An Overview of Historic Premillennial Eschatology - Part 1

As a result of some recent discussions with some of the theological sharpening irons in my life, I decided to take a stab at fleshing out the Historial Premillennial stance in a little detail. The extent to which it may be helpful, if any, is purely by the grace of God.

Historical Backgroud:

The first two prominent men in the early church that supported a premillennial eschatology would be Justin Martyr (100-165) and Irenaeus (130-202).

Justin Martyr was born in Flavia (Palestine) and ultimately settled in Rome as a Christian teacher. In chapter 80 of his work Dialogue with Trypho he writes:

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.

He makes clear the belief that the second coming of Christ would be after a period of tribulation in chapter 110

O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonoured, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians…Now it is evident that no one can terrify or subdue us who have believed in Jesus over all the world. For it is plain that, though beheaded, and crucified, and thrown to wild beasts, and chains, and fire, and all other kinds of torture, we do not give up our confession; but the more such things happen, the more do others and in larger numbers become faithful, and worshippers of God through the name of Jesus. For just as if one should cut away the fruit-bearing parts of a vine, it grows up again, and yields other branches flourishing and fruitful; even so the same thing happens with us. For the vine planted by God and Christ the Saviour is His people. But the rest of the prophecy shall be fulfilled at His second coming.

So it seems clear that Justin Martyr was an early advocate of the premillennial position.

Of even greater interest is the position of Irenaeus. He is of particular interest to the premillennialist because of his teacher. Irenaeus was discipled by Polycarp, the famous martyr. Polycarp lived from 69-155 AD and was the bishop of Smyrna. Most church historians agree based on early church writings that he was a disciple of none other than the Apostle John. Is the significance starting to come together for you? That’s right…your mind is running to Revelation 2:8. Smyrna was one of the seven churches that Revelation was addressed to. It is very possible that Polycarp was “the angel of the church of Smyrna” in Revelation 2:8.

The Historic Premillennialist would argue that if Polycarp received the Revelation of Jesus Christ directly from the Apostle John and was discipled by the Apostle there would have been some level of clarification and understanding of John’s interpretation. They would then assume that Polycarp would follow Paul’s instruction to Timothy and “entrust (what he had heard) to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”. If this is in fact what took place, then Irenaeus would have been the direct beneficiary of that truth, which Polycarp would have received from the Apostle John. Let us now examine some of the writings of Irenaeus: (This is an eye full, it would be extremely edifying to read the whole chapter [Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 32] but I copied the areas specific to our discussion below)

Thus, then, the promise of God, which He gave to Abraham, remains steadfast…and [yet] he did not receive an inheritance in it, not even a footstep, but was always a stranger and a pilgrim therein… Thus did he await patiently the promise of God, …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. For his seed is the Church, …Thus also the apostle says in the Epistle to the Galatians: “But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.” And again, in the same Epistle, he plainly declares that they who have believed in Christ do receive Christ, the promise to Abraham thus saying, “The promises were spoken to Abraham, and to his seed. Now He does not say, And of seeds, as if [He spake] of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ…So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham.”Thus, then, they who are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham, and these are the children of Abraham. Now God made promise of the earth to Abraham and his seed; yet neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are justified by faith, do now receive any inheritance in it; but they shall receive it at the resurrection of the just. For God is true and faithful; and on this account He said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Irenaeus articulates two huge eschatological thoughts in this chapter:

1. God will fulfill his covenant with Abraham at the future resurrection of the just.
2. Abraham’s seed (the ones to whom the promises will be fulfilled) is the church, all that are in Christ and not just national Israel. Like a good covenant theologian he even uses Galatians 3 as his argument!

Both of these thoughts will carry foward into the 21st century and will be reintroduced in future posts as we flesh out the distinctives of the Historic Premillennial position.

So what do we do with the writings of these early church fathers? Are their writings inerrant or authoritative? Certainly not, but we must give them some credence and thoughtful consideration based on the apparent direct linkage to the Apostle John and the fact that there had not been much time for misinterpretation and insertion of personal bias. These at least provide us with a starting point and some historical “food for thought" regarding the Historic Premillennial position

We’ll continue our look into the history of Historic Premillennialism in the days to come.