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: 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 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
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 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
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 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 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 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
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
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
Ignatius was the second bishop of
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,
Polycarp
Polycarp (ca. 69-ca.155 A.D.)61 was
bishop of
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.
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
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
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
Papias
Papias, bishop of
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