ABSTRACT

This study surveys premillennialism in the earliest Greek patristic writings, from Clement of Rome to Irenaeus. Proponents of various schools of eschatology make appeal to the early Fathers in an effort to bolster their own position with ancient testimony. While patristic testimony can establish the truth of no doctrine, if it can be demonstrated that a teaching was held in the earliest sub-apostolic times, a strong presumption is created in its favor. Difficulties confront the student of ancient chiliasm, including the scarcity of Christian literature composed in the earliest times and the loss of much of what was originally written. Therefor Of conclusions concerning the millennial views of some authors are impossible. Concerning others, only tentative and/or inferential conclusions are possible.

Nevertheless, enough primitive literature has survived that conclusions may be drawn concerning the extent, origin, and significance of ancient chiliasm. (1) Among the Apostolic Fathers, Papias, the Didache, and the Epistle of Barnabas are definitely premillenarian. Polycarp and the Shepherd of Hermas provide no direct evidence of chiliasm, but inferential evidence points to such a conclusion,. Clement; of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch do not provide enough eschatological material for an evaluation to be made. (2) The Greek Apologists are even more difficult to evaluate than the Apostolic Fathers. Their apologetic task did not require and often precluded--detailed exposition of the prophecies concerning the End Times. Seven of these writers cannot be evaluated due to lack of evidence. Two may have been chiliasts: Miltiades and Apollinaris. Two more--Melito and Polycrates--were probably millennialists. Theophilus of Antioch and Justin Martyr give definite proof of having been premillenarians. (3) The anti-Gnostic writers, Hegesippus and Irenaeus, both fought against the anti-materializing tendencies of Gnostic eschatology. Millennialism was & convenient weapon in this struggle. Hegesippus gives faint clues that he was a chiliast, while Irenaeus gives abundant proof of the same.

As for the great issues which have divided the warring eschatological schools in their analysis of the early Fathers, some definite conclusions may be drawn. (1) As to the extent of chiliasm, it was widespread. Chronologically, it is traced back to the earliest writings. It seems to have had its roots in the churches of Asia Minor which were schooled by John the Apocalyptist (2) As to the origin of chiliasm, it is to be traced back to the apostles and the Scriptures, according to the testimony of the early Christians. The charge that chiliasm was imported into Christianity at a later date from Jewish sources is not proved from the writings of the Fathers. Rather, the doctrine originated with the apostles. Christians employed Jewish literature because they found it paralleled their own teaching. (3) As to the significance of ancient chiliasm, it was no mere anomaly of the times, brought on by persecution and an undeveloped, simplistic theology. It was an inheritance from the apostolic age, rooted in the teachings of both Old and New Testaments. These facts are strong corroboratory evidence that modern premillennialism's general understanding of eschatology is the correct one.