Covenant Eschatology INC - Religion - http://www.maxpagesplus.com/eschatology

( This is a study on Premillenialism I did when still a partial preterist. Thus, there are a few things I would disagree with now, but it is felt the study is still effective in refuting Premillennialiam. Please realize that some of the articles on this page are continued on the next page listed on the left of the page.)

History of Premillenialism

It is of importance to know the history of something before you study it. After all, history shows us the the mistakes of the past so that we know not to repeat them. This I believe is true in the case of premillenialism. Great leaders in the past taught this doctrine, but we must not let our faith " stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God, " ( 1 Cor. 2:5 ). Just because some wise men in the past taught a doctrine, should not lead you to believe that it is true. In fact as we will see as this study progresses, that their wisdom was obviously false. So before you proceed further, remove the thought from your mind that since someone who's scholarship you respect teaches millenialism, that you should support it to because you should " speak as the oracles of God, " ( 1 Peter 4:11 ) not as the oracles of men.

I am not going to cover the modern history of premillenialism, because it is insignificant to this study. My purpose is to refute the teaching of millenialists that their doctrine is the historically proven, truthful doctrine that they say it is. They teach that up until the third century, starting with Origen, no one contested the truth of premillenialism as a biblical doctrine. This is of course an eroneous position when studied in the light of the testimony of historians, the context in which their supposed " proof - quotes " are taken, and the testimony of early christian writings. We shall take all three of these lines of argument in order.

The Testimony of Historians and Scholars

The first traces of premillenialism found their inspiration in Jewish pseudo - apocalyptic literature in the period of 200 B.C. - 100 A.D. . William H. Rutgers said in his thesis, " that chiliasm ( premillenialism ) roots in this particularistic Judiaistic Apocalyptic mold cannot be gainsayed. " ( Premillenialism in America, pg. 47 )
Another source says, " Among the Jew's the representation was growing that the messiah would reign 1000 years upon the earth. Such products of Jewish imagination passed over into Christianity. " ( Neanders History of Christian Dogmas, Vol. I, pg. 248 )
It is clear even from the Bible that the Jews wanted Jesus to reign upon a literal throne on earth ( John 6:15 ). So we see that the earliest form of the millenial doctrine has it's roots in Judaism. This in no way refutes the millenialist claims, but shows that the doctrine does not have it's history in canonical Jewish writings, but the spurious pseudo - apocryphal writings.
It is obvious that this millenial doctrine influenced to some extent those in early Christianity, but that millenialism was all controlling in the church at large in the first and second centuries is totally unwarrented by the evidence. This historical argument used by modern millenialists is extremly weak when examined in the light of the early Christian writings, according to Rutgers:

" Amazingly meager indeed, are the direct and explicit statments which can by any show of reasonablness be claimed as evidence for Chiliasm. To imagine that we can distil from these rare fragments the orthodox faith of the early church is a huge assumption, and evn more perpostrous is it to claim that these barren, feeble utterances represent Chiliasm in its modern premillenial manifestation. " ( Ibid. pgs. 52 - 53 )
" Chiliasm found no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers... the supportfrom the Apologists too, is extreamly meager, only one from among their number can with reasonable fairness be claimed, ( Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. v. 25 - 36 ). " ( Ibid, pg. 57 )

So it is obvious from the studies of Rutger that the claimed " historical doctrine " of premillenialism, found little or no favor in the early church. And what little is claimed in no way resembles modern premillenialism. Rutger is not the only historian to make this obsevation, Waddington said:

" This obscure doctrine was probabally known to but very few except the fathers of the church, and is very sparingly mentioned by them during the first centuries; and there is reason to believe that it scarcely attained much notoriety, even among the learned Christians, until it was made a matter of controversy by Origen, and then rejected by the greater majority. In fact, we find Origen himself saying that it was confined to those of the simpler sort. " ( Waddington's History, pg. 56 )

So the testimonies of historians tell us that the " historical premillenialist " argument has no support. The millenialist doctrine was not championed by those of orthodox faith in the first two centuries, it was however a doctrine held by heretical sects, hear Phillip Schaff:

" Though millenialism was supressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects. " ( Schaff's History, pg. 299 )

We now see that the " historical proof " of modern premillenialists is considered popycock by the best historians. Still we need more said on this subject, before it can be burried and forgotten, so next we will examine some of their " proof quotes ".

Examining Their " Proof Quotes "

In the August - September 1945 issue of Truth Advance, a premillenial paper from Loisville Kentucky, the editor, Stanford Chambers gives his attention to quoting from the " Apostolic Fathers " to support the doctrine of premillenialism. Before examining the quotes themselves, we must first decide which are worth our wile in examining. To do this we must decide on who should be included in the category of " Aposolic Fathers "
It should be noted that there is not complete agreement among scholars as to who should be noted in this category. The term Aposolic Fathers is confined to those who are known, or may reasonably be presumed, to have associated with, or were taught directly by an apostle, Lightfoot says:

" In it's widest range, it will include Barnabas, Hermes, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and the writer of the epistle to Diognetus. Some of these fail to satisfy the conditions wich alone entitles a place among the works of the apostolic fathers... three names remain, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, about which there is no reasonable ground for hesitation. " ( Dictionary Of Christian Biography and Literature, article on Apostolic Fathers )

Lightfoot is the standard of authority on the Apostolic Fathers and we see that Chambers only quotes from one of the tree Lightfoot says are Apostolic Fathers. This is the one that we will examine.
I think that it should first be pointed out that just because a person associated with or lived at the same time as an apostle, does not make him pure in life or sound in faith. Hymeneus and Alexander made shipwreck of the faith ( 1 Tim. 1:19,20 ), and Philetus erred concerning the truth ( 2 Tim. 2:17,18 ). These men were contemporaries of Paul, and they ewre not sound of faith. We should accept the Bible as our authority, not men, but since the premillenialists insist on using the historical argument, I stand to answer it. I myself have used the historical argument several times on different subjects, but as a commentary, not to found a doctrine on which is what they are doing since the Encyclopedia Britanica says:

" Nowhere in the discourses of Jesus is there a hint of a limited duration of the Messianic Kingdom. The apostolic epistles are equally free from any trace of Chiliasm. " ( article on Millenium )

And that statement is in full agreement with the Bible, and I intend to show that statment true as this study goes on, but for now, let's look at the quotes given by premillenialists to support their cause.
Clement of Rome - Chambers quotes from the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle of Clement. The part of the quotation that seems to tech premillinialism is the phrase " at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. " It should be pointed out that the word translated " revelation " is the word episkopee which Thayer defines as " inspection, investigation, visitation, oversight, office. " It is obvious that Clement was referring to the judgement when not only the subjects of the kingdom, but all men will pass under the inspection of the Lord and be judged. There is nothing premillenial about this quote. Clement is teaching the truth of the judgement, not the fallacy of premillenialism, as Chambers would have you to believe.
Let's suppose that Clement was teaching the doctrine of millenialism, should we conclude that since he taught it, we should believe it? Clement taught some ridiculos doctrines, take for example his teaching of the Egyptian fable of the pheonix concerning the ressurection in chapter 25 of his epistle. Read it for yourself, his teaching of spontaneous generation, and see how ridiculos he can be accepting a fable and a scientific fallacy as truth. Will the premillenialist support Clement here? This shows that we should accept only the word of God as truth. Furthermore professor C.A. Bridges said in his article The Origin and History of Premillenialism in the Luthern Quarterly in 1879:

" This is the sum of the escatology of Clement, and not a word of a millenial kingdom. "

So we see that the historians also reject the thought of Clement teaching permillenialism.
Chambers then goes on to quote from the second epistle of Clement which is rejected by scholars as being written by Clement, nonetheless, let's see if it helps his cause,

" Let us expect, therefore, hour by hour the kingdom of God in love and righteousness. "

Chambers does not expound how the author of this epistle tells us to wait for the kingdom of God. The last two verses tell us how,

" For faithful is he that promised to pay each man the recompense of his works. If therefore we shall have wrought righteusness in the sight of God, we shall enter into his kingdom and shall recieve the promises which ear hath not heard, nor eye seen, neither hath it entered into the heart of man. "

Why don't the premillenialists quote these sentances? Because they don't support their case. Peter promised the faithful they would be, " richly supplied... entrance into the eternal kingdom of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, " ( 2 Pet. 1:11 ). It is in this eternal kingdom in heaven, that the righteous will recieve " the recompense of his works. " In this sense we can wait on the kingdom of God.
So we see that neither case supports the cause of premillenialism. I see no reason to go further, this section was provided to show how premillenialists distort history to support their doctrine, just as they do with the Bible as we will see later. Now let us explore the true history of the premillenialist doctrine in early Christianity, as told by the early Christians themselves.

Tesimony of the Early Christians

The teachings of premillenialism can be traced backto the time of the apostles, to a man named Cerinthus. Cerinthus was considered a heretic because of his millenial teaching. Hear the account of Caius in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, chapter 28:

" But Cerinthus, by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great apostle, also falsely pretended to wonderful things, as if it were shown to him by angels, asserting that after the ressurection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that the flesh - that is, men inhabbiting Jerusalem - would be subject to desires and pleasures. "

Caius also said of Cerinthus:

" Being an enemy of scriptures, with a view to decieve men, he said that there would be a space of 1000 years for celebrating nuptuial festivities... one of the doctrines that he taught was that Christ would have an earthly kingdom. "

This my friends is the origin of premillenialism in christianity. It was a heresy. The father of the doctrine was called an " enemy of the scriptures. " His doctrine was to a " view to decieve men . " Do you believe a heresy?
Cerinthus lived in the days of the apostle John. We will now see what John said about this millenial teacher. Iraneus, who was born about 120 A.D. and who was the student of Polycarp, the disciple of John, said that while John was in Ephesus he entered a bath to wash; but when he found that Cerinthus was therin, he refused to bathe there, left the building, and exhorted those with him to do the same saying:

" Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within. " ( Ibid, book 5, chapter 24, and book 3, chapter 28 )

Premillenialists claim that their doctrine is founded in Revelation 20, but the author of the book himself, called the father of premillenialism, " that enemy of the truth. " Seems strange to me. The doctrine was rejected by John, the man who wrote Revelation 20 by inspiration.
So we see just the opposite of what the millenialists would have us to believe. They say that the early church held their doctrine as truth. They say that John teaches premillenialism. John says that they are enemies of the truth. Premillenialism is not a historical doctrine of early Christianity, it is an early heresy, founded in Jewish materialism. I ask you again, will you believe a heresy?

Bricas1715@aol.com

Visitors: 20630

Page Updated Tue Apr 6, 1999 6:45pm EDT