Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................1
2. THE RISE OF CHILIASM IN THE EARLY CHURCH ........................................................................................................................1
2.1. Eschatology and the Intermediate State ....................................................................................................................1
2.2. Implications for the Interpretation of the New Testament Eschatology..............................................................3
2.2.1. The New Testament Outside of the Apocalypse ..................................................................................................4
2.2.2. The Apocalypse .........................................................................................................................................................4
2.3. Polemical Discussions with Judaism and Developing Gnosticism..........................................................................5
2.3.1. Developing Gnosticism and Chiliasm: Cerinthus and Maricon .........................................................................5
2.3.2. Orthodox Chiliasm: Papias, Justin, Irenaeus ........................................................................................................7
3. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................................................9
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................................................................10
1. Introduction
It is often taken for granted among many evangelical traditions that early Christianity (prior to the Council of
Nicea in A.D. 325) predominantly held to a chiliastic expectation—that is, Christ was expected to return earth to
reign on earth for a thousand years.1 It is argued that history confirms that chiliasm was the dominant view in
the early church; it was the view of Papias, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, thus demonstrating a history going
back at least to the middle of the second century. Non-chiliasm, on the other hand—a belief in a current,
heavenly reign of Christ2—is thought to have only begun in the early third century with Gaius and Origen and
only upstaged chiliasm during the time of Augustine. Those known to be “non-chiliasts” prior to the third
century were thought to be only within the Gnostic camp. Even Gaius’ opposition to chiliasm was linked to his
refusal to accept the authenticity of the book of Revelation—he claimed the Apocalypse was actually written by
a heretic by the name of Cerinthus. Origen had a questionable orthodoxy as well, and he advocated allegorical
methods of Scriptural interpretation, so his non-chiliastic views may be thought to be suspect.
Recently, Charles E. Hill has written on the development of millennial thought in early Christianity and has
reached quite a different conclusion from the above assessment.3 According to Hill’s reconstruction of the
evidence, chiliastic expectations developed in the second century as a response to polemical discussions with
Judaism and a developing Gnostic threat to orthodoxy. This paper is intended to summarize the arguments of
these works and to present a coherent account of the development of chiliastic expectation in early
Christianity.
2. The Rise of Chiliasm in the Early Church
Charles Hill begins his argument in his book Regnum Caelorum by noting that within the writings of Christian
chiliasts of the second century there is evidence of “orthodox non-chiliasts” already in existence. Justin, for
instance, claims that Christians who are likeminded with him affirm “that there will be a resurrection of the
dead and a thousand years in Jerusalem,” but he also acknowledges that “many who are Christians of pure and
pious mind do not acknowledge this (Dial. 80.2).” Irenaeus, likewise, acknowledges that there are orthodox
Christians who deny an earthly millennium (AH V.31—32.1).4 In fact, before launching his treatise on the
millennium in Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes of other orthodox Christians who do not hold to a chiliastic
expectation,
But since certain of those reckoned to be orthodox overstep the order of the promotion of the righteous
and are ignorant of the order of preparation for incorruption, they hold among themselves heretical
opinions (AH V.31.4).5
Irenaeus appears to be less charitable toward these believers, but nevertheless, he acknowledges that there
were orthodox, non-chiliastic Christians of which he knew. In fact, as we will see later, Irenaeus himself was
likely one of them earlier in his life. But if orthodox non-chiliasts existed in the early church, and there seems
to be solid evidence suggesting that they did, perhaps it is possible for historians of the early church to
determine who these Christians might have been.
2.1. Eschatology and the Intermediate State
Toward that end, we must return to the above quotation from Irenaeus. There he criticizes these orthodox
non-chiliasts for two reasons. First, they confused “the order of promotion of the righteous,” for they
“promoted” people to heaven too quickly, prior to the resurrection at Christ’s return. Second, they were
“ignorant of the order of preparation for incorruption, meaning they denied a resurrection prior to the
millennium, which “serves the necessary purpose of training and gradually accustoming the righteous to
1
The term Chiliasm comes from the Greek word for “thousand.” In contemporary terminology, this would be termed
“premillennialism.”
2
We would today term this “amillennialism”
3
“Antichrist from the Tribe of Dan,” Journal of Theological Studies 46 (1995): 99-117. “Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution
to an Old Problem,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.2 (2000): 135-72. Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity,
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001).
4
Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 3-4.
5
Ibid., 12.
6
Ibid., 19.
7
Ibid., 16.
8
Ibid., 19.
9
Ibid., 19-20, italics his.
10
Ibid., 40.
11
Ibid., 44.
12
Ibid., 246-7.
13
Ibid., 4.
14
Ibid., 81.
15
Ibid., 80.
16
Ibid., 249.
17
Ibid., 62.
18
Ibid., 212-3.
19
See my paper entitled, “The Millennium: An Exposition of Rev. 20:1-6.”
20
Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 214-217.
21
Ibid., 220-25.
22
Ibid., 227.
23
Ibid. 236-7.
24
Ibid., 238.
25
Ibid., 241.
26
Charles E. Hill, “Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution to an Old Problem,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.2 (2000): 160.
27
Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 73.
28
Charles E. Hill, “Antichrist from the Tribe of Dan,” Journal of Theological Studies 46 (1995): 107.
29
Ibid., 108.
30
Hill, “Cerinthus,” 136.
31
Ibid., 138-9.
32
Ibid., 137.
33
Ibid., 138.
34
Ibid., 152-3.
35
Charles E. Hill, “Antichrist,” 102.
36
Ibid., 103.
37
Ibid. 109.
38
Ibid., 110.
39
Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 64.
40
Ibid., 65.
41
Ibid., 67.
42
Ibid., 66-7.
43
Ibid., 254. Italics his.
44
Ibid., 256-8.
45
Hill, “Cerinthus,” 165.
46
Norman L. Geisler, “A Premillennial View of Law and Government,” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 142 (1985): 251.