Notes taken from http://www.tyndale.edu/dirn/articles/early1.html
The early Church writings are seen as before the Council of Nicea (a.d. 325). (ante-Nicene age)
Ryrie calls the first and purest centuries of church history.
In order to evaluate the writings of the fathers for dispensational concepts, it is necessary to briefly set forth the main features of classic or normative dispensational theology as presented by men like C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Ryrie. Perhaps the best recent definition of dispensationalism which incorporates the essential features of 1) the distinction between Israel and the church, 2) the hermeneutical principle of literal or normal interpretation, and 3) the purpose of God in history as the glorification of Himself,[11] is that formulated by Robert P. Lightner. He defines dispensationalism,
". . . as that system of theology which interprets the Bible literallyaccording to normal usageand places primary emphasis on the major biblical covenantsAbrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, Newand sees the Bible as the unfolding of distinguishable economies in the outworking of Gods major purpose to bring glory to Himself."
Even though the fathers of the early church, who are the subject of our study, tended to allegorize either relatively little (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian) or a lot (e.g., Barnabas, Justin Martyr), there was nevertheless a marked tendency among those who were chiliasts (i.e., premillennialists)...
And what was to become of the literal method of interpretation and its progenythe millennial expectation? With the rising popularity of the allegorical method, belief in a literal millennial reign of Christ seems to have reached a turning point in the middle of the third century. The Egyptian bishop Coracion, who succeeded Nepos, buckled under pressure from Alexandria and abandoned the staunch millennialism of his predecessor.[20]And Hippolytus, the pupil of Irenaeus, is said to have wavered in his stance as well.[21]
Among the millennialists to follow, some (e.g., Lactantius and Apollinarus of Laodicea)[22] held to the old ways and continued to stress the literal fulfillment of prophecy, while others (e.g., Methodius[23] and Victorinus of Petau)[24] began to lace their views with allegorical interpretations.
One of the earliest prototypical features of dispensationalism is the year-day, or sex-/septa-millennial tradition. The background of this tradition and its relation to dispensationalism is explained by Ehlert. He writes:
It seems likely that the roots of the whole doctrine of ages and dispensations will have to be traced back to the six creative days, and the seventh day of rest, of Genesis, which have been considered prophetically symbolic of a number of periods of development to be followed by a period of utopia, as the Sabbath follows the six days of work.
It is worthy of note that almost every ante-Nicene father who held to the year-day theory was also a defender of millennialism. It was not until the post-Nicene period, after the spiritualizing influence of the Alexandrian school had taken its toll, that proponents of the year-day theory who were not at the same time proponents of millennialism began to appear.
It is possible to find in the writings of the fathers, distinctions and divisions of human history based upon Gods dealings with humanity.[35] While opponents of dispensationalism freely admit that the fathers frequently employed the word dispensation and set forth multi-age schemes, they insist that these were merely time-period divisions devoid of significant theological import.
Justin Martyr, for example, presented a fourfold dispensational system (fivefold if the millennium is counted separately),[38] which was based almost exclusively upon the failures of Gods people.
Dispensationalism should be considered not a new doctrine, but a refinement of premillennialism such as was held by the early fathers. A similar refinement can be observed in all major doctrines in the history of the church.
Belief in the premillennial return of Christ was a settled doctrinal principle in the ante-Nicene church.
The early church regarded this millenarian expectation as one of the fundamentals of orthodox Christianity. So widely diffused was the doctrine that noted church historian, Philip Schaff, calls it The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age . . .
Dispensationalists hold that the resurrection and rapture of the just will occur not only before the thousand-year millennium, but prior to the seven-year tribulation period as well (see Dan. 9). The key element of this pretribulational doctrine is the imminency of Christs return for the saints. Several church fathers admonished believers to live in daily expectation that the Lord could come for His people at any moment. Henry C. Thiessen summarizes early patristic views on the great tribulation this way:
In the testimony of the early Fathers there is an almost complete silence on the subject. They frequently speak of tribulations, but very seldom of a future period known as the Tribulation. . . .
Though on the whole the testimony of the Fathers is somewhat inconsistent, we seem to have in Hermas: The Shepherd, . . . a fairly clear indication of the fact that there were those who believed that the Church would be taken away before that period of judgment begins.[46]
We conclude this introduction by agreeing with Ryries affirmation that the church fathers were not dispensationalists in the modern sense to be sure, but that some of them enunciated principles which later developed into dispensationalism, and it may be rightly said that they held to primitive or early dispensational-like concepts.[51] Many biblical principles and concepts held by the millenarian fathers were in an embryonic state. And while elements of their teachings lack the sophistication and systematic presentation the modern scholar might like, it should be remembered that these doctors of the primitive church lived on the frontier of Christian theological formulation.
Foot notes:
[20] See Eusebius Church History VII, 24.
[21] See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1978), 469. Here, Kelly says that in Caput contra Caius (or Chapters Against Caius), Hippolytus abandoned Irenaeus interpretation of the thousand years in Rev. 20 as the literal duration of the kingdom, and rather explained it as a symbolical number which should be interpreted as pointing to its splendour [See Kellys note: Cap. c. Caium (GCS I, Pt. 2, 246f)]. The evidence for this supposed reversal by Hippolytus is weak and unsubstantiated.
[22] Bietenhard says of Apollinarus, From these accounts we may conclude that Apollinars kept to the letter of Scripture, that he did not try to evade the prophecies by spiritualizing, and that he combined them with Rev. 20 [Hans Bietenhard, The Millennial Hope in the Early Church, Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (March 1953):23].
[23] Methodius Banquet of the Ten Virgins III, I-II. Although Methodius regarded the allegorism of Origen as perverted (e.g., From Disc. on Resur. XVIII), he frequently fell into the same trap himself.
[24] Victorinus of Petau Commentary on the Apocalypse 20, 4-6.
[35] See Larry V. Crutchfield, "Ages and Dispensations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers: Part 2 of Rudiments of Dispensationalism in the Ante-Nicene Period" Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (October-December 1987):377-401.
[38] See Crutchfield, "Ages and Dispensations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 401.
[46] Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), 477. For the Hermas reference, see The Shepherd: Visions IV, II. It will become apparent in our examination of the Hermas material that this is not an unqualified pretribulational reference.
[51] Ryrie, Dispensationalism , 65.
The early Church writings are seen as before the Council of Nicea (a.d. 325). (ante-Nicene age)
Ryrie calls the first and purest centuries of church history.
In order to evaluate the writings of the fathers for dispensational concepts, it is necessary to briefly set forth the main features of classic or normative dispensational theology as presented by men like C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Ryrie. Perhaps the best recent definition of dispensationalism which incorporates the essential features of 1) the distinction between Israel and the church, 2) the hermeneutical principle of literal or normal interpretation, and 3) the purpose of God in history as the glorification of Himself,[11] is that formulated by Robert P. Lightner. He defines dispensationalism,
". . . as that system of theology which interprets the Bible literallyaccording to normal usageand places primary emphasis on the major biblical covenantsAbrahamic, Palestinian, Davidic, Newand sees the Bible as the unfolding of distinguishable economies in the outworking of Gods major purpose to bring glory to Himself."
Even though the fathers of the early church, who are the subject of our study, tended to allegorize either relatively little (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian) or a lot (e.g., Barnabas, Justin Martyr), there was nevertheless a marked tendency among those who were chiliasts (i.e., premillennialists)...
And what was to become of the literal method of interpretation and its progenythe millennial expectation? With the rising popularity of the allegorical method, belief in a literal millennial reign of Christ seems to have reached a turning point in the middle of the third century. The Egyptian bishop Coracion, who succeeded Nepos, buckled under pressure from Alexandria and abandoned the staunch millennialism of his predecessor.[20]And Hippolytus, the pupil of Irenaeus, is said to have wavered in his stance as well.[21]
Among the millennialists to follow, some (e.g., Lactantius and Apollinarus of Laodicea)[22] held to the old ways and continued to stress the literal fulfillment of prophecy, while others (e.g., Methodius[23] and Victorinus of Petau)[24] began to lace their views with allegorical interpretations.
One of the earliest prototypical features of dispensationalism is the year-day, or sex-/septa-millennial tradition. The background of this tradition and its relation to dispensationalism is explained by Ehlert. He writes:
It seems likely that the roots of the whole doctrine of ages and dispensations will have to be traced back to the six creative days, and the seventh day of rest, of Genesis, which have been considered prophetically symbolic of a number of periods of development to be followed by a period of utopia, as the Sabbath follows the six days of work.
It is worthy of note that almost every ante-Nicene father who held to the year-day theory was also a defender of millennialism. It was not until the post-Nicene period, after the spiritualizing influence of the Alexandrian school had taken its toll, that proponents of the year-day theory who were not at the same time proponents of millennialism began to appear.
It is possible to find in the writings of the fathers, distinctions and divisions of human history based upon Gods dealings with humanity.[35] While opponents of dispensationalism freely admit that the fathers frequently employed the word dispensation and set forth multi-age schemes, they insist that these were merely time-period divisions devoid of significant theological import.
Justin Martyr, for example, presented a fourfold dispensational system (fivefold if the millennium is counted separately),[38] which was based almost exclusively upon the failures of Gods people.
Dispensationalism should be considered not a new doctrine, but a refinement of premillennialism such as was held by the early fathers. A similar refinement can be observed in all major doctrines in the history of the church.
Belief in the premillennial return of Christ was a settled doctrinal principle in the ante-Nicene church.
The early church regarded this millenarian expectation as one of the fundamentals of orthodox Christianity. So widely diffused was the doctrine that noted church historian, Philip Schaff, calls it The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age . . .
Dispensationalists hold that the resurrection and rapture of the just will occur not only before the thousand-year millennium, but prior to the seven-year tribulation period as well (see Dan. 9). The key element of this pretribulational doctrine is the imminency of Christs return for the saints. Several church fathers admonished believers to live in daily expectation that the Lord could come for His people at any moment. Henry C. Thiessen summarizes early patristic views on the great tribulation this way:
In the testimony of the early Fathers there is an almost complete silence on the subject. They frequently speak of tribulations, but very seldom of a future period known as the Tribulation. . . .
Though on the whole the testimony of the Fathers is somewhat inconsistent, we seem to have in Hermas: The Shepherd, . . . a fairly clear indication of the fact that there were those who believed that the Church would be taken away before that period of judgment begins.[46]
We conclude this introduction by agreeing with Ryries affirmation that the church fathers were not dispensationalists in the modern sense to be sure, but that some of them enunciated principles which later developed into dispensationalism, and it may be rightly said that they held to primitive or early dispensational-like concepts.[51] Many biblical principles and concepts held by the millenarian fathers were in an embryonic state. And while elements of their teachings lack the sophistication and systematic presentation the modern scholar might like, it should be remembered that these doctors of the primitive church lived on the frontier of Christian theological formulation.
Foot notes:
[20] See Eusebius Church History VII, 24.
[21] See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1978), 469. Here, Kelly says that in Caput contra Caius (or Chapters Against Caius), Hippolytus abandoned Irenaeus interpretation of the thousand years in Rev. 20 as the literal duration of the kingdom, and rather explained it as a symbolical number which should be interpreted as pointing to its splendour [See Kellys note: Cap. c. Caium (GCS I, Pt. 2, 246f)]. The evidence for this supposed reversal by Hippolytus is weak and unsubstantiated.
[22] Bietenhard says of Apollinarus, From these accounts we may conclude that Apollinars kept to the letter of Scripture, that he did not try to evade the prophecies by spiritualizing, and that he combined them with Rev. 20 [Hans Bietenhard, The Millennial Hope in the Early Church, Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (March 1953):23].
[23] Methodius Banquet of the Ten Virgins III, I-II. Although Methodius regarded the allegorism of Origen as perverted (e.g., From Disc. on Resur. XVIII), he frequently fell into the same trap himself.
[24] Victorinus of Petau Commentary on the Apocalypse 20, 4-6.
[35] See Larry V. Crutchfield, "Ages and Dispensations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers: Part 2 of Rudiments of Dispensationalism in the Ante-Nicene Period" Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (October-December 1987):377-401.
[38] See Crutchfield, "Ages and Dispensations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, 401.
[46] Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), 477. For the Hermas reference, see The Shepherd: Visions IV, II. It will become apparent in our examination of the Hermas material that this is not an unqualified pretribulational reference.
[51] Ryrie, Dispensationalism , 65.
