Patristic Anti-Judaism and the decline of millennialism

Chris Gousmett

For the first few centuries there was a widespread belief that following his return,
Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years in a kingdom of peace and
prosperity, a period called the millennium. But it is a remarkable fact that by the
beginning of the fourth century, Eusebius could mock such beliefs as absurd and
unbelievable, and eventually belief in an earthly millennium fell out of favour
completely, although it did not completely disappear.1 The characteristic elements of
millennialist doctrine were either discarded or reinterpreted in a spiritualising vein,
and the writings of those who had supported millennialism were sometimes
expurgated to remove the offensive material.2 This paper will outline what I see to be
one of the most important factors in the changing fortunes of this theme in Patristic
eschatology, and in particular the accompanying shift in Biblical interpretation which
made such an significant change in outlook possible.

The causes of this shift include the increase in the use of allegorical interpretation of
Scripture,3 and a shift away from the this-earthly focus of the Old Testament to an
other-worldly focus. Correlated with the latter was an increase in polemics against
Judaism,4 as well as against purported Judaizers. The exegetical methods used by

1
Quintus Julius Hilarianus composed a work called The progress of time in 397 AD, which
gave a millennialist eschatology. B McGinn. Visions of the End. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1979, p. 51. I can find no evidence that millennialism was officially
condemned by the church, in spite of a number of authors asserting that this had occurred at
the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. For instance, by Norman Cohn. The pursuit of the
Millenium. London: Paladin, 1957, pp. 12, 24. This reference to the Council of Ephesus has
been removed from the 1970 edition of Cohn’s book.
2
Many manuscripts omit the chapters in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies where he propounded this
doctrine. These chapters were recovered only in 1575, and not without considerable debate as
to their authenticity. See G Wingren. Man and the Incarnation. London: Oliver and Boyd,
1959, pp. 188-189. See also Jerome’s editing of the commentary by Victorinus on the
Revelation.
3
It is noteworthy that allegory appears to have originated in the attempt by pagan intellectuals
to rescue the myths of the gods by removing the offence of a literal ascription of immorality
and violence to the gods. The adoption of allegorical method by Christians to interpret the Old
Testament shows a similar (unwarranted) reticence about the earthiness of the Biblical stories.
R P C Hanson. Studies in Christian Antiquity. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985, pp. 158-162.
Cf. Walter J Burghardt. “Some could not resist the temptation to allegorize Scripture in the
pagan sense, i.e., to deny the letter so as to escape an embarrassing dogma.” “On early
Christian exegesis.” Theological Studies 11 (1950) 83. See the survey of Patristic reticence
about such stories in John L Thompson. “The immoralities of the Patriarchs in the history of
exegesis: a reappraisal of Calvin’s position.” Calvin Theological Journal 26 (1991) 19-39.
4
D J Constantelos points out that the Greek fathers condemned all opposing religions - Judaism
was not specially singled out, but the Jews were of course condemned specifically for
rejecting the Messiah. “Jews and Judaism in the early Greek Fathers (100AD - 500AD).”
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 23 (1978) 147. See also G B Ladner. “Aspects of

1
proponents of millennial views came to be identified with the eschatological ideas of
“carnal Judaism” (the Patristic writers did not appear to consider the possibility of a
“spiritual Judaism”), and this strengthened their rejection of an earthly eschatological
hope and bolstered their adoption of speculative ideas drawn from pagan Greek
philosophy.

The rejection of millennialism

Throughout the Patristic period there is a steady decline in the significance of the
resurrection of the body and an increase in speculation about the soul and its qualities.
This decline is correlated with the diminishing of the immediate danger of Gnostic
heresies (and to some extent incorporation of aspects of these views into mainstream
Christian thought), and a trend towards asceticism and away from the significance and
value of life in this world. 5 This view can be seen in Prudentius, who expected the
destruction of the earth and its abandonment by humankind. The spirit goes to heaven
to enjoy the vision of God, while the body belongs in the grave. When the heavens
and earth are destroyed, all that is left will be God with the saints and the angels.6

As a result, belief in a millennial reign of Christ on this earth lost its appeal as
spirituality and theology moved more and more in a metaphysical and mystical
direction. The idea of an earthly eschaton was abandoned altogether by later Patristic
writers, under the influence of Platonic thought, and the eschatological hope became
other-worldly.

The influence of millennial doctrines has been ascribed to sociological factors, so that
during times of hardship, hope for a millennium increases, while prosperity brings a

patristic anti-Judaism.” Viator 2 (1971) 355-363. R P C Hanson comments that in the Patristic
era Christians always distinguished the Jews from the pagans, and their anti-Jewish polemic
had little in common with their anti-pagan polemic. Studies in Christian Antiquity.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985, p. 144.
5
This adoption of Gnostic thought-forms is made explicit by Eusebius. “And His disciples,
accommodating their teaching to the minds of the people, according to the Master’s will,
delivered on the one hand to those who were able to receive it, the teaching given by the
perfect master to those who rose above human nature. While on the other the side of the
teaching which they considered was suitable to men still in the world of passion and needing
treatment, they accommodated to the weakness of the majority, and handed over to them to
keep sometimes in writing, and sometimes in unwritten ordinances to be observed by them.
Two ways of life were thus given by the law of Christ to His Church. The one is above nature,
and beyond common human living; it admits not marriage, childbearing, property nor the
possession of wealth, but wholly and permanently separate from the common customary life
of mankind, it devotes itself to the service of God alone in its wealth of heavenly love. And
they who enter on this course, appear to die to the life of mortals, to bear with them nothing
earthly but their body, and in mind and spirit to have passed to heaven. Like some celestial
beings they gaze upon human life, performing the duty of a priesthood to Almighty God for
the whole race...” The proof of the Gospel 1.8. Translations of Christian Literature. Series 1,
Greek Texts. London: S.P.C.K., 1920. Vol. 1, p. 48.
6
Prudentius. Crowns of Martyrdom 10, 534-544. London: William Heinemann. Loeb Classical
Library. Vol. 2, 1953, pp. 265, 267.

2
corresponding decline in this belief. 7 Whether or not this is true in other contexts, it
appears not to be the case in the Patristic period, at least not in such a simple form.
The first significant opponent of millennialism was Origen, who lived prior to the
peace of the church under Constantine, and who was imprisoned for his faith and
eventually died as a result of his mistreatment. Others who lived after the peace of the
church still held fervently to millennialism, although there has been debate in recent
years as to the dating of some of these writers, with some arguing, on the basis of
their millennialism, for pre-fourth century dates.

I believe the most significant factor in the rejection of millennialism is Patristic anti-
Judaism, which affected not only the content of belief but also the hermeneutical
methods employed in interpreting Scripture. It was argued that the millennialist
Fathers had understood the Scriptures in a “Jewish” manner, and that the idea of a
millennial reign on earth of Christ (the Messiah) together with the resurrected saints,
is of Jewish origin. Those who take such a position employed allegorising
hermeneutics, in contrast to the more “literal” hermeneutics of the millennialists. That
allegorising hermeneutics are crucial in this development can be seen from the fact
that anti-Judaism alone is insufficient to lead to rejection of a millennium. Both Justin
Martyr and Commodian,8 both proponents of millennial beliefs, also express strong
anti-Judaistic sentiments. In his debate with Trypho, Justin states that Judaism is truly
fulfilled in Christ, and thereby holds the hope of the return to Israel and the rebuilding
of Jerusalem in the millennial kingdom. His dialogue was not a polemic against the
Jews, but an apologetic for Christ in the face of their rejection of him as the Messiah,
and an explanation of why those Jews who did not believe in Christ would not inherit
the land.9
7
It has been suggested that the decline of millennialism can be traced to sociological factors
such as the decline in persecution and the increasing prosperity of the church. For instance,
Isichei sees millennialism as something espoused by those undergoing persecution or
excluded from the mainstream of society, commenting: “It is broadly true to say that in the
early church chiliasm flourished in inverse proportion to the prosperity of the Christian
community... When the church found a new prosperity under Constantine and his successors,
and the simple passage of time changed the Lord’s coming to a remote theological hypothesis,
chiliasm became progressively discredited.” E A Isichei. Political thinking and social
experience. Some Christian interpretations of the Roman Empire from Tertullian to
Salvian. Christchurch: University of Canterbury, 1964, p. 23. But it is inaccurate to over-
emphasise any external influences, such as persecution, as intellectual factors are possibly
even more important. Thus Clement of Alexandria and especially Origen were hostile to
millennialism, even though they still lived in the period of persecution.
8
That anti-Judaism is not necessarily connected with rejection of the millennial hope can be
seen in Commodian, whose forceful polemics against the unbelief of the Jews (and not against
the Jews as a race), particularly their rejection of the Messiah, is found in the same text where
he develops his complicated millennialist expectations. Instructions 37-40. ANF 4, p. 210.
Clark M Williamson discerns anti-Judaism in the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Aphrahat and Augustine, who use allegorical interpretations of the OT to
appropriate Jewish traditions. However, they did not (apart from Augustine) see the
millennium as “Jewish” in a negative sense as did later Patristic writers such as Jerome. “The
‘Adversus Judaeos’ tradition in Christian theology.” Encounter 39 (1978) 273-296.
9
Justin Martyr. “And besides, they beguile themselves and you, supposing that the everlasting
kingdom will be assuredly given to those of the dispersion who are of Abraham after the flesh,

3
However, for later detractors of the millennialist doctrine, the reign of Christ on earth
appeared to differ little from Jewish messianic expectations, which did not expect the
Messiah to be a crucified saviour, but a human political figure who would bring
deliverance to Israel and inaugurate an age of material prosperity. This messianic
figure would be human; sent by God it is true, but human nonetheless, and like all
humans this messiah would eventually die and the messianic kingdom would then
come to an end.

An important factor in the rejection of millennialism was the perception that this
doctrine limited the reign of Christ and the saints to only the thousand years. Since the
millennium was a limited period of a thousand years, it was held that this was a
“Jewish” concept of the kingdom of Christ, which anti-millennialists stressed would
never end.10 Jerome registered his objections in this regard: “I do not think the reign
of a thousand years is eternal; or if it is thus to be thought of, they cease to reign when
the thousand years are finished.”11 According to Jerome, the millennium is to be
understood as the number 1,000, the product of 10 and 100, which is interpreted as the
Decalogue and virginity, so those who keep the commandments and guard themselves
from impurity reign with Christ for in them the devil is bound. 12 Suggestions that the
“thousand years” of Revelation 20 were to be understood as a temporal reference
were rejected.13 Hilary of Poitiers gives an example of these ideas.
although they be sinners, and faithless, and disobedient towards God…” Dialogue with
Trypho 140. ANF 1, p. 269.
10
Jerome, when commenting on Daniel 7:18, And they shall possess the kingdom unto eternity,
even forever and ever, says: “If this should be taken to refer to the Maccabees, the advocate of
this position should explain how the kingdom of the Maccabees is of a perpetual character.”
Commentary on Daniel 7.18. G L Archer, p. 81. This concern about limiting the reign of
Christ was also expressed by Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.25.5. Library of
Christian Classics 21. Vol. 2, pp. 994-996. See the instructive study by Richard A Muller.
“Christ in the Eschaton: Calvin and Moltmann on the duration of the munus regium.” Harvard
Theological Review 74 (1981) 31-59. See also T F Glasson. “The temporary Messianic
kingdom and the kingdom of God.” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990) 517-525.
11
Jerome’s editing of Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 20.6. ANF 7, p. 359. Cf.
Augustine. “Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they shall praise thee forever and ever .
On fire, so to speak, with this desire, and burning with this love, he longs to dwell all the days
of his life in the house of the Lord; to abide in the Lord’s house all his days, not days that
come to an end but days that last forever. For the word “days” is used in the same way as the
word “years” in the text: And thy years shall not fail. The day of life everlasting is a single day
which never closes.” On the Psalms. Second Discourse on Psalm 26.7. ACW 29, p. 266.
12
Jerome’s editing of Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 20.6. ANF 7, p. 359. His original
text taught the millennium. PLS 1, 167.
13
Cf. John of Damascus, who argues that there will be no days or nights after the resurrection,
but unending day for the just, and unending night for the wicked. He then asks, “In what way
then will the period of one thousand years be counted which, according to Origen, is required
for the complete restoration?” On the Orthodox Faith 2.1. NPNF 2/9, p. 18. However, cf.
Peter Steen’s insistence on the continuation of time in the eschatological age. “The Problem of
Time and Eternity in its Relation to the Nature-Grace Ground-motive.” In: Hearing and
Doing: Philosophical Essays presented to H Evan Runner. J Kraay and A Tol, eds.
Toronto: Wedge, 1979, pp. 141-142.

4
 Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for ever more. He sets
no temporal limit to our hope, he bids our faithful expectation to
stretch out to infinity. We are to hope for ever and ever, winning the
hope of future life through the hope of our present life which we have
in Christ Jesus our Lord...14

Theodoret gives a typical example of the shift in concepts of time in association with
millennialism and the eternal life in heaven.

The Munificent Giver promised that He would not give a perishable

nor a transitory enjoyment of good things but an eternal one. For,
unlike that of Cerinthus and of those whose views are similar to his,
the kingdom of our God and Saviour is not to be of this earth, nor
circumscribed by a specific time. Those men create for themselves in
imagination a period of a thousand years, and luxury that will pass, and
other pleasures, and along with them, sacrifices and Jewish
solemnities. As for ourselves, we await the life that knows no growing
old.15

There is also a change from an historical context for eschatological fulfillment to a

non-historical (non-temporal) context in anti-millennialist thought.

This concern was implicit in the controversy over the views of Marcellus of Ancyra,
who was condemned for teaching that the kingdom of Christ would eventually come
to an end, basing this on his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.16 Both the content of

14
Hilary of Poitiers. Homilies on the Psalms. Psalm 131.6. NPNF 2/9, p. 248. However, this
objection had already been addressed by Justin Martyr, who in comparing Moses to Christ,
says “For the former gave them a temporary inheritance, seeing he was neither Christ who is
God, nor the Son of God; but the latter, after the holy resurrection shall give us the eternal
possession.” Dialogue with Trypho 113. ANF 1, p. 255. Cf. Hebrews 3:5-6, and passim the
contrast of the temporary dispensation under Moses with the eternal dispensation under Christ.
Justin thus deals with both the supposed “temporary” nature of the millennial kingdom, and
the “Jewish” character of that kingdom.
15
Theodoret. Compendium of Heretics’ Fables, 5.21. PG 83, 520C. Cited in: W A Jurgens. The
Faith of the Early Fathers. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979. Vol. 3, p.
245.
16
Origen was also accused of teaching that Christ’s kingdom comes to an end, based on his
exposition of the same passage in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. [Origen. De principiis 3.6.9. ANF
4, p. 348] J F Dechow. Dogma and mysterium in early Christianity: Epiphanius of
Cyprus and the legacy of Origen. North American Patristic Society. Patristic Monograph
Series 13. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988, pp. 256, 260. Viviano states that this
passage more than any other dominates his eschatological thinking. Benedict T Viviano. The
Kingdom of God in history. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988, p. 42. See also the
discussion of Calvin’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 in J F Jansen. “1 Corinthians
15:24-28 and the future of Jesus Christ.” In: Texts and Testaments. Critical essays on the
Bible and early church Fathers. W E March, ed. San Antonio: Trinity University Press,
1980, pp. 181-186.

5
his views and his method of interpretation were denigrated as Jewish, as for instance
in the claim of Basil of Caesarea that he was trying to introduce “corrupt Judaism”
with his eschatology.17 The Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople expressly attacked the
doctrine propounded by Marcellus by including the phrase “of his kingdom there shall
be no end.”18 Whether this is an accurate assessment of the views of Marcellus we
cannot examine here, but there is at least a prima facie case in his favour.

Apollinaris of Laodicea, condemned as a heretic for other reasons, was also criticised
for his millennialism. For instance, Basil of Caesarea claimed that he taught a
millennial restoration of Judaism, based on what Basil saw as a defective “Jewish”
hermeneutical method.

And the theological works of Apollinarius are founded on Scriptural

proof, but as based on a human origin. He has written about the
resurrection, from a mythical, or rather Jewish point of view, urging
that we shall return again to the worship of the Law, be circumcised,
keep the sabbath, abstain from meats, offer sacrifices to God, worship
in the temple at Jerusalem, and be altogether turned from Christians
into Jews. What could be more ridiculous? Or, rather, what could be
more contrary to the doctrines of the gospel?19

Gregory of Nazianzus attacked Apollinaris in a similar manner, using the same

accusations of Judaising in his hermeneutics as well as in the content of his doctrine,
the one leading to the other. Gregory says that he explains the Scriptures “in a gross
and carnal manner” and it is from this manner of interpretation that he and others
“have derived their second Judaism and their silly thousand years delight in paradise,
and almost the idea that we shall resume again the same conditions after these same
thousand years.”20 While Apollinaris was in error in his approach to the millennium,
Bietenhard at least tries to give some account of how and why Apollinaris went
wrong, and it is evident from his comments that Apollinaris was reacting against the
spiritualising exegesis of Origen and others like him.
17
Basil. Letter 263.5, To the Westerns. NPNF 2/8, p. 303. In one place Basil did speak of “the
life that follows on the resurrection,” and made it clear that an earthly life such as that
expected by the millennialists was not what he had in mind. It is a purely spiritual life he
describes. On the Spirit 15.35. NPNF 2/8, p. 22.
18
For details see Reinhart Staats. “The eternal kingdom of Christ: the apocalyptic tradition in the
‘Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople.’“ Patristic and Byzantine Review 9 (1990) 19-30.
19
Basil. Letter 263.4, To the Westerns. NPNF 2/8, pp. 302-303. H A Wolfson stresses, against
criticisms from R M Grant, that it is the millennarianism of Apollinarius that is described by
Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus as “Jewish” and not his theology proper. He insists that
Apollinarianism was a Christological heresy that was not necessarily millennarian but
happened to be such. “Answers to criticisms of my discussion of Patristic philosophy.” In:
Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1973. Vol. 2, p. 526.
20
Gregory of Nazianzus. Second Letter to Cledonius against Apollinarius (Letter 102). NPNF
2/7, p. 444.

6
The debate about the millennium is therefore as much about hermeneutics as
theology. The very method used presupposes or else precludes the acceptance of a
millennial reign on earth, shared by the resurrected saints. For instance, Origen
describes millennialists as believers “who refuse the labour of thinking, and adopting
a superficial view of the letter of the law,” expect a millennial reign on earth. 21 They
are “disciples of the letter alone” who expect the promises of the Old Testament
prophets to be fulfilled in a literal and not a “spiritual” sense. These, he says, “are the
views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a
sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises.” 22
Origen, by contrast, wished to understand the Scriptures allegorically. 23 Bietenhard
comments appositely in this regard: “For Origen the Chiliasts were visionaries,
deluded fools, and what was worse, literalists.”24 Origen holds that the millennialists
use Jewish hermeneutics and thereby arrive at a Jewish doctrine. According to
Wilken, “Origen presents Christian Chiliasm and Jewish Messianism as a single
phenomenon. The arguments he uses to answer the one are precisely those that he
uses to answer the other.”25
21
This intellectual elitism is also found in other authors who assert that those who hold to
millennial views are either intellectually deficient, uneducated, or both! The classic example is
the opinion of Eusebius concerning the millennial views of Papias. “I suppose he got these
ideas through a misunderstanding of the Apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things
said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited
understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the
Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their support the antiquity of the
man; as for instance Irenaeus and anyone that may have proclaimed similar views.”
Ecclesiastical History 3.39. NPNF 2/1, p. 172. Cf. Jerome’s comments on Papias’ influence
with respect to millennialism. Of Famous Men 18. NPNF 2/3, p. 367.
22
Origen. De Principiis 2.11.2. ANF 4, p. 297. Bietenhard says of this passage: “We note again
the customary charge of Judaism.” H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope of the early church.”
Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953) 20.
23
It is ironic that the allegorical exegesis of Scripture, which was foundational to Patristic anti-
Judaistic polemics, was itself developed by the Alexandrian Jew Philo. The later Patristic
writers also used the allegorical method to demonstrate against the Jews that the promises of
the OT were not to be understood literally. This was the same allegorising method as their
Gnostic opponents, which must have compounded the difficulty of defending defend the
resurrection against an allegorical interpretation, as the Gnostics wished to do. A H C van
Eijk. “Resurrection-language: Its various meanings in early Christian literature.” Studia
Patristica 12 (1975) 276. See also James L Kugel. The idea of Biblical poetry. Parallelism
and its History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981, p. 139.
24
H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope of the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953)
20 (my emphasis).
25
R L Wilken. “Early Christian Chiliasm, Jewish Messianism and the idea of the Holy Land.”
Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986) 302. Elsewhere Wilken comments: “Christian
chiliasm and Jewish Messianism, however, are two sides of a similar phenomenon. Each
envisions a future age in which the people of God will rule securely and will enjoy God’s
bounty. The time of peace and prosperity - the future kingdom - will be established in the
world as we know it, in this world. Against this view, either in its Jewish or Christian form,
Christian writers such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Tyconius and Augustine argued for a
spiritual kingdom, a heavenly Jerusalem which the saints would enjoy in a transformed
existence.” R L Wilken. “The restoration of Israel in Biblical prophecy.” In: To See

7
The hope of political sovereignty and material prosperity in Jewish messianism was
based on the prophecies of the Old Testament which spoke of the glory of the city of
Jerusalem in that age, and the wealth and prosperity of the Jews. These prophecies
were, to the later Patristic writers, interpreted in a materialistic, carnal and
ethnocentric “Jewish” manner which had then been introduced into the church. It was
a literal interpretation of prophetic symbols which in actuality had a deeper “spiritual”
meaning which the Jews had failed to understand. Accusations of carnality, lack of
sound understanding, and literal exegesis, as well as parochial nationalism all feature
prominently in the Patristic polemics against millennialism. When the millennial
teaching was compared to this messianic expectation, it was obvious to these Patristic
writers that this was simply the Jewish idea that had been introduced into the church.
The idea that Christ would reign on earth in a rebuilt Jerusalem was seen as a
fulfilment of the earthly political hopes of Judaism, in contrast to the Christian hope
of a spiritual kingdom not of this earth. The fact that the book of Revelation seemed to
teach such a period of prosperity and peace did not deter them: that text, like Isaiah
and the other OT prophets, should be interpreted “spiritually” not literally. Jerome
illustrates well this problem of hermeneutics, indeed he spells it out exactly in his
works.

If we accept [the Apocalypse] literally, [we] must Judaize; if we treat

it spiritually, as it is written, we shall seem to go against the opinions
of many of the ancients: of the Latins, Tertullian, Victorinus,
Lactantius; of the Greeks, that I might pass by the rest, I shall make
mention only of Irenaeus.26

Jerome’s opposition to millennialism,27 which is rooted in the influence of Origen, can

be found in his commentary on Daniel, where he interpreted Rome as the last of the
four earthly kingdoms to come before the end of the world. 28 There could not
Ourselves as Others See Us. Christians, Jews, “Others” in late Antiquity. Ed. by J
Neusner and S Frerichs. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985, p. 450.
26
[Jerome. Commentary on Isaiah. Preface to Book 18. PL 24, 627]. L E Froom. The Prophetic
Faith of our Fathers. The historical development of prophetic interpretation.
Washington: Review and Herald, 1950. Vol. 1, p. 448.
27
See however Lerner’s ironic discussion of the influence of Jerome on mediaeval (Joachimist)
millennialism: “The originator of the tradition of expecting a period on earth between the
destruction of Antichrist and the Last Judgement was not Joachim but St. Jerome. One might
say, of all people St. Jerome, for Jerome was in fact a vitriolic opponent of chiliasm. He
equated the literal reading of the thousand-year kingdom in Revelation with fleshly Judaism
and went to the trouble of re-writing Victorinus of Pettau’s earlier commentary on Revelation
to purge it of its chiliastic passages.” R E Lerner. “Refreshment of the saints: the time after
Antichrist as a station for earthly progress in mediaeval thought.” Traditio 32 (1976) 101.
28
R E Lerner. “Refreshment of the saints: the time after Antichrist as a station for earthly
progress in mediaeval thought.” Traditio 32 (1976) 101. Jerome had also said that the Jews
had received their inheritance at the beginning, while Christians expect to receive theirs at the
end of the world. This seems to imply that while the Jews had had an earthly kingdom, the
Christians would have a non-earthly kingdom. Homily 2, on Psalm 5. FC 48, p. 15.

8
therefore be any further earthly kingdoms, including a millennial reign of Christ on
earth.

The four kingdoms of which we have spoken above [Daniel 7:25],

were earthly in character. For everything which is of the earth shall
return to earth [Ecclesiastes 3:20]. But the saints shall never possess
an earthly kingdom, but only a heavenly. Away, then, with the fable
about a millennium!29

Jerome says that Papias was dependent on Jewish interpretations of Scripture (the
Mishnah) for his millennial views, and for Jerome Judaism and millennialism are
identical.30 The future to be hoped for was not a “Jewish” millennium, but a purely
spiritualised eschaton not of this earth. But Jerome does not go so far as to criticise
the earlier Patristic writers for their millennial views. He said simply:

Irenaeus and Apollinaris and others who say that after the resurrection
the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints, follow [Papias].
Tertullian also in his work On the hope of the faithful, Victorinus of
Petau and Lactantius follow this view.31

However, in another place, while listing all the “Jewish” elements of millennialism
that he rejected (which are common to his other comments), he had to stress that
“Granted that we cannot accept this, neither, however, do we dare condemn it,
because so many men of the Church and martyrs said the same.” 32 Jerome’s anti-
millennialism is illustrated by his editorial changes in the commentary on Revelation
by Victorinus, bishop of Pettau (died 303), which is the earliest surviving commentary
in Latin on that book. Earlier comments on Revelation had been in Greek.33 Victorinus
had no doubts about the Johannine authorship of the Revelation, and he even states

29
Jerome. Commentary on Daniel 7.17. G L Archer, p. 81. Compare the view of Augustine, who
unequivocally stated that he did not believe in the resurrection in which the Jews were said to
believe, namely a future material life in this world. Sermon 362.15.18. Cited in: J E
McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection. Message of the Fathers of the Church, Vol. 22.
Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1986, p. 173.
30
[Jerome. In Isaiam 18, proem. In Jeremiah 4 (19.10f)] H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope in
the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953) 26.
31
Jerome. Lives of illustrious men 18. NPNF 2/3, p. 367. Cf. Jerome. In Ezechiel
11.36.1. Pl 25, 339.
32
Jerome. Commentary on Jeremiah 26.3. Translation cited in: W A Jurgens. The Faith of the
Early Fathers. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1979. Vol. 2, p. 212. Daley
comments that Jerome is careful [in his Commentary on Ezekiel 11.36] “to report the
millenarian interpretation of Tertullian and Victorinus, Irenaeus and Apollinarius as a
venerable tradition, not at all identical with ‘materialistic’ Jewish hopes.” Brian E Daley. The
hope of the early Church. A Handbook of Patristic eschatology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991, p. 102.
33
F F Bruce. “The earliest Latin commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10
(1938) 352.

9
that it was in response to requests from various bishops when he was released from
Patmos on the death of Domitian that John wrote his Gospel, in refutation of
“Valentinus, and Cerinthus, and Ebion, and others of the school of Satan,” and he also
at that time passed on the Revelation.34

In his editorial revisions of Victorinus’ commentary on the Apocalypse,35 Jerome

“removed passages in which the author had expressed chiliastic views, substituting
instead excerpts from other writers, who had interpreted the Millennium more in
accordance with his own views.”36 The excerpts were especially from Tyconius.37
Jerome said that his method was to consult earlier writers, “and what I found in their
commentaries concerning the millennial reign I added to the work of Victorinus,
removing from it what he understood literally.” 38 Jerome interpreted the thousand
years as extending from the first advent of Christ to the end of the age; a statement
incompatible with the rest of the work.39 An indication of the kind of alterations made
can be seen in the following comparison.

By way of illustrating the two resurrections he quotes 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 1

Corinthians 15:52. The trump of God of the former passage - the signal for the first
resurrection - is contrasted with the last trump of the other: this, he says, is sounded
after the Millenium and heralds the second resurrection. 40 The original text of
Victorinus’ commentary was as follows:

34
Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 10.11-11.1. ANF 7, p. 353. The writings of
Victorinus were condemned by Gelasius because of their millennialism. M P McHugh.
“Victorinus of Pettau.” Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity. London & New York: Garland,
1990, p. 927.
35
Victorinus. Commentary on the Apocalypse. PLS 1/1, 103-172. Original version in parallel
with edited version by Jerome.
36
F F Bruce. “The earliest Latin commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10
(1938) 354.
37
F F Bruce. “The earliest Latin commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10
(1938) 355.
38
Jerome. Letter to Anatolius. PLS 1/1, 103. Translation cited from: F F Bruce. “The earliest
Latin commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10 (1938) 361.
39
L E Froom. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. The historical development of prophetic
interpretation. Washington: Review and Herald, 1950. Vol. 1, p. 344. Cf. Jerome’s edited
version of Victorinus’ commentary, where he says: “Therefore they are not to be heard who
assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years; who think, that is to
say, with the heretic Cerinthus. [For the kingdom of Christ is now eternal in the saints,
although the glory of the saints shall be manifested after the resurrection].” On the Apocalypse
22. ANF 7, p. 360. [PLS 1/1, 172, Recensio Hieronymi. Words in brackets found in CSEL 49,
p. 153, but not included in PLS. “Nam regnum Christi quod nunc ait sempiternum erit in
sanctis, cum fuerit gloria post resurrectionem manifestats sanctorum.”]
40
F F Bruce. “The earliest Latin commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10
(1938) 359-360.

10
 We have heard a ‘trump’ mentioned; this is to be observed: in another
place the Apostle mentions another trump. He says to the Corinthians:
At the last trump the dead will rise - they will become immortal - and
we shall be changed. He said that the dead for their part will rise
immortal for the punishments which they must bear, but it is manifest
that we shall be changed and clothed with glory. When therefore we
have heard that there is a last trump, we must understand that there is a
first one also. Now these are the two resurrections. As many therefore
as have not risen beforehand in the first resurrection and reigned with
Christ over the earth - over all nations - will rise at the last trump after
a thousand years, that is, in the last resurrection, among the impious
and sinners and evildoers of all kinds. Rightly did he go on to say:
Blessed and holy is he who has a part in the first resurrection: against
him the second death has not power. Now the second death is
punishment in hell.41

Victorinus clearly holds the view that the righteous will be raised before the
millennium in the first resurrection, and the rest of the dead raised to face the
judgement at the end of the millennium; which is a literal interpretation of Revelation
20:4-6. Bruce says that this passage disappears in later recensions to be replaced by an
explanation of the first resurrection in terms of Colossians 3:1, that is, it is interpreted
as a reference to spiritual renewal experienced in this life. 42 The text as amended by
Jerome reads:

There are two resurrections. But the first resurrection is now of the
souls that are by the faith, which does not permit men to pass over to
the second death. Of this resurrection the apostle says, If ye have risen
with Christ, seek those things which are above.43

Jerome’s edition allegorises the millennium, in which the reign of the saints is
understood as heavenly, not earthly.

It is interesting that both millennialists and anti-millennialists attacked Jewish

hermeneutics. The kind of anti-Jewish allegorical reinterpretation of the earthly
kingdom which came to dominate the later Patristic writers is seen as early as
Tertullian, who attacks a materialistic concept of rewards drawn from the Old
Testament, and allegorises the passages concerned.

41
Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 20. Cited in: F F Bruce. “The earliest Latin
commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10 (1938) 360.
42
F F Bruce. “The earliest Latin commentary on the Apocalypse.” Evangelical Quarterly 10
(1938) 360.
43
Victorinus of Pettau. On the Apocalypse 20.4-5. ANF 7, p. 359.

11
 In this way the Jews lose heavenly blessings, by confining their hopes
to earthly ones, being ignorant of the promise of heavenly bread, and
of the oil of God’s unction, and the wine of the Spirit, and of that water
of life which has its vigour from the vine of Christ. On exactly the
same principle, they consider the special soil of Judaea to be that very
holy land, which ought rather to be interpreted of the Lord’s flesh,
which, in all those who put on Christ, is thenceforth the holy land; holy
indeed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, truly flowing with milk
and honey by the sweetness of His assurance, truly Judaean by reason
of the friendship of God.44

In comparison, Methodius said:

The Jews, who hover about the bare letter of the Scriptures like so-
called butterflies about the leaves of vegetables instead of the flowers
and fruit as the bee does, understand these words and ordinances to
refer to the sort of tabernacles which they build. It is as though God
took pleasure in such ephemeral structures as they erect from the
branches of trees and decorate, ignorant of the wealth of the good
things to come. Such structures are as air and ghostly shadows, which
foretell the resurrection and the building of our tabernacle once it has
collapsed in earth.45

The most significant repudiation of millennialism was perhaps the change of mind on
the part of Augustine who had earlier maintained that position, 46 but rejected it in

44
Tertullian. On the resurrection of the flesh 26. ANF 3, p. 564. Jerome understood the “Holy
Land” to mean heaven, and not Palestine. Letter 129. NPNF 2/6, p. 260. Augustine refers to
the “heavenly Jerusalem” as “the land of promise overflowing with milk and honey.” Sermon
259.3. FC 38, p. 371. For a discussion of this image in Jewish thought, see J Duncan M
Derrett. “Whatever happened to the land flowing with milk and honey?” Vigiliae Christianae
38 (1984) 178-184.
45
Methodius. The Symposium 9.1. ACW 27, p. 132.
46
Augustine’s millennialist views can be found in Sermon 259. “The eighth day therefore
signifies the new life at the end of the age; the seventh day the future quiet of the saints upon
this earth. For the Lord will reign on earth with His saints as the Scriptures say [Revelation
20:4, 6], and will have His Church here, separated and cleansed from all infection of
wickedness, where no wicked person will enter...” PL 38, 1197. De diversis quaestionibus
LXXXVIII, 57.2. PL 40, 41. “...separation takes place at the end of the age, just as it did on the
edge of the sea, that is, on the shore [Matthew 13:47, 48], when the righteous reign, at first in
time, as it is written in the Apocalypse [Revelation 20:4, 6], and then for ever in the city which
is there described [Revelation 21:10-27].” Translations cited from Gerald Bonner. “Augustine
and millenarianism.” In: The making of orthodoxy. Essays in honour of Henry Chadwick.
Rowan Williams, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, pp. 237-238.
Augustine refers to his change of mind in The City of God 20.7. NPNF 1/2, p. 426. Daniélou
says that Augustine first accepted the millennialist tradition, then when he had given thought
to it, went beyond it. However, this interpretation must be seen in the light of Daniélou’s view
that millennialism was an archaic tradition paralysing Christianity that needed to be

12
reaction against Tertullian and Lactantius.47 Augustine said: “The cause for Jewish
obstinacy according to Augustine is their failure to understand the Old Testament
spiritually rather than merely literally.” 48 The Rules for investigating and ascertaining
the meaning of the Scriptures composed by Tyconius influenced Augustine to reject
the idea that the first resurrection was a bodily one at the eschaton, and he adopted
Tyconius’ view of the “first resurrection” as a spiritual resurrection in this life. 49 Thus
the millennium was allegorised and understood principally as the reign of Christ from
heaven in the church.

The “Jewish” features of millennialism eventually formed the basis of stereotyped

lists which were applied as a matter of course. Jerome for instance several times gives
lists of the “Jewish” ideas which he saw as implicit features of millennialism.

...the golden and bejeweled Jerusalem on earth, the establishment of

the temple, the blood of sacrificial victims, the rest of the Sabbath, the
injury of circumcision, weddings, births, the bringing up of children,
the delights of feasts, and the slavery of all the nations, and again wars,
armies and triumphs, and the slaughter of the conquered, and the death
of the sinner a hundred years old.50

The millennium was seen as a materialistic, carnal and unspiritual, rather repugnant
doctrine. The resurrection life would surely be one of heavenly reward, not earthly

abandoned. The Bible and the Liturgy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956,
p. 276.
47
Michael Dulaey. “L’Apocalypse. Augustin et Tyconius.” In: Saint Augustin et la Bible. Ed.
A-M La Bonnardire. Paris: Beauchesne, 1986, pp. 371-372. In his rejection of millennialism,
Augustine was not influenced by Tyconius, who does not give a polemic against
millennialism, either in the Rules or in his Commentary. Augustine does not refer to Tyconius
in his rejection of millennialism. Dulaey notes the influence of the commentary of Victorinus
of Pettau on Augustine but not that of Tyconius, except in one place, which does not refer to
the millennium. [Augustine. On Christian Doctrine 3.35.51. NPNF 1/2, pp. 571-572] Michael
Dulaey. “L’Apocalypse. Augustin et Tyconius,” pp. 371-375.
48
[Augustine. In answer to the Jews 7.9. FC 27, pp. 402-405.]. G B Ladner. “Aspects of
Patristic anti-Judaism.” Viator 2 (1971) 360-361.
49
Augustine. The City of God 20.6-7. NPNF 1/2, pp. 425-428.
50
Jerome. Commentary on Isaiah. Preface to Book 18. [PL 24, 627]. Translation cited from: L E
Froom. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. The historical development of prophetic
interpretation. Washington: Review and Herald, 1950. Vol. 1, p. 448, n. 37. Jerome
commented on this theme several times. Commentary on Isaiah 8.25. PL 24, 290. Ibid., 10.35.
PL 24, 377. Ibid., 18.66. PL 24, 672. Commentary on Ezekiel 11.36. PL 25, 338-339.
Commentary on Joel. PL 25, 982, 986. Commentary on Matthew 3.20. PL 26, 145B. Cf. the
comments of Origen on this theme: “And consequently they say, that after the resurrection
there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly
city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, its foundations laid in precious stones, and its walls
constructed of jasper, and its battlements of crystal... And to speak shortly, according to the
manner of things in this life in all similar matters, do they desire the fulfillment of all things
looked for in the promises, viz., that what now is should exist again.” De Principiis 2.11.2.
ANF 4, p. 297.

13
pleasure. Eusebius, who was influenced by Origen’s allegorical hermeneutics,
condemned both Papias and Irenaeus for holding that in the millennium there would
be feasting.51 Eusebius suggested that the view of Nepos of Arsinoe was of a
“millenium of sensual luxury on this earth,” which was a product of Judaising
exegesis.

[Nepos] taught that the promises to the holy men in the Divine
Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that
there would be a certain millenium of bodily luxury upon this earth. As
he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation
of John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled, Refutation of the
Allegorists.52

Bietenhard comments “Once more the shibboleth is Judaism,”53 and the Jewish
understanding of eschatological life is seen as one of sensual luxury. This appears
again in Rufinus. “...the Jews have such an opinion as this about the resurrection; they
believe that they will rise, but in such sort as that they will enjoy all carnal delights
and luxuries, and other pleasures of the body.” Rufinus says that this means they will
thus have their “appetites stimulated and lusts inflamed.” 54 We also find in Gregory of
Nyssa repudiation of the idea of an earthly millennium, in which the resurrected saints
will enjoy eating and drinking, when he says: “But some one perhaps will say that
man will not be returning to the same form of life, if, as it seems, we formerly existed
by eating, and shall hereafter be free from that function.”55 Gregory says that while
Moses was on Mount Sinai talking with God, “He participated in that eternal life
under the darkness for forty days and nights, and lived in a state beyond nature, for his
body had no need of food during that time,” during which Moses was “participating in
eternal life.”56 However, it appears that Gregory was misunderstood in this regard, as
he had cause to complain “What is the crime we commit, and wherefore are we hated?
...Do we romance about three Resurrections? Do we promise the gluttony of the

51
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 3.39. NPNF 2/1, pp. 172. R M Grant comments that Eusebius
never criticised Justin for his millennialist views, reserving this for Papias and the influence he
had on Irenaeus. “Papias in Eusebius’ Church History.” In: Melanges d’histoire des religions
offerts à Henri-Charles Puech. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974, pp. 211-212.
52
Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History 7.24. NPNF 2/1, p. 308.
53
H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope of the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953)
22.
54
Rufinus. Apology 1.7. NPNF 2/3, p. 438.
55
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man 19.1. NPNF 2/5, p. 409. Cf. the view of Augustine,
that in the resurrection we will not have “the gratification of fleshly desires as the foolish
think” since the resurrection body will be spiritual, and no longer a “load upon the soul”
[Wisdom 9:15], “nor does it seek any refreshment because it will experience no need.”
Sermon 212.1. FC 38, p. 120.
56
Gregory of Nyssa. The life of Moses 1.58. Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 46.

14
Millenium?”57 Gregory insists that the food of Paradise, to which we will return, 58 was
not “transitory and perishable nutriment,” such as he would understand it from his
anti-materialist approach to traditional millennialism, but was something “worthy of
God’s planting.”59 For Gregory the tree of life in Paradise, both formerly and after the
resurrection, is to be interpreted symbolically, as meaning Wisdom, basing his
argument on Psalm 37:4 and Proverbs 3:18. 60 Thus the idea that the food of Paradise
consists of eating and drinking such as we now do, as was argued by Papias and
Irenaeus, among others, is inconceivable for Gregory. Origen had earlier asserted that
the “heavenly banquet” is to be understood as “the contemplation and understanding
of God.”61 Another follower of Origen, Jerome, also saw the marriage supper as
something spiritual, and insisted that there would be no physical food in the eschaton.

Somebody may raise the question of whether we are going to eat after
the resurrection, for Scripture says of the happy man: You shall eat the
labours of your hands. My answer is quite simple. Man is composed of
two substances: one of the soul, the other of the body; the soul is
immortal, the body mortal. What is mortal necessarily requires food
that is mortal; what is immortal, the soul, requires immortal food.
57
Gregory of Nyssa. Letter to Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa. NPNF 2/5, p. 544.
58
Many Patristic writers expected that the eschatological life will be a return to the Paradisaical
life lost by Adam. For example, Irenaeus. Against Heresies 5.5.1. ANF 1, p. 531. Lactantius.
The Divine Institutes 2.13. ANF 7, p. 62. The Gospel of Nicodemus 9-10. ANF 8, pp. 437-438.
According to Young, for Gregory of Nyssa “man’s destiny is restoration to his original state
and status in Paradise.” F M Young. “Adam and Anthropos: A study of the inter-action of
science and the Bible in two anthropological treatises of the 4th century.” Vigiliae Christianae
37 (1983) 113. However, Severus of Antioch rejects the millennialism of Papias, Irenaeus and
Apollinarius as foolishness, since while we may return to the primitive state in the eschaton,
our hope is not simply to regain a lost Paradise but to be transformed to a greater likeness to
God. Brian E Daley. The hope of the early Church. A Handbook of Patristic eschatology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 186-187. Cf. Tertullian. “Even if anybody
should venture strongly to contend that paradise is the holy land, which it may be possible to
designate as the land of our first parents Adam and Eve, it will even then follow that the
restoration of paradise will seem to be promised to the flesh, whose lot it was to inhabit and
keep it, in order that man may be recalled thereto just such as he was driven from it.” On the
resurrection of the flesh 26. ANF 3, p. 564. Cf. Against Marcion 2.10. ANF 3, p. 306.
59
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man 19.2. NPNF 2/5, p. 409. Cf. Augustine’s view of the
millennial rewards: “And this opinion would not be objectionable, if it were believed that the
joys of the saints in that Sabbath shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence of God; for
I myself, too, once held this opinion. But, as they assert that those who then rise again shall
enjoy the leisure of immoderate carnal banquets, furnished with an amount of food and drink
such as not only to shock the feeling of the temperate, but even to surpass the measure of
credulity itself, such assertions can be believed only by the carnal.” The City of God 20.7.
NPNF 1/2, p. 426. Cooper comments that Augustine did not reject millennialism on the
grounds of its sensuality, as this was not intrinsic to the doctrine. He also cites Edwyn Bevan
[Christians in a world at war. London: S.C.M., 1940, pp. 104, 122], who says that the idea
of an earthly reign of Christ could hardly be unspiritual, unless the Incarnation itself is to be
considered unspiritual, that is, a Docetic Christology. C Cooper. “Chiliasm and the Chiliasts.”
Reformed Theological Review 29 (1970) 17.
60
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Making of Man 19.4. NPNF 2/5, p. 409.
61
Origen. De principiis 2.11.7. ANF 4, p. 300.

15
 Would you have proof that the soul has its own food? Our Lord and
Saviour says so when He was eating: My food is to do the will of him
who sent me. Would you know what foods the soul has? The prophet
tells us himself: Taste and see how good the Lord is. Just as the body
dies unless it is given its proper food, even so does the soul if it is not
given spiritual food.62

Here we can see the influence of anthropological views which lead to a repudiation of
the eating and drinking which millennialist writers expected after the resurrection. It
is a view that does not appreciate the full scope of cosmic renewal. The millennial
kingdom is rejected through falsely understanding it as a necessarily materialistic,
sensuous, earthly life with which God could never be associated. 63 Conceptions of the
resurrection body which permitted eating and drinking were understood in terms of
revivified earthly bodies and not transformed, glorified bodies, because the
resurrection was conceived in Platonic terms in which earthly life itself is denigrated,
and God is removed to some wholly-other realm which is dissociated from the
creation.

The accusation of constantly seeking gratification of the carnal and sensual appetites
is common in Patristic polemics against the Jews. Ruether sees a general theme of
attacking Jewish “sensuality” in the Patristics combined with an ontological dualism
which contrasts the “letter” with the “spirit.” This is seen in terms of literalistic
interpretation as opposed to allegorical interpretation, and Jewish sensuality as
opposed to Christian asceticism.64 It should be seen rather as an appreciation for the
good things God has created for us to enjoy (Psalm 104:14-15), in contrast to the
rejection of God’s gifts which is sin (1 Timothy 4:3). The first is creation-affirming
spirituality rooted in the revelation of God; the latter is creation-negating spirituality,
rooted in Gnostic heresy.

Dominant in the rejection of the earthly millennium and restoration of Jerusalem is

the idea that it involved the rebuilding of the Temple and the reinstitution of the
sacrificial system. It is interesting to note that the emperor Julian the Apostate was
behind the moves to rebuild the Temple in the fourth century in a desperate attempt to
counter the growth of Christianity, and he tried to foster the re-introduction of the
Jewish sacrificial system. The reversal of Christian fortunes under Julian may have
triggered some of the polemical content of attacks on millennialism which was
62
Jerome. Homily 42, On Psalm 127 (128). FC 48, p. 319.
63
However, a commentary on Matthew from the third century (possibly by Hippolytus) which
while written by a millennialist, rejects the idea of a literal “feast” as superstition. C H Turner.
“The early Greek commentators on the Gospel according to St. Matthew.” Journal of
Theological Studies 12 (1911) 101. Turner comments that if the text is not by Hippolytus, then
it is probably by Victorinus of Pettau, depending on whether it was a translation or a Latin
original.
64
R Ruether. Faith and fratricide. The theological roots of anti-semitism. New York:
Seabury Press, 1974, pp. 127-128.

16
associated in the minds of its opponents with Judaism, the rebuilding of the temple
and reinstituting the sacrificial system. The attack on millennialism as a Jewish idea
may also be a polemic against Julian.65

Another factor was the influence of Eusebius, who saw the kingdom of God fulfilled
in the reign of Constantine and the exaltation of the church, and his polemics against
millennialism arise from this identification. For him there was no literal future
millennium to hope for.66 Any expectation of a new order, even the direct reign of
Christ on earth, breaking in to shatter the “Christian” Empire was unthinkable to his
Caesaro-papist theology.

His theme is the fulfillment of the Promise that the chosen people shall
exercise territorial rule, and in the empire under Constantine he sees
the Promise fulfilled in what was an extension of the Kingdom of
Heaven upon earth, founded by Christ and ruled by Constantine under
God. He sees Constantine as chosen by God alone and owing his
position in so sense to the will of the people... Holding such a view of
human history and its culmination, Eusebius rejected the chiliastic
conceptions which were widely held during the two preceding
centuries, pointing, as they did, to a very different culmination. The
view of many, and among them considerable figures such as Justin and
Tertullian, was that the second coming would inaugurate an earthly
reign of Christ for a thousand years, a view which was incompatible
with Eusebius’ own conception of the end of man. For him, the last
things had, up to a point, already begun.67
65
See Ephrem of Syria. Hymn against Julian 4.19-22, where he condemns Julian for his
aspirations to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns. McVey, K E,
trans. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, , pp. 255-256. For a
discussion of the influence of Julian and his attempts to rebuild the Temple on Christian
thought, see the instructive study by R L Wilken. “The Jews and Christian Apologetics after
Theodosius I Cunctos Populos.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980) 451-471, esp. pp.
454-458. Regarding Julian’s attempt to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem see Robert Browning.
The Emperor Julian. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975, p. 176. G W Bowerstock.
Julian the Apostate. London: Duckworth, 1978, p. 164. Bowerstock gives a chronology of
the events surrounding Julian’s attempt, pp. 120-122.
66
S N Gundry. “Hermeneutics or Zeitgeist as the determining factor in the history of
eschatologies.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977) 50-51.
Constantinople was seen as an eternal city, the New Rome, that would last to the end of the
world, matching the earlier Eternal Rome. A Vasilev. “Medieval ideas of the end of the world,
West and East.” Byzantion 16 (1942-1943) 464-465. There was no place for another city
within human history, even in an eschatological phase of that history, such as the New
Jerusalem.
67
D S Wallace-Hadrill. Eusebius of Caesarea. London: Mowbray, 1960, pp. 186-188. Cf. his
comments further on: “It was doubtless not difficult for him to effect a partial abandonment of
traditional eschatology. The impact of meta-physical theology upon Christian thought had
done as much to discredit the accepted New Testament formulation of the idea as had the
mere postponement of the event... Eusebius, nurtured in the tradition of Origen, paid respect to
New Testament eschatology while setting his heart on a conception of the end which was
radically different... For him, the culminating stage of human history had been reached, and it

17
The millennial hope was obscured partly because it did not accept that the reign of the
Christian Emperor was the fulfillment of human hopes, but looked for another, greater
King who was yet to come.

When Rome adopted Christianity, the destinies of Imperium and

Christianitas seemed to have been providentially united; many
Christians felt that any expectation of the downfall of the empire was
as disloyal to God as it was to Rome. Even more, on an exegetical
level apocalypticism appeared to many to be a throwback to an
outmoded, “Jewish,” literal reading of the Scriptures. The Revelation
of John was not to be understood as prophecy of the last events of
history, but rather as an allegory of the conflict between good and evil
in the present life of the Church.68

This is not to say, however, that Eusebius did not anticipate the return of Christ;69
merely that this was not correlated by him with millennialist expectations concerning
the end. According to Thielman, for Eusebius the return of Christ was “a refutation of
Jewish error. It would give the lie to those Jews who mocked the humility of the
Christian Messiah.”70

is this theme which appears throughout his work, gaining conviction as Constantine went from
strength to strength.” Eusebius of Caesarea, p. 189. Cf. also Daniel Stringer. “The political
theology of Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesarea.” Patristic and Byzantine Review 1 (1982)
140-142.
68
B McGinn. Visions of the End. Apocalyptic traditions in the middle ages. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1979, p. 25. Fredriksen notes that in 397 AD Hilarianus expected
the descent of the New Jerusalem in less than a century, “despite the benefit of Imperial
patronage.” P Fredriksen. “Apocalypse and redemption in early Christianity.” Vigiliae
Christianae 45 (1991) 156.
69
Cf. Berkhof’s comment: “Over against this future of humankind commencing immediately
after death, the future of Christ is secondary... In this spiritualistic and essentially ahistorical
system the completion of history can be no more than a supplement.” [Dieser unmittelbar nach
dem Tode anfangenden Zukunft des Menschen gegenüber, ist die Zukunft Christi sekundär...
In diesem spiritualistischen und wesentlich unhistorischen System kann die Vollending der
Geschichte nie mehr sein als ein Anhang.] H Berkhof. Die Theologie des Eusebius von
Caesarea. Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1939, p. 158.
70
F S Thielman. “Another look at the eschatology of Eusebius of Caesarea.” Vigiliae
Christianae 41 (1987) 235. Eusebius held that Christianity was a return to the true religion of
the Patriarchs, and that Judaism was a decline from that as a result of the laws of God given to
Moses for the sake of the Jews. “The one wrote on lifeless tables, the Other wrote the perfect
commandments of the new covenant on living minds.” The proof of the Gospel 1.8.
Translations of Christian Literature. Vol. 1, p. 48. See H Berkhof. Die Theologie des
Eusebius von Caesarea. Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1939, p. 109. Thus
Eusebius thinks of these “last times” as the time of the end of the Jewish people. Eusebius.
Proof of the Gospel 8.1. The Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea.
Translations of Christian Literature. Series 1, Greek Texts. London: S.P.C.K., 1920, Vol. 2, p.
109. M Werner. The Formation of Christian Dogma: An Historical Study of its Problem.
Trans. by S F G Brandon. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957, p. 37. His “realised
eschatology” means that Eusebius does not seek a geographical “new nation.”

18
Consistent with rejecting the millennium as an earthly reality, allegorising Patristic
writers conceived of the “New Jerusalem” as an ideal, heavenly state. For instance,
Clement of Alexandria redefined the “New Jerusalem” with reference to the
“Jerusalem that is above” of Galatians 4:26. The new “Jerusalem above,” which Paul
refers to in terms of the present age, and the “New Jerusalem” of John’s Revelation,
which is to descend to earth in the age to come, are the same. 71 But Clement
understood the “New Jerusalem” in Platonic terms.

We have heard, too, that the Jerusalem above is walled with sacred
stones; and we allow that the twelve gates of the celestial city, by being
made like precious stones, indicate the transcendent grace of the
apostolic voice. For the colours are laid on in precious stones, and
these colours are precious; while the other parts remain of earthy
material. With these symbolically, as is meet, the city of the saints,
which is spiritually built, is walled. By that brilliancy of stones,
therefore, is meant the inimitable brilliancy of the spirit, the
immortality and sanctity of being.72

But the consequences of the “allegorising” of the New Jerusalem can be seen in the
following comment by Pawlikowski.

Christian faith must always remain firmly implanted in the earth. Far
too often concentration on the “heavenly Jerusalem” as a supposed
replacement for the Jewish “earthly Jerusalem” has led to an
excessively ethereal spirituality in the churches.73
71
Cf. Irenaeus. “Now all these things being such as they are, cannot be understood in reference
to super-celestial matters; “for God,” it is said, “will show to the whole earth that is under
heaven thy glory.” But in the times of the kingdom, the earth has been called again by Christ
[to its pristine condition], and Jerusalem rebuilt after the pattern of the Jerusalem above, of
which the prophet Isaiah says, Behold, I have depicted thy walls upon my hands, and thou art
always in my sight. And the apostle, too, writing to the Galatians, says in like manner, But the
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Against Heresies 5.35.2. ANF
1, pp. 565-566.
72
Clement of Alexandria. The Instructor 2.13, p. 268. A number of Patristic writers thought that
the dead raised at the crucifixion [Matthew 27:52-53] entered the heavenly Jerusalem. Origen
stresses that those who came out of the tombs were to go into “the city which is truly holy -
not the Jerusalem which Jesus wept over - and there appear unto many.” Commentary on
Matthew 12.43. ANF 10, p. 473. Commentary on the Song of Songs 3.13. ACW 26, p. 238.
Rufinus. Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 29. ACW 20, pp. 62-63. Eusebius. Proof of the
Gospel 4.12. Translations of Christian Literature, Vol, 1, p. 186. By contrast, Leo the Great
said that these “tokens of the coming resurrection” appeared in the “holy city, that is, in the
church of God.” Sermon 66.3. Select Sermons of St. Leo the Great on the Incarnation.
Bright, W. London: Masters, 1886, p. 62. John Cassian speaks of entering “the holy city, the
heavenly Jerusalem.” Institutes 5.18. NPNF 2/11, p. 240.
73
John T Pawlikowski. “The Re-Judaization of Christianity: Its impact on the Church and its
implications for the Jewish people.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 65. This can be seen in the
thought of Eusebius, who said: “Moses, too, promised a holy land and a holy life therein under
a blessing to those who kept his laws: while Jesus Christ says likewise: ‘Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth,’ promising a far better land in truth, and a holy and godly, not

19
However, this view of Clement’s concerning the New Jerusalem is found again in
Origen,74 and it was this allegorical interpretation which eventually predominated.
The “realised eschatology” of Eusebius interpreted many of the events which earlier
generations had expected to be fulfilled in the future as fulfilled already. The kingdom
of Christ was understood to be the reign of Christ in the church, not an earthly
“political” reign in Jerusalem. Thus Eusebius understood the “New Jerusalem” in
realised terms. In the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates, the church built by Helena,
Constantine’s mother, over the place of the crucifixion, was called the “New
Jerusalem, having built it facing that old and deserted city.” 75 Eusebius in a fit of
excess suggested that the newly built church was “that second and new Jerusalem
spoken of in the predictions of the prophets.” 76 One of the reasons for the rejection of
the New Jerusalem as an earthly city is perhaps the spectre of Montanism, which
purportedly expected the new Jerusalem to descend in Pepuza in Phrygia.77
Gregory of Nyssa said that the important pilgrimage is not out of Cappadocia to
Palestine, but out of the body towards God. 78 Similarly Jerome wrote that seeing
Jerusalem did not confer any spiritual advantage over those who had not seen
Jerusalem - access to God was as possible in Britain as it was in Jerusalem, since “the
kingdom of God is within you.”79 Similarly, in his Conferences John Cassian quotes
the Abbot Moses who describes the new Jerusalem in allegorical terms. The

the land of Judæa, which in no way excels the rest (of the earth), but the heavenly country
which suits souls that love God, to those who follow out the life proclaimed by Him.” The
proof of the Gospel 3.2. Translations of Christian Literature. Vol. 1, p. 105.
74
Origen. Commentary on Matthew 12.20. ANF 10, p. 462. Elsewhere Origen refers the “new
heaven and the new earth” to the resurrection. Commentary on John 10.20. ANF 10, pp. 400-
401.
75
Socrates. Ecclesiastical History 1.17. NPNF 2/2, p. 21. Cf. also 1.33. NPNF 2/2, p. 32.
76
Eusebius. Life of Constantine 3.33. NPNF 2/1, p. 529.
77
This view has been critiqued by D Powell, who has shown that there is no evidence the
Montanists expected the New Jerusalem to descend at Pepuza. Rather, Pepuza and Tymion
were named “Jerusalem” as a “recreation of the highly organized but Spirit-directed primitive
church.” Powell also doubts whether Tertullian was ever a Montanist. “Tertullianists and
Cataphrygians.” Vigiliae Christianae 29 (1975) 44. Cf. the comments of G L Bray. “Tertullian
says nothing and quotes nothing which is distinctively Montanist; in particular, the descent of
the New Jerusalem at Pepuza is never mentioned. What he says about eschatology may have
affinities with Montanism, but it is also paralleled in other Christian writers of undoubted
orthodoxy, and Tertullian’s chiliasm is rather moderate when compared with that of Irenaeus,
for example.” Holiness and the will of God. Perspectives on the theology of Tertullian.
London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1979, p. 61. Similarly J F Jansen says that Tertullian only
uses Montanist prophetic sayings as illustrations of his view and supports for biblical
revelation, but which do not add to that revelation but clarifies it. “Tertullian and the New
Testament.” Second Century 2 (1982) 195. Even J Daniélou admits that “Tertullian bases what
he has to say exclusively on Ezekiel 48:30-35 and Revelation 21:12-13 (Adv. Marc. 3.24.3-
4).” His views are also related to his criticism of allegorical interpretations (De res. 26.1). A
History of Early Christian Doctrine. Vol. 3. The Origins of Latin Christianity. London:
Darton, Longman and Todd, 1977, p. 144. D I Rankin asserts that Tertullian always remained
within the Catholic church. “Was Tertullian a schismatic?” Prudentia 18 (1986) 73-79.
78
Gregory of Nyssa. On pilgrimages. NPNF 2/5, p. 383.

20
“kingdom of God” he says is joy and gladness, as well as peace and righteousness. He
qualifies his statement by saying that it is not just “joy” that is the kingdom of God,
but “joy in the Holy Spirit.” 80 He goes on to specify more closely what he means by
the kingdom of God.

In fact the kingdom of heaven must be taken in a threefold sense, either

that the heavens shall reign, i.e. the saints over other things subdued,
according to this text, Be thou over five cities, and thou over ten; and
this which is said to the disciples: You shall sit upon twelve thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel; or that the heavens themselves shall
begin to be reigned over by Christ, when all things are subdued unto
Him, and God begins to be all in all; or else that the saints shall reign
in heaven with the Lord.81

The allegorising of the New Jerusalem is rooted in the dualistic anthropology which
placed the emphasis increasingly on the blessedness of the immortal soul, and not on
the renewal of the earth and the resurrection life.82

Because the anti-millennial Patristic writers did not seem to appreciate the Old
Testament emphasis on the goodness of creaturely life on earth, with its promise of
cosmic redemption in association with the resurrection (the new heavens and new
earth),83 this was replaced in their theology with a Hellenistic yearning for release
from this earth to a completely “spiritual” plane free from fleshliness and matter. 84
The latter view was seen to be in opposition to “Jewish” eschatology: the millennium
which included a resurrection life on this earth. Such views were associated with

79
Jerome. Letter 58. NPNF 2/6, p. 120. Ferguson comments that the interiorization of the
“kingdom of God,” found first in Origen [On prayer 25. ACW 19, pp. 84-87], accompanies
the change from a general eschatology to an individual eschatology. E Ferguson. “The
Kingdom of God in early patristic literature.” In: The kingdom of God in 20th century
interpretation. Boston: Hendrikson, 1987, pp. 198-199.
80
John Cassian. Conferences 1.13. NPNF 2/11, pp. 300-301.
81
John Cassian. Conferences 1.13. NPNF 2/11, p. 301.
82
The allegorical interpretation of the New Jerusalem is also found in Hilary of Poitiers
[Tractate in Psalm 121.4. PL 9, 662c] and Ambrose [Expositionis in Lucam 10.19. PL 15,
1809a]. Ambrose says to the dead Valentinian: “Hasten with all speed to that great Jerusalem,
the city of the saints.” On the death of Valentinian 65. FC 22, p. 292. Similarly, he says that
“Theodosius hastened to enter upon this rest and to go into the city of Jerusalem...” On the
death of Theodosius 31. FC 22, p. 321.
83
See Donald E Gowan. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1986, pp. 109-118.
84
McDannell and Lang describe the heaven of which Augustine and Monica had a foretaste in a
mystical experience [Confessions 9.10.23-24. NPNF 1/1, p. 137], as “the hereafter of
platonizing Greek philosophy.” Another consequence of this experience was that Monica no
longer cared to live, and within a fortnight she was dead [Confessions 9.10.26-9.11.27-28.
NPNF 1/1, p. 138]. Heaven: A history. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, p. 56.

21
fleshliness, as such a millennial life would necessarily involve, in the eyes of many,
eating and drinking and in particular, marriage.85

The sabbath imagery and the millennum

Another aspect of the debate over “Jewish traditions” in millennialism involved the
use of the Sabbath as a type of the “world-week.” 86 This divided history into seven
periods of a thousand years, following the schema of the seven days of Genesis 1,
based on the text “a thousand years are as one day.” 87 This tradition was present from
the very beginning of the Patristic period, 88 but the correlation of the millennium with
the “Sabbath” of the “world-week” led to the charge by anti-millennialists that this
was a Jewish idea.89

85
For a curious and illuminating study of this latter theme see B Lang. “The sexual life of the
saints. Towards an anthropology of Christian heaven.” Religion 17 (1987) 149-171. Also B
Lang. “No sex in heaven: the logic of procreation, death and eternal life in the Judaeo-
Christian tradition.” In: Melanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M Mathias
Delchor. Caquot, A, Légasse, S & Tardieu, M, eds. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 215.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985, pp. 237-253.
86
For a detailed study of this theme see J Daniélou. “La typologie millénariste de la semaine
dans le christianisme primitif.” Vigiliae Christianae 2 (1948) 1-16. Cf. the comment by A T
Lincoln. “While Gnosticism eliminated the Christian hope of the resurrection, catholic writers
of the second century used the concept of eschatological Sabbath rest to refer exclusively to
the state of future salvation after the resurrection, thereby reverting the traditional Jewish
usage and abandoning the Christian tension of “already” and “not yet,” which the author to the
Hebrews had applied to the concept of eschatological rest. In part this is to be attributed to
these writers’ commitment to the typology of the worldweek, whereby the six millenia of
world history were to be succeeded by an eschatological Sabbath... Thus for the chiliasts
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, the millenium is the “rest” as well as the “kingdom”
of the saints because it is the Sabbath rest of God [Genesis 2:2] interpreted typologically.
Other writers, however, including pseudo-Barnabas, do not expect a millenium but picture the
state of the saints in the next world as ‘rest’.” “Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic
Church.” In: From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological
Investigation. D A Carson, ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982, p. 254.
87
Victorinus of Pettau. On the creation of the world. ANF 7, p. 342. Hippolytus. Fragments of
the Commentary on Daniel. ANF 5, p. 179. Gregory the Illuminator. The Teaching of Saint
Gregory 668, 670. The Teaching of Saint Gregory: An Early Armenian Catechism.
Translation and Commentary. Thomson, R W. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1970, pp. 166-167. Didascalia Apostolorum 26. The Syriac version translated and
accompanied by the Verona Latin fragments. R H Connolly. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1969, p. 234. Methodius. The Symposium 9.5. ACW 27, p. 139.
88
The Epistle of Barnabas 15. ANF 1, p. 146-147. Cf. Papias, who uses the imagery of the
“week” but does not specifically apply it to the millennium. Fragment 9. ANF 1, p. 155.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies 4.16.1. ANF 1, p. 481.
89
F F Bruce suggests the Christian use of the image is derived from the LXX chronology.
“Eschatology in the Apostolic Fathers.” In: The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in
honour of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky. D Neiman & M Schatkin,
eds. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 195. Pontifical Institutum Studiorum Orientalum, Rome,
1973, p. 87. This idea first appears in the Babylonian Talmud. Sanhedrin 97a. R van den
Broek. The myth of the Phoenix according to Classical and early Christian traditions.
Leiden: E J Brill, 1972, p. 124.

22
The use of this image for the millennium was undermined by the allegorisation of the
sabbath, first seen in Eusebius.90 Those who rejected the millennium often referred
instead to the eighth day,91 as the day after the resurrection when the new age began,
although this was also seen in the millennialist Epistle of Barnabas, which placed the
resurrection on the seventh day, followed by a millennium, and referred to the eighth
day as the commencement of the new age.92 Bruce suggests this is to modify the
Jewish symbolism of the Sabbath, which Barnabas holds was abrogated by Christ. 93
But the anti-millennialists placed the resurrection itself on the eighth day, and by
doing so they thus avoided the millennial connotations of the world-week, as well as
its Jewish associations, while retaining something of the symbolism.94 However, in
the allegorisation of this imagery of the Sabbath rest, it is emptied of its OT
connotations, and is seen in terms of an ethereal spiritualised eschaton which is static,
not dynamic. For instance, Augustine says that the Sabbath rest is not to be observed
in terms of the times, but the “eternal kingdom that it signifies.” 95 The Jews, says
90
Eusebius. Commentary on Psalm 91. PG 26, 1168-1169. Translation cited in: A T Lincoln.
“Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church.” In: D A Carson, ed. From Sabbath to
Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1982, pp. 282-283.
91
That is, the day after the Sabbath, which is also the first day of the new week. Cf. Jerome.
“...the eighth day after the sabbath is again the first day from the beginning... “ Homily 3, on
Psalm 7. FC 48, p. 26. Clement of Alexandria uses the idea of the “eighth day” as a symbol
for eternity [The Stromata 5.14. ANF 2, p. 469; 6.16. ANF 2, pp. 512-513.]. P Plass. “The
concept of eternity in Patristic theology.” Studia Theologica 36 (1982) 16. Methodius. The
Symposium 7.6. ACW 27, p. 102. J Daniélou asserts that the Greek Fathers used the idea of
the “eighth day” since it was outside the cycle of the seven-day week and therefore
symbolised a new creation. The Bible and the Liturgy. Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1956, pp. 278-279. Cf. Augustine. “For the seventh day of rest is connected with
the eighth of resurrection. For when the saints receive again their bodies after the rest of the
intermediate state, the rest will not cease; but rather the whole man, body and soul united,
renewed in the immortal health, will attain to the realization of his hope in the enjoyment of
eternal life.” Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 12.19. NPNF 1/4, p. 189.
92
J E McWilliam Dewart. Death and Resurrection. Message of the Fathers of the Church, Vol.
22. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1986, p. 55. Barnabas states that the reason the Sabbath is a
type of the millennial kingdom is because it can be kept only by the pure, which is why
Christians now keep Sunday (the “eighth day”) instead of the Sabbath. Epistle of Barnabas
15. ANF 1, pp. 146-147.
93
F F Bruce. “Eschatology in the Apostolic Fathers.” In: The Heritage of the Early Church:
Essays in honour of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky. D Neiman & M
Schatkin, eds. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 195. Pontifical Institutum Studiorum
Orientalum, Rome, 1973, p. 87.
94
Jerome. Homily 3, on Psalm 7. FC 48, p. 26. Cf. also Letter to Cyprian the Presbyter 8. [PL
22, 1172] L E Froom. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. The historical development of
prophetic interpretation. Washington: Review and Herald, 1950. Vol. 1, p. 448. Augustine.
On the Psalms 6.1. NPNF 1/8, p. 15. Sermon 259.2. FC 38, pp. 368-371. Maximus the
Confessor. Chapters on Knowledge 1.60. Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 138.
95
Augustine. Contra Adimantum 16.3. Translation cited in: Marcel Dubois. “Jews, Judaism and
Israel in the theology of Saint Augustine. How he links the Jewish people and the land of
Zion.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 191. Note however that the Latin text in Migne has “aeternam
quietem quae illo signo significatur” [PL 42, 157]. There is no mention of an eternal
kingdom. Cf. also Reply to Faustus the Manichaean 12.8. NPNF 1/4, p. 185, where
Augustine says that “the seventh day is the rest of the saints, not in this life, but in another,

23
Augustine, interpreted the Sabbath solely in terms of abstaining from physical
activity. Christians now observe it not on the carnal level, but in “its spiritual sense,”
that is, as being fulfilled in Christ according to his words in Matthew 11:28-30. The
true rest comes in the resurrection, of which the rest on the seventh day is only a
shadow.96

We cannot deny the definite influence from Jewish sources on early Patristic thinking
about the millennium, as Bietenhard points out, for example the Apocalypse of
Baruch.97 However, this should not be seen as detrimental in itself (although some
features of Jewish apocalyptic adopted by the Patristic authors may be speculative and
incompatible with Scripture). Berkouwer has made some useful distinctions between
Jewish apocalyptic and Christian eschatology which allow us to appreciate the inter-
relationship without denigrating any elements in Christian thinking which may have
had a Jewish origin.

The Old Testament portrays the day of the Lord in terms of the
darkening of sun, moon and stars (Isa 13:10), the desolation of the
earth (vs. 13), and the disruption of life (24:1, 3f, 18f). These and
prophecies like these are repeated in the New Testament, where they
serve as the basis of urgent appeals to remain steadfast and watchful.
This does not mean to put Jewish apocalyptic on a par with the
eschatological proclamations of the New Testament. The two are
profoundly different. Late-Jewish apocalyptic exhibits definitely
pessimistic strains that are not to be found in the New Testament.
Eschatology undergoes a tremendous change in the New Testament
when the “apocalypse” is centered in Jesus Christ and His Kingdom.98
where the rich man saw Lazarus at rest while he was tormented in hell.”
96
Augustine. Contra Adimantum 2.2. Translation cited in: Marcel Dubois. “Jews, Judaism and
Israel in the theology of Saint Augustine. How he links the Jewish people and the land of
Zion.” Immanuel 22/23 (1989) 190. Cf. also Ambrose. On belief in the resurrection 2.2.
NPNF 2/10, p. 174. Dulaey suggests the reason Augustine rejects millennialism is the
typology of the sabbath, which led Augustine to reject the scheme of history in six periods of
a thousand years. While he does use the six periods of history, he does not in his later writings
consider them periods of a thousand years since this would enable calculation of the date of
the parousia, something not possible according to Scripture. Michael Dulaey. “L’Apocalypse.
Augustin et Tyconius.” In: Saint Augustin et la Bible. Ed. A-M La Bonnardire. Paris:
Beauchesne, 1986, p. 373.
97
H Bietenhard. “The millenial hope in the early church.” Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953)
12-30.
98
G C Berkouwer. The Return of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972, p. 242. Visser also
sees the place of Christ as the distinguishing feature of Christian apocalyptic thought. “The
Jewish apocalyptist believes the Messiah has not yet come; the christian of the first generation
expects the return of a Redeemer, who has made himself manifest before in humility but
whose second coming will be in glory, according to the word of the prophets.” A J Visser.
“Bird’s eye view of ancient Christian eschatology.” Numen 14 (1967) 7. Similarly, Oscar
Cullmann suggests that Jewish apocalyptic places exclusive emphasis on the “When” of
fulfillment. Cullmann sees Christian apocalyptic as lacking this emphasis, illustrating it with
his analogy of D-Day and V-Day. “Where the certainty rules that the decisive battle has been

24
Thus both the content of this belief, and the hermeneutical principles employed by its
proponents, were considered unacceptable because of the Judaising which they
implied. But it is only the speculative and pessimistic character of Jewish apocalyptic
literature which is to be rejected, not its focus on redemption events which take place
on this earth. Thus the millennium does not need to be denigrated as “Jewish” since in
itself it can be a completely Christian doctrine; nor are we forced to spiritualise
Christian eschatology. One reason for the characterisation of millennialism as
dependent on “Jewish” hermeneutics is given by Loewe: the suspicion that
interpretations which were not Christological could not therefore be spiritual.

In spite of the growing awareness of the relevance of Jewish biblical

exegesis which began to manifest itself in some Christian schools from
the 12th century, Christian exegetes could rarely, if ever, exclude from
their minds a conviction that an exegesis that was not Christological
could not be spiritual; and this prejudice led them to the fallacy of
lumping together all Jewish interpretation of the Bible as “literal” -
generally in a pejorative sense - whatever aspect of the sense the
Jewish exegete might in any given case be concerned to expound.99

Granted that this analysis is made with specific reference to mediaeval exegesis, the
same can be said for Patristic exegesis, on which much of the mediaeval approach
depended heavily.100 Christian eschatology does have its roots in distinctively Hebraic
origins, but the importance of this is obscured through a false contrast between
“spiritual” Greek conceptions and “materialistic” Hebraic conceptions of the future
life. The problem can be seen in the comments of Lawson on the thought of Irenaeus.

The main interest in the Millenarianism of S. Irenaeus is that it

illustrates one of the leading obscurities of historic Christian theology.
The Gentile Church has never been very happy in its understanding of
Eschatology, this most distinctively Hebrew element which is so
clearly a part of Biblical religion, and which had at least some place in
the message of our Lord Himself. We may say that the trouble is that
the Greek or Greek-tutored mind has had to choose either to be much
more or else much less materialistic in conception than the Hebrew.101

fought through to victory, then only in the circle of understandable human curiosity is it still
of importance to know whether the “Victory Day” comes tomorrow or later.” Oscar
Cullmann. Christ and Time. London: S.C.M., 1962, p. 142.
99
R Loewe. “The Jewish Midrashim and Patristic and Scholastic exegesis of the Bible.” Studia
Patristica 1 (1957) 501-502.
100
Robert L Wilken. Judaism and the early Christian mind. A study of Cyril of Alexandria’s
exegesis and theology. Yale Publications in Religion 15. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1971, pp. 45-46.

25
The distinction should be made not between “spiritual” and “materialistic” views (a
false and unbiblical distinction), but between creation-affirming (resurrection-
oriented) and creation-negating (other-world oriented) approaches to eschatology. The
latter was introduced into Christianity through the influence of Hellenistic thought,
and where such a conception does dominate, for instance in the views of Origen and
his followers, then the millennial hope becomes difficult to accept. Hanson comments
that while some see Origen’s view as Platonism Christianised, he considered it “not a
Platonised form of Christian eschatology, but an alternative to eschatology, indeed an
evasion of it.”102 The Hellenistic origins of this difficulty, foisted upon the Scriptures,
are brought out clearly by Harnack.

In [the Western] Church the first literary opponent of chiliasm and of

the Apocalypse appears to have been the Roman Presbyter Caius. But
his polemic did not prevail. On the other hand the learned bishops of
the East in the third century used their utmost efforts to combat and
extirpate chiliasm. The information given to us by Eusebius (HE 7.24)
from the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, about that father’s
struggles with whole communities in Egypt, who would not give up
chiliasm, is of the highest interest. This account shews that wherever
philosophical theology had not yet made its way the chiliastic hopes
were not only cherished and defended against being explained away,
but were emphatically regarded as Christianity itself.103

This then enables us to recogise the true roots of anti-millennialism, and the
difficulties some Patristic writers had in accepting an earthly eschatological reign. It
was not that they had to resist a doctrine foisted on the church through the influence
of Judaisers; nor was it the result of simplistic and inadequate exegesis. It was the
Hellenisation of Christianity, which divorced eschatology from its creation-affirming
stance, that forced the use of the allegorical method to interpret away anything which
referred to a concrete this-earthly eschaton. 104 Not only Revelation suffered this fate:
much of the Old Testament also came under the stultifying grip of allegorising and
spiritualising exegesis which denigrated earthly bodily life. As a result, the earthiness
of the Scriptures was seen as Jewish, and in order to be acceptable in an environment
of Greek speculation, the Scriptures had to be allegorised or otherwise “re-
interpreted” and thus divorced from the Hebraic world-view in which alone they made

101
J Lawson. The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus. London: Epworth Press, 1948, pp. 285-
286.
102
R P C Hanson. Allegory and Event. A study of the sources and significance of Origen’s
interpretation of Scripture. London: SCM Press, 1959, p. 354.
103
Adolph Harnack. History of Dogma. London: Williams and Norgate, 1894, Vol. 2, p. 299.
104
There has been some criticism of the idea of the Hellenisation of Christianity, developed most
vigorously by Harnack. While aspects of his approach are open to question, the general
problem of the influence of Hellenism on the development of Christian thought cannot be
denied.

26
sense. Thus it is significant that this anti-millennialism appears to have developed in
the Alexandrian stream of theology, a stream which in a Platonising manner,
denigrated bodily and earthly life. The most important characteristic of “Jewish”
thought was for the Alexandrian Christians its earthiness, something which they saw
(correctly) as incompatible with the spiritualised eschatology focused on heaven, 105
but which earthiness they rejected. Anti-Judaistic views, in conjunction with
allegorising, Platonising exegesis, are the true origins of anti-millennialism. The
Patristic writers must take full responsibility for these views: they were primarily a
product of their exegetical methods.106

Conclusion

There was little chance for the earlier eschatological conception to survive the
onslaught of a predominant allegorising hermeneutic, a fear of Judiastic influences, a
theology which failed to take this earth seriously, and an introspective, ascetic
spirituality. The church was moving inexorably away from creation-affirming,
resurrection-centred eschatology, towards a mystical, other-worldly and spiritualised
eschatology. Eventually the influence of Augustine prevailed, and the millennium
came to be identified with the present rule of Christ, not with a future eschatological
state. Through dismissing the expectation of the renewal of the heavens and the earth,

105
It must be stressed, however, that “heaven” as conceived in this stream of theology was not
the Biblical heaven, but had more in common with the Platonic realm of the forms. This false
opposition of the “earthly kingdom” and the “heavenly kingdom” is based on a distorted
understanding of both. The one is found in this world as we presently know it, the other comes
about through a total transformation of our present existence.
106
The Patristic doctrine of the millennium remained problematic throughout the middle ages for
many of the same reasons. Augustine’s “spiritualised” view of the millennium continued to
dominate eschatology, and it was not until the Reformation that expectation of the earthly
reign of Christ was again a vital idea in Christian circles, although mainly in fringe groups.
However, anti-Judaism was still influential at the time of the Reformation, and a number of
Reformation confessions explicitly condemned millennialism as Jewish. The Patristic
identification of millennialism with Judaism was continued in the Reformation, and the
polemics were as harsh then as they had been a millennium earlier. The Confession of Edward
VI (the Forty-Two Articles of 1553) calls it a “fable” and “Jewish delirium” [“Qui
millenariorum fabulam revocare conantur, sacris literis adversantur, et in Judaica deliramenta
sese praecipitant.”] The Forty-Two Articles 41. Cajus Fabricius. Corpus Confessionum. Die
Bekenntnisse der Christenheit. 17. Abteilung. Anglikanismus. 1 Band: Die Kirche von
England. Berlin: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter, 1937, p. 401. Bicknell comments that this was
one of the articles withdrawn from the Thirtynine Articles of 1571, “either because the errors
attacked in them had now ceased to be formidable, or because it was seen that a greater
latitude of opinion might be allowed.” E J Bicknell. A Theological Introduction to the
Thirtynine Articles. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1919, p. 19. The Augsburg
Confession [para. 17] describes millennialism as “Jewish opinions.” Anti-Judaism was still
prominent in the anti-millennialist views of nineteenth century scholars [e.g. Adolf Harnack,
Philip Schaff and W G T Shedd], who repeated all the derogatory epithets of the anti-
millennialist Patristic writers, namely that such a doctrine was carnal, pleasure-oriented and
materialistic. Their enduring influence must be taken into account when assessing the
interpretation of Patristic eschatology by contemporary scholars. Such characterisations of
Jewish religion have decreased since the Holocaust, and it would be difficult to maintain such
anti-Judiasm today. This is one aspect of the social embeddedness of theology, which is not
immune to historical and cultural changes.

27
as the locus of the eschatological life, attention shifted to an ethereal conception of
heaven, and the blessed life of the soul.

Anti-Judaism was bolstered by the misconception that an earthly focus for

eschatology was materialistic, carnal and pleasure-oriented. The Jews were falsely
seen as desiring such a future kingdom through characterising them as pleasure-
seeking, in contrast to the spiritual character of the ascetic Christian. However, it
would be true to say that the anti-Judaism which lies at the root of the repudiation of
millennialism in the early Church is by no means extinct.

28