Before dispensationalism crept up in 1830 AD, from the 4th century throughout the dark ages and into the Protestant Reformation the predominant view regarding the millennium had been Amillennialism (or more appropriately called “Realized Millennialism,” meaning that we’re already living in the time when Christ reigns in the midst of His enemies, as was predicted in Psalm 110:2). Yet how prevalent was it in the first few centuries of the early Church? At Dallas Theological Seminary, Charles Ryrie, one of the major teachers of dispensationalism rather audaciously declared “Premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church.”
(Most of the following information was originally found here: https://revelation-now.org/wp-content/uploads/Early-Church-Teachings-of-the-Latter-Days-v-1.02.pdf)
Alan Patrick Boyd, a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary, began a challenging undertaking, writing a Masters thesis whose goal was to establish the prophetic faith of the early church fathers. This Masters thesis was to determine whether or not early Christian authors (some of which had been in direct contact with Apostles) affirmed or were even aware of the dispensational premillennial perspective as advocated by Dallas Theological Seminary professors Charles Ryrie and John Walvoord, and Boyd stated the purpose of his work succinctly: “The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether Dr Ryrie’s ‘premillennialism’ is similar to, or dissimilar to, the premillennialism exhibited in some of the patristic writings under consideration.”
The title of his thesis was, “A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post‐Apostolic Fathers (until the Death of Justin Martyr),” and he found that the idea of a millennium was about the only feature they had in common with today’s teaching. The early church fathers differed greatly from the teachings of John Darby, the Scofield Bible, and professors at the Dallas Theological Seminary such as the late John Walvoord and the late Charles Ryrie.
Contrary to one of the key pillars of dispensationalism, Boyd found that a distinction between Israel and the church was missing, and also that dispensationalism, as articulated by contemporary authors, was fully absent. He found they believed in prophecy, but used the New Testament writings to interpret Old Testament Scriptures. Boyd found that all the early authors expected the church to experience tribulation, and that they did not believe in a rapture before a time of tribulation. The church would be saved from the wrath of God, but not from a time of tribulation to test their faith [such as has been occurring during these last 2,000 years of Church history].
The early church fathers, whether millennialist or otherwise, believed that the church was the new Israel and that Christians, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, are now God’s chosen people (1 Peter 2:9). [Per the olive tree of Romans 11, those believing in Christ have been grafted in, and those denying Christ are no longer attached]. They certainly taught Jews could be saved, but only through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, and no other way. In other words, they did not see the church and Israel as distinct dispensations. Per 2nd century Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, “For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, … are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ.”
After a close examination of early Christian authors prior to Papias (including 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, Ignatius, and Hermas), Boyd discovered that the differences between them and the premillennial construct of Dr. Ryrie are “profound and disqualify any claim that pretribulation, dispensational premillennialism existed in any form in the period.” Also, “The Majority of the writers/writings in this period (70-165 A.D.) completely identify Israel with the church.”
In fact, Boyd found Dr. Charles Ryrie’s statement was not true:
“It is the conclusion of this thesis that Dr. Ryrie ‘s statement is historically invalid within the chronological framework of this thesis.”
“The reasons for this conclusion are as follows:
1) the writers/writings surveyed did not generally adopt a consistently applied literal interpretation
2) they did not generally distinguish between the Church and Israel
3) there is no evidence that they generally held to a dispensational view of revealed history
4) although Papias and Justin Martyr did believe in a Millennial kingdom, the 1,000 years is the only basic similarity with the modern system (in fact, they and dispensational premillennialism radically differ on the basis for the Millennium)
5) they had no concept of an imminent rapture or of a pretribulation rapture of the Church
6) in general, their eschatological chronology is not synonymous with that of the modern system.”
Boyd’s study ended at the time period of Justin Martyr, therefore it should be noted this is what Justin declared in his dialogue, “I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place [a future millennium] as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that MANY who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” (“Dialogue with Trypho,” chapter LXXX. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985)
So then, it turns out that it’s amillennialism that shows up to some degree even in the early church, and Boyd suggests that “it would seem wise for the modern system [of dispensational premillennialism] to abandon the claim that it is the historic faith of the church.” He would appear to side with the evaluation of the amillennialist Louis Berkhof who wrote, “it is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it (millennialism) was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number.” (Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines [London: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1937] 1969, 262).
Rather than being perceived as being an iconoclast, this is how Boyd described himself and the purpose of his thesis: “Perhaps a word needs to be said about the eschatological position of the writer of this thesis. He is a dispensational premillennialist, and he does not consider this thesis to be a disproof of that system. He originally undertook the thesis to bolster the system by patristic research, but the evidence of the original sources simply disallowed this.” Clearly, Boyd was a dispensationalist trying to prove the validity of his system, but to his dismay, the leaders of the early church did not teach anything like what dispensationalism attempts to teach.
Many Amillennialists have been quick to challenge the assertion that premillennialism has outright dominance in the early church. While few early Christians actually wrote anything about the millennium, the non-canonical Epistle of Barnabas might be amillennial, while Hippolytus (170–235), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), Origen (184-254), Dionysius (190-265), Caius (3rd century Presbyter of Rome), and Cyprian (c. 200–258) were all amillennial (even though some of these employed an unhealthy form of “allegorical method”). All of these led up to the most significant as well as most reliable amillennial theologian, Augustine (354–430). In Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity, Charles Hill examines whether each early Church writer believed in a heavenly or subterranean intermediate state, and if this is a reliable criterion then he is able to conclude that even Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Athenagrous, and Meilto of Sardis also held to the amillennial position. Knowing this, it does seem that premillennialists need to abandon statements of early church exclusivity, and to again quote Justin Martyr, “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” Also note that Irenaeus, in his work Against Heresies, when asked how his premillennialism seemed more like Jewish legends from outside of scripture, he didn’t dispute the question. He simply acknowledged that many true Christians disagreed with him.
It’s clear that both views existed side by side in the early church, however, in the 4th century, Augustine became the primary theologian to firmly establish the doctrines of amillennialism. His viewpoints then became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Church which carried on as the dominant teaching all the way up to and including the Protestant reformers who also were all amillennial in their teachings, and their confessions of faith further documented their amillennial beliefs. John Calvin had even gone so far as to declare that premillennialism is a “fiction” that is “too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation.”
“At the time of the Reformation the doctrine of the millennium was rejected by the Protestant Churches… Luther scornfully rejected ‘the dream’ that there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ preceding the day of judgment. The Augsburg Confession condemns those ‘who now scatter Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed.’ And the Second Helvetic Confession says: ‘Moreover, we condemn the Jewish dreams, that before the day of judgment there shall be a golden age in the earth, and the godly shall possess the kingdoms of the world, their wicked enemies being trodden under foot’ … Up to the present time, the doctrine of the millennium has never yet been embodied in a single Confession, and therefore cannot be regarded as a dogma of the Church,” (LOUIS BERKHOF,The History of Christian Doctrines, pages 271–72).
Unfortunately, amillennialism declined in Protestant circles with the increased popularity of postmillennialism in the 18th century as well as the rise of dispensational premillennialism in the 19th century, yet we should remember that amillennialism has always been embraced by many of our modern denominations (such as Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Anglican, Amish, Mennonite, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, as well as Messianic Jews and Eastern Orthodox), and it is regaining its prominence now that dispensationalism is being proven to be a faulty system.
To conclude and answer our question, to the dismay of the founders of Dallas Theological Seminary, we can now boldly declare that premillennialism is NOT the historic faith of the Church, but rather, for the majority of these last 2,000 years, the dominant historic faith of the Church has been amillennialism (aka – Realized Millennialism).
“Helping People See Jesus and Exploring All That He Has Fulfilled” 