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 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 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 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 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