Did the Early Church Believe in a Literal Thousand-Year Reign of Christ on Earth? – Post #10 of 2010

Post Author: Bill Pratt

revelation churches Did the Early Church Believe in a Literal Thousand Year Reign of Christ on Earth? – Post #10 of 2010 The Book of Revelation, according to some Christians, teaches a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth after his second coming (see Rev. 20). This will then be followed by the creation of a new heaven and new earth. This view is known today as premillenialism.

But there are other Christians, in fact, the majority, who interpret the thousand years in Rev. 20 as a spiritual reign of the church which started at Christ’s first coming and ends at his second coming. This view is known today as amillenialism.

The proponents of both of these views have an array of arguments to support their positions, but what was the view of the early church?

It seems that up until the third century, the early church was primarily premillenialist. Writers like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian all thought the second advent of Christ was imminent and that he would inaugurate his thousand-year reign on earth.

The tide, however, started to turn with the writings of Origen in the early third century, who adopted an allegorical method of interpreting Revelation. Origen believed that the thousand years represented a spiritual reign of the church. His disciple, Dionysius of Alexandria, continued the attack against premillenialism and turned the eastern church away from it.

In the western church, Augustine, in the late fourth century, began to teach amillenialism, siding with the Alexandrians in the east. His views of eschatology (the end times) were detailed in his most famous work, The City of God.

From the time of Augustine until the Reformation in the sixteenth century (~1,100 years), amillenialism was the dominant view in the church.

The story obviously doesn’t end there, but you now have a brief introduction of what happened in the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity with respect to the millennium scribed in Rev. 20.

What about you? Which view do you think is more likely correct? Do you think there will be a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth (i.e., premillenialism) or do you think the thousand years mentioned in Rev. 20 is a spiritual reign of the church which ends at Christ’s second coming (i.e., amillenialism)?

Tags: amillenialism, Augustine, Book of Revelation, Eschatology, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, premillenialism, Revelation 20, Tertullian, The City of God

This entry was posted by Bill Pratt on Monday, December 20th, 2010 at 9:00 am and is filed under Bible Interpretation, Books of the Bible, Church History, Eschatology, Polls, Theology, Top Ten Posts of 2010. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About The Author

Bill Pratt

Comments

Pingback: -What Did the Early Church Believe about the Millennium? | APOLOGETICA
Charles

I’m not sure about this, but Augustine did also believe in a literal 7,000 year history of the earth. So, even though he did believe in a spiritual millennium upon the earth between the two advents of Christ, I think he still believed that the millennium was a literal 1000 years.
DiscipleoftheWord

The question ought to be “How do you feel about over allegorizing and over spiritualizing text”.
Charles

Again, I’m not sure about this, but Augustine, along with many in his era, including many Jews believed that the six LITERAL days of creation played out into 1000 LITERAL years. They based it upon Psalm 90:4 (and Christians added 2Pet 3:8). Augustine believed that the Resurrection brought forth the Great Sabbath, the great 7th day, and it was also to last a LITERAL 1000 years. So I don’t see this as allegory, but an attempt at scriptural interpretation.

Of course, it played out into a great Y1K crisis in Europe when people died of fright thinking that the world would end at the stroke of midnight on Dec 31, 999 (according to the calendar of the day).

So, it would have been after the year 1000 that the church interpreters would change Augustine’s idea of a literal 1000 years into a symbolic 1000 years. I would not even call this allegory, for Revelation 20 is loaded with symbols. A correct hermeneutic would be to interpret the symbols as intended by John . . . I would think.
DiscipleoftheWord

“If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.”

The early church even until the reformers held to many fantastic allegories of plain text.
Most times out of embarrassment over anthropomorphisms which they felt were absurd or contained alleged immoralities in the Bible.

There are not different rules of grammar or exegesis for apocalyptic literature.
Normal rules of grammar and syntax still apply.
There is no difference between Gabriel appearing to Mary (which we take literally) and an angel appearing to John or Daniel.
It is wrong to abandon the plain sense of the text to escape a difficulty in one’s theology. That’s subjective and makes the interpreter the authority over the text.
The above rule, of taking the text at face value unless there is a good reason within the context to do otherwise, is objective and forces the interpreter to submit to the text.

I’m curious…why do think John intended us to understand everything symbolically?
Charles

No, obviously the chain in Rev 20 that binds the dragon is intended as literal I think it was gold, or possibly titanium.

Now, let’s get serious. It is not John who intended the symbols to be literal. Read the text. Read Revelation 1:1, in the Greek if you know it.

Revelation 1:1 LITERALLY says that John received this Revelation of Jesus Christ by “SIGNS” that were given to “his angel” unto His servant John.

You can produce all the pithy hermeneutical diddles that you want, but I will interpret Scripture by Scripture. Revelation 1:1 tells us that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was given in Symbols. So, to interpret a symbol incorrectly, even if it seems to have a plain meaning, is to error. Hey, it’s a tough job interpreting Scripture. I wish that it was as easy as you claim. And I don’t think it’s letting theology wag the dog here. It’s being serious about the text.

Actually a very LITERAL interpretation of Revelation 1 would interpret samaino as Symbols and deiknuo as “to show to the eyes” as “vision” or even “metaphor.”

Have a blessed Lord’s day tomorrow, for I’m sure that we both take that literally. And the devil is a roaring lion seeking to devour us both. I take that symbolically, but I think I get the message as intended.
DiscipleoftheWord

No one is denying that Revelation is rich with symbols and metaphors.

The restriction you have referred to has caused the Apocalypse to be looked at as a book of signs and symbols which no one can understand.
The fact is that about half the symbols (14) are definitely explained (though these explanations are often again taken by expositors as also being symbolic) Being Divinely explained, they serve as a key to those which are unexplained.
The, “Lampstands” are explained for us as representing assemblies; “Stars,” angels of the assemblies; “Torches,” spirits; “Horns” and “Eyes,” spirits; “Incense odours,” prayers of saints; “Dragon,” Satan; “Frogs,” unclean spirits; “Wild Beast,” a king, “Heads” of the Wild Beast, mountains and kings; “Horns,” kings; “Waters,” peoples; “Woman,” a city; “Fine linen,” righteous awards; “City of God,” Bride of the Lamb.

The “keys” and “chain” are clearly metaphors. The key is meant to indicate authority over Satan. The chain is meant to indicate total restriction from his former activities. These things are obvious. However, the amillennialists’ appealing to metaphors, like key, chain to justify the non-literal understanding of the “thousand years,” is a fallacy.
How can the use of an obvious metaphor imply that other things that could easily be literal must also be metaphors?
This is not a logical argument.
Charles

You claim that the argument is not logical?
Major Premise: The book of Revelation is given in symbols
Minor Premise: Many symbols in Revelation are interpreted by the book. Many are not.
Minor Premise: Large Round Numbers in Revelation can be symbolic of greater realities and are based on mathematical constructions.
Corollary Premise: Keys of the Abyss is a Symbol
Conclusion: The Thousand Years MAY BE Symbolic

You see, I am not stating that the 1000 Years Are absolutely literal or symbolic.
It is logical. It is an inductive argument. Inductive arguments, unlike deductive arguments (the one you offer) are based on observation and probability. However, I have shown that the argument is valid. The question is whether it is strong, or cogent. I do believe it is strong, but will not go into it. Is it cogent? No, I don’t think that anyone alive has given a cogent argument to Revelation 20, and that includes you.

It seems that some humility is needed here. Any study in church history shows a wide variety of interpretation in this event. From Irenaeus, Origin, Augustine, Irvine, Scofield, etc. We are all doing what we are asked to do, and that is to interpret the Word with study, humility, and in love for God and man.

This is the thing in Revelation that is OBVIOUS to me. The world ends three times. There are three final judgments. Revelation 20 follows the same pattern as Revelation 12–14. The Book has established patterns.

And a note . . . I disagree with you that the chain means a “total” restriction from his former activities. Satan is still a roaring lion, and he can do much of what he did in the OT times. It’s just that the Gospel is not promulgated and Satan can no longer deceive the nations as he once did. But of course, I’m sure you’ll differ.

I began my Christian pilgrimage as a thorough-going dispensationalist. The first book ever given to me was “New World Coming” by Hal Lindsay. My first pastor was a THD from DTS. However, still loving him and my former teachers, I have come to disagree after decades of study. I see too many contradictions in that particular theology, and I see too many blind adherents to a hermeneutic that is far too modern to be applied to ancient texts.

Just a humble opinion, and I’m still seeking to learn.
DiscipleoftheWord

If language of the NT has any meaning at all, Satan is not bound at this moment in the sense that amillennial theology teaches.
1 John 5:19, Eph 6:11-12, 16, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Acts 5:3, 1 Thess. 2:18
The diverse testimony of Scripture proves that Satan is on the loose and bent on our destruction.
This is in stark contrast to the situation when Christ returns.
Satan was not bound and chained up in a pit at the first coming of Christ in any sense whatsoever. Certainly, the victory of Christ was won on the cross, which provides a basis for believer to resist the devil. But it is only when Christ comes back will the prowling devil be confined in a sealed pit.
Charles

Dear Christian,
“If the language of the NT has any meaning at all?! Do you really need to go to such hyperbole here?

I could respond with many verses, but no need.
Jesus Christ preached for 3.5 years. 120 converts noted.
After the Resurrection, Peter preaches 2 sermons. 5,000 conversions noted.

And you’re trying to tell us that Satan is not bound as he was before?

The Strong Man has been bound, not to torment, not to kill, but he can no longer deceive the nations any more. He is being plundered because he is bound. The Gospel will penetrate the darkest places in the world, even if you and I have to die in our attempts.

Peace!
DiscipleoftheWord

Charles says: And you’re trying to tell us that Satan is not bound as he was before?

I’m trying to tell you this, I am telling you this.

How is it that after 1900 years of proclamation, the Gospel has yet to win even a majority of those who have heard it? How is it that in contrast to the Christian faith with its Spiritual power the heathen religions such as Mohammedanism are actually gaining converts more rapidly than Christianity? How is it that apostasy has overtrun the church to-day? There is only one answer, and that is that Satan is working, deceiving, hindering, blinding, devouring. If so, then Satan is not bound, nor is he shut up where he cannot deceive the nations. If Satan is not bound, then the millennium is yet future and our hope is for the coming of the Lord.

Peace to you as well.
Ariel

There are those who say, “The only place a ‘thousand years’ is mentioned in the Bible, is in Revelation 20.” Therefore, any argument having to do with the Millennium is based upon Revelation 20. But, the Millennium is not contingent upon Rev. 20 (Rev. 20 gives only the duration of the Messianic Kingdom), but on the unconditional covenantal promises of the O.T.
Charles

Hi Ariel,
This is a topic that does interest me. I read your post but can’t decipher it. Can you clarify? First, you state that Revelation 20 is the duration of the Messianic Kingdom. Some, including myself, consider this kingdom eternal, already here (but not in its fullness) and awaiting a great transformation. And I can agree with you that the Millennium is not contingent upon Rev 20 but upon the OT covenantal promises. But so is our present age and Revelation 21–22. So, can you be more specific?
Joseph

Rev 20 does not say that Christ would reign upon the earth for 1000 years. The text also does not denote a literal 1000 years (Chilia), but Millennium’s (Chilias). Peter’s use of the word is singular, while John’s use of the work (Chilias) is plural. Now about Christ and the Millennium’s, the text specifically states that the Martyrs reign with Christ for the Millennium’s; not the other way around. We know from scripture that the reign of the Messiah is eternal, and not limited to a set amount of time (decades, centuries, years, etc.) Thus, the Pre-Mil view is false for two solid reasons; there’s no such thing as a Millennial reign of Christ, and it’s Martyrs who reign with Christ, and perhaps (speculation here) afterwards, they return to paradise once the Church has been established. Therefore, I believe the A-Mil position to be more correct, although not 100%. What I do believe, without a doubt, is that the Church is the Kingdom through which Christ reigns, and the Martyrs were Christian Jews of the first century who were Martyred for their faith in Christ. For it was the who were promised to be kings and priests, and that is what they were. The Gentiles were grafted into the kingdom because of their testimony of Jesus, and of their faith in Jesus.
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org Darrell

The Eastern Church holds the position that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed settled this matter and declared millennialism a heresy. They teach that the phrase “Whose Kingdom shall have no end” was inserted into the Creed to specifically refute the teaching that Christ would reign for 1000 years upon His second coming.

Darrell
Bill Pratt

Darrell,
That’s interesting. I didn’t know that.
DT

Is this topic still active? Or did everyone finally realize the 1000 years are literal and future?
Debicathotel

This is very true.
Read the Rise and Fall of Papal Power by Rev. Robt.Fleming
1600′s. It is an excellent work and ansers many questions.
Amie_rb

Why then did the Lord Jesus teach the disciples to pray
“Thy Kingdom come” if the kingdom was already here.

Tough Questions Answered

.: Tags :.

.: Categories :.

.: Archives :.