I don't know that I am going to try and recreate the wheel regarding the distinctives of historic premillenial eschatology. It seems that many other brothers far more educated than I have labored to create charts showing the disctinctives of the various eschatological systems. I will provide links to the best ones that I ran across below and then provide some clarifying comments.
Here is one from Fide-O's blog
Here is a nice overview created by Kim Riddlebarger
Here is probably the most detailed one from Reformed Reader
Here are some nice timeline charts created by Mark Vander Pol
One thing that you will notice as you look through the various charts and graphs is that there is disagreement among them regarding the question of rebuilding the temple in Israel. Because George Eldon Ladd is the undisputed forerunner in this century on Historic Premillenialism I decided to let him have the last say on the temple issue. In his book An Eschatology for Laymen Ladd writes:
Before we leave the millennial question, we should note another form premillennialism has taken, that of Dispensationalism. This is probably the most popular form of premillennialism in America. It holds that the millennium is primarily for the Jews. Israel will be restored to her land, will rebuild the temple, and will reinstitute the Old Testament sacrificial system. At this time all of the Old Testament prophecies about Israel as a nation will be fulfilled literally. This is deduced from the conviction that God has two distinct and separate peoples:Israel and the Church, with two different programs and different blessings. God's program for Israel is theocratic and earthly; God's purpose for the church is universal and spiritual.
Although he was brought up in this theology, the present author can no longer accept it. The reader is referred to chapter two of this book where the future of Israel is discussed. Hebrews 8 says clearly that the age of types and shadows -- the Old Testament cultic system -- has been abolished since the reality pictured in the cult has come in Christ. Romans 11 says clearly that Israel as a people are to be saved, but in the same terms of faith in Christ as the church. Today the church is spiritual Israel, and literal Israel is yet to be regrafted back into the olive tree and be included in the true Israel of God. Therefore, it is impossible to view the millennium as primarily Jewish in character.
After the millennium when the Age to Come has been inaugurated, John sees a new heaven and a new earth, unto which the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descends. Here is an important fact: the ultimate scene of the Kingdom of God is earthly. It is a transformed earth to be sure, but it is still an earthly destiny. Scripture everywhere teaches this. Paul says that "the creation itself will be set free from bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom. 8:21) . Corresponding to the new creation is the resurrection of the body, discussed in another chapter of this book.
I also thought that this link from Spurgeon.com was interested regarding where they thought he came down on the eschatological issues.
This has been a great discussion and I hope that the sharpening can continue.
Showing posts with label eschatology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eschatology. Show all posts
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
An Overview of Historical Premillennial Eschatology - Part 2
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]
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Dr. Mohler Weighs In...Twice
Dr. Mohler addressed two aspects of our discussion on his radio program Wednesday. Initially he addressed a question regarding replacement theology, which came up in the comments on Wednesday. It seems that Dr. Mohler doesn't hold to a sharp distinction between Israel and the church, but does see some future for national Israel. I think that John Piper would share a similar view. Piper and Mohler would both fall under the system that we are discussing, i.e. Historic Premillennialsim. Start listening at 11:15 - 16:11 to hear Dr. Mohler address this issue.
The second issue he addressed was regarding interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. This also came up in the comments Wednesday and I actually called in to get Dr. Mohler's opinion on this. Start listening at 30:22-33:50 to hear him weigh in on the interpretive issue.
Both of these issues wind up playing a key role in how we determine our eschatology. While just like Martyr and Irenaeus, Mohler isn't inerrant or authoritative, it is still nice to hear his view on the issues we are discussing. There are few, if any, in the church today who can match his intellect and I think I can say with confidence there is no one who is more well read. I am glad that he is on our team (or as CJ Mahaney said, I'm glad we are on his team).
I hope to post part 2 on the history of the Historic Premillennial position sometime tomorrow.
The second issue he addressed was regarding interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. This also came up in the comments Wednesday and I actually called in to get Dr. Mohler's opinion on this. Start listening at 30:22-33:50 to hear him weigh in on the interpretive issue.
Both of these issues wind up playing a key role in how we determine our eschatology. While just like Martyr and Irenaeus, Mohler isn't inerrant or authoritative, it is still nice to hear his view on the issues we are discussing. There are few, if any, in the church today who can match his intellect and I think I can say with confidence there is no one who is more well read. I am glad that he is on our team (or as CJ Mahaney said, I'm glad we are on his team).
I hope to post part 2 on the history of the Historic Premillennial position sometime tomorrow.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)