Were the early Church Fathers pretty Much pre Millianillists?

Cheekiness? Shucks. I thought it was friendliness.

I will. I see no reason not to. Give me one if you'd like to. Because this point appears to be crucial to your argument about Clement.

Not sure what you mean. What would you like me to reply to? And you glossed over my statement that Clement and the Didache both showed a belief in a literal, imminent coming of Christ.

Doesn't really matter. Date him from 20 AD if you want to. That doesn't really change my argument. And Moyer's a much better scholar on church history than I am. Why shouldn't I trust him? You didn't give me any reason not to, so I'll just stick with what he said. If you can prove different dates for Clement, have at it, and I'll interact with you.

Yes I have.

 

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_didache.html


Date
Scholars argue dates as late as the 4th century, but the consensus places it c.100 CE. Some scholars have argued more recently for a date as early as 50 CE. that gives the Didache the widest range of dating estimates of any Christian book.

The Didache does not fir clearly into any period of liturgy or ministry for which we have documentation. Does it therefore belong to a period before such documentation? "This is the thesis advanced in the massive recent commentary by J.-P. Audst who concludes it was composed almost certainly in Antioch between 50 and 70."(3) The case must rest on the many indications of genuine primitiveness in the Didache which point to a stage in the life of the church that is still that of the NT period itself.

Aune points out that the apostles mentioned several times in the Didache (11:3,4,6) are not associated with specific factions, a fact that suggests they belonged to an early period(4). The prayers and thanksgiving are full of archaic terminology, echoing not only the servant (pais) Christology of the early speeches of Acts (Did.9:2f; 10:2f; Acts 3:13,26; 4:27,30) which Robinson calls "the earliest Christian liturgical sequence (Did.10:6; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:22-24)"(5).

In Did. 9:1-3 the cup precedes the bread, as in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and Luke 22:17-19. The regulations about food (Did. 6:3) presupposed a period and milieu where the dietary question is still genuinely posed. We are in the age of itinerant apostles, prophets and teachers (11-13), and at a "point of transition from the ministry of prophets and teachers to that of bishops and deacons"(6) where the former are not available for regular ministry in the local church (15:1f).

This transition is touched upon by Phil.1:1 and the Pastoral Epistles. C.H. Turner recognised that a "date between 80 and 100 is as early as we are prepared to admit" but "it does not follow that so early a date (i.e. 60) is inevitable."(7)

Like the epistle of James, it is content to leave doctrinal issues on one side. There is no polemic - as in the Pastorals - against heterodox or Gnostic tendencies within the church, merely a concern to maintain a practical distinction between Christians and Jews. The final chapter on eschatology aims much the same apocalyptic atmosphere as 1 & 2 Thessalonians (with which it has many parallels). "It displays dominical and traditional OT materials which seem to have been produced by the early church between 40 and 70"(8). Yet in the Synoptics there is apparently no attempt to fuse this material with predictions of the destruction of the temple or the fall of Jerusalem. This, it is argued, suggests that it is composed either well before or well after these events.

There is little sign of the persecution or 'falling away' and with it the concern for consolidation in doctrine and structure, something Robinson sees as characteristic of the 60's. He is inclined to date the Didache between 40 and 60 assuming that all the NT canon had been written before c.80. Summing up, J.A. Kliest is honest: "If we admit an early date of composition, all the evidence is in favour of it; if we insist on a late date, we have to face a mass of conjectures and hypotheses."(9) It appears that the pivotal point is 70 CE. The presuppositions of the scholar will determine which side he opts for: the majority cautiously hover around 100 CE.

 

I have no problem with the expectations of early Christendom of an immanent return of Christ even a return during the apostolic era:

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.​

Are the "ye" the apostles or everyone believing?

Even at that however as the apostles left the scene via physical death "eschatology" had of necessity to be modified to account for the "delay".

Wouldn't be the first time God had "delayed" something.

We have an inkling of that delay and the reason:

Matthew 24

46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.​

It seems that the reason for the delay is to put His servants to the test, who it is that will smite or will not smite.

All who are born of God will enter His kingdom at His coming.
Some will be ashamed, the rest not.

1 John 2

28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.​

HankD

 

No one point is crucial to my argument. The points all added together give it the weight that deserves consideration.

The sentence that has "nearest" in it. You conveniently passed that word by. Here is the passage again:

But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest [ENGISTA] to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

Clement refers to the noble examples of Peter and Paul, saying that they were "nearest to our time", and that they belong to "our generation". This definitely does not fit if written in the 90s. There certainly were other persecutions, other noble examples, that would have precluded Clement's use of the superlative here. On the face of it a person reading this letter - if he wasn't tainted by other "authorities" - would think that Clement was writing about a very recent example. This fits very well with Clement's letter being before AD70.

Well, of course they were looking forward to His coming. Why would I argue otherwise?

The "literal" part, of course, is your insertion, meaning "visible". That part I disagree with. Clement did not characterize His coming in that way either.

 

I see now that I should have said "credible scholars." This whole mess comes from John A. T. Robinson (check the footnotes), the flaming liberal Anglican who wrote the notorious Honest to God. Nice try but no cigar. I wouldn't trust him for what day of the week it was.

 

You seem to have missed my point altogther. I never said "written in the '90's." All that is needed to disprove your position is a date of 71. You do not prove an earlier date with this quote from Clement. I really don't see that you've proven anything, which is why I passed over it. A date of 71 would certainly be "nearest our time." Peter was probably still alive then, and Paul had not died much before then. So "where's the beef?"

No, the "literal" part is how the Apostolic Fathers interpreted Scripture. They always interpreted literally. The earliest allegorical interpretion was that of Pantaenus at the end of the 2nd century. And then of course Origen became the champion of it in the 3rd century. So of course Clement believed in a literal coming (par. 4).

And the author of the Didache wrote a detailed summary about the Antichrist and then ended his document with, "And then the whole world will see the Lord as He comes riding on the clouds of heaven" (Maxwell Staniforth's translation, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 235). What could be plainer and more literal? There is no indication of allegory in the Didache.

 

That is one sloppy article.

It's Jean-Paul Audet, not "Audst" as repeatedly misspelled throughout the text and in the bibliography.

If you're going to rely heavily on Roman Catholic scholar's speculations, at least get his name right.