific explanation of thr three states of existence happening simultaneously would not have been possible until within the past fifty years! That early believers whom we late comer Christians will meet where/when lost no sleep over the nature of God in Three persons—Blessed Trinity seems to dismiss arguing over the issue as if salvation depended upon it.
Ummmm, yes, I do think that 3 Persons who are One is essence is very difficult if not impossible for the human mind to comprehend. We as Christians accept it by faith, and our descriptions at best can outline or summarize it; be it three states simultaneous in matter or three parts of an apple or 3 leaves of a clover, or the innumerable imperfect analogies people have looked to, to try to capture the nature of the infinite God in their minds, down through the centuries.
It is an historic fact though that before Nicea Christians wondered, argued, and searched the scriptures about the nature of God and the nature of Jesus Christ, among other things we take for granted today—and like I said in my original post, I’m not sure any of the Fathers before say AD 250 had worked out these important doctrines yet. Does that mean they were somehow intellectually or morally inferior, or not Christians? Of course not. Only that doctrine itself took some time to develop—as Church scholars better understood—and were better able to describe—the revelations of God in the bible.
My only point was that the author of the article was seeking support for pre-Millennial end-times view (which has only existed in modern days since about 1830) amidst very early church Fathers—who didn’t yet see things clearly on some very basic things like Trinity (or the Homoousious). Better to look to scripture itself (like Athanasius did when describing God as Trinity) NOT what the earliest Church Fathers—as blessed as they indeed were—thought and taught.
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.