What Did Christians Close to John the Apostle Believe about the Millennium?

Theological Studies ^ | Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.

[wmfights]

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

[wmfights]

Ping

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.

[stpio]

“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.

[wmfights]

FWIW, you might want to read the article before stating your church’s particular teaching.

[Uri’el-2012]

w>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

[SkyDancer]

They thought it was going to happen real soon, like even in their life time. Paul thought so but then he later relented.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Thanks for the ping, wmfights.

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.

[sr4402]

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.

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.

[redgolum]

It was honestly split among the early church. The views on the millennium are not a “settled” question till very late. In fact, a great many in the Middle Ages still talked of it.

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.

[boatbums]

Amen! I think in order for some people's eschatology to fit what Scripture very clearly states, they must shoehorn it in, but, even trying to do that, is like trying to stuff a man's size eleven foot into a women's size six Christian Louboutin. In other words, it won't fit! Almighty God STILL has His promises to keep, and keep them He will.

[stpio]

“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.

[boatbums]

Amen! I think in order for some people's eschatology to fit what Scripture very clearly states, they must shoehorn it in, but, even trying to do that, is like trying to stuff a man's size eleven foot into a women's size six Christian Louboutin. In other words, it won't fit! Almighty God STILL has His promises to keep, and keep them He will.

[wmfights]

It was honestly split among the early church. The views on the millennium are not a “settled” question till very late. In fact, a great many in the Middle Ages still talked of it.

And yet the amillenialists would seek to discredit Premillenial Evangelical Christians as a "recent fad".

[wmfights]

I think in order for some people's eschatology to fit what Scripture very clearly states, they must shoehorn it in, but, even trying to do that, is like trying to stuff a man's size eleven foot into a women's size six Christian Louboutin.

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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[stpio]

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,

[redgolum]

If you read the Early Church Fathers (which I encourage), you will see that much of what we beat each other over today was talked of then.

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.

[stpio]

“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.

[stpio]

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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Some of the early Christians understood Creation week to be prophecy. I very strongly agree as follows:

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:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17

To illustrate that it was an early Christian belief, I offer the first excerpt below from the Epistle of Barnabas 15:3-5 which is not part of the canon and is not to be confused with the late sixteenth century Islamic fraud, “The Gospel of Barnabas.”

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.

He speaks of the Sabbath at the beginning of the Creation, "And God made in six days the works of His hands and on the seventh day He made an end, and He rested on the seventh day, and He sanctified it. Consider, my children what this signifies: That He made an end in six days. The meaning of it is this: that in six thousand years the Creator will bring all things to an end, for with Him one day is a thousand years. He Himself testifies, saying, Behold the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, all things shall be accomplished. And He rested on the seventh day: He means this, that when His Son shall come He will destroy the season of the wicked one, and will judge the godless, and will change the sun and the moon and the stars, and then He will truly rest on the seventh day.

It is also recorded in the first verse, chapter 33 of 2 Enoch which is the Slavic version of that book (also not part of the canon) but nevertheless showing the beliefs of early Christians:

And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first-created after my work, and that (the first seven) revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours.

In sum, the Jewish mystics and these early Christians (and I) perceive that Adamic man, upon being banished to mortality, was appointed a total of 7 days or 7,000 years.

The last day of the week, the Sabbath, in the Christian view is Christ’s millennial reign on earth.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

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

And again,

Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

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

The heart of this understanding of prophecy is that a day to God is a thousand years to man.

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)

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die – Genesis 2:17

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5

That is not some vague reference but is explicitly revealed here:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. – 2 Peter 3:8

That is also the Jewish interpretation (Sanhedrin 97a; Avodah Zarah Sa) of Psalms 90:4:

For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

Using the Christian calendar, Christ is due any time now (6,000 years have elapsed since Adam's first day on earth time.) Under the Jewish calendar, about a quarter century remains on the first 6,000 years. The difference is a dispute over how much time Israel spent in exile to Babylon.

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. - Revelation 22:20

God's Name is I AM.