|
I. It was not the faith of the Apostolic Church
Just why some teach and preach that the Apostolic church was wholly millenarian we do not know. Perhaps they are not adequately informed (we sincerely hope this is the reason.) The early church was divided on this subject, and, although some of the early Christians did believe in the literal reign of Christ on earth, thousands of them rejected the doctrine.
We are reminded of this division in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, under the article, “Justin Martyr”: “Justin is confident that his teaching is that of the church at large. He knows of a division among the orthodox only on the question of the millennium and on the milder Jewish Christianity.” Again, we are told that “Justin, while holding strong to a belief in the millennium on earth, admits that
the belief was not held ‘ubique et ab om-nibus’ (everywhere and by all) in the church.”
Commenting on the same point, Dr. C. E. Brown writes: “Beyond doubt millenarianism [sic] was carried over by Jewish converts into Christianity. Just as they carried over circumcision, the law, Sabbath, abstinence from certain food, etc. But Justin Martyr, who was himself a millenarian, denies categorically that the whole church was millenarian. Writing about 140 A.D. he says, ‘Many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise . . . .”
My friend, the next time you read or hear someone say that all the early Christians believed in the millennium, be assured that they are incorrect; such a statement is a plain contradiction of fact.
II. The Doctrine of Premillennialism Has Never Been Universally Accepted by Orthodox Christians
The oldest document containing the belief, worship, and organization of the primitive Christian church is the Didache (i.e., The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles).
This document was held in very high esteem in the early church, being quoted as Scripture by Clement of Alexandria. A careful examination of this work which dates back to 150 or 180 A.D. according to many authorities, does not contain one word about Christ reigning on this earth for one thousand years. In Article XVI we read:
“And then shall appear the sign of the truth; first the sign of the opening in heaven; then the sign of the trumpet’s sound; and thirdly the resurrection of the dead, yet not all, but as it hath been said: ‘The Lord will come and all the saints with Him.’ Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.”
There is no hint here of a thousand- years’ reign of Christ on the earth. There is no mention here of the righteous being raised a thousand years before the wicked. But rather, there is only the one coming of Christ mentioned, and when Christ makes His second advent, the whole world will know it. All the righteous dead, being now in heaven, will return with Christ when He comes the second time. The premillennial view certainly does not correspond with this!
There is no mention made of a millennium in the Apostles’ Creed, where we read: “He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from whence He cometh to judge the quick and the dead.”
Nor can any support for the millennium be found in the Nicene Creed, the next oldest church creed. It reads: “And He shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead.”
The Athanasian Creed likewise implies that there will be no millennium: “When He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account of their works.”
You will notice that not one of these ancient documents make any mention whatsoever of a personal reign of Christ on the earth for a thousand years. They do agree, however on these five points: 1.) That Christ is coming again. 2.) That when He comes He will resurrect the bodies of all the sinners. 3.) That when He comes He will resurrect the bodies of all the saints. 4.) That both saints and sinners will be rewarded at the same time. 5.) The absence of any reference or even hint of the righteous being raised one thousand years before the wicked.
Professor Harris Franklin Rall has clearly shown that many prominent and authoritative Protestant influences have rejected the millennialist idea.
The situation is no different with the great Protestant confessions. Calvin’s position has been indicated by a quotation from the Institutes. Luther’s position is given in Koestlin’s authoritative work on his theology (Theologie Martin Luther II 575). He speaks of “the inward and spiritual nature of his view of Christian salvation, in consequence of which the theory that this earth is yet to become the scene of an outwardly victorious kingdom of Christ, had no attraction for him.” Luther, he declared, rejected the doctrines of Chilialism [the Greek term for millennialism] absolutely.
The Augsburg Confession XVII, reads, “They condemn others also who now scatter Jewish opinion, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed.”
The Helvetic Confession, XI.14, says: “We condemn the Jewish dreams that before the day of judgment there shall be a golden age upon the earth, and that the pious shall possess the kingdoms of the world, their wicked foes being held in subjection.”
The Westminster Confession directly excludes premillennialism by declaring that there shall be one judgment day, in which all persons that have lived upon the earth, shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give account of their thoughts, words and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.
The Thirty Nine Articles of the Anglican Church indicate the position taken by affirming the Athanasian Creed.
We may conclude with J.A. Seiss that the doctrine of premillennialism “is certainly not taught in any respectable creed in Christendom.” “. . . it is not to be found in any of the church’s books of devotion, liturgies, hymnals, or accepted songs, for the first fifteen centuries, including the period of the greatest purity and faithfulness. All the great confessions, either by implication or direct specification, are adverse to it, and unconstructible with it. The old theologians such as Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Knox, Hutter, Hunnis, Quenstedt, and even the Wesley’s are against it.”
III. The Time Set by Some for the Millennium to Be Ushered in Has Passed
Some modern writers entertain the idea that as God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day, the world would stand six thousand years and then the Millennium would begin. According to Halley: “In the beginning of the Christian era the Epistle of Barnabas mentioned a theory held that even as there had been 2000 years from Abraham to Christ, so there would be 2000 years for the Christian period, and then would come the Millennium of Sabbath rest, as foreshadowed by the six days of creation followed by the Sabbath.”
Now, if it were true that the Millennium was to be ushered in after 6000 years of world history, then this period must, of necessity, have already passed, for world [history] has now stood for more than seven thousand years.
Nearly all Bible scholars agree that Bishop Usher’s dates, which have been inserted into the center columns of many of our Bibles, are by no means accurate.
One well-known reference work comments thus on the . . . chronology: “The era of creation of the world is obtained from the Old Testament, but varies in the different texts. The version reckons 1656 years from creation to the flood and 4000 years from the creation to the birth of Christ. The Samaritan makes the latter interval (i.e., from creation to the birth of Christ) much longer. . . . The Septuagint version removes the creation to 6000 years before Christ.”
The Septuagint Version was the Bible that Christ and the apostles used. According to it—as may be seen from the foregoing extract—[history] has stood approximately 8000 years already. Hence, if the Millennium was to be ushered in after 6000 years of world history, the event is long passed and gone.
The late Dr. Harry A. Ironside, former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church, has stated: “My own judgment is that the Greek translation of the Old Testament gives us the most reliable chronology. It adds 500 years to the lives of the patriarchs before the Flood, making it 2000 years from Adam to Noah. It adds many years to the lives of the patriarchs after the Flood, so that instead of 2500 years from the Flood to Christ, we have about 4000 years. . . . There is a serious possibility that certain Jewish teachers and scribes deliberately altered the dates in the copies of the Hebrew Bible which they had, so as to make it appear that only 4000 years had elapsed, but the Septuagint or Greek translation was already widely known, and that gives us what I believe to be the true chronology.”
On the basis of the work of scholars it is quite certain that 7000 years of world history have already passed. This fact therefore makes the Millennial-Sabbath theory untenable.
1. Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, article, “Eschatology” 2. Charles E. Brown, The Hope of His Coming (Anderson: Gospel Trumpet Co., 1927) 22 3. Harris Franklin Hall, Modern Premillennialism and the Christian Hope (Nashville: Abingdon, 1920) 106 4.J. A. Seiss, The Apocalypse (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957 reprint. Originally printed in 1884) vol. 3, 343 5. Ibid 6. Henry H. Halley, Pocket Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953) 33 7. The New International Encyclopedia Vol. 5, 300 8. Harry A. Ironside (Chicago: Moody Press, ) What’s the Answer? 79-80
|
|
Eschatological Calcalus. Our calendar is a completely arbitrary means for doing end-times calculations. The Roman calendar dated years from the founding of the city of Rome. The Jewish calendar, a fairly late creation, attempted to date events from the creation of the world (Annus Mundi, AM). When the Roman emperor Constantine became a Christian (of sorts) during the early fourth century, the Church adopted the Jewish calendar. But as the supposed seventh millennium since the world’s creation drew near—our AD 500—the Christian populace became preoccupied with predictions of the end. In response to this problem, the Western Church revised its estimates of the world’s age downward by several centuries. But this only delayed the problem. As our year 800—5999 by their calendar—drew near, eschatological hysteria again ran rampant. In response, the Church adopted the Annus Domini (BC/AD) calendar, still in use. It employs the Incarnation rather than the Creation as its starting point. But the calendar makers miscalculated the date of Jesus’ birth by at least four years.
From a Chapel Address by George Lyons at Northwest Nazarene University January 12, 2000 |