An Overview of Historic Premillennial Eschatology - History Q &A

A question that was brought up in the comments to Part 2 made me think that one more historical post might be appropriate to provide an answer. The question was “Did you dig in any more to see how many of the early church fathers were amill? I guess you addressed this here, but Waldron says that the church fathers were split on the issue between amill and hist premill. Does that seem fair to say based on what you have seen?” My answer wound up being much too long for a comment so the additional post seemed appropriate.

In order to determine if that statement (that the church fathers were split on the issue between amill and hist premill.) was fair, I'd have to gather more data.

1. What fathers in what era is he referring to?

2. Define what is meant by split.

Without knowing exactly what is intended by those two items, I don't know that I can give a "fair" answer, but I'll give it a shot. First off, lets take a look at this statement from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church:

The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, 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; while Caius, Origen, Dionysius the Great, Eusebius (as afterwards Jerome and Augustin) opposed it.

In the first sentence you will note that he describes the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age as “prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism”. The council of Nicaea took place in 325 AD. So according to Schaff, up until that point the eschatology of the Fathers was primarily premillennial. I would agree with that statement. I think Schaff does a fair job of listing the proponents and the opposition to premillennialism as well. One thing that is notable though, as you look at the dates is the early absence of noted opposition to the premillennial position.

Lets take a look at the proponents. Barnabas was obviously first century. Papias as discussed in the previous post was also first century (around 60-135 AD). Justin Martyr was early second century (110-165). Irenaeus was mid-second century (130-202). Hippolytus then, who isn’t mentioned by Schaff, was a pupil of Irenaeus in the late second to early third century (170-236). Tertullian, mentioned above, was a contemporary of Hippolytus (155-230). Methodius a contemporary and opponent of Origen and died in 311 (I couldn’t find year of birth). Lactantius was a contemporary of Mehtodius and Origen and almost lived to see Nicaea (240-320).

Interestingly enough, the first ante-Nicene opponents mentioned are Caius and Origen and we don’t see them emerging onto the scene until the third century. I couldn’t find the dates for Caius but I did find that some of his writings appear to be dated around 199-217. Origen was also third century (185-254). Dionysius the Great and Eusebius were mid to late third and early fourth centuries respectfully.

This information is consistent with the research that I did as I was studying for these posts. So what does this tell us? Well it seems that from the time of the apostles up until the beginning of the third century (approx. 60-200 AD) there was not much notable opposition to the premillennial viewpoint of Barnabas, Papias, Martyr, and Irenaeus. So, to say that the earliest church fathers were split (if split means 50/50) I don’t think would be fair. I do think when discussing the earliest fathers, however, we must keep in mind the statement of Justin Martyr:

I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to your formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.

This statement is telling. Its shows that many contemporaries of Martyr were premillennial, but many true Christians disagreed. If split means that some believed one way, and some a different way, then the statement is fair. But the church fathers seem to be leaning premillennial.

It seems that the historical transition from a predominantly premillennial eschatology began with the heresy of the Montanist movement. This was a heretical sect of what would be described in today’s terms as Pentecostals. Their leader, Montanus, claimed to be receiving direct revelation from God and that resulted in very strange ecstatic speech and visions, as well as many other strange things. Regarding Montanus’ distortion of the premillennial view, Schaff says,

The Montanists substituted Pepuza in Phrygia for Jerusalem, as the centre of Christ’s reign, and ran into fanatical excesses, which brought chiliasm into discredit, and resulted in its condemnation by several synods in Asia Minor.

Schaff then goes on to say that a combination of the opposition to the Montanists and the triumph of Christianity in the Roman empire was the “crushing blow” to premillennialism in the fourth and fifth centuries;

The opposition [to chiliasm] began during the Montanist movement in Asia Minor. Caius of Rome attacked both Chiliasm and Montanism, and traced the former to the hated heretic Cerinthus. The Roman church seems never to have sympathized with either, and prepared itself for a comfortable settlement and normal development in this world. In Alexandria, Origen opposed chiliasm as a Jewish dream, and spiritualized the symbolical language of the prophets. His distinguished pupil, Dionysius the Great (d. about 264), checked the chiliastic movement when it was revived by Nepos in Egypt, and wrote an elaborate work against it, which is lost. He denied the Apocalypse to the apostle John, and ascribed it to a presbyter of that name. Eusebius inclined to the same view.
But the crushing blow came from the great change in the social condition and prospects of the church in the Nicene age. After Christianity, contrary to all expectation, triumphed in the Roman empire, and was embraced by the Caesars themselves, the millennial reign, instead of being anxiously waited and prayed for, began to be dated either from the first appearance of Christ, or from the conversion of Constantine and the downfall of paganism, and to be regarded as realized in the glory of the dominant imperial state-church. Augustin, who himself had formerly entertained chiliastic hopes, framed the new theory which reflected the social change, and was generally accepted. The apocalyptic millennium he understood to be the present reign of Christ in the Catholic church, and the first resurrection, the translation of the martyrs and saints to heaven, where they participate in Christ’s reign. It was consistent with this theory that towards the close of the first millennium of the Christian era there was a wide-spread expectation in Western Europe that the final judgment was at hand.

In conclusion, it seems that the majority of ante-Nicene fathers in the first and second century were premillennial. Amillennial opposition started in the early third century, however it seems that the majority of church fathers were still primarily premillennial until around the mid-late third century, when you could argue that they were “split”. Moving past Nicaea into the fourth and fifth century there was definitely a shift from premillennial to amillennial.