The Shift from Jewish Chiliasm to Christian Chiliasm

This is the html version of the file http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/Biblical_Studies/Historical%20Theology/JewishChiliasm.doc.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:fix7azYLdPIJ:faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/Biblical_Studies/Historical%2520Theology/JewishChiliasm.doc+Alexandrian+school+of+christology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=103

G

Dr. Mike Stallard Baptist Bible Seminary


The Shift from Jewish Chiliasm to Christian Chiliasm

In the Early Church

From the dispensational perspective, the view has often been advanced that in the early centuries of the Church the predominant view in eschatology was chiliasm which eventually gave way to amillennialism. This change in doctrinal perspective came about largely through the allegorical method taught by the Alexandrian School and its most famous adherents, Clement and Origen. While the seeds for this change began to be sown in the second century, the third century marks a turning point with the work of Origen. By the time Augustine dies in 430, amillennialism dominates the eschatological landscape.

Walvoord’s outline is typical. He argues that it is “clear that the rising tide of amillennnialism comes almost entirely from the Alexandrian school—in particular, from Clement, Origen, and Dionysius, all of this locality.”1 In addition, Walvoord points out that Barnabas is the only writing in the first two centuries that can be debated relative to eschatological position.2 All others are clearly chiliastic while in Barnabas things are at best uncertain. Furthermore, according to Walvoord, “Augustine is…the first theologian of solid influence who adopted amillennialism.”3

Ryrie also follows the same form of historical analysis although he is more dogmatic about the chiliasm of Barnabas.4 After a survey showing that early Christian writers were overwhelmingly chiliastic, Ryrie argues that there were three factors that led to the decline of chiliasm and the rise of amillennialism: (1) the change in focus to present experience rather than future hope that came about through Constantine’s ending of the persecution of Christianity, (2) the rise of allegorical interpretation found in the Alexandrian School, and (3) the work of Augustine who advanced the amillennial interpretation.5

While the general outline cited here is little disputed among dispensationalists, it is also a known fact that the earliest post-canonical Christian writings usually demonstrate a form of chiliasm that is distinctly not dispensational.6 A Jewish chiliasm in which can be found hope for the ultimate restoration of national Israel, a rebuilt temple edifice, and the holy city Jerusalem is rejected in favor of a distinctively Christian chiliasm in which none of those elements play any significant role. In this light, added precision is necessary to demonstrate the actual history of shifting eschatological positions. Rather than going from chiliasm to amillennialism in Christian interpretation, the progression is more complicated – from Jewish chiliasm to Christian chiliasm to amillennialism. The goal in this article is to give a brief overview of this transition.

Traces of Jewish Chiliasm in the Early Church

Even though the historical evidence shows the predominance of a distinctively Christian chiliasm, there are some lines of evidence that force at least a consideration that a Jewish form of chiliasm continued among Christian interpreters in the early centuries. Several areas will be examined: possible chiliasm in the Jewish-Christian Gospels, statements by Origen, the schism involving the premillennial Nepos which is recorded by Eusebius, and Pseudo-Ephraem.

Possible Chiliasm in the Jewish-Christian Gospels

One of the first places to look for any potential Jewish elements in early Christian understandings of chiliasm would be Jewish Christian communities that would be strongly influenced by Jewish apocalyptic fervor. While the discussion of what details constitute Jewish apocalyptic thinking is not entirely settled, it does seem certain that at the least the tradition presents a coming earthly kingdom brought in by the arrival of Messiah.7 This is easy to understand in the light of prophetic texts like Daniel, especially chapters 7-12

Nonetheless, a cursory glance at the so-called Jewish-Christian Gospels, where one might expect such teaching, does not yield any definite tendencies in the direction of Jewish chiliasm. A national restoration of Israel, a rebuilding of the temple, and the centrality of Jerusalem do not appear. For example, evidence for the Gospel of the Nazaraeans, dated in the early second century, is found in Hegesippus (180), Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome.8 The writing bears strong resemblance to Matthew and many references to it are discussions of variants from the generally accepted Matthean text.9 However, the fragmentary evidence, usually dated much later than the actual writing, only speaks of Israel and Jerusalem in the context of the historical record of the Gospels and not to any eschatological destiny.

More eschatological teaching can be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, a work of probable Egyptian origin dated in the early second century.10 The work generally emphasizes the resurrection of Jesus and the primacy of his brother James.11 Two important eschatological notations are found in Clement. The Alexandrian father notes: “As it stands written in the Gospel of the Hebrews: He that marvels shall reign, and he that has reigned shall rest.”12 In a later reference, Clement most likely references this gospel account when he says “He that seeks will not rest until he finds; and he that has found shall marvel; and he that has marveled shall reign; and he that has reigned shall rest.”13 Such citations are not enough to establish any elements of Jewish chiliasm in spite of the fact that the work shows a tendency to emphasize Jewish Christianity. However, it also shows strains of Gnostic syncretism which would make it unlikely that any concrete, literal, and earthly forms of a coming kingdom with a restored Israel would surface.14

Some researchers have argued that the Ebionites, most known for their inferior Christology by orthodox standards, held to a millenarian view of history. If so, their beliefs might reflect the centrality of national Israel in end-time affairs. Such a notion is dismissed due to lack of details by some scholars.15 That there existed a Gospel of the Ebionites, a counter version to Matthew perhaps much like the Gospel of the Hebrews, is assured by references to it in Irenaeus. Similar to the other early Jewish-Christian Gospels, this places it in the early second century.16 The actual references to the text come from excerpts copied by Epiphanius, who reportedly studied a manuscript somewhere east of the Jordan valley.17 These notations contain no references of eschatological import. The only theologically significant elements deal with the nature of Jesus as Son of God.

This bent toward Christology in understanding the Ebionites can be found in the Church Fathers, where the only clear assertions about the Ebionites center on their deficient Christology without reference to any chiliastic beliefs. The idea that they were chiliasts is based upon later statements by Jerome criticizing them for agreeing with the Jews about a coming earthly kingdom.18 One must decide if Jerome’s later declarations are to be trusted. Eusebius had earlier rejected the Ebionite heresy without connecting it to any carnal views of a coming earthly kingdom.19 Historians are at a loss since the statements are cursory and all we have are the conversations of the Church Fathers about the Ebionites. In the end, there is not enough data to affirm the Ebionites as an example of Jewish chiliasm in the early Church.

In summary, it must be said that the so-called Jewish-Christian Gospels do not yield enough information in the texts themselves to indicate any details about possible chiliasm. Other references to them in the Church Fathers show, in the case of the Ebionites especially, that there was a general understanding by others that they were chiliasts. However, the precise form of any chiliasm is unknown. This may be somewhat disappointing coming from Jewish sources. However, it may not be surprising in light of the possible inroads of Gnosticism and the deficient Christology which may have engendered cross purposes with any concrete views of a coming, earthly kingdom.

Statements by Origen

Origen (d. 254) was perhaps the top scholar in Christendom in his own day.20 As part of the Alexandrian School he imbibed deeply of a wide range of influences including the revival of Greek philosophy from the previous century. While Origen often made use of the plain or historical sense of a passage, when it came to prophecy, he was hesitant to see ultimate meaning in either the Old or New Testaments from the vantage point of a Jewish perspective.21 Origen made this clear when he commented on chiliasts, which he considered Christian but wrong-headed concerning prophetic passages. He begins a lengthy passage by criticizing their superficial thinking:

Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of [the] opinion that the fulfillment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body.22

Notice that Origen views the pursuit of the “letter of the law” in Bible study as shallow intellectually. To be sure, many premillennialists of today would agree with that assessment if given as a general statement. However, notice the content of this wrong-headed pursuit according to Origen. It is the following of such literalism for the purpose of fulfilling lusts and desires as they are expressed in the chiliast understanding of the coming earthly kingdom. Apparently, Origen viewed a carnal understanding of the future as the major culprit that led chiliasts to practice an unnecessary literalism in prophecy (rather than the text leading to the chiliast stance). Part of Origen’s justification for rejecting a literal approach is Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 15 that there is discontinuity between the dead body and the resurrected body which is called a “spiritual” body.

Origen adds in the next section his rejection of the chiliast belief that marriage and childbearing will take place after the resurrection,23 that an earthly Jerusalem is to be rebuilt in literal detail (based on Rev. 21), and that Christians will be ministered to by others from various countries (“they will have control over all their riches”).24 He believes that chiliasts misuse the Bible in several ways in forming their arguments for their literalist positions including the following:

1. “And these views they think to establish on the authority of the prophets by those promises which are written regarding Jerusalem” – a reference to use of the Old Testament;



2. “And by those passages also where it is said, that they who serve the Lord shall eat and drink, but that sinners shall hunger and thirst; that the righteous shall be joyful, but that sorrow shall possess the wicked;”



3. “And from the New Testament also they quote the saying of the Saviour, in which He makes a promise to His disciples concerning the joy of wine, saying, 'Henceforth I shall not drink of this cup, until I drink it with you new in My Father's kingdom'” – a reference to the use of the New Testament;



4. “And from the New Testament also they quote the saying of the Saviour, in which He makes a promise to His disciples concerning the joy of wine, saying, 'Henceforth I shall not drink of this cup, until I drink it with you new in My Father's kingdom'” – a reference to the use of the New Testament.



The first two points above are primarily based upon Old Testament texts while the latter two clearly refer to arguments from the New Testament. So Origen is not merely dealing with a debate about the nature of the Old Testament promises for Israel.

In addition, Origen goes on to say that chiliasts are unaware of how many scriptural illustrations “are to be taken figuratively” and they make the error of looking for the future kingdom to be like the present time, with earthly rank and order.25 On this score he singles out Jesus’ parable in the Gospel of Luke which affirms rewards for Christians in the coming kingdom when it says “Have thou power over five cities.”26 In his estimation, this passage has been abused by the chiliasts through their literal rendering.

What is especially intriguing is the summation statement of this lengthy section in Origen. He refers to the literal renderings of the chiliasts with the words, “Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises” (italics added).27 Coming from the idealistic and platonic approach of the Alexandrian School, Origen here equates a grammatical-historical sense used by chiliasts in prophecy as a Jewish sense in interpretation. His rejection of this chiliastic approach illustrates a loss of the Jewish perspective of the Bible as Origen’s own allegorical approach was gaining supremacy at that time in history.

However, the question must be asked how such an understanding on Origen’s part helps in understanding elements of Jewish chiliasm in the early Church. In response, one must state that the possibility is raised by Origen’s use of the descriptor Jewish sense that genuine Jewish chiliasm as opposed to Christian chiliasm was being taught by Christians in the third century. While many of the interpretations Origen criticizes would be part of any chiliastic scheme, the reference to the literal city of Jerusalem and its use by chiliastic interpreters shows that Jewish elements have not disappeared in eschatological discourse. While it is possible that Origen was merely reflecting about undue Jewish influence upon Christians who held a non-Jewish chiliasm, it is better to understand his words as evidence of the remains of a Jewish chiliasm. This is especially true in light of the fact that Origen “opposed chiliasm as a Jewish dream.”28

Nepos and the Controversy over Allegorical Interpretation

Nepos, a bishop of Arsinoe in the area of Alexandria, Egypt, was in his day highly respected. In the year after the death of Origen, he wrote a book entitled Refutation of the Allegorists (255) in which he argues strongly against the allegorical school of thought propagated in Alexandrian circles. Froom considers the opposition movement led by Nepos as a revival of chiliasm in the heart of the allegorical stronghold.29 The personal respect which Nepos possessed and the apparent success which he had in influencing many churches in Egypt forced Dionysius (c. 190-265), the bishop of Alexandria, to visit the chiliastic churches to heal the division. Later Jerome refers to Nepos as a heretic in a list including the Nicolaitans, Montanists, Noetus of Smyrna, and Novatus.30

Apparently the debate between Nepos and the allegorists was largely waged in the text of the book of Revelation and its teaching about a thousand-year reign of Christ upon the earth following the Second Coming.31 Interestingly, Eusebius describes Nepos as one that taught that “the promises given to holy men in the Scriptures should be understood more as the Jews understand them and supposed that there would be a certain millennium of sensual luxury on this earth.”32 In these words, there is an echo of Origen’s earlier statement. The charge of a sensual, earthly luxury attached to the millennium may be misunderstood or exaggerated by the allegorists, who would naturally view any earthly kingdom ideas this way in light of their own idealistic, non-earthly views of true spirituality and the presence of God’s kingdom. In other words, any focus on an earthly kingdom in the future could easily be construed by them as sensual.

However, in this undertaking it would not be necessary to posit that Nepos was advancing a Jewish form of chiliasm. Eusebius and his record of Dionysius’s response show no mention of Jewish elements such as a national restoration for Israel, a rebuilt temple, or the city of Jerusalem. While this is an argument from silence, it is all there is to go on in the historical records. The only hint comes when Eusebius uses the expression “as the Jews understand them.” The chiliasm of Nepos is described as maintaining a kind of Jewish interpretation in its literalism relative to the divine coming kingdom. This may mean that Jewish elements were presented as part of the alleged, carnal, and coming earthly kingdom.

The Eschatological Details in Pseudo-Ephraem

The sermon entitled “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World” by Pseudo-Ephraem has engendered a good deal of controversy ever since dispensationalists put it forward a decade ago as an example of a two-phase Second Coming in the early Middle Ages.33 The date of the work is placed somewhere between A.D. 374 and 627 perhaps because of the internal evidence regarding the wars between the Romans and the Persians which are mentioned throughout.

The controversy this piece of literature has engendered about the rapture debate is not of interest for the present issue. What is useful in the investigation of traces of Jewish chiliasm is the amount of detailed eschatological discussion found in the sermon. To be sure there is some negativity in Pseudo-Ephraem’s assertion that the Jews in the last days will oppose Rome and its empire.34 Furthermore, there is no detail about the nature of any national restoration of Israel after Jesus comes, although to be fair the sermon ends on the note of the Second Coming of Christ to earth with no further elaboration.35

However, there is a great quantity of detail concerning the tribulation period which precedes the Second Coming of Christ to earth.36 Some of the depictions of this period support the notion that there is a Jewish chiliasm lurking in the background. While certain detailed notations about the Antichrist throughout the sermon and the identification of the two witnesses (Enoch and Elijah) can be made quite apart from any focus on Jewish elements, some of the sermon can not be made to fit easily into a non-Jewish chiliastic mode of thinking. For example, the focus on the rebuilding of the Jewish temple brings to the forefront a kind of Jewish chiliasm that may be present:

But when the time of the abomination of his desolation begins to approach, having been made legal, he takes the empire, and, just as it is said in the Psalm:--They have been made for the undertaking for the sons of Loth, the Moabites and the Ammanites shall meet him first as their king. Therefore, when he receives the kingdom, he orders the temple of God to be rebuilt for himself, which is in Jerusalem; who, after coming into it, he shall sit as God and order that he be adored by all nations, since he is carnal and filthy and mixed with worthless spirit and flesh. Then that eloquence shall be fulfilled of Daniel the prophet:--And he shall not know the God of their fathers, and he shall not know the desires of women. Because the very wicked serpent shall direct every worship to himself. Because he shall put forth an edict so that people may be circumcised according to the rite of the old law. Then the Jews shall congratulate him, because he gave them again the practice of the first covenant; then all people from everywhere shall flock together to him at the city of Jerusalem, and the holy city shall be trampled on by the nations for forty-two months, just as the holy apostle says in the Apocalypse, which become three and a half years, 1,260 days.37

Several important points need to be made in light of such language. First, there is a focus at times on a literal use of eschatological texts which those in the mold of Origen ridiculed as a Jewish perspective of the Bible. Secondly, national Israel plays a role in the end-time days. This is clearly seen in this section in several ways. The Jews have a rebuilt temple in the literal city of Jerusalem. There is the renewal of the sacrifices in that temple (the practice of the first covenant). Jerusalem appears to be the center of the world at that point in time in the tribulation with Antichrist at its head. However, the Jews with their city will be trampled on for 1,260 days. All of these details show a form of chiliastic literalism with national Israel as a major factor in the end-time scenario. Such a presentation cannot be described as Christian chiliasm, but as a Christian appeal to Jewish chiliasm, a taking of the Scriptures from the Jewish perspective.

The Removal of Jewish Elements in Christian Chiliasm

On the other side of the ledger is found a Christian chiliasm which emphasizes no Jewish elements such as national restoration or a rebuilt temple. This appears to be the main approach found in most of the extant material given in the early Church Fathers.

The Apostolic Fathers

The earliest post-canonical writings of the second century show evidence of rejection of Jewish elements in much of Christian thought sometimes showing outright hostility to the Jews. For example, Ignatius (around the year 115) comments that “it is monstrous to talk Jesus Christ and live like a Jew. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity.”38 While such statements show the downplaying of things Jewish, the context is not explicitly eschatological. Furthermore, such a strong statement is tempered by Ignatius’ further thoughts elsewhere: “Now, if anyone preaches Judaism to you, pay no attention to him. For it is better to hear about Christianity from one of the circumcision than Judaism from a Gentile. If both, moreover, fail to talk about Jesus Christ, they are to me tombstones and graves of the dead.”39

The Epistle of Barnabas, written probably in the early second century although some argue for a late first century date, clearly shows a replacement theology in which the Jews are seen as those who were never destined to receive any inheritance from God, including the land. Note the following wording:

Now let us see whether this people or the first people [Jews] hath the inheritance, and whether the covenant had reference to us [Christians] or to them [Jews]…Yea verily, but as regards the covenant which He sware to the fathers to give it to the people let us see whether He hath actually given it. He hath given it, but they themselves were not found worthy to receive it by reason of their sins…Moses received them, but they [Jews] themselves were not found worthy. But how did we receive them? Mark this. Moses received them being a servant, but the Lord himself gave them to us to be the people of His inheritance, having endured patiently for our sakes.40

This means that at an extremely early date, even perhaps overlapping with the writings of the Apostle John, there are those in the church who have replaced Israel entirely with the Church in terms of future blessings. As Diprose notes, “Barnabas shows little respect for Old Testament institutions. For example, in chapter XVI, 7 a temple made with hands is likened to a habitation of demons, full of idolatry. The writing as a whole, manifests the latent presupposition that the Church , the true heir of the promises, occupies the place that Israel had always been unworthy of occupying.” 41 Obviously, to these kinds of Christians there can be no chiliastic hopes involving a restored national Israel, temple, and Jerusalem.

The Epistle to Diognetus, written around the middle of the second century, also conveys the notion that there is a great divide between Jews and Christians. While not unusual in itself, the language used is such that even the Old Testament is called into question:

Moreover I do not suppose that you need to learn from me that, after all, their scruples about food and superstition about the Sabbath, and their pride in circumcision and the sham of their fasting and feast of the new moon, are ridiculous and unworthy of any argument. For how can it be anything but unlawful to receive some of the things created by God for the use of man as if well created, and to reject others as if useless and superfluous? And what can it be but impious falsely to accuse God of forbidding that a good deed should be done on the Sabbath day? And what does it deserve but ridicule to be proud of the mutilation of the flesh as a proof of election, as if they were, for this reason, especially beloved by God?42

The epistle goes on to warn Christians to abstain from the “general silliness and deceit and fussiness and pride of the Jews.” While some of the statements here are a response to Jewish extra-biblical traditions, many involve direct teaching in the Old Testament which is here being demeaned. Consequently, one could see how such a posture would most likely oppose any form of Jewish chiliasm.

The Apologists

Among the apologists, the most pertinent works for the issue before us may be The Dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew and Irenaeus’ Against Heresies.43 Justin the Martyr (ca. 150) writes with more theological refinement than any of the Apostolic Fathers. He tells the imaginary Trypho, “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.”44 What is interesting about this teaching is that it is taking some of the eschatological Old Testament prophecies in a literal sense. Justin in this way clearly teaches a form of chiliasm.

However, Justin’s literal understanding appears to be only partial. Other comments to Trypho reinforce the divide between Jews and Christians that would make the exploration of any Jewish chiliastic elements difficult even though the city of Jerusalem is mentioned.

Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He [Christ] is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.45

Notice that Christians are called the “true spiritual Israel,” the true descendants of the patriarchs. See also that Abraham’s selection by God before circumcision is highlighted. The implication is that there remains no future inheritance for Israel since the Church in God’s mind constitutes the real Israel who inherits the blessings. Thus, replacement theology is in force with no room for Jewish chiliastic hopes while the earlier stated Christian chiliastic outline is maintained.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies (ca. 174) is important due to his clear chiliastic outline. His writings are famous for the outline of world history using seven periods of one thousand years each. He believed he was living in the sixth period which would end with a time of great Satanic deception and tribulation (not unlike modern premillennial understandings of the tribulation period). Then, the Second Coming would occur along with the first resurrection. This is followed by the seventh period of world history where Christ would reign on earth for one thousand years. At the end of this period the earth will be destroyed. A new heaven and earth finally emerge for all eternity.46

Therefore, Irenaeus is a strong proponent of chiliasm. However, his is not a Jewish chiliasm. He argues that the Jews, who think themselves to be Israel, are actually disinherited from the promises.47 Furthermore, this is clear from the Old Testament prophets themselves (e.g, Isa. 26:19, Eze. 37:12-14). Irenaeus draws his conclusion based upon a theological understanding that the Church consists of those who are delivered and who inherit the promises of God.48 Diprose notes what this means for national Israel: “Irenaeus finds the fulfillment of all these passages in the salvation of people from the Gentile nations. By so doing he disinherits Israel of promises which are clearly addressed to her and at the same time manifestly makes the Church the new or true Israel. In other words he bases his exegesis on the assumption that the Old Testament should be read in the light of what we have called replacement theology which he apparently considered to be a part of orthodox Christian thought.”49 Consequently, there is no room for any form of Jewish chiliasm.

Conclusion

What conclusions emerge from this brief and preliminary survey? First, it must be admitted that although elements of Jewish chiliasm exist in the early Church and show the ability to persevere even into the early Middle Ages, the references to them are often secondary. Finding hard evidence is often like searching for echoes in the wrong canyon. Dispensationalists, who often appreciate the chiliasm of the early Church, will have to admit that its brand is somewhat different from that practiced in modern dispensationalism. Most of the writings we have from the early post-canonical days will affirm at times the city of Jerusalem in the last days but not the national restoration of Israel and the rebuilding of a temple, probably the two most important elements of a Jewish chiliasm.

As a matter of historiography, if one assumes the dispensational understanding of the Old and New Testaments as teaching a restored Israel, one must honestly ask why there is a shift away from the Jewish chiliasm of the Bible. Perhaps one could argue that Jewish forms of millenarianism were dismissed because of some association of early Jewish Christians with heretical teachings about the person of Christ (i.e., the Ebionites). However, the most likely place to find a turning point is the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple in A.D. 70. Diprose frames this possibility for us in this way:

While it is dangerous to generalise concerning the movement of history, few would dispute that the disastrous Jewish war of A. D. 66-70, which witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple, began a process which changed the face of Judaism and Jewish-Christian relations. Although Jewish apocalypticism continued to be an influential rival to Pharisaic Judaism during the following decades, the failure of the Jewish revolt led by Bar-Kochba in A. D. 132-35 strengthened the position of Rabbinical Judaism as the only enduring form of the Jews’ historical faith. Other earlier rivals, such as the parties of the Zealots, the Essenes and the Saducees, had been either crushed or rendered obsolete by the earlier Roman victory. At the same time the importance of Jewish Christianity was greatly reduced by the forced exile of the Jerusalem Christians to Transjordan in A.D. 66 and the loss of prestige which Jewish Christianity suffered due to the destruction of Jerusalem.50

One can easily see how the absence of the nation of Israel on the Rand-McNally maps of the day would reinforce the notion that national Israel was no longer a player in God’s eschatological promises. Either by reinterpretation of prophetic texts or forfeiture of the promises due to sin, it became increasingly difficult to affirm any Jewish elements within chiliastic hopes and eventually impossible in the minds of most Christians to affirm any chiliastic hopes at all.

1 John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Reprint ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 45.

2 Ibid., 46. Most nondispensationalists will grant that chiliasm and not amillennialism dominated the early centuries of the Church. One of the few dissenters appears to be Louis Berkhof who argues that “it is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it [chiliasm] was generally accepted in the first three centuries” [The History of Christian Doctrine (Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 262].

3 Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, 47.

4 Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Reprint ed., Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1981), 21.

5 Ibid., 23-24.

6 Historic premillennialism, as opposed to dispensational premillennialism, is so-named because its adherents believe their version of premillennialism better models the classic premillennialism of the early Church. This approach is assumed to represent the most faithful rendering of the eschatology of the Bible. The general framework of premillennialism is the same as for dispensational premillennialism – Christ is returning to set up an earthly kingdom. However, historic premillennialism argues almost exclusively from Revelation 19-20 and has only a vague future for Israel, usually not understood in national terms. The Old Testament promises to national Israel, upon which dispensationalism grounds its premillennialism, are downplayed or ignored in some way. This present writer argues from the vantage point of dispensationalism.

7 For an overview of Jewish apocalyptic, see the classic by D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964).

8 See P. Vielhauer, “Jewish-Christian Gospels” in New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. I, edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1991), 139-53.

9 Ibid., 146-53.

10 The date is secured by the knowledge which Hegesippus (180) had of the work. See Vielhauer, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” 163.

11 Ibid., 160, 165.

12 Clement, Strom. II.ix.45. See Vielhauser, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” 164.

13 Clement, Strom. V.xiv.96. See Vielhauser, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” 164.

14 Vielhauser, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” 160-61.

15 Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 6.

16 Vielhauser, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” 156.

17 Ibid.

18 Jerome, In Esaiam, 66.20. See Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, 6.

19 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.27. I am using the new updated edition: Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, translated by C. F. Cruse (Reprint ed., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 93.

20 This section on Origen is a reworking of a similar section comprising part of a published article: Mike Stallard, “The Rediscovery of the Jewish Perspective of the Bible” in The Gathering Storm, edited by Mal Couch (Springfield, MO: 21st Century Press, 2005), 57-71.

21 Origen’s well-known approach was a three-fold use of Scripture. The first layer was the literal or historical sense of a passage. This was good for those who were babes in Christ. Critics of Origen have sometimes overstated his position as one that rejected this sense. It is not that he rejected it; it is that there were other more important interpretations added to passages. The second layer was the moral sense of a passage, which comes close to our understanding of application. The third and highest sense of a text was the spiritual or allegorical sense in which the mature believer could discern in a mystical way the deeper meaning of a text, which was not evident in a purely textual way.

22 Origen, Principles, II.XI.2.

23 It is hard to know whether Origen misunderstood the chiliasts of his day or if some of them actually taught this particular doctrine. Certainly many modern dispensationalists believe that there will be marriage and childbearing in the millennial phase of God’s coming kingdom based upon passages like Isaiah 65. However, few if any would believe that those who marry and have children in the millennium will have resurrected glorified bodies.

24 Again, it is impossible to know for sure whether Origen is responding to clearly held arguments by chiliasts, is giving a caricature of them, or merely misunderstands them on this point.

25 Origen, Principles, II.XI.2.

26 Ibid.; The passage is Luke 19:11-27, especially verse 19.

27 Ibid.

28 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Reprint ed., (n. p.: AP & A, n.d.), 2:276.

29 Le Roy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1950), I:325.

30 Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, LXIX.

31 In addition, Brian E. Daley suggests that the followers of Nepos may also have exhibited a deficient, perhaps unitarian Christology, although this is far from certain (The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], 61).

32 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 7.24; Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, translated by C. F. Cruse (Reprint ed., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 259.

33 Timothy J. Demy and Thomas D. Ice, “The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation” Bibliotheca Sacra (July 1995): 306-17. The English translation I am using for Pseudo-Ephraem is by Cameron Rhoades from a Latin version. The Latin text is taken from C. P. Caspari’s Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten des kirchlichen Altertums und dem Angang des Mittelater, Chrisitania, 1890. Distribution of this translation was made through Tyndale Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas.

34 Pseudo-Ephraem, “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World,” Section 1.

35 Ibid., Section 10.

36 It is not clear to me if Pseudo-Ephraem’s sermon teaches a seven-year or three-and-a-half year tribulation period. However, it does appear to be a two-phase Second Coming that is in view.

37 Pseudo-Ephraem, “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World,” Section 7.

38 Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 10; see Cyril C. Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers (New York: Collier Books, 1970), 97.

39 Ignatius, To the Philadelphians, 6; see Cyril C. Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers, 109.

40 The Epistle of Barnabas, 13-14; see J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 150-51.

41 See also Ronald E. Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought (Rome: Istituto Biblico Evangelico Italiano, 2000), 78. A later edition of this book has been issued under the title Israel and the Church: The Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology (Waynesboro, GA: Authentic Media, 2004). Diprose has added in this edition an interesting appendix dealing with the effects of the debate on Jewish-Christian dialogue at the current time.

42 The Epistle to Diognetus, IV.1-4; Apostolic Fathers, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 25, translated by Kirsopp Lake (Reprint ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1976), 357, 359.

43 We could also add Tertullian’s Answer to the Jews, but discussion of it will be left for another time.

44 The Dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew, LXXX.

45 Ibid., XI.

46 For example, see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V.25-36.

47 Ibid., V. 21.

48 Ibid., V. 34.

49 Diprose, Israel in the Development of Christian Thought, 83.

50 Ibid., 73. See also F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame, The Pasternoter Church History, Vol. 1 (Exeter: Pasternoter, 1958), 261-67 upon which Diprose partly bases his analysis.