January 1996
Dear Co-laborer,
Each year I hope and pray that it will mark the return of
Christ, and each year I find that He continues to tarry.
Maybe 1996 will be the year! In
either case, may we live as though it is the last so as to be found faithful
when He does return.
Leette and I wish you a most blessed 1996.
Eschatology, Part
14
In the last issue, Justin Martyr (100-165) wrote seeking to
allay the fear of the Roman Empire regarding Christians having as their goal the
establishment of a kingdom in conflict with Rome. It was his conviction, and we may safely conclude the
conviction of most Christians, that the Church wasn't trying to build anything
nor seeking to replicate the theocratic kingdom of Old Testament Israel.
"For if we look for a human kingdom,
we should also deny our Christ."
The “human kingdom” came later in the history of the Church.
At the same time, the doctrine that Israel was replaced by
the Church in the affections of God, was well established by the time of Justin.
In other words, the Church perceived herself as Israel, but had not as
yet completely borrowed for the Church the warp and woof of the Old Testament
system.
EVOLUTION OF
DOCTRINE - CHURCH
Doctrine evolved in the Church's life.
As we saw in part 7 of this series, little by little the Lord's Table
became an Altar, the Lord's Supper a Sacrifice, etc.
L.W. Bernard states in his book Justin Martyr, His Life and Thought
that: “He (Justin) accepts, with
most second-century Christian writers, that the Church is a supernatural society
founded by the apostles in Christ’s name.
. . Justin, in no
uncertain terms, repudiates those who stand outside the pale of the Church. . .
And they likewise proclaim
that them that believe on him, as men of one soul and one synagogue and one
Church, the Word of God addressed as Daughter, namely the Church...They are the
true Israel.
There are reasons for doubting whether the Church in Rome
was an organizational entity in Justin’s day.
There were in Rome numerous groups of resident aliens, some of whom
became Christians, and a number of congregations of a semi-heretical tinge.
Some of these heretical teachers were anxious to capture ‘the Church’
for their views. There is also the fact that no trace of an indigenous Latin
Christianity is found in Justin’s time. Converts
came mainly from Orientals and until the end of the second century the Roman
Church was predominantly Greek-speaking and oriental in Character.
L.E. Elliott-Binns suggests that there may have been a number of bishops
or presbyter-bishops ruling different congregations in the city until well on
into the second century.”
EVOLUTION OF
DOCTRINE - SACRAMENTS
In dealing with the Lord's Supper or Eucharist in the
writings of Justin, Barnard says, "It is significant that there is no
mention, in Justin's account, of presbyters or elders taking part in the
service..."
Evidently the laity could still participate in the Lord's Supper without
the presence of a pastor or priest.
Many of the scholars, writing on the Patristics' view of
the sacraments, agree that . . . "there was no fixed liturgy with a
‘structure’ known to Justin . . . In the Eucharist there is a further action
of the logos (a term used for Jesus Christ in John 1) such that the
elements of bread and wine become united with the logos
and so become the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.
How this occurs Justin does not state apart from saying that the food is
consecrated ‘by the Word of prayer which comes from him,’ . . To go beyond
Justin’s words into an explanation as to how the elements become the flesh and
blood of Christ is to go beyond the evidence.
And to state that the mere recital of Christ’s words effects
transubstantiation of the elements is to read later theories into Justin."
(Parenthesis mine).
In Justin the incorporation of the OT imagery into the
sacraments has not yet taken place. The
Eucharist is called a “sacrifice” in the Dialogue, but connected with
the death of Christ rather than anything Old Testament.
The Lord’s table is not called an altar and the one officiating is not
called a priest. Baptism takes on a
special significance, but comes short of being “baptismal regeneration.”
Clement (fl. c. 90-100), on the other hand, makes a clear distinction
between the clergy and laity, calling the former "priests."
He even distinguishes between "priests" and the
"high-priest," a clear indication that he saw the New Testament church
in Old Testament terms.
IRENAEUS
Scholars are not sure when Irenaeus was born and died.
It probably was about 140-177 AD, dying in the persecution of 177-8.
A native of Smyrna, he labored in Lyons, France - known as Gaul in that
day. He was heavily involved in the
Montanist debate.
As we saw in our study of Polycarp, Irenaeus states that in
his youth he sat at the feet of Polycarp and received from him oral traditions
handed down from the apostles. He
is the greatest chiliast of patristic literature, the most erudite and
scriptural expositor of the early fathers.
From his writings you will see that he embraced all of the major tenants
of premillennial thought. In this
first quote, note that Irenaeus believed in two literal resurrections separated
by a literal thousand year reign of Christ, as depicted in Revelation 20.
"Inasmuch, therefore,
as the opinions of certain (orthodox persons) are derived from heretical
discourses, they are both ignorant of God's dispensations, and of the mystery of
the resurrection of the just, and of the (earthly) kingdom which is the
commencement of incorruption, by means of which kingdom those who shall be
worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature (capere
Deum); and it is necessary to tell them respecting those things, that it
behooves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God
promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they
rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the
judgment should take place afterwards.
For it is just that in that very creation in which they toiled or were
afflicted, being proved in every way by suffering, they should receive the
reward of their suffering; and that in the creation in which they were slain
because of their love to God, in that they should be revived again; and that in
the creation in which they endured servitude, in that they should reign.
For God is rich in all things, and all things are His.
It is fitting, therefore, that the
creation itself, being restored to its primeval condition, should without
restraint be under the dominion of the righteous; and the apostle has made
this plain in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 8:19-21)."
(Emphasis mine).
Irenaeus believed that there was a resurrection, followed
by reigning in an earthly kingdom, concluding with judgment.
As we saw in part 12 of this series, the "material re-creation"
that forms the essence of the Old Testament hope in a Messianic Kingdom, is
embraced by Irenaeus as well.
Notice the strong language of Irenaeus; “those who are
ignorant of God's dispensations and do not expect a resurrection of the just,
come to their conclusions from heretical sources.” In this next quote we see that Irenaeus interprets Revelation
literally.
"Such, then, being the
state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and
ancient copies (of the Apocalypse), and those men who saw John face to face
bearing their testimony (to it); while reason also leads us to conclude that the
number of the name of the beast, (if reckoned) according to the Greek mode of
calculation by the (values of) the letters contained in it, will amount to six
hundred and sixty and six . . . ."
From here Irenaeus discusses the use and misuse of 666 in
seeking to ascertain its meaning. The
important point, however, is the literalness with which he views this.
"But when this
Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for
three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the
Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending
this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the
righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, that hallowed seventh
day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the
Lord declared, that 'many coming from the east and from the west should sit down
with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.'"
When Irenaeus wrote, the temple was of course destroyed.
On the basis of Revelation 11 he predicts the restoration of the temple
in Jerusalem. After the reign of
Antichrist, there will be a judgment and the establishment of Christ's earthly
kingdom, followed by the second resurrection and the new heaven and new earth.
"If, however, any shall
endeavor to allegorize (prophecies) of this kind, they shall not be found
consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching
of the very expressions (in question)....For all these and other words were
unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes
place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under
his rule; in (the times of) which (resurrection) the righteous shall reign in
the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in
the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and
communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and (with
respect to) those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from
heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the
Wicked one....And Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out, that as many believers
as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left upon earth, should
both be under the rule of the saints to minister to this Jerusalem, and that
(His) kingdom shall be it...
Irenaeus continues step by step, expositing the remaining
section of Revelation, describing the new heaven and earth.
Amillennialism sees only one literal resurrection, viewing one of the two
mentioned in Revelation allegorically. Irenaeus
clearly teaches two resurrections, and says the Old Testament saints will share
in the first resurrection, along with the Church.
The millennium represents, according to Irenaeus, a
transition stage between this world and eternity. Using the template of seven days, as discussed in
eschatology, part 6, the millennium
of Revelation is the seventh, a "day" of rest prior to the new heaven
and earth. It is also the
transition stage between the preliminary defeat of Satan in Rev. 19 and his
final, decisive defeat at the end of the millennium in Rev. 20.
With the work of history brought to a close, he believed
God creates the new heaven and earth in Rev. 21-22.
CONCLUSION
In tracing the evolution of doctrine, it is easy to see how
the church’s perception of truth shifts, and how profoundly eschatology
contributes to this shift. As the
church shifted in the perception of herself
as a struggling minority to the conviction that she was to claim the world for
Christ, she borrowed the Old Testament framework.
In her eyes, it had already been determined that she replaced Israel; it
was now a simple matter to incorporate the imagery and task
of the Old Testament theocracy. Justin
Martyr correctly understood that the church is not in conflict with Rome.
To the degree that I am correct in all of this, it behooves
us to learn from history, filtering history’s lessons through the grid of
Scripture. If Scripture is “our
only rule of faith and practice,” we must be careful not to allow ourselves to
be unduly influenced by history, tradition, and culture.
Lord Jesus, come quickly,
“See the important remarks of M. Goguel, The Primitive Church (London, 1963), p.78: ‘...the idea of the
Church, as a supernatural
society founded by the apostles..., is now no more open to question than the
conception of the Church as a depository of a doctrine of salvation.
By the end of the first century and the beginning of the second,
there seems to have been fairly wide agreement as to the conception of the
Church and the character of the ministries exercised within it.’”
"Dial with Try. cxix, cxxv, cxxx, cxxxv."
"The Beginnings of Western
Christendom (London, 1948),
p. 102."
"It is interesting to compare Justin’s
theory of the Eucharist with that of Irenaeus.
Irenaeus emphasises, more clearly than Justin, the composite
character of the Eucharist. While
retaining Justin’s realism he introduces an invocation of the elements (epiklesis)
and states that a heavenly element (pragma
ouranion) is added to them and operates through them (Adv.
Haer. IV. 18. 4.). He also
stresses, more than Justin, the effects of the Eucharist as a means of
imparting life to the body and soul of man (cf. Ignatius’ ‘medicine of
immortality’)."