By Robert Hoyle
Eschatology is always a topic of much interest among students of the Bible. The doctrine of “last things” is prevalent throughout the pages of Scripture and questions such as “when will the world end?” or “when is Jesus coming back?” and “what will the last days be like?” are of no recent invention. Taken as a whole, understanding Bible prophecy is a daunting task. The reader’s consolation is that the Bible is a revelation of divine truth and it was given to men that they might understand it. If a Bible doctrine proves difficult the most sure recourse is to begin with those passages which speak to the topic of study and may be readily understood. From there, comparing Scripture with Scripture (light from clear passages illuminating those harder to interpret), a path may be found which promises to deliver the traveler to a safe destination. Employing this method, it is to Revelation 20:4-6 that we will now turn, and it reads as follows:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
From the earliest days of Christianity there have been two competing schools which have cast differing interpretations upon this passage. In order to make what follows as open as possible I would like to take a moment to bring into resolution the agreements and contrasts of these two schools as well as to provide some helpful terminologies.
What all good Christians agree on from Revelation 20:4-6 is that recorded in this passage are two resurrections and an intervening period during which Christ reigns with His saints. Also affirmed by all is that Christ will physically return to earth at the end of history, at which time the bodies of all men shall be raised from the dead, and Christ shall sit in judgment over all. I want to make it clear that whatever disagreements exist between the two camps, both camps are within the realm of doctrinally orthodox Christianity. Nobody here may be accused of heresy.
Now, to the disagreements. The first camp which I describe is assigned the name chiliast. This term comes from the Greek word meaning “thousand” and it denotes the belief that Christ’s inter-resurrection kingdom is a future, physical, and earthly kingdom, lasting exactly one thousand years. When the chiliast reads in verse 4 that they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, he takes it literally. Many people are familiar or even adherents of the chiliast position under its modern day title, “Premillennialism.”
Next we have the “non-chiliasts.” If the chiliast is demarcated by his belief in a kingdom which is future, earthly, and lasting one thousand years, the non-chiliast can be defined by his denial of all three points. Non-chiliasm champions an inter-resurrection kingdom which is spiritual, not earthly, present in the current day, not awaiting a future advent, and filling a span of time which is much greater than one thousand years.
If my suspicions are correct then you are probably only familiar with the chiliast position. When you read Revelation 20 then you believe it to speak of Christ’s future coming and the establishment of His kingdom in Jerusalem for one thousand years. To hear of some alternative position sounds silly, or even dismissive of the plain meaning of the text in hand. But it is here that I beg your indulgence for a moment. What if I told you that in the history of Christianity the non-chiliast position has been far and away the prevailing reading of Revelation 20? Did you know that during the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century every major Reformer held the non-chiliast position and that every major church (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc...) either holds to the non-chiliast doctrine at the constitutional level, or has had major adherents propound the doctrine?
I myself hold to the non-chiliast position and I will boldly affirm that I do so because it is my belief that it is more in adherence with the Scriptural teaching regarding the resurrections and Christ’s kingdom. In what follows I will set forth the scriptural proofs for the non-chiliast doctrine, point out the insurmountable weaknesses in the chiliast reading of the text, and refute the popular claim that “the Early Church was premillennial” (chiliastic). From the beginning I want to reaffirm that neither doctrine is a heresy. Many of my friends are premillennialists and many serious Bible scholars and preachers, such as Charles Spurgeon and Francis Schaeffer, have been chiliasts. My aim is not to offend or condemn but to bring light in a way that will further the reader’s knowledge of Scripture and give a better understanding of the historical development of Christian doctrine. If you are willing to give ear and consideration to the pages which follow then you have my appreciation.
The First Resurrection
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them… ~ Revelation 20:13
In Revelation 20 we read of the saints “living and reigning” with Christ for a thousand years. Buttressing this time of Christ’s reign are two resurrections; one before the reign and one after. The Bible itself does not provide the labels “first and second” but it does style the resurrection which precedes the reign of Christ and His saints as the first resurrection (v. 5). With those who live and reign during the millennia having undergone the first resurrection, the rest of the dead who live not again until the thousand years were finished may be inferred as those who have no part in the first resurrection, only the second. Revelation 20 is plainly holding forth two resurrections, a “first resurrection” which concerns only Christ’s saints during the time of His reign, and a “second resurrection” which restores to physical existence all men ahead of the great judgment.
Light is shed upon the “two resurrections” by Christ in John 5. Beginning in verse 24 we read:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself; and hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:24-29)
Unfortunately John 5 is often overlooked in studies of Bible eschatology, however its importance cannot be overstated. Of great moment is that John, who authored the Apocalypse, is the same John who authored the gospel just quoted from. Is it not significant that the only two passages in the New Testament which give reference to two distinctive resurrections come from the same Apostle? In Revelation 20 the saints who live and reign with Christ are described as having undergone the first resurrection while the second resurrection is directly connected with the great final judgment and the indiscriminate restoration of all men to physical existence. Similarly John 5 affirms in verses 28-29 a general resurrection of all men unto judgment and distinguishes this from a preceding resurrection which is defined by passing from death unto life and hearing the voice of the Son of God.
This language which Christ employs in John 5 to describe the first resurrection is strikingly similar to His words to Nicodemus in John 3:3, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Of further interest in that in John 5:25 Christ speaks of this “first resurrection” or rebirth saying verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
In this verse we are given a reference regarding the timing of the first resurrection. Christ equates the first resurrection with men believing on His name unto life and He does not postpone this to some future date. The hour is coming and now is He says. With Christ’s incarnation the path to spiritual life had been opened and even in those very days men were pressing into it. If the dual resurrections of John’s Gospel are synonymous with those of his Apocalypse, then that which is true of the first resurrection in the Gospel must also hold true for it in the Apocalypse. The first resurrection was and is a present reality for all who possess faith in Christ.
Although John alone speaks of believing on Christ as the “first resurrection,” he is not the only apostle to speak of the faith’s effect on the sinner as vivifying or life-giving. In Ephesians 2 verses 1 and 5, Paul says:
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses in sins; … Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ…
Paul doesn’t use the specific title of first resurrection here but the import is plain: those who were dead in their trespasses and sins heard the voice of the Son of God and began to live in Him. Furthermore, Paul clearly distinguishes between this present and ongoing rebirth on the part of those whom Christ calls from the general resurrection of the flesh which comes at the end of history (1 Cor. 15). John and Paul employ slightly different terminologies but their doctrine is clearly unified. The vivifying work of the Spirit upon the heart of believers is styled as a transition from death to life, or a first resurrection, and the second or general resurrection is tied to the end of all things and the great judgment. When these observations are applied to Revelation 20:4-6 then it may be maintained that the first resurrection spoken of there is something that was a present reality in the days of Christ’s ministry and is an ongoing reality until the end of the age. Interpreting it thusly establishes a harmony amongst Revelation 20, John 5, Ephesians 2, Colossians 3, et. al, while attempts to futurize the resurrection of Revelation 20 sever it from any corresponding passages and produce a doctrine uncorroborated by any other passage of Scripture.
To Live and Reign with Christ
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and He had a name written, that no man knew, but He Himself, and He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed Him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations: and He shall rule them with a rod of iron; and He treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
~ Revelation 19:11-15
In the previous section of this work I endeavored to prove that the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is something which can only be strictly relegated to the future with difficulty. Here I would like to do the same with the idea of living and reigning with Christ. The doctrine of Christ’s reign is one that has been established for ages. The Apostles Creed, the oldest summary of the faith which we possess, states that Christ “ascended to the right hand of the Father; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” This idea of being seated at the right hand of the Father is often understated in our own day but it is extremely important.
The language of God’s throne is taken directly from those scenes which would have involved the utmost awe and respect to inhabitants of the ancient world: the king sitting in judgment. To stand upon the right hand of the King is to hold the office of prime minister, the one who holds all de-facto power to rule and reign. In Psalm 110 we read My LORD said unto my Lord, sit Thou at my right hand until Thine enemies are made Thine footstool. This passage, one of the most quoted in the New Testament, is the recorded promise of God the Father given to Jesus Christ that during the time of His session (sitting at the right hand of the Father) all of His enemies will be subjected unto His spiritual dominion.
In Hebrews 1:3 the author equates Christ’s being seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High with the completion of His work of atonement and the obtaining of His inheritance. Stephen, when addressing the crowd in Acts 7, leaves them with his vision of Christ standing on the right hand of God. To the unbelieving Jews, Stephen’s affirmation amounted to the Christian “heresy” that Jesus acted with the power of God and was in fact God Himself. In 1 Corinthians 15:25 Paul speaks of Christ’s reign as something which exists currently and must go on existing until all things have been put under His feet. For the New Testament church the very proclamation of the gospel itself gave testimony to Jesus Christ’s reign from the right hand of the Father.
Regarding the place of the saints in Christ’s kingdom the Scriptures are far from silent. In Ephesians 1:22 Paul explicitly links Christs being the head over all things with His relationship to His body, the Church. Earlier, Ephesians 2:5 was cited in regards to the Apostolic equation of the work of salvation with the first resurrection, continuing further into verse 6 we read and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together, in heavenly places in Christ. Christ is seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High, and His saints have been raised up to sit together with Him. Speaking to His Church through John in Revelation 3:21 Christ promises to all those who overcome the trials of this world that He will grant to sit with Me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne. To live and reign with Christ is not something which the New Testament places far off into the future. It is spoken of as the spiritual reality for all of those who are in Christ and the especial reward of those who die in the Lord.
When John gives the comforting words of Christ unto the church at Laodicea, He is not offering a false hope or setting forth some distant expectation. If they overcome, as Christ overcame, then they shall reign with Him, even as He reigns. The Christian is the adopted brother or sister of Jesus Christ. Christ has ascended on high and distributed gifts unto His Church. Those privileges which He enjoys He shares with His people. John records Christ’s very words to the same effect in John 12:26 where He tells His disciples If any man serve Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there shall also My servant be: if any man serve Me, him will My Father honor. Christ promises that we shall be with Him in paradise and enjoy the honor of the Father.
Here again the doctrine which Paul sets forth harmonizes exactly with what we have gathered thus far from John. In comforting Timothy regarding the trials and troubles of this life he writes, If we be dead with Him, we shall also live with him: if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him (2 Tim. 2:11-12). For Paul Christ reigns now (Col. 3:1) and for the Christian to gain the victory over this life is to be with Christ at the right hand of the Father. Returning again to Revelation 20:4-6 it can be consistently maintained that those who take partake in the first resurrection and live and reign with Christ are simply Christ’s saints; whether they live in the past, the present, or the future.[1] Men have been experiencing the vivifying power of spiritual rebirth since the beginning of Christ’s ministry. All of those who undergo the first resurrection will live and reign with Christ. To push this into the future as chiliasts do is to pit Revelation 20 against other more clear passages of Scripture.
A Spiritual Kingdom
My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence.
~ John 18:36
The third point of contention which we will review is the nature of Christ’s kingdom; is it a corporeal or ethereal affair? Central to the chiliastic expectation regarding Christ’s future millennial reign is that this awaited kingdom is a very earthly thing. In this scheme Christ will supposedly sit on a physical throne in Jerusalem and administer a worldly empire akin to that of the ancient Greeks or Romans. The non-chiliast perspective is quite different; understanding Christ’s kingdom to be an invisible, albeit present, reality.
Sorting through this disagreement to establish the truth will not prove difficult. The New Testament thoroughly undercuts the expectation for a physical or earthly rule on the part of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is not one New Testament verse that speaks of a future or earthly reign of Christ. As a doctrine, its only Biblical support comes from a mistaken reading of Old Testament texts, erroneously wresting their meaning away from Christ’s spiritual kingship, and expecting a future and physical fulfillment. It is well beyond the scope of the present work to tackle the subject of Old Testament hermeneutics but in truth it isn’t necessary, for the New Testament interprets the Old quite clearly. In Galatians 4 Paul uses typology to explain the relationship between Sarah and Hagar as having a great lesson for the Church. He says:
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one form mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. - Gal. 4:22:27.
Far from looking for a restoration of physical Jerusalem as the exalted capital of an earthly empire Paul likens the city unto Hagar, being in bondage with her children. The true children are the citizens of Christ’s spiritual kingdom, the Jerusalem which is above. In this passage Paul also applies Isaiah’s prophecies concerning the coming blessed age to the Christian Church. Interpreting the promised enumeration of offspring from Isaiah 54 as the spiritual ingathering of Christ’s saints, Paul undercuts a reading of the Old Testament that would recast Christ’s dominion as an earthly rule.
In Hebrews 11:10 we read that Abraham looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. This “Jerusalem which is above” is the kingdom which Christ preached unto Nicodemus that he must be born again in order to enter (Jn. 3:5) and He Himself upholds, acting as the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-21). Writing to the Romans, Paul exhorts them to bear in mind that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom. 14:17).
Christ’s kingdom is not an earthly or temporal affair. Its nature is peace, righteousness, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Far from being of a political nature, man must be born again in order to enter in to it. Furthermore it is not something which either Christ or the Apostles ever consider to belong to the future. For them it is the power of God, working salvation unto men, its arrival preached by Christ (Mark 1:15), and it was manifested with power at Pentecost (Acts 2:4, 21-22, 33-36). Consider Revelation 20:4-6. There is no direct mention of the saints as living and reigning with Christ on earth. In fact John says that what He saw was the souls (or spirits) of those who had been killed for the testimony of the faith, living and reigning with Christ. This sounds very explicitly like a non-terrestrial affair. The chiliast simply assumes that Revelation 20:4-6 is happening on earth because that is what his extra-Biblical presupposition requires. It is more of a reading into the text than a serious study of the passage to conclude that the saints spoken of are somehow on earth when they are specifically referred to as disembodied (John saw the souls of the slain) and that any reference to this being a terrestrial happening is lacking. The New Testament abounds with references to Christ’s kingdom being spiritual and there is no exegetical reason why Revelation 20:4-6 should not be understood as making reference to this same spiritual kingdom.
A Literal Thousand and the Weaknesses of Chiliasm
For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
~~ Psalm 50:10
Here I would like to review what has been said thus far, compare and contrast the chiliast interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6 with the non-chiliast, and answer the challenge of the thousand years. By comparing Scripture with Scripture it has been shown that the first resurrection and the living and reigning with Christ spoken of in Revelation 20 are best understood to be present realities as corresponding passages throughout the rest of the New Testament maintain. The chiliast answer to these arguments from Scripture is to shield Revelation 20 from Biblical cross-examination, deny that the mentioned first resurrection appears anywhere else in Scripture, and assume the terrestrial nature of Christ’s reign in the absence of its being mentioned anywhere. On the contrary the Bible plainly affirms that Christ assumed His spiritual kingdom at His ascension, that His Holy Spirit performs a life giving ministration (the first resurrection) to all who hear His words, and that His saints live and reign with Him.
The greatest weakness of affirming the chiliast system of interpreting Revelation 20:4-6 is that it cuts the passage off from Scriptural corroboration. The appeal of the chiliast system is that it appears to uphold a plain reading of the thousand years for which the saints live and reign with Christ. For all the strengths of the non-chiliast reading in regards to the first resurrection and the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom, it seems to have no answer for the stated duration of the kingdom: the thousand years. This, more than anything, is the crux of the debate. Remember, the term “chiliasm” has reference to the Greek term for thousand. To be a “chiliast” is to affirm a literal reading of the “thousand years” and to be a non-chiliast is to deny that the term is to be interpreted literally.
Denying a literal interpretation of a passage of Scripture in favor of a symbolic reading is certainly not in vogue today. The school of thought which has dominated the field of eschatological interpretation for the last century champions a “literal hermeneutic” wherein the Scripture is championed to mean exactly what it says it means and any deviations from this rule are viewed with suspicion. For my own part I will heartily affirm the importance of never attempting to side-step the plain meaning of any text of Scripture. With that in mind however it must be recognized that to force a wooden literalism onto the Bible can frequently lead to trouble. When Moses says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth or when Paul affirms that the times of ignorance are now come to an end and God expects that all men repent and believe the gospel, there is no room for equivocation. Yet when Christ says that He is the door through which men must pass if they are to enter into life or that He is the vine to which we, as His branches, must attach ourselves, pressing a “literal” interpretation would be to conclude in absurdity. Certainly the Romanist’s emphatic claim that Christ’s words, this is my body, this is my blood, must be taken at face value has led to one of the most grotesque perversions of Christian doctrine ever witnessed.
In order to interpret the Scriptures aright it is necessary not to emphasize “literalness” but rather Scripturalness. If the text indicates that a passage is plain and didactic then it should be read as such; but it must be recognized that the meaning of a specific text is sometimes symbolic or allegoric (this is my body, this is my blood; I am the door; etc.) and it then must be read as such. In the first verse of Revelation it is said that the vision of John was “signified” unto him by an angel. That is to say, it was delivered via symbolisms which require interpretation.
The non-chiliast answer to the challenge of the thousand years as it appears in Revelation 20 is to say that it is an example of just such a sign or symbol and must be interpreted thusly. Certainly throughout the Bible there is a tendency to use numbers in “non-literal” ways in order to reinforce an idea of symmetry or completeness. When Peter asks Christ about how many times he must forgive an offending brother, Christ responds that the penitent is to be forgiven seventy times seven. Obviously this is a hyperbolic use of a numeral (for instance there is no rule that beyond 490 offenses the sinner is out of luck or that there might be serious doubts about the reality of his repentance somewhere around apology # 387) wherein Christ’s point is that the Christian ought to forgive those who seek forgiveness.
In Psalm 50:10 Asaph gives glory unto God saying that He owns the cattle upon a thousand hills. Clearly the psalmist is not implying that God only rules over one-thousand hills and that hill number one-thousand-and-one is beyond God’s control. The giving of the numeral is not a limitation of the extant of God’s dominion. Rather it is a way of stating the magnificence and apparent boundlessness of God’s rule. In a day when the Israelitish kingdom was administered from one hill (Zion), then God ruled over a thousand. The number was nice and big, which was what it was given to communicate.
I would contend that the appearance of the number one thousand in Revelation 20 serves the same purpose. It is not setting forth a limitation. It is ascribing a sense of temporal vastness to the time of Christ’s dominion. The number one-thousand is big. Even the greatest monarchs don’t last more than fifty years. But not Jesus Christ, His kingdom will last and last. Just as in Psalm 50, the number one-thousand isn’t meant to limit, simply infer vastness. In regards to the actual amount of time for which Christ’s kingdom will endure, that is plainly given in the text: from the first resurrection (beginning with Christ’s ministry) and lasting until the second resurrection (at the end of history). All of the years (currently two-thousand and counting) which fill up this inter-advent or inter-resurrection period are included in Christ’s “millennial reign.”
For many, this seems hard to accept, but in truth it is hard to evade. Consider what is set forth by both systems: the non-chiliasts say that Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual one, consisting of righteousness and salvation, and that when He does return it will be to raise the quick and the dead and to judge all men. The chiliast claim is that when Christ returns it will be to raise only the just who will then reign with Him from Jerusalem over an earthly dominion for a literal thousand years. The chiliast system here introduces several complications. It is the plain teaching of Scripture that Christ will “come” in judgment at the end of history. How can He come if He is already here? Does He simply step out for a moment to then reappear in order to fulfill passages such as Matthew 24:42? How can it be that men do not know when to look for Christ’s great judgment if that judgment is to take place exactly one-thousand years after His physical return to earth?
It may be caviled that Matthew 24:36 makes reference to no man knowing the day or the hour but perhaps the year can be known, but this is nothing more than an evasion. The Scriptures plainly affirm that the timing of Christ’s final judgment is made known to no man. Believing that Christ’s judgment can be accurately forecasted by exactly one-thousand years turns all of this on its head. Affirming that the mention of the “thousand-years” is a symbolic reference to a prolonged period of time, a period already delineated by time factors given in the very text at hand, runs contrary to no established doctrine. The Apostles Creed again lends support affirming “He sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” Note that the creed does not say that He shall come to set up a physical kingdom on earth which will last exactly one-thousand years before He judges the quick and the dead. It says that He will rise up from His session at the right hand of the Father to terminate history, raise the bodies of all the dead (the second resurrection), and judge all to everlasting life or everlasting death. The earliest Christians who formed this creed, knew nothing of a future, terrestrial reign of Christ lasting for one-thousand years. Affirming a literal reading of the thousand years of Revelation 20 forces the passage into contrary testimony with that of other Scriptures and this cannot be satisfactory.
Chiliasm in the Early Church
In conclusion of this work I would like to subject to scrutiny the frequently heard claim that the Early Church was premillennial and that non-chiliastic readings of Revelation did not become popular until Augustine’s day (lived late 4th early 5th century). Taken at face value this claim may easily be exploded by reading the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius of Caesarea (wrote early 4th century) wherein the minority status of chiliasm in the earliest centuries of the church is clearly recorded.
Eusebius is a historian of the highest importance for the Early Church. During the great migrations of the 5th-7th centuries many ancient writings were lost forever. Some of the greatest insights into the Early Church era in our possession today are from men such as Eusebius who did copious amounts of work collecting and copying the works of their predecessors. Many ancient writers would be completely unknown if it were not for their inclusion in those works which did survive the extreme turbulence of the end of the Classical age. In book three of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History he quotes from an earlier Christian historian named Hegesippus regarding the family of Jesus. Eusebius opens with his own words and then reproduces a lengthy section. We read:
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ Himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words. “Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches, because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. - Eccl. His. III. 19-20.
This section of Eusebius is very telling regarding the eschatological expectations of the earliest Christians. According the Hegesippus the very family of Christ Himself believed that He would not return physically until the end of history at which time He would judge the quick and the dead. Furthermore, they affirmed to the Roman Emperor that the Christian kingdom was a present albeit spiritual (angelic) reality. According to these histories, nearly two thousand years old, the great-nephews of Jesus believed exactly in accordance with what has been outlined regarding the nature of the resurrections and Christ’s kingdom above. Enlightening as it is to gain insight into the beliefs of Jesus’ own earthly family in the earliest days of the Christian Church, Eusebius does not leave his readers in the dark regarding the origin of chiliasm. A little further in book third of his history he tells us of Cerinthus, a Jewish heretic who personally resisted the Apostle John, and led many astray. Eusebius writes:
We have understood that at this time Cerinthus, the author of another heresy, made his appearance. Caius, whose words we quoted above, in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as follows concerning this man: “But Cerinthus also, by means off revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals.” And Dionysius, who was bishop of the parish of Alexandria in our day, in the second book of his work On the Promises, where he says some things concerning the Apocalypse of John which he draws from tradition. Mentions this same man in the following words: “But (they say that) Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.” These are the words of Dionysius. But Irenaeus, in the first book of his work, Against Heresies, gives some more abominable false doctrines of the same man, and in the third book relates a story which deserves to be recorded. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that the apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but learning that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. And he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, “Let us flee, lest the bath fall; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” - Eccl. His. III. 28.
Eusebius makes it plain that Cerinthus is the origin of the teaching that the first resurrection and Christ’s kingdom would be future and terrestrial; and clearly neither the man nor his doctrine were in good favor with the Apostles. It is significant that in the passages immediately above we not only have the authority of Eusebius himself but also the collected testimonies which he presents from Hegesippus, Dionysius, Caius, and Irenaeus. To take up the literature and legacy of early Christian writers directly does not lead to the often heard claim that the earliest centuries of the Church were entirely or predominately premillennial. When we examine the evidence for ourselves what we find is that while there were some chiliasts, they always acknowledge the presence of perfectly orthodox believers who affirm the non-chiliast position, and the origin of the doctrine that Christ’s kingdom was a future and terrestrial one, lasting precisely one-thousand years, should certainly give reason for reconsideration.
Tertullian and Cyprian
Continuing in our sketch of chiliasm in the Early Church let us turn to two central figures of the third century. The doctrinal developments within the church during the third century are important for understanding the eschatological outlook of the Early Church as no noteworthy defenders of chiliasm would arise after Lactantius (his birth is disputed, both 240 AD and 250 AD being put forth). The middle and later part of the third century would prove to be the high water mark for the doctrine of premillennialism in the Early Church: Commodianus, Novatian, Victorinus, Methodius, and Lactantius all defending the doctrine during that time. What proved to be its downfall? Why did chiliasm fall from being more prevalent than it had ever been (though still far from being the majority report as it was actively contested by many, most notably the Alexandrians) to finding no acceptance whatsoever in the span of two generations? A comparison of Tertullian and Cyprian may hold the key.
Tertullian is the Early Church’s most fiery proponent. The son of a Roman magistrate in North Africa Tertullian matched a piercing intellect with professional training in law and rhetoric, flourishing in the early to middle third century. The austere excesses of Tertullian combined with his restless intellect would lead him to embrace the Montanist heresy late in life but his well-aimed polemics, clear doctrinal works, and white hot apologetic works grant us insight into a host of issues contemporary to himself, chiliasm among them.
Secondly, we will examine the tracts and letters of Cyprian of Carthage. Cyprian’s day was a time of fierce persecution for the Church and he wrote voluminously, exhorting and encouraging suffering Christians. Cyprian lived one generation after Tertullian and although he does not cite him frequently, he is known to have studied Tertullian’s voluminous writings on a daily basis. The non-chiliasm of Cyprian provides a corrective to Tertullian and shows the developments that led to the downfall of chiliasm at any sort of popular level around the onset of the fourth century.
As noted above Tertullian combined the gifts of piercing intellect with a ready pen. Speaking personally, he is one of the most enjoyable of the Early Church Fathers to read. His many tracts and letters prove a gold mine for serious investigations of matters both speculative and practical. His austere personality frequently tends towards excess, but in the case at hand he serves as an excellent representation for the fatal flaw of chiliasm in his day. His treatise on the soul dates to the first decade of the third century and it is here that we will turn. Writing in on the estate of souls after death he says flatly:
To no one is heaven opened; the earth is still safe for him, I would not say it is shut against him. When the world, indeed, shall pass away, then the kingdom of heaven shall be opened.
The context of Tertullian’s comments directly above and in what follows relate to the nature and timing of the two resurrections and in what place or state those who “die in the Lord” may be said to dwell. Tertullian plainly denies that believers who die in this age go to be with Christ in heaven. His reasoning for this involves several factors, the first of which is the supposed example set by the path which Christ Himself traveled from His earthly life and ministry to His session at the right hand of the Father. Tertullian says:
Now although Christ is God, yet, being also man, “He died according to the Scripture,” and “according to the same Scriptures was buried.” With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. (This being the case), you must suppose Hades to be a subterranean region, and keep at arm’s length those who are too proud to believe that the souls of the faithful deserve a place in the lower regions. These persons who are “servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master,” would no doubt spurn to receive the comfort of the resurrection, if they must expect it in Abraham’s bosom (Sheol).
Tertullian is here discoursing upon the death, descent into hell, resurrection, and ascension of our Saviour and although his motivation is to keep man humble before God, his reasoning (Christ entered into Hades so we must as well) is less than Biblical. Against the Christian who affirms with Paul that to depart this life is to be with Christ (Philippian 1:23) Tertullian makes accusation that they are “too proud” and “servants above their Master.”
The doctrine which Tertullian is espousing is today referred to as “soul sleep” or psychopannychia. This is the idea that instead of going to be with the Lord after death, Christians who die in this age sleep until the advent of the “millennium” wherein they will be raised to enjoy Christ’s kingdom on earth. For Tertullian soul sleep and premillennialism are inseparable. His doctrine of Christ’s kingdom having an earthly presence of one thousand years relates directly to his belief that the first resurrection is a future event and that departed saints are not united with Christ until the end of this age. He is not alone in affirming this either.
This connection between the saints having no presence in heaven with Christ until after the end of this age and there being a future earthly kingdom of Christ are joined by every proponent of chiliasm in the Early Church. Believing that the work of Christ had not yet made a way for men to dwell directly with Christ after death Tertullian could simply affirm that “to no one is heaven opened.” In the early centuries of Christianity those who read Revelation 20:4-6 as being a present reality were those who believed, as nearly all Christians today affirm, that to depart this life is to dwell with Christ; while those who took the premillennial reading of Revelation 20 argued that in this age there was no life with Christ to be expected after death.
It is my belief that it is for this reason, more than any other, that chiliasm rapidly disappeared from the historical scene at the close of the third century. At a time when it had more proponents than ever before, the written defenses and apologetics of the chiliast position being produced did not further its cause, rather they served to undercut it as the great mass of Christians rejected the unbiblical doctrine of soul sleep. In Christ’s own words and in the teachings of the Apostles it is again and again affirmed that Christ will have His servants be where He is. By challenging this revealed truth premillennialism became extremely frowned upon as the writings of Eusebius indicated and would not be revived for over a thousand years (pun intended).
In saying this it is not my intention to accuse modern day premillennialists of promoting or believing in psychopannychia (soul sleep). By the Middle Ages the doctrine of soul sleep had been recognized as thoroughly unorthodox and today it is not taught or affirmed outside of cults such as Seventh Day Adventism. However it is not unwarranted to confront modern day premillennialists with the truth of the fact that this doctrine has very dubious origins and that in the Early Church (where it is frequently, though wrongly, asserted that premillennialism was triumphant) it was only espoused by men who we would today consider to be unorthodox due to their denial that the dead in Christ go to be with Him at their death. The exegetical case aside, the supposed historicity of chiliasm in the earliest days of the Church turns out to be not a credit but a discredit to its doctrinal validity.
Returning to our examination of chiliasm in the Early Church, I would now like to summon Cyprian of Carthage as one last witness in defense of my argument for why premillennialism ceased to find adherents after his day. Cyprian was the leader of the church at Carthage in a day when persecution was rampant. Having a much different disposition than Tertullian, Cyprian’s life bore out many opposite tendencies. Whereas the austerity of Tertullian drove him ever further from the common life of the church in his day, Cyprian’s tenderness towards the flock placed him ever at the center of not only his own community, but the broader Christian world as well. A prolific writer of tracts and epistles Cyprian’s primary themes are the comfort held out by Christ to His saints in the midst of their trials and the greater weight of glory which awaits all who depart this world standing fast in the faith. Whereas we saw the chiliasm of Tertullian coupled with his desire to seal immediate access to heaven off from men, Cyprian takes an opposite tack. In his treatise entitled “Exhortation to Martyrdom,” he writes:
If to soldiers of this world it is glorious to return in triumph to their country when the foe is vanquished, how much more excellent and greater is the glory, when the devil is overcome, to return in triumph to paradise, and to bring back victorious trophies to that place whence Adam was ejected as a sinner, after casting him down who formerly had cast him down; to offer to God the most acceptable gift – an uncorrupted faith, and an unyielding virtue of mind, an illustrious praise of devotion; to accompany Him when He shall come to receive vengeance from His enemies, to stand at His side when He shall sit to judge, to become the co-heir of Christ, to be made equal to the angels; with the patriarchs, with the apostles, with the prophets, to rejoice in the possession of the heavenly kingdom! Such thoughts as these, what persecution can conquer, what tortures can overcome? The brave and steadfast mind, founded in religious meditations, endures; and the spirit abides unmoved against all the terrors of the devil and the threats of the world, when it is strengthened by the sure and solid faith of things to come. In persecutions, earth is shut up, but heaven is opened; Antichrist is threatening, but Christ is protecting; death is brought in, but immortality follows; the world is taken away from him that is slain, but paradise is set forth to him restored; the life of time is extinguished, but the life of eternity is realized. What a dignity it is, and what a security, to go gladly from hence, to depart gloriously in the midst of afflictions and tribulations; in a moment to close the eyes with which men and the world are looked upon, and at once to open them to look upon God and Christ! Of such a blessed departure how great is the swiftness! You shall be suddenly taken away from earth, to be placed in the heavenly kingdoms.
There can be no doubt here that for Cyprian to depart this life is to join Christ in the “heavenly kingdom.” Of further note is the way in which Cyprian speaks of Christ’s future return as His coming to take vengeance upon His enemies, to sit in judgment over all men, and to usher in eternity. Not only does Cyprian believe that the Christian goes to be with Christ at death, his eschatology has no room for one-thousand year terrestrial reign of Christ between His second advent and the final judgment.
For Cyprian, the Christian life is one of combat with the forces of evil both within and without himself. Gaining the victory comes by remaining steadfast in the faith and it brings the crown of victory over sin and the devil. The entrance of the victorious saint is celebrated in heaven just as a triumphant soldier is welcomed home. The air of triumph in the Christian’s departure from this world colors Cyprian’s understanding of living and reigning with Christ. Writing in his treatise entitled “On the Mortality” he says:
We ought to remember that we should do not our own will, but God’s, in accordance with what our Lord has bidden us daily to pray. How preposterous and absurd it is, that while we ask the will of God should be done, yet when God calls and summons us from this world, we should not at once obey the command of His will! We struggle and resist, and after the manner of froward servants we are dragged to the presence of the Lord with sadness and grief … Why with frequently repeated prayers do we entreat and beg that the day of His kingdom may hasten, if our greater desires and stronger wishes are to obey the devil here, rather than to reign with Christ.
To depart this world is to come into the presence of God and because it is on the right hand of the Father that Christ sits, ruling and reigning, the Christian rules and reigns with Christ. This is Cyprian’s understanding of Christ’s kingdom and of the Christian’s participation in it. He makes this clear once again in his treatise on the Lord’s Prayer, where he says:
For when does God not reign, or when does that begin with Him which both always has been, and never ceases to be? We pray that our kingdom, which has been promised us by God, may come, which was acquired by the blood and passion of Christ; that we who first are His subjects in the world, may hereafter reign with Christ when He reigns, as He Himself promises and says, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the beginning of the world.” Christ Himself, dearest brethren, however, may be the kingdom of God, whom we day by day desire to come, whose advent we crave to be quickly manifested to us. For since He is Himself the Resurrection, since in Him we rise again, so also the kingdom of God may be understood to be Himself, since in Him we shall reign.
The maturity of doctrinal thought contained in this passage may not be overstated. Cyprian maintains that the kingdom of Christ consists in the life that is to be found in Christ, leading him to maintain that life in that kingdom is synonymous with unity to Christ. When the newly converted believer experiences the regenerative work of Christ in his heart he is translated into the kingdom of the Son. This is not a future expectation but a present reality for all who are in Christ. To cease living in the terrestrial plain is to ascend into the heavens and reign with Christ. The Christian seeks the advent of Christ (His second coming) not for the hope of a physical rule from Jerusalem, but for the purpose of seeing all things made new. The non-chiliasm of Cyprian meshes in perfect harmony with his doctrine of the hope which pertains to the saints in their being joined to Christ.
Having surveyed the competing eschatological systems of Tertullian and Cyprian is it not obvious why the non-chiliasm of Cyprian prevailed? Not only does the non-chiliast reading of Revelation 20 better corroborate with the testimony of other Scriptures, giving it an exegetical advantage, but it avoids the inferences regarding soul sleep and the shutting up of heaven to those who die in Christ before His second advent which premillennialists in the Early Church frequently made. It is hard to believe that if presented with the arguments of Tertullian and Cyprian side by side and asked to choose which they preferred, that any audience, third century or contemporary, would willingly refuse the glorious vision of life in Christ that Cyprian sets forth.
Cyprian’s identification of life in Christ’s kingdom as the spiritual unity which is the vivifying power of the Christian life is the key to understanding the non-chiliast position. Chiliasm seeks to defend the earthly and temporal nature of Christ’s kingdom by placing both it and the first resurrection in the future. Non-chiliasm understands the first resurrection to be a reference to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s kingdom to be the life, peace, and joy which those regenerated experience under Christ’s blessed reign. For these reasons non-chiliasm was able to offer a greater comfort to believers suffering persecution in the earliest centuries of the Christian age. Non-chiliasm better reconciles Revelation 20:4-6 with the rest of Scripture than does its premillennial competition. It is for these reasons that chiliasm faded from relevance early in the fourth century and would not be seriously maintained again until the 20th century.
The author is a research associate with the Pactum Institute.
[1] The objection has been made that those who live and reign with Christ in Revelation 20:4 are to be understood as only those who have borne the cross of Christ through the shedding of their own blood in martyrdom. There are two problems with this construction. The first problem is that it is not clearly taught in the present passage. John says that he saw thrones and that the saints sat upon them and amongst this multitude were those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus. It seems natural that those who had given their lives would naturally be singled out for exemplary mention in a book (John’s Apocalypse) which focuses so frequently on the theme of Christian suffering and the triumph of the persecuted saints. The second problem is that if Revelation 20:4 is interpreted to mean that only martyrs enjoy Christ’s inter-resurrection kingdom, then this is a doctrine which is hinted at nowhere else in Scripture. Indeed the Apostle John himself evaded martyrdom, dying of old age over half a century after the ascension of Christ. It does not seem credible that today Peter enjoys a preeminence with Christ stemming from his status as martyr which is denied to the very disciple “whom Jesus loved.”