I just read a very illuminating article by Charles E. Hill (published in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2000) on the theology of Cerinthus, the early Asian proto-gnostic heretic who flourished c. AD 90-120 and who was described by Polycarp of Smyrna (cited by Irenaeus) as the chief adversary of Presbyter John, the principal elder at the church of Ephesus and the probable author of 2 and 3 John and the introductory chapters of Revelation. Patristic writers gave two very different portraits of Cerinthus which seemed at once to be incompatible: of a proto-gnostic adoptionist who denied the resurrection and the corporeality of Christ, and who was the real author of the proto-gnostic Gospel of John (cf. Irenaeus, Pseudo-Tertullian, the later Alogists, and the Epistula Apostolorum, a proto-orthodox document from Asia Minor, c. AD 140-150), and of a chiliast who taught a doctrine of a millennial restitution of the kingdom of God on earth, with emphasis placed on fleshly pleasures, and who was the real author of the chiliast Revelation (cf. Gaius, Dionysius of Alexandria, and later Alogists). It is already obvious from disputes on the authorship of John and Revelation that the realized eschatology of John is at odds with the premillennialist Revelation, but there is a more fundamental problem with attributing both proto-gnostic and chiliast theologies to Cerinthus. Gnostic dualism subordinates the fleshly and earthly to the spiritual and heavenly, and it does not seem possible that a gnostic would have expected an earthly millennial bliss that enhanced fleshly pleasures as part of his eschatological system.
However, Hill refers to a similar chiliasm found in the slightly later gnostic Marcion to discover the probable nature of Cerinthus' chiliasm. The dualistic system would also demand that the Demiurge (i.e. the Creator, Yahweh of the OT) would also send his own Christ, inferior to the true Christ that had revealed the Father, but indeed the Christ that was prophesied by the Demiurge-inspired OT. Marcion held that this coming Christ was identical to the hoped-for Messiah expected by the Jews:
"Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come." (Tertullian, Adv. Marcion 4.6)
In another passage, Tertullian characterizes the difference between "the two Christs" in a way that subordinates the Demiurgical Christ to the one sent by the Father: "The Jewish Christ is ordained by the Creator for the restoration of the people alone from its dispersion, whilst [Jesus Christ] was appointed by the supremely good God for the liberation of the whole human race" (Adv. Marcion 3.21). That such eschatology is not realized can be seen in another passage referring yet again to the future "recovery of their country" from the Romans and everlasting repose "in Abraham's bosom" (3.24). Hill explains the significance of Marcion's teaching:
Marcion taught that the Creator?s Christ, when at last he came, would indeed restore the fortunes of the Jewish nation just as the Jews were convinced he would. Marcion of course wanted nothing to do with this Creator, his Christ, or the benefits they would lavish upon the Jews; to him they all savored of the same earthly and fleshly stench which his heavenly Savior had come to dispel. But part of his polemical program against orthodox Christianity was to insist that the Jews were right and the Christians were wrong.
This doctrine thus also had political advantage of aligning Marcion with the Jews against the emergent orthodoxy. Conversely, Marcion's eschatology fed into the orthodoxy's belief of a coming Antichrist figure, which was identified with the Jewish Messiah (the pseudokhristos) and the coming Christ expected by Marcion. As Hill states: "The anticipated Jewish deliverer became in the system of Marcion the Christ of the lower Demiurge. In the system of Irenaeus and Hippolytus he became the Antichrist." Marcion's gnosticism also aligned him ideologically with the Jews in his rejection of OT Messianic proof-texts as applying to Christ. The Demiurge Creator would not have had the ability to foresee events connected with Christ sent by the Father (who had hid his Christ from him), and so Marcion agreed with the Jews that many of the prophecies used by other Christians as christological proof-texts (e.g. Isaiah 7:14) were inapplicable.
Since Marcion inherited many of his ideas from his predecessors, it seems quite probable that his eschatology had an antecedent and Cerinthus, as described by Irenaeus and Dionysius of Alexandria, appears as a probable candidate. Irenaeus (AH, 1.26.1) shows that Cerinthus shared with Marcion a belief that the Creator was a lower Power to the unknown Father, and that only the latter was revealed by the heavenly Christ after adopting the human Jesus as his vessel. Irenaeus also stresses that it was only one Christ that "through the prophets God promised to send, who was sent in Jesus" (3.12.2). This implies that the disputed position is one that assumed a different Christ promised by the OT prophets. Dionysius of Alexandria described Cerinthus' chiliasm as expecting an "earthly" kingdom of Christ with carnal "delights of the belly and of sexual passion, with eating and drinking and marrying" as well as with "festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims" (HE 3.28.4-5). This differs from "orthodox" chiliasm by containing both carnal and Jewish elements: the earthly kingdom would be a time for bodily pleasures and the restoration of the Temple cult in Jerusalem. But Dionysius charges that Cerinthus adopted the Jewish aspects "to provide himself with a better reputation". Such a reputation would lie only with the Jews who still fervantly held Messianic hopes of a physical kingdom; it is somewhat doubtful that Ebionite and Nazorean Jewish-Christians held to a hope of a restoration of Temple sacrifice. Interestingly, Justin Martyr, writing much earlier, seems to dispute just this interpretation in his defense of Christian chiliasm against Jewish messianism when he told Trypho: "Do not suppose that Isaiah or the other prophets speak of sacrifices of blood or libations being presented at the altar on his second advent, but of true spiritual praises and giving of thanks" (Dialogue 118). Hill notes that similar ideas that are presupposed here are deposited in rabbinical literature (cf. Sifre Num. 92; Taanith 4.8; Tamid 7.3; Baba Metsia 28b), and appear in pseudepigraphal Jewish apocalypses (cf. especially 2 Baruch). Because of Cerinthus' proto-gnosticism, it is unlikely that he taught that the millennium would be preceded by a resurrection (contra Gaius, whose description of Cerinthus' chiliasm was influenced in toto by Revelation), and interestingly the cognate Jewish chiliast apocalypses of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra similarly do not posit a pre-millennial resurrection and expect the kingdom to represent the end of this age. If Cerinthus did promote an apocalypse, it was probably along the lines of 2 Baruch which expected the reconstitution of the twelve tribes of Israel from the diaspora, the physical restoration of Jerusalem, and the institution of material blessings on the land.
This solution to the Cerinthian problem has the appeal of simplicity and conforms very well to ideas attested later. By conceding to the Jews their interpretation of the prophets and their Messianic expectations, Cerinthus is still able to rid Christianity of both the prophets and the Jewish God. This would appear to be the Gnostic solution to the problem of antipathy between Judaism and Christianity in Asia Minor (attested in Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 12; Ignatius, Phil. 6:1, Magn. 8:1-2, 10:3; Martyrdom of Polycarp 12:31) and defections of Gentile Christians to Judaism (attested in Justin Martyr, Dialogue 47.1-4, and possibly 1 John 2:19, 22 if Terry Griffith is right in his novel interpretation). Orthodoxy drew the lines a different way, by denying Judaism their future Messiah but holding fast to their God. This understanding of Cerinthus' chiliasm also brings into relief how it differed from that espoused by Presbyter John. Papias (cited in Irenaeus, AH 5.33.3-4 and Eusebius HE, 3.39.1) famously famously cited John as preaching the material blessings of the coming millenium:
"The Lord used to teach concerning those times, saying: 'The days will come when vineyards shall grow each with ten thousand vines, and on one vine ten thousand shoots, and on every shoot ten thousand clusters, and in every cluster ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give twenty-give measures of wine; and when one of the saints grasps a cluster, another cluster will cry out: "I am better, take me, bless the Lord on my account." Similarly a grain of wheat will bring forth ten thousand ears, and every eat will have ten thousand grains, and every grain ten thousand pounds of clean white flour. And all the other fruits and seeds and grass will bring forth in like proportion. And all the animals using foods which are produced by the earth will live peacefully and harmoniously together, fully subject to men.' These things are credible to those who believe. And when Judas the traitor did not believe and asked, 'How then will such extraordinary growths be brought about by the Lord?' the Lord said, 'Those who are alive when they take place will see them.' "
This tradition from Presbyter John is put in the mouth of Jesus, but it actually is an expansion of an identical prophecy in 2 Baruch 29:5-6. This suggests that John was familiar with either 2 Baruch or a very similar Jewish-oriented apocalypse. If Cerinthus had made a similar claim as something to be fulfilled by the Demiurgical Christ, John's logion rejects the gnostic cast by putting it in the mouth of Jesus -- who would be the last person to expound on this in Cerinthus' mind. Another tradition of Papias that was received from the "presbyters" is that of the millenium, in which he "mentions a certain period of a thousand years after the resurrection from the dead when Christ's kingdom will be established physically upon this earth of ours" (cited in Eusebius, HE 3.39.11-13). The doctrine of a resurrection in the flesh would conflict with the putative gnostic view of the millenium (tho I imagine a Demiurgical Christ, sent by the Creator, would indeed have power to create fleshly bodies), and would at least conflict with the view ascribed to Cerinthus by Dionysius (who has the dead in eternal bliss in the "bosom of Abraham"), and the belief that Jesus Christ will be the king of the millenial kingdom would also be anti-Cerinthian. Yet, there is also a Cerinthian streak in the chiliasm of Papias, who specifically mentions "the enjoyment of food in the resurrection" and "the enjoyment of certain material food" (cf. Maximus the Confessor, Scholia in Dionysii Areopagitae 7.2; Photius, Bibliothecase Codices 232). Although the logion of Presbyter John cited above did not mention the specific enjoyment of such foods, it is certainly implied. It is also mentioned in Revelation 22:2 of the "trees of life, which bear twelve crops of fruit a year, one in each month," and which the rightous "will have the right to feed" in v. 14. This forms a rough parallel to 2 Baruch 29:5-6 and the logion cited by Papias.
This fact is interesting in light of the tradition cited by Gaius that Cerinthus was the original author of Revelation, and the probable role Presbyter John played in the writing and publication of Revelation (especially ch. 1-3). It is commonly thought by many that Revelation incorporates at least one (if not several) older Jewish apocalypses, and it is also widely thought that ch. 1-3 were written by a different hand and are likely attributable to Presbyter John, as John is mentioned as the publisher and the letters are addressed to churches in Asia Minor, including John's own Ephesus. There is also the evidence of Papias' strong interest in Revelation in a book largely presenting gospel traditions of Presbyter John. And it is interesting comparing ch. 20-22 with the chiliasm described by Dionysius and reconstructed by Hill. The one described as instituting the kingdom declares "I am making the whole of creation new (21:5)" definitely consistent with the Demiurgical Christ, and reference is made to "Lord God" in 22:5-6 and his sending his spirit to the "prophets" and sending angels to reveal the vision, which is again consistent with the Demiurgical Christ, and yet the king is repeatedly called "the Lamb" (evoking the death of Jesus and its significance in proto-orthodoxy) and even "Jesus" (cf. 21:9, 14, 22, 27; 22:1, 3, 16, 20). John has this Christ, the putative Demiurgical Christ in the Cerinthian system, offering "water from the well of life" which in the gnostic tradition (and especially the Johannine tradition) is offered by the Revealer who was sent by the Father (cf. John 4:7-14, 6:35, 7:37-39; Gospel of Thomas 13:5; 108:1). The vision has the restoration of Jerusalem, with such non-Christian Jewish touches as "the names of the twelve tribes of Israel" being written above the gates (21:12) and reference to "David's line, the root of David" in 22:16, and yet messianic Jerusalem is thoroughly Christian -- with "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" being mentioned as written on the foundation stones (21:14), with the "Bride" being synonymous with Jerusalem (21:2-3), and the references to David's line being in service of the claim that Jesus is himself both the human "root of David" and the heavenly "bright star of the morning" (22:16). And in pointed contrast to the Cerinthian expectation of the restitution of Temple sacrifice, the author of Revelation specifically says: "There was no temple in the city; the Lord God Almighty and the lamb were themselves the temple" (21:22). The vision thus is anti-Cerinthian in making the chiliast eschatology a Christian hope by designating the twelve apostles and the Christian community as the recipients of the millennial bliss, by rejecting a specifically Jewish messianic conception of the millenium, by affirming that Jesus ("the Lamb") is the Christ who is associated with "the Lord God Almighty" (=the Demiurge) and the Creator "making the whole of creation new," and this "Demiurgical" Christ being the one dispensing the living water, and even denying that a Temple cult would be reinstituted. This single passage simultaneously contradicts both gnostic christology and non-Christian Jewish chiliasm. If John the Presbyter was not the original author of the passage, it still would have been of use in refuting Cerinthian doctrine (assuming, again, that Hill is correct in his reconstruction).