Introduction

As noted in the overview of Papias, if one accepts the testimony of Irenaeus[1] and Eusebius[2], Papias definitely falls into the premillennial camp.[3]  The Kingdom in Papias can be summarized as including the following elements:

1) It will last 1,000years.  2) The dead will be raised first before the kingdom is inaugurated.  3) The kingdom will be swmatikws (physical) in its nature.[4]  4) The kingdom will be on this earth.  5) The earth will experience tremendous fruitfulness and produce in abundance.[5]  For Papias, this was not such an outlandish concept.  In Fragment 14 he does state that “These things are believable to those who believe.” 6) Creation will be liberated which will include the animal kingdom being at peace within itself, the animal kingdom subject to man and not every person will see these events.

     Although it is clear from Papias’ writing that he should be classified as a premillennialist, Boyd offers four points to consider about the “type” of premillennialists Papias should classified under.  He points out the differences between the modern-day premillennial eschatology and that of Papias.  First, Papias does not view the millennium as a climax of God’s dealing with Israel.  Second, he does not strictly follow the literal method of interpretation rigorously as seen in Fragments 12 and 13.  In Fragment 12, he adopts the allegorical method, and interprets the days of creation as an adumbration of world history. “The whole six days (haxaemeron) refers to Christ and the Church.”  He is classified with Philo in fragment 13 as one who interpreted “the sayings about Paradise spiritually (pneumatikws).”  Third, there is no mention of a rapture before the coming of the Lord.  Fourth, there is a resurrection immediately[6] before the kingdom is established.[7]

     Another line of attack which has been used against Papias relates to the geographical region from which he lived and developed his theology. “It is instructive to note that most of the early adherents of premillennialism, or chiliasm as it was first called, either had direct contact with the longest living apostle or with his most famous disciple, Polycarp.”[8]  He then makes the point that Asia Minor became the spawning ground for less-than-orthodox apocalyptic ideas for the next few centuries.[9]  For example, Cerinthus[10] (active in Asia Minor approx. 100 AD) proclaimed a millennial kingdom where all sorts of luxury and sensual delights would be available.  According to Epiphanius,[11] he also taught that Christ had not yet truly risen, but is waiting for the time when all the believers will be raised.[12]  Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia was also from this area and had close contact with the disciples most influenced by the Johannine writings.  Montanism, which apparently originated from this same region (Phrygia) in about 170 AD also held to a premillennial viewpoint.  Their prophetess Maximilla proclaimed, “After me there will be no more prophets, but only the consummation.”[13]  They also believed that the New Jerusalem would descend out of heaven on the Phrygian village of Pepuza.  “There is nothing in the ancient sources to suggest the sect had any marked apocalyptic character, or that is eschatological hope differed substantially from the general sense of second-century Christians that the end was near.”[14]  “When the roots of early views on the coming kingdom of Christ are examined, there can be little question that geographically Asia Minor was the most effective incubator for primitive premillennialism.”[15]   Some have made an attempt to include Ignatius in this same line of thinking due to his relationship with Polycarp.[16]

The Resurrection

It is clear for Papias that the resurrection will precede the kingdom (Eusebius EH 3.39.12), and it will not include all of humanity (Irenaeus AH 5.33.4).  Fragment 7 points out that the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints. Where there is a partial picture, one must be careful- Rev 20 says nothing of an abundance as Papias says nothing of a resurrection at the end. 

The Immediacy of the Lord’s Return

     Papias held to a view of history similar to Barnabas (15.1-9) as seen in Frag 12.  It appears that he expected the Second Advent and the establishing of the kingdom could come at any time (cf. Eusebius EH 3.9.12).

The Emphasis upon Verbal Testimony

     The doctrine of the literal and physical reign of Christ on the earth is primarily based on verbal testimony.  The idea that he was a disciple of John is well documented.[17]   He himself appeal to the living voice rather than book knowledge (Fragments 2, 4).  This could be a possible weakness as to the things, if any, which Papias heard from the apostle John.        

----

[1] Irenaeus used Papias as support for his position (AH 5.3f.).  He may have been attracted to Papias due to his recapitulation theory where he writes creatura renovata et liberata.  There will be both a renovatio naturae and a liberatio naturae, which will undo the curse of Gen 3 when the Messiah establishes his kingdom.

[2] Manson, p. 25 “reveals unscriptural pictures of the delights of a materialistic millennium.”

Eusebius attacks him and makes the point that Papias was not smart enough to figure out that they were speaking “mystically and in figures.”  A point to be made is that this is possible since grapes are referred to as speaking.

[3] It is interesting that this is the only doctrine attributed to him.  Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 5vols. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), vol. 1 The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 12  “The only doctrinal position definitely attributed to him was the teaching, which he claimed to have derived from ‘unwritten tradition,’ that ‘there will be a millennium following the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ is to be established physically on the earth.” Even Kromminga, who argues that Barnabas was amillennial, states that there “is very little room for doubt,” in reference to this point (p. 54). 

[4] It is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for Papias could have been speaking figuratively when he described the abundance in the millennium.  “The somatikos of Eusebius and his charge of literalism made against Papias in precisely this matter make any substantially allegorical interpretation of Papias’ doctrine unthinkable.” O’Hagan, . 36  One point which could possibly be made against this is that nobody assumes that Papias believed that the grapes would literally cry out.  

[5] (See Baruch 29.5 “The earth shall also yield its fruit ten thousandfold and on vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch shall produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster shall produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produced a cor of wine and 1 Enoch 10.18-19 “And then shall the whole earth be tilled in righteousness, and shall all be planted with trees and full of blessings.  And all the desirable trees shall be planted on it, and they shall plant vines on it: and the vine which they plant thereon shall yield wine in abundance, and as for all the seed which is sown thereon each measure shall bear a thousand, and each measure of olives shall yield its fruit ten presses of oil.” 

[6] Where there is a partial picture, one must be careful- Rev 20 says nothing of an abundance as Papias says nothing of a resurrection at the end. 

[7] Boyd does note that since Papias’ writings are only fragmentary, we can only base these points on that which we have available.  It could also be added that there is not mention of a “rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem.  Barnabas is the only one who addresses this issue and 16.1-4 his eschatology was stimulated by the idea that the Temple, which was destroyed in 70 AD, was about to be rebuilt.  The true Temple is the collection of the true believers (4.11; 16.6ff) and has nothing to do with the Jewish nation. 

[8]   (Crutchfield, p. 412).

[9] In my line of thinking, this should be used to strengthen the idea that the Church held to a premillennial eschatology in that area of the world, and what these groups did was adopt the prevailing eschatological view and perverted other aspects related to Soteriology and Christology.  The question would have to be asked, “Where did these groups get the notion of a literal millennium, they didn’t get it from the Church. It could be that these groups are corruption of the truth rather than a spawning ground of aberrant doctrines.

The objection seems to prove the case rather than refute it. 

[10] (Irenaeus discusses the day when John the apostle went to a local bathhouse in Ephesus, in which Cerinthus was present: “he rushed out of the bathhouse without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bathhouse fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4).

[11]  (Pan 28.6.1)

[12]  (cf. Augustine, De Haer 8).

[13]  (Pan 48.2-4).

[14]  (Daley, p. 18) 

[15] (Crutchfield, p. 412)  (See Crutchfield’s article where he analyzes seven fathers who have varying degrees of a premillennial position: Polycarp, Ignatius, Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Irenaeus.

[16] Some argue this point based on the concept that he was a disciple of the apostle John.  The earliest known text to verify such a position is from the sixth century work Antiochene Acts, where it is recorded that “Ignatius the disciple of the apostle John.” (Antiochene Acts 1)  (See Crutchfield p. 416-419- weak) or by pointing to evidence that he spent time with Polycarp in Smyrna since he wrote four epistle there (See Eph 21; Mag 15; Trall 12; Rom 10) and became well acquainted with the bishop there (Pol 1).  The weakness of this position is that it is based in the idea that Polycarp was premillennial, and the evidence that Polycarp was premillennial is based on evidence from other writers.  We have no direct statements to prove these points. 

[17] Eusebius refers to John as the source (Fragments 2,6; 1,4) and Irenaeus once (Fragments 1,4)