Eschatology: 1–6

Walt Henrichsen December 23, 2014

September, 1993

Dear Co-laborer,

Leette and I are the proud grandparents of Matthew Alexander Lance, born to our daughter Deborah on August 14. As most of you know, Deborah and her husband Michael live in Mexico City where he is a banking officer with Standard Chartered of England.

Matt came into the world in San Diego, and so it will take awhile for the parents to process the paperwork in order to take him out of the country. Meanwhile we get to have him here at the house where we can pamper and spoil him, making it hard for the kids when they take him home to Mexico!

Part One

With this letter I begin a new series on the importance of eschatology in the life of the Christian. The dictionary defines eschatology as “any system of doctrines concerning last, or final, matters as death, the judgment, the future state, etc.” Perhaps you wonder as to the relevance of this.

I remember when finishing my formal education, that a close friend and I formed a new denomination entitled The Reformed Dispensational Baptists. Calvinists use the acronym TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints) to summarize their systems’ doctrine. My buddy and I decided we would use the acronym PANSY.

Pan-millennialism – we didn’t know much about the end times, but believed it would all “pan” out okay.

Allegorical demythologizing – with this we could make the Bible say anything we wanted it to say.

Neo-ecumenical – we believed in unity – on our terms!

Supralapsarianism – which has to do with the order of events in the mind of God before creation, and formed the foundation for our whole theological system.

Yom Kippur – which formed our doctrine of the atonement and was the date of our annual meeting.

As you can see, we didn’t consider doctrine in general, and eschatology in particular, all that relevant to the main task of the believer which is to depopulate hell and populate Heaven. It wasn’t until several years later that I began to change my thinking, which resulted from interacting with another close friend. It occurred to me that doctrine is the formulation of truth, and truth is by definition relevant. If I don’t see the relevance of a particular doctrine, it means that I do not understand it. I subsequently learned that eschatology is eminently practical.

ESCHATOLOGICAL DIVISIONS

As you know, the Church is divided over what the Bible teaches regarding the end times. There are three basic divisions, with sub-groupings under each. They are:

Historic pre-millennialism. This position, held by the Patristics (from the word “fathers,” i.e. the leaders of the Christian movement following the apostles) and a minority of the Church today, believes that the thousand year reign of Christ recorded in Revelation 20 applies to the Church. The Patristics lived during days of persecution, believed that their troubled days were the tribulation of Revelation 6-19, and looked expectantly for the imminent return of Christ. The millennium was designed for the Church rather than for the nation of Israel. It was a literal thousand-year period, a golden age for the Church.

A-millennialism. This theory, held by the vast majority of Christendom including Roman Catholics and Protestants, holds that we cannot take the Revelation of John literally, and therefore the thousand year reign of Christ in Revelation 20 is a figure of speech referring to the life of the Church during the time between the two advents of Christ. The kingdom of God is now present in the world as the victorious Christ rules through His Church. Good and evil will continue to develop during this time. “All the wealth of historical associations and social emotion which were contained in the Old Testament had been separated from its national and racial limitations and transferred to the new international spiritual community. Thereby the Church acquired many of the characteristics of a political society; that is to say, Christians possessed a real social tradition of their own and a kind of patriotism which was distinct from that of the secular state in which they lived.”[1]

Dispensationalism. This view, held by only a small minority of the Church, came into prominence in the nineteenth century, principally through the teaching of the layman, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). It teaches that Israel and the Church are separate meta-physical entities (as distinct from both historic pre-millennialism and a-millennialism which teach that Israel and the Church are one and the same) and that the millennium of Revelation 20, a literal thousand year period, applies to the nation of Israel. God’s promises to Israel in the Old Testament are inviolable, and will find their fulfillment in the millennium, during which time Christ will literally sit on the throne of David and judge the nations. The tribulation of Revelation 6-19 refers to a literal seven year period prior to Christ’s return. Advocates of this position differ regarding the role of the Church during the tribulation, although most believe that it will be “raptured” prior to the event in fulfillment of I Thess 4:16-17.

SABBATICAL ON ESCHATOLOGY

As most of you know, Leette and I took a six-week sabbatical in Wales in 1992 to study eschatology as viewed by the Patristics. The practical relevance of the subject occurred to me when I reasoned that all of us are motivated by our hope. Hope has at least two qualities: it is future, and it reveals our value system. As Paul teaches in Romans 8:24-25, we do not hope for something that has already come to pass. Also, the object of our hope reveals what we value. We always hope in the direction of what we consider gain, profit, or reward, never the opposite.

I have short-range hopes (e.g. I hope to finish this series on eschatology before the end of the year), mid-range hopes (e.g. I hope to see all my children educated and married with families of their own), and long-range hopes (e.g. I hope to go to Heaven when I die and live eternally with Christ). My eschatology is an outgrowth of my long range hope.

Since we all hope, and since we hope in the direction of our values, and since our long range hope is our eschatology, then our eschatology appreciably influences our understanding of what is important in life. Eschatology is critically important!

As noted, however, the Church is divided on the subject of eschatology. This brought me to the next step in my reasoning: Have you ever wondered about a passage of Scripture and wished you could talk with the author regarding what he meant? The Patristics had such an opportunity, at least those who immediately followed the apostles. They not only had access to the documents written by the apostles, but could interrogate them regarding what they said.

Possibly I could go to the writings of the Patristics and find answers to these perplexing questions regarding eschatology. They had opportunity to discuss Matthew 24 with the disciples of Christ. Some were able to discuss the Revelation with John after he received it. Maybe they will give fresh understanding on what was said and meant. Saint Deiniol’s Library in Hawarden, Wales, was an ideal place to go, since they had an extensive collection on the Patristics. When an anonymous donor made it possible for us to go, we accepted the opportunity.

THE PATRISTICS ON ESCHATOLOGY

Before going to Wales, I knew that the Patristics (men such as Papias and Ireneaus, and later writers such as Justin and Tertullian) were all pre-millennialists. Others like Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp did not mention it in their writings. All that addressed the subject of eschatology, however, interpreted Revelation 20 literally. The Early Church generally believed in the approaching end of the world and the return of Christ, or the Parousia. This would be preceded by great troubles and by the revelation of the Antichrist.[2] At Christ’s coming the Antichrist and the wicked would be destroyed.

The chronology adopted by most of the writers, and indeed of later periods, was that history was divided into seven, one-thousand-year periods. Even Augustine, in his famous City of God, embraced this division of history into seven periods.[3] Christ came in the sixth thousand-year period, and the seventh millennium was a time of rest, corresponding to the seven days of Creation in Gen 1-2.

What I had not anticipated, and did not discover until my sabbatical, was that the Patristics, who addressed the subject, were anti-Semitic. As the historian Bietenhard rightly notes, even in the Epistle of Barnabas we see an anti-Jewish strain.[4] Three ingredients produced this antipathy towards the Jews:

1 – They were perceived as responsible for killing Jesus Christ.

2 – By the time Paul’s ministry was coming to a close, circular letters were sent from the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem warning the synagogues of the Dispersion to bar Christians from their fellowships. As a result, the Jews quickly became hardened to the gospel.

3 – They participated with Rome in the persecution of Christians.[5] This was probably the deciding factor in the Church becoming anti-Semitic.

For the first twenty years of my ministry I labored with The Navigators. My friend, who provoked my interest in eschatology, noted that the modern para-church organizations, including The Navigators, were born out of a dispensational, Bible-school matrix. When he asked me why that was, I didn’t know, but was intrigued by the question. I thought I would find traces of dispensationalism among the Patristics, since both dispensationalists and the Patristics are pre-millennial, but I found none.

In the next issue we will explore more fully the dynamics that brought about the estrangement of Judaism from Christianity, but at this point in my sabbatical, one of the doors closed. You cannot be dispensational and anti-Semitic, for dispensationalism believes that the Jewish people still hold a special place in the heart of God and will one day be restored as a nation in accordance with the Old Testament promises.

Most issues of the Dear Co-laborer are self-contained units. Each issue can stand on its own. This series on eschatology will be different in that the subject is so vast and intricate that my feeble mind is unable to package it as separate units. It may be that you will feel left “hanging” after an issue such as this one, and I acknowledge this limitation.

Yours in hope of his early return.

Part Two

I closed the last issue on eschatology noting that the Patristics were anti-Semitic. It is amazing that men the Jewish apostles discipled so quickly turned on the Jews, especially since Jesus was a Jew. Let’s analyze this strange phenomenon. Although it may be somewhat technical, it is fascinating and filled with application for today.

In the early life of the Church, most of the conflict existed between Jews. Gentiles had not yet entered the picture. In one sense, the conflict was endemic to the ministry of Jesus; He constantly called into question the Jews’ commitment to God. All of the gospels record this antipathy between Jesus and Judaism, culminating in the cross.

So too in Acts, the conflict was primarily between Jewish Christians and Judaism. As most of Israel had rejected the teachings of their Messiah, so too they rejected His followers. As Jesus said, “Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also” (John 15:20). The last recorded conflict in Acts is Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and his subsequent appeal to Caesar.

APOSTOLIC PERCEPTION

The apostolic Church was almost exclusively Jewish, especially in the pre-missionary days of Paul. Christians naturally saw themselves as the “true Israel,” the faithful of God. If Jesus was indeed Messiah, then His followers were the true people of God. Wasn’t it true that the elect of the Old Testament were always a remnant? Why would it be any different in the early Church? The unbelieving Jews were apostate because they rejected God’s Anointed.

Granted, they believed in a future for Israel in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. This is clear from their question to Jesus at the Ascension, “Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Nevertheless, they were the remnant, the true Israel.

For this reason, when the disciples began their ministry after Pentecost, they reasoned that it was necessary for Gentile converts to enter the household of faith via Judaism. Jesus and the twelve never had an argument against Judaism as a religion, but rather the hypocrisy of Israel’s religious leaders.

The followers of Christ believed in His imminent return. It never occurred to them that almost two-thousand years would lapse between His first and second coming. In a relatively short period of time Jesus would return, establish His kingdom, and at that time the Gentiles would be included in God’s program. This is what the Old Testament led the Jews to expect.[1] Meanwhile, Gentiles were welcome via Judaism.

“The problem of the mission to the Gentiles had not yet presented itself in Jerusalem. The mission of the Twelve focused on the Jews and proselytes; they have not begun even to consider evangelizing the Gentiles yet. As far as the tradition of Jesus is concerned, the apostles can continue to entrust them to God’s care until the peoples’ pilgrimage to Zion at the end time.”[2]

When Cornelius came to Christ in Acts 10, Peter anticipated that he would be converted in the same manner as Gentiles in the Old Testament; Cornelius would be circumcised and embrace the rites of Judaism. It required a “sheet let down from heaven” to persuade Peter otherwise. This in turn prepared Peter for the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

JERUSALEM COUNCIL

Acts 15 opens with, “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). The “brethren” of this verse were Jewish Christians who believed that Gentile converts had to come to faith via Judaism. This verse is not saying that they believed circumcision saved, for all Christians believe that salvation is through faith in Christ alone.

By way of example, Paul says in I Cor 6:9-10: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Paul is not saying that you must stop these acts and clean up your life in order to come to Christ for salvation. Rather he is arguing that people properly related to Christ do not do these things. So too in Acts 15:1, the Jews were merely arguing that circumcision must accompany salvation, much like we believe regarding baptism.

Paul Johnson begins his account of A History of Christianity with an analysis of the Jerusalem Council in AD 49. Of the two accounts, in Acts 15 and Galatians 2-3, the latter reflects the view of the person most responsible for delivering Christianity from “becoming another Jewish sect.”

“For Luke, the Jerusalem Council is an ecclesiastical incident. For Paul, it is part of the greatest struggle ever waged. What lies behind it (is an)…unresolved question. Had Jesus Christ founded a new religion, the true one at last? Or, to put it another way, was he God or man? If Paul is vindicated, Christianity is born. If he is overruled, the teachings of Jesus become nothing more than the hallmarks of a Jewish sect, doomed to be submerged in the mainstream of an ancient creed” (p. 5).

“What the apostles were preaching was a form of Jewish revivalism. It had strong apocalyptic overtones – very much part of the Jewish tradition – and it used the resurrection event to prove and heighten the urgency of the message…. Their Judaic instincts were still powerful and conservative. They were oriented wholly to Temple-worship…. The inference is that the leaders of the movement in Jerusalem were much closer to Judaism than Jesus, and indeed had been all along…. The gospel of John says that the earliest disciples came from the circle of the Baptist, and this at a time when Jesus’ early, simple teaching was strongly reflective of the Baptist’s…” (pp. 32-33).

“It is thus misleading to speak of an ‘apostolic age’, and equally misleading to speak of a primitive Pentecostal Church and faith. The last point is important, because it implies Jesus left a norm, in terms of doctrine, message, and organization, from which the Church subsequently departed. There was never a norm…. The impression we get is that the Jerusalem Church was unstable, and had a tendency to drift back into Judaism completely. Indeed, it was not really a separate Church at all, but part of the Jewish cult” (p. 33).[3]

PAUL’S INFLUENCE

It is hard to over emphasize the impact Paul had on the direction the Church took. Paul, the “Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee,”[4] argued adamantly that it wasn’t necessary for Gentile converts to practice the Old Testament rites. Christ appeared to Paul on the Damascus road as “the end of the law for everyone who has faith,”[5] and free association between Jew and Gentile in Christ was demanded.

Paul prevailed at the Jerusalem Council, but in the process dealt a death blow to Jewish evangelism. It was one thing for Judaism to reckon with another sect giving allegiance to Jesus; it was quite another to teach that Christianity had superseded Judaism as the people of God.

“This is…also supported by explicit statements from Jewish sources which have been collected by Professor Kilpatrick who quotes, as the most informative piece of evidence, the Birkathha-Minim composed by Samuel the Small at Jamnia c. AD 85. In its earliest form it reads: ‘for the excommunicate let there be no hope and the arrogant government do thou swiftly uproot in our days; and may the Christians and heretics suddenly be laid low and not be inscribed with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humbles the arrogant.’ The insertion in the liturgy henceforth made it impossible for Christians of Jewish descent to attend the synagogue, as undoubtedly some of them had done up to that time, and the breach was made absolute before AD 100 by sending out of letters from Palestine to all synagogues informing them of the necessity of excluding Christians from their assemblies….A Jew had to be either a Christian or a Jew; he could not be both at the same time.”[6]

CONCLUSION

Two threads, running in different directions, wove together to produce an anti-Semitic Church: First was the conviction of the followers of Christ that He was Messiah and they, therefore, were the true people of God. As the in the Old Testament the true Israel always encompassed a small minority of the nation, so also in the days of the Twelve.

Second was the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church and Paul’s insistence that they need not practice the Law. From this time on, Jewish Christians became a struggling minority, and as the liturgy of Birkathha-Minim indicated, Jews encouraged “the arrogant government (to) do thou swiftly uproot in our days; and may the Christians and heretics suddenly be laid low…”

It was natural, therefore, that the Church became anti-Jewish and excluded them from any eschatological hope. As we stand back and look at this from the objective advantage of almost two-thousand years, it is easy to see how their cultural meiliu influenced their theology. In all probability they never perceived it happening.

This provides a warning to us regarding our culture’s ability to shape and distort our understanding of Biblical truth. We are best served by challenging everything the world teaches in light of Scripture. It will not entirely eliminate culture’s influence, but it will be a mitigating factor.

Grateful for so great a salvation.

[1]Note Isaiah 11, esp. v. 10, and other related passages out of the OT prophets.

[2]Stuhlmacher, Peter, The Approach, Style, and Consequences of Primitive Christian Mission, Part two of a Dialogue at Trail West, Buena Vista, Colorado with Young Life in the spring of 1980, translated by Michael Douglas and William Lee, p. 8.

[3]Johnson, Paul, A History of Christianity, Atheneum, New York, 1980.

[4]Phil 3:5

[5]Rom 10:4

[6]Barnard, L.W., Studies in The Apostolic Fathers and Their Background, Basis Blackwell, Oxford, 1966, pp. 52-53.

Part Three

In Eschatology Part 2 we noted that the Church, from the beginning, naturally disassociated itself from its Jewish roots. The Jews, who comprised the bulk of the Church during the days of the apostles, saw themselves as the true Israel. But the Gentiles, who soon became the majority, were taught by Paul and his disciples that it wasn’t necessary to follow the Old Testament law.

Paul was so bold as to suggest that the temporary casting away of Israel was to the Gentile advantage.[1] Why didn’t Paul argue that the Gentiles could have equally profited by the inclusion of the Jews; a win-win situation? To understand Paul’s argument, we need to look at Israel’s beginning.

With the Exodus, God took a group of former slaves, void of their own culture, and brought them to Mt. Sinai where he gave them the Law. Culture is the incarnation of a religion, and with the Law Israel received a culture. Israel’s culture is inextricably tied to the Law; it is a reflection of the Law. If Gentiles had to come to Christ via the Law, as was the argument of the Apostles prior to Paul’s position to the contrary in Acts 15, then they would have to change cultures to become Christians. That would indeed be a burdensome yoke! When Paul divorced following Christ from the Law, the Gospel became transcultural; nations could accept Christ without having to renounce their culture.

From this can we conclude that the New Testament saw no future for the nation of Israel? Differing answers to this question divide the Church on eschatology. A-millennialism and Historic Pre-millennialism answer in the positive; the New Testament teaches that there is no future for Israel as a nation, although some Jews will be saved. Dispensationalism answers in the negative; Israel and the Church are separate meta-physical entities and both are the product of God’s grace.

ROMANS 11

It is interesting that Paul, the one man who argued for the inclusion of Gentiles into the family of God apart from the Law, is also the one who argued that God’s plan calls for a future for the nation of Israel. Because of his radical views and the controversy they generated, Paul, before going to Rome, set forth his doctrine in what is universally agreed to be the most important epistle in the New Testament, Romans.

One concern, generated by Paul’s teaching on the inclusion of the Gentiles was, what does this do to the inviolable promises of God to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament? Romans 9-11 addresses this question. In Romans 9 Paul begins by distinguishing between individual and corporate commitment; “not all Israel is of Israel.”[2] God has a corporate commitment to the nation based on grace, but this does not mean that every member of the nation is automatically rightly related to God. Just as God elected the nation of Israel, so also He elects those who comprise the true Israel, the “seed.”[3]

Out of all who call themselves Jews, only a remnant comprise the elect.[4] “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”[5] As we saw in my series on grace, grace and election go together; you cannot have grace without election. And so it is with the nation of Israel. As a corporate entity, it is an expression of the grace of God. Thus, irrespective of how few true believers or how small the remnant, God is still faithful to His commitment of grace.

As applied to the nation of Israel, Paul uses the analogy of an olive tree. Israel is the natural branch, broken off and replaced by the Gentiles who are the “wild” branch. Speaking to the Gentiles, Paul says, “For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:…As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.”[6]

Exegetes have disagreed on whether this promise applies to Israel nationally; i.e., a restored nation sometime in the future, or to Israel as a people who will someday in the future be included in the family of God under the auspices of the Church. To answer this, we must look briefly at the Old Testament prophets.

OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS

Regarding the future of Israel, the theme of the Old Testament prophets remains consistent; God will judge the nation Israel because of her sin and unbelief. At any given period in her history, Israel has only a remnant that believe. “Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.”[7]

No matter how great her sin, however, God will return Israel to her land and bless her. Israel is the object of God’s affection and grace. In these passages, predicting a return coupled with a promise that she will never again be judged and sent into captivity, it is always void of any reference to reciprocity. God does not say, “If Israel forsakes her sin and remains faithful, then I will be her God and she shall be My people.” There is no reference to a condition.[8]

LITERAL VS. FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION

If you take these passages literally, reading them like you would the morning newspaper, then you have to conclude that God will establish the nation of Israel in Palestine sometime in the future, and will personally sit on the throne of David and rule the nations.

I remember several years ago my good friend Bill Garrison, an attorney in Fort Worth, and I were in Chicago with J.I. Packer at a conference. One morning at breakfast Bill asked him about the prophecy given Mary by the angel regarding the birth of Christ.[9] “Would it have been legitimate for Mary to have concluded that her Son would someday literally sit on the throne of David?” Dr. Packer answered in the negative, arguing that the nation of Israel had forfeited the promises given her by God in the Old Testament, and that they were figuratively fulfilled in the Church where He is now sitting on David’s throne ruling the nations through the Church.[10]

If the clear, unconditional promises of the Old Testament prophets given to Israel cannot be interpreted literally, then who decides which passages of the Scriptures are to be understood literally and which figuratively? If a literal hermeneutic is inadequate, for the passage doesn’t really mean what it says, then who gets to determine its meaning? If Peter is correct when he says that no Scripture is of private interpretation,[11] then those who follow Packer’s logic answer that it ultimately is the Church that gives the correct interpretation.

Few Christians, historically, have relied solely on Scripture. Roman Catholics look to tradition and the authority of the Church when it speaks ex cathedra. The Reformers, upon adopting a figurative hermeneutic, especially in eschatology, relied on the creeds and confessional statements of the Church; e.g., Westminster Confession, Heidelberg Catechism Augsburg Confession. Charismatics and other similar traditions augment the Scriptures with “words of knowledge.”

Still, all confess a special allegiance to the authority of Scripture. The Roman Church recognizes that the Bible stands in a class alone. Even Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and other cults acknowledge the special status of Scripture, even though they add their own inspired books.

A QUESTION OF AUTHORITY

If I am correct in asserting that “few Christians, historically, have relied solely on Scripture,” then on what basis do I argue that it is Scripture alone, with a literal hermeneutic? A literal hermeneutic is essential if the Bible is to be our authority!

Your theological presuppositions shape your hermeneutic rather than vice versa. Not only so, but pragmatism drives your theological presuppositions. We see this in the Patristics; they were literal in their interpretation of Revelation 20 and figurative in their interpretation of the Old Testament promises directed to Israel. This inconsistency was not the product of a well-reasoned hermeneutic, but rather the conviction that the Jews were no longer the object of God’s grace. Even in a book full of symbolism such as Revelation, they adhered to a literal hermeneutic, because it served their purpose of providing hope in the midst of persecution.

A figurative interpretation has always been perceived as serving the best interests of the Church. But the absence of authority cannot tolerate a vacuum. If the Bible is figurative, then it is not authoritative. If it is not authoritative, then what is my authority? As already noted, for the Roman Church, it is in the offices of her Pope and bishops. In the churches of the Reformation it is in the creeds. In independent churches, it is in the doctrinal statement of the Church.

If this is true then I don’t have to take Revelation and Old Testament prophecy literally, and I am free to believe that Mary had no legitimate ground for believing her Son would sit on the throne of David. But I dare not question the authority of the man-made creeds of the Church! It is a bit like the parent who wants to consider the traffic laws negotiable, but will not allow his children to consider his rules negotiable.

If I don’t read the Bible with the same rules of interpretation that I do the newspaper, then I can make the Bible say anything I want it to say and it ceases to be my authority. One of the reasons non-theologians, such as G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, seem so fresh in their biblical insights is they bring to Scripture a lack of theological bias and are willing to approach it like any other piece of literature.

Only when we are willing to approach the Bible with this same openness will it, in reality, become our authority. We cannot allow ourselves to manipulate Scripture in such a way that it conforms with our theological presuppositions. Of course none of us are able to adhere to this principle with total purity. As we saw in the last issue, we all are influenced by culture far more than we want to admit. We will see this again and again in the Patristics. It is easy to see it in others; hard to see it in ourselves. Still, we must be committed to this principle if Scripture is to be our authority.

Striving to be His obedient servant,

[1]Romans 11:12

[2]Romans 9:6.

[3]Romans 9:7.

[4]Romans 9:27.

[5]Romans 11:5.

[6]Romans 11:24-26,28.

[7]Isaiah 1:9.

[8]E.g., cf. Joel 3:17-21, Amos 9:11-15, Zechariah 14.

[9]Luke 1:32 “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

[10]Read commentaries on Romans 11:24-28 to see how Paul’s promise to a restored Israel is handled. For example, Charles Hodge, the famous a-millennial exegete who was one of the old orthodox “Princetonians,” says the “all Israel shall be saved” refers to a future turning of Israel to Christ with Israel’s inclusion in the Church prior to Christ’s return. If Hodge is correct, it must be admitted that Israel and the Church are distinctly separate entities, which in turn means that the Church is not Israel. But Packer, Hodge, and all a-millennialists argue that Israel and the Church are the same meta-physical entity.

[11]II Peter 1:20-21.

Part Four

POST ASCENSION

When Jesus stood with His disciples at His ascension they dialogued with Him regarding His return: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.”[5]

By way of illustration, let’s suppose we were present with the disciples, and after Jesus’ Ascension we invited them to join us at a restaurant for a cup of coffee. While together, we asked them, “How long do you think it will be before Jesus returns, especially in light of what He said regarding the end times?”[6] What answer could we have expected from them? Remember, we are asking what their perception was, not whether they were correct in their perception.

In Matt 24:15-16 Jesus said: “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:” If we asked them if Jesus would return before or after the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, and they answered “after,” then they could not have believed in the imminent return of Christ, for the earliest the disciples could have considered this fulfilled was in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple by the Roman general Titus.

If we conclude, however, that the disciples most probably believed in the speedy return of Christ, as seems to be indicated from their writings, then He would have to return before Daniel’s prophecy of the tribulation, and for sure before the completion of the millennium.

THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST

The last book in the Bible begins:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:” Revelation 6-19 record the events of the tribulation, a seven year period during which time God judges the world with the seals, trumpets, and bowls, culminating in the great battle of Armageddon.

Revelation 20 records the thousand-year reign of Christ[7] followed by the Judgment of the Great White Throne. This is the only reference in Scripture to a thousand-year reign of Christ, mentioned six times in this one passage. During this millennium Satan is bound. At the heart of the eschatological debate is whether this is a literal period of time and whether it refers to a time set aside for Israel or the Church.[8]

Revelation 21-22, the last two chapters in the book, deal with the new heaven and earth. Three times in Revelation 22 Jesus says, “Behold I come quickly.”[9] If we were with John on Patmos[10] and asked him, “When will Jesus return in light of His promise to you in Revelation 1:1 and 22:7,12,20? Will it be before the seven year tribulation, in the middle of it, after it, or after the millennium?” what do you think he would say? Keeping in mind that Jesus said He would return “quickly,” it is hard to conceive of John saying, “After the thousand year reign of Christ, which of course follows the tribulation and is an indefinite period of time symbolizing the age of the Church.”

APOSTOLIC PERCEPTION

Again, the weight of the evidence seems to suggest that the apostles of Christ believed in His imminent return. This means they thought it would occur before the millennium, and in all probability before the tribulation.

Earlier we saw that the original apostles believed that the period between the two advents would be short and that the preponderance of Gentiles would be saved after Jesus’ return when He “restore(d) again the kingdom to Israel.”[11] They, the remnant that followed Jesus, were the true Israel, but with Messiah sitting on the throne of David[12] Israel’s future was bright.

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, understood that Gentiles need not keep the law when embracing Jesus Christ. But he did not abandon hope in a future for Israel, as is clear in Romans 9-11. At the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 he may have dealt the death blow to Jewish evangelism, but he too saw a bright future for Israel.

FORMATION OF ANTI-SEMITISM

Jurgen Moltmann, a contemporary German theologian and not necessarily a friend of evangelicals, argues for a future for the nation of Israel. This is not based on his interpretation of Revelation 20, but rather on what the overall teaching of Scripture says on the subject. He articulates this in a dialogue with the Jewish scholar, Scholem Ben-Chorin.

In part, Moltmann argues that the Old and New Testaments differ in that the former sees redemption publicly played out on the stage of history through the Jewish community, while the New Testament sees redemption taking place in the soul of the individual. In the Old Testament the transformation of redemption is corporate, changing society; in the New Testament it “is individual, and effects a mysterious transformation to which nothing external in the world necessarily corresponds.” To take the Old Testament promises and reinterpret them to apply to the sphere of “the heart” is an “illegitimate anticipation” of an event that must follow the Old Testament fulfillment of national promises.

“Scholem rightly points to the fateful role played by Augustine in this development. This reduction of eschatology is generally explained by the alleged experience of disappointment over the delay of the parousia….But the historical process was in fact quite different. What internalized eschatological redemption was not ‘disappointment over the course of history.’ It was the ‘political realization’ of Christ’s messianic kingdom in the Christian imperium of the emperors Constantine[13], Theodosius[14] and Justinian[15]. If this Christian imperium is interpreted as the ‘thousand-year Reich,’ then the saints must reign with Christ and judge the nations. In the millennium, resistance to Christ cannot be tolerated. So in the Christian imperium sacrum there was no justice for dissidents, people of other beliefs – and Jews. Enforced political Christianization solved the problem of the heathen. The mission to the Jews was suppose to solve ‘the Jewish problem.’ Later on the Inquisition was designed to solve the problem of the heretics. The appalling ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question was projected by ‘the thousand-year Reich’ under Hitler’s pseudo-messianic leadership….

Moltmann continues by pointing out that Augustine’s application of the Old Testament theocracy to the church “still dominates all notions about the Christian West,” is anti-Jewish, and is not a Christology of Jesus, but a “Christology of empire and domination.”

“This ancient chiliastic political theology has assumed continually new forms in the history of Christendom. But down to the present day, it still dominates all notions about the Christian West, ‘Christian civilization’ and ‘the age of Christendom.’ The Christologies that are developed in theocracies like this are anti-Jewish, because these political theologies themselves are anti-Jewish. It is not in the Christologies for Jesus’ sake that we find anti-Judaism, as the other side of the coin. It is in the chiliastic Christologies of empire and domination…

“There can be no question of God’s having finally rejected the people of His choice – He would then have to reject His own election (Rom. 11:29) – and of His then having sought out instead another people, the church. Israel’s promises remain Israel’s promises. They have not been transferred to the church. Nor does the church push Israel out of its place in the divine history. In the perspective of the gospel, Israel has by no means become ‘like all nations.'”[16]

Practical considerations, or theological presuppositions, influence eschatology. The desire to create “The City of God,” using Augustine’s a-millennial term, led to appropriating Israel’s Old Testament promises to the Church. It is as Moltmann says, “in the chiliastic Christologies of empire and domination…” that the Church embraces a theocratic mission, replacing evangelism with conquering culture, and creating in its wake anti-Semitism, which can still be seen in some segments of the Church today. Your eschatology determines your definition of the mission and ministry of the Church .

Much of the energy of the Church in the United States is directed toward creating the sacred empire or imperium sacrum mentioned by Moltmann. Efforts to correct the ills of society, bringing the nation under the authority of God’s expectations, is Old rather than New Testament. It requires rejecting any future for Israel in God’s economy, and is the fount from which anti-Semitism flows.

His . . . . . Yours,

[1] For other related passges note I Cor.1:8, I Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 5:23, II Thess. 2:1. These are not exhaustive of Paul’s teaching, but rather illustrative.

[2] James 5:7-8.

[3] II Peter 3:12.

[4] I John 2:28.

[5] Acts 1:6-7.

[6] A careful reading of Matt. 24, especially v. 34 is essential in grasping what must have gone through the minds of the disciples at the Ascension.

[7] From this we get the word millennium, which is “thousand” in latin, and chilism, which is the word for “thousand” in Greek.

[8] Why anyone cares, or how it is relevant for us today, will be developed throughout this series.

[9] Rev. 22:7,12,20.

[10] Cf. Rev. 1:9.

[11] Acts 1:6.

[12] Luke 1:32.

[13] Constantine (c. 274-337) was the first Christian emperor of Rome. In 313 he gave full legal toleration for Christianity in the Edict of Milan, after which he sought to incorporate the Church under the authority of the emperor. The Church saw this as opportunity to establish the “City of God” along OT Theocratic lines. In 330 he moved the imperial thone to Byzantium on the Bosporus, naming it Constantinople.

[14] Theodosius I (c. 346-395) and Theodosius II (401-450) sought to consolidate the gains of Constantine, calling the first Council of Constantiople and the Council of Ephesus, which defined orthodoxy and condemned heresy.

[15] Justinian (483-565) was the greatest of the Byzantine Roman emperors. He built the church of Sophia, forced pagans to accept Christian baptism, and persecuted sectarian movements.

[16] Moltmann, Jurgen, The Way of Jesus Christ, Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1990, excerpts in an article “Israel’s No: Jews and Jesus in an Unredeemed World” in The Christian Century, Nov.7, 1990, pp. 1021-1024.

Part Five

DEVELOPMENT OF JEWISH/CHURCH CONFLICT

In the last issue on eschatology, we saw that a belief in the imminent return of Christ on the part of the apostles necessitated a belief in His return before the millennium. Obviously they were incorrect regarding His any-moment return, but by inference we see that they interpreted Jesus as teaching that He would return before the beginning of the millennium, whatever the millennium entailed.

Furthermore, it was the anti-Semitic bias of the early Church that robbed Israel of its future in the program of God; the Church appropriated the Old Testament promises to herself. For this reason, the millennium of Revelation 20 was interpreted as a Church rather than a Jewish event.

The conclusion of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 heightened the antipathy between the early Church and Judaism, with the declaration that Gentiles need not become circumcised in order to be joined to the Church. Immediately a gulf between Jew and Gentile was established, because circumcision was the sign of adherence to the Law.

As the Roman Catholic theologian Dom Gregory Dix notes, this decision by the Jerusalem Council to consider as optional the practice of circumcision by the Jewish-Christian Church, was “a desertion of the national cause in its hour of danger, by the whole Christian movement as such.” Unconverted Jews began persecuting Christian Jews, “prejudic(ing) the vast majority of Jews against the ‘Gospel’ and the claim of Jesus to be the Messiah, and so put an end to the dearest hope of the Jewish-Christian Church, that of seeing all Israel acknowledge its Messiah…” They saw Gentile circumcision as a “reasonable minimum suggestion” in giving the Gospel any chance to succeed among the Jews.

“How difficult this question must be for any Jewish Christian is illustrated by S. Paul’s circumcision of Timothy in Asia Minor ‘because of the local Jews…for they all knew that his father was a Greek'[1].” Paul realized that failure to circumcise Timothy would block all access to non-Christian Jews.[2]

This animosity increased as a result of the Jew’s rejection of Christ and the Church’s embracing the millennium as a sacred empire, or a “Christian imperium sacrum,” to quote Jurgen Moltmann.[3] Hostility gained momentum as the Church grew stronger and more Gentile in its membership.

In 66 AD the Jews rebelled against Rome in the Bar-Cochab rebellion. The Jerusalem Church fled in mass to Pella, a Gentile city in Transjordan, where Jewish elements massacred as many Jewish Christians as they could. Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, refers to the martyrdom of Jewish Christians in Palestine by noting that hostile Jews killed them “whenever they had the power.”[4]

JEWISH DISPERSION AFTER THE FALL OF JERUSALEM

Dix continues by pointing out that “the breach between the Jewish Christians and their own countrymen was complete after AD 66. When Roman rule was restored, Jewish nationalism entrenched itself bitterly in the only sphere left to it – the worship of the synagogues and a rigorous observance of the Law.” Jews saw those of their brethren who converted to Christ as traitors to the national cause. A solemn curse upon them was introduced into the central prayer of the synagogue liturgy. Debarred from evangelizing their own countrymen, “the Jewish-Christian Church of Palestine becomes after AD 70 a small closed body of hereditary Jewish believers in the Messiah Jesus.

“Outside Palestine, Jewish Christianity virtually withers away during the next generation.” Many, discouraged, became secularized. Those who became part of the Gentile Church did not try to maintain their observance of the Law. “There are no traces whatsoever of Jewish Christian influence as such on Gentile Christianity in the sub-Apostolic Church….Unsettled and adrift between two worlds, the Jewish Christians of the Dispersion were not in any position to lead the Gentile Churches….In Palestine, Jewish Christianity continued as a corporate body and managed to reconstitute itself, with a pathetic loyalty, in the ruins of Jerusalem after AD 70 for another fifty years.”[5]

HELLENISTIC JUDAISM

Tracing Judaism in the years following the destruction of the temple (AD 70), Barnard (whom we met in an earlier issue), calls attention to the turmoil within the Greek world. “Strife between Jew and Greek, between Jew and Jew, and Jew and Christian, often accompanied by violent massacres and upheavals, formed the political background of the age.” Philo[6] sought to bridge the gap between Hellenism and Judaism, but failed due to the upheaval.

The Jews did not seek to preserve the influence of Philo in their communities. “The main reason for the eclipse of Philo was the resurgence of Pharisaic Judaism, which began at Jamnia[7] after AD 70 and continued unabated, in its literary activity, until about AD 600.” Philo linked philosophy with the first five books of the Bible through the use of allegory, a method widely used in the Greek world for giving relevance to mythology. This method of interpretation was picked up by some of the Patristics, especially Origen.[8]

The Yale church historian K.S. Latourette continues, noting that by the time the Patristics began writing, it was evident that any effort to win the majority of Jews to Christianity had failed. Most Christians were converted Gentiles, and it was in their direction that the Christian missionary effort was mainly directed. Not only so, but the principle opposition to the Gospel shifted from the Jews to the pagans, as seen in the persecution of Roman emperors such as Nero.[9]

A QUESTION OF HERMENEUTICS

The Roman Catholic theologian, J.P. Kirsch, illustrates how the Church embraced an allegorical method of interpretation. He readily concedes that the Old Testament prophets promised “a temporal Messiah” who would free Israel from their oppressors and restore “the former splendor” of the nation. This included “the arrival of the Messiah, the defeat of the nations hostile to Israel, and the union of all the Israelites in the messianic kingdom followed by the renovation of the world and the universal resurrection.”[10]

As we saw earlier with Moltmann, an objective analysis of the historical documents reveal that the Jews (and in the next issue we will see also the Patristics) believed in a literal, temporal kingdom in which Messiah would sit on the throne of David. Note how Kirsch accommodates an a-millennial interpretation of Scripture via a figurative interpretation.

“Though it is difficult to focus sharply the pictures used in the apocalypse and the things expressed by them, yet there can be no doubt that the whole description refers to the spiritual combat between Christ and the Church on the one hand and the malignant powers of hell and the world on the other.[11] Nevertheless, a large number of Christians of the post-Apostolic era, particularly in Asia Minor, yielded so far to Jewish apocalyptic as to put a literal meaning into these descriptions of St. John’s Apocalypse (Revelation); the result was that millenarianism spread and gained staunch advocates not only among the heretics but among the Catholic Christians as well…”[12]

As we will note again and again in our study of eschatology, the differences in the Church flow from hermeneutics; do we interpret Scripture literally or figuratively? Those who advocate the figurative approach argue that no one interprets the Bible literally. In a sense this is true, but a figurative hermeneutic is warranted only when the context demands it.

For example, we read in Revelation 1:20: “As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” It is obvious that the “seven stars” and the “seven candlesticks” are figurative, for John tells us this is so.

Whenever you take it upon yourself to render a passage figurative on any other basis than the context demanding it, you open yourself to heresy. Although this may be construed as an emotional prejudicing of the case, note that most deviation from evangelical doctrine takes place in an environment in which an a-millennial hermeneutic is applied. German Rationalism of the last century was born in this ethos, and Bultmann’s Demythologizing is merely taking the figurative interpretation of the Bible to an extreme.

CONCLUSION

You may wonder why I have used so many quotes in this and other issues on eschatology. First, eschatology is a controversial and emotional issue among Christians. It would be easy for you to conclude that I have launched a polemic to “beat my own drum.” I want you to see that I have not distorted the information available on this subject.

Second, men like Dix, Moltmann, Harnack, Latourette, and Barnard, do not write from an eschatological, but historical perspective. They don’t express their own bias regarding the millennium or the practical difference a person’s views make. All of them are acknowledged scholars in the field of early Church history, writing without seeking to prove anything.

Third, although these scholars come from a varied assortment of backgrounds, they all agree as to what happened in the early centuries of the Church when the Church turned anti-Semitic and as a result twisted their interpretation of Scripture.

In this issue we have looked at how the antipathy between the early Church and Judaism developed. Looking in retrospect, much of it was predictable; the repercussions of Acts 15 when the Church decided that circumcision was not necessary, the closing of synagogues to the Gospel, the destruction of the Temple with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, complete with the confiscation of Israel’s Old Testament promises by the Church. Before exploring fully how all of this impacted the Church, in the next issue I want to look at how this set of historical events biased the interpretation of the Patristics.

Yours in the bonds of Christ,

[1] Acts xvi. 3.

[2] Dix, Gregory, Jew and Greek – A Study in the Primitive Church, Dacre Press, Westminster, 1953, pp. 34-35.

[3] op. cit., Moltmann, pp. 1021-1024.

[4] The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Roberts & Donaldson, editors, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,1981,Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter CXXXIII, p.266.

[5] op. cit., Dix, pp. 62-63.

[6] Philo was born about the time of Christ and lived in Alexandria, Egypt. A Jewish philosopher, he sought to marry the worlds of Jew and Greek by the use of “Word” (logos) in creation. In this he anticipated the writings of John (cf. Jn 1:1).

[7] A small city in Palestine noted for its being the origen of the Birkathha-Minim, a circular letter to the synagogues denouncing Christianity.

[8] op.cit. Barnard, pp. 44-45.

[9] Latourette, K.S., A History of the Expansion of Christianity, Vol 1, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1939, pp. 121,137.

[10] Herbermann, Charles G., editor, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 15 Vol & Index, vol X, Kirsch, J.P., Millennium, New York, The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1911, p.307.

[11] It is interesting to observe that those who hold to a figurative interpretation of the first half of Revelation 20 interpret the second half of the chapter literally.

[12] ibid., p.308.

Part Six

As you know, the New Testament writers quoted generously from the Old Testament, applying various Old Testament passages to Christ and the New Testament age. Often their use of the Old Testament Scriptures seemed in violation of a proper hermeneutic.

For example, Matthew quotes from Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” God, speaking through the prophet Hosea, uses this reference in regard to Israel at the Exodus; Matthew uses it in reference to Jesus’ family returning to Palestine after the death of Herod. Without Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 we would not be able to discern that it had a messianic meaning.

Another illustration is Paul using allegory in Galatians where he uses the two sons of Abraham to draw attention to the distinction between law and grace. Paul even calls it an allegory.[1]

The early patristic writers lived in a period of time when there was no clear understanding or agreement as to what constituted the New Testament canon. Nor did they distinguish between the rules of interpretation available to those writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit vis-a-vis those that did not. It was natural, therefore, for these men to employ the same hermeneutic they saw used by Matthew, Paul, et al. Once they became anti-Semitic, it was a short step for them to apply the Old Testament kingdom prophecies to the Church.

The Patristics failed to comprehend: 1) The delineation in the thinking and writing of New Testament authors such as Paul and John regarding the role of the Church vis-a-vis the future of Israel in the on-going program of God, and 2) The hermeneutic restraints on the writers of Scripture vis-a-vis all other authors. That the Patristics saw themselves in the train of the apostles is obvious by their style of writing, such as introduction, frequent quotes from the Old Testament, and moralizing.[2] We will frequently see this as we proceed in our study of the Patristics.

Let’s take a brief look at some of the earliest post-apostolic writings, noting their references to the millennium.

THE DIDACHE [3]

The Didache is The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or The Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles Through the Twelve Apostles. Although the author is unknown, historians feel it was written around 100-150 AD somewhere in Syria. In part, the Didache reads: “And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven; then the sign of the sound of the trumpet; and the third, the resurrection of the dead; yet not of all, but as it is said: The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.”[4]

Paul references the return of Christ with the sound of a trumpet in I Corinthians 15:52 and I Thessalonians 4:16. Only in I Thess. 4:17 does he refer to the clouds at the appearing of Christ. The Didache says that some of the dead rise, which implies two resurrections. As we will see in our study of Augustine, “one resurrection only” is at the heart of a-millennial eschatology.

“The writer of the Didache, like the generality of the Church of the first centuries, was a pre millenarian, and held that the Second Advent of Christ would bring the Resurrection of the righteous only, so that they might take place only after this. This doctrine arises from a very literal rendering of Revelation XX, 1-7″[5]

THE EPISTLE of BARNABUS

Written around 100 AD, its authorship is disputed, and although some hold that it was actually written by Barnabas, the companion of Paul, the tone of the epistle seems to refute this. There are twenty-one chapters in the letter, and it carries a strong anti-Jewish undercurrent:

“But they (the Jews) thus finally lost it, after Moses had already received it. For the Scripture saith, ‘And Moses was fasting in the mount forty days and forty nights, and received the covenant from the Lord, tables of stone written with the finger of the hand of the Lord;’ but turning away to idols, they lost it. For the Lord speaks thus to Moses: ‘Moses, go down quickly; for the people whom thou hast brought out of the land of Egypt have transgressed.’ And Moses understood the meaning of God, and cast the two tables out of his hands; and their covenant was broken, in order that the covenant of the beloved Jesus might be sealed upon our heart, in the hope which flows from believing in Him….And all the more attend to this my brethren, when ye reflect and behold, that after so great signs and wonders were wrought in Israel, they were thus at length abandoned.”[6] The epistle picks up the same argument again in chapter XIII, arguing that Christians rather than Jews are heirs of the Old Testament covenant.[7]

“Barnabas’ view of history necessitates that in handling the eschatological questions that arise in the Epistle, his solutions always favor the Christians, the true chosen people, at the expense of the rejected race, the Jews. In chapter 6 we saw how Barnabas transferred the land of the promise from Jew to Christian by identifying the land itself with Christ in some way, saying that therefore this land – now the eschatological land – is already possessed spiritually by the Christian…”[8]

In chapter 15 “Barnabas” uses the seven days of creation as a template for history; as God created in six days and rested the seventh, so history is six thousand years in length with the seventh the millennium. On the eighth “day” God recreates with a new heaven and earth.[9] The origin of this division of history into seven periods is somewhat ambiguous, but can be found in I Enoch and IV Esdras.[10]

This division of history into seven parts, with the seventh being the millennium, is a repeated theme throughout the Patristics. Even Augustine embraces it, arguing that the millennium “is now passing, and cannot be measured by any number of generations….”[11]

CLEMENT

Clement’s name is mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3, although we are not positive that it is the same person as the patristic bearing this name. In his first epistle, although there is no statement expressing either a belief in pre-millennialism or a repudiation of it, he talks about the second coming of Christ in terms that would be difficult to understand if he did not embrace a millenarian mind-set.

O’Hagan thinks that the tone of Clement indicates that he believed in a period of time after judgment in which the land would participate not only in punishment, but also purification – a “material re-creation,” as he calls it.[12]

In his letter to the Corinthians, Clement argues against the removal of presbyters without good reason. His argument comes out of the Old Testament. “For unto the high-priest his proper services have been assigned, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the Levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman’s ordinances.”[13]

CONCLUSION

We see Clement’s ecclesiological presuppositions here, and this may well have been a precursor to an Old Testament view of the ministry. It is this tie between the Old and New Testament, in the minds of the Patristics, that produced a limited role for the laity, culminating in an Old Testament view of the mission of the Church.

Whether Clement saw a literal thousand-year reign of Christ through the Church, as did most of the Patristics (historical pre-millen-nialism), is not the important issue. Rather, he saw the Church in Old Testament terms and this influenced his perception of the ministry. The conviction that the nation of Israel had been permanently removed from the program of God and replaced by the Church, produced an Old Testament “grid” through which every aspect of the life of the Church passed.

An illustration of this can be seen in what R.R. Williams, Principal of St. John’s College, Durham; Examining Chaplain to the Bishops of Durham and Chelmsford, says in his book on authority: “In St. Paul’s mind the final criterion by which all ministerial questions had to be judged was the welfare of the Church. The object of the ministry was the building up of the body of Christ, the edification of the Church, so that the Church too could embark on its share of ministry (see especially Eph. iv. 11-15)….”[14]

“There was no sharp distinction between a charismatic traveling and a local, non-charismatic ministry. In such a distinction, few scholars now believe. Gifts of the spirit were needed for the local ministry as much as for a traveling ‘assignment.’ But that there was tension between traveling prophets and local ministers is suggested by the Didache, and this may lie behind the divisions at Corinth revealed by Clement’s letter, and the troubles between ‘the Elder'[15] and Diotrephes.”[16]

It was this “tension” between para-church (“traveling prophets”) and church (“local ministers”) that gave impetus to viewing the ministry in Old Testament terms with a hierarchy of leadership and the laity controlled by “priests.”

Yours for a life of ministry,

[1] Gal. 4:24.

[2] Wilson, C.T., Illustrations of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers, Cleaver, Baker St., London, 1845.

[3] I am indebted to a masters thesis from Trinity Seminary on Primitive Premillennialism: A Study in Patristic Chiliasm, from the Apostolic Fathers to Irenaeus by Charles Turner. It directed me to many of the original texts, saving me many hours of personal investigation.

[4] Didache 16:6.

[5] Lawson, John, A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers, New York, Macmillian Co., 1961, p. 100.

[6] op.cit., ANF, Vol I, Epistle of Barnabas, chapter IV, pp. 138-139.

[7] ibid, pp. 145-146.

[8] O’Haagan, Angelo P., Material Re-Creation in the Apostolic Fathers, Adademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1968, p. 65.

[9] ibid, pp. 146-147.

[10] “After that there shall be another, the eighth week, that of righteousness…. And sinners shall be delivered into the hands of the righteous….And the first heaven shall pass away, and a new heaven shall appear, and all the powers of the heaven shall give sevenfold light. And after that there will be many weeks without number for ever, and all shall be in goodness and righteous- ness, and sin shall be no more mentioned forever (I Enoch 91:12,16-17). “And it shall be after seven days that the Age which is not yet awake shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish….O Lord, show this also to thy servant: whether after death…we shall be kept in rest until those times come in which thou shalt renew the creation….But the Day of Judgment shall be the end of this age and the beginning of the eternal age that is to come; wherein corruption is passed away” (IV Esdras 7:31,75,113).

[11] op.cit., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol 11, The City of God, chapter 30, p. 511.

[12] op.cit., O’Hagan, p. 103.

[13] Lightfoot, J.B., The Apostolic Fathers, J.R. Harmer, editor, Clement, The Epistle of S. Clement to the Corintihians, chapter 40, Baker, Grand Rapids,1967, p. 30.

[14] Williams, R.R., Authority in the Apostolic Age, SCM Press LTD, London, 1950, p. 51.

[15] Read III John, esp. v. 9.

[16] op.cit., Williams, p. 68.