The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

II. Irenaeus—Stresses Antichrist, Resurrections, and Millennium

Nothing is known positively as to the origin of the Gallican church, but probably its pathfinders came from Asia Minor, which was connected in many ways with the church of Gaul. A fierce persecution of the Christians of Lyons and Vienne in A.D. 177, was the occasion of an epistle to “the brethren in Asia and Phrygia.” ³ At this time we find Irenaeus, then a presbyter, as their representative and letter bearer. ⁴ PFF1 242.3

IRENAEUS (c. 130-c. 202), bishop of Lyons at the end of the second century, was born in Asia Minor. Although he had received a Greek education, he nevertheless belonged to the West, and was one of the most renowned and learned of the early fathers. Irenaeus is quoted as saying that in his youth he listened to Polycarp, who had had personal acquaintance “with John and with others who had seen the Lord.” ⁵ PFF1 243.1

Irenaeus combined a vast missionary and literary activity, laboring by tongue and pen for the evangelization of southern Gaul, sending missionaries into other regions of what is now France. Thus we are introduced to the church in her Western outposts, on the banks of the Rhone. Taking a leading part in ecclesiastical and controversial matters of the time, Irenaeus was the champion of orthodoxy against the Gnostic heresy in the last quarter of the second century, and acted as mediator between the East and the West. As a premillennialist he specifically defended his faith against the Platonizing Gnostics. ⁶ PFF1 243.2

1. Life Devoted To Battling Heresies

During the terrible persecution in the reign of Aurelius (A.D. 177), Irenaeus was sent to Rome with letters of remonstrance against the increasing menace of heresy. Arrived there, lie found the bishop of Rome under the influence of Montanism. This situation led Irenaeus into his lifelong struggle with heresy and the sects. When, upon his return, the emissaries of heresy began to extend their licentious practices and foolish doctrines, he studied these fallacies as a physician studies diseases-classifying, describing, and countering them. He even sought to correct the bishop of Rome, reproving “the heresy of Eleutherus and the spirit of Diotrephes in Victor,” the next bishop in line. ⁷ PFF1 243.3

Irenaeus was the first patristic writer to make full use of the New Testament, showing both the Old and the New Testament to be in opposition to Gnosticism. He likewise distinguished between the canonical and the apocryphal writings. ⁸ His monumental works include the five-book treatise Against Heresies, described as the “polemic theological masterpiece of the ante-Nicene age, and the richest mine of information respecting Gnosticism and the church doctrine of that age.” ⁹ The intent can be grasped only as the time and circumstance of writing are considered. With the Gnostic heresy sweeping like a pestilence over great sections of the church, Irenaeus labored to make it impossible for anyone to confound Gnosticism with Christianity, and impossible for such a monstrous system to survive. He demonstrated its essential oneness with the old mythology and with heathen philosophy. PFF1 243.4

Although the first four books constitute a minute analysis and refutation of the heretical Gnostic doctrines, ¹⁰ the fifth is a statement of positive belief. To the constantly shifting and contradictory opinions of the heretics, Irenaeus opposes the steadfast faith of the church. This he rests upon the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles as transmitted through their epistles, and upon the teachings of the church, ¹¹ then but a century and a half old. Thus we see how later tradition came to have its inception. PFF1 244.1

2. Rome, The Fourth Kingdom, To Be Partitioned

Irenaeus, like Justin, appeals to the prophecies to demonstrate the truthfulness of Christianity. The close relationship between the predicted events of Daniel 2 and 7 is brought out with remarkable clarity, with Rome as the fourth kingdom in the great succession to end in a tenfold partition. ¹² PFF1 244.2

“Daniel also says particularly, that the end of the fourth kingdom consists in the toes of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar, upon which came the stone cut out without hands; and as he does himself say: ‘The feet were indeed the one part iron, the other part clay, until the stone was cut out without hands, and struck the image upon the iron and clay feet, and dashed them into pieces, even to the end.’ Then afterwards, when interpreting this, he says: ‘And as thou sawest the feet and the toes, partly indeed of clay, and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided, and there shall be in it a root of iron, as thou sawest iron mixed with baked clay. And the toes were indeed the one part iron, but the other part clay.’ The ten toes, therefore, are these ten kings, among whom the kingdom shall be partitioned, of whom some indeed shall be strong and active, or energetic; others, again, shall be sluggish and useless, and shall not agree.” ¹⁴ PFF1 245.1

3. STONE SMITES KINGDOM AFTER DIVISION

Irenaeus shows that Christ, the prophesied “stone,” cut out of the mountain without hands, does not smite the image before but after Rome’s division. ¹⁵ He definitely dates the heaven-descending stone smiting the monarchy-image in the time of the “toes.” PFF1 245.2

4. LITTLE HORN SUPPLANTS THREE OF ROME’S TEN DIVISIONS

Irenaeus asserts that the “little horn” is to supplant three of Rome’s ten divisions. ¹⁶ He also identifies the ten divisions of the empire with the “ten horns” of Daniel 7 and with the “ten horns” in Revelation 17. Thus he makes Daniel’s “little horn” the still future “eighth” in Revelation, supplanting three and subjecting the remainder. And he climaxes with the destruction of all at the second advent. PFF1 245.3

“In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him: ‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast .... These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.’ It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.” ¹⁷ PFF1 245.4

5. ANTICHRIST IS MAN OF SIN, BEAST, AND LITTLE HORN

Irenaeus regards Antichrist as another name for Paul’s apostate Man of Sin. PFF1 246.1

“By means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one) in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself (all) satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do (now) worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: ‘Unless there shall come a falling away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.’ ¹⁸ PFF1 246.2

He definitely identifies the same Man of Sin with Daniel’s Little Horn: PFF1 246.3

“Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face .... Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to the Thessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says: ‘And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy by the presence of His coming; whose coming [i.e., the wicked one’s] is after the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and portents of lies, and with all deceivableness of wickedness for those who perish; because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And therefore God will send them the working of error, that they may believe a lie; that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but gave consent to iniquity.’ ‘’ ¹⁹ PFF1 246.4

He also identifies Antichrist as John’s Beast, quoting Revelation 13:2-10 : PFF1 247.1

“For when he (Antichrist) is come, and of his own accord concentrates in his own person the apostasy, and accomplishes whatever he shall do according to his own will and choice, sitting also in the temple of God, so that his dupes may adore him as the Christ; wherefore also shall he deservedly ‘be cast into the lake of fire:’ [this will happen according to divine appointment, God by His prescience foreseeing all this, and at the proper time sending such a man, ‘that they may believe a lie, that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but consented to unrighteousness;’ whose coming John has thus described in the Apocalypse: ‘And the beast which I had seen was like unto a leopard, and his feet as of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion; and the dragon conferred his own power upon him, and his throne, and great might.”’ ²⁰ PFF1 247.2

Irenaeus seeks to apply other expressions to Antichrist, such as “the abomination of desolation,” mentioned by Christ (Matthew 24:15) and the “king of a most fierce countenance,” in Gabriel’s explanation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8. But he is not very definite as to how “the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away” during the “half-week,” ²¹ or three and one-half years of Antichrist’s reign. Under the notion that the Antichrist, as a single individual, might be of Jewish origin, he fancies that the mention of “Dan,” in Jeremiah 8:16, and the omission of that name from those tribes listed in Revelation 7, might indicate Antichrist’s tribe ²² This surmise became the foundation of a series of subsequent interpretations, as will appear later. PFF1 247.3

6. THREE AND A HALF TIMES LITERAL YEARS

Irenaeus, like the other early church fathers who could not foresee the lapse of ages before the end of all things, interpreted the three and one-half “times” of the Little Horn of Daniel 7 as three and one-half literal years, which would immediately precede Christ’s second advent, identified with the lawless reign of Antichrist. PFF1 247.4

“‘He shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,’ that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to the Thessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says: ‘And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy by the presence of His coming.”’ ²³ PFF1 248.1

Antichrist’s three and a half years of sitting in the temple are placed by Irenaeus immediately before the second coming of Christ, and are identified as the second half of the “one week” of Daniel 9. He says nothing of the seventy weeks; we do not know whether he placed the one week at the end of the seventy or whether he had a gap. He mentions only the half week, which he gives to Antichrist. ²⁴ The interpretation of the three and a half times as literal years, it may well be noted, was common to the early fathers who discussed this particular time period. PFF1 248.2

7. 666 NOT DISCERNIBLE BEFORE ROME’S DIVISION

Irenaeus also calls John’s second, or lamblike, beast, in Revelation 13, the first beast’s “armourbearer,” and adds that John terms it “false prophet.” He is also the first of the fathers to stress the mystic number 666, ²⁵ the solution of this numerical riddle intriguing ecclesiastical writers from that time forward. Irenaeus considered the Beast-Antichrist the “recapitulation” of all apostasy, in whose number 666 he found curious symbolism of Noah’s age and the size of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image. ²⁶ He relates how names had even then been sought to contain this number, but warned of the danger of deception, ²⁷ admonishing all to wait until Rome’s division before attempting to solve the riddle. PFF1 248.3

“But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.” ²⁸ PFF1 249.1

Irenaeus cites three names that had been suggested, Evanthas, Lateinos, and Teitan. Concerning the first he was dubious. As to the second (Lateinos) he said it was a “probable” solution, inasmuch as it came from the name of the fourth kingdom seen by Daniel. But Teitan appealed to him as having the most merit of the three, as the name which “the coming man” shall bear; however, he refused to be dogmatic, preferring to await the fulfillment to provide the solution. ²⁹ PFF1 249.2

Of Lateinos, Schaff says, “This interpretation is the oldest we know of, and is already mentioned by Irenaeus, the first among the Fathers who investigated the problem.” ³⁰ PFF1 249.3

8. ANTICHRIST DESTROYED AT ADVENT

Irenaeus declares that this world conqueror’s (Antichrist’s) future three-and-a-half-year reign, when he sits in the temple at Jerusalem, will be terminated by the second advent, with destruction for the wicked, and the millennial reign of the righteous. ³¹ PFF1 249.4

9. FIRST RESURRECTION AFTER ANTICHRIST’S COMING

Irenaeus plainly states that the “resurrection of the just” takes place after the Antichrist has appeared, and is followed by the reign of the righteous with Christ on earth. PFF1 249.5

“For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord.” ³² PFF1 249.6

He contends, against those who would doubt the actual resurrection of the body, that it is much less difficult for God to reanimate than originally to create. ³³ PFF1 250.1

10. RESURRECTED RIGHTEOUS REIGN DURING MILLENNIUM

Irenaeus calls those “heretics” who maintain the glorification of the saints immediately after death, before their resurrection. ³⁴ He avers that the millennial kingdom and the resurrection are actualities, not allegories, ³⁵ the first resurrection introducing this promised kingdom in which the risen saints are described as ruling over the renewed earth during the millennium, between the two resurrections. ³⁶ PFF1 250.2

11. 6,000-YEAR THEORY IS FROM JEWISH TRADITION

Irenaeus held to the old Jewish tradition that the first six days of creation week were typical of the first six thousand years of human history, with Antichrist manifesting himself in the sixth period. And he expected the millennial kingdom to begin with the second coming of Christ to destroy the wicked and inaugurate, for the righteous, the reign of the kingdom of God during the seventh thousand years, the millennial Sabbath, as signified by the Sabbath of creation week. ³⁷ As noted, neither he nor any other writer of those early centuries had any conception of the time to elapse before the awaited advent, and naturally expected a short duration of Antichrist’s power. Time was foreshortened to his gaze as well. But Irenaeus stresses the prophecies concerning the Antichrist, the resurrection at the advent, and the millennium. ³⁸ PFF1 250.3

12. CONFUSES THE TRADITIONAL AND BIBLICAL VIEWS

In common with many of the fathers, Irenaeus fails to distinguish between the new earth re-created in its eternal state, the thousand years of Revelation 20, when the saints are with Christ after His second advent, and the Jewish traditions of the Messianic kingdom. Hence, he applies confused Biblical and traditional ideas to his descriptions of this earth during the millennium, throughout the closing chapters of book 5. This conception of the reign of resurrected and translated saints with Christ on this earth during the millennium—popularly known as chiliasm—was the increasingly prevailing belief of this time. ³⁹ PFF1 250.4

Although Irenaeus was tinctured with Jewish tradition on the millennium, he was not looking for a Jewish kingdom. He definitely interpreted Israel as the Christian church, the spiritual seed of Abraham. ⁴⁰ PFF1 251.1

At times his expressions are highly fanciful. He tells, for instance, of a prodigious fertility of this earth during the millennium, after the resurrection of the righteous, “when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food.” In this connection he attributes to Christ the saying about the vine with ten thousand branches, and the ear of wheat with ten thousand grains, and so forth, which he quotes from Papias. ⁴¹ PFF1 251.2

13. GENERAL RESURRECTION FOLLOWS NEW JERUSALEM DESCENT

The general resurrection and the judgment, declares Irenaeus, follow the descent of the New Jerusalem at the end of the millennial kingdom. PFF1 251.3

“In the Apocalypse John saw this new [Jerusalem] descending upon the new earth. For after the times o f the kingdom, he says, ‘I saw a great white throne, and Him who sat upon it, from whose face the earth fled away, and the heavens; and there was no more place for them.’ And he sets forth, too, the things connected with the general resurrection and the judgment, mentioning ‘the dead, great and small.’ ‘The sea,’ he says, ‘gave up the dead which it had in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead that they contained; and the books were opened. Moreover,’ he says, ‘the book of life was opened, and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books, according to their works; and death and hell were sent into the lake of fire, the second death.’ Now this is what is called Gehenna, which the Lord styled eternal fire. ‘And if any one,’ it is said, ‘was not found written in the book of life, he was sent into the lake of fire.’ And after this, he says, ‘I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first, heaven and earth have passed away; also there was no more sea. And 1 saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven, as a bride adorned for her husband.’ ‘And I heard,’ it is said, ‘a great voice from the throne, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them; and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them as their God. And He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain, because the former things have pasted away.”’ ⁴² PFF1 251.4

Irenaeus’ exegesis does not give complete coverage. On the seals, for example, he merely alludes to Christ as the rider on the white horse. ⁴³ But he stresses the five determining factors of Adventism with greater clarity and emphasis than Justin—the literal resurrection of the righteous at the second advent, the millennium bounded by the two resurrections, the Antichrist to come upon the heels of Rome’s breakup, the symbolic prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse in their relation to the last times, and the kingdom of God to be established by the second advent. But with it all were involved incipient distortions due to the admixture of current traditions, which figure in the extreme forms of chiliasm that were to cause the reaction against the earlier interpretations of Bible prophecies. His writings, with those of Justin, constitute a two-fold witness: first, they constitute the holdover of gradually fading apostolic truth; and second, they disclose that increasing departure that finally took form in the general apostasy of the church, which eventually turned her eyes from the future advent hope and caused her to set herself up as the millennial kingdom of God on earth. PFF1 252.1