CHAPTER I
THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
Introduction
By the "Apostolic Fathers" we mean the patristic writers of the sub-apostolic era. F. L. Cross has explained how the term originated and came to have its present significance:
Ever since 1672, when in a famous edition of the writings of Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, J. B. Cotelier described these primitive Christian authors in his title as The Fathers who flourished in the times of the Apostles', these five sub-Apostolic writers have been commonly known as the 'Apostolic Fathers', though by convention the list has been somewhat extended since Cotelier's day.13
R.M. Grant gives just such an extended list in one of his treatments of the subject.14 He gives as writings commonly included under the heading "Apostolic Fathers" the following: 10 The Didache, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, I Clement, the Ignatian Epistles, one or two Epistles of Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, fragments of Papias, and II Clement.
Aside from their early date, the Apostolic Fathers have some other common features. These include their relative shortness, their limited literary merit, the paucity of manuscripts in which they are preserved, and a common problem which they all raise, viz., that they all come from an era of Christian history from which we possess few documents, which renders them difficult to evaluate.15
What is the importance of the Apostolic Fathers for the student of millenarianism? They have been the subjects of a great debate. On the one hand, many writers have surveyed the extent of chiliasm in their writings and have concluded that chiliasm could not have been the primitive faith of the Church. Thus, W. G. T. Shedd, finding what he considered no traces of millenarianism in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of Antioch, concluded: "The inference from these facts' then, is a that this tenet was not the received faith of the church certainly down to the year 150." 16 Of those individuals in 11 whom he did find evidence of chiliasm, Shedd states:
these minds were comparatively uninfluential, and their writings are of little importance. The ecclesiastical authority of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp is certainly much greater than that of Barnabas, Hermas, and Papias. So as concerns the Apostolic age, then, the testimony of history goes to show that the literal and materializing interpretation put upon the teachings of Isaiah and St. John concerning the second coming of Christ, by the Millenarian, was not the authoritative one . . . 17
On the other hand, many writers have surveyed the early Christian writings and concluded that virtually all of the Apostolic Fathers were chiliasts. George N. H. Peters may be cited as an example. After giving an extensive list of early Christians and writings which he feels were premillennialist, he concludes that in the first two centuries A.D., no one (among Christian writers) can be cited as opposing chiliasm up until near the year 200 A.D.18 The attempt is then made to trace millennialism back through the early Fathers to the Apostles.
The Apostolic Fathers are important, then, in the study of millennialism, because of their extreme proximity to the Apostles. They are the connecting link between the more extensive writings of the later second century and the Mew Testament. While the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers cannot establish the validity of any approach to the millennial 12 proof texts of the Bible, if it can be shown that one particular eschatological expectation and system of interpretation was prevalent in their time, then a weighty presumption against the validity of any other system of interpretation is created. In other words, if the Apostolic Fathers were chiliastic, a presumption is created that this was the received faith of the Church. With this in view, we begin a survey of the Apostolic Fathers, endeavoring, insofar as possible , to determine their views on the subject of the Millennium.
Clement of Rome
Clement was bishop of the Church at Rome from 92 to 101 A.D. 19 His Epistle to the Corinthians--commonly styled I Clement20 was written ca. 95-96 A.D.,21 in an attempt to restore order in the factious Corinthian Church. I Clement is a horatory admonition, not a theological treatise. It therefore must not be taken as anywhere resembling an exhaustive expression of Clement's theological 13 views. This being the case, many writers who have surveyed the history of chiliasm have adopted the expedient of omitting any mention of Clement22. Others, less justifiably, have taken his silence as proof that he was not a chiliast.23 But against this latter approach, J. F. Bethune-Baker wisely cautions, slating that although there is no reference to the Millennium in Clement and certain other early Fathers, "we are not justified in arguing from their silence that they did not hold it [i.e., millennialism]."24
Some writers have ventured to classify Clement as a chiliast, despite the paucity of evidence In I Clement. George N. H. Peters finds three bases in the epistle for such a conclusion: first, the reference to "preaching the coming of Christ;" second, the rebuke to those who scoff at the delay in Christ's coming and at the hope in His quick return; and, third, the expression, "every hour expecting the Kingdom 14 of God.25 From this, Peters argues:
Such sentiments only accord with the then prevailing Millenarian views' If opposed to it, . . . how could he, when Jewish views were all around, thus employ language pre-eminently adapted to confirm Chiliasm, unless in sympathy with it[?]26
However, only the first of these references to which Peters appeals is from genuine writing of Clement of Rome. The second and third are from the pseudo-Clementine production, II Clement. 27
Is there any hint, then, in Clement's authentic Epistle to the Corinthians, of his eschatological viewpoint, since a definitive statement concerning the Millennium is lacking? Some general elements in his eschatology are discernible. He clearly believes in a future judgment, in which punishment is stored up for the wicked and mercy for those who hope in the Lord.28 On this basis, the Corinthians are urged to cleave to God, who is "faithful in His promises, and Just in His judgments."29 Believers who engage in well-doing 15 shall be rewarded when the Lord comes back to earth, becoming "partakers of His great and glorious promises."30 Then will come to pass the promise which Paul cited in I Corinthians 2:9 ("Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him").31 Departed Christian presbyters who have obtained a "fruitful and perfect departure" are already assured of their proper places.32 They "are now heirs of glory and honour, and have been exalted and made illustrious by God in their memorial for ever and ever."33 But part of their reward is still future; they now possess a place among the godly, "and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ," when they shall be richly blessed."34 This coming "future resurrection" is not incredible, for nature provides numerous analogies, including the "wonderful sign" of the phoenix.35 Christ is presently seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, awaiting the moment when His enemies (the wicked) shall be put under foot (Psa. 110:1), when Christ will inherit the nations as His heritage and rule over the ends of the earth (Psa. 2:8).36 The time is not far off. The unwary, who do not look for His coming are "foolish ones." Just as the grape vine quickly puts forth fruit which grows to maturity, so Christ shall "soon and suddenly" accomplish His will, "as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, Speedily will He come, and will not tarry? and, 'The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for who ye look.'"37 The proud and seditious will incur God's wrath, but, as it is written (Prov. 2:21-22), "'The kind-hearted shall inhabit the land, and the guiltless shall be left upon it, but transgressors shall be destroyed from off the face of it.'" Psa. 37:35-37 a also quoted to show that the ungodly shall be cast down, but that there shall be a remnant "to the peaceful man."38
After making his own survey of Clement's eschatological statements, Briggs triumphantly concludes, "This is the sum of the eschatology of Clement, and not a word of a millennial kingdom."39 While it is, as Briggs states; a fact that there is no mention of the Millennial Kingdom, everything Clement says is in keeping with early chiliastic expectations. Furthermore, as both Beckwith and Herrick have pointed out, the reference in chapter 50 to the coming manifestation or visitation of the Kingdom embodies an eschatological conception of the Kingdom which "echoes" millenarian doctrine.40 Furthermore, chapter 14 seems to visualize the risen saints dwelling upon the earth, after it has been purged of the wicked. Such sentiments are extremely difficult to fit into non-chiliastic eschatological system.
We conclude that I Clement does not reveal enough of Clement of Rome's eschatological views for a definitive conclusion to be reached concerning his view of the Millennium. However, the epistle contains nothing supporting the conclusion that he was anti-millenarian in sentiment, and, in fact, it expresses expectations quite in keeping with the general apocalyptic hopes of the first century.41 Furthermore, several references to the coming Kingdom would be most difficult to understand in other than a chiliastic fashion.42
Ignatius of Antioch
Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch in Syria, Sometime during a persecution under Trajan (98-117), Ignatius was condemned for his Christianity. He was taken as a prisoner across Asia Minor, on his way to be thrown to the beasts at Rome. As he was conducted along the south-western coast of Anatolia, representatives of the various churches came to meet him. Later in his journey, Ignatius was able to send greetings to these churches. Seven of these (genuine) letters have survived to this day) they are the source of almost all the reliable information we possess concerning Ignatius. From Smyrna, letters were written to the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles, together with one sent ahead to Rome; from Troas, Ignatius was able to dispatch epistles to the churches at Philadelphia, Smyrna, and a personal note to Polycarp.43 Ignatius was martyred ca. 110 in the arena at Rome.44
Naturally, we cannot expect a complete outline of Ignatius' theological views in these epistles. His outlook concerning many subjects may only be guessed at, and the Millennium is one of those subjects. In fact, there is so little specific material on eschatology in the Ignatian epistles that C. C. Richardson could write an entire book on Ignatius without touching upon the subject.45
Nevertheless, Ignatius does make an occasional passing remark which provides a glimpse of his eschatological expectations. He often speaks of "attaining to God" in the life to come, and in one instance he equates this with "immortality and eternal life." 46 He speaks of the Gospel as "the perfection of immortality",47 and of harmony in the Church as "evidence of your immortality." 48 Evidently, the prospect of dwelling in heaven with His Lord sustained him in the face of his impending martyrdom, for he proclaims that "if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God."49 And, elsewhere he asks for prayer that "God shall make me perfect, that I may attain to that portion which through mercy has been allotted me . . ."50 On the basis of such statements, Briggs concludes: "There is an intense longing to be with Christ and God In these fervid epistles, but no expectation of a millennial Kingdom."51
However, there la some additional eschatological material in the epistles, which proves that Ignatius hoped for far more than mere Immortality In heaven. He speaks of men receiving (or being denied) an Inheritance In the Kingdom of God.52 In the same context In which he speaks of "attaining to God," he also expressed the view that it is good to be sent from the world to God, In order that "I may rise again to Him,"53 And, again, he anticipates his martyrdom, whereby, "I shall be the freedman of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated In Him."54 Furthermore, he believed that the "last times are come upon us"55 and wrote Polycarp: "Weigh carefully the times. Look for Him who is above all time, eternal, and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes . . . ."56 On the basis of statements such as these, Shirley Jackson Case comes to a different estimation of Ignatius' eschatology than Charles A. Briggs, concluding that Ignatius believed himself already to be living in the last times when the end of all things was imminent, and that this confidence led him ultimately to his martyr's death. He believed the end was very near, when the wicked would be punished and dead believers would be raised to reign with Christ; such beliefs formed the basis for his exhortation of fellow believers.57 This is a judicious evaluation of the evidence, and it is dangerous to go beyond it, as does Peters, when he calls Ignatius a chiliast because he believed the end to be near and exhorted believers to be watchful. Merely to argue, as does Peters, that both sentiments were in correspondence with millenarian doctrine begs the question.58
George L, Murray observes concerning Ignatius: "It cannot be proved by his writings that he belongs to any particular eschatological school."59 This is the fact of the matter. It can be shown that Ignatius shared the vivid eschatological expectations of his day, but it cannot be shown from his writings what the details of that expectation consisted of.60
Polycarp
Polycarp (ca. 69-ca.155 A.D.)61 was bishop of Smyrna when Ignatius went to his martyrdom (ca. 110), for Ignatius addressed an epistle to him. According to Irenaeus, who in his youth knew the aged bishop, Polycarp had been personally acquainted with the Apostle John. In his letter to the heretic, Florinus, Irenaeus declares:
These [heretical] doctrines were never delivered to thee by the presbyters before us, those who also were the immediate disciples of the apostles. For I saw thee when I was yet a boy in the lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in great splendour at court, and endeavouring by all means to gain his esteem. As the studies of our youth growing with our minds, unite with it so firmly that I can tell also the very place where the blessed Polycarp was accustomed to sit and discourse; and also his entrances, his walks, the complexion of his life and the form of his body, and his conversations with the people, and his familiar intercourse with John, as he was accustomed to tell, as also his familiarity with those that had seen the Lord. How also he used to relate their discourses, and what things he had heard from them concerning the Lord. Also concerning his miracles, his doctrine, all these were told by Polycarp, in consistency with the Holy Scriptures, as he had received them from the eyewitnesses of the doctrine of salvation. These things, by the mercy of God, and the opportunity then afforded me, I attentively heard, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart; and these same facts I am always in the habit, by the grace of God, to recall faithfully to mind.62
Elsewhere, Irenaeus provides us with further details concerning Polycarp:
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departing this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify . . . the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.63
Polycarp is thus & very important link between the apostolic era and Irenaeus. It would be very strange if Irenaeus' theology departed from that of Polycarp in any major details.
We know that Polycarp addressed several letters to fellow bishops and to the Christian communities close to Smyrna.64 Unfortunately, only one of these epistles is extant the Epistle to the Philippians.65 The bulk of the letter was probably written around A.D. 130.66
Since so little material from Polycarp's hand has survived, it is impossible to determine beyond all doubt what his eschatological views were. The only primary source material consists of a passing eschatological allusion or two contained in the Epistle to the Philippians. These may be summarized as follows:
[Christ now sits at God's right hand.] He comes as the judge of the living and the dead. His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him. But He that raised Him from the dead will also raise us up if we do His will and walk in His commandments (ii.). We are before the eyes of our Lord and Christ, and we must appear at the judgment seat of Christ and must every one give an account of himself, (vi.). If we please him in this present world, according as He promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead and that if we live worthily of Him, we shall reign together with Him, provided only we believe, (V.). The saints will judge the world in connection with the judgment of the Lord, (xi.). The apostles and martyrs are in their due place in the presence of the Lord, (ix.). He prays that God may bestow upon his readers and himself a lot and portion among his saints, (xii.).67
George L. Murray argues that the eschatological pronouncements of Polycarp do not mark him as a chiliast.68 Other writers of anti-millenarian persuasion concur in this evaluation.69
However, such arguments are based on silence. Nothing contained in the Epistle to the Philippians is addressed to the question of millennialism, nothing in the letter defines Polycarp's position. Commenting on our paucity of information, G. E Ladd observes;
. . .millennial doctrine seems to have been widely prevalent [in the time of the early Fathers'. This cannot be appreciated merely by endeavoring to count the adherents of the position on the one hand and those who do not espouse it on the other. As a matter of fact, no judgment in this area of the history of doctrine can be final, for our sources are so fragmentary that we cannot really recreate the history of thought during the first years of church history. Many such questions cannot be settled with certainty; one can only draw inferences from a critical study of the fragmentary literature.70
Peters classifies Polycarp as a chiliast on the basis of "the few lines from him, locating the reigning of the saints after the Coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the saints," and because of "his association with Chiliasts,"71 As for the validity of Peters' first argument, it can only be said that it attempts to read into Polycarp's words far more than the words themselves actually state. His second argument, however, is far more cogent, especially in light of the passages from Irenaeus which were cited previously. From these passages, we learn the following: First, Polycarp became bishop of Smyrna by apostolic appointment. Second, he was instructed by John and other apostles. Third, he conversed with others who had seen and heard Christ. Fourth, as a part of his own teaching, he passed on what he had learned from all these men. Fifth, this teaching from "eyewitnesses" concerned both Christ's miracles and His doctrine and was "in consistency with the Holy Scriptures." Sixth, Irenaeus testifies that he remembers with clarity and in great detail his own experiences with Polycarp. Seventh, Irenaeus states that he listened to the old bishop "attentively," noting whatever he taught, and faithfully rehearsing this teaching throughout his own later years. Eighth, Irenaeus claims his own teaching conforms to that of Polycarp (and therefore to that of the apostles and Christ) and to that of the Asiatic churches, especially the Ephesian Church, which was tutored by John.
Now, in view of the clear millennialism of Irenaeus, a doctrine which he expounds at great length in Against Heresies 5 (replete with lengthy scriptural citations and a claim that the doctrine is orthodox), it seems strange indeed to argue from the silence of the surviving fragments of Polycarp that he was not a chiliast. It is also strange in light of the prevalence of the doctrine in Asia Minor. The weight of Irenaeus' testimony--that he faithfully followed the teachings of Polycarp creates a presupposition that Polycarp was a chiliast, as indeed were all of the Apostolic Fathers whose eschatological position can be determined with certainty.72
Papias
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia in the first half of the second century, A.D., was a decided chiliast. Around 130 A.D. he wrote An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord, in five books, a work now lost to us save for fragmentary quotations in other ecclesiastical writers.73 Swete declares concerning this writings:
There is no lost Patristic work for the recovery of which students of Christian origins look with more impatience, for whatever may be thought of the writer's intelligence and literary skill, his Exposition would probably solve some of the puzzles of early Christian history.74
Papias serves as a link between the apostolic age and the second century.75 Eusebius preserves the following statement of Papias:
If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books .was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.76
Irenaeus states that Papias "was a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp." 77 Eusebius criticizes Papias' reliance on primitive tradition:
The same person [Papias], moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.78
At the least, then, Papias must be taken as a source of information concerning the nature of Christian oral tradition in the second century; at best, he serves as a witness to the apostolic faith. That Papias was a chiliast proves the antiquity of the doctrine and powerfully intimates that it was an article of the primitive Christian faith. Indeed, this is how Irenaeus understood the significance of Papias' premillennialism, for, in the passage cited above, he employs Papias' links with earlier Christians as proof of the apostolicity of the doctrine:
[As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]: "The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, "I am a better cluster, take me, bless the Lord through me.' In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every car would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man." [Testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp. . . ]79
Two difficulties are encountered, however, in the evaluation of Papias' testimony to primitive chiliasm: first, the oral traditions he relates are sometimes of a fantastic and unbiblical nature (thereby rendering the millenarian traditions he reports suspect), and, second, his chiliasm itself is tinged with extra-Biblical legends. As for Papias' lack of critical judgment with regards to the oral traditions he received,80 one example will suffice:
Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed sort.81
Other traditions which Papias received and which Quasten judges "fabulous" include: the murder of James the brother of John by the Jews, the raising to life of the mother of Manaimus, and the swallowing of poison with no ill effects by Justus Barsabbas.82
The greater problem connected with Papias' testimony is its connection with the traditions of Jewish apocalyptic literature. The tradition quoted above concerning the amazing fecundity of nature and the harmony of the animal kingdom during the Messianic Kingdom--parallels the language of the Apocalypse of Baruch 29 and the Book of Enoch 10. 19. MacCulloch surmises that both these works, together with the source upon which Papias draws, have a common documentary source, perhaps a midrash on Gen. 27:28.83 This parallelism has moved the amillennialist George L. Murray to state:
Papias did not receive them [his millennial beliefs] from John, but from the Apocalypse of Baruch, a Jewish book, antedating the advent of Christ. The only variation is that where Baruch says a thousand Papias says ten thousand, for he might have reasoned that one was as near the truth as the other. This is sufficient to prove to anyone who will accept proofs that the outstanding premillenarian of the early church actually borrowed his theories from Jewish fables.84
However, G. E. Ladd approaches the matter more judiciously. He begins by noting (1) that the language of Papias in this passage is not derived from the New Testament, and (2) that very similar words are, indeed, found in the Apocalypse of Baruch, "words so similar that some sort of interdependence must exist." Ladd concludes that Papias must have drawn upon the language of Baruch. But, he continues, this admission proves no more than that "some early Christians elaborated the Christian doctrine of the millennium in light of a similar Jewish doctrine." It does not prove that all Christians followed this procedure or that the doctrine--albeit with Jewish parallels--is erroneous. Ladd's point is simply put: parallels between Christian and Jewish doctrines do not constitute a basis for casting aspersion upon the Christian doctrine.85
Ladd's argument is well-reasoned. However, he, like the scholars he is responding to, goes beyond his evidence at one point. There is no warrant for stating that Papias derived his beliefs from Baruch. He explicitly states that he received the tradition from other Christians. The most that can be said is that he credulously accepted chiliastic traditions received via word-of-mouth, which originated in Baruch or a related document.86
This, however, is a minor point. What needs to be asked of scholars who condemn Papias' chiliasm as "Jewish" is this: why was it that the early Christians made use of Jewish apocalyptic literature? The Christian preservation of this Jewish literature, by its popularity in the early Church, can only be explained on the supposition that the early Christians found something in it which was amenable to their own beliefs. And they would find something amenable only if the Church's early eschatology was chiliastic! Harnack has pointed out that in the second century, it was the Gentile Christians who accepted "the Jewish apocalypses as sacred books of venerable antiquity, . . . read them eagerly, and transferred their contents bodily to Christainity." Harnack notes that after the rebellion of Barchoba the Jews abandoned there works and became indifferent to the Messianic hope, but the Christians preserved them and "naturalized" them into Christian books; "It is entirely to Christian, not to Jewish, tradition that we owe their preservation.87 Papias simply reflects these facts. But how can these facts be explained if the early Church was not premillenarian in belief?
Some of the features of the Messianic Kingdom to be found in these Jewish apocalyptic writings are the following:
. . . .the earth would be renewed and Jerusalem re-built and glorified. Men would be perfectly righteous and happy, and would have numerous offspring. There would be no sorrow and no labour. The earth would produce abundantly, and a table would always be spread with food. . . The moon would have the brilliance of the sun, and the sun would be seven times brighter than the moon. Some of the wicked would be left on earthy subjected to perpetual slavery.88
Burkitt says that with their belief in the New Age, "the Christians naturally valued the books that told them of it." But, "it was only when the vision faded away that these books fell out of favor."89 Papias, then, or the elders from whom he received the tradition, was simply following common Christian practice in utilizing and adapting Jewish literature which was in fundamental harmony with Christian expectations. Anti-millenarians who trumpet about the "Jewishness" of millennialism fail to realize what a two-edged sword this argument really is. It is admitted by all that the Jewish apocalypses picture & coming earthly reign of Messiah; why, then, did the early Christians utilize this literature if they were not expecting such an earthly, Messianic Kingdom?
But did the chiliasm of Papias originate in human traditions rather than from the exegesis of Scripture? It must be remembered that in the sub-apostolic era, the distinction between Scripture (writings bearing apostolic authority) and tradition (oral teaching handed down by those who had known the apostles) was much more blurred than now. Papias obviously did attach great value to the oral traditions of the apostles and their disciples.
He stood on the threshold of a new period when the last witnesses of the apostolic age were fast disappearing, and when it seemed to be of the utmost importance to gather the remaining fragments of inspired wisdom which might throw light on the Lord's teaching, and guard the church against error.90
But tradition was probably not the ultimate basis for Papias' chiliasm. Edward H. Hall has written:
A still higher warrant [than oral tradition] for his belief, probably well known to Papias, was found in the widely circulated Revelation of St. John . . . . We may naturally infer that Papias was familiar with it, though Eusebius does not mention the fact.91
As a matter of fact, Papias wrote a commentary upon part of the Apocalypse.92 When coupled with the fact that Papias' disciple, Irenaeus, (who also makes an occasional reference to tradition) rested his premillennial system of eschatology squarely upon an extensive exegesis of prophetic Scripture, and the fact that much of this may be derived from Papias,93 the conclusion becomes all but inescapable that Papias was not a premillennialist merely because of the traditions of his day. In this regard, it must also be remembered that all the eschatological material from Papias' pen which has survived to our day is derived from a hostile witness, Eusebius. Throughout the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius is engaged in a polemical conflict with premillennialism, and it is certain that he has selected the fragments of Papias designed to present his eschatology in the least flattering light. Hall concludes as follows concerning Papias' eschatology
In any case, millenarianism was the prevailing Christian belief of the age . . . . It was the orthodoxy of the century. None but heretics questioned it. So far from being alone in his faith, Papias represented in this respect all the accepted writers, all the Christian "Fathers," of his time.94
The Didache
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, a shortened form of the title, The Teaching of the lord to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles, is commonly referred to simply as the Didache. This work first became known to the scholarly world upon publication in 1883. The author of this handbook of Church discipline is unknown, though it is certainly not from an apostolic pen. Quasten surmises that the point of the title is that the writer intends to give a brief summary of the doctrine of Christ as taught to the Gentiles by the apostles95, i.e., he is passing on the tradition of the early Church. The Didache falls into three parts:96 (1) an epitome of the Christian moral code, under the figure of the Two Ways, the Way of Life and the Way of Death; (2) a liturgical Section, and (3) a section concerning church order. The Didache concludes with a final section treating the eschatological setting of the Christian life (chapter 16). The date of the Didache together with its relationship to the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, has been the subject of much scholarly discussion.97
For the purposes of this study, it is merely necessary to observe that the Didache--in its present form dates from around 100 to 150 A.D.98 and was probably written in Syria. Whatever the exact date and place of its composition, the Didache is a very primitive document of Christian antiquity.99 The fact that the work lacks coherence points to its being a compilation, "an artless collection," of texts which even then had been in use for some time, thereby acquiring authority."100 It is a valuable source, giving us "an excellent picture of Christian life in the second century." 101
Quasten has remarked that a prominent eschatological attitude pervades the Didache.102 The eschatological emphasis shows up in the eucharistic prayers and is the subject of the whole final chapter. All scholars concur that a primitive eschatological expectancy pervades the Didache however, there is no consensus as to whether or not the document is ohiliastic.103 Therefore, an examination of the evidence is in order. In the eucharistic prayer of chapter 9 it is said:
Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.104
And the same thought is taken up in the following chapter:
Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever.105
In both these passages we find a conception of the Kingdom which G. E. Ladd has termed "eschatological."106 In the first prayer, the Church and Kingdom are clearly distinguished; they are not synonymous. The Church is to be gathered at some future time from the ends of the earth into the Kingdom.107
Similarly, the second prayer which was cited, appeals that the Church might be perfected and sanctified so that it will be ready to be gathered from the four corners of the earth into the Kingdom which the Lord has prepared. For the Didache, then, the Kingdom is the future realm of blessedness which the saints will experience after Christ's return, while the Church is the present, visible people of God on earth.108 Such a conception is thoroughly incompatible with postmillennialism and partially incompatible with amillennialism. It points to chiliasm as the eschatological viewpoint of the Didache. Robertson argues that the prayer, "Let grace come and this world pass away" (chapter 10) is by itself inconclusive,
But combined with the prayer (ix., x.) that the Church may be gathered from the ends of the earth into the Kingdom of God, and with the reference to a first resurrection (xvi. 6) it points decisively to the thought of a future reign of Christ on earth.109
As Robertson observes, chapter 16 contains important indications of the millenarianism of the Didache.110 In this concluding chapter, it is emphasized that the hour is uncertain; the parousia is imminent. The signs heralding the parousia are given: false prophets and perverters of the truth will multiply, turning sheep into wolves and love into hate; the deceiver of the world will appear, posing as the Son of God and performing many signs and wonders; the earth will be given into his hands; then mankind will undergo a fiery test, with those who persevere being saved; at last, then, the world will see Christ returning on the clouds in glory, together with His saints. On this basis, readers are admonished to be ready.111 The chapter concludes:
And then shall appear the signs of truth; first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.112
The Didache, then, teaches the following order of events after the time of trial and before the end: (1) the out- spreading of heaven;113 (2) then the trump sounds; (3) this is followed by the resurrection of some of the dead; (4) then the Lord comes with His saints; and (5) finally the whole world sees Christ coming upon the clouds.114 The Didache here gives a relatively detailed list of events which occur at the parousia, when Christ comes to gather His (living) saints into His Kingdom, as prayed for in chapters 9 and 10. Note should be taken of the fact that one of these events is the resurrection of some of the dead. Now, only in a premillennial system of eschatology do some of the dead rise at Christ's coming;115 in either a postmillennial or an amillennial system, there is a general resurrection, followed by a general judgment and the consummation of all things. But in the Didache we find only a partial resurrection, presumably that of the saints to reign with Christ and the gathered saints in His Kingdom. Furthermore, there is no mention of a Day of Judgment at Christ's coming.116
So, while it is true, as George L Murray notes, that there is "no allusion to a thousand year interval" between the resurrections,117 and, indeed, that there is no specific reference to a "second resurrection," nevertheless the Didache's eschatological expectations may only be understood within a chiliastic framework. Any attempt to view the partial resurrection and the gathering of the Church Into the Kingdom In a non-millenarian sense is to force the Didache into a Procrustean bed.118
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas was written by an unknown Christian of the early second century A.D. Though traditionally attributed to Barnabas, the missionary companion of Paul was certainly not the author of the Epistle.119 Dating possibilities for Barnabas as set forth by modern scholarship, range from 96 to 140 A.D.120
The use of the allegorical method points to Alexandria as the probable home of the author of Barnabas.121 Besides the use of allegorical interpretation, another noteworthy feature of this work is its radically anti-Jewish polemic, of a level unmatched in early Christian literature. Although this anti-Jewish sentiment may point to Gentile authorship,122 L. W. Barnard has persuasively argued that the author must have been a Jewish-Christian, a former rabbi who brought to Christianity the exegetical and homiletical traditions of the Alexandrian synagogue.123 Barnard feels that the Epistle reflects the Jewish-Christian antagonism of the time when the Jewish-Christians were being forced to choose between the Church and synagogue.124
The Epistle of Barnabas is definitely chiliastic in it eschatology. The primary text is found in chapter 16:
Further, also, it, is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue . . . "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." . . .The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "Thou shall sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived; certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.125
Before proceeding any further, it should be noted that the "wicked man" whose "time" is to be destroyed at Christ's coming is identified in chapter 4. There it is stated that the "final stumbling-block (or source of danger)" is approaching, that which had been foretold in prophecy. This final danger is the "little horn" of Daniel's vision (Dan. 7) which subdues three of the ten horns of the fourth beast. The Christians are warned to take heed mot to fall asleep in sins lest "the wicked prince, acquiring power over us, should thrust, us away from the kingdom of the Lord."126
We may summarize Barnabas' eschatology thus: God will send His Son in the End Times to destroy the Antichrist. The end will come six thousand years after the creation, each day of the creation week corresponding to one thousand years of world history. Christ's coming brings cataclysmic changes in the sun, moon, and stars, and introduces a day of rest, one thousand years in length (corresponding to the Sabbath of the creation week). At the end of this millennial sabbath, an even greater transformation will occur; an eighth day will be inaugurated--the beginning of another world--which is presently typified by the Christian worship on the Lord's Day.127
John Lawson has observed that chapter 15 contains an anti-Judaic arguments a denial that the Old Testament requires a keeping of the Sabbath. Rather, for Barnabas, the Old Testament references to the Sabbath are to be understood as prophecies of the "promised rest" of the Millennial Kingdom. The Epistle, then, is chiliastic. "He writes as though the Advent of the Lord, the destruction of the power of Satan, and the judgment of the ungodly would take place before the lOOO-year Kingdom."128
Despite the seemingly clear millenarianism of the Epistle of Barnabas a few scholars have argued that the writing is not chiliastic. C. A. Briggs astoundingly argues that Barnabas expounds postmillennial views! Briggs claims that the Epistle teaches an Advent for judgment, followed by a Sabbath of rest. "There is nothing about the reign of Christ on earth in a Millennial kingdom, but only of a Millennial Sabbath, in accordance with the Jewish rabbins of that period ..."129 He further argues:
. . . we are hardly justified in concluding, from his idea of the Sabbath Millennium, that he held the views subsequently understood as Chiliasm and Pre- millennialism} for he seems to teach that the advent was accompanied [sic] by a universal resurrection and a general judgment, and that this was followed by a seventh day, a Millennium of earthly rest, and this by an eighth eternal day in a new world--conception entirely different both from that of the Apocalypse and the Chiliasts.130
To support his interpretation, Briggs is forced to see chapter 21 in a most unusual light. The passage reads:
It is well, therefore, that he who has learned the judgments of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them. For he who keepeth these shall be glorified in the kingdom of God; but he who chooseth other things shall be destroyed with his works. On this account there will be a resurrection, on this account a retribution . . . The Lord is near, and His reward . . . . And be ye taught of God, inquiring diligently what the Lord asks from you; and do it that ye may be safe in the day of judgment.131
Briggs claims that this passage teaches a general resurrection and a general judgment, with no 1000 years separating the resurrection and the judgment, and with no mention of two resurrections.132 In this regard, it is interesting to note that one manuscript--Codex Sinaiticus does mention two resurrections in its rendering of this passage, reading, "0n this account there will be resurrections. . ."133 But, in any event, Briggs analysis of Barnabas is thoroughly erroneous; it is not a postmillennialist document, for postmillennialism was a doctrine unknown in ancient times. In keeping with most later chiliasts among the Fathers, Barnabas argues that the millennia of history correspond to the days of creation, and that the Sabbath Millennium is still in the future.134
D. H, Kromminga has argued that the eschatology of the Epistle of Barnabas is amillennial.135 Kromminga begins by observing that the work does display acquaintance with strains of thought which "later appear as part of the stock- in-trade of chiliasts,"136 e.g., the treatment of the four world empires of Daniel and the correspondence between the creation days and the millennia of history.137 But chapter 15, he feels, leaves no room for a premillenarian interpretation of Barnabas:
. . .its conclusion of the judgment, of the ungodly and of the cosmic changes in the inception of the seventh day, that is, the seventh thousand years of the world, runs flatly counter to the accepted and traditional premillenarian teachings, in which the resurrection of the believers only is placed at the beginning of the millennium, while the judgment of the ungodly together with their resurrection comes after its close.
Barnabas links the notion of the rest with both, the seventh and the eighth day. He seems to be of the opinion, that there will be a seventh world-period all right, but that that period will be identical with the perfection of the eternal state. There can be no doubt about the identity of his seventh and eighth day.
The day of rest that is coming is one and the same day, viewed from two different aspects. From the viewpoint of continuity the great world-sabbath is the seventh day; but from the viewpoint of discontinuity it is the eighth, beyond and outside the present world-week. The future state is the last, reckoning from creation; it is new, because of sin and redemption. This is the simplest meaning which I can discover in Barnabas' words; but this plain and pure Amillennialism.138
Kromminga adduces two less important arguments against the chiliasm of the Epistle. First, he feels that the stumbling-block which appears just before the end is difficult to explain if Barnabas is premillennial, for, "Premillenarians . . . must take account of the release of Satan at the end of the thousand years . . ."139 Also, great cosmic changes are placed at the beginning of the seventh day, but these should occur at the end of the seventh day on any premillennial scheme, argues Kromminga, Second, not only are there these chronological difficulties, but, "the presumption that Barnabas was an Amillenarian is decidedly strengthened by his marked and pervading anti- judaism.140
These last two arguments are of little weight, however, for, in the first place, the premillennial scheme of interpretation allows room for a "stumbling-block" other than Gog and Magog at the end of the Millennium, i.e., Antichrist, who appears prior to the Millennium. It is proper to speak of the time of Antichrist's appearance--the Great Tribulation-- as "the end." Furthermore, chiliasm provides room for cosmic changes at the end of the Tribulation, prior to the Millennium, as will be seen in the following two chapters of this work. Kromminga's chronological objections to the millennialism of Barnabas, then, are without foundation. In the second place as was shown above, the anti-judaism of the Epistle of Barnabas is best explained on the assumption that the author was a Jewish-Christian. Much Jewish-Christian material is to be found in the Epistle , and the anti-Jewish polemic is no barrier, therefore, to a Jewish-Christian chiliasm. And, besides, as Kromminga himself concedes, there is no reason anti-judaism may not be combined with chiliasm.141
As for Kromminga's principal argument, it is simply not cogent. G. E. Ladd rejects it with considerable charity when he states, "Kromminga attempts to prove that Barnabas did not anticipate an earthly millennium, but to the present writer he has not succeeded."142 Actually, Kromminga's analysis is quite confused. In chapter 15, Barnabas does not identify the seventh and eighth days as one and the same, as Kromminga alleges. Rather, the Epistle teaches that the millennia of history correspond to the days of creation, and that just as God finished all things in six days, so also He will finish "all things" at the end of 6000 years. A very clear explanation of what is meant by this finishing of all things (before the Sabbath Rest) is given: Christ will come again and destroy the time of the wicked man, judging the ungodly143 and working cosmic changes. This is plainly a description of the End Times as viewed by all premillennialists. And, since the six days represent 6000 years, the conclusion naturally follows that the seventh day represents another period of 1000 years in the world's history: a millennium of rest.
Barnabas, in this chapter, is attempting to show that the Jewish Sabbath is not the correct day of worship. He argues that the real meaning of Sabbath rest is found in the coming Millennium, for, "then shall He truly rest on the seventh day." The Jews have misunderstood the Sabbath's typical meaning. The most appropriate day of worship is really the eighth day, when Christ arose. Of course, this first day of the new week also corresponds to a future events the dawn of another world, the new heaven and new earth at the culmination of the Millennium. L. W. Barnard states that in Barnabas the eighth day is "the day of eternity which is to dawn at the end of the millennium or sabbath rest."144 This is the manner in which most scholars have understood the Epistle of Barnabas.145 It is thoroughly premillennial.
The Shepherd of Hermas
There are two conflicting pieces of data concerning the origin of the Shepherd of Hermas. On the one hand, the book itself in the Second Vision (chapter 4) makes mention of a command from Clement, presumably Clement of Rome, to make two copies of the revelation Hermas had received On the other hand, the Muratorian Fragment states that Hermas was the brother of Pius, bishop of the Roman Church, and very recently had written the Shepherd. Now, Pius was Roman bishop ca 140-150 A.D., while Clement was bishop in the last decade of the first century.146 These two seemingly contradictory testimonies have led to much scholarly discussion. But, since there are good reasons for believing both testimonies to be reliable, recent scholars have advanced the hypothesis that the treatise may not have been written at a single sitting, but represents a collection of the writings of Hermas, brother of Pius, compiled over a period of thirty to forty years.147 In any case, the Shepherd may likely be dated In the first half of the second century sources.) The Syrian-Egyptian conception Implies a cessation of divine activity; the Asiatic implies an intensification. In Irenaeus these two differing approaches were fused. A.D.,148 with Rome as its probable place of origin.
The Shepherd is divided into twenty-seven tractates: five Visions, twelve Commandments, and ten Similitudes, all being revelations to Hermas. The author reveals himself as a man of "no great intelligence, yet possessed of vivid imagination and ability to give a graphic description of his experiences."149 Whatever our modern view of this work, it was highly regarded in the ancient Church and was widely circulated in the second half of the second century.150 Barnard feels that Hermas was a prophet of the Roman Church who was viewed as an authoritative teacher, and that the Roman Church circulated his works as such, which explains their wide acceptance by other churches.151 Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian (in his pre-Montanist period) regarded Hermas as an inspired writer.152 In any case, Hermas provides us with a glimpse of popular Christianity of the second century.
What can be said concerning the eschatology of the Shepherd? It unmistakably reflects the early Christian expectation of the nearness of the parousia and the Great Tribulation. C. A. Briggs has summarized the eschatological expectations of the Shepherd of Hermas:
The Church is compared to a tower composed of living stones, fitted exactly to each other, apostles, bishops, &c., some having fallen asleep and some remaining alive (ii.5). The tower is yet building. When it is finished and built, then comes the end and it will soon be finished (ii.8). A great tribulation is coming, (iv.2). The world in which we dwell must perish through blood and fire. There is an age to come in which the elect of God will dwell, since those elected by God will be spotless and pure, (iv.3). . . . The Master's absence from home is the time that remains until His appearing, (Sim. iv.5). The 9th Sim. is of the Church or kingdom of God as a tower in building. It is built on a rock which is Christ. Those who would enter must repent, have the seal of baptism, bear the name of Christ and be clothed with Christian graces.153
Briggs concludes this fair and objective summary, however, with the following postmillenarian interpretation:
We observe that Hermas, who would be likely to lay great stress upon the Millennium if he had been a Premillenarian, takes an entirely different direction in his symbolism, using it with reference to the militant Church and the growing kingdom prior to the Advent which he regards as near.154
Now, if all that Hermas had written concerning the future was the Tower Similitude, Briggs' analysis might be plausible, for the Shepherd at places does seem to equate the Church with the Kingdom.155 However, the work contains other eschatological material, leading to far different conclusions Shirley Jackson Case, along with others, views the Shepherd of Hermas as reflecting the popular chiliasm of the time.156 A key passage for an understanding of the Shepherd's eschatological viewpoint is found in Vision 2, chapter 3:
Lo, the God of powers . . . . lo! He removes the heavens and the mountains, the hills and the seas, and all things become plain to His elect, that He may bestow on them the blessing which He has promised them, with much glory and joy . . . . 157
This passage teaches that God, the wise and all-powerful Creator, will remove the heavens, the hills, the mountains, and the seas, making all things level.158 God will work these great changes, making all things level for His elect,159 for the purpose of bestowing upon them the blessings promised to them. To Briggs and others who deny the chiliasm of the Shepherd, we must ask: why must these geographical changes be wrought in order for God to bestow His blessings? Are these purely spiritual and heavenly blessings in the eternal state which Hermas is speaking of? Precisely what promised blessings are in view? Is not this the language of the promised Messianic Kingdom of the Old Testament prophets, complete with its level, fruitful Palestine?
On the basis of Similitude 4,160 Case argues, "In this world to come the righteous shall flourish as the luxuriant foliage of summer, but the wicked shall wither and be burned as fuel."161 However, it should be noted that the language of this Similitude does not necessarily speak of a future earthly state.
Hermas displays a longing for the age to come. In Vision 4,162 he sees a beast with a head of four colors. It is stated that this beast symbolizes the "tribulation that is to come."163 The four colors and their meanings are as follows: black represents the present world; red signifies the blood and fire in which this world is going to perish; gold symbolizes the Christians who will be tested and purified by the tribulation; white is the "age that is to come, in which the elect of God will dwell." Those who cast their care upon the Lord will not be harmed by the coming tribulation, escaping it just as Hermas was not hurt by the beast.164
Most writers who have surveyed the history of chiliasm conclude that Hermas' Shepherd reflects an underlying premillennialism. This conclusion is not based upon any unmistakably millenarian statements in the work--such as that Christ will reign on earth 1000 years or that there will be two resurrections--but, rather, it is an inference based upon the materialistic allusions to the future age, coupled with the fervent eschatological expectation which was a common trait of the known chiliasts of the second century A.D.
Conclusion
There are two great issues in the study of chiliasm in the Apostolic Fathers. First, what was the extent of the belief in millenarianism among the early patristic writers? Second, what was the origin of the belief? Both questions, in effect, resolve themselves into one more basic question: was chiliasm the received faith of the Church? What does our survey say to these questions? Were the earliest Christian writers--those closest to the Apostles--chiliasts? Was the source of primitive Christian chiliasm apostolic teaching or Jewish fables?
As for the first question, this survey shows that eschatological expectancy and a desire for the advent of the Kingdom pervaded the early Church. Not one of the writings surveyed can be shown to be antimillenarian. Instead, most of them are either chiliastic by declaration or chiliastic by implication. Two writers--Clement and Ignatius--have said so little in their surviving works that a conclusive evaluation of their eschatology is impossible, yet what few clues are to be found indicate that these two worthies shared the general eschatological expectations of their day. In the case of Papias, the Didache, and the Epistle of Barnabas, we found three definite premillennialists. Polycarp and Hermas-- by inferential argument--were seen probably to have been millenarians.
The earliest Christian writings which take a position on the question of the Millennium, then, are chiliastic. Others of the earliest writers have associations or make comments which would make a non-chiliastic conclusion concerning them utterly incredible. Furthermore, the next generation of Christians belonged to--employing the phrase of W. G. T. Shedd--the "blooming age of Millenarianism." if the Apostolic Fathers were not premillennialists,them to do so? Does not the fact of borrowing give proof that what was borrowed was viewed as complimentary to already accepted Christian teaching? In short, if apocalyptic details were borrowed from Jewish Messianic literature, does not this prove that a common set of beliefs concerning the coming, earthly, Messianic Kingdom were held by both?
Second, is it in fact demonstrable that "borrowing" of beliefs actually occurred? Is it not rather a case of parallelism of beliefs? E.g., both Christianity and Jewish apocalyptic literature expect a resurrection of the Dead. Does this parallelism condemn the Christian doctrine?
Third, do not the similarities, parallels, and even the occasional borrowing of details from Jewish literature have their most natural explanation in the fact that both Judaism and Christianity draw upon a common source, i,e, the Old Testament? Last--and this is the most important question of all-- if parallels between the language of Papias and that of the Apocalypse of Baruch are evidence of dependencies antimillenarians are wont to claim--why are not references to two resurrections and a 1000 year Kingdom evidence of dependence on the Apocalypse? In fact, we need look no further than the Book of Revelation to discover the source which inspired chiliasm. (As will be seen in what follows, the we can only conclude that they did a passingly strange job of teaching their children, especially since a writer such as Irenaeus seems to be of the opinion that he is passing on Apostolic tradition. In fact, no representative of an anti-millenarian school is known until Caius of Rome at the end of the second century A.D. This whole line of evidence, then, suggests that chiliasm was the received faith of the Church. Turning to the second question, we observe that anti-millenarians argue that belief in an earthly 1000- year reign of Christ was imported into Christianity via Jewish apocalypses in the second century. Now, it is evident that there are parallels between Jewish apocalyptic literature's expectations concerning the Messianic Kingdom and that of the early Christians. However, it should be pointed out that there are parallels between that same body of Jewish literature and the apocalyptic passages in the New Testament. The parallelism does not invalidate the Apocalypse; neither does it condemn the chiliasm of the early Fathers. In fact, given Christianity's origins, it is only to be expected. A number of questions must be directed to the antimillenarian polemicists who make so much of the "Jewishness" of chiliasm: First, if the early Christians did borrow some apocalyptic details from Jewish literature, what prompted them to do so? Does not the fact of borrowing give proof that what was borrowed was viewed as complimentary to already accepted Christian teaching? In short, if apocalyptic details were borrowed from Jewish Messianic literature, does not this prove that a common set of beliefs concerning the coming, earthly, Messianic Kingdom were held by both? Second, is it in fact demonstrable that "borrowing" of beliefs actually occurred? Is it not rather a case of parallelism of beliefs? E.g., both Christianity and Jewish apocalyptic literature expect a resurrection of the Dead. Does this parallelism condemn the Christian doctrine? Third, do not the similarities, parallels, and even the occasional borrowing of details from Jewish literature have their most natural explanation in the fact that both Judaism and Christianity draw upon a common source, i,e, the Old Testament? Last--and this is the most important question of all-- if parallels between the language of Papias and that of the Apocalypse of Baruch are evidence of dependencies antimillenarians are wont to claim--why are not references to two resurrections and a 1000 year Kingdom evidence of dependence on the Apocalypse? In fact, we need look no further than the Book of Revelation to discover the source which inspired chiliasm. (As will be seen in what follows, the churches which clung most tenaciously to millennialism were those most influenced by John and his circle of disciples.) Both lines of evidence, then, point to premillennialism as the received, apostolic faith of the primitive Church.