So today I did a neat little survey of the patristic takes on eschatology, and I hope y'all might find it kinda interesting.
To start with, I want to give a quick intro to the topics at hand before I get into the weeds, in case any of y'all are confused. So there are three verses of Revelation at the heart of this controversy:
'Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years. ' Revelation 20:4-6
In this passage, the apostle John sees a scene of resurrection where the saints are brought back to life and Christ reigns in an earthly kingdom for 1000 years before a great tribulation and before the devil is loosed for a short time but then ultimately conquered as earth and heaven are destroyed and recreated. The four main views are as follows: historic premillennialism, dispensational premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism (my view). Here is a brief definition of each view:
Historic Premillennialism: The view that Christ will return to reign in a literal 1000-year temporal kingdom. A very early view within the church, though often under the name "Chiliasm."
Dispensational Premillennialism: Similar to the historic branch but including the belief in a rapture, by which the Lord will take all Christians out of the world. Doesn't show up until the 1830s.
Postmillennialism: The belief that Christ will not return until after a 1000 year holy Christian kingdom full of perfect morals. Also relatively late, not showing up until the 1650s.
Amillennialism: The belief that the millennium mentioned is one of a spiritual or symbolic nature, not a historical one. That is to say, Christ's reign is going on right now, having started with either His crucifixion or ascension.
With that said, it's time to engage in the patristic prooftexts for those that actually have them (premillennialism and postmillennialism). To put all cards on, I do wanna say that I am personally amillennial (and I am confessionally bound to be so, see AC XVII), but after this exercise I do have a lot more respect for the premillenial position and I think they have every right to call themselves "historic." However, here I am simply trying to argue that amillennialism, too is historically well-attested. Now, I'd like to show you the texts that convinced me of that.
One of the most commonly cited fathers on this question is Irenaeus, but to be honest, I haven't actually been able to find any quotations where he says such. Instead, I think the earliest written arguement I've seen is in chapter 15 of the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas. In it, the author argues that the world has to exist for 6000 years total, and since some count the earth to be created around 4000 BC, that would put us just about at the end, save a decade or two, before Christ's return. This is meant to mirror the 6 days of creation, since the Psalm says that a day to the Lord is like a thousand years, and then Christ's thousand-year reign is the Sabbath day, on when all creation rests. After this last "day," Christ recreates the world to portray the idea of an "eighth day," a common motif about Easter Sunday, which is a new sacred day for the Church not part of the seven-day week. A similar view was held by Hippolytus of Rome in his Commentary on Daniel 2.4, except that he holds to an alternative creation date of 5500 BC, meaning Christ's return should have happened ~500AD. He also derives his view of the 6 millennium earth from Revelation 17's seven kings, of which John says 'five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come' (though conveniently leaving out the portion that says the seventh king, Christ in Hippolytus's view, only remains for a short time). However, this latter view obviously cannot be the case, as Christ didn't really return in 500 AD like he would have to have. While I do love the typological interpretations, I do think they go a bit overboard and fail to understand the symbolic nature of the passage in question. Two other fathers with the same view are Lactantius (Divine Institutes 7.26) and Commodianus (On Christian Discipline 44).
However, with that said, I want to take a quick excursus to mention the two favorite historical scapegoats of theology: Origen and Augustine. In many articles I read from premils, they said that the view developed from Origen's over-allegorization and denial of the resurrection of the body or Augustine's denial of it for its forcus on carnal pleasures of immoderate feasting and sexuality. I find the former accusation rather ironic, as the same group who (rightfully) accuses Origen of being overly allegorical nearly always takes things that historically almost everyone read literally (baptismal regeneration, Christ's bodily presence in the eucharist) as pure metaphors without symbolic or sacramental significance. What's more, this accusation is also simply baseless, as a denial of the resurrection of the body would indeed entail no millennial kingdom, but this was also universally rejected by the true Church as neoplatonic philosophy having crept into his thought. On the Augustine point, I think the accusation is more fair. It is true that much of our exegetical interpretations do spring from Augustine (like the ridiculous Sethite hypothesis of Genesis 6) because he was simply an influential father. However, the most that can be said is that he popularized it, as it was clearly present in the ante-Nicene church.
First for the wobbly cases for it. One of the clearest places we see premillenialism in the early church is in the figure of Papias, a very early father with ties to John but with no remaining extant works save some fragments and quotations. One important to this question is a summary of his view from Eusebius:
“To these belong his [Papias’s] statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.” (Church History 3.39.12)
I saw this quotation used in many cases to support the premil position, and this is very fair. It is indeed a testimony of a very early and well-respected Church father who clearly believed in their view of Revelation. However, many gloss over the second part of the text, where Eusebius bluntly says that Papias misunderstood it and it's clearly mystical. While Papias has some good claims in the early Church, Eusebius's is at least as good as his. He, too, is ante-Nicene (and that means pre-Augustine too) and while he doesn't list his apostolic succession credentials, he clearly has access to a large number of sources that historians of the early church could only dream of (the entire works of Papias, for one thing). Thus his own personal testimony should not at all be discouraged.
The next of the more middle-of-the-road quotations is from Justin Martyr, and it may be the most important one here:
“I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, 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. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish…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." (Dialogue with Trypho 80)
In this passage, Justin clearly espouses the premil point of view, and he even makes a further typological argument from Genesis on the topic if you keep reading into the next section. However, he gives an important testimony at the beginning, where he clearly says that his view is not the only one, even from the earliest days, and that others don't actually believe there will be a literal 1000 year temporal reign. What's more, he says that those that disagree "belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians," as well as those who disagree for heretical reasons (like Origen). This could not be more significant to the current eschatological debate. In many cases, we see people openly anathematizing others over their interpretation of the millennium, but what we ought to keep in mind is that this wasn't exactly a crucial point for the early Christians. On the contrary, it was largely a secondary matter and the manner of Christ's return was not a crucial matter, apart from incarnations concerns.
Now enough beating around the bush, time for my two strong positive quotations from ante-Nicene fathers. The first is from a preacher named Caius, who was relatively well-known, though much of his writings are lost. However, in his second fragment we have remaining, we see these words:
“But Cerinthus, too, through revelations written, as he would have us believe, by a great apostle, brings before us marvellous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels; alleging that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the Scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be a space of a thousand years for marriage festivals.”
An interesting point about this passage is that Cerinthus, if you don't know him, was an Ebonite (a Judaizing Gnostic sect), which may be why many attribute this story to Jewish myths. When I read this before, I thought that Caius was repudiating the book of Revelation as a whole, which would be quite a statement, but I think he is rather condemning the visions of Cerinthus himself as a false prophet, who took the book of Revelation and twisted it into a more sensual tale, similar to the Islamic view of heaven. As a side note, I found this quotation here, which led to this book, which said that Caius actually changed Hippolytus's mind, but I was unable to find that anywhere, so if anyone knows a place where Hippolytus actually did so, I'll add it because I think it'd be valuable to the discussion.
The second one in favor of amil, which I would argue is probably the strongest one, is from Victorinus's commentary on Revelation, where he writes on 20:
“Those years wherein Satan is bound are in the first advent of Christ, even to the end of the age; and they are called a thousand, according to that mode of speaking, wherein a part is signified by the whole, just as is that passage, the word which He commanded for a thousand generations, although they are not a thousand…I do not think the reign of a thousand years is eternal; or if it is thus to be thought of, they cease to reign when the thousand years are finished. But I will put forward what my capacity enables me to judge. The tenfold number signifies the decalogue, and the hundredfold sets forth the crown of virginity: for he who shall have kept the undertaking of virginity completely, and shall have faithfully fulfilled the precepts of the decalogue, and shall have destroyed the untrained nature or impure thoughts within the retirement of the heart, that they may not rule over him, this is the true priest of Christ, and accomplishing the millenary number thoroughly, is thought to reign with Christ; and truly in his case the devil is bound. But he who is entangled in the vices and the dogmas of heretics, in his case the devil is loosed. But that it says that when the thousand years are finished he is loosed, so the number of the perfect saints being completed, in whom there is the glory of virginity in body and mind, by the approaching advent of the kingdom of the hateful one, many, seduced by that love of earthly things, shall be overthrown, and together with him shall enter the lake of fire.”
Pardon the long quote, but it really capture his view that the millennium and the tribulation are really symbols for the human life. When one submits to the Lord's will and embraces virtue, they rule with Christ and, with the knowledge of good an evil given in good order, are able to make such judgements rightfully as well. When one submits to the slavery to sin, on the other hand, the devil is let loose in and through their members before they experience the torments of hell in the conscience. This view, I think, matches much more clearly the biblical witness as a whole.
With all that said, I actually do think that the typological interpretations of Pseudo-Barnabas and Hippolytus are valuable and I want to salvage them for their beauty, so I propose a synthesis of the premillennial typology with an amillennial theology. Now, Hippolytus's view of Christ's return is evidently false since Christ would be ~1500 years too late. However, if we take the 6000 number, then Pseudo-Barnabas's still has yet to be proven false, though I'm skeptical, since we are told (and the fathers generally agree with the interpretation, for what it's worth) that no man knows the day nor hour of His return. However, the typological understanding still can remain. As Hippolytus tells us, the world has lived through many kings and many ages, and now we are living in the tribulation for a short time within the kingdom of darkness under the prince of this world, the sixth king, though we know that even he answers to Christ our Lord. However, this seventh king, that is, this holy king, the one from whom every king has his authority, will one day return to bring about His own kingdom. And what's more, this involves a wonderful mystery where the seventh day, His age, is also changed. Just as the Sabbath day was changed from Saturday to Sunday in the Church's age, so too does teh seventh day of Christ's reign become the eighth day of creation's resurrection, all in a moment. The seventh day, which is a day of finality, completion, and rest, becomes the eighth day, which is eternity itself and infinite possibility. Come, dearest Jesus, and bring your eighth day to us, that is may be the reality for our eyes, and, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, may we always keep our feet cloven, as the Epistle of Barnabas tells us, with one foot in this world and one in the world to come. Amen.
Edit: I would like to note, in a previous version of this post, I attributed a quote from the Epistle of Barnabas to St. Irenaeus, and I'm not sure where I got that incorrect citation from, since I only put my quotes in a google doc, no links. Either way, in further research, I haven't actually seen any strong quotes from Irenaeus regarding the millennium as such and have since edited those portions to refer to Pseudo-Barnabas.
Comments