The founding fathers of modern-day Premillennialism were heretics

[WPM]

Premils are quick to throw the Gnostic slur at Amils. But, it may shock Premillennialists to know that many of the views they hold and promote today were sourced and spread in antiquity chiefly among heretics. When we look for the originators and formulators of modern-day Premillennialism we actually arrive at four shadowy early figures. The first two operated at the very infancy of early Church history – Cerinthus of Asia Minor (AD 50-100) and Marcion of Sinope, Asia Minor (Born: AD 85, Died: AD 160). Both of these were viewed as arch-heretics and were strongly resisted by the early Church fathers for their corrupt perversion of Christianity. They invented a dual-covenant concept of two parallel yet coexisting peoples of God, under two different agreements, serving two different gods, with two different time-tables and two different ultimate outcomes. This was seasoned throughout with Gnostic elements.

The later advocates of ancient Premillennialism who ran with, and widely promoted, it were Porphyry [or Porphyrius] of Tyre (AD 232- 305) and Apollinarius of Laodicea, Asia Minor (died AD 382). They took up the baton were Cerinthus and Marcion left off. Not surprisingly, these two unorthodox writers were condemned by the ancient orthodox fathers as heretics and blasphemers.

They all strongly believed God has two distinct peoples, with distinct purposes for each. Even those who reject Christ were considered as the “people of God.” They believed that the Church operates under new covenant promises and natural ethnic Israel operates under a covenant promises. They held that the Mosaic covenant remains valid for the Jews while the new covenant only applies to the New Testament Church. They considered Israel to be God’s earthly people, and the New Testament Church to be God’s heavenly people.

Like the Pharisees, the early Premillennialism heretics had a hyper-literal earthly expectation of a coming earthly kingdom, believing that the Old Testament kingdom promises would be fulfilled by ethnic Israel coming to prominence there. They repudiating a spiritual interpretation of many passages. They believed Israel’s old covenant theocracy would return and she would be restored to her ancient land boundaries. They rejected a heavenly hope for Israel. They promoted the rebuilding of the old abolished covenant infrastructure, including the recommencement of the old covenant priests, customs, rituals and blood sacrifices.

What set these 4 men apart from the orthodox Chiliasts was not their opinion of a future millennial earth, no, it was their elevation of the nation Israel in a future millennium, their two-peoples-of-God-theory (including a clear discontinuity between Israel and the Church), their belief that Christ-rejecting Jews were still God’s chosen people, that Israel would be restored to her ancient boundaries, their advocacy for the renewal of all the old covenant feasts and festivals, a return of blood sin offerings in a future temple (whether real or memorial) and their support for the restarting of the old covenant priesthood on a future millennial earth.

While these are beliefs that are widely held within Premillennialist circles today, they were unknown to the early orthodox Church Chiliasts. Along with the reintroduction of all the bondage of corruption on a future earth (including sin, death and decay) and the rising up of Satan after 1000 to influence billions of millennial inhabitants against Christ and the glorified saints, this advocacy for the return of all the old covenant apparatus is probably the most unsavory aspect of modern Premillennialism.

Notably: none of the ancient Chiliasts supported the idea of Israel rising again to a place of racial superiority in a future millennial kingdom. They all looked upon the New Testament Church as fulfilment of true Israel today. They rejected any idea of God blessing any aspect of the redundant Jewish ceremonial arrangement. They strongly opposed any validity for, or efficacy in, any coexisting dual covenant theory. They believed that the fulfillment of Israel's promises are found in Christ alone. They held that believers (both Jews and Gentiles) possess spiritual territory in Christ today.

They resisted any advancement of the fanciful idea of any type of reintroduction of the old abolished covenant system, including the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the performing of multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man for a thousand years in the future. Such a thought was anathema to them. For the 1st 240 years after the cross there was no classic Dispensational or “Historic” Premil beliefs in the early Church. The new earth they envisioned was more akin to the Amil new earth - it was perfect and pristine. It was sin-free, sinners-free, Satan-free, corruption-free and death- free.

The early heretical apostates found the natural carnal sensual expectations of the Jewish millennial teaching attractive to their thinking. However, there was no mention of people joining in marriage and enjoying sexual relations, and producing offspring amongst the early Orthodox writers until Commodianus an African writer who wrote between AD 251 and 258. There is no mention of the ungodly or wickedness blighting a future millennium until until Victorinus in 270 AD. There are no previous orthodox Christian writings advocating the continuation of earthly carnal pleasures (including excessive feasting, continued marriage, ongoing sexual passion and procreation) and materialistic prosperity after the resurrection. This thinking was thought to belong to the Gnostic camp.

Premillennialist Chris Gousmett even concedes: “This emphasis on material and fleshly delights was seen to be typical of ‘Jewish’ understandings of the prophetic promises, and thus a close connection between Gnosticism and Judaism was postulated” (Shall the Body Strive and not be Crowned? Unitary and Instrumentalist Anthropological Models as keys to Interpreting the Structure of Patristic Eschatology).

Finally, none the early orthodox Chiliasts expected a future binding/unbinding of Satan or the uprising of Gog and Magog to surround Christ and the saints 1,000 years after the second coming. They all seem to have believed that Satan will be taken out of the game on the actual day of Christ’s appearing.

 

[WPM]

Cerinthus

The first promoter of what we know today as modern-day Premillennialism was Cerinthus who lived in the first century, who was strongly opposed by the early Christian Church. Cerinthus was from Western Asia Minor (now Turkey) and lived around AD 100. He was a shady individual who promoted a perverted blend of Judaism and Christianity. Two issues that seem to stand out more than anything else in his writings are his heretical Gnostic beliefs and his eschatological Premillennialism. That is not to say that Premillennialism is in any way heretical, it is not! Notwithstanding, these two matters are the preeminent focus of early Church criticism of him.

Marcion

The second was Marcion of Sinope, Asia Minor who was born in AD 85 and died in AD 160. He was a pupil of the arch-heretic Cerdo – a Syrian, who taught in Rome AD 140, and whose doctrines resembled those of Cerinthus. Marcion succeeded Cerdo at Rome, about AD 160, after he had been excommunicated at Sinope (AD 140) by his father, the Bishop of that city, in punishment of a heinous crime

Cerinthus and Marcion seem to have been the first to formulate and propagate many of the main accepted fundamentals of the school of thought that is popularly known today as Premillennialism. Many of these core beliefs were rejected by early Chiliasts. They cut across their perfect expectation of a future millennial earth.

Porphyry/Porphyrius

The 3rd character who arose and taught modern-day-type Premillennialism was also dubious. That was the blasphemer Porphyry from AD 232- 305). His parents named him Malchus but his teacher in Athens, Cassius Longinus, gave him the name Porphyrius. He was a Neoplatonic philosopher who became a great enemy of the early Church and truth. He joined a heretical group of Plotinus in Rome where he studied philosophy. Augustine called him “the most notable pagan philosopher.”

Apollinarius

Later, in the fourth century, Apollinarius, who was also viewed as a heretic, took up the baton from the early heretical pioneers. He too departed from orthodoxy in his belief that divinity and humanity could not be united and reconciled in one person. He thought that Jesus did not have a human consciousness, but only a divine one. Apollinarius also came from Asia Minor, the bedrock of Millennialism, from the city of Laodicea. He is said to have lived between AD 310-390. He too was an early advocate of what we know today as Premillenialism.

Asia Minor was the origin of the modern-day Premillenialist theory. The earliest exponents of it were indeed notable heretics. While modern-day evangelical Premils do not necessity look to Cerinthus, Marcion, Porphyry/Porphyrius and Apollinarius for their inspiration, it is they who first promoted many of their core beliefs on eschatology. Apart from Porphyry/Porphyrius, they all came from Asia Minor.

 

[WPM]

Cerinthus

Cerinthus of Asia Minor had an unrefined sensual view of a future millennium arriving after the second coming. He anticipated a kingdom where men could continue to indulge in all the lusts of the flesh. He also promoted the restoration of the old covenant arrangement, believing that the earthly Jewish temple would be rebuilt, the old covenant Aaronic priesthood revived and sin offerings restarted. Dionysius describes the millennium Cerinthus anticipated in the future. It is a classic but crude summation of many of the core tenets of modern-day Premillenialism.

Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace (Church History, Book III, Chapter 28).​

This summary covers some of the core tenets of what we know today as Premillennialism. But the key element that is present here, but absent in the Chiliast hope, is where Dionysius describes Cerinthus’ expectation of a return to the Jewish “festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims.” Cerinthus saw the reintroduction of the old covenant arrangement. With the return of “festivals and sacrifices,” came (of necessity) the rebuilding of the Jewish temple and the restoration of the old covenant priesthood. This was anathema to orthodox early Christianity. It ran contrary to New Testament teaching and principles.

The early Christians writers of all shades believed that Christ was the last sacrifice for sin. They held that the old covenant was a temporary imperfect unsatisfactory covenant pointing forward to the Lord Jesus Christ and His eternal sacrifice. They taught that the new divine arrangement had superseded the shadow, type and figure.

There is no allowance made by the Patristic writers for a restoration of the Old Testament sacrifice system with its festivals and feast, its meat offerings, sin offerings, trespass offerings, burnt offerings, peace offerings and drink offerings. They made no mention, as today, of “memorial sacrifices.” That is a modern man-made extra-biblical term that is rabbited by the masses in order to justify the unjustifiable.

The old imperfect sacrifices made by the representative priests in the old covenant were superseded at the cross by the one final satisfactory sacrifice by the one true eternal priest – the Lord Jesus Christ. Man has now only one true heavenly high priest and requires none other. The new covenant with a new priesthood had eternally removed the old covenant with the old priesthood.

Eusebius the historian records Caius of Rome, (17 December, AD 283 to 22 April, AD 296), in his criticism of Cerinthus. He does not go into all the detail of Dionysius, but makes general sweeping statements in regard to his Premillennialism:

Cerinthus … by means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years for marriage festivals (Church History, Book III, Chapter 28).​

Caius articulates is opposition to the Premillennialism belief that mortals will inherit a future millennial kingdom and Cerinthus was a follower and advocate of the Jewish law, something Epiphanius (who was Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, AD 310-403) alludes to in his writings:

Cerinthus … adhered in part to Judaism. He, however, claims that the Law and prophets have been given by the angels, and the law-giver is one of the angels who have made the world (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 1:3).​

He goes on to allege:

Cerinthus stirred the circumcised multitudes up over Peter on his return to Jerusalem by saying, “He went in to men uncircumcised.” Cerinthus did this before preaching his doctrine in Asia and falling into the deeper pit of his destruction. For, because he was circumcised himself he sought an excuse, through circumcision if you please, for his opposition to the uncircumcised believers (The Panarion, Against Cerinthians or Merinthians, 2:5-6).​

Theodoret (Antioch Syria, died October 22, AD 362) also strongly repudiates Cerinthus and his false teaching, saying:

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 (Compendium of Heretics’ Fables, 5.21).​

This is the simplistic early overview of modern day Premilennialism. It is what they teach and preach. Little do many know, but, the ancient source of their teaching is the ancient Judaizing heretics. The cross does not seem satisfactory, efficacious and final enough for this founder of early Premillennialist. He wrongly and strongly promoted the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future. The “sacrifices and Jewish solemnities” endorsed to arise in a future millennium refers to the full gamut of the Old Testament Mosaic sacrifice system. Cerinthus is the first promoter of a thousand years of blood-letting surrounding the abolished old covenant feasts and festivals.

Philip Schaff says in his History of the Christian Church (Volume 2, Chapter 12): “The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, 4th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Cerinthus.”

 

[WPM]

Marcion

Through his distorted view of the Hebrew Scriptures, Marcion advanced the idea of the full recovery of the Jewish tradition in a future age following the return of Christ. He saw the nation retaking its favored Old Testament position above all nations again on a millennial earth after the second coming. He absurdly believed that Israel, according to Old Testament prophecies, has its own unique Messiah, who is distinct to the Jesus of the New Testament.

Listen to Tertullian, a well-known early Chiliast, of Carthage, Africa, (now Tunisia), (AD 160–220) in Against Marcion Book III, Chapter XXI:

So you cannot get out of this notion of yours a basis for your difference between the two Christs, as if the Jewish Christ were ordained by the Creator for the restoration of the people alone from its dispersion, whilst yours was appointed by the supremely good God for the liberation of the whole human race. Because, after all, the earliest Christians are found on the side of the Creator, not of Marcion, all nations being called to His kingdom, from the fact that God set up that kingdom from the tree (of the cross).​

Here you have the seeds of modern-day Premillennialism. To Marcion, the whole idea of the “restoration” of the “Jewish … people” to their land involved the full return of the old covenant scheme, something rejected by early Chiliasts but anticipated on the millennial earth by most Premils today. Marcion also believed that there were two peoples of God, a doctrine unknown to ancient Chiliasm, but prevalent with Dispensationalism today. He made a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, although this arch heretic imagined two different God’s and two different Messiahs overseeing each company.

Tertullian explains in Chapter VI:

Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.​

It seems from the early censures of Marcion by both early Chiliasts and early Amillennialists that the restoration of the Jewish state was at the center and forefront of his eschatological hope. This was not found in any of the orthodox early writers. The Church was God’s only spiritual elect and the true people of God.

Tertullian continues in Chapter XXIV (Christ’s Millennial and Heavenly Glory in Company with His Saints),

God’s kingdom in an everlasting and heavenly possession. Besides, your Christ promises to the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country; and after this life’s course is over, repose in Hades in Abraham’s bosom.​

Tertullian takes Marcion to task over his view that the Jewish Messiah (who was said to be different from Jesus Christ) would give “the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of their country.” Here he was advocating the legitimacy of, and the Jewish return to, the old covenant ceremonial system. It is important to say at this juncture, not one of the orthodox early Chiliasts promoted this theology. This was a belief that was outside of the pale of orthodoxy – both Amillennial and Chiliast. It was a Jewish heresy advocated by the neo-Gnostics like Cerinthus and Marcion.

In Marcion’s theology, we see how there was a strong prevailing view among the early heretics that God would bring Israel back to their previous theocratic place of favor. This was strongly rejected by ancients Amils and Premils.

Tertullian refutes Marcion’s error, stating:

As for the restoration of Judæa, however, which even the Jews themselves, induced by the names of places and countries, hope for just as it is described, it would be tedious to state at length how the figurative interpretation is spiritually applicable to Christ and His church, and to the character and fruits thereof (Against Marcion Book III, Chapter 24).​

This is a very poignant and irrefutable dismissal of early Premillennialism. What makes it especially notable is who it came from. It is written by one of the leading early orthodox Chiliasts, Tertullian. It's candidness gives us a good sense of the divergence between early heretical Premillennialism (which is similar to modern Premillennialism) and early Chiliasm (which is more similar to modern Amillennialism). It represents the prevailing thought among his peers (both Amillennialist and Chiliast) on national Israel. He spiritualizes Judea and identifies them with the redeemed of God. In doing this, he demonstrates that God does not have two peoples. There is no alternative place of favor outside of Christians. There is no other plan of salvation.

Marcion's invented Christ would meet all the faulty hyper-literal expectations that the apostate Christ-rejecting Jews desired – including restoring them back to their former land and elevating them to their former glory as God's chosen people and an elite race lording over all the Gentile nations. Whilst orthodox modern Premils obviously reject the “2 Messiahs heresy” of Marcion they run with his future millennial expectancy of a temporary carnal earthly kingdom focused mainly upon the Jews, Jerusalem and the old covenant practice. This is classic Premillennialism!

Hill argued: “Marcion conceded to the Jews the reality of a full chiliastic hope, complete with a Messianic deliverer, restoration to the land of promise, and refreshment in the infernal realms for the faithful dead! (The lack of any mention of resurrection is, however, to be noted.) He agreed with the Jews, and against catholic Christians, that the Christ promised in the Old Testament had not yet come. Marcion taught that the Creator’s Christ, when at last he came, would indeed restore the fortunes of the Jewish nation just as the Jews were convinced he would. Marcion of course wanted nothing to do with this Creator, his Christ, or the benefits they would lavish upon the Jews; to him they all savored of the same earthly and fleshly stench which his heavenly Savior had come to dispel. But part of his polemical program against orthodox Christianity was to insist that the Jews were right and the Christians were wrong about the interpretation of the prophets. The Jewish, nationalistic Messiah predicted in the Old Testament bore no likeness to the Christ of the higher God who came to earth during the reign of Tiberius to effect the salvation of mankind.”

The heretical dualists were Premil literalists who opposed the more-figurative Amillennialist position. Origen in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 15.3, explained how Marcion:

"prohibited allegorical interpretations of the scripture."​

This is the classic modus operandi of modern-day Premils. They express the same opposition against Amillennialists as these ancient heretics through at ancient orthodox Church generally. It comes up continually in discussions with Premils.

As a Premil, Marcion was a literalist and took the thousand years as a literal period of time after the second coming that involved the continuation of this physical age and all its pleasures and afflictions.

Origen actually summed up the ethos of those that held to a future millennium saturated in mortals (including the wicked) and who promoted the return of the old covenant arrangement as:

“understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense” (De Principiis, Book 2, Chapter XI).​

 

[WPM]

Marcion (continued)

The historian Gennadius (died AD 496) identified all the main Millenialists among the ECFs, explaining what they expected on the millennial earth, there among them is both Cerinthus and Marcion:

Not in the divine order of the promises of earthly and transitory life, as the Melitians hoped. Not in the marriage procreation, such as held by the insane Cerinthus and Marcion. Not in drinking, eating and working, even as Papias authored, and Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius are satisfied. All this in the kingdom of a thousand years after the resurrection of Christ in the land of the future, so the joy of the saints are to reign with him in the hope that, as Nepos, who believed in a prime resurrection of the righteous, and a second of the wicked.​

Gennadius records his own opposition to millennialism and a transitory kingdom in between the here-and-now and the new heaven and new earth. He exposes the error Cerinthus and Marcion taught of sexual pleasures continuing on a future millennial earth. This this a classic Premil belief. This runs against the teaching of Jesus. In Luke 20:34-36 Jesus basically compares the temporal imperfect state of this present age/world to the glory of the age/world to come.

William Rounseville Alger comments: “According to the heretics Cerinthus and Maricon, the millennium was to consist in an abundance of all sorts of sensual riches and delights. Many of the orthodox Fathers held the same view, but less grossly; while others made its splendors and its pleasures mental and moral” (The Destiny of the Soul).

This couldn’t be any clearer! This unscriptural belief was invented by the heretics Cerinthus and Marcion and is continued today by modern Premils. No early Chiliast advocated this error. The fact is: there will be no marriage and no death in the age to come because the only ones worthy to attain it will be those who have been changed and possess immortal bodies. Contrary to what Premil claims, there are no engagements, marrying or procreation on the new earth; neither is there any sickness or funerals. Death is actually abolished at Christ’s return. Also, the age to come is eternal and not a temporary thousand years time-period as Premil argues.

Tertullian (AD 160-220) builds a biblical case against Marcion in Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 38, speaking on Luke 20:34-36, and denouncing the very idea of marriage, procreation and death in the age to come:

He [Jesus] therefore gave His answer, that the children of this world marry. You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection.​

 

[WPM]

Porphyry/Porphyrius

Porphyry is another heretic who promoted the Premillennial doctrine. He was an enemy of orthodox Christianity and held views that were in conflict with the more-moderate classic early Chiliasm. He was another Judaizer who tried to foist old covenant practices upon New Testament Christianity. He also promoted the full return of the old covenant ceremonial law and festivals.

Jerome strongly refuted him, and exposed his error:

[T]he blasphemer Porphyrius – and who assert that the ceremonies of the old Law should be observed in the Church of Christ by the stock of faithful Israel, those should also look forward to a golden Jerusalem for 1000 years, that they may offer sacrifices and be circumcised, that they may sit on the Sabbath, sleep, become sated, drunk, and to rise to frolic, their amusement being offensive to God (Commentary to Isaiah, Chapter XXIV).​

Jerome was not painting all Chiliasts with the same brush. Quite the opposite! He was specifically exposing this early heretical Premillennialist who advocated the full restoration of the old covenant arrangement in a future thousand years, including the pointless slaughter of countless innocent animals during that period. This was not an opinion that orthodox Chiliasts held, taught or accepted anywhere throughout the early Church.

All of these Premil heretics were notably professing Gentile “Christians” who were besotted with Old Testament Israel and its ancient practices. Consequently, they tried to create a theological system that would accommodate their distorted view of Christianity and Judaism. They achieved this by creating parallel train-tracks that could accommodate the coexistence and co-acceptance of two diverse religious systems in a dual covenant theology. This is exactly what Dispensationalism has done today. It is fixated with natural Israel, the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, the return of animal sacrifices in some supposed future millennium and the restarting of the abolished old covenant priesthood. They have invented two peoples of God to suit its theology.

The heretics believed that their hopes would be finally realized after the second coming, in an earthly Messianic kingdom, one in which Israel would be brought back to its ancient favored position reigning over the Gentile nations from old Jerusalem. This new arrangement would see Gentiles submitting to the long-abolished primitive old covenant customs, rules and ceremonies. Ancient Jerusalem would become the center-point once again of global worship to Israel’s God. This age would last a thousand years and would see the full return of all Old Testament religious structure, including priesthood, sacrifices, circumcision, and Sabbath keeping.

Porphyrius wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel. Jerome strongly refuted his teaching point by point. Speaking about Daniel 2.40 (“He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth”), he responded:

Now the fourth empire, which clearly refers to the Romans, is the iron empire which breaks in pieces and overcomes all others. But its feet and toes are partly of iron and partly of earthenware, a fact most clearly demonstrated at the present time. For just as there was at the first nothing stronger or hardier than the Roman realm, so also in these last days there is nothing more feeble, since we require the assistance of barbarian tribes both in our civil wars and against foreign nations. However, at the final period of all these empires of gold and silver and bronze and iron, a rock (namely, the Lord and Savior) was cut off without hands, that is, without copulation or human seed and by birth from a virgin's womb; and after all the empires had been crushed, He became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. This last the Jews and the impious Porphyry apply to the people of Israel, who they insist will be the strongest power at the end of the ages, and will crush all realms and will rule forever (Commentary on Daniel, Prologue, on Daniel 2.40).​

According to Jerome: Porphyrius expected the restoration of natural Israel to its old covenant place of favor over all other nations in the last of the last days. Israel would then subjugate the Gentile nations and rule over them. He anticipates a superior position for ethnic Israel above all nations, with them exercising “the strongest power” over them.

Porphyry cuts across the widespread belief amongst the ECFs (Chiliast and early Amils) that the New Testament persistently teaches that under the new covenant, and in Christ Jesus, all nationalities equally partake of the spiritual blessings God promised to that nation through faith. Basically: Jews and Gentiles are equal before God. The whole notion of ethnicity deserving some type of special favor with God in our day is repeatedly and strongly blown out of the water in the early Christian writers.

 

[WPM]

Apollinarius of Laodicea

Apollinarius took up the ancient Premillennial baton from these early heretics. Notably, he too was a prominent heretic who was strongly opposed and renounced by the universal Church of his day. Very little of what he wrote has been passed down to us. Most of it was destroyed as heretical. Most of what we have comes from his theological opponents who were strong in their renunciations.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa said of Apollinarius of Laodicea, that his theology taught:

“the Jewish animal-sacrifices shall be restored” (Dogmatic Treatises, Etc.; Letter XVII – To Eustathia).​

Basil the Great describes what Apollinarius believed

Apollinarius [of Laodicea], who is no less a cause of sorrow to the Churches. With his facility of writing, and a tongue ready to argue on any subject, he has filled the world with his works ... What he writes on theology is not founded on Scripture, but on human reasonings. 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? (Letters and Select Works: Letter 263, 4 - To the Westerns).​

Here is an outline of classic Premillennial teaching. Again, noticeably, this was held by an early heretic who was strongly resisted by the orthodox Christian Church. This was foreign teaching to them in the light of what Christ ushered in through the new covenant. Apollinarius taught that Israel would be restored to her previous old covenant place for preference over all other nations.

But, most troubling to the early writers, was the early Premillennial promotion of the full reinstitution of the redundant old covenant arrangement with its multiple additional sin offerings to atone for the sins of man in the future. This was despite the well-established beliefs of the Patristic writers that the New Testament Scripture makes clear that Christ was the final sacrifice for sin (Romans 6:10, Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 28, 10:10, 12, 14 and 1 Peter 3:18) and that there are no more offerings for sin (Hebrews 9:26, 10:18, 26 and 1 John 3:5).

Apollinarianism was condemned by a council at Alexandria in 362 AD at Roman councils in 377 AD and 378 AD In the second Ecumenical Council and the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD the Church leaders renounced Apollinarius as a heretic. He is actually repudiated by name in Canon 1 and Canon 7. Along with his other fellow heretics he was to be “anathematized.”

Gregory the Theologian also criticized Apollinarius in his letter to Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius (Epistle CI. (101), highlighting his Premillennial beliefs.

I would they were even cut off that trouble you, and would reintroduce a second Judaism, and a second circumcision, and a second system of sacrifices. For if this be done, what hinders Christ also being born again to set them aside, and again being betrayed by Judas, and crucified and buried, and rising again, that all may be fulfilled in the same order, like the Greek system of cycles, in which the same revolutions of the stars bring round the same events.​

Jerome targets the theology of the early Premillennial heretics, mentioning Apollinaris in particular in his renunciation:

Dionysius the bishop of the church of Alexandria, wrote a fine book mocking the tale of the millennium, as well as the golden and bejeweled earthly Jerusalem, the restoration of the temple, the blood of sacrifices, the idleness of the sabbath, the injury of circumcision, nuptials, child birth, child-rearing, the delights of feasting, and the servitude of all nations, and once again wars, armies, and triumphs, and the slaughter of the vanquished, and the death of the hundred-year-old sinner. Apollinaris responded to him in two volumes, and he is followed not only by men of his own sect, but also by a great multitude of our own, at least in this matter, so that I already perceive with foreboding that the anger of many will be aroused against me (Commentary to Isaiah, Preface to Book 18).​

For Jerome, the Premillennial scheme was “a tale.” Others early writers would similarly call it “a fable.” The idea of a future age in-between “this age” and “the age to come” was quite fanciful to many of the early Amil writers. When the detail of the heretical Premillennialist heretics were threw into the mix, with their expectation of more ongoing sin, more decay, more sickness, more death, more sin offerings, etc, etc, it was hardly surprising that many found this far-fetched. When you add all the religious actors that populate the millennium and give their feigned allegiance to Christ and then turn on Him when Satan appears 1000 years after the second coming, then you are looking at a doctrine that seems beyond the pale of reality and truth. When they then argued that a future earth will see the mortal wicked interact with the glorified saints for a thousand years then you are looking at a clear non-corroborative doctrine.

The later Jacobite bishop of Dara, in Mesopotamia (Dead: AD 845), John of Dara exposes Apollonarius for his millennialist teaching:

Apollonarius the heretic, with his companions, abandoned the glorious illumination of the living words and became blind to the faith like the Jews. He dared to speak, like the Pharisees, that after the resurrection of the dead, we shall live again for a thousand years in Jerusalem with the Messiah, with bodily pleasures, and childish sacrifices, and earthly libations before him [the Messiah?]. After these things are fulfilled, at that time we shall be taken up into heaven. And he was not shamed by the voice of Paul who said, “The kingdom of God is not of eating or drinking. But of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Also in like manner Irenaeus bishop of Lyon in Gaul wandered in these matters, which are in the book of Papias as Eusebius narrates (On the Resurrection of Bodies 2.13).​

John of Dara likens Apollonarius’ Premillennialism to Phariseeism. He rubbishes the idea of Judaic temple ceremonial in Jerusalem for a thousand years in front of the Messiah.

There is no doubt that these ancient heretical Premillennialists fell into the same trap as the Pharisees with their faulty hyper-literal mind-set, who because of such, ended up crucifying Christ. The problem was, they were stuck in the Old Testament, fixated with the earthly, physical, temporal and the natural. These ancient writers focused in on Israel and a temporal future earthly kingdom full of warfare, carnal pleasures and ethnic separation. They promise a continuation of pain, sin, death, suffering, tears, hatred, war, funerals. This whole carnal expectation seems to blue the reason why the second coming is so splendid. It is the final return of Christ in all power and glory to abolish all unrighteousness and to set up a perfect, just and eternal kingdom where wickedness and corruption are forbidden.

In a detailed article Jerome’s Judaizers, Hillel I. Newman confirms (what other objective researchers have found) that from his investigation, the typical Premillennialism scheme cannot be found in the orthodox Chiliasts. He contends: “So far as we know, none of these authors maintained … that in the millennial kingdom all would offer sacrifices and keep the sabbath and that all men would be circumcised” (p. 442).

Premil Lyford Paterson Edwards even concedes: “we see the unfortunate fate of Chiliasm in getting mixed up with heresies with which it, as such, had nothing to do. The extraordinary detestation which overtook Apollinaris as arch-heretic par excellence seems to have finally discouraged Chiliasm in the Eastern Church. It was reckoned as a heresy thereafter and though it appears sporadically down to our own day it is of no more interest for our purpose” (The Transformation of Early Christianity from an Eschatological to a Socialized Movement).

 

[WPM]

Conclusion

Connect all the dots together from the eschatology of these early heretics and you discover the roots of modern Premillennialism. Whilst the views expressed by these early heretical Premillennialists are all widely-accepted standard Premillennialist beliefs today, none of the early Chiliasts taught these. In fact, it seems like the early Chiliasts distanced themselves especially from these spurious imposters. Notably, nowhere is it taught in New Testament Scriptures. Nowhere can it be found in Revelation 20. It was an early heterodox innovation derived by apostate Judaism that ran contrary to New Testament Christianity and early Church theology.

What would be the purpose of reinstituting animal sacrifices in the future? After all, the old sacrificial system simply served as an imperfect type that foreshadowed Christ and pointed to His ultimate sacrifice for sin at the cross. Jesus was the final sacrifice for sin. He was the eternal fulfillment of every type and shadow in the Old Testament. Anyway, since God destroyed the temple, Israel can no longer administer these unsatisfactory ordinances. They were effectively and finally nailed to the cross in the death of Christ.

The whole Judaic blood sacrifice system was rendered redundant through Calvary. It has no further purpose. Why would we need further sin offerings (and that is exactly what they are)? The old covenant "ceremonial use" was for a purpose to atone for sin and cover it until the cross. It is this "ceremonial use" that you speak of? How could the slaughter of animals be pleasing onto God today or in the future? They can't. Christ's once perfectly satisfied all the elevated demands of God for a final offering for sin. What exactly does it do to sin in a supposed future millennium? I am truly at a loss to see what you think its useful purpose is.

William Rounseville Alger comments: “The doctrine itself is a Jewish-Christian figment supported only by a shadowy basis of fancy.” (The Destiny of the Soul).

Dr. Mike Stallard explains: “it must be admitted that although elements of Jewish chiliasm exist in the early Church and show the ability to persevere even into the early Middle Ages, the references to them are often secondary. Finding hard evidence is often like searching for echoes in the wrong canyon … Most of the writings we have from the early post-canonical days will affirm at times the city of Jerusalem in the last days but not the national restoration of Israel and the rebuilding of a temple, probably the two most important elements of a Jewish chiliasm … national Israel was no longer a player in God’s eschatological promises. Either by reinterpretation of prophetic texts or forfeiture of the promises due to sin, it became increasingly difficult to affirm any Jewish elements within chiliastic hopes and eventually impossible in the minds of most Christians to affirm any chiliastic hopes at all” (The Shift from Jewish Chiliasm to Christian Chiliasm in the Early Church).

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Premils are quick to throw the Gnostic slur at Amils

So you wanted to be sure to follow up by throw the gnostic slur at Premils, got it.

 

[WPM]

So you wanted to be sure to follow up by throw the gnostic slur at Premils, got it. View attachment 59619

I have presented concrete evidence, not false claims like many Pseudo Premil historians do.

Refute if you can. Facts are stubborn things.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

So those not interpreting scripture exactly as you do... will be rejected by the Lord in the end. Got it.

 

[WPM]

So those not interpreting scripture exactly as you do... will be rejected by the Lord in the end. Got it.

Who said that? You obviously have nothing to bring to the table.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Who said that? You obviously have nothing to bring to the table.

Your mind is already made up and nobody can tell you anything... so why bother?

 

[WPM]

Your mind is already made up and nobody can tell you anything... so why bother? View attachment 59631

View attachment 59632

This is a classic Premil response to evidence: petty name calling!

 

[grafted branch]

the early Premillennialism heretics had a hyper-literal earthly expectation of a coming earthly kingdom, believing that the Old Testament kingdom promises would be fulfilled by ethnic Israel coming to prominence there. They repudiating a spiritual interpretation of many passages. They believed Israel’s old covenant theocracy would return and she would be restored to her ancient land boundaries.

I have asked several Premils if they plan on becoming Jews, since they see the Jews inheriting land and generally being in a better position during a future millennium. None of the Premils I spoke to wanted to have that prominent position in the millennium, they all said they wanted to remain Gentiles.

It seems to me that if a person truly believed what most of the Premils teach, then they should desire to become a Jew before their future millennium takes place.

I can see that you have extensive knowledge of the early Church teachings. Do you know of any groups in the past that taught Premil and had coverts to Judaism as a result of their teachings?

 

[WPM]

I have asked several Premils if they plan on becoming Jews, since they see the Jews inheriting land and generally being in a better position during a future millennium. None of the Premils I spoke to wanted to have that prominent position in the millennium, they all said they wanted to remain Gentiles.

It seems to me that if a person truly believed what most of the Premils teach, then they should desire to become a Jew before their future millennium takes place.

I can see that you have extensive knowledge of the early Church teachings. Do you know of any groups in the past that taught Premil and had coverts to Judaism as a result of their teachings?

I totally agree with you. There has been a constant ongoing Judaizing from orthodox Judaism (and splinter schisms) since Scripture times until now. It still goes on.

 

[Truth7t7]

I totally agree with you. There has been a constant ongoing Judaizing from orthodox Judaism (and splinter schisms) since Scripture times until now. It still goes on.

The whole "Christian Zionism" model was spawned out of Texas, Dallas Theological Seminary, the headquarters of dispensationalism's many false teachers, Hal Lindsey, Tim La Haye, Charles Ryrie, J. Vernon Mcgee, Grant Jeffrey, Chuck Swindoll, etc

Don't forget the Texas Zionist in John Hagee San Antonio, claiming there is two pathways to heaven, one for the Jews, another for the gentiles, dual covenant theology

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I have presented concrete evidence, not false claims like many Pseudo Premil historians do.

Refute if you can. Facts are stubborn things.

Right. There is no comparison between the amount of evidence you used to back up your claim and the tiny bit of questionable evidence that Davy used to support his claim about Amillennialism.

In terms of his claim that Amillennialism only started in the 2nd century by the Gnostics, I wonder how it could be that Justin Martyr could say in the early 100s that there were many true Christians who disagreed with his premillennial view? So, many true Christians decided to believe in Amillennialism in the early 2nd century when it was supposedly a new teaching at that time? Really? No. That's absurd. Amillennialism was taught from the beginning and didn't start in the 2nd century.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So you wanted to be sure to follow up by throw the gnostic slur at Premils, got it. View attachment 59619

Oh look, Dan the Man has decided to spread his nonsense on another thread. How about you stop clowning around and address what WPM said instead? Do you have anything to refute what he said? If so, let's see it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So those not interpreting scripture exactly as you do... will be rejected by the Lord in the end. Got it.

Do you have anything of substance at all to offer? He did not say that. At all.