Christianity Through Time: First Century vs Twenty-First Century

Having a keen interest in Church history and how we got to be at the point we are currently at, I decided to look into several questions I have on the topic. To help me in researching this topic, I made use of AI. The answers I came up with as a result are very interesting and thought-worthy.

►The first question was: “Based on scripture and all historical writings concerning the church, what branch, movement or denomination of Christianity seems to fit best with first century Christianity?”

Short answer first:

No modern denomination fully matches first-century Christianity. But the form of Christianity reflected in the New Testament and the earliest post-apostolic writings most closely resembles a pre-denominational, sacramental, communal, episcopal church with strong Jewish roots—something that later developed into what we now call early catholic Christianity, before medieval accretions (before it grew into what we know it as today) and before the Reformation split.

That probably sounds unsatisfying at first—so let’s walk through the evidence step by step. Here is why that conclusion keeps emerging when Scripture and early history are taken together.

1. What First-Century Christianity Actually Looked Like

If we restrict ourselves to the New Testament and Late 1st–early 2nd century writings (c. AD 70–150), we get a surprisingly consistent picture.

Main Features:

First-century Christianity was:

• Christ-centered (not system-centered)

• Apostolically governed

• Sacramental (baptism + Eucharist central)

• Communal (shared life, discipline, charity)

• Ethically demanding

• Eschatologically expectant

• Still deeply Jewish in worldview

It was not:

• A creed-heavy system

• A faith-alone vs works debate

• A denominational marketplace

• A Bible-only religion (the NT wasn’t complete yet)

2. Scripture Alone Already Rules Out Modern “Denominations”

The New Testament church had No denominational identity, No confessional statements, and No competing theological brands. Paul explicitly condemns factionalism (1 Cor 1:10–13).
The earliest Christians identified themselves simply as “the Way.”

So the real question becomes: “Which later tradition preserved the structure, theology, and practice most faithfully?”

3. What the Earliest Extra-Biblical Sources Tell Us

♦ Didache (c. AD 70–100)

What it shows:

• Baptism by water, fasting, moral instruction

• Eucharist as a sacred act (not symbolic snack time)

• Church discipline

• Bishops and deacons

• A Jewish moral framework re-centered on Christ

► This does not resemble modern evangelical free-church models.

♦ Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 110)

What he insists on:

• One bishop per city

• Unity with that bishop

• Eucharist as the flesh of Christ

• Visible, structured church authority

“Where the bishop is, there is the Church.”

► That rules out:

• Congregationalism

• Individualistic Christianity

• Invisible-church models

♦ Justin Martyr (c. AD 150)

Describes:

• Sunday worship

• Readings from Scripture

• Eucharist understood as more than symbolism

• Regeneration through baptism

► Again: sacramental, liturgical, communal.

4. What This Immediately Disqualifies

Modern Evangelicalism

• No sacraments in early sense

• No episcopal authority

• Bible-only theology would be impossible in the 1st century (New Testament not yet completed)

• Faith vs works categories are later debates

Dispensationalism

• No Israel–Church separation

• No rapture theology

• Kingdom language is present-tense and covenantal

Restorationist Movements (including SDA, LDS, JW)

• Claim apostasy too early to fit history

• Reconstruct theology instead of organically inheriting it

• Introduce doctrines unknown to early church

5. By These Standards, Which Traditions Come Closest?

♦ Eastern Orthodox

Strengths

• Strong continuity with early liturgy

• Sacramental worldview

• Apostolic succession

• Theosis aligns well with early soteriology

Weaknesses

• Later icon theology developments

• Post-biblical metaphysical expansions

• Some dogmas crystallized centuries later

♦ Roman Catholic

Strengths

• Early episcopal structure

• Sacramental theology

• Strong sense of continuity

Weaknesses

• Papal supremacy develops later

• Medieval doctrines absent from early sources

• Scholastic categories foreign to 1st century thought

♦ High-Church Anglicanism

Strengths

• Tries to preserve patristic core

• Sacraments, creeds, episcopacy

• Less dogmatic about medieval additions

Weaknesses

• Inherits Reformation assumptions

• Lacks unified theology globally

♦ Some Forms of Reformed Covenant Theology

Strengths

• Serious engagement with Scripture

• Covenant continuity

• Christ-centered hermeneutic

Weaknesses

• Non-sacramental (in the early sense)

• No historical continuity of structure

• Justification framework post-Augustine

6. The Best Historical Answer (Even If It’s Uncomfortable)

The Christianity that best fits first-century evidence is:

The apostolic church before it became Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

In other words:

• A proto-catholic church

• United

• Sacramental

• Governed by bishops

• Centered on Christ’s resurrection and kingdom

• Interpreting Scripture typologically and covenantally

• Expecting Christ’s return soon

Every modern tradition:

• Preserves something real

• Adds something later

• Loses something original

7. Why This Matters (and Why It’s Not a Trap)

This conclusion does not mean:

• “You must become Orthodox/Catholic”

• “The Reformation was illegitimate”

• “Early church was infallible”

It means:

• The earliest church was less systematized

• More relational

• More communal

• More sacramental

• Less obsessed with doctrinal boundary policing

8. A Fair Summary

Question	Best Historical Answer
Exact modern match?	None
Closest structural continuity	Eastern Orthodoxy / Early Catholicism
Closest theological tone	Covenant-centered, Christ-focused, sacramental
Biggest modern deviation	Individualistic, Bible-only Christianity
Biggest historical myth	“The early church believed exactly like us”

_________________________________

►The second question was: “Which parts of early Christianity should be recovered—and which should not?”

A good way to answer this is: recover what is apostolic (rooted in the NT and broadly witnessed very early), be cautious with what is early-but-not-necessary, and don’t “recover” what was a distortion or a context-bound mistake. Early doesn’t automatically mean best—but early can be a great diagnostic tool.

Parts worth recovering

1) A thicker view of “church” as a real, visible body

The NT assumes identifiable communities with shared worship, discipline, leadership, care for the poor, and peacemaking (Acts; 1 Cor; 1 Tim/Titus; Hebrews). Therefore committed membership, shared practices, real accountability, reconciliation as normal Christian work are all worth recovering.

2) Catechesis and moral formation before/after baptism

The earliest post-NT material shows strong emphasis on training—not just “decision,” but a way of life. With this in mind, recover: deep discipleship, moral clarity, “faith working through love,” and teaching people how to pray, read Scripture, and live.

3) A sacramental/embodied Christianity (without magical thinking)

Even if you hold different views of the sacraments, early Christianity’s “embodied” posture is valuable:

• Baptism as a decisive entry into Christ’s people (not a casual accessory).

• The Lord’s Supper as covenant renewal, communion, and a serious act of worship (a core component).

• Recover: reverence, frequency, gratitude, unity, and pastoral care around the table.

4) The centrality of corporate prayer, fasting, and worship rhythms

Early Christians didn’t treat spiritual disciplines as niche “monk stuff.” Therefore a recovery of regular prayer (personal + gathered), fasting as normal training, Scripture-saturated liturgy (even in simple forms) would reflect the early church.

5) Care for the poor, the sick, the marginalized as core, not “optional outreach”

This wasn’t branding; it was identity. Recover: local, consistent mercy; shared resources; practical solidarity across class lines.

6) Mission as a whole-life witness

• Not just arguments, but observable holiness, patience in suffering, sexual integrity, and courageous love.

• Recover: quiet fidelity + public courage.

7) A Christ-centered, typological reading of Scripture (with guardrails)

The NT itself models Christ as the interpretive center (Luke 24). With this in mind, recover: reading the OT as fulfilled in Christ and seeing patterns/typology—but keeping controls (no wild allegory untethered from the text).

Parts to recover with caution (good, but easy to misuse)

1) Strong authority structures

Early Christianity moved quickly toward bishops/elders with real authority. That can protect unity—but also enable abuse.

• Recover: accountable leadership, real pastoral oversight.

• Caution: resist unchallengeable hierarchy, clericalism, personality cults.

2) Liturgical development

Liturgy can deepen Scripture and prayer; it can also become rote or a substitute for discipleship.

• Recover: Scripture-shaped worship, historic prayers/creeds (when helpful).

• Caution: don’t confuse reverence with spirituality, or uniformity with unity.

3) Ascetic disciplines

Fasting and self-control are healthy; extreme asceticism can drift into body-denial or pride.

• Recover: disciplined joy, sexual holiness, simplicity.

• Caution: avoid shame-based spirituality or “holiness” as status.

4) Martyrdom ethos

The early church’s courage is inspiring. But some later strands flirted with “seeking” martyrdom.

• Recover: non-retaliation, bold witness, willingness to suffer.

• Caution: don’t romanticize suffering or turn persecution into a badge.

Parts not worth “recovering”

1) Anti-Jewish polemics and later ethnic contempt

Some early Christian writing slides into rhetoric that fuelled later harms. Don’t recover: contempt for Jews, caricatures, replacement arrogance. Instead, recover Paul’s posture—humility, grief, hope, and gratitude toward Israel (Rom 9–11).

2) Over-reading prophecy into current events (proto–“end-times code”)

Apocalyptic hope is biblical; “headline exegesis” is not. Don’t recover: constant date-setting tendencies or demonizing political enemies as prophecy fulfillment. Recover: watchfulness, endurance, allegiance to Christ over empire.

3) Coercive or punitive approaches to discipline

Some later practice (even if “early”) veered into control. Don’t recover: manipulation, fear, shaming, public humiliation. Instead, recover restorative discipline aimed at healing and reconciliation (Matt 18).

4) Magical or transactional religion

Relics, superstition, and “holy objects” as guarantees can creep in early. Don’t recover: mechanisms that replace repentance, faith, and love. Do recover the conviction that God is present and active—without turning that into technique.

5) The “one perfect golden age” myth

The early church had real problems: factionalism, false teaching, moral compromise, leadership failures (NT itself is proof).

• Don’t recover: naïve idealization.

• Recover: realism + repentance + resilience.

A practical filter you can use

When you find a practice/idea in early Christianity, ask:

1. Is it clearly rooted in the New Testament?

2. Is it widely attested early (not just one stream)?

3. Does it reliably produce Christlike outcomes—love, holiness, unity, mission?

4. Can it be practiced without contradicting the gospel of grace?

5. Does it empower the whole body, not just an elite class?

If it scores high, recover it. If it fails 3–5, be very careful.

______________________________

►My third question was: If someone were looking for a church to join and they wanted it to resemble as closely as possible a first century Christian body of believers, what should they be considering?Structure (as a starting point) someone simply identifying as a non-denominational Christian who had very loose roots as a mainstream Protestant.

Such a person already has enough Protestant DNA to care deeply about Scripture and grace, but enough distance from rigid systems to recover early Christianity without just swapping denominations. Such a person is therefore looking for depth, continuity, and faithfulness without importing baggage.

Therefore, think of the following as scaffolding, not a new identity.

A Recoverable Structure for Early Christianity

(without becoming Catholic, Orthodox, or sectarian)

1. Identity First: Who You Are (and Are Not)

Keep

• Christian (not “ex-evangelical,” not “proto-Catholic,” not “Orthodox-lite”)

• Grounded in Christ, not a movement

• Scripture as normative and final

Explicitly Reject

• “Non-denominational” as something content-free

• Lone-ranger Christianity

• Church-as-content-provider

Adopt this self-understanding:

A historically rooted, Christ-centered, Scripture-shaped Christian in a local body.

This aligns perfectly with the first century: identity before institution.

2. Authority Structure (Without Authoritarianism)

Early Christian Pattern

• Scripture (Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament] + apostolic teaching [today = New Testament])

• Apostles → elders/bishops

• Communal discernment

• Tradition as received practice, not untouchable law

Recover This As:

A three-layer authority model

1. Scripture – supreme, public, testable

2. Historic witness – early church as guardrails (not dictators)

3. Local leadership – accountable elders/pastors, not celebrities

What This Means Practically

• You read Scripture with the early church, not over it

• You don’t need a modern prophet, pope, or personality

• Leaders can be questioned—but not ignored

3. Church Structure (Minimal but Real)

Early Christianity Was:

• Local

• Visible

• Accountable

• Communal

• Not consumer-driven

Recover:

• A stable local congregation

• Recognizable leadership (plural elders preferred)

• Meaningful membership (even informal)

• Church discipline as restorative, not punitive

Avoid:

• “I attend when it feeds me”

• Online-only church life

• Charismatic authority without accountability

If no church fully fits: choose the least malformed, not the perfect one.

4. Sacraments / Ordinances (Reverent, Not Magical)

You don’t need to resolve every debate to recover early practice.

Baptism

Recover: Serious preparation, Public identification with Christ, and Moral or covenantal weight.

Avoid: Casual “box-check” baptisms, Re-baptism as spiritual therapy.

Lord’s Supper

Recover: Frequency, Reverence, Self-examination, Unity of the body, and Thanksgiving (eucharistia)

Avoid: Hyper-symbolism (“just a reminder”), and Mystical mechanics (“automatic grace”).

Think covenant renewal, not ritual magic.

5. Discipleship (From Decision to Formation)

Early Christianity Assumed:

• Long-term formation

• Moral transformation

• Community accountability

• Obedience as response, not currency

Recover:

• Catechesis (learning the faith in depth)

• Mentorship (older believers shaping younger ones)

• Clear ethical teaching (sexuality, honesty, generosity, forgiveness)

Avoid:

• “I prayed the prayer”

• Discipleship as optional

• Grace vs obedience dichotomies

Grace trains us (Titus 2), it doesn’t excuse stagnation.

6. Spiritual Practices (Simple, Ancient, Sustainable)

Recover ordinary rhythms, not heroic feats.

Core Practices

• Daily prayer (fixed times help)

• Scripture reading (whole Bible, not snippets)

• Fasting (periodic, sane)

• Confession (to God, sometimes to trusted believers)

• Generosity

No need for monastic extremes.

Avoid:

• Performance spirituality

• Shame-driven disciplines

• Spiritual minimalism

7. Scripture Reading: Early Christian Lens

Recover:

• Christ-centered reading (Luke 24)

• Typology (not wild allegory)

• Narrative coherence (creation → Christ → new creation)

• Moral formation, not just information

Avoid:

• Proof-text wars

• End-times obsession

• Treating the Bible as a systematic theology textbook

Read Scripture as the church’s book, not a private oracle.

8. Eschatology: Hope Without Obsession

Early Church Emphasis:

• Christ will return

• Live faithfully now

• Resist empire

• Endure suffering

• Don’t speculate endlessly

Recover:

• Watchfulness

• Courage

• Kingdom loyalty

• Resurrection hope

Avoid:

• Date-setting

• Culture-war apocalypse

• Turning Revelation into a news decoder ring

9. Ethics & Witness

Recover: Sexual integrity, Non-retaliation, Care for the poor, Hospitality, and Faithfulness in ordinary work.

Avoid: Culture-war Christianity, Moralism without mercy, and Activism without holiness

Early Christianity grew because it lived differently, not louder.

10. What You Do Not Need to Do

You do not need to:

• Convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism

• Adopt incense, icons, or vestments

• Reject the Reformation wholesale

• Pretend the early church was perfect

• Abandon Protestant insights into grace and Scripture

A One-Sentence Summary:

Recover early Christianity by deepening commitment, embodiment, formation, and hope—without importing later systems, power structures, or reactionary extremes.

___________________________

If you are curious about other articles on this blog an index can be found at this link: Index 

 

Covenant Relationship: Continuity and Form

Lately, the idea of weddings has been coming up often in my personal study. First, it appeared while I was reading the closing chapters of Revelation and the wedding supper of the Lamb. More recently, it came up again while reading Matthew chapter 22. With my curiosity now piqued, I decided to explore this topic further.

The Sadducees’ Marriage Question

The first question that came to mind arose from Matthew 22:23–32. The Sadducees—who did not believe in the resurrection—asked Jesus a question about a hypothetical situation. A woman had been married to seven brothers, one after another, because each husband died. They asked Jesus: after the resurrection, whose wife would she be?¹

So what was Jesus really doing in His answer (vv. 29–32)?
- Was He only answering the Sadducees directly?
- Was He commenting on earthly relationships?
- Or was He explaining what relationships will be like after the resurrection?

A Direct Challenge, Not a Casual Answer

The main point of Jesus’ answer becomes clear when we recognize that He is directly challenging and correcting a false belief. This passage begins with a rebuke, not a gentle explanation. Jesus says:

“You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.”²

That sentence tells us what is happening. This is not a calm discussion about heaven. It is a covenant courtroom moment, consistent with the wider judgment-and-transition setting of Matthew 21–25, where Jesus confronts failed covenant leadership and announces the passing of the old order.

Why the Sadducees?

The Sadducees denied the resurrection completely.³ They accepted primarily the Torah—the first five books of the Old Testament—and rejected much of the Prophets and Writings. Their question was not sincere. It was designed to mock the idea of resurrection by reducing it to a legal problem, drawing on the levirate marriage law in Deuteronomy 25:5–10.⁴

Once this background is understood, Jesus’ strategy becomes clear:

·        He refuses their basic assumption.

·        He corrects their categories of thought.

·        He defeats them using their own Scriptures by citing Exodus rather than Daniel.⁵

Because of this, Jesus’ answer is first and foremost a direct challenge meant to expose Sadducean unbelief.

Is Jesus Commenting on Earthly Relationships?

Yes—but only in a secondary and corrective sense. Jesus says:

“In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”⁶

It is important to be clear about what Jesus is not saying. He is not saying that relationships disappear. He is not saying that people lose their identity. He is not saying that love, recognition, or continuity come to an end.

What Jesus is saying is that marriage, like temple, sacrifice, and priesthood, is a covenant institution tied to mortal life—necessary within a death-marked order, but not carried forward unchanged into resurrection life. These are death-bound realities. Resurrection life does not continue structures that exist only to manage death.

Marriage exists because people die.
Resurrection exists because death is defeated.

This understanding completely breaks the Sadducees’ argument. However, it also raises another question.

Is Jesus Describing Future Resurrection Relationships?

The best answer is: He does so only indirectly, and very carefully. Notice what Jesus does not do:

·        He does not describe what relationships will be like.

·        He does not explain emotional bonds.

·        He does not speculate about recognition or continuity.

Jesus avoids these topics because they are not part of the debate. When He says people will be “like angels,” He does not mean they become sexless, non-relational, or ethereal beings. He means they are immortal. Luke 20:36 makes this explicit when it says they “cannot die anymore.”⁷

In short, people no longer marry because death is no longer a threat. Jesus is answering the Sadducees’ legal logic, not constructing a full doctrine of eternity.

The Real Focus: Covenant Life, Not Marriage

The center of Jesus’ answer is not verse 30, but verses 31–32. Jesus says:

“I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”⁸

This is the theological climax of the passage. God’s covenant relationship does not end at death. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still live to God. Resurrection is not argued from abstract philosophy, but from God’s covenant faithfulness.

The Sadducees attempted to turn resurrection into a legal absurdity. Jesus reframes it as covenant continuity.

Speculation about future relationships is not the point, and Jesus intentionally leaves it undeveloped. His answer exposes the Sadducees’ failure to understand Scripture, the power of God, and covenant life itself. God is faithful—even beyond death.
______________________

What About Marriage Instituted by God in Eden?

At this point, a natural question arises: how does the relationship of the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—fit into Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees?

In short, Adam and Eve show that marriage belongs to a death-managed stage of human history, not to resurrected life, even though marriage was created by God and called “very good.”⁹

1. Adam and Eve Before Death Entered the Story

In Genesis 1–2, marriage appears before sin and death enter the world. Genesis 2:24 says, “The two shall become one flesh.” Because of this, one might ask: if marriage existed before the Fall, why would it not exist after the resurrection?

This is a fair question—and it closely mirrors the logic the Sadducees were pressing, even if unintentionally. Jesus’ answer helps resolve it.

A Key Distinction

Marriage was created in a world that was capable of death, even though death had not yet occurred. Adam and Eve were not glorified, not confirmed in immortality, and still able to fall.

Resurrection life, by contrast, is permanent and irreversible. Those who are raised “cannot die anymore,” and they are raised imperishable.¹⁰

2. Marriage Was Provisional Even in Eden

Even in Eden, marriage served forward-looking purposes. God commanded Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply.”¹¹ This involved filling the earth and extending God’s image through future generations. These purposes already assume time, succession, and unfinished creation. Marriage was good, but it was not final.

Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees does not deny creation; it clarifies where creation was headed.

3. Adam and Eve Compared to Resurrection Humanity

Though He does not spell it out, here is an important contrast one can assume from this answer and the teaching of Jesus:

Adam and Eve	Resurrection Humanity
Created good but mutable	Raised imperishable
Able to die	Cannot die anymore
Commanded to multiply	No need for succession
Marriage fills the earth	Full number of the redeemed complete
Innocent but unglorified	Glorified and confirmed

Marriage belongs to creation in progress, not creation completed—good within the “already,” but not the final form of life in the “not yet” brought to fulfillment through resurrection.

4. Jesus’ Answer Reframed with Adam and Eve in View

When Jesus says, “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” He is not contradicting Eden. He is saying that resurrection does not return humanity to Genesis 2; it carries humanity beyond it.

Adam and Eve point forward. The resurrection arrives.

5. Revelation Confirms the Direction of the Story

Revelation does not picture a restored Eden that simply preserves earlier covenant forms. Instead, just as Babylon represents the collapse of Jerusalem and the old covenant order, the Bride represents the completed people of God—no longer mediated by provisional institutions, but united directly to the Lamb. Instead, it reveals:

·        a new creation

·        a single, corporate bride

·        one covenant union between Christ and His people¹²

Adam and Eve were the first sign. The Bride of the Lamb is the final reality.

Paul makes this explicit when he writes, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”¹³ Marriage was always meant to point beyond itself.

6. Why This Strengthens Jesus’ Reply to the Sadducees

The Sadducees assumed resurrection would freeze creation at one moment in history and extend it indefinitely. Jesus assumes something very different:

·        creation moves forward

·        covenant forms mature

·        God brings provisional goods to completion

Adam and Eve do not weaken Jesus’ answer—they confirm it.

Marriage belongs to God’s good but unfinished creation. Resurrection life belongs to creation completed, where covenant relationship remains, but the temporary form of marriage gives way to its final fulfillment in union with Christ.

Matthew 22, then, belongs to the same covenant movement already traced in Matthew 21–25. Jesus is not answering an abstract question about the afterlife, but exposing the failure of old-order thinking to grasp resurrection life. Just as the temple, sacrifices, and priesthood were not carried forward unchanged, marriage itself is shown to be a provisional covenant form—good within its time, but not permanent. Revelation does not contradict this teaching; it completes it. What Matthew announces in debate form, Revelation reveals in symbolic fulfillment: the old order passes away, and the people of God are gathered into a single, resurrected covenant union with Christ.

This leads us naturally to Revelation 19 and the marriage described there.
____________________

Covenant Continuity and Covenant Form

From the Marriage Debate to the Bride of the Lamb

In Matthew 22, the Sadducees attempted to disprove the resurrection by using marriage. They imagined a woman who had been married seven times and ask whose wife she would be after the resurrection. Their question assumed that resurrection must simply extend present life unchanged. Jesus rejected this assumption and explained that resurrection life is real, but governed by different realities than mortal life.¹⁴

Jesus said that in the resurrection people do not marry, but are “like the angels in heaven.”¹⁵ By this statement He is not denying relationship, but mortality. Marriage belongs to a world where people die; resurrection belongs to a world where death has been overcome.

Jesus then proved the resurrection by appealing to covenant identity: “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”¹⁶ God’s covenant relationship persists beyond death. What changes is not covenant life, but covenant form.

Revelation 19–21 carries this same logic forward. God’s people are portrayed as a bride, and Christ as the bridegroom.¹⁷ The image is corporate, not individual. The “marriage of the Lamb” is the fulfillment toward which earthly marriage always pointed.¹⁸

Earthly marriage was never the final goal. It was a sign. When resurrection life arrives, the sign gives way to the reality. God dwells with His people, and relationship remains—but now shaped by eternal life rather than mortality.¹⁹

Matthew 22 and Revelation 19–21 teach the same truth from different angles. God’s covenant faithfulness does not end, but death-bound covenant structures do. Marriage, like temple and sacrifice, belongs to a passing order. In the resurrection, those forms give way to full life with God, shared by all His people forever.²⁰

The resurrection does not undo God’s good creation; it completes it. Marriage, like temple and sacrifice, belonged to a world marked by death and served a real purpose within that world. Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees does not deny covenant relationship, but reveals that covenant life does not depend on death-bound forms. What began in Eden as a sign of shared life finds its fulfillment not in the extension of earthly marriage, but in the resurrection life of God’s people gathered to Christ. The Bride of the Lamb is not the loss of relationship, but its consummation—life with God, and with one another, no longer shaped by mortality, but by the power of an unending covenant.

Endnotes:

1.        Matt. 22:23–28.

2.       Matt. 22:29.

3.       Acts 23:8.

4.       Deut. 25:5–10.

5.       Matt. 22:31–32; Exod. 3:6.

6.       Matt. 22:30.

7.       Luke 20:36.

8.       Matt. 22:32.

9.       Gen. 1:31; 2:24.

10.    Luke 20:36; 1 Cor. 15:42–54.

11.     Gen. 1:28.

12.    Rev. 19:7; 21:2.

13.     Eph. 5:32.

14.    Matt. 22:23–30.

15.     Matt. 22:30.

16.    Matt. 22:31–32.

17.     Rev. 19:7–9; 21:2.

18.    Rev. 19:7.

19.    Rev. 21:3–4.

20.   Rev. 21:22–27.

 

East, West, and the Early Church: What Christians Believed About the End Times (and Why It Changed)

Many people are told that the early Church Fathers believed in a pre-tribulation rapture and a detailed end-times timeline. This post takes a calm look at what the Fathers actually wrote, and then explains why Eastern and Western Christianity developed end-times beliefs differently. The goal is simple: read the sources fairly, and follow the history where it leads.

________________________________________

Many popular prophecy teachers claim two things: (1) the early Church Fathers all believed in a future thousand-year kingdom, and (2) they also held something like the modern pre-tribulation rapture. These claims may sound convincing, but they do not hold up when the historical evidence is examined carefully.

To understand what the early church actually believed, it helps to start even earlier—with the Jewish world that Christianity was born into—and then to see how Christian thinking developed differently in the Eastern and Western churches.

1. Second Temple Jewish Expectations: Fulfillment Without Waiting

Second Temple Judaism (about 500 BC to AD 70) included many groups. They did not agree on everything, but they shared important hopes about the future. They believed that when God acted, He would act fully and finally.

They expected:

• Israel’s enemies to be defeated

• God’s people to be proven right

• The wicked to be judged

• The dead to be raised

• God’s kingdom to come on earth¹

Different groups (Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, and others like those at Qumran) had different details. But they all assumed one key idea: God would not start His work and then stop for thousands of years. They did not expect history to be split into long gaps. Even when they spoke about “this age” and “the age to come,” they expected a big, complete change, not a long delay.²

2. Early Christianity: Fulfillment Re-Explained, Not Rejected

Early Christians changed how Jewish hopes were understood, but they did not throw them away. The Church taught that:

• God’s kingdom began with Jesus

• Sin and death were defeated through the cross and resurrection

• New life had already entered history

• The final completion was still coming, but was certain³

This is often called the “already / not yet” view: God’s promises have already begun, but they are not finished yet. The Church did not explain the delay by pushing promises far into the future. Instead, it explained them through Jesus Himself. Both Eastern and Western Christians began with this view—but they developed it differently over time.

3. What the Early Church Fathers Actually Taught

Justin Martyr (c. AD 100–165)

Justin Martyr believed that Jesus would return visibly in the future and that a thousand-year reign would follow. This view is often called chiliasm or historic premillennialism. In Dialogue with Trypho, Justin writes that “there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem.” At the same time, he admits that not all Christians agreed with him.¹

What matters most is what Justin does not say. He never describes Jesus coming secretly to remove the Church before a time of suffering. He also does not divide Jesus’ return into multiple stages. For Justin, resurrection, judgment, and the kingdom all happen together in public view.²

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. AD 120–202)

Irenaeus also believed in a future Antichrist, a time of great suffering, the visible return of Christ, and a kingdom that follows. In Against Heresies, he clearly teaches that the Church will be persecuted by the Antichrist before Christ returns.³

Sometimes Irenaeus speaks of believers being “caught up,” but in every case this happens after suffering, when Christ appears. He expects the Church to endure hardship, be proven faithful, and then be raised—not to escape trouble beforehand.⁴

Irenaeus also makes no distinction between Israel and the Church as separate groups with different future plans. This lack of separation is very different from dispensational or modern rapture teaching.⁵

Tertullian (c. AD 155–220)

Tertullian believed in a future resurrection, final judgment, and a kingdom on earth. He argued against interpretations that turned these hopes into mere symbols.⁶ His belief in a future reign of Christ appears most clearly in Against Marcion.⁷

Like Justin and Irenaeus, Tertullian describes Christ’s return as a single, dramatic event. He never teaches a secret rapture or a removal of believers before suffering. There is no evidence that he believed in a pre-tribulation rapture.⁸

4. Historical Assessment: What This Proves (and What It Does Not)

It is true that some early Church Fathers believed in a future thousand-year reign. However, it is wrong to say they believed what modern dispensational teachers believe today. The early Fathers consistently expected:

• A future time of suffering that includes the Church

• A visible, public return of Christ

• The resurrection of believers at that return

• Judgment and the beginning of Christ’s kingdom

The idea that these events are split into separate stages—especially a secret rapture before suffering—does not appear in early Christian writings. Historians widely agree that this system developed much later, especially in the nineteenth century.⁹

5. A Note on Selective Appeals to the Church Fathers

Some contemporary prophecy teachers appeal to isolated phrases from Irenaeus and other early or later patristic writings to argue that the early Church taught a pre-tribulation rapture. These appeals often center on words such as “taken” or “caught up.” However, when such passages are read in their full literary and historical contexts, they consistently refer either to the resurrection at Christ’s visible return or to divine protection amid persecution—not to a secret removal of the Church prior to tribulation.¹⁰

In particular, these interpretations overlook Irenaeus’ explicit teaching that the Church will confront the Antichrist before Christ’s appearing, a position incompatible with pre-tribulation rapture theology.¹¹ Appeals to later texts such as Pseudo-Ephraem likewise fail to establish early support for dispensationalism, since these writings originate centuries after the apostolic era and do not articulate a coherent pre-tribulation framework.¹² As numerous scholars have noted, such arguments depend on anachronistic readings that import modern theological categories into second- and third-century sources.¹³

6. Proto-Amillennialism: Definition and Scope

At this point, it becomes clear that early Christianity was not “one-view only.” While some writers were chiliastic, others began to read the end-times material differently—especially in the East. Before looking at those Fathers, it helps to define proto-amillennialism.

Proto-amillennialism does not describe a fully developed system like Augustine’s later amillennialism. Instead, it refers to an early way of reading Scripture that rejects a literal future earthly millennium and emphasizes Christ’s current reign and symbolic language in prophecy.

Proto-amillennialism includes several key ideas:

1. Revelation 20 is not read literally

   The “thousand years” is understood symbolically, not as a future political kingdom on earth.¹⁴

2. Christ reigns now

   Jesus is already ruling through His resurrection and ascension, especially through the Church. End-times teaching centers on Christ, not timelines.¹⁵

3. Rejection of earthly rewards

   Proto-amillennial writers criticize the idea of physical pleasures or political rule as the goal of God’s kingdom.¹⁶

4. Symbolic reading of prophecy

   Apocalyptic language is meant to teach faith and hope, not provide a calendar of future events.¹⁷

5. No separation between Israel and the Church

   God’s people are understood as one covenant community centered on Christ.¹⁸

Proto-amillennialism is therefore a way of interpreting Scripture, not a finished doctrine. It appears early in Christian history and prepares the way for Augustine’s later work.¹⁹

7. Early Church Fathers with Proto-Amillennial Views (and Why This Matters for East vs. West)

One key reason modern “rapture-history” claims fail is that they often ignore how strongly Eastern theology moved toward symbolic, present-kingdom readings long before Augustine in the West.

Origen of Alexandria (c. AD 185–254)

Origen is the clearest early critic of literal millennialism. While he believed in resurrection and judgment, he strongly rejected the idea that Revelation teaches a future earthly kingdom. He criticized Christians who expected physical rewards or land restoration, saying these misunderstand God’s promises.²⁰

For Origen, God’s kingdom is already active through Christ and grows in believers and in the Church. Apocalyptic language is meant to teach and shape character, not predict future schedules.²¹

Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215)

Clement did not write much about end-times, but his theology leaves no room for a literal millennium. Influenced by philosophy, he viewed salvation as moral and spiritual growth, not participation in a future political kingdom.²²

He interpreted prophecy symbolically and never taught a literal thousand-year reign.²³

Dionysius of Alexandria (c. AD 190–265)

Dionysius openly rejected literal millennial views linked to Papias. He argued that such views misunderstood apocalyptic writing.²⁴

He affirmed Scripture but rejected reading Revelation as a detailed future timeline.²⁵ His work shows that millennialism was already being challenged in the third century.

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 260–339)

Eusebius, a church historian, clearly rejected Papias’ millennial ideas and saw them as misunderstandings of symbolic language.²⁶

He believed Christ’s kingdom was already active through the Church and did not expect a future earthly reign centered in Jerusalem.²⁷

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. AD 296–373)

By Athanasius’ time, millennialism had largely disappeared in the East. His focus was on Christ’s victory over death, resurrection, and final judgment. He never mentions a future millennium.²⁸

For Athanasius, Christ already reigns, Satan is already defeated, and believers share in that victory through union with Christ.²⁹

Transitional Significance

These Fathers show that non-millennial views developed early and naturally. Proto-amillennialism did not arise from politics or convenience, but from careful reading of Scripture and reflection on Christ’s resurrection and reign.³⁰ By the fourth century, literal millennialism was no longer dominant, preparing the way for Augustine’s later synthesis.

8. Revelation 20, Recapitulation, and the “Strong Man”

Proto-amillennial readers understand Revelation 20 as a repetition of earlier visions, not a new time period after Revelation 19. The “thousand years” describes Christ’s current reign, begun through His resurrection.³¹

Revelation often repeats the same story using different images. Early interpreters sensed this pattern even without naming it.³² Later we would come to call this way of reading and teaching recapitulation.

Within this framework, the binding of Satan means he is limited, not destroyed. He cannot stop the gospel from spreading, even though evil continues.³³ This fits Jesus’ own teaching about binding the “strong man” (Mark 3:27; Matthew 12:29)—a picture of overpowering Satan in order to rescue people from his control.

The reign of the saints refers to believers sharing in Christ’s victory now, especially those who suffered for Him. The “first resurrection” is understood spiritually, not as a physical resurrection before others.³⁴ By the fourth century, this way of reading Revelation was widely accepted.³⁵

9. East and West: Why Theology Developed Differently

So far we have seen that early Christian eschatology was diverse and that the East moved early toward symbolic readings of Revelation. This helps explain why later systems developed differently.

The Eastern Church: Meaning Over Timelines

The Eastern Church focused less on when the end would happen and more on what Jesus’ victory means right now. Key features of the Eastern approach include:

1. Symbolic reading of the Bible (especially Revelation)⁴

2. Christ reigns now and Christians share in His kingdom through worship and sacraments⁵

3. Early loss of interest in the “millennium” (Origen, Dionysius, Athanasius)⁶

4. Time shaped by worship, not charts or schedules⁷

Because of this, the Eastern Church never developed rapture theology, never split Israel and the Church, and never treated Revelation as a timeline of future events.

The Western Church: Systems, Definitions, and Resolution

The Western Church followed a different path. It increasingly valued definition, order, and system. Everything had to fit in a box and label. Several developments are important:

• Literal millennial expectations lingered longer in the West than in the East.⁸

• Augustine rejected chiliasm and read Revelation 20 as the present reign of Christ through the Church.⁹

• Western theology increasingly emphasized textual precision and legal categories, helping set the stage for later system-building.¹⁰

Unlike the East, the West often resolved debates through formal theological definition rather than organic consensus.

10. Why Dispensationalism Could Arise Only in the West

Dispensationalism required a theological environment that combined:

• Linear, segmented views of history

• Legal and administrative categories

• Anxiety over delay and fulfillment

• A desire to preserve literalism at all costs

This environment existed only in the modern West.

Dispensationalism solves interpretive tension by dividing history, separating peoples, and postponing promises. Israel and the Church become parallel groups. Christ’s work therefore, is is said to be complete only spiritually but unfinished historically. Fulfillment is delayed to protect literal interpretation.¹¹

The Eastern Church had no conceptual space for such a system. Its theology insisted on continuity in Christ, symbolic fulfillment, and present participation in the kingdom. Second Temple Judaism likewise expected fulfillment, not postponement.

11. Summary: The Myth of a Uniformly Premillennial Early Church

The idea that the early Church was united in premillennial belief is not true. While some early Christians held millennial views, many others rejected them. From early on, Christians debated how Revelation should be read.³⁶

From Origen and Clement to Dionysius, Eusebius, and Athanasius, proto-amillennial thinking developed steadily and well before Augustine. These writers did not abandon hope—they reshaped it around Christ’s resurrection, reign, and final return.

Early Christian eschatology was diverse. The historical record shows movement away from literal millennialism, not consensus behind it. This diversity makes it impossible to claim that the early Church supported modern premillennial or pre-tribulation rapture theology.³⁷

Endnotes:

1. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80–81, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 239–241.

2. Larry V. Crutchfield, “Justin Martyr and the Millennium,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39, no. 4 (1996): 541–556.

3. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.25–30, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 553–560.

4. Charles E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 34–39.

5. Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, eds., A Case for Historic Premillennialism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 32–35.

6. Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 24–25, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 560–562.

7. Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.24, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, 342–343.

8. Alan Hultberg, “The Rapture: Early Church or Late Invention?” in Three Views on the Rapture, ed. Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 87–90.

9. Mark S. Sweetnam, “Defining Dispensationalism: A Cultural Studies Perspective,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 2 (2001): 195–213.

10. Alan E. Kurschner, “A Response to Ken Johnson’s Use of the Early Church Fathers,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54, no. 4 (2011): 773–789.

11. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30.1–4, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 559–561.

12. Grant R. Osborne, “Rapture,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 1034–1036.

13. F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 120–123.

14. Charles E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 25–31.

15. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 100–106.

16. Origen, De Principiis 2.11.2, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 293–295.

17. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 7–10.

18. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 125–128.

19. Augustine, The City of God 20.6–9, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 2003), 908–915.

20. Origen, De Principiis 2.11.2, 293–295.

21. Origen, Against Celsus 2.5; 7.28, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, 431–432, 614–616.

22. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.25, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 438–440.

23. Pelikan, Christian Tradition, 109–112.

24. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.24–25, trans. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), 645–653.

25. Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 150–156.

26. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.11–13, 297–299.

27. Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 166–170.

28. Athanasius, On the Incarnation 54–56, trans. John Behr (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 109–113.

29. Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (London: Routledge, 1998), 195–201.

30. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 48–55.

31. Beale, Book of Revelation, 972–979.

32. Bauckham, Theology of the Book of Revelation, 7–12.

33. Augustine, City of God 20.7, 909–910.

34. Hill, Regnum Caelorum, 183–189.

35. Pelikan, Christian Tradition, 124–131.

36. Wilken, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 90–97.

37. Sweetnam, “Defining Dispensationalism,” 195–213.