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
Ping
For your files
No, no, no, this can’t be true! You mean to tell us that the whole hope of the millennium was done away with by this guy, “He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, “the fabulous preexistence of souls,” and “the monstrous restoration which follows from it” were declared anathema in the 6th century”.
Say it isn’t so, xzins, say it isn’t so!!
Is this a Protestant Pre-Millenial thread only? If so, I will respect that and not post. I was not able to tell based on the original article you cited.
Thanks
I’d say that Origen is the culprit.
It’s like Peter’s “some will come saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming...’
Origen was looking for something more substantive than “Wait on the Lord. Wait...”
I did not label it as caucus or devotional, so, by the rules of the Religion Forum, you are free to post.
It’s mostly just data with an opening and closing statement of support for the pre-mil position.
What a coincidence that you referred to this Critical Issues Commentary the same week that I’ve been using it in discussion about whether the early church’s position was traditionally amillienialism!
Sounds like there’s room for debate on that. I’m trying to understand the amil position but there are so many questions I can’t see fitting into the amil. If we’re living in the millenium now, then Satan is bound NOW. At least from deceiving the nations - but it’s hard to think that Iran isn’t deceived.
The re-emergence of the nation of Israel also seems prophetic does it not?
When do the two witnesses lie in the street over which gifts are exchanged?
When does the lion lie down with the lamb? What about the time when it will be considered strange that children die at 100?
Just wondering how so many things fit into an amil position....
The above citations are excellent data for anyone’s files.
At the same time, I don’t want to pretend that I’m neutral. I am a premillennialist, and I do think it is the historic position of the church. Your questions are on target, btw.
Thanks, I appreciate the prompt response. I will state up front, I am presenting the Catholic view, to the best of my ability, and the view I am presenting I think is consistent with the Eastern Orthodox, and most Confessional Protestants (Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians, etc)
It is my understanding that the doctrine of the “rapture” was not taught in Traditional Christianity, and was not a doctrinal position of most Protestant Christianity until the 19th century. The “Rapture”, is most commonly associated with “Pre-millennialists Protestants”, since that branch of Protestantism gave the doctrine of the rapture much attention. From my Catholic background, my general understanding of this doctrine is that when Christ returns, all faithful Christians who have died will be raised and transformed into a glorious state, along with the living elect, and then be caught up to be with Christ. The key text, for Pre-millenial Rapture supporters, I think, is St. Paul’s 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, which states, “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.”
Rapture-Pre-millennialists hold, as do virtually all Christians (except certain postmillennialists), that the Second Coming will be preceded by a time of great trouble and persecution of God’s people (2 Thess. 2:1-4). I believe this period is often called the tribulation. Now, until the 19th century, all Christian Confessions agreed that the “rapture”, although it was not called by this term at this time, would occur immediately before the Second Coming, at the close of the period of persecution. This position is today called the “post-tribulational” view because it says the rapture will come after the tribulation.
However, in the 1800s, some Protestant Ministers began to claim that the “rapture” would occur before the period of persecution. This position, now known as the “pre-tribulational” view, seemed to be first embraced by John Nelson Darby, an early leader of the Fundamentalist Protestant movement that became known as “Dispensationalism.” Darby’s view of the rapture was then adopted by a man named C.I. Scofield, who taught the rapture in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was widely distributed Protestant Commentary in England and America. Many Protestants who used the Scofield Reference Bible uncritically accepted what its footnotes said and adopted the pre-tribulational view as a major doctrine of their respective Protestant Tradition.
However, No Christian had ever heard of Darby and Scofield’s rapture doctrine in the previous 1800 years of Church history. Shortly thereafter, it seems a third position developed, known as the “mid-tribulational” view, which claims that the rapture will occur during the middle of the tribulation and finally, it now appears that a fourth view developed that claims that there will not be a single rapture where all believers are gathered to Christ, but that there will be a series of mini-raptures that occur at different times with respect to the tribulation.
I think many will agree that this confusion among Protestant Christians has caused much division, even among Protestant Christians, themselves; causing Church’s to split into camps labeling each other as heretical, etc.
So, I have described, I hope accurately, the Protestant Pre-millenial view, and other forms of the Rapture, charity dictates that I should provide a clear and non-polemical vie of the Catholic Church’s position.
From the Catholic perspective, and I would add also the Eastern Orthodox perspective as well as Traditional Confessional Protestants (Lutherans, Reformed, Calvinist, Presbyterians, etc) is that the problem with all of the positions (except the historic, post-tribulation view, which was accepted by all Christians, including non-premillennialists) is that they split the Second Coming of Christ into different events. In the case of the pre-trib view, Christ is thought to have three comings: one when he was born in Bethlehem, one when he returns for the rapture at the tribulation’s beginning, and one at tribulation’s end, when he establishes the millennium. While some of the fathers writings imply a literal millennialism view, none of them agreed on what that meant, and none ever taught a doctrine similar to how the Rapture is taught today. One key Doctrinal point for why I state the Church Fathers did not teach the “rapture” is that none of them ever taught 3 comings of Christ. Origen, as the article linked above notes, clearly taught against the pre-millennial view, and St. Augustine, whose theology would be the bedrock of the Latin/Western Church clearly rejected it. This three-comings view of Christ is foreign to Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as no early Church Father ever taught such a view, nor is this view in any of the early Creeds of the Church (Apostles and Nicene) .
As far as the millennium goes, the Catholic Church agrees with the position of the early Church, as articulated by St. Augustine and, thus, with the a-millennialist view. The Catholic position has thus historically been “a millennial” (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin), though Catholics do not typically use this term. The Church has rejected the pre-millennial position, sometimes called “millenarianism” For example, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 676), it states:
“The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.
So again, the Catholic Church rejects pre-millennialism, which is the historic position of all of the Christian Tradition. Both of the Apostles Creed (2nd century Baptismal Creed of the Church of Rome) and Nicene Creed (325 AD), which is said at every Sunday Catholic Liturgy/Mass, as well as Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, appears to reject pre-millenariansism, stating that Christ will return “to judge the living and the dead,” not to reign on earth for a thousand years and then judge the living and the dead. Since the Church is not pre-millennial, the question of a pre-trib Rapture does not arise, as pre-tribulationism is a variant of pre-millennialism.
Again, although the Catholic Church “does not” use the term rapture, the Church does acknowledge that there will be an event where the elect are gathered to be with Christ. Scripture clearly declares it as St. Paul writes:
“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thess. 4:16–17)
The point of contention is the timing of this event: The Catholic Church believes it occurs at the Second Coming, not several years before it. This interpretation is entirely consistent with the teaching in the Apostles Creed (circa 200 AD) Nicene Creed (325 AD). This is indicated by Paul’s reference to it taking place when Christ descends from heaven: the Second Coming. Scripture does not envision the Second Coming accomplishing the Rapture, followed by a “Third Coming” inaugurating the eternal order or the Millennium.
I think this is a sensitive point for Rapture-Dispensationalists, who try to overcome the “Third Coming” problem by arguing that the Rapture and the final coming of Jesus are simply “two phases of one coming.” However, this seems to me, and others, as a rationalization. If Jesus comes to die for our sins, goes back to heaven, comes again to rapture his followers, goes back to heaven, and then years later comes again to slay the Antichrist, then that is three comings, not two.
Again, what does the Catholic Church say about the Millennium? It has not authoritatively addressed the issue of a-millennialism and post-millennialism in an Ecumenical Council. Furthermore, the Catholic Church, nor the Eastern Orthodox, do not even use those terms. But it is clear that the Church adheres to what has been the dominant view throughout Christian history—that the Millennium is going on now. It equals or is roughly equal to the Christian age.
Does this mean that the Catholic Church believes that there is no reign of Christ? No. Christ is reigning now, from heaven as the eternal King of Kings. For example, in Catholic Liturgy, the last Sunday of the Liturgical Year, which is the Sunday before the Holy Season of Advent, is referred to as “The Feast of Christ the King”. This feast, in the context of Liturgy, clearly is teaching the faithful that Christ is already reigning. As Chirst told the apostles, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt. 28:18). And, discussing the resurrection of the dead, St Paul explains:
“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Cor. 15:20–26, emphasis added)
The destruction of death involves the resurrection of the dead—all of the dead, not just some dead, or death would not have been destroyed. This occurs in Revelation 20:13–14, which is after the Millennium (cf. Rev. 20:1–6).
Thus Christ reigns—along with the saints (cf. Rev. 20:4–6)—in heaven, and this reign is extended on earth through the Church, which is an expression of the mystery of the kingdom of God (cf. Luke 17:20–21) and the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3: 15). The Church is described by St. Paul as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12: 12-14), the Bride of Christ (Eph 5: 26-27) and by St. Peter as the People of God (1 Pet 2: 9-10). Since Christ has one Body, and One Bride, and one people, and since God is a God of perfect communion (Holy Trinity), then Christ is not only reigning in Heaven, he is reigning here on earth through his body, the Church. In closing, we are presently living in the golden age of Christ’s reign, because he has become incarnate and revealed the Truths of God to humanity.
I always read, but rarely post on, the eschatology threads.
Although I lean heavily toward the pre-millenial view, I don't consider the topic to be a salvation issue. Pre-mil, post-mil, amil, we are all of the same family - saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
This Justin Martyr quote (on his apparently pre-mil view) from the article makes me believe he may have felt similarly:
“many who belong to pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.”
I think that people equate dispensationalism with premil. I believe it is possible to be premil and not be dispensational.
It is hard, isn’t it, not to think that people lived under different paradigms in the Garden, before the flood, after the law was given to Moses, after the resurrection.
I’m willing to be persuaded that I’m wrong on the premil but I don’t see how amil hangs together. I’m glad salvation doesn’t hang on a right understanding of this issue.
It’s a good quote by Justin Martyr. I’ve read it myself.
However, there is one caution. There is no place that Justin indicates that the “other view” is amillennialism or preterism or post-millennialism.
In fact, in context one would really think that the “other view” could also be pre-millennial but with some differences in either sequences or locations.
I do think it’s possible to make a strong case for different eras on the earth since its creation and following the return of Christ.
There are different varieties of both premillennialism and dispensationalism.
Premil is not a salvation issue.
Good point. But it still seems, IMO, to suggest that disagreements over the interpretation of biblical prophecy shouldn't necessarily be a cause to doubt anyones salvation or think of them as anything other than brothers and sisters in Christ. (though I'm always of the opinion that each should look to their own salvation and not anyone elses!)
By and large, I’d agree that one’s view of prophecy has no impact on salvation. (I’m sure someone can up with something crazy that we’d both raise our eyebrows at.)
That said, it is significant that the position of the early church was premillennial.
It would certainly indicate to me that that is the place to begin the study.
HISTORY OF THEThis is the same fellow who castrated himself in order to remove worldly
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
distractions and led to celibacy in the Roman church. "This asceticism, particularly fasting and celibacy, was commended
The Greek philosophical schools led to many errors in the early church.
more or less distinctly by the most eminent ante-Nicene fathers, and was practised, at least partially, by a particular class of Christians
(by Origen even to the unnatural extreme of self-emasculation)."
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
VOL. 3
by Philip Schaff
Origen isn’t sounding like much of a role model is he?
THANKS MUCH.
DID ANYONE LISTEN TO COAST TO COAST LAST NIGHT? Going to the website to see what docs I can post from the guest’s website shortly.
END TIMES PING LIST PING.
Please let me know if you want on or off.
thanks for the ping, xzins
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.