I appreciate the comments and the learners spirit that resulted from the previous post. I pray that learners spirit will continue to be present among all of us as we work to define or to defend our eschatological system. With that in mind let’s start off with a quote by one of the church fathers that we heard from in the previous post. In Dialogue with Trypho Justin Martyr writes:
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 man who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
It does us good when discussing this type of thing to keep Justin’s words in mind. Lest we think of ourselves as more pure, more pious, having a stronger faith, and being truer Christians simply because we have a different eschatological understanding that someone else.
With that being said, let’s jump back into the examination of Historic Premillennialism.
Historical Background, cont.
In the previous post we noted that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were two of the first prominent men in the early church to adhere to premillennialism. We established a fairly clear case for the based on their writings. We also noted the potential linkage of Irenaeus to the Apostle John, which requires us to at minimum sit up and take notice.
While Martyr and Irenaeus were the most prominent and were the earliest church fathers to write about chiliasm (millennialism), they were not the earliest church fathers who we know to have ascribed to it. One of Polycarp’s contemporaries named Papius (70-155) was bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis. Historians tell us that the Apostle John discipled Papius, along with Polycarp and Ignatius. There are none of the full works of Papius that have survived, we only have fragments from him that are found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. We do know that Papius embraced a premillennial view and in the International Bible Commentary Fredrick Bruce says that “he embellished his descriptions of it with features drawn from Jewish sources”.
Following in the linage of Polycarp and Irenaus was Hippolytus, bishop of Portus. He carried on the work of attacking heresey after the death of Irenaus. As extensively as Irenaeus and Martyr wrote on eschatology, Hippolytus’ work was even more extensive. Historic premillennialsts would quickly point out the fact that this is an unbroken linage starting with the Apostle John to Polycarp, to Irenaus, and then to Hippolytus. Other pre-Nicean premillennialists were Tertullian, Victornius, Lactantius, Melito, Theophilus and Commodianus. So it seems that is very clear that the pre-Nicene western fathers were for the most part premillennial.
To be fair to the early fathers, we should point out that the Alexandrian fathers rejected premillennialism. For example Origen (185-254) said that the literal interpretation of the chiliasts was “Jewish”. Clement of Alexandria also interpreted Revelation with a more mystical or spiritual understanding. Eusebius (270-340) and Tyconius (c.390) carried on the allegorical interpretation. Tyconius’ interpretation of Revelation seems to have played a large roll in convincing Augustine to shift from premillennialsim to amillennialism. This allegorical interpretation that Augustine published in the City of God, set the stage for not only the middle ages, but also the reformers view of eschatology.
For sake of time we will simply say that while it was consistently embraced by the early church fathers, premillennialism was virtually abandoned in the middle ages and by the reformers. During the middle ages premillennialism was sometimes considered heresy and during the reformation it was considered “fiction” by John Calvin.
Fastforward to the Puritans. While many puritans continued to embrace the allegorical view of the reformers Increase and Cotton Mather both believed in a literal millennium. In The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation Explained and Applied Increase Mather wrote:
“That which presseth me so, as that I cannot gainsay the Chiliastical opinion, is that I take these things for Principles, and no way doubt but that they are demonstrable. 1. That the thousand apocalyptical years are not passed but future. 2. That the coming of Christ to raise the dead and to judge the earth will be within much less than this thousand years. 3. That the conversion of the Jews will not be till this present state of the world is near unto its end. 4. That, after the Jews’ conversion there will be a glorious day for the elect upon earth, and that this day shall be a very long continuance.”
Many of the reformers understood Rome to the be the antichrist. So for approximately two centuries after the reformation, Protestants saw any type of futurism or literal interpretation of the millennium as the papcy’s self-defense against the attack of the reformers. This was because in the mid 1500’s Spanish Jesuits came up with two alternatives to the historicism of the reformers. One of these alternatives was a form on preterism and the other saw the antichrist as an actual future person and Babylon as a future state of Rome, not the one currently under the papacy.
In the 17th century a view of premillennialism was adopted by the Fifth Monarchy Men who attempted to establish a kingdom of God on earth, and then in the 19th Century by the Plymouth Brethren. The official entrance of premillennialism into Protestant churches was through Samuel R. Maitland during 1826-1830. Maitland was the Librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Edward Irving and J.N. Darby then embraced premillenialism, but took it in a direction where it hadn’t been before. Maitland introduced the secret rapture, and Darby incorporated it into his Dispensational theology. Scholars such as Stern and Bisping became to embrace premillennialism in the United States during this time while Isaac Williams was a premillennialist in England. In 1909 J. A. Seiss released Lectures on the Apocalypse which was one of the most influential presentations of the premillennial view in the 20th century. Charles Schofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer were strong proponents of Darby’s Dispensational premillennialsim moving through the 20th century.
The reaffirmation of Historic Premillennialism among evangelicals and reformed theologians in our present day is due in large part the influence of George Eldon Ladd. Ladd was a Baptist pastor and a professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. Reformed theologians appreciated his scholarship and felt that he had the “right appreciation of the redemptive-historical significance of the first coming of Christ and of the NT age”. Ladd was not dispensational but his understanding of the already/not yet aspect of the kingdom of God played a large role in the inception of progressive dispensationalism. Many of Ladd’s essays and articles on the millennium can be accessed here.
Currently there are many very prominent theologians on the scene who embrace Historic Premillennialism, including the likes of John Piper, Albert Mohler, D.A. Carson, and Mark Dever. The late James Montgomery Boice was also a Historic Premillennialist.
Historical Conclusion
The initial agreement among most of the pre-Nicean church fathers as well as the possible linage from the Apostle John to Papius and Polycarp, to Irenaeus, to Hippolytus cannot be ignored. While exegesis MUST be our primary means of developing our eschatological understanding, we should also at least consider the interpretation of the early church fathers when trying to understand some of these difficult passages.
I don’t believe that the abandonment of the premillennial position in the middle ages and by the reformers requires us to say that the interpretation was in any way invalid. It does however, help us see the magnitude of the influence that Augustine had on church history. As Alister McGrath observed “all medieval theology is ‘Augustinian’ to a greater or lesser extent”.
The slow and steady reaffirmation among the Puritans, Anglicans and now reformed evangelicals is evidence that Historic Premillennialism can holds it own as a legitimate exegetical option of eschatological interpretation.
[Coming Soon: Part 3 – The distinctives of Historical Premillennialism]
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 man who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
It does us good when discussing this type of thing to keep Justin’s words in mind. Lest we think of ourselves as more pure, more pious, having a stronger faith, and being truer Christians simply because we have a different eschatological understanding that someone else.
With that being said, let’s jump back into the examination of Historic Premillennialism.
Historical Background, cont.
In the previous post we noted that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were two of the first prominent men in the early church to adhere to premillennialism. We established a fairly clear case for the based on their writings. We also noted the potential linkage of Irenaeus to the Apostle John, which requires us to at minimum sit up and take notice.
While Martyr and Irenaeus were the most prominent and were the earliest church fathers to write about chiliasm (millennialism), they were not the earliest church fathers who we know to have ascribed to it. One of Polycarp’s contemporaries named Papius (70-155) was bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis. Historians tell us that the Apostle John discipled Papius, along with Polycarp and Ignatius. There are none of the full works of Papius that have survived, we only have fragments from him that are found in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. We do know that Papius embraced a premillennial view and in the International Bible Commentary Fredrick Bruce says that “he embellished his descriptions of it with features drawn from Jewish sources”.
Following in the linage of Polycarp and Irenaus was Hippolytus, bishop of Portus. He carried on the work of attacking heresey after the death of Irenaus. As extensively as Irenaeus and Martyr wrote on eschatology, Hippolytus’ work was even more extensive. Historic premillennialsts would quickly point out the fact that this is an unbroken linage starting with the Apostle John to Polycarp, to Irenaus, and then to Hippolytus. Other pre-Nicean premillennialists were Tertullian, Victornius, Lactantius, Melito, Theophilus and Commodianus. So it seems that is very clear that the pre-Nicene western fathers were for the most part premillennial.
To be fair to the early fathers, we should point out that the Alexandrian fathers rejected premillennialism. For example Origen (185-254) said that the literal interpretation of the chiliasts was “Jewish”. Clement of Alexandria also interpreted Revelation with a more mystical or spiritual understanding. Eusebius (270-340) and Tyconius (c.390) carried on the allegorical interpretation. Tyconius’ interpretation of Revelation seems to have played a large roll in convincing Augustine to shift from premillennialsim to amillennialism. This allegorical interpretation that Augustine published in the City of God, set the stage for not only the middle ages, but also the reformers view of eschatology.
For sake of time we will simply say that while it was consistently embraced by the early church fathers, premillennialism was virtually abandoned in the middle ages and by the reformers. During the middle ages premillennialism was sometimes considered heresy and during the reformation it was considered “fiction” by John Calvin.
Fastforward to the Puritans. While many puritans continued to embrace the allegorical view of the reformers Increase and Cotton Mather both believed in a literal millennium. In The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation Explained and Applied Increase Mather wrote:
“That which presseth me so, as that I cannot gainsay the Chiliastical opinion, is that I take these things for Principles, and no way doubt but that they are demonstrable. 1. That the thousand apocalyptical years are not passed but future. 2. That the coming of Christ to raise the dead and to judge the earth will be within much less than this thousand years. 3. That the conversion of the Jews will not be till this present state of the world is near unto its end. 4. That, after the Jews’ conversion there will be a glorious day for the elect upon earth, and that this day shall be a very long continuance.”
Many of the reformers understood Rome to the be the antichrist. So for approximately two centuries after the reformation, Protestants saw any type of futurism or literal interpretation of the millennium as the papcy’s self-defense against the attack of the reformers. This was because in the mid 1500’s Spanish Jesuits came up with two alternatives to the historicism of the reformers. One of these alternatives was a form on preterism and the other saw the antichrist as an actual future person and Babylon as a future state of Rome, not the one currently under the papacy.
In the 17th century a view of premillennialism was adopted by the Fifth Monarchy Men who attempted to establish a kingdom of God on earth, and then in the 19th Century by the Plymouth Brethren. The official entrance of premillennialism into Protestant churches was through Samuel R. Maitland during 1826-1830. Maitland was the Librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Edward Irving and J.N. Darby then embraced premillenialism, but took it in a direction where it hadn’t been before. Maitland introduced the secret rapture, and Darby incorporated it into his Dispensational theology. Scholars such as Stern and Bisping became to embrace premillennialism in the United States during this time while Isaac Williams was a premillennialist in England. In 1909 J. A. Seiss released Lectures on the Apocalypse which was one of the most influential presentations of the premillennial view in the 20th century. Charles Schofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer were strong proponents of Darby’s Dispensational premillennialsim moving through the 20th century.
The reaffirmation of Historic Premillennialism among evangelicals and reformed theologians in our present day is due in large part the influence of George Eldon Ladd. Ladd was a Baptist pastor and a professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. Reformed theologians appreciated his scholarship and felt that he had the “right appreciation of the redemptive-historical significance of the first coming of Christ and of the NT age”. Ladd was not dispensational but his understanding of the already/not yet aspect of the kingdom of God played a large role in the inception of progressive dispensationalism. Many of Ladd’s essays and articles on the millennium can be accessed here.
Currently there are many very prominent theologians on the scene who embrace Historic Premillennialism, including the likes of John Piper, Albert Mohler, D.A. Carson, and Mark Dever. The late James Montgomery Boice was also a Historic Premillennialist.
Historical Conclusion
The initial agreement among most of the pre-Nicean church fathers as well as the possible linage from the Apostle John to Papius and Polycarp, to Irenaeus, to Hippolytus cannot be ignored. While exegesis MUST be our primary means of developing our eschatological understanding, we should also at least consider the interpretation of the early church fathers when trying to understand some of these difficult passages.
I don’t believe that the abandonment of the premillennial position in the middle ages and by the reformers requires us to say that the interpretation was in any way invalid. It does however, help us see the magnitude of the influence that Augustine had on church history. As Alister McGrath observed “all medieval theology is ‘Augustinian’ to a greater or lesser extent”.
The slow and steady reaffirmation among the Puritans, Anglicans and now reformed evangelicals is evidence that Historic Premillennialism can holds it own as a legitimate exegetical option of eschatological interpretation.
[Coming Soon: Part 3 – The distinctives of Historical Premillennialism]
2 comments:
Thanks. 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?
Stancil-
I would suggest you shorten your posts and just add more parts to series. Some people won't read a daily blog if it is too long.
Hey, people say the same thing about my preaching but i guess i dont listen. :)
Good stuff here.
CK
Post a Comment