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

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

[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

[Cvengr]

Prior to the Final Judgment, the issues of good and evil must still be resolved in the angelic conflict.

Even after the provision of spiritual regeneration, the impact of sin upon the physical domain and the soulish must also be dealt with to show what God has made is not good for nothingness, otherwise, the Adversary and his minions may simply insist upon a domain independent of God for just resolution of their rebellion.

Quite frankly, it will be amazing for the next age to last only a Millennium, for as scarred as our souls are, even when we persevere to remain in fellowship with Him, for Him to grow us through faith in Christ, we have numerous, seemingly uncountable errors embedded in our old sin natures and scarred worldly habits, requiring education and eradication of our memories to come closer to following His Plan.

[Cvengr]

Petras means a piece of rock, while the Church is built upon “this Petra” or a larger rock.

The rock is the faith exercised and exemplified by Peter’s response to Jesus Christ when asked who He was and Peter responded by what God the Father had revealed to him through faith. The same faith as Abraham and of and unto us through Christ.

[stpio]

“Petras means a piece of rock, while the Church is built upon “this Petra” or a larger rock.

The rock is the FAITh exercised and exemplified by Peter’s response to Jesus Christ when asked who He was and Peter responded by what God the Father had revealed to him through faith. The same faith as ABRAHAM and of and unto us through Christ.”

~ ~ ~

Our Lord doesn’t use the word “faith” in Matthew 16:18. And you accept God chose specific leaders in the Old but now deny it in the New.

The Protestant rebuttal about gender and little rock or pebble.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. The Greek is a translation of what was said. Also, as Simon bar Johah was a male, thus the translation to Greek would match his gender, since it is not saying that he was a petros, which would have been ok, but it was giving him a new proper name and it would have been an insult for the translator to call him Petra.

There is only one word for rock, kephas, in Aramaic, there is no gender difference. The literal Remember that the man being addressed was named Simon bar Johah, so Jesus was changing his name (a significant event in the bible). So you see that the correct reading of this is

“thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

For even further evidence to refute this sophistic claim, see John 1:42, it says Simon Bar-Jonah’s new name would be Kephas (a massive rock) “which is translated Peter” (Petros).

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

http://www.drbo.org

[stpio]

Wow! Look at the difference. The Douay-Rheims Bible is
the English translation of the FIRST Bible, the Latin
Vulgate.

Who could stand the changes made to the King James Version.
I would throw out the KJV and stay with the Douay-Rhiems,
unless I could speak Latin.

John 1:42

Douay-Rheims Bible

And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

John 1:42

King James Version (KJV)

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

http://www.drbo.org

[Cvengr]

Our Lord doesn’t use the word “faith” in Matthew 16:18. And you accept God chose specific leaders in the Old but now deny it in the New.

Jesus Christ chose Judas as a disciple and loved him, but only those whom God the Father has elected in His Plan are saved. Faith may be discerned by those who believe.

[Cvengr]

I would throw out the KJV and stay with the Douay-Rhiems, unless I could speak Latin.

Such are your words.

Luther's translation predates the D-R.

[stpio]

Our Lord doesn’t use the word “faith” in Matthew 16:18. And you accept God chose specific leaders in the Old but now deny it in the New.

“Jesus Christ chose JUDAS as a disciple and loved him, but only those whom God the Father has elected in His Plan are saved. Faith may be discerned by those who believe.”

~ ~ ~

Using the one man who sold Jesus out to ignore Protestants accept some men in the Old Testament as God’s chosen leader and deny Jesus would do the same in the New Testament.

Peter was the leader of the Apostles, not Judas. Christ
named Peter leader of His Church on this earth (Matt 16:18). Peter settled disputes not Judas. Peter was given the “keys”, a symbol of authority. History shows this Truth.

Name the “leader” on earth of Protestantism? God doesn’t
change Cvengr.

[Cvengr]

Name the “leader” on earth of Protestantism?

Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.

[Cvengr]

When I said “God’s reign will be spiritual”, I am meaning, Jesus is NOT returning to the earth in His person during the 7th Day. It is a “spiritual” reign.

Psa 2:9

Rev 2:27

Rev 12:5

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Rev 20:1-5 (1) And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, (3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (4) 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. (5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

This reign reads a bit more physical than a spiritual reign.

[stpio]

Name the “leader” on earth of Protestantism?

“Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.”

~ ~ ~

Very sweet and wrong. God always named a human not a divine and human leader in the Old Testament, Protestants accept the fact, they do not object. We aren’t left to wander. Give proof, in the New Covenant, God no longer chooses a human leader? If you can’t...

Answer my question. Thanks.

[Cvengr]

Your question has been answered. Some just don’t like the answer because it means they might be mistaken and would have to reconsider their thinking.

Even Peter insisted he was not the Chief Cornerstone, rather Jesus Christ Himself, who also is very human.

[stpio]

“Even Peter insisted he was not the Chief Cornerstone, rather Jesus Christ Himself, who also is very human.”

~ ~ ~

You and some others I talk to here at FR are becoming dear
to me.

Jesus did not name Simon “Cornerstone” or stone, He named
Simon Peter which means Rock. So, Our Lord used the word rock twice in Matthew 16:18.

Funny, my name is Peters.

[Uri’el-2012]

It's very important when God changes a person's name,

Moses Named his successor's name to Yah'shua when he changed it from Hoshea.

Numbers 13:16 When Moses changed Hoshea(salvation) Name
to Yah'shua(Joshua = YHvH is my salvation) or Jesus in English.

I published this study on FreeRepublic about the "Rock" over eight years ago.

Do the writings of the "church fathers" trump or impugn the Holy Word of G-d ?

Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church,

One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Yah'shua spoke these words.

This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH; the whole counsel of G-d.

The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Yah'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "
e.g.

Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,

Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of YHvH. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock , his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.

Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
YHvH had given them up?

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock , as even our enemies concede

Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.

1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like YHvH;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "YHvH is my Rock , my fortress and my deliverer;

2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my Rock , in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides YHvH? And who is the Rock except our God?

2 Samuel 22:47 "YHvH lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God, the Rock , my Saviour!

2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,

Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides YHvH? And who is the Rock except our God?

Psalm 18:46 YHvH lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God my Saviour!

Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock , "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"

Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock , that God Most High was their Redeemer.

Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'

Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock , and there is no wickedness in him."

Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to YHvH; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.

Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH my Rock , who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

Habakkuk 1:12 Oh YHvH, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. Oh YHvH, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock , you have ordained them to punish.

Peter himself refers to Yah'shua as the "rock" in
1 Peter 2:1-10

NAsbU 1 Peter 2:
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,

2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

3 if you have tasted the kindness of YHvH.

4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,

5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"

8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word,
and to this doom they were also appointed.

9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION,
so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY,
but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

It is patently clear from the Holy Word of G-d
that the NAME "Rock" is a NAME that describes YHvH,
the creator of the universe.

To assign YHvH's NAME to a mere mortal,
a created being, seeks to impugn and
deny the Holy Word of G-d.

It also grieves the Holy Spirit.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Cvengr]

A good study.

Thanks for providing through faith in Him.

[stpio]

“It is patently clear from the Holy Word of G-d
that the NAME “Rock” is a NAME that describes YHvH,
the creator of the universe.

To assign YHvH’s NAME to a mere mortal,
a created being, seeks to impugn and
deny the Holy Word of G-d.”

~ ~ ~

Hi,

Jesus wasn’t talking about Himself or describing Himself when He named Peter head of the Church in Matthew 16:18. He was addressing Peter which means rock. Our Lord changed Simon’s name to Peter.

~ ~ ~

A Catholic apologist speaking with a “missionary” who had
come to his door.

“We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

“What’s more,” I said, “in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

“And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”

For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.

“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”

“Because he had no choice,” I said. “Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

“You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

“I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.”

[Religion Moderator]

What is the source for the excerpt? The moderators need the information to enforce copyright restrictions.

[stpio]

“This reign reads a bit more physical than a spiritual reign.”

~ ~ ~

Revelation 20:4
And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they LIVED AND REIGNED with Christ a thousand years.

Hi,

People who live in the new time, the 7th Day, yes, they
will have their physical bodies but Christ is NOT returning
to reign in 7th Day ~ the millennium in His physical body.

No where in the verse above does it say Jesus is returning
in His PHYSICAL body. That is a misinterpretation of
Scripture by some Christians.

You can know those words mean a spiritual reign from tradition and prophecy.

[stpio]

“What is the source for the excerpt? The moderators need the information to enforce copyright restrictions.”

~ ~ ~

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

[Cvengr]

Why deny the resurrection?

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012> It is patently clear from the Holy Word of G-d that the NAME "Rock" is a NAME that describes YHvH, the creator of the universe.

To assign YHvH's NAME to a mere mortal, a created being, seeks to impugn and deny the Holy Word of G-d.

Jesus wasn’t talking about Himself or describing Himself when He named Peter head of the Church in Matthew 16:18. He was addressing Peter which means rock. Our Lord changed Simon’s name to Peter.

Have a wonderful journey on the wide road of
man-made tradition constructed with Eisegesis .

I'll follow Yah'shua who said

John 14:15 "If you love Me,
you will keep My commandments.

His commandments are in the Holy WORD of G-d : the Tanach

May you have a very peaceful Shabbat of YHvH.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach