Rev 2-3 Question

[ryanoneil]

Actually I only meant to question the first part.

I figured as much. I was just guessing at a reason to your earlier question.

 

[garysibio]

I figured as much. I was just guessing at a reason to your earlier question.

First, let me clarify that I am a Catholic and I believe in papal primacy. However, I have a problem. Catholic apologists often point to 1 Clement to prove that the Bishop of Rome acted as if he had authority over other churches. A lack of correction for the churches in Rev 2-3 provides similar fuel for the Protestant view that he did not. Once you open the door to the pope dealing with false teaching, he has to deal with them all or have a good answer why he responded in one case but not another.

 

[ryanoneil]

Only by those who wish to deny the prophetic nature of the book.

While I agree that some people deny the prophetic nature of the book I don’t think your statement is entirerly accurate. Identifying Nero with 666 is a widespread belief between people who hold early and late dates.

 

[garysibio]

While I agree that some people deny the prophetic nature of the book I don’t think your statement is entirerly accurate. Identifying Nero with 666 is a widespread belief between people who hold early and late dates.

I know but I disagree with the view that diminishes or denies a prophetic reading of the book. Nero may have been an antichrist but he is not the Antichrist. Many of the ECFs write of the Antichrist as occurring in the future. Paul, in 2 Thes 2 implies he won’t be appearing in the near future.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I have no doubts that the Pope was doing his job, whatever he was doing then. Whether or not he directly dealt with those situations mentioned in Revelation does not cause me any problems, because the Lord seemed to be dealing with it well enough through St. John’s pen. Between all the work a 1st and 2nd century Pope dealt with under persecutions and not so quick communication issues and a ever growing Body of believers, the Pope no doubt was where God wanted him and dealing with plenty of issues. The Pope dealing with issues does not mean that he had to write it all down. It amazes me that we have anything preserved in writing from that long ago that managed to survive that long in a extremely hostile time for Christianity.

Granted, that is an interesting question you have, but we can ask similar questions why so many other writings have not survived. Or why did Jesus not leave us some writings. But it should never be a faith shaker.

 

[ryanoneil]

First, let me clarify that I am a Catholic and I believe in papal primacy. However, I have a problem. Catholic apologists often point to 1 Clement to prove that the Bishop of Rome acted as if he had authority over other churches. A lack of correction for the churches in Rev 2-3 provides similar fuel for the Protestant view that he did not. Once you open the door to the pope dealing with false teaching, he has to deal with them all or have a good answer why he responded in one case but not another.

I’m not familiar with the apologist use of 1 Clement and don’t really know anything about the document so I can’t really comment, but it seems like a false premise to say a pope would have to deal with all cases of correcting churches.

What if the Asia minor churches never appealed to the bishop of Rome to act as a final authority with their issues? What if certain elders just appealed to the apostle who was “leading” in the area? Now this is all speculation on my part, but do you see what I’m saying?

 

[ryanoneil]

I know but I disagree with the view that diminishes or denies a prophetic reading of the book. Nero may have been an antichrist but he is not the Antichrist. Many of the ECFs write of the Antichrist as occurring in the future. Paul, in 2 Thes 2 implies he won’t be appearing in the near future.

I think it is definately prophetic but don’t believe that chapters 4-19 “have to” necessarily play out in a future scenario. The Church has understood that we are in the 1,000 years of chapter 20 since the first century.

Might chapters 4-19 recapitulate in the future? It is certainly possible, but I believe it will occur in the time of Gog and Magog.

 

[garysibio]

I have no doubts that the Pope was doing his job, whatever he was doing then. Whether or not he directly dealt with those situations mentioned in Revelation does not cause me any problems, because the Lord seemed to be dealing with it well enough through St. John’s pen. Between all the work a 1st and 2nd century Pope dealt with under persecutions and not so quick communication issues and a ever growing Body of believers, the Pope no doubt was where God wanted him and dealing with plenty of issues. The Pope dealing with issues does not mean that he had to write it all down. It amazes me that we have anything preserved in writing from that long ago that managed to survive that long in a extremely hostile time for Christianity.

Granted, that is an interesting question you have, but we can ask similar questions why so many other writings have not survived. Or why did Jesus not leave us some writings. But it should never be a faith shaker.

Our certainty that the Pope was doing his job is not going to convince anyone who does not already believe in papal primacy.

The fact that we have so many documents but only one from a Pope could easily cause a problem for a non-believer. Either they were silent or the docs weren’t considered worth saving.

 

[garysibio]

I think it is definately prophetic but don’t believe that chapters 4-19 “have to” necessarily play out in a future scenario. The Church has understood that we are in the 1,000 years of chapter 20 since the first century.

I used to believe that this was the case until I read the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Millennium. I understand that the Church’s position is amillennial but that did not come about until the time of Augustine of Hippo.

• Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180) – Although none of his writings on this issue have survived, both Jerome [Comm. on Ezek. 36 ] and Gennadius [De Dogm. Eccl., Ch. 52] affirm that he was a millennarian.
• Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (d. c. 155), a disciple of St. John, advocated millenarianism. He claimed to have received this doctrine from contemporaries of the Apostles. According to Eusebius Papias taught that the resurrection of the dead would be followed by a 1,000 year period in which the Kingdom of God will reign in visible glory.
• Justin Martyr (103-165) – In his Dialogue with Trypho Justin writes that he and any Christian who hold to correct doctrine knows that the resurrection of the dead will be followed by a newly built Jerusalem which will last for 1,000 years. He does acknowledge that, although they are wrong, there are many pious believers who disagree.
• Irenaeus of Lyon – Irenaeus not only advocated premillenialism but claimed that other presbyteri who had been taught it by John the Apostle were also premillenialists. Note that this is the same John who wrote the Book of Revelation which contains the basis for the belief in a literal Millenium.
• Epistle of Barnabbas (2nd century AD) – The author bases a belief in the Millenium on the seventh day of creation in which God rested.
• Methodius, Bishop of Olympus (d. c. 311), was one of the principal opponents ofOrigen at the beginning of the fourth century. He defended Millenarianism in his Symposion (IX, 1, 5).
• Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea and founder of Apollinarism – Note: His writings on this subject have been lost.
• Basil of Caesarea (Epist. CCLXIII, 4)
• Epiphanius (Haeres. LXX, 36)
• Jerome (In Isai. XVIII) – Jerome relates that many Christians of his time were also Millenarialists.

 

[ryanoneil]

I used to believe that this was the case until I read the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Millennium. I understand that the Church’s position is amillennial but that did not come about until the time of Augustine of Hippo.

• Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180) – Although none of his writings on this issue have survived, both Jerome [Comm. on Ezek. 36 ] and Gennadius [De Dogm. Eccl., Ch. 52] affirm that he was a millennarian.
• Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (d. c. 155), a disciple of St. John, advocated millenarianism. He claimed to have received this doctrine from contemporaries of the Apostles. According to Eusebius Papias taught that the resurrection of the dead would be followed by a 1,000 year period in which the Kingdom of God will reign in visible glory.
• Justin Martyr (103-165) – In his Dialogue with Trypho Justin writes that he and any Christian who hold to correct doctrine knows that the resurrection of the dead will be followed by a newly built Jerusalem which will last for 1,000 years. He does acknowledge that, although they are wrong, there are many pious believers who disagree.
• Irenaeus of Lyon – Irenaeus not only advocated premillenialism but claimed that other presbyteri who had been taught it by John the Apostle were also premillenialists. Note that this is the same John who wrote the Book of Revelation which contains the basis for the belief in a literal Millenium.
• Epistle of Barnabbas (2nd century AD) – The author bases a belief in the Millenium on the seventh day of creation in which God rested.
• Methodius, Bishop of Olympus (d. c. 311), was one of the principal opponents ofOrigen at the beginning of the fourth century. He defended Millenarianism in his Symposion (IX, 1, 5).
• Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea and founder of Apollinarism – Note: His writings on this subject have been lost.
• Basil of Caesarea (Epist. CCLXIII, 4)
• Epiphanius (Haeres. LXX, 36)
• Jerome (In Isai. XVIII) – Jerome relates that many Christians of his time were also Millenarialists.

No doubt there were millennialist in the early church but the article states (in two places) that millennialism was not a universal doctrine of the Church or part of the Apostolic tradition. They were always a minority even during the times that they were most numerous. So none of the quotes shock me, and I don’t doubt the Church’s amillennial postion

And to counter one of the article’s quotes, Eusebius (known as the father of Church history) writes: “This same historian [Papias] also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as recieved by him from unwitten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather to fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writer, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments” ( *Ecclesiastical History *III:39 (c. 325)

 

[garysibio]

No doubt there were millennialist in the early church but the article states (in two places) that millennialism was not a universal doctrine of the Church or part of the Apostolic tradition. They were always a minority even during the times that they were most numerous. So none of the quotes shock me, and I don’t doubt the Church’s amillennial postion

And to counter one of the article’s quotes, Eusebius (known as the father of Church history) writes: “This same historian [Papias] also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as recieved by him from unwitten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather to fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writer, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments” ( *Ecclesiastical History *III:39 (c. 325)

I was just trying to show that the church’s amillennial position was not established at the end of the first century AD like you stated and I would have agreed with prior to reading the article a few weeks ago.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I put together a great deal on information in my Study Bible concerning millenialism, I highly recommend checking out the chart at the bottom of this link for quotes from the Early Church writers ocsb.wetpaint.com/page/Revelation+20 ,here is a quote from what I wrote concerning it in the Early Church

Below are various views concerning the millenium, thousand year reign of Christ. Though I hold amillennial views concerning this passage, I don’t scoff at the premillenial views since it was accepted by the likes of some great saints of the early Church as you can see below.

Typically the amillennialists understand the 1000 years to be the entire age of the Church from the time of Christ until the coming of the Antichrist near the end of the world. While most amillennialists understand the ‘1000 years’ to be symbolic of a long period of time and not a literal 1000 years, some did understand the Church age to last literally 1000 years, such as Thietland and Bulus al-Bushi, in which they also predicted when the end of the world would come. Time being unforgiving eventually proved their error.

Premillennialists believe that after the Church age the Antichrist will come, and once the Antichrist is defeated, Christ will bind Satan and literally reign 1000 years on earth in sort of a Sabbath like material kingdom. There are different variations about this position just as there are among amillennialists. Premillennialists typically believe in a literal 1000 year reign, but not all.

As we can see below, the premillennial view was held by some very early Fathers of the Church, such as St. Papias, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, etc. Origen saw that this understanding was a Jewish idea, which makes sense because many Jews were expecting the Messiah to come and to overthrow the Roman empire, in which their false messianic hope led them to not recognizing the Suffering Servant who came not to establish an earthly kingdom but a heavenly one. Perhaps some of the Jewish Christians held on to that understanding and applied it to the 1000 year reign found in Revelation 20. Since it was very common for Jewish rites and traditions to be practiced from time to time in order to avert the lack of belief of the Jewish Christians so that they would not feel as if they were being dragged away all at once from their beliefs, more than likely the earthly messianic kingdom that many Jews had hoped for while under Roman oppression was then transferred over to Christ’s second coming and gained some popularity among some early Christians, even Gentile Christians.

Another observation I find concerning the premillennial views of some of the Fathers is that their explanation about the 1000 year reign is very limited in the sense of an exposition and articulation of the passage found in Revelation. Their whole eschatology is quite undeveloped as well as often being inconsistant and contradictory to some of their own words in their whole body of writings.

Eusebius seemed to think that St. Papias is the main reason why some Church Fathers after him adopted a premillennial position, because he was among the Apostolic times. Eusebius was fortunate enough to have access to his writings, which are lost now, and he did not appear to be impressed with Papias’ ‘understanding’ on many things. Perhaps some of the misunderstandings of Papias was adopted by later Fathers like St. Irenaeus, who also had spurious ideas such as Jesus living to an old age (Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6), which is another tradition that he very likely got from Papias.

Among the many interpretations I find, the one by Oecumenius is quite appealing to me as he takes an independent route. He views the 1000 years to be the time of Christ’s Incarnation, and the binding of the Devil in the sense of the Devil not able to hinder the success of the Lord’s ministry. The only drawback I have with his interpretation is how he can view the 1000 years to be the 3 and half year ministry of the Christ while he considers the Devil being set loose for a “short time” as the entire time of the Church age. That just seems to be disproportionate even for symbolism, with a 1000 years symbolic of three and a half years, while going on 2000 years being symbolic of a short time.

 

[ryanoneil]

I was just trying to show that the church’s amillennial position was not established at the end of the first century AD like you stated and I would have agreed with prior to reading the article a few weeks ago.

I think it would be more accurate to say that amillennialism was being worked out but was not fully developed. The prevailing mindset of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition (Messiah would reign on earth for 1,000 years) was present without being thoroughly Christianized. As copland 3 said, the ECF’s articulation of eschatology is often undeveloped, inconsistant and contradictory. Justin Martyr, for example, had a basic amillenial view because he clearly believed the Kingdom’s benefits were already available in the Church. But his belief system contradicted itself because of the deeply rooted Jewish belief.

The Spirit of prophecy speaks. . . in this way: ‘For out of Zion shall go forth the law. . . And he shall judge amont the nations. . . and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.’ And it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For out of Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God." (Apologies for the Christian Religion XXXXIX (c.150), Justin Martyr)

He makes it clear that he believed the peace promises of the Old Testament were a present reality. Things that we said to happen during the Millenium. Do you see what I’m saying?

 

[Mintaka]

The reason we don’t have a lot of documents from the early Roman church, and from many of the other churches, is that in the early years of the Church we know for a fact that the Empire went after their records. The local Roman diocesan archives and library were destroyed at least once, and most likely several times. If there was time, the books and records would be sent to safe places or dispersed; but often the local bishops and deacons didn’t have time to do this.

There were two reasons for the Roman government to seize or destroy the archives, books, and other treasures.

1. Certain kinds of records were highly useful for evidence. Letters identified co-conspirators. So did baptismal records or accounts of widows and other dependents of the local church.
2. Sacred books, vessels, and other objects associated with Christianity were illegal objects, and evidence of illegality. Usually any valuable items were put to use by the local imperial officials or destroyed. Books associated with Christianity were burnt or otherwise destroyed if not useful.

It’s interesting that people should have this topic active this week, because IIRC, the persecution that resulted in the death of Pope Sixtus, the deacon St. Lawrence, and a ton of other papal officials was one of the times that the archive was destroyed. (This is why St. Lawrence is one of the patron saints of librarians and archivists.) It was known that St. Lawrence did manage to get a good chunk of the records and books spirited away, but that was quite an exception to the rule.

The established practice for Christians in times of persecution was to try to get all the Bible books away first (seeing as they needed them for liturgical use, whereas the others were just nice to have). Often they were buried in some remote place known only to the person to whom they were entrusted, never to be seen again if the person who hid them didn’t live to get them back. (Like whoever stashed the Dead Sea Scrolls, though that was a somewhat different situation.) So you can see how even beloved letters could quickly go by the wayside; some may even have been destroyed by Christians to prevent their use for bad purposes.

But yeah, there were plenty of later persecutions that were really really hard on Christian literature. Emperor Diocletian was in business for a long long time, and his guys were both efficient and knew what to look for.

If you ever want to get really depressed, go talk to a scholar about books and other Christian literary works that we know existed and were popular, and which now are gone entirely. We lost a lot of stuff just in the nineteenth and twentieth century, too, when scholars weren’t quick enough to copy it off. Of course, the flipside is that there’s a lot of stuff still out there to be found, particularly in Egypt, and a lot of stuff that’s never been translated or given much scholarly attention. A lot of good stuff is quietly waiting for us to bother to read it.

(That Hellenic Egyptian papyrus group-read project is an excellent start.)

 

[Mintaka]

Oh, I found some useful pages for folks.

The University of Michigan is doing a Vatican Archive partnering project, so they’ve put together some material on the history of the Vatican Library and Archives. As you’ll see, the papal records have had a pretty eventful life.