What do you think?
Rate this book
Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity
Regnum Caelorum is a groundbreaking book that explores the largely overlooked connection in early Christian thought between understandings of the millennium and the intermediate state of the soul after death. Charles Hill traces Christian views of the soul's fate in Jewish texts, the New Testament, and in early Christian writers through the mid-third century A.D. His findings lead to a provocative new assessment of the development of Christian eschatology that corrects many misconceptions of earlier scholarly research. This second edition updates and substantially expands Hill's highly respected original work published by Oxford.
- GenresTheologyChurch History
324 pages, Paperback
First published July 16, 1992
7 people are currently reading
116 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
April 4, 2012
An interesting survey of millennial doctrine in the early church. The predominate opinion amongst patristic historians has been that for the first couple centuries chiliasm (millennialism) dominated orthodox Christianity and that non-chiliasm was generally relegated to the Gnostic heretics. Dr. Hill convincingly challenges this characterization, contending that non-chiliasm was not only common but may well have even the majority position of early Christians.
One key that Hill uses to elucidate the millennial positions of writers who were less than clear is their doctrine of the intermediate state (that between death and resurrection) of believers. Taking his cue from Irenaeus, a chiliast who wrote explicitly of the connection, Hill contends that a belief in a heavenly intermediate state is strongly suggestive of non-chiliasm while a believe in a subterranean (Hades) intermediate state was characteristic of chiliasm. I was rather dubious of this assertion at first, given a seeming lack of such connections in modern millennial and amillennial positions. Hill recognizes that the connection is not one of necessity, acknowledging the existence of pre-Christian Jewish texts that do not follow this pattern, but he ably demonstrates how this association arose in apocalyptic thought in the Pharisaical traditions and was incorporated into the though of a number of influential Christian thinkers who showed awareness and dependence upon these Jewish works.
Most of the work is devoted to careful readings of and interactions with primary material from early Christian writers. The depth and breadth of his interaction with the early church is impressive. Hill shows that in virtually every case where we can reasonably infer an author's millennial and intermediate state doctrine, they fall into the pattern mentioned above. This gives him enough warrant to interact with those sources whose millennial position is less clear and use their doctrine of an intermediate state as a clue towards elucidating their millennial beliefs. Even in doing so, he never fails to carefully mine the original sources for more data supporting his conclusions. Rarely, if ever, does he argue that a particular author holding to a heavenly intermediate state, ipso facto, makes him a non-chiliast.
Hill also uses his close readings of original sources to develop insights into the non-chiliast patristic interpretation of Revelations 20, something I found particularly interesting. An interesting implication of Hill's work is that it demonstrates yet another area in which Christianity from its very earliest was differentiating itself from (or perhaps correcting) the dominant doctrinal features of the Jewish milieu in which it arose.
The work is nothing if not thoroughly scholarly, with copious amounts of footnoting and quoting from primary sources. That is a great strength of the work, but it also can make for a more difficult read for the more casual reader. If I have to find a criticism of the work, it was that I was not convinced by his application of the same method to the New Testament authors to prove their amillennialism. Surely the doctrine of inspired works would be less controlled by dependence on extracanonical Pharisaical modes of thought than that of uninspired works.
One key that Hill uses to elucidate the millennial positions of writers who were less than clear is their doctrine of the intermediate state (that between death and resurrection) of believers. Taking his cue from Irenaeus, a chiliast who wrote explicitly of the connection, Hill contends that a belief in a heavenly intermediate state is strongly suggestive of non-chiliasm while a believe in a subterranean (Hades) intermediate state was characteristic of chiliasm. I was rather dubious of this assertion at first, given a seeming lack of such connections in modern millennial and amillennial positions. Hill recognizes that the connection is not one of necessity, acknowledging the existence of pre-Christian Jewish texts that do not follow this pattern, but he ably demonstrates how this association arose in apocalyptic thought in the Pharisaical traditions and was incorporated into the though of a number of influential Christian thinkers who showed awareness and dependence upon these Jewish works.
Most of the work is devoted to careful readings of and interactions with primary material from early Christian writers. The depth and breadth of his interaction with the early church is impressive. Hill shows that in virtually every case where we can reasonably infer an author's millennial and intermediate state doctrine, they fall into the pattern mentioned above. This gives him enough warrant to interact with those sources whose millennial position is less clear and use their doctrine of an intermediate state as a clue towards elucidating their millennial beliefs. Even in doing so, he never fails to carefully mine the original sources for more data supporting his conclusions. Rarely, if ever, does he argue that a particular author holding to a heavenly intermediate state, ipso facto, makes him a non-chiliast.
Hill also uses his close readings of original sources to develop insights into the non-chiliast patristic interpretation of Revelations 20, something I found particularly interesting. An interesting implication of Hill's work is that it demonstrates yet another area in which Christianity from its very earliest was differentiating itself from (or perhaps correcting) the dominant doctrinal features of the Jewish milieu in which it arose.
The work is nothing if not thoroughly scholarly, with copious amounts of footnoting and quoting from primary sources. That is a great strength of the work, but it also can make for a more difficult read for the more casual reader. If I have to find a criticism of the work, it was that I was not convinced by his application of the same method to the New Testament authors to prove their amillennialism. Surely the doctrine of inspired works would be less controlled by dependence on extracanonical Pharisaical modes of thought than that of uninspired works.
January 4, 2024
Charles Hill presents the findings of his dissertation on patterns of millennial thought in the early church, considering the Apocrypha and heretical teachings as well. Hill provides evidence that Premillennialism (chiliasm) was not the universal opinion of the early church, despite what many modern Dispensationalists have claimed.
February 12, 2012
This is a tough one to review. On the one hand, I am deeply appreciative of Hill's close reading of early Christian texts. He spends his time almost exclusively dealing with primary sources, usually only resorting to more contemporary treatments to point out contrasts with his findings in the ancient source material. In this, Hill's book is a valuable contribution to the study of early Christianity and, in particular, eschatology.
That said, much of my concern about the actual argument in the book stems from his interpretive key: the notion that by looking at views on the intermediate state, we can assess the millennial views of these early Christians. By arguing that chiliasts hold to a subterranean dwelling for the dead in the intermediate state (between death and resurrection), and that non-chiliasts hold to a heavenly dwelling in the intermediate state, Hill finds non-chiliasts as early as Ignatius and Polycarp even though these authors say nothing explicit on the topic. That Hill acknowledges this problem in his introduction (page 6) is nice, but the relative certainty with which he speaks of non-chiliasm through the rest of the book and certainly in the conclusion seems to "forget" this rather large elephant in the room. While this is the most significant issue with the argument itself, I would also question Hill's reading of some of the chiliasts, particularly Justin Martyr.
That said, much of my concern about the actual argument in the book stems from his interpretive key: the notion that by looking at views on the intermediate state, we can assess the millennial views of these early Christians. By arguing that chiliasts hold to a subterranean dwelling for the dead in the intermediate state (between death and resurrection), and that non-chiliasts hold to a heavenly dwelling in the intermediate state, Hill finds non-chiliasts as early as Ignatius and Polycarp even though these authors say nothing explicit on the topic. That Hill acknowledges this problem in his introduction (page 6) is nice, but the relative certainty with which he speaks of non-chiliasm through the rest of the book and certainly in the conclusion seems to "forget" this rather large elephant in the room. While this is the most significant issue with the argument itself, I would also question Hill's reading of some of the chiliasts, particularly Justin Martyr.
April 1, 2024
An impressive survey of beliefs from the early Church. Hill's primary argument in this publication of his dissertation is that the chiliasm of the early Church was inextricably intertwined with a view of the intermediate state in which the saints were not permitted entrance to heaven/Christ's presence until after Christ's return/their bodily resurrection while the non-chiliastic view (amillennialism) understood the saints as gaining entrance to God's presence immediately upon death. With this eschatological pattern in mind, he then is able to ascertain many early writers' view of the millennium on the basis of their view of the intermediate state (since many left no record of their millennial view).
Hill also discusses the (more or less) explicit eschatological views of several writers/groups and shows that the scholarship up to the time of writing had sometimes attributed views to writers that the evidence did not support. In particular, the Montanists, often decried as a large reason the early Church abandoned chiliasm, never embraced the chiliast view according to Hill's examination. The claims that see them as premillennialists are either simply unsupported altogether or misread the available evidence.
Hill's arguments are well reasoned and his examinations are thorough. The sheer number of citations (whether simply references or often interactions) with other scholars shows that Hill's research is substantial.
He writes as a scholar for scholars and thus he sometimes does not interact with Scripture as ultimately authoritative. This is not to say he does not view it as such! But for someone used to seeing appeals to Scripture made with a certain deference given to the divine authorship, Hill's approach that occasionally could be taken as allowing a wedge between the meanings of the various human authors can be jarring. Similarly, when Hill takes his opposing patterns of eschatological thought and asks which pattern the Scriptural authors fit, he can appear as allowing human interpretations/understandings to override the uniqueness of the divine revelation; I do not believe this is his intent, but let the reader be aware.
Overall, this is an excellent book! Hill shows that the amillennial position enjoyed widespread and early support within the early Church, tracing its roots all the way back to the Apostle John (and possibly other, non-apostolic men found found in Scripture). He does not state it but the evidence he presents could be read as showing premillennialism as the minority (though substantial at times) position rather than the majority view. Well worth a read!
Hill also discusses the (more or less) explicit eschatological views of several writers/groups and shows that the scholarship up to the time of writing had sometimes attributed views to writers that the evidence did not support. In particular, the Montanists, often decried as a large reason the early Church abandoned chiliasm, never embraced the chiliast view according to Hill's examination. The claims that see them as premillennialists are either simply unsupported altogether or misread the available evidence.
Hill's arguments are well reasoned and his examinations are thorough. The sheer number of citations (whether simply references or often interactions) with other scholars shows that Hill's research is substantial.
He writes as a scholar for scholars and thus he sometimes does not interact with Scripture as ultimately authoritative. This is not to say he does not view it as such! But for someone used to seeing appeals to Scripture made with a certain deference given to the divine authorship, Hill's approach that occasionally could be taken as allowing a wedge between the meanings of the various human authors can be jarring. Similarly, when Hill takes his opposing patterns of eschatological thought and asks which pattern the Scriptural authors fit, he can appear as allowing human interpretations/understandings to override the uniqueness of the divine revelation; I do not believe this is his intent, but let the reader be aware.
Overall, this is an excellent book! Hill shows that the amillennial position enjoyed widespread and early support within the early Church, tracing its roots all the way back to the Apostle John (and possibly other, non-apostolic men found found in Scripture). He does not state it but the evidence he presents could be read as showing premillennialism as the minority (though substantial at times) position rather than the majority view. Well worth a read!
September 29, 2023
I have been studying the book of Revelation intensively for about two years, and I am undecided about the meaning of the thousand years in chapter 20. Is it a literal thousand year reign on earth, or a figurative reign in heaven? The author of Revelation simply doesn’t say. This doesn’t stop expositors for proclaiming that the text "clearly" (they all seem to love that word) says one or the other.
Premillennialists often claim that the earliest Christians were predominantly premillennial, a claim that is usually left unchallenged by the amillenialists. In this book, Charles E. Hill challenges that claim and finds a lot of evidence that it is not true. The express statements of the grandsons of Jude as reported by Hegesippus, of Hermas, the authors of 2 Clement, the Epistula Apostolorum, and the Apocalypse of Peter, as well as of Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Cyprian, concerning general eschatology enable us to say with little or no hesitation that all held amillennial expectations of the return of Christ. p. 249
An interesting finding of Hill's is that the belief of early Christians in an earthly millennial reign of Christ was accompanied by a belief in an intermediate state of the righteous soul in Hades rather than in heaven. This is to be contrasted with the belief of the early amillennialists in an intermediate state of the righteous soul in heaven: the view typically found in the New Testament and in the book of Revelation itself. Are we to judge, therefore, that the authors of the New Testament and of Revelation were amillennialists? Hill does not go so far, but he does note we have found no instances in which early millennialists believed in an intermediate state in heaven.
Premillennialists often claim that the earliest Christians were predominantly premillennial, a claim that is usually left unchallenged by the amillenialists. In this book, Charles E. Hill challenges that claim and finds a lot of evidence that it is not true. The express statements of the grandsons of Jude as reported by Hegesippus, of Hermas, the authors of 2 Clement, the Epistula Apostolorum, and the Apocalypse of Peter, as well as of Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Cyprian, concerning general eschatology enable us to say with little or no hesitation that all held amillennial expectations of the return of Christ. p. 249
An interesting finding of Hill's is that the belief of early Christians in an earthly millennial reign of Christ was accompanied by a belief in an intermediate state of the righteous soul in Hades rather than in heaven. This is to be contrasted with the belief of the early amillennialists in an intermediate state of the righteous soul in heaven: the view typically found in the New Testament and in the book of Revelation itself. Are we to judge, therefore, that the authors of the New Testament and of Revelation were amillennialists? Hill does not go so far, but he does note we have found no instances in which early millennialists believed in an intermediate state in heaven.
December 21, 2020
Hill seeks to elucidate patterns of early millennial thought by connecting beliefs about the millennium to beliefs regarding the intermediate state. According to Irenaeus, those Christians of the early church who believed in a future earthly millennium also believed the souls of the departed Christians were kept in Hades until the resurrection. By contrast, those who denied the coming earthly millennium saw the intermediate state as taking place in heaven. With this connection Hill is able to demonstrate that a considerable number of church fathers were in fact "amillennial" in their eschatological outlook. An excellent study for anyone interested in patristic studies or eschatology.
June 19, 2020
A challenging but fascinating look into the eschatology of the early church. Hill demonstrates that not only was an amillennial (non-chiliastic) interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 quite common in the writings of the Church Fathers, but that it appears that the millennial view of most was intimately related to one's view of the intermediate state of the soul.
December 31, 2020
Excellent collection of church fathers and eschatology.
Two major theses of this book:
1) In the early church, Millenialism was heavily linked to the belief that saints remained in Hades until the second advent, hence, the need for a millennial kingdom.
2) Non-millennial eschatology was predominant in the church fathers.
Two major theses of this book:
1) In the early church, Millenialism was heavily linked to the belief that saints remained in Hades until the second advent, hence, the need for a millennial kingdom.
2) Non-millennial eschatology was predominant in the church fathers.
January 24, 2024
Overall a helpful book. My only gripe is that there are people whom Hill puts in the non-chilliast camp that it seems quite unclear. I wish there was a third category of those whose exact positions are unknown.
January 22, 2018
Not easy reading, but incredibly helpful.
July 7, 2020
Magisterial and paradigm shifting!
February 12, 2017
This is a very well researched and argued book. The author is acquainted with all sorts of literature on the patristic resources and their eschatologies, in multiple languages! Although very academic, it was surprisingly enjoyable, especially to research.
This is probably the book that I most thoroughly have studied (aside from Scripture) and checked the references to the Fathers, especially of the chiliasts, in the Church Fathers volumes available online and read them in context. The author does not take them out of context. It was surprising to me how the chiliasts of the first three centuries, at least, denied a heavenly intermediate state to believers. It seems so clear to me from the Scripture and therefore I was really surprised.
The theses of the book is to show how closely related the idea of a subterranean intermediate state is related to chiliasm. He defines chilism as the belief in an intermediate earthly kingdom after the resurrection and before the final judgment. This is a wide definition and hereby he surveys Jewish and Christian literature around that time concerning this idea of an intermediate kingdom on earth of whatever length.
Whenever the idea of a subterranean intermediate state is found, it is held by chiliasts. The only exception is Methodius of Olympus. All the other chiliasts which were surveyed from the first three centuries, held to a subterranean intermediate state for the dead. The translated (e.g. Elijah, Enoch, the Lord Jesus) were already in heaven, in the presence of God. Some (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian) allowed martyrs in heaven. While the rest of the chiliasts of this period (with surviving material, at least) did not make a concession for the martyrs.
I loved and enjoyed the honestly of the author. When some fathers provided a basic Amillennial scheme without saying something direct about the Millennium, he was careful to classify them as indefinite or perhaps Amillennarian. This, I believe, is not the typical premillenniarian aproach.
While surveying Jewish literature as 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, he showed how many of the concepts of the early Christian chiliasts were basically borrowed or influenced by extra-biblical Jewish literature, and not by Scripture directly. The idea of a subterranean intermediate state is straight out of extra-biblical Jewish sources.
His survey of the non-chiliasts was also enjoyable. The non-chiliasts who were surveyed include Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hermas, Melito of Sardis, Jude's grandsons, Hippolytus, Origen and Cyprian.
His quick survey of the intermediate state in the NT was likewise enjoyable. There is a chapter on the book of Revelation and how it is inconsistent with chiliasm, especially in light of its recognition of a heavenly intermediate state. I was very glad that he put all the non-chiliastic comments on Revelation 20 in a separate chapter, easily accessible.
Although academic and technical at times, this book was a very enjoyable read and very enlightening. I will no doubt revisit some sections again!
This is probably the book that I most thoroughly have studied (aside from Scripture) and checked the references to the Fathers, especially of the chiliasts, in the Church Fathers volumes available online and read them in context. The author does not take them out of context. It was surprising to me how the chiliasts of the first three centuries, at least, denied a heavenly intermediate state to believers. It seems so clear to me from the Scripture and therefore I was really surprised.
The theses of the book is to show how closely related the idea of a subterranean intermediate state is related to chiliasm. He defines chilism as the belief in an intermediate earthly kingdom after the resurrection and before the final judgment. This is a wide definition and hereby he surveys Jewish and Christian literature around that time concerning this idea of an intermediate kingdom on earth of whatever length.
Whenever the idea of a subterranean intermediate state is found, it is held by chiliasts. The only exception is Methodius of Olympus. All the other chiliasts which were surveyed from the first three centuries, held to a subterranean intermediate state for the dead. The translated (e.g. Elijah, Enoch, the Lord Jesus) were already in heaven, in the presence of God. Some (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian) allowed martyrs in heaven. While the rest of the chiliasts of this period (with surviving material, at least) did not make a concession for the martyrs.
I loved and enjoyed the honestly of the author. When some fathers provided a basic Amillennial scheme without saying something direct about the Millennium, he was careful to classify them as indefinite or perhaps Amillennarian. This, I believe, is not the typical premillenniarian aproach.
While surveying Jewish literature as 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, he showed how many of the concepts of the early Christian chiliasts were basically borrowed or influenced by extra-biblical Jewish literature, and not by Scripture directly. The idea of a subterranean intermediate state is straight out of extra-biblical Jewish sources.
His survey of the non-chiliasts was also enjoyable. The non-chiliasts who were surveyed include Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hermas, Melito of Sardis, Jude's grandsons, Hippolytus, Origen and Cyprian.
His quick survey of the intermediate state in the NT was likewise enjoyable. There is a chapter on the book of Revelation and how it is inconsistent with chiliasm, especially in light of its recognition of a heavenly intermediate state. I was very glad that he put all the non-chiliastic comments on Revelation 20 in a separate chapter, easily accessible.
Although academic and technical at times, this book was a very enjoyable read and very enlightening. I will no doubt revisit some sections again!
Read
August 5, 2014Though the earliest writers who touch on the issue of the Millennium hold a millennial view, both Justin and Irenaeus affirm that some of orthodox Christians also held to an amillennial view. Hill proposes that we can identify who these people were by trying to identify wider systems of eschatology that extend beyond the millennial issue alone. Hill argues that those who affirmed a millennium also held that the redeemed existed in a subterranean intermediate state awaiting the resurrection of the body. On the other hand Christian writers who oppose millennialism all held that the soul ascends to God’s presence in heaven in the intermediate state. Hill grants that it is theoretically possible that a person held to a heavenly intermediate state and a millennium, but he argues in response that there is no evidence that such a position existed.
Based on the link between a heavenly millennial state and amillennialism, Hill concludes that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Athenagrous, Meilto of Sardis, and others held to the amillennial position. The most significant name on that list is Polycarp. Polycarp is the link between the apostle John and Irenaeus—between the apostle whose writing contains the key New Testament millennial text and the chief early defender of the millennial position.
If Polycarp held to an amillennial position, how did his student, Irenaeus, come to hold a millennial position? Hill argues that Irenaeus changed to the millennialist position in the course of writing Against Heresies in order to strengthen his position against Gnosticism. Gnostics would be content with a spiritual existence in the presence of God but a subterranean intermediate state defers that until after the bodily resurrection and a Millennial reign of Christ affirms the goodness of the material creation.
If Hill is correct, then Irenaeus inherited an amillennial position from Polycarp that he later abandoned. Since Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, this would strengthen claims that John was not a millennialist. Indeed, Hill argues that since John (and the rest of the New Testament) teach a heavenly intermediate state at odds with the millennial position’s subterranean intermediate state, the New Testament is amillenial.
Hill is an erudite scholar who is familiar with the patristic writings. In closely examining the passages that Hill claimed evidenced changes in Irenaeus's theology, I found convincing the claim that he shifted from a heavenly to a subterranean intermediate state. However, I found unconvincing the claim that he shifted from an amillennial to a millennial position. The texts that Hill appealed to as being amillennial were not clearly such. In addition Irenaeus explicitly claims having received his millennial interpretations from the elders, which would likely have included Polycarp. Further, a key point in Irenaeus's theology is that what is received from the elders is the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. It is unlikely that he would have changed positions on an interpretation he attributes to the elders. The upshot of accepting HIll's argument that Irenaeus changed positions on the intermediate state but rejecting his argument that Irenaeus changed millennial positions is that evidence does therefore exist for millennialists who also held to a heavenly intermediate state (the early Irenaues being a prime example). Hill's claim that belief in a heavenly intermediate state is evidence of amillennialism therefore does not hold. Indeed, if one shifts from a focus on the intermediate state to eternal state, it becomes clear that the patristic amillennialists held to a spiritual eternal state while, according to amillennialists such as Turretin, Bavinck, Hoekema, Horton, and Venema, the NT teaches an earthly eternal state.
Based on the link between a heavenly millennial state and amillennialism, Hill concludes that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Athenagrous, Meilto of Sardis, and others held to the amillennial position. The most significant name on that list is Polycarp. Polycarp is the link between the apostle John and Irenaeus—between the apostle whose writing contains the key New Testament millennial text and the chief early defender of the millennial position.
If Polycarp held to an amillennial position, how did his student, Irenaeus, come to hold a millennial position? Hill argues that Irenaeus changed to the millennialist position in the course of writing Against Heresies in order to strengthen his position against Gnosticism. Gnostics would be content with a spiritual existence in the presence of God but a subterranean intermediate state defers that until after the bodily resurrection and a Millennial reign of Christ affirms the goodness of the material creation.
If Hill is correct, then Irenaeus inherited an amillennial position from Polycarp that he later abandoned. Since Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, this would strengthen claims that John was not a millennialist. Indeed, Hill argues that since John (and the rest of the New Testament) teach a heavenly intermediate state at odds with the millennial position’s subterranean intermediate state, the New Testament is amillenial.
Hill is an erudite scholar who is familiar with the patristic writings. In closely examining the passages that Hill claimed evidenced changes in Irenaeus's theology, I found convincing the claim that he shifted from a heavenly to a subterranean intermediate state. However, I found unconvincing the claim that he shifted from an amillennial to a millennial position. The texts that Hill appealed to as being amillennial were not clearly such. In addition Irenaeus explicitly claims having received his millennial interpretations from the elders, which would likely have included Polycarp. Further, a key point in Irenaeus's theology is that what is received from the elders is the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. It is unlikely that he would have changed positions on an interpretation he attributes to the elders. The upshot of accepting HIll's argument that Irenaeus changed positions on the intermediate state but rejecting his argument that Irenaeus changed millennial positions is that evidence does therefore exist for millennialists who also held to a heavenly intermediate state (the early Irenaues being a prime example). Hill's claim that belief in a heavenly intermediate state is evidence of amillennialism therefore does not hold. Indeed, if one shifts from a focus on the intermediate state to eternal state, it becomes clear that the patristic amillennialists held to a spiritual eternal state while, according to amillennialists such as Turretin, Bavinck, Hoekema, Horton, and Venema, the NT teaches an earthly eternal state.
Read
May 26, 2015What did the early church believe about the millennial reign? Hill presents a cross-section of views, and he ultimately concludes that they weren't chilaists (view that the thousand years in Revelation are literal).
Biggest disappointment:
I was excited to study early church history. I presumed that the closer we get to the beginning, the clearer the picture would be. Unfortunately, this hasn't panned out. They were struggling to make sense of things same as we are. The good news is, we're on the same page. Orthodoxy has remained largely consistent through the debates, doldrums, and dropped balls.
Except, ironically, on the issue of chilaism.
Biggest disappointment:
I was excited to study early church history. I presumed that the closer we get to the beginning, the clearer the picture would be. Unfortunately, this hasn't panned out. They were struggling to make sense of things same as we are. The good news is, we're on the same page. Orthodoxy has remained largely consistent through the debates, doldrums, and dropped balls.
Except, ironically, on the issue of chilaism.
May 15, 2014
An intriguing read. Hill's work can be summed up in these words from his last section entitled, 'Some Observations on New Testament Eschatology': 'Further, documents, whether apocalyptic or not, that are roughly contemporary and that share with Revelation a heavenly notion of the intermediate state are virtually unanimously not interested in a chiliastic expectation. Easy assumptions about chiliasm being 'canonically formulated' in John's Revelation can no longer stand.' Thoroughly enjoyed Hill's groundbreaking work.
December 6, 2011
Excellent work revealing that the Non-Chiliast view of the Millennium was prevalent in the post-Apostolic Church.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews