phantom heresy: Did the council of Ephesus (431) condemn Chiliasm?, The

I. INTRODUCTION

One Catholic apologetic resource states,

As far as the millennium goes, we [Catholics] tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. . . . In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.1

On the other hand, one writer commenting on the history of millennial thought notes,

Following Augustine, the Church had long believed that the reign of the saints foretold by Revelation was already in operation through its own good offices, and shown little enthusiasm for the idea that Christ would return imminently to set up an earthly kingdom: indeed, the Council of Ephesus declared such a belief heretical in 431.2

The problem here should be immediately evident. Did the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 condemn chiliasm as heresy or not? Surely, the truth of the matter must lie somewhere between "the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue" and "the Council of Ephesus declared such a belief heretical."

II. THE PHANTOM HERESY: TWO TRADITIONS

The student of the history of millennialism will soon learn that two separate traditions regarding this issue are currently being propounded. The oldest tradition of writers on the history of millennialism appears to be unaware of an alleged condemnation of chiliasm in any official and dogmatic capacity in early Christian history.3 Any mention of an official condemnation at the Council of Ephesus is conspicuously missing from what appear to be otherwise thorough treatments of the history of millennialism.4 Although D. T. Taylor suggests that Pope Damasus "formally denounced chiliasm" at Rome in A.D. 373, he refers to no condemnation by the third ecumenical council.5 Likewise, D. H. Kromminga makes no mention of the alleged condemnation in his classic work on millennialism, but rather describes a "gradual subsidence of chiliasm in the ancient church," and writes, "Of suppressive efforts against chiliasm no trace appears."6 C. Cooper notes,

From the third to the fifth centuries chiliasm was vigorously fought and ruthlessly put down, although it was not officially declared a heresy. It was all really rather awkward, because previously nearly everybody of note had been a Chiliast. . . . Between chiliasm and the charge of heresy stands the canonization of Justin the Martyr and Irenaeus.7

In another work on the history of millenarianism, under a subsection entitled "The Church Turns Against Millenarians," Michael St. Clair makes no indication of any condemnation at the Council of Ephesus.8 Finally, Frederic J. Baumgartner appears to be unaware of any official condemnation at Ephesus when he writes,

The solution to millennial anxiety offered by Augustine of Hippo quickly became the accepted one for Latin Christianity, while by 400, for the Greek Church, more concerned with disputes over Christ's nature, the absence of Donatism reduced the sense of millennial urgency.9

On the other hand, a newer tradition, since the late 1950s, alleges that the third ecumenical council of Ephesus did in fact condemn millennialism in some fashion. Norman Cohn writes, "This [view of Augustine] at once became orthodox doctrine, and so definitively that in 431 the Council of Ephesus condemned belief in the Millennium as a superstitious aberration."10 Similarly, Robert Clouse states, "This doctrine [of Augustine] was so fully accepted that at the Council of Ephesus in 431, belief in the millennium was condemned as superstition."11 Peter Toon, progressing in tone from condemnation as simply a "superstitious aberration" to nearly a charge of heresy, writes,

This teaching [of Augustine] soon became accepted as orthodoxy and has in general been so regarded in both Catholic and Protestant Churches ever since the Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned belief in a literal, future millennium as superstition. . . . [and] the Council of Ephesus in 431 accepted amillennialism as orthodox eschatological teaching.12

By 2001 Andrew Bradstock claims, "[T]he Council of Ephesus declared such a belief [that Christ would return imminently to set up an earthly kingdom] heretical in 431."13

III. CHASING THE HERESY DOWN THE HOLE

A perusal of works on the history of the ecumenical councils and the Council of Ephesus in particular reveals that a condemnation of chiliasm is far from obvious and certainly not in the category of common knowledge, as would be, say, the condemnation of Arius at Nicea.14 In fact, a reading of the primary sources available on the Council of Ephesus reveals little more than the Nestorian controversy and its ecclesiastical effects.15

Moreover, when one attempts to start with the various secondary sources that make mention of a condemnation of chiliasm by the Council of Ephesus and work backwards to the primary source, one is disappointed by what is ultimately found. In 2001, Stanley Grenz and John Franke refer to "the condemnation of premillennialism at the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E."16 Although they cite no primary or secondary source for this statement in particular,17 the authors do rely on other secondary sources in this chapter that make the same claim: Toon's introduction to Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel18 and Grenz's Millennial Maze.19 In the same year, Bradstock claims that the Council of Ephesus declared chiliasm "heretical."20