Were the Church Fathers all Premillennial?

This is an answer to a question I was asked regarding the millennial views of the church fathers.

[beowulf.reborn]

Don't you think it is telling, that the Earliest Church Fathers almost unanimously held to a literal Premillennial Return of Christ, that would usher in the Earthly Reign of Christ for a 1000 years, at a time when the issue of whether the book of Revelation should be part of the Canon, was still somewhat undecided? That seems rather suggestive to me, that the Fathers were not simply getting this Doctrine from Revelation, but that it was a teaching of the Apostles that the Church received directly, and was founded upon, and supported by the _many_ passages throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament that support the idea of a future Kingdom on Earth. And Revelation was just _one_ such witness to this truth.

[russelljones]

I find it interesting that none of the modern eschatological views are not clearly supported by the Apostolic Fathers. Augustine is the chief building block of modern eschatology as historical records show that these views have no original consistent teaching in the Early years of the Church.
I and others who are right-minded Christians on all points are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built. . . . For Isaiah spoke in that manner concerning this period of a thousand years. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.239.

[theneverending]

Justin martyr said many others around him didn’t hold to what he did.

[drb]

Could you be post millenial and lutheran?

[waltthewhitman]

Every church father prior to Origen was Pre Mil.

[SpotterVideo]

A Millennium Puzzle to solve… Will Christ be conducting funeral services for mortals killed in accidents 500 years after His Second Coming?

The “first resurrection” in Rev. chapter 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the Book of Revelation, because the two witnesses are resurrected from the dead in chapter 11. There are two different types of resurrection in John chapter 5. There is a spiritual resurrection from the dead in John 5:24, and a bodily resurrection from the dead in John 5:28-29.

My view of the Millennium agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel. The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.

My view agrees with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord. The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.

My view agrees with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing. The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20.

My view agrees with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage. There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19.

My view agrees with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness.

My view agrees with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time. Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time.

Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth.

[ProtestantismLeftBehind]

Not all. Yes it was early. Then condemned.

[st.christopher]

Excuse me. Trypho asked Justin "if your Jesus is the Messiah, then why did he not fulfill all the prophecies" Justin answered there are two advents ... one in which Jesus would suffer and die and another in the future where he will rule and fulfill the remaining prophecies ... and that even as the first were fulfilled literally, so will be the remaining. Trypho then asked "do you really believe that Jerusalem will be rebuilt"? Trypho knew that some of the remaining prophecies required a city of Jerusalem but it had been destroyed and was still desolate in Justin's day. That's what the question was about though, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, not about a millennium per se. Justin said, "yes we do. Those of us who are right minded Christians do believe Jerusalem will be built up again". Those who were of another opinion were those who doubted or denied that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. Justin said it would and then added that Christ would reign from that rebuilt earthly Jerusalem for 1000 years. This was added information to Trypho's question. Justin told Trypho of three groups to be aware of: 1) right minded Christians that believe Jerusalem would be rebuilt. 2) well meaning faithful Christians who are of another opinion about the rebuilding of Jerusalem. But Justin said they were ignorant not understanding the prophecies in Isaiah and Daniel. 3) Justin also warned Trypho there was a third group called "heretics" who Justin said should not be considered Christians at all or of the faith.
Read Justin. The amillennialist attempt to pull this "trick" from the "Dialouge with Trypho" because they have nothing else to grab on to. Justin does not serve them well and they would be better to leave it alone than to be dishonest.

[chadkincham]

premillennialism and the early church

The church was premillennial for 300 years


Premillennialism or chiliasm as it was called in the early church, was the pervasive view of the earliest orthodox fathers. This is the consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars who are experts in early Church theology. J. N. D. Kelly, acknowledged internationally as an authority on patristic Christian thought, is typical of the scholarly opinion on this question and notes that the early Church was chiliasti or millenarian in her eschatology. Speaking of the eschatology of the second century he observes,
The clash with Judaism and paganism made it imperative to set out the bases of the revealed dogmas more thoroughly. The Gnostic tendency to dissolve Christian eschatology into the myth of the soul's upward ascent and return to God had to be resisted. On the other hand millenarianism, or the theory that the returned Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years, came to find increasing support among Christian teachers. . . . This millenarian, or 'chiliastic', doctrine was widely popular at this time.13
Kelly asserts further that premillennialism or chiliasm was dominate through the middle of the third century by observing the following: “The great theologians who followed the Apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus, were primarily concerned to defend the traditional eschatological scheme against Gnosticism. . . . They are all exponents of millenarianism.”14 Still another historian says,
Primitive Christianity was marked by great chiliastic enthusiasm, . . . By chiliasm, strictly speaking, is meant the belief that Christ was to return to earth and reign visibly for one thousand years. That return was commonly placed in the immediate future.15
Premillennialism was not contradicted by a single orthodox church father until the beginning of the third century, when Gaius (Caius) first launched an attack. Gaius is the first one in recorded church history who interpreted the thousand years symbolically. Additionally, he also rejected the Book of Revelation, holding that it was written by Cerinthus and should not be in the canon.16 But even with Gaius' appearance, premillennialism was still very much the eschatology of the day.

Evidence for premillennialism:

Consistent literal interpretation
• Unconditional nature of the covenants (Abrahamic)
• The Abrahamic Covenant
• The Old Testament teaches a literal earthly kingdom
• The kingdom is carried unchanged into the New Testament
• Christ also supports an earth kingdom
• There are multiple resurrections in Scripture
• Revelation 20 teaches premillennialism
• The early church was premillennial
• The failure of amillennialism and postmillennialism
• Premillennialism harmonizes the entire Bible
• Only premillennialism provides a satisfactory conclusion to history

[aniolelseer]

Hi from 2022. Please refute John McArthur view on the millialium.

[st.christopher]

The early church fathers were premillennial: Papias, Polycarp, John the presbyter, St. Aristion, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, St. Lactantius, St. Victorinus, St. Cyril, etc. None of them were amillennial and none were amillennial from Asia minor ... none!

[WhiteDove-]

So you claim not every early church father was premillennial yet are unable to actually have any proof of that ignorant claim. Wow??? You really have nothing to stand on here whatsoever 😅
Go back and start all over.

[ssiegfreid]

Literally this guy gives to sources or substance to support his view but just repeats himself over and over why his view is right. THANKFULLY, there are informed comments on this video that truly educate and substantiate the early church fathers WERE premillennial.

[seanchaney]

They were sexta/septa very good interpretation of the texy....

[Spurgeon_General]

When I study church history, I see an increasing and increasing in understanding of the Bible.
The earliest church fathers had admittedly very very bad doctrinal understandings on things, but those generations were tasked by providence to hammer out better Christological doctrine, for the church at large, similar to how the church during the reformation was tasked by providence to bring much more defined clarity to soteriological doctrines.

The church is growing in maturity. And is still advancing.
The fact that many of the church fathers had a premill view, doesn’t prove anything. They got many, many things wrong. And eschatology is a very very involved and complicated issue. Of course they had error there.

[GatheringJacob]

But off the top of your head not one reference to one Father that did not believe in premillennialism? I guess not. Might have been better not to answer that question. You basically proved the questioners point.

[JC_Forum_of_Christ]

The original 12 apostles were pre-millennial

[luboshcamber]

Yes they were. Twisting the history and pushing your views won't change it. I am sorry

[John]

They didn't have the book of Revelation until 350 AD when it was included in the canon. What the apologists term as Premillennial is simply the Jewish belief in the coming of the Messiah when the earth will be filled with the glory of God till the waters cover the sea.