The Millennium:

The Development of Chiliastic Expectation in Early

Christianity
Scott J. Simmons
December, 2005

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................1
2. THE RISE OF CHILIASM IN THE EARLY CHURCH ........................................................................................................................1
2.1. Eschatology and the Intermediate State ....................................................................................................................1
2.2. Implications for the Interpretation of the New Testament Eschatology..............................................................3
2.2.1. The New Testament Outside of the Apocalypse ..................................................................................................4
2.2.2. The Apocalypse .........................................................................................................................................................4
2.3. Polemical Discussions with Judaism and Developing Gnosticism..........................................................................5
2.3.1. Developing Gnosticism and Chiliasm: Cerinthus and Maricon .........................................................................5
2.3.2. Orthodox Chiliasm: Papias, Justin, Irenaeus ........................................................................................................7
3. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................................................................9
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................................................................10
 1. Introduction
It is often taken for granted among many evangelical traditions that early Christianity (prior to the Council of
Nicea in A.D. 325) predominantly held to a chiliastic expectation—that is, Christ was expected to return earth to
reign on earth for a thousand years.1 It is argued that history confirms that chiliasm was the dominant view in
the early church; it was the view of Papias, Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian, thus demonstrating a history going
back at least to the middle of the second century. Non-chiliasm, on the other hand—a belief in a current,
heavenly reign of Christ2—is thought to have only begun in the early third century with Gaius and Origen and
only upstaged chiliasm during the time of Augustine. Those known to be “non-chiliasts” prior to the third
century were thought to be only within the Gnostic camp. Even Gaius’ opposition to chiliasm was linked to his
refusal to accept the authenticity of the book of Revelation—he claimed the Apocalypse was actually written by
a heretic by the name of Cerinthus. Origen had a questionable orthodoxy as well, and he advocated allegorical
methods of Scriptural interpretation, so his non-chiliastic views may be thought to be suspect.
Recently, Charles E. Hill has written on the development of millennial thought in early Christianity and has
reached quite a different conclusion from the above assessment.3 According to Hill’s reconstruction of the
evidence, chiliastic expectations developed in the second century as a response to polemical discussions with
Judaism and a developing Gnostic threat to orthodoxy. This paper is intended to summarize the arguments of
these works and to present a coherent account of the development of chiliastic expectation in early
Christianity.
2. The Rise of Chiliasm in the Early Church
Charles Hill begins his argument in his book Regnum Caelorum by noting that within the writings of Christian
chiliasts of the second century there is evidence of “orthodox non-chiliasts” already in existence. Justin, for
instance, claims that Christians who are likeminded with him affirm “that there will be a resurrection of the
dead and a thousand years in Jerusalem,” but he also acknowledges that “many who are Christians of pure and
pious mind do not acknowledge this (Dial. 80.2).” Irenaeus, likewise, acknowledges that there are orthodox
Christians who deny an earthly millennium (AH V.31—32.1).4 In fact, before launching his treatise on the
millennium in Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes of other orthodox Christians who do not hold to a chiliastic
expectation,
But since certain of those reckoned to be orthodox overstep the order of the promotion of the righteous
and are ignorant of the order of preparation for incorruption, they hold among themselves heretical
opinions (AH V.31.4).5
Irenaeus appears to be less charitable toward these believers, but nevertheless, he acknowledges that there
were orthodox, non-chiliastic Christians of which he knew. In fact, as we will see later, Irenaeus himself was
likely one of them earlier in his life. But if orthodox non-chiliasts existed in the early church, and there seems
to be solid evidence suggesting that they did, perhaps it is possible for historians of the early church to
determine who these Christians might have been.
2.1. Eschatology and the Intermediate State
Toward that end, we must return to the above quotation from Irenaeus. There he criticizes these orthodox
non-chiliasts for two reasons. First, they confused “the order of promotion of the righteous,” for they
“promoted” people to heaven too quickly, prior to the resurrection at Christ’s return. Second, they were
“ignorant of the order of preparation for incorruption, meaning they denied a resurrection prior to the
millennium, which “serves the necessary purpose of training and gradually accustoming the righteous to

1
The term Chiliasm comes from the Greek word for “thousand.” In contemporary terminology, this would be termed
“premillennialism.”
2
We would today term this “amillennialism”
3
“Antichrist from the Tribe of Dan,” Journal of Theological Studies 46 (1995): 99-117. “Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution
to an Old Problem,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.2 (2000): 135-72. Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity,
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001).
4
Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 3-4.
5
Ibid., 12.

The Millennium - Page 1 - The Development of Chiliasm

apprehend God and his glory.”6 Irenaeus’ disagreement with these orthodox non-chiliasts was not over the
eventual physical resurrection of believers—that was agreed upon by both orthodox chiliasts and non-chiliasts
alike. Rather, in the words of C. E. Hill, these orthodox non-chiliasts held that the souls of the righteous “go
immediately after death into the presence of God in heaven.”7 Irenaeus held, in conjunction with his chiliastic
expectations, to a subterranean repose of the righteous in Hades. Hill writes, “The millennium for Irenaeus
serves the necessary purpose of training and gradually accustoming the righteous to apprehend God and his
glory.”8 Non-chiliasts, on the other hand, taught a heavenly intermediate state, in which no discipline or
“preparation for incorruption” was needed.
Hill therefore summarizes Irenaeus’ views in what will become the operating thesis of the book, and so it is
worth quoting the entire paragraph.
Irenaeus thus espouses a logical and systematic connection between belief in a heavenly intermediate state
and refusal of the notion of a future, temporary kingdom of Christ on earth. It is a logical connection
because if souls are ushered into heaven, into the very presence of God and Christ, immediately after death
and not detained in refreshing subearthly vaults, a future, earthly kingdom would seem at best an
anticlimactic appendage to salvation history, at worst a serious and unconscionable retrogression. The
millennium is then entirely redundant. It is a ‘systematic’ connection because it would appear by inference
that the heavenly intermediate state, in the system of his orthodox dissenters, is the opposing counterpart
of the earthly millennium in the system of Irenaeus. As introducing the redeemed into direct fellowship
with their Savior and their God this heavenly postmortem existence takes the place of the millennium.9
In other words, it appears that for Irenaeus, chiliasm included both the earthly nature and future timing of the
millennium and a subterranean view of the intermediate state. Likewise, non-chiliasm included both the
heavenly nature and present timing of Christ’s reign and a heavenly view of the intermediate state. By way of
example, I know of a restaurant that serves both American and Mexican cuisine. If you order a hamburger, you
receive fries on the side, but if you order a fajita, you will receive nachos on the side. It is a package deal. Fries
“go with” a hamburger and nachos “go with” a fajita. The same was true of Irenaeus’ view of eschatological
expectations. A subterranean intermediate state “goes with” the cosmic eschatology of chiliasm, while a
heavenly intermediate state “goes with” the cosmic eschatology of non-chiliasm.
Following this observation, Hill launches an investigation of other pre-Nicene orthodox Christian authors to
see if this connection bears itself out with any measure of consistency in the early church. Hill surveys the
writings of known chiliasts for which a view of the intermediate state can be discerned, including the writings
of Papias, Justin, Tertullian, Commodianus, Novatian, Victorinus, Methodius and Lactantius. For all but
Methodius in the fourth century, their chiliasm was held alongside a subterranean view of the intermediate
state, though a few accord a heavenly paradise to those translated to heaven without death (such as Enoch and
Elijah). Methodius’ view of the millennium, it seems, was of a different sort, and was so “spiritually conceived”
that it distinguishes him from the rest of the chiliasts and perhaps explains the reason for his heavenly view of
the intermediate state.10 Conversely, all writers espousing a subterranean view of the intermediate state for
which their view of the millennium can be ascertained are invariably chiliasts. Hill concludes, “There is to be
seen a link, indeed an alliance, between these two eschatological teachings.”11
Hill then turns his attention to those early Christian writers that affirm a heavenly intermediate state for
believers. He surveys a number of early Christian writers, including Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp,
Hermas, 2 Clement, and apologists such as the Epistle of Diognetus, Melito of Sardis and Athenagoras. He then
surveys various Christian pseudepigraphae and martyrologies before turning his attention to major figures of
the third century, including Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria and Cyprian.
He concludes that among all these Christian writers, “we discovered a very remarkable lack of any chiliastic

6
Ibid., 19.
7
Ibid., 16.
8
Ibid., 19.
9
Ibid., 19-20, italics his.
10
Ibid., 40.
11
Ibid., 44.

The Millennium - Page 2 - The Development of Chiliasm

expectation, sometimes discernable alternative views, and sometimes overt opposition to chiliasm, in those
documents from early Christianity that preserve the NT hope of an immediate removal to Christ’s presence in
heaven at death.”12 It appears that in early Christianity, one’s personal eschatology—i.e., one’s view of the
intermediate state—serves as a reliable “predictor” of one’s cosmic eschatology, allowing us to ascertain with
some degree of confidence those orthodox non-chiliasts we are told existed at the time of Justin and Irenaeus.
In fact, it appears that non-chiliastic expectation can be traced to the end of the first century.
A couple examples are in order here to illustrate the presence of non-chiliastic thought among orthodox
Christians in the late first and early second centuries. First, Eusebius (HE III.20.4) preserves for us the story of
the grandsons of Jude, likely dating to late in the first century.
They were asked concerning the Christ and his kingdom, its nature, origin, and the time of appearance, and
explained that it was neither of the world or earthly, but heavenly and angelic, and it would be at the end
of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the living and the dead and to reward every man
according to his deeds.13
According to this account, the grand nephews of Jesus held explicitly to a heavenly view of Christ’s kingdom in
which Christ’s return and final judgment occur as the same event—at “the end of the world.” Clearly, their
expectation was consistent with those of the orthodox non-chiliasts mentioned by Justin and Irenaeus.
Second, Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, dated some time around the end of the first century, describes the
fates of Peter and Paul upon death. Peter was said to have gone “to his due place of glory.” Likewise, Paul is
said to have “departed from the world and was taken up to the holy place” (5.4-7).14 Both of these designations
can only refer a heavenly afterlife for these two apostles. Now it could be that heavenly intermediate state is
reserved only for martyrs, but elsewhere Clement asserts that all the Christians go to the same place upon
death. He writes, “In love all the elect of God were made perfect; those (persons) who were perfected in love
according to God’s grace have a place among the godly (49.5; 50.3).”15 While this does not tell us where “the
place among the godly” is, we know it is the same place that Peter and Paul went upon their deaths, since all of
God’s elect go there. We thus may be assured that Clement held to a heavenly view of the intermediate state
for all believers. While there is no conclusive evidence of Clement’s cosmic eschatology, the best hint is found
in his paraphrase of Rev. 22:12 (cf. Is. 40:10; 62:11), “Behold, the Lord comes, and His reward is before His face, to
render to every man according to his work” (34.3). This is no conclusive proof, but it seems to tip the scales in
favor of non-chiliastic eschatology, for it seems that eternal rewards are dispensed at the Lord’s coming. While
clear and explicit evidence of non-chiliasm is not found, Hill writes that authors such as Clement of Rome
“would not have been at home within the chiliast camp, for, though we have found only half of the bones of
their eschatological ‘skeleton,’ the skeleton to which those bones belong is of the non-chiliastic species.”16
2.2. Implications for the Interpretation of the New Testament Eschatology
The New Testament contains only one passage that speaks of a millennium. Whether that passage ought to be
understood as teaching a heavenly or earthly millennium has been a point of contention since the second
century. The rest of the New Testament, however, is silent on the matter. Yet understanding that chiliasm and
non-chiliasm existed as “packages” that included particular views of the afterlife, we may well be at a place to
determine which “species” of eschatology of the New Testament belongs. It can easily be demonstrated that
the writings of the New Testament have more in common with those strains of Judaism that adhered to a
heavenly afterlife, such as 3 Baruch, The life of Adam and Eve and the Similitudes. And among these, like their
Christian counterparts, “there is no manifest concern for a temporary triumph of righteousness on earth to
precede the last judgment.”17 In other words, they lack the marks of Jewish chiliasm.

12
Ibid., 246-7.
13
Ibid., 4.
14
Ibid., 81.
15
Ibid., 80.
16
Ibid., 249.
17
Ibid., 62.

The Millennium - Page 3 - The Development of Chiliasm

 2.2.1. The New Testament Outside of the Apocalypse
The New Testament is devoid of any references to a subterranean intermediate state or souls resting in infernal
abodes. Without fail, when New Testament writers speak of the after-life for believers, they speak of it in
heavenly terms. In Luke 23:42-43, Jesus tells the thief on the cross, “Today, you will be with me in Paradise.”
This is a paradise to which the thief enters on the day that Jesus himself died—this can hardly be thought of as
an infernal abode, but rather a heavenly kingdom. In John 14:1-3, Jesus tells His disciples that He is going to His
“Father’s house” with “many rooms” to prepare a place for us. But we are assured, “I will come back and take
you to be with me that you also may be where I am,”18 again signifying that Jesus is preparing a place for the
Christian departed, so that they may be with Him in heaven.
Likewise, Paul consistently affirms a heavenly intermediate state, since Christ “has rescued us from the
dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the
forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:13-4). Paul’s eschatological timeline in 1 Cor. 15:24-28 likewise appears to leave no
room for a millennial kingdom.19 In 2 Cor. 5:8, Paul acknowledges that at death, Christians are “away from the
body and at home with the Lord.” Similarly, Paul knows in Phil 1:21-23 that if he is martyred, he will “depart
and be with Christ.” Finally, in Rom. 8:38-39, Paul expresses his confidence that not even death can separate
him from “the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord.”20
2.2.2. The Apocalypse
The book of Revelation, aside from references to a thousand years and Satan’s binding, bears none of the marks
of chiliasm that we have ascertained thus far. In John’s Apocalypse, Jesus reigns as “Ruler over the kings of the
earth” (1:5) until “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will
reign for ever and ever” (11:15). Revelation differs from its Jewish chiliastic counterparts, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, in
its view of the intermediate state and the messianic reign.
Revelation consistently describes a heavenly afterlife for believers. In 2:7, it is all who overcome—that is, all
who die faithful—are given entrance to the paradise of God. Paradise is not reserved for only those translated
without death, as taught in 2 Baruch. In 6:9-11, martyrs cry out to God from a heavenly altar, indicating they
had been allowed to enter heaven upon their deaths. In 7:9-17, John sees a “great multitude” that left the
“great tribulation” at death. They stood before the throne and in front of the lamb, quite apart from infernal
abodes. In 18:20, John writes, “Rejoice over her, O heaven, and saints and apostles and prophets!” The call for
heaven to rejoice is certainly to be understood as a call for heaven’s inhabitants to rejoice, and these are listed
as apostles, prophets and even the saints, not just Enoch and Elijah.21 Jewish chiliastic writings share none of
these expectations for the afterlife—“only to those extremely few privileged to have been taken from this
world before death is there the blessing awaiting the end with the (preexistent) Messiah in heaven. What we
encounter for the rest is a uniform conception of sedentary repose in the chambers of the netherworld.”22
Rev. 20 teaches a divergent view of the millennium from its Jewish chiliastic counterparts as well. In the latter,
the messianic reign occurs prior to the resurrection and final judgment. During this time, people are married
and are given in marriage, they eat, sleep and drink just as before, though the quality and length of life is
greatly improved. Yet in Rev. 20, the millennial reign occurs after the first resurrection. This scenario sets up a
problematic scenario for chiliasts. Today, most premillennialists argue that resurrected believers live side by
side with other unresurrected unbelievers in the millennium, yet these unbelievers would have been defeated
in Rev. 19, and this scenario is nowhere taught in Scripture. Irenaeus’ view was that believers who are still
alive at Christ’s return remain unresurrected, despite Paul’s claim that they will be changed at the last trumpet
(1 Cor. 15:52). Commodianus and others argued that resurrected believers retain natural bodily functions in
the millennium in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, yet this conflicts with the teachings of Jesus (Matt.
22:30). It seems that, while chiliasm “works” in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, it is at best an uneasy fit in Rev. 20:1-6.23

18
Ibid., 212-3.
19
See my paper entitled, “The Millennium: An Exposition of Rev. 20:1-6.”
20
Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 214-217.
21
Ibid., 220-25.
22
Ibid., 227.
23
Ibid. 236-7.

The Millennium - Page 4 - The Development of Chiliasm

Furthermore, Hill argues that within Rev. 20, we find a noticeable absence of key features of the messianic reign
taught in Jewish sources. There is no reconciliation between the animal and human worlds, no overabundance
of earthly produce, no mention of an increase in human lifespan, no rebuilt Jerusalem, and no assertion that
Israel will reign over the nations. Hill notices that “the closest approximations to some of these ‘chiliastic’
characteristics in the closing of Revelation are in fact found not in ch. 20 but in chs. 21 and 22, which describe
the postmillennial and eternal new heavens and new earth (cf. 2 Pet. 3:13).”24 It seems John took these chiliastic
hopes, found in Jewish apocalypses of his day and certain Old Testament prophecies, and “applied them along
with notions altogether more ideal and sublime to the eternal state of the age to come.”25 He saw no need to
apply those concepts to the millennial kingdom of Rev. 20:1-6.
2.3. Polemical Discussions with Judaism and Developing Gnosticism
If chiliasm is not to be found in the pages of the New Testament, perhaps it is possible to ascertain how it
developed within the early church. Certainly orthodox chiliasts of the second century drew upon Rev. 20, but a
chiliastic interpretation of it perhaps came from other sources, especially with regard to details concerning the
millennium that Rev. 20 simply does not provide. To discover these possible sources, it must first be
acknowledged that these eschatological views developed in the context of polemical dialogue both with
Judaism and developing Gnosticism. Tertullian, for instance, informs us of an ongoing polemical dialogue
between orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Gnosticism. Notice his description of the Gnostic Marcion:
When, therefore, our heretics in their phrenzy presumed to say that that Christ was come who had never
been fore-announced, it followed that, on their assumption, that Christ had not appeared who had always
been predicted; and thus they are obliged to make common cause with Jewish error, and construct their
arguments with its assistance, on the pretense that the Jews themselves were quite certain that it was some
other who came: so they not only rejected him as a stranger, but slew him as an enemy (Adv. Marc. 3.6).26
We can ascertain from this quote an ongoing dialogue between Judaism and Gnosticism, since Marcion is
accused of developing his eschatological views based on his understanding of Jewish convictions. Likewise,
Tertullian’s writing demonstrates a polemical dialogue between orthodox Christianity and Gnosticsm.
2.3.1. Developing Gnosticism and Chiliasm: Cerinthus and Maricon
Tertullian recognized a logic behind Marcion’s eschatology. The Jewish argument against Christianity was that
Jesus of Nazareth could not have been the Messiah because he did not fulfill what was predicted of him in the
Old Testament—he was “a stranger” to Messianic prophecies. Marcion’s “Christ,” though, was unconcerned
with fulfilling the whims of a fickle Creator anyway. For Marcion, Christ came from a higher God altogether.
Yet Christians still held that Jesus was the Christ of the Creator God, fulfilling the Old Testament in a way Israel
had not expected. So Marcion could then co-opt Jewish arguments in the ongoing polemic against orthodox
Christianity. In fact, for Marcion there are two Christs. He believed in the Christ from the True God, who
“appeared” as Jesus to usher his followers into a heavenly freedom from the material world. However, he
acknowledged as well a Jewish Christ from the Demiurge that must be yet to come as the Old Testament
prophets, as interpreted by Jewish polemicists, indicated. The Jewish Christ would have his own Jewish
millennium. Marcion, then, could be seen as a chiliast more by concession than by confession.
It should be noted that the same eschatological packaging found within orthodox Christianity holds for
Marcion as well. On the one hand, by holding to a non-chiliastic expectation, he also held to a belief in a
heavenly afterlife for himself and other Gnostics. Yet according to Tertullian, Marcion also believed that the
Jewish 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 (Marc. III.24).” In the concessions Marcion gives to
Jewish eschatological hopes, he reaffirms the connection between early chiliastic expectation and “repose in
Hades” after death.27

24
Ibid., 238.
25
Ibid., 241.
26
Charles E. Hill, “Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution to an Old Problem,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.2 (2000): 160.
27
Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 73.

The Millennium - Page 5 - The Development of Chiliasm

Marcion’s views of the Jewish Christ were developed in the wake of the failed Bar Kochba rebellion (A.D. 132-
135). He was born in Pontus in Asia Minor, likely the son of a Pontic bishop, and so likely was aware of the
revolt when it occurred, though he may also have learned of it through Christians (Apocalypse of Peter, Justin) or
from diaspora Jews in the area. Bar Kochba gained a reputation for Christian persecution, and “evidently threw
up a horrible spectre of an anti-Christian false Messiah, and it is likely that he left his stamp upon subsequent
Christian reflection on the matter.”28 His awareness of these events and their aftermath may have played a role
in his developing theology over the next decade before he was expelled from the church. If this revolt was
what the Scriptures predicted the war-loving Creator-Messiah was to be about, then the Christ he worshipped
must be from some other God. The Jewish Christ might have his millennium, as the Scriptures foretold, but the
heavenly Christ “would come once more and would destroy the earthly Christ’s kingdom (Adv. Marc. 3.4).”29
Marcion’s addition of a second, Jewish messiah may have had a precursor about forty years earlier by a man
named Cerinthus, also from Asia Minor. Cerinthus is an enigmatic and mysterious figure. Early witnesses to
him identify him as an opponent of John. In fact, Irenaeus records a story he reportedly received from
Polycarp, that John entered an Ephesian bathhouse, and when he saw Cerinthus already inside, he ran out and
exclaimed, “Let us fly, lest even the bathhouse fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within”
(AH 3.3.4). Irenaeus believed Cerinthus to be such a significant opponent to John that he claims John wrote his
Gospel and perhaps his first epistle to refute Cerinthus’ teachings (AH 3.11.1).30 Yet determining with accuracy
what those teachings might have been has proven one of the more difficult tasks in early patristic studies.
The patristic witness concerning his teachings seems to be marred by exaggerated claims and contradictions.
Irenaeus, for instance, portrays Cerinthus as an adoptionistic proto-Gnostic, believing that Christ descended
upon the human Jesus from an unknown God:
And a certain Cerinthus, then, in Asia taught that the world was not made by the Supreme God but by a
certain Power highly separated and far removed from that Principality who transcended the universe and
which is ignorant of the one who is above all, God. He suggested that Jesus was not born of a virgin
(because that seemed to him impossible), but that he was the son of Joseph and Mary in the same way as all
other men but he was more versed in righteousness, prudence and wisdom than other men. And after his
baptism, Christ descended upon him from that Principality that is above all in the form of a dove. And then
he proclaimed the unknown Father and performed miracles. But at last Christ flew away again from Jesus;
Jesus suffered and rose again while Christ remained impassible, being a spiritual being (AH 1.26.1).31
On the other hand, Gaius of Rome portrays Cerinthus, writing about twenty years later, as “a chiliast of the
grosser sort,” as in the millennium people will be able to engage in carnal pleasures.
But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations, said to be written by a great apostle, brings before us
miraculous things in a deceitful way, saying that they were revealed by angels. And he says that after the
resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that in Jerusalem the body will again serve
as the instrument of desires and pleasures. And since he is an enemy of the divine Scriptures and sets out
to deceive, he says that there will be a marriage feast lasting a thousand years (Eus. HE 3.28.2).32
Likewise, Dionysius of Alexandria portrays Cerinthus similarly perhaps about fifty years after Gaius.
For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And he
dreamt that it would consist in these things he himself was devoted to, because he was a lover of the body
and altogether carnal, namely in the delights of the belly and of the sexual passion, that is to say in eating
and drinking and marrying, and—because of this he thought he could provide himself with a better
reputation—in festivals and sacrifice and the slaying of victims. (Eus. HE 3.28.4-5).33

28
Charles E. Hill, “Antichrist from the Tribe of Dan,” Journal of Theological Studies 46 (1995): 107.
29
Ibid., 108.
30
Hill, “Cerinthus,” 136.
31
Ibid., 138-9.
32
Ibid., 137.
33
Ibid., 138.

The Millennium - Page 6 - The Development of Chiliasm

The chiliastic portrait of Cerinthus was admittedly exaggerated by later authors. Even Gaius accused Cerinthus
of being the author of John’s Apocalypse, but later on Epiphanius, while preserving Irenaeus’ account of his
adoptionistic Christology, accused of him not only of teaching a Jewish chiliasm but of being the Judaizer
behind most of the Judaizer passages in the New Testament.
C. E. Hill argues that the best resolution of this problem is that Cerinthus was likely a simpler precursor to the
teachings of Marcion. While each taught a different form of docetism, they are in agreement on the
fundamental Gnostic premise that Christ came from the Supreme God, or “Principality,” in contradistinction
from the Creator God, or “Power.” He held that “Jesus’ anointing with the baptismal Spirit… was the descent of
a heavenly being upon Jesus, who then ceased to be (if he ever was) associated with the Jewish God and
preached instead a higher God and worked miracles.” This Christ, then, would not be “the object of scriptural
prophecy, for that would identify him too closely to the Jewish ideal.”34
Yet in a similar fashion to Tertullian’s accusation against Marcion, Dionysius claims that Cerinthus held to his
chiliastic views so that “he could provide himself with a better reputation” with Jewish apologists, particularly
with regard to Jewish practices—“festivals and sacrifice and the slaying of victims.” In other words, it seems
that Cerinthus acknowledged “the Jewish ideal” by assigning it to a Jewish Messiah with Jewish chiliastic hopes.
Cerinthus, like Marcion after him, may well have taught a divine Christ that he worshipped and a Jewish
Messiah that would appease Jewish opponents. Admittedly, certainly elements in Gaius and Dionysius do not
seem to be compatible with Jewish chiliasm, such as Gaius’ claim that in the millennium, “the body will again
serve as the instruments of desires and pleasures” and Dionysius’ claim that the millennial kingdom would be
for activities that are “altogether carnal, namely in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion.” Yet in fact,
this may be an accusation based on a misunderstanding of Jewish chiliasm, since it would precede a general
resurrection; people would continue to eat, drink, marry and be given in marriage (cf. Is. 65:17-25). A Gnostic
teaching Jewish Chiliasm could easily be misconstrued as advocating a millennium for carnal pleasures.
2.3.2. Orthodox Chiliasm: Papias, Justin, Irenaeus
That Christian eschatology developed in the context of ongoing debate about the Messiah can be seen in the
development of the doctrine of the Antichrist, especially from the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Both of
these writers taught that the Antichrist would be Jewish.35 Irenaeus developed his understanding from Dan. 7;
Matt. 24:15; Luke 18:2ff; 2 Thess. 2 (AH 5.25).36 Hippolytus greatly expanded upon Irenaeus and drew upon Old
Testament prophecies against foreign kings, Assyria (Is. 10:12-17), Babylon (Is. 14:4-21) and Tyre (Ez. 28:2-10).
What emerges in Hippolytus’ portrait of the Antichrist is a picture virtually indistinguishable from the
messianic hopes of Judaism, even bound as they were with the nationalistic hopes of Israel. The Antichrist
would be a Jewish king who would “regather the scattered of Israel, bring an end to Rome’s domination of the
Jews, re-establish the nation in the land, and restore the temple and cult.”37 Marcion (and to some degree
Cerinthus before him) had earlier made the same move, though for him it was an earthly Christ that would
finally be defeated by the heavenly Christ. Of course, orthodox writers would only acknowledge one Christ,
but, drawing on Marcion and 4 Ezra, Irenaeus and Hippolytus brought these into their Christian eschatology
negatively as the Jewish Antichrist. “It thus appears that all three figures are in a profound and paradoxical
sense one and the same.”38 It seems evident, then, that both Gnostics and orthodox Christians developed their
eschatological views in dialogue with each other and Judaism.
As early Christians engaged with Jews on the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, they
would thus inevitably have become familiar with Jewish chiliasm, particularly in two Jewish writings, 2 Baruch
and 4 Ezra. A comparison of these writings to the writings of early Christian chiliasts reveals some striking
similarities. 2 Baruch, for instance, looks forward to “the temporary age of peace brought in by the Messiah is
‘the end of that which is corruptible and the beginning of that which is incorruptible’ (74.2).” 39 In other words,

34
Ibid., 152-3.
35
Charles E. Hill, “Antichrist,” 102.
36
Ibid., 103.
37
Ibid. 109.
38
Ibid., 110.
39
Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 64.

The Millennium - Page 7 - The Development of Chiliasm

the Messiah’s reign was considered a transitional time from the current day of corruption until the time of
incorruption. This corresponds precisely with Irenaeus’ understanding of the purpose of the millennium as a
preparation for incorruptibility, though because of his reading of Rev. 20, he taught that there was a
resurrection prior to this millennial reign. Papias and Irenaeus also agree with 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra that a
heavenly “paradise” is reserved only for those who did not taste death, but were immediately translated in to
heaven (such as Enoch and Elijah).40
The question of the Messiah was thus inseparable from the Jewish conviction that Israel had not yet realized
Old Testament promises that Israel would be redeemed. C. E. Hill writes, “To ‘dialogue’ with the Jews at this
time meant to deal with Jewish hopes of a restoration of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of biblical promises.” It is
demonstrable from the writings of Papias and Justin that they were familiar with and made use of Jewish
chiliastic apocalyptic writings, and it seems most likely that it was in the context of these discussions that
chiliasm made its way into early Christianity. 41 As Hill surveys these and other connections, he concludes, “The
striking correspondences noted here, not merely in the doctrine itself but even in certain details of its
expression, point to a very close intercourse at some point between these two lines of tradition, one Jewish, one
Christian, both chiliastic.”42
Irenaeus is an excellent example of how his ongoing dialogue and polemic likely shaped his eschatology, except
for him it appears his views were also developed in polemical dialogue with Gnosticism. In fact, Hill argues that
there is evidence within his Against Heresies that Irenaeus initially embraced non-chiliasm, like his mentor
Polycarp, but only fully changed to chiliasm when in the midst of writing book IV. Hill cites as evidence a
comparison of passages in book II and book V:
In II.33.5 he speaks of one resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous …, after which “both classes
shall then cease from any longer begetting and being begotten, from marrying and being given in
marriage.” Yet in V.35.1 he holds that after the first resurrection, those still in the flesh “shall multiply
upon the earth.” In II.22.2 the “acceptable year of the Lord” is “the whole time from his advent onwards to
the consummation,” after which there follows “the day of retribution, that is, the judgment.” Yet in V.32.1
some orthodox who are ignorant of God’s dispensations must be told that “it behooves the righteous first to
receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise
again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place
afterwards.”43
In book II, Irenaeus appears to have adopted a non-chiliastic eschatology, though in book V, he has clearly
embraced chiliasm. We must ask why Irenaeus may have made a change to a chiliastic hope.
Throughout Irenaeus’ writings, he has demonstrated deep concerns for a theology of creation, and thus sought
to ensure his own eschatology affirmed a physical resurrection and the restoration of the material world. 44
Gnostics (and a few Jewish non-chiliasts perhaps) would not have embraced such convictions, and by the end of
the second century, Gnosticism was the greater threat to orthodoxy. Chiliasm then was the safer alternative
and more advantageous, perhaps, in the ongoing struggle against Gnosticism. Orthodox non-chiliasts would be
limited to arguing that hope in a heavenly kingdom and afterlife does not contradict or undermine faith in a
future physical resurrection and redemption of the cosmos. By turning to chiliasm, the very hope in a
heavenly kingdom and afterlife is undermined, and any hint of a heavenly v. earthly dualism is collapsed to the
earthly plane. Gnosticism is thus soundly refuted and the goodness of the material world is proudly affirmed if
Christ were to return to earth and reign in this material world this side of the consummation. There is no room
for Gnostic dualism within that eschatological framework. This is not to say that Irenaeus should just be
written off as an apologist who simply caved into the needs of theological and polemical expediency. All of our
theological formulations are shaped at least in part by our interaction with culture and with what we perceive
to be dangers within the church. Irenaeus was no different; likely he turned to chiliasm out of a sincere

40
Ibid., 65.
41
Ibid., 67.
42
Ibid., 66-7.
43
Ibid., 254. Italics his.
44
Ibid., 256-8.

The Millennium - Page 8 - The Development of Chiliasm

interpretation of Rev. 20, understood in light of his reading of Jewish apocalypses and polemical dialogue with
Gnostics.
It also should be clear by now that there is no historical precedent for dispensational convictions in pre-Nicene
Christianity. Dispensationalists are current evangelical advocates of a millennial reign of Christ that would
fulfill the nationalistic hopes of Israel, including the reinstitution of sacrifices in a rebuilt temple. These
convictions have no precedent among early Christian chiliasts. Justin, for instance, in his dialogues with
Trypho, would not permit the reinstitution of sacrifices at the return of Christ, only “true and spiritual praises
and the giving of thanks” (Dial. 118).45 In fact, these teachings are closer to the Jewish Christ of Cerinthus and
Marcion and the Antichrist of Hippolytus. This is not to question the orthodoxy of dispensationalists, but
rather to acknowledge that early Christian chiliasts never made the exegetical moves of dispensationalism. For
all the concessions made to the national hopes of Israel, early Christian chiliasts, if they acknowledged such a
kingdom at all, saw it rather as a kingdom of the Antichrist.
3. Conclusion
In Norman L. Geisler’s assessment, “the Gnostics were the first to reject the premillennial view. They were
followed by Gaius, Origen, and Dionysius, all of whom engaged in allegorical interpretation of the Bible.”46 It
should be clear by now that this statement ought to be turned on its head. As far as can be determined from
the historical record, the Gnostics were at least among the first to embrace the premillennial view, even if not
for themselves. Even early chiliasts, Justin and Irenaeus in particular, acknowledged that some of their
orthodox contemporaries were not chiliasts. If C. E. Hill assessment of early eschatological views is correct, we
may identify with some degree of confidence who these were. Using doctrine of the intermediate state as a
kind of “predictor,” it can be determined that the non-chiliastic eschatological “species” was present late in the
first century at least, and none of its early proponents would have followed Origen’s Scriptural hermeneutic.
Furthermore, by consistently teaching a heavenly view of the intermediate state, the New Testament, including
the book of Revelation, is shown to be out of accord with both Jewish and Christian chiliasm.
Christian Chiliasm appears to have developed as orthodox Christians and developing Gnostics engaged in
polemical discussions with Jewish apologists. Gnostics such as Marcion and, to some extent, Cerinthus, found
within Jewish claims ammunition to use against orthodox Christians. Christian chiliasts such as Papias and
Justin sought to answer Judaism and interpret Rev. 20 in light of the writings of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. Irenaeus,
though, turned to chiliasm as a safeguard against the dangers of Gnosticism. Throughout this time, orthodox
non-chiliasts were likely widespread, and Irenaeus knew of them, not just in the writings of Clement, Ignatius
and Polycarp, but in his own congregations in Gaul, as is evident in the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons.
Now it is certainly possible, to borrow again Hill’s terminology, that there were more than two eschatological
“species” within early Christianity: a chiliastic species, a non-chiliastic species, and a hybrid species, whose
“skeleton” would be made up of a heavenly intermediate state and an earthly millennium after the return of
Christ. However, there has not been preserved any record of such a species in the early Church, with the
possible exception of Methodius in the fourth century. Assertions that this hybrid species existed significantly
prior to Nicea appears to be without historical foundation.

45
Hill, “Cerinthus,” 165.
46
Norman L. Geisler, “A Premillennial View of Law and Government,” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 142 (1985): 251.

The Millennium - Page 9 - The Development of Chiliasm

 4. Bibliography
Aune, David E. Revelation 17-22. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 52C. Dallas: Word, 2002.
Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
deSilva, David A. “The Social Setting of the Revelation to John: Conflicts Within, Fears Without.” Westminster Theological
Journal 54 (1992): 273-302.
Geisler, Norman L. “A Premillennial View of Law and Government.” Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 142 (1985): 250-65.
Gentry, Kenneth L. Jr. “The Book of Revelation and Eschatology.” Paper delivered at the Covenant Eschatology
Symposium. Jan. 1992.
Grenz, Stanley J. The Millennial Maze: Sorting out Evangelical Options. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Hill, Charles E. “Antichrist from the Tribe of Dan.” Journal of Theological Studies 46 (1995): 99-117.
________. “Cerinthus, Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution to an Old Problem.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8.2 (2000):
135-72.
________. Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001.
Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1979.
________. “Amillennialism.” In The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1977.
Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. “The First Resurrection: Another Interpretation.” Westminster Theological Journal 39:2 (Spring
1977): 315-18.
Johnson, Philip E. Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation. Philippsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001.
Kline, Meredith. “The First Resurrection.” Westminster Theological Journal 38 (1975): 366-375.
________. “The First Resurrection: A Reaffirmation.” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1976): 110-119.
________. “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:2 (1996): 208.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament, revised ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
________. “Premillennialism.” In The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1977.
Larsen, David L. “Some Key Issues in the History of Premillennialism.”
Michaels, J. Ramsey. “The First Resurrection: A Response.” Westminster Theological Journal 39.1 (1976): 100-109.
Poythress, Vern Sheridan. “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36.1 (1993):
41-54.
Shepherd, Norman. “The Resurrections of Revelation 20.” Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974): 34-43.
White, R. F. “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10.” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (1989):
319-344.
________. “Making Sense of Rev. 20:1-10? Harold Hoehner versus Recapitulation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 37.4 (1994): 539-551.
________. “On the Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Rev 20:1-3: A Preconsummationist Perspective,” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 42.1 (1999): 57.

The Millennium - Page 10 - The Development of Chiliasm