A basic flaw in Partial Preterist interpretation

Andrewn said:

Yes, this would be my conclusion, also, from reading your quotations. Except for a couple of later Premils, ECF's who are commonly described as Premils believed in an earthly Kingdom but otherwise didn't teach Premillennialism in the modern sense of the word.


I did consider this fact. But, even if ECF's were not aware of Revelation, still they should have been aware of the Apostles' oral teachings. If not, then ECF's writings have no value and are only textual interpretations like ours.

Click to expand...

They spoke often about Christ's appearing. But it always seemed to be the context of anticipating the heavenly and the eternal appearing. It was always climactic. Chiliasts for the first 200 years taught that the dead in Christ went to Hades to await the coming of Christ, then a millennial kingdom, then the NHNE. The Amils, or those who believed in an all-consummating return of Christ, believed the dead in Christ went immediately to heaven upon death because Christ had conquered sin and death, and therefore secured access to heaven. This has been an interesting study, which i want to share more on.

Andrewn said:

Yes, this would be my conclusion, also, from reading your quotations. Except for a couple of later Premils, ECF's who are commonly described as Premils believed in an earthly Kingdom but otherwise didn't teach Premillennialism in the modern sense of the word.


I did consider this fact. But, even if ECF's were not aware of Revelation, still they should have been aware of the Apostles' oral teachings. If not, then ECF's writings have no value and are only textual interpretations like ours.

Click to expand...

The intermediate state was a key distinguishing doctrine between Chiliaists and early Amils. Look at what Chiliasts believed about Hades.

Ancient Chiliasts' expectation of the intermediate state - Hades

Irenaeus makes a brief passing allusion to it in Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 31:1-2:

"If … the Lord observed the law of the dead, that He might become the first-begotten from the dead, and tarried until the third day in the lower parts of the earth; then afterwards rising in the flesh, so that He even showed the print of the nails to His disciples, He thus ascended to the Father;— [if all these things occurred, I say], how must these men not be put to confusion, who allege that the lower parts refer to this world of ours, but that their inner man, leaving the body here, ascends into the super-celestial place? For as the Lord went away in the midst of the shadow of death, where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God."

Irenaeus felt those who expected a heavenly hope after death undermined the example left by our Lord and thus entertained “heretical opinions.”

Although Justin attacks non-Chiliasts for their belief that the dead in Christ immediately go into the presence of Christ (in the Dialogue with Trypho: Chapter 80), he speaks little of the condition of the elect in Hades during the intermediate state. He furnishes a passing comment, while speaking on Christ, of those who were ignorant of who our Savior was:

"… who thought that He was not the Christ, but fancied they would put Him to death, and that He, like some common mortal, would remain in Hades" (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 99).

Justin held that mankind (or the “common mortal”) automatically went to Hades upon death. Justin uses a similar term in Chapter 18 of the same work to describe all men: “For reflect upon the end of each of the preceding kings, how they died the death common to all, which, if it issued in insensibility, would be a godsend to all the wicked.” Charles Hill explains: “to remain in Hades, then, is the lot of the “common man.”

It is left to Tertullian to furnish us with more detail about the current temporary abode of the dead. He identifies its location and describes its condition in A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 55:

"The lower regions (of Hades) are not supposed to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world, but a vast deep space in the interior of the earth, and a concealed recess in its very bowels; inasmuch as we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth, that is, in the secret inner recess which is hidden in the earth, and enclosed by the earth, and superimposed on the abysmal depths which lie still lower down."

In another book he outlines how Hades contains both the righteous and the wicked. He confirms the Chiliast belief of an ongoing divided Hades. He shows how that looks to him:

"The Scripture itself which dazzles his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham's bosom, where the poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment. Hell (I take it) means one thing, and Abraham's bosom another. A great gulf is said to separate those regions, and to hinder a passage from one to the other. Besides, the rich man could not have lifted up his eyes, and from a distance too, except to a superior height, and from the said distance all up through the vast immensity of height and depth" (Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 34).

We can see from this depiction that there is a great gulf between the current state of the saved and the unsaved. It is not just physical space that separates the dead, condition also does. He further adds:

"By Abraham's bosom is meant some temporary receptacle of faithful souls, wherein is even now delineated an image of the future, and where is given some foresight of the glory of both judgments? … Down in hell, however, it was said concerning them: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them!— even those who did not believe them or at least did not sincerely believe that after death there were punishments for the arrogance of wealth and the glory of luxury, announced indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes princes from their thrones, and raises up the poor from dunghills. Since, therefore, it is quite consistent in the Creator to pronounce different sentences in the two directions of reward and punishment" (Against Marcion Book 4, Chapter 34).

Tertullian concludes:

"There is some determinate place called Abraham's bosom, and … it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham's children, even from among the Gentiles (since he is the father of many nations, which must be classed among his family), and of the same faith as that wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I call Abraham's bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the full recompense of their reward."

Contrary to ancient Amillennialism, Chiliasts believed Abraham’s bosom was still populated after the resurrection of Christ. While the wicked were experiencing ongoing punishments, Tertullian expected the just to experience “rest to the souls.” While he expects rest, he would later in another work describe Abraham’s bosom in terms indicating an ongoing discipline of the dead in Christ. It is difficult to know whether there was a division between Chiliasts on the condition of the righteous in Abraham's bosom or whether it was just a case of diverse phraseology describing the same state. Notwithstanding, the lot of the righteous after death is depicted by Irenaeus and Tertullian (and probably Papias) as ongoing disciplining. None of the rest seem to describe that.

Tertullian makes another illuminating statement:

"You have a treatise by us, (on Paradise), in which we have established the position that every soul is detained in safe keeping in Hades until the day of the Lord" (A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 55).

Probably the most graphic detail in regard to the early Chiliast intermediate state expectation comes from Hippolytus. He is not shy to use his imagination, describing his flamboyant idea of Hades. He confirms the position of fellow Chiliasts that it is the abode of both the righteous and the wicked. He states

"[N]ow we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained. Hades is a place in the created system, rude, a locality beneath the earth, in which the light of the world does not shine; and as the sun does not shine in this locality, there must necessarily be perpetual darkness there. This locality has been destined to be as it were a guard-house for souls, at which the angels are stationed as guards, distributing according to each one's deeds the temporary punishments for (different) characters."

Hippolytus continues:

"And in this locality there is a certain place set apart by itself, a lake of unquenchable fire, into which we suppose no one has ever yet been cast; for it is prepared against the day determined by God, in which one sentence of righteous judgment shall be justly applied to all. And the unrighteous, and those who believed not God, who have honoured as God the vain works of the hands of men, idols fashioned (by themselves), shall be sentenced to this endless punishment. But the righteous shall obtain the incorruptible and unfading kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the same place with the unrighteous" (Fragments of Hippolytus 1).

Hippolytus portrays Hades generally as a prison. It is a place where the angels stand guard over its inmates. It is said to be in “perpetual darkness.” That, he insists, is because “the sun does not shine in this locality.”

Lactantius also depicts the elect and the wicked spending the intermediate state being in Hades:

"Zeno the Stoic taught that there were infernal regions, and that the abodes of the good were separated from the wicked; and that the former enjoyed peaceful and delightful regions, but that the latter suffered punishment in dark places, and in dreadful abysses of mire: the prophets show the same thing" (Book VII, Chapter 7).

Once again, the righteous are not said to suffer or be disciplined here, but rather, enjoy “peaceful and delightful regions.” He later adds:

"Nor, however, let any one imagine that souls are immediately judged after death. For all are detained in one and a common place of confinement, until the arrival of the time in which the great Judge shall make an investigation of their deserts" (Book VII, Chapter 21).

Lactantius seems to also imagine Hades as a prison for both the righteous and the unrighteous. It is designated “a common place of confinement.”

Victorinus in his Commentary on the Apocalypse in regards to chapter 6 affirms:

"As the golden altar is acknowledged to be heaven, so also by the brazen altar is understood the earth, under which is the Hades, — a region withdrawn from punishments and fires, and a place of repose for the saints, wherein indeed the righteous are seen and heard by the wicked, but they cannot be carried across to them. He who sees all things would have us to know that these saints, therefore — that is, the souls of the slain — are asking for vengeance for their blood, that is, of their body, from those that dwell upon the earth; but because in the last time, moreover, the reward of the saints will be perpetual, and the condemnation of the wicked shall come, it was told them to wait. And for a solace to their body, there were given unto each of them white robes. They received, says he, white robes, that is, the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Just like Tertullian expected the just to experience “rest to the souls,” Victorinus equally pictured Abraham's bosom as “a place of repose.” This was not a place to be feared. It was not purgatory!

Commodianus writes:

"Impious man, say, said He, where is your brother? And he denied. For the blood of your brother has cried aloud to Me to heaven. You are tormented, I see, when you thought to feel nothing; but he lives and occupies the place on the right hand. He enjoys delights which you, O wicked one, have lost; and when you have called back the world, he also has gone before, and will be immortal: for you shall wail in hell. Certainly God lives, who makes the dead to live, that He may give worthy rewards to the innocent and to the good; but to the fierce and impious, cruel hell. Commence, O you who are led away, to perceive the judgments of God" (The Instructor, XXVI).

Early Chiliast seem to be in wholesale agreement that after Christ’s resurrection the righteous remained in a divided Hades. Some distinguished these two lower region habitations as being on the left and right. They considered the right-hand side of Hades (which they understood as Abraham’s bosom) to be the abode of the righteous and the left-hand side of Hades to be the home of the wicked. Hippolytus provides more detail on this matter. He says of the righteousness:

"For to this locality there is one descent, at the gate whereof we believe an archangel is stationed with a host. And when those who are conducted by the angels appointed unto the souls have passed through this gate, they do not proceed on one and the same way; but the righteous, being conducted in the light toward the right, and being hymned by the angels stationed at the place, are brought to a locality full of light. And there the righteous from the beginning dwell, not ruled by necessity, but enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their view, and delighting themselves with the expectation of others ever new, and deeming those ever better than these. And that place brings no toils to them. There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name Abraham's bosom" (Fragments of Hippolytus 1).

While Hippolytus earlier portrays Hades generally as being in “perpetual darkness” because “the sun does not shine in this locality,” he goes on to show that the angels conduct the deceased righteous upon their arrival at the lower region to “a locality full of light.” This he describes as not only a place of rest or repose but where righteous enjoy “always the contemplation of the blessings.” Also, he empathizes that Abraham’s bosom is not a place of toil. Again, this does not fit in with the Irenaeus’ glummer depiction of a place of discipline for the elect. Hippolytus says of the fate of the wicked:

"But the unrighteous are dragged toward the left by angels who are ministers of punishment, and they go of their own accord no longer, but are dragged by force as prisoners. And the angels appointed over them send them along, reproaching them and threatening them with an eye of terror, forcing them down into the lower parts. And when they are brought there, those appointed to that service drag them on to the confines or hell. And those who are so near hear incessantly the agitation, and feel the hot smoke. And when that vision is so near, as they see the terrible and excessively glowing spectacle of the fire, they shudder in horror at the expectation of the future judgment, (as if they were) already feeling the power of their punishment. And again, where they see the place of the fathers and the righteous, they are also punished there. For a deep and vast abyss is set there in the midst, so that neither can any of the righteous in sympathy think to pass it, nor any of the unrighteous dare to cross it" (Fragments of Hippolytus 1)

Although the Scriptures do not teach this about Abrahams bosom, it seems to be taken from the New Testament parable on the judgment of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), where the sheep are said to be put on the Lords right, and the wicked are said to be put on His left.

Commodianus adds:

"Who is He who has redeemed from death, that we may believe in Him, since their punishments are awarded? Ah! not thus, O malignant man, shall it be as you think. For to him who has lived well there is advantage after death. You, however, when one day you die, shall be taken away in an evil place. But they who believe in Christ shall be led into a good place, and those to whom that delight is given are caressed; but to you who are of a double mind, against you is punishment without the body. The course of the tormentor stirs you up to cry out against your brother" (The Instructor, XXIV).

Abrahams bosom on the other hand is described as “a good place” where God’s people are comforted or “are caressed.” This is another text that seems to cut across Irenaeus’ idea of a purifying intermediate state. These statements by Commodianus seem to correspond to what Justin taught:

"The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished" (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter V).

Though there seems overall agreement on the fact that the righteous go to Abrahams bosom upon death, while they await the second coming, the majority of Chiliasts seem to anticipate the righteous enjoying rest and comfort as they wait Christ’s return. There seems little support for Irenaeus’ theory of “methods by which they [the righteous] are disciplined beforehand for incorruption” in the afterlife.

Andrewn said:

Yes, this would be my conclusion, also, from reading your quotations. Except for a couple of later Premils, ECF's who are commonly described as Premils believed in an earthly Kingdom but otherwise didn't teach Premillennialism in the modern sense of the word.


I did consider this fact. But, even if ECF's were not aware of Revelation, still they should have been aware of the Apostles' oral teachings. If not, then ECF's writings have no value and are only textual interpretations like ours.

Click to expand...

Purgation in Hades in the intermediate state

Irenaeus speaks of the intermediate state of the elect and states the broad reality of his belief:

"Since, again, some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption" (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 31:1).

This does not correlate with those who depict Abraham’s bosom as a place or rest and comfort. It is writings like this that birthed the Roman Catholic Church doctrine of purgatory. Speaking about the resurrection of the just, Irenaeus further explains:

"As he rises actually, so also shall he be actually disciplined beforehand for incorruption, and shall go forwards and flourish in the times of the kingdom, in order that he may be capable of receiving the glory of the Father" (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 35:2).

Irenaeus considered the immediate state as a time of recompense, preparation and training for deceased believers in Hades, preparing them to suitably function in a future millennial kingdom. This is probably where the roots of purgatory arose within the RCC. It is left to Tertullian to put detail on the doctrine, and explains the reasoning behind the belief:

"[W]hatever amount of punishment or refreshment the soul tastes in Hades, in its prison or lodging, in the fire or in Abraham's bosom, it gives proof thereby of its own corporeality" (A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter VII).

Essentially, what he is saying is, the fact that there is a soul that is alive in Hades is seen as proof that there is a body related to it. Both will unite when Jesus comes. Hades is shown to be a place of both “punishment or refreshment.” Tertullian adds:

"All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades … moreover, there are already experienced there punishments and consolations; and there you have a poor man and a rich … Why, then, cannot you suppose that the soul undergoes punishment and consolation in Hades in the interval, while it awaits its alternative of judgment, in a certain anticipation either of gloom or of glory? … Full well, then, does the soul even in Hades know how to joy and to sorrow even without the body; since when in the flesh it feels pain when it likes, though the body is unhurt; and when it likes it feels joy though the body is in pain. Now if such sensations occur at its will during life, how much rather may they not happen after death by the judicial appointment of God!"

Tertullian repeatedly talks about “the soul” experiencing the most diverse feelings in the afterlife in Hades. He talks about it enduring punishments and enjoying consolations; he talks about it facing both sorrow and joy. This all seems to rest under the contention that Irenaeus proposed that the righteous undergoes “the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption.”

He continues:

"t is most fitting that the soul, without at all waiting for the flesh, should be punished for what it has done without the partnership of the flesh. So, on the same principle, in return for the pious and kindly thoughts in which it shared not the help of the flesh, shall it without the flesh receive its consolation. Nay more, even in matters done through the flesh the soul is the first to conceive them, the first to arrange them, the first to authorize them, the first to precipitate them into acts. And even if it is sometimes unwilling to act, it is still the first to treat the object which it means to effect by help of the body … It is therefore quite in keeping with this order of things, that that part of our nature should be the first to have the recompense and reward to which they are due on account of its priority."

Such writings were definitely the seed that spawned the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. In these early Chiliast writers, reparation is written over the intermediate state experience of the just. The believer is therefore been rewarded in Hades now for his obedience or disobedience in life. Tertullian concludes:

"nasmuch as we understand “the prison” pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, and as we also interpret “the uttermost farthing” to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides" (A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter LVIII).

Tertullian expands on the belief of reparation for the sins of the dead and describes that as “compensatory discipline.” The cross does not seem to be enough for this early writer. He then seems to suggest that when the soul unites with the body “the full process of the resurrection” will be realized “when the recompense will be administered through the flesh.” This seems to align with the teaching of Irenaeus that the soul will be discipline in Hades and that the body will be tried in a future millennium to prepare it for incorruption.

DavidPT said:

Even this example you just submitted, it does not even remotely show that the 7th day and the 8th day are meaning the same day. It doesn't matter that the first day of the week was eventually changed. It doesn't change a thing one way or the other. Barnabas applied 6 days for human history, those days equaling 1000 years each. Obviously he arrived at those conclusions via 2 Peter 3:8 for one. Those verses I supplied, did not Barnabas indicate that when 6000 years are fulfilled, then comes the end? The end of what? Would it not be the end of this age? What comes after 6? 7 or 8? Which day was Barnabas applying to the eternal age? Day 7, or day 8? Was it not day 8?


First day: Sunday
Second Day: Monday
Third Day: Tuesday
Fourth Day: Wednesday
Fifthly Day: Thursday
Sixth Day: Friday
Seventh Day: Saturday
Eighth day: Sunday (Sabbath)

According to your example above, this is apparently after the first day of the week was changed from Saturday to Sunday. In this example the 8th day is meaning the first day, Sunday, as you rightly show. Let's now look at this before the first day was changed.


First day: Saturday
Second Day: Sunday
Third Day: Monday
Fourth Day: Tuesday
Fifthly Day: Wednesday
Sixth Day: Thursday
Seventh Day: Friday
Eighth day: Saturday (Sabbath)

No matter how you look at it, there is no conceivable way the 7th day and the 8th day can ever be meaning the same day.

In the former example the 7th day is meaning Saturday, while in the latter example the 7th day is meaning Friday. In the former example the 8th day is meaning Sunday, while in the latter example the 8th day is meaning Saturday. There is no way to spin this and somehow come up with the 7th day and 8th day being one and the same. Round pegs naturally do not fit into square holes. But that doesn't stop some from trying to force them into square holes, regardless, which is what one would be doing here if they insist that day 7 doesn't come after day 6, and that day 8 doesn't come after day 7. Clearly Barnabas was a Chiliast. What else could possibly explain it? He clearly had 7 days occurring before even arriving at the 8th day.

And the sad part about it, there are many in this thread that are biased towards me the fact I'm Premil. And because of that bias they can't even at least openly admit that I have a better argument than you do, in regards to this in particular.

Click to expand...

Did you read all the Early Fathers quotes on the 8th day being the Sabbath?

Barnabus, Alexandria, Egypt (Written in A.D. 130-131)

Because of an ignorance of the early thinking on the 8th day Sunday being the Sabbath (or 7th spiritual day), many commentators mistakenly portray Barnabas as a Premillennialist. They do so even though he explicitly and vividly portrays the Second Coming as climactic. They fail to see that he saw it as the end of the world. He explained in unambiguous language that the Lord’s return spells the termination of the wicked and the conclusion of all corruption (the result of the fall). He saw the coming of Christ as the time when glorification and perfection would be introduced forever.

What is more, Barnabas never once mentioned or taught about a “one thousand years” future millennium; neither did he detail any of the many fantastic millennial innovations modern-day Premillennialists anticipate for such a future age. He speaks nothing about a future reign of Christ in a thousand years kingdom. He envisioned no mortal sinful survivors at Christ’s appearing to populate the new earth. He rather describes a new pristine eternal day dawning.

In the light of this thorough introduction, let us examine the teaching of Barnabus:

It is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart.” And He says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them.” The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.” Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, “He finished in six days.” This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying, “Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years.” Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. “And He rested on the seventh day.” This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the-sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.

Please see: he believes that the wicked are judged and wiped out before the intro of the 7th day. The 7th day is therefore considered as a perfect paradise. This fits the Amil paradigm, and contradicts the Premil one.

He continues:

Moreover, He says, “Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart.” If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves.

Here you have it: this is the Amil new earth. It is perfect, righteous, incorrupt, eternal, wicked-free, Satan-free, curse-free, sin-free, death-free, decay-free. This is a far cry from the Premil debacle of an earth saturated with sin, death, corruption, war, Satan and wicked phonies feigning worship to Christ, when they are in fact, closet Satanists.

He concludes:

"Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness [Sunday being considered the early church Sabbath], the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead [speaking about Sunday]. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.”

Barnabas here criticizes the Jewish Sabbath (on Saturday) and elevates the Christian Sabbath (Sunday – which the ECFs considered the 8th day) as the true day of rest. The fact that the phrase “the eighth day” was so widely used in early church writings and was widely related to a Sunday Sabbath reinforces the fact it was common in early church vernacular and it was equally broadly understood.

No one can surely question that Barnabas was intent on challenging the whole viability of the Jewish Sabbath, which was held on a Saturday. The aim of his teaching was to advance the idea of the superseding of the Jewish Sabbath (the 7th day) under the new covenant with the Christian Sabbath (the 8th day). He believed the Jewish Sabbath had been disposed and had been replaced by a Sabbath rest on the Lord’s Day (resurrection day). According to this early Christian writer, the Jewish Saturday worship did not constitute the true Sabbath. Their Sabbath was rejected by God and because it only served as a symbol of Israel’s rebellion it was unsanctified.

Barnabus simply articulates the popular early church conviction that Sunday was the eight day (and the true Sabbath). He obviously took that from the widespread prevailing thought within the Church of his day. He highlights: because Sunday was the day that “Jesus rose again from the dead” it was a day to be celebrated by believers “with joyfulness.” This was indeed the Christian Sabbath. This was their day of rest.

Barnabus goes on then to liken the eternal Sabbath (7th day) to the present earthly Christian Sabbath on the 8th day. He refutes the Jewish Sabbath (the 7th day) in deference to the Christian Sabbath Sunday (the 8th day). The words of Ignatius previously show that this was an established truth within the early Church from Bible times. The Church was gradually distancing itself away from apostate Judaism.

Barnabus is undoubtedly an Amillennialist, those who argue otherwise ignore his climactic teaching and seem to be ignorant of the widely held concept on the 8th day (Sunday) being the real Sabbath (or 7th day), and it being eternal

After refuting the Jewish Sabbath that occurred on the seventh day, Barnabas, then highlights the importance of the Sunday, which became the Christian Sabbath, and compares that day of rest to the impending eternal state.

The eternal day is therefore likened to the Christian Sabbath - a Sunday, rather than the Jewish Saturday - the 7th day. The Christian 7th day is Sunday, which they labelled the 8th day in their week.

Barnabus nowhere teaches about a future millennium. That is a Premil add-on to his teaching.

First day: Sunday
Second Day: Monday (1st thousand years)
Third Day: Tuesday (2nd thousand years)
Fourth Day: Wednesday (3rd thousand years)
Fiveth Day: Thursday (4th thousand years)
Sixth Day: Friday (5th thousand years)
Seventh Day: Saturday (6th thousand years)

Eighth day: Sunday (Eternal Sabbath or 7th day of rest)

Barnabus makes the future symbolic 7th world day synonymous with the Christian 8th day theory reference a Sunday Sabbath. Like the other early church writers, the author understood these two days as speaking of the same day and time.

Premil historian D. H. Kromminga in his book Millennium in the Church acknowledges:

"Now, it would seem, that this argumentation would land Barnabas right in the lap of the millennium as a final period of this world’s history. He is perfectly aware of this and does not at all shun this consequence. However, he explains the statement that God rested on the seventh day, as follows: “this meaneth, when His Son, coming, shall destroy the time (of the wicked man) and judge the ungodly and change the sun and the moon and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day.” And the fact should not escape our attention, that in this chapter Barnabas links the notion of the rest with both the eighth and the eighth day.

He seems to be of the opinion that there will be a seventh world period all right, but that period will be identical with the perfection of the eternal state. There can be no doubt about the identity of his seventh and his eighth day. The day of rest that is coming is one and the same day, viewed from 2 different aspects. From the viewpoint of continuity the great world–sabbath is a seventh day; but from the viewpoint of discontinuity it is the eighth, beyond and outside the present world–week. The future state is the last reckoning from creation; it is new, because of sin and redemption. This is the simplest meaning which I can discover in Barnabas’s words; but this is plain and pure Amillennialism."

Whilst Barnabus was not a Chiliast you can easily see how his 6 day/6,000 years theory opened up the door to the conclusion that the 7th day will also be 1,000 years long. Even though most of the early writers considered the 7th day as eternal, the whole basis of the idea of a millennial week was fraught will many factual discrepancies, human speculations and theological contradictions. A study of the early fathers will see that this faulty concept inevitably led to some embracing Chiliasm.

Stanley J. Grenz writes in The Millennial Maze: “The creation-day world-age theory that Justin and others employed did not necessarily lead to the materially oriented premillennialism of Irenaeus. This is exemplified by a work that probably predates the early apologist … the Epistle of Barnabas.”

When Sextus Julius Africanus published a detailed chronology of human history in A.D. 221 tracing the first coming of Christ to the year 5500 of the world, we saw seeds of end-time confusion sown. Here we had the first seeds of date setting. If the world was to last 6,000 years and if Christ’s Advent was 5500 then one could estimate when the world was going to end.

Regardless of the complexities of this earthly concept objective Premil and Amil commentators conceded that Barnabus was not Premillennial.

Alan Patrick Boyd says in “A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers.” his study of the Epistle of Barnabas. These all come from

It is his master’s thesis presented to Dallas Theological Seminary. (1977)

“In the light of the argument of the passage, can one conclude that the author (Barnabas) was a premillennarian? Probably not, for the following reasons. First of all, one must realize that a belief in six millennia of world history in no way obligates one to posit a seventh millennium in world history. In other words, the most modern scholarship can do is to assume that the Seventh Day, in the writer's thought, is a millennium since there is no prima facie evidence for it. One must not assume the part (six millennia) for the whole (seven millennia). Secondly, the concept of ‘rest from creation’ is given within the chronological framework of the second advent (15.5) and the beginning of the Eighth Day (15.8)” (p. 104, 105)

“Therefore, the Eighth Day can be said to begin at the Second Advent. In other words, the Seventh Day is eschatologically the beginning of the Eighth Day. Therefore, there is no interval (millennial or otherwise) between the Seventh and Eighth Days” (p. 105).

“The whole point of the chapter is that the Eighth Day is the acceptable Sabbath. In the light of this, the seventh Day plays no appreciable role. If the Seventh Day were a millennium that millennium is insignificant” (p. 105).

“In the light of this, it seems best to understand the Eighth Day as eternity, and since the Seventh Day is synonymous with the Eighth, the Seventh Day would also be eternity” (p. 105, 106).

“In the light of the unity of the Seventh and Eighth Days, if a millennium were to exist, it would only be the threshold to, but within, eternity. It would be no interval between the present age and the eternal state (BOYD'S FOOTNOTE- this seems to be similar to Justin Martyr’s thought)” (p. 106).

“In conclusion then, it seems best to conclude that Barnabas was not a premillennarian. The existence of an eschatological Millennium in the author’s thought can only be an assumption of modern scholarship” (p. 106).

“…the sanctification of the Seventh Day, is not presently being fulfilled, but will be fulfilled when: 1) Christians are justified; 2) Christians are resurrected and rule the earth, 3) there is no more sin; 4) there is a new universe; 5) God causes everything to rest; and 6) God makes the beginning of the Eighth Day, i. e. – when God begins another world” (pp. 103-104).

claninja said:

Again, I appreciate you providing these quotes, but i was hoping you could have provided the early writers thoughts on the millennium and/or revelation 20. Everything you provided is pretty much silent on this.

Click to expand...

That is why I said, studying the early church fathers is like putting a jigsaw puzzle together. It takes time and is painstaking. Few have the time or the interest to do so. We can only examine what is extant. When you grasp the ancient peculiarities, it makes it easier to establish their views. There are a lot more chapters in the Bible than Revelation 20. So, I have never felt restricted to that chapter when studying these writers or trying to establish whether they believed the second coming is climactic, or merely.

Andrewn said:

Precisely. And if you think this answer is absurd, look at the history of Jerusalem from 587 BC until now. The times of the gentiles haven't ended.

Click to expand...

Exactly! It is hard dealing with a Preterist that is fixated with AD70. It is the epi-center of their thinking. That is all they think about. That is all they want to talk about. Everything is built around it. For the rest of us, Christ, His earthly ministry and His glorious future second coming hold that important place.