Many in the early church embraced premillennialism (the belief in a future, literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth following His second coming) due to their reading of Scripture, their historical and cultural context, and their theological priorities.
Examples include Papias, the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
However, their premillennialism differed significantly from the later system of Dispensational premillennialism that emerged in the 19th century.
Here’s an analysis of why early Christians held these views, whether they were correct, and how their reasoning contrasts with Dispensationalism.
Why Did Early Christians Believe in Premillennialism?
Literal Interpretation of Old Testament Prophecies
Early Christians often read Old Testament prophecies—such as Isaiah 11, Isaiah 65, Ezekiel 37-48, and Zechariah 14—as foretelling a future, earthly kingdom where Christ would reign. They interpreted these passages as promises of physical and national restoration, leading them to anticipate a literal fulfillment during Christ’s reign.
Influence of Jewish Eschatology
Many early Christians were Jewish or heavily influenced by Jewish thought, which often anticipated a Messianic age where the Messiah would rule on earth, vindicating Israel and establishing a golden age of peace and prosperity. This expectation was naturally carried into Christian theology, especially in light of Revelation 20:1-6, which explicitly mentions a thousand-year reign.
Persecution and Hope for Vindication
The early Church faced intense persecution under Roman rule. The idea of a millennial kingdom where Christ would reign, overthrow His enemies, and vindicate His followers was deeply comforting. This eschatology offered hope for justice and restoration in a tangible, earthly sense.
Revelation 20 and the Authority of Apostolic Teaching
The Book of Revelation explicitly mentions a 1,000-year reign of Christ (Revelation 20:1-6). Many early Christians took this passage at face value, interpreting it literally. Additionally, they may have believed that this view was handed down through apostolic tradition, though it’s worth noting that not all Church Fathers were premillennialists.
Typology and the Creation Week
As seen in the Epistle of Barnabas and Irenaeus, the typological reading of the creation week (six days of work followed by a seventh day of rest) was a compelling framework. They saw history as a 6,000-year period followed by a 1,000-year “sabbath” reign of Christ.
Were They Right?
The early Church’s premillennialism should be evaluated with care:
Strengths of Their Position
Their interpretation emphasized continuity between the Old and New Testaments, taking seriously the promises made to Abraham and Israel.
They affirmed God’s sovereignty over history and His commitment to justice and restoration.
Their hope for a future reign of Christ reflected a longing for God’s kingdom to come in fullness, a desire shared by Christians across eschatological views.
Weaknesses of Their Position
Many early Christians lacked a fully developed understanding of how Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. Over time, theologians like Augustine articulated a clearer understanding of Christ’s present spiritual reign, leading to the development of amillennialism as a dominant view.
Their focus on a literal, earthly reign sometimes missed the New Testament’s emphasis on the inaugurated eschatology of Christ’s kingdom (e.g., Matthew 12:28, Luke 17:20-21).
From a Reformed amillennial perspective, the early Church’s premillennialism reflects an understandable, but incomplete, view of eschatology. They rightly anticipated Christ’s victory but misunderstood the nature of His kingdom, which is both already present and not yet fully realized.
How Does Early Premillennialism Compare to Dispensationalism?
Continuity vs. Discontinuity
Early premillennialists viewed the millennium as the fulfillment of promises made to Israel, but they often saw the Church as the continuation or fulfillment of Israel (not a separate entity). In contrast, Dispensationalists sharply divide God’s plans for Israel and the Church.
Early Christians anticipated Christ ruling over the restored earth in continuity with the Old Testament prophecies. Dispensationalism often emphasizes Israel’s political restoration in the land as a separate plan from the Church’s heavenly destiny.
The Centrality of Christ
For early premillennialists like Irenaeus, the millennium was primarily about Christ’s reign and His fulfillment of God’s promises. Dispensationalism often shifts the focus to Israel’s national restoration and geopolitical events.
Eschatological Framework
Early premillennialists generally lacked a detailed framework for dividing history into dispensations or distinct epochs of God’s dealings with humanity. This framework is a hallmark of Dispensationalism, introduced by figures like John Nelson Darby in the 19th century.
The early Church did not teach a pretribulational rapture, a key feature of modern Dispensational premillennialism.
Conclusion
The early Church embraced premillennialism because of their reading of Scripture, their Jewish background, and their longing for Christ’s victory in a tangible way. While they were correct in expecting Christ to fulfill all God’s promises, they may have misunderstood the nature of His reign, which is spiritual, universal, and eternal rather than confined to a literal thousand years on earth.
Their beliefs arose from a desire to honor Scripture and Christ’s promises, but their approach was fundamentally different from modern Dispensationalism, which introduces a stark division between Israel and the Church and relies on a rigid, systematized framework. From a Reformed perspective, the amillennial view offers a more biblically and theologically consistent understanding of Christ’s kingdom and the fulfillment of God’s promises in Him.
Leave a comment