I said before that the most significant divisions of thought in Early Church writings were...
- 1st century - 325 AD: Ante Nicean Period
- 325 AD to 13th century AD: Post Nicean to Yoachim of Fiore
- 13th century - 1517 AD: Yoachim to the Reformation
- 1517 - 19th Century: Post Reformation
- 19th century: The Prophetic Revival
- Our Modern Times
Nicean to Yoachim of Fiore (325 AD - 13th century)
Christian Thought began to diverge into two competing directions herein;
- Those who spiritualized Revelation and considered themselves living in the Millenial period. This eventually became the majority opinion, and I will explain why later.
- Those who held to the literal reading of Revelation, called "Chiliasts" or "Millenarians" until we invented cemetaries - or - seminaries, and now we call them "Pre-Millenialists"
The Spiritualized view requires being very pro-Catholic or pro-Orthodox. Typically, this view considered the Ante-Nicean period to have been the tribulation period in Revelation and that 325 AD was the start of the 1000 year reign of the Church on earth. Of course, they spiritualized that number and did not look for the second coming in 1325 AD. Obviously, there is no sense of a pre-trib rapture being a future event in this view of things. For these folks, the tribulation has come and gone.
This view was promoted by many in the Catholic Church and it served the Vatican's corporate interests. This view caused people to see the Church as their Savior. It promoted a sense of thankfulness that the institutionalized Church was there to buddy up to the State and keep us from being martyred by it. So with self-interest benefiting from this view, perhaps it is no surprise that the Roman Church began promoting this view and gave it the boost it needed to eventually become the majority opinion.
This view grew over time and eventually became the majority opinion, though not everyone adopted it. Ephraim the Syrian was an example of a Pre-Millenialist during this period. I think the Aramaic speaking parts of the world were less affected by spiritualizing the End Times than Latin and Greek speaking parts. I talked about Ephrem at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/may2015/jovial510-3.htm .
The trend among numerous writers were;
- a higher number of writers began considering the second coming a long way off
- Spiritualizing Revelation and considering the 1000 year Millenial period to be current.
- Viewing a historical fulfillment to many of the events in Revelation
The loss of Imminence
For Literalists or Pre-Millenialist, because the Roman Empire had stopped persecuting Christians, many began thinking "Long live the Roman Empire." I explained why at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/may2015/jovial517-4.htm ; as long as the Roman Empire stood, the False Messiah could not come, because Revelation predicts a REBORN Roman Empire, so it had to fall at some point in the future. In many ways , the attitude is comparable to Isaac Newton's prediction that Yeshua would never return any earlier than 2060 AD, and that at the earliest. (Though personally, I would not be surprised if Yeshua came back sooner than that.) They enjoyed thinking of it as a long way off and found security in a Roman Empire that was now not only friendly towards Christians, but stood in the way of prophecy being fulfilled about the end times.
For those in the other camp, well...obviously there's no sense of immediacy if you think you are already in the 1000 year period. The loss of persecution led to the Church to become complacent and lazy. Let us always feel motivated in our own minds!
The historic twist
Many writers began seeing various historical stages in the events described in the book of Revelation. Like maybe the first seal had already happened under this emperor or that one, and we are just waiting for 6 more. Or maybe 3 seals are gone and 4 are left.
TYCONIUS (4th Century AD)
Tyconius lived in the later part of the 4th century (late 300s) and is credited as the first to spiritualize Revelation and claim Christians were living in the Millenial age in his time. Unfortunately, his most influential body of work proposing the details of this did not survive, though his Book of Rules did. But his ideas are reflected in the people who quoted him later and those who adopted this philosophy, such as Augustine.
AUGUSTINE
Augustine said,
"the whole Church of the true God holds and professes as its creed, that Christ shall come from heaven to judge quick and dead, this we call the last day, or last time, of the divine judgment. For we do not know how many days this judgment may occupy; but no one who reads the Scriptures, however negligently, need be told that in them “day” is customarily used for “time.” " (City of God, dated at 426 AD)
This thought is the basis for spiritualizing much of the timing of Revelation; that a "day" could be anything. He spiritualized Revelation, saying this...
"The evangelist John has spoken of these two resurrections in the book which is called the Apocalypse, but in such a way that some Christians do not understand the first of the two, and so construe the passage into ridiculous fancies. For the Apostle John says in the foresaid book, “And I saw an angel come down from heaven. . . . 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.” Those who, on the strength of this passage, have suspected that the first resurrection is future and bodily, have been moved, among other things, specially by the number of a thousand years....They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts, which we may literally reproduce by the name Millenarians" (City of God at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XX.7.html )
He continued to talk about why he believed the "First Resurrection" had already happened; that it was spiritual, not bodily. He began to explain the content of the Millenial period comparing it with current events in the Church. Personally, I find this view to be a sad thing to read. But it is important to read to understand the mindset of the time period.
Despite his spiritualization of Revelation, Augustine still saw a future false messiah in other parts of Scripture, saying,
"No one can doubt that he wrote of the Antichrist and....nor that he declared that this day should not come unless he first came who is called the apostate...it is uncertain in what temple he shall sit....And on account of this some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him..." (City of God, Chapter 19)
So in this we see 2 things; one being that this spiritualization did not necessarily conflict with a future literal fulfillment to some people, but we also see Augustine explain how others had spiritualized the passages in Paul and the Gospels about the future False Messiah to come.
This mindset is the product of trying to fit Revelation into the culture of the time. People were so rejoiced that the Roman Empire was not killing christians anymore and the Church was reigning freely, that they fit the TRIBULATION -> MILLENIAL description into their culture and saw it that way. Pesky details that got in the way of that view were explained away with spiritualizations that really don't fit, but satisfy those who's primary goal is to fit the Bible into their culture instead of trying to change one's personal culture to fit the Bible.
It is clear from his statement, "They who do believe them are called by the spiritual Chiliasts" that this division of thought already existed and he was merely recording it. For if he were the first to propose this idea, he would not be saying that there were already established labels for the opposing viewpoint. But the idea obviously was not around that long, because the concept simply did not fit the worldview of the Church when it was being thrown to the lions.
THE TRANSITION TO THIS AS THE MAJORITY OPINION
This view Augustine records grew into the majority opinion. I already explained how it served the Vatican's corporate interests and for a complacent Church, it was far more appealing than going through the tribulation period in the future, and some people believe what is more comforting, irregardless of how good of a case can be made from the language of the Scriptures.
Some have said that the Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned the literal reading of Revelation, but several people have told me they read the entire preceedings of the Council of Ephesus and there was nothing in it about this topic. The Catholic Church did indeed permit debate on the issue and preserved writings from authors of both the Pre-Millenial and Post-Millenial viewpoint.
Today, we might call Augustine and people with a similar theory "Preterists". I suspect the label might fit as a form of Preteritism, allowing for some variations in how different people with the same general philosophy see it.
OTHERS
Among some of the more significant commentators about the End Times were;
- Latin
- Cesarius of Arles (d 543)
- Primasius of Hadrumetum (North Africa) (d 553 or later)
- Apringius of Beja (wrote 531-548)
- Cassiodorus (died 580)
- Bede (wrote before 716)
- Ambrosius Autpertus (died 781)
- Beatus of Liebana (died 798)
- Alcuim (died 804)
- Haimo of Auxerre (died 875)
- Greek
- John Chrysostrom
- Oecumenius (wrote about 510)
- Andrew of Cappadocian Caesarea (515)
- Arethas of Cappadocian Caesarea (940)
There were probably more writers advocating the Tyconius/Augustine view in the Latin West than in the Greek East, but people in both halves were advocating this.
NEXT WEEK
Next week I'll talk about what Yoachim proposed, how Dolcino modified it, and what impact Yoachim had on Christian thoughts on Prophecy for the next 500+ years. He impacted writers from the 13th century to the 19th century, though eventually history proved him wrong.
Shalom,
Joe