CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers were the Church leaders and prolific thinkers who lived before the creation of the Nicene Creed. They are to be the focus here due to the need for relative brevity and as they are indicative of an age between the apostles and the first ecumenical council. Their writings are of special interest as they lived either alongside the authors of the New Testament or within a few generations after them. When their works are read it becomes readily obvious that the vast majority of them were premillennial. They held to the doctrine of Chiliasm, better known as Millennialism. Indeed, many of them devote large portions of their overall works to the subject. However, what also becomes clear upon further reading is that there appears to be a lack of consistency regarding the timing of Christs return. At times, statements made by many of the Fathers are prima facie contrary. The contention here is that with some unpacking of their respective texts, these statements imply a greater truth. The thesis statement to be explained and defended is, The contrary statements made by several of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers regarding the premillennial Second Coming of Christ are rightfully reconciled by concluding that they believed in a two stage return.

What is meant by these men as having contrary statements applying directly or indirectly with the Second Coming, deals with them holding to both imminency and prerequisites. This is such a distinct oddity to be found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers writings that noted theologian Larry Crutchfield coined the term imminent intratribulationism in an effort to give some definition to the teaching.[footnoteRef:1] That is that there was a belief that the Tribulation had begun or will begin soon. Also, Christ could return at any moment even though He could only return at the end of the Tribulation. The imminence of Christs return is to be understood as not needing anything to occur for it to happen. By being imminent, His return can be anticipated because it can be applied to any time. There is an element of expectancy and a belief on His return to happen swiftly as a part of belief systems that fit the idea of imminency. In contrast to an imminent return is one where there are prerequisites in place. The Ante-Nicene Fathers often spoke of all sorts of different things that had to happen before the Second Coming. A plethora of prerequisites will be covered one by one in later chapters. However, the most often appealed to prerequisites must be understood before delving into the fathers writings. There are three that commonly arise. [1: Larry Crutchfield, When the Trumpet Signs. ed. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation in the Apostolic Fathers (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), p. 103.]

The first of these requirements is the rise of the Anti-Christ. It will be demonstrated that the Fathers held to a premillennial system that mandated an evil being persecuting the Church before Christ would return to set up His Kingdom. Part of the reason why Christ was to return was to deal with the Anti-Christ. Some of the Fathers to be reviewed believed that they were either living during a period of tribulation or in the last days. However, even in these circumstances none of them believed for certain that any living person was the Anti-Christ. Nor did they believe he had yet been revealed.

Another anticipated event to happen was the building of a third temple, commonly identified by the Fathers as the one spoken of by Ezekiel. It will be demonstrated that the majority of the Fathers taught that this temple must be in existence before the Second Coming. While not all of the Fathers thought that this temple had to be literally built before the return of Christ, most of them did (even among those who did not, they still held to several other prerequisites). This is a rather striking fact, as there was no temple during the period when these men wrote. It would take a great deal of time for another temple in Jerusalem to be constructed. As this is the case, the need for a new temple is a demonstrable and highly physical requirement.

The final prerequisite deals with a belief among many of the Fathers that there was a code in Scripture pointing to how long the Earth would exist before the Millennium. It is most succinctly described as the sex/septa-millenary construct. An explanation is needed as this paradigm is often appealed to by the Fathers both directly and indirectly. God created the Earth in a period of six consecutive days (Gen. 1) and rested on the seventh (Gen. 2:2). These facts are taken in conjunction with a teaching found in 2 Peter 3:8. The apostle explains that with the Lord one day is liken to a thousand years and a thousand years is liken to one day. Therefore, several of the Fathers conclude that God must have determined six thousand years of Earths existence before Christ would return to establish His Kingdom and rest. This rest is the seventh day which naturally consists of a period of one thousand years. An eighth day is also anticipated which is described as an eternal state. The legitimacy of the six days/six thousand years belief will not be affirmed or denied. It only needs to be understood that it causes significant chronological problems for several Fathers that are evident in the reviews of their respective writings. Namely, it leads to a period of approximately 2,000 years as yet needing to occur before Christ returns to physically reign on Earth.

Quite often Scripture will be consulted so that greater clarity will be achieved on what a given Father is saying in a passage from his writing. It is understood that this can be a dangerous thing due to the temptation to use an interpretation of Scripture and applying it to the father in an attempt to plug a meaning into their words that they did not intend. This will be avoided by only using Scripture that the father referenced in such a way as it remains consistent with his already established position. Direct references to a particular passage will be given more weight, while looser appeals to Scripture will only be used as possible support for various claims. While the danger of using Scripture to support the thesis is recognized, the Word of God must nevertheless be used. The Fathers relied on Scripture to such a great degree that it would be impossible to gain much meaning from their works without looking to the basis for so much of what they said.

Six Ante-Nicene Fathers will make up the primary analysis portion of the paper. These men and works are Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and the Didache. The first father to be covered is Clement of Rome. The portion covering Clement should not only be read for what information it contains in regards to the thesis, but also as a template. All of the reviewed seven fathers will be similarly treated. After a brief introduction, a segment of a fathers writing will be presented that represents the key conflict of imminency or another strong issue versus prerequisites. After such statements are carefully analyzed, other parts of a fathers writings will be addressed. This is done to give greater context to what he believed in regards to the premillennial return of Christ. At times, the fathers writings may cause perceived problems for the thesis. In these cases, those problems will be addressed and either admitted as legitimate or demonstrated to be a non-issue.

After the six fathers are covered, a few comments from other Ante-Nicene Fathers will be given treatment (although to a far less extent). This will be done to shore up the overall narrative that will have been provided by the initial reviews. It will also be done to further prove the commonality of Premillennialism during their time. The fathers covered in this manner will be Papias, Justin Martyr, Methodius and Lactantius.

Naturally, general arguments will be covered that would cause problems for the thesis. The arguments covered will be indicative of those that attack the idea of the early Church expecting a truly imminent return of Christ. The most damaging sort of argument is to claim that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not expect the return of Christ to happen until the prerequisites are fulfilled. These arguments must be addressed for the need of intellectual fairness. Nevertheless, those arguments against imminency will be shown to be either weak or non-conclusive.

Finally, it must be absolutely understood that the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers are contained in ancient manuscripts. The approach to gaining information from these documents is different than one given to more modern writings. Ancient manuscripts cannot be expected to contain key words or terms that the modern reader would recognize. These early writings have to be understood in light of their own internal dialogue and references to other writings (primarily Scripture). With this in mind, the extrapolated conclusions from these writings will be shown to support the thesis. Objections and counter-arguments will ultimately be unable to harm the thesis in any meaningful manner. It need only be well argued that it is logical to conclude that the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers lead to their possible belief in a two stage Second Coming.

CHAPTER 2

CLEMENT OF ROME

Clement of Rome was most likely a gentile and a Roman who lived from AD 30-100. He was said of Tertullian to have been consecrated by the apostle Peter. It is quite possible that he is even the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3.[footnoteRef:2] He lived during the time of those who personally knew Jesus and had firsthand contact with some of them. He has one known extant writing which is The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. Within this one work, Clement makes some claims that deal with the imminent return of Christ. However, Clement also explains that Christ is going to save the Church from wrath and would return to the temple. This seems to be a problem as if Christ is coming back in only one stage then the Church would not be able to avoid the very wrath Clement refers to, nor could His coming be without prerequisites. Clement summarizes his views on the coming of Christ here: [2: A. Cleveland Cox, Ante-Nicene Fathers (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Clement Introductory Note, Location 93.]

The all-merciful and beneficent Father has bowels [of compassion] towards those that fear Him, and kindly and lovingly bestows His favours upon those who come to Him with a simple mind. Wherefore let us not be double-minded; neither let our soul be lifted up on account of His exceedingly great and glorious gifts. Far from us be that which is written, Wretched are they who are of a double mind, and of a doubting heart; who say, These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us. Ye foolish ones! compare yourselves to a tree: take [for instance] the vine. First of all, it sheds its leaves, then it buds, next it puts forth leaves, and then it flowers; after that comes the sour grape, and then follows the ripened fruit. Ye perceive how in a little time the fruit of a tree comes to maturity. Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, Speedily will He come, and will not tarry; and The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom ye look. (Clement of Rome, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 23, Location 729-735.)

Clement describes the Father in such a way as to highlight His loving attitude towards the saved. He makes it a point to explain that God gives favors to those that are His. In addition Clement is saying that men should come to God with a simple mind and not question His promises regarding His coming. Indeed, he is not pleased with the faith of those who have doubted or even mocked Gods promise by appealing to the Second Coming not having yet occurred. 2 Peter 3:3-4 is most likely the Scriptural reference that Clement was making. Peter warns that in the last days there would be mockers and those making claims that because Jesus had not yet returned that it would never happen. Those doubting the return will assume that the world will remain just as it is indefinitely. However, Peter goes on to explain that this was the prevailing attitude just before the flood. The matter of the flood and Clements letter will be covered in a later section, but it is important to note that Clement tacitly references it here.

The illustration of a vine is used by Clement to portray how Christ could return at any moment. The Lord Jesus uses a similar illustration about a fig tree in Matthew 24:32-33 where He speaks of looking to see when the branch is tender and puts forth its leaves. Clement was surely aware of Christs teaching here as he takes the parable a step farther by adding that the sour grape can become ripe without warning. The implication is that Clement wanted to especially stress imminency. Clearly Clement taught that Jesus could return at any moment and with no prerequisite required.

Just before making two Scriptural references, Clement once again asserts that Gods will regarding the coming of Christ is to occur suddenly. Just after this, Clement makes two distinct statements. The first references Habakkuk 2:3 and by extension Hebrews 10:37. Clement uses verses that speak about the Lord coming without delay. There is nothing that He must await to occur before He comes. Yet after using this reference, Clement makes another that has prima facie contradictions to his first. This reference is to part of Malachi 3:1. Malachi explains that the Lord will suddenly come to His temple. This is a rather intriguing thing for him to say. Clement wrote this letter rather late in his life and while the date is not certain, it was well after 70 AD. Even the earliest postulated dates do not have it being written before the destruction of Herods temple. It probably was not even written soon after the persecution brought by Nero.[footnoteRef:3] This is important as Clement apparently anticipated that a new Jewish temple would be built again. This is a clear indication that Clement held to at least some futurist ideas. Holding to a future temple is absolutely indicative of Premillennialism due to the anticipated literal fulfillment of a third physical place of worship. In fact Clement even refers to a yet coming Kingdom of Christ. [3: A. Cleveland Cox, Ante-Nicene Fathers volume I (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Preface, Location 104.]

All the generations from Adam even unto this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the visitation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves. (Clement of Rome, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 50, Location 1323-1329.)

Clement speaks of all those who knew the Lord up to his present time. He uses Isaiah 26:20 as an application to all of these men who have died. He does not seem to make a distinction here as to those who died before the events in Acts 2 and those after in terms of the resurrection. However, this is not a problem for the idea of him holding to a two stage return of Christ. It must be understood that simply because Clement may not fully agree with modern conceptions of a two stage return of Christ, that does not mean that he does not hold to the essential matter of Christ coming to do two distinct actions at two distinct times. To suggest otherwise would be to employ the fallacy of decomposition.

Clement places this resurrection as happening after the wrath passes away and at the beginning of the consummation of the Kingdom. The kingdom Clement speaks of is almost certainly to be understood as a literal place given that it was yet to occur. The amillennial idea of a kingdom would not hold to it as needing to commence. The idea of avoiding wrath is especially critical to deciphering certainty from Clements writings. It has been established that Clement believed that the faithful would receive compassion from God. It has also been established that the Kingdom of Christ would begin after the wrath. Now it shall be established that Clement taught that the faithful would indeed be spared the wrath that precedes the Kingdom.

After explaining how the Christian should imitate the great examples of the faithful throughout Scripture, Clement says to Let us contemplate Him with our understanding, and look with the eyes of our soul to His long-suffering will. Let us reflect how free from wrath He is towards all His creation.[footnoteRef:4] By creation Clement is referring to those who have trusted in God and perhaps the uncorrupted world in general. This is made especially clear later in the discussion here on Clements writings. He is well aware that God is planning to punish evil in the world and dispense judgments. Clement even makes it a point to explain that those belonging to Christ will be protected from these judgments. Since then all things are seen and heard [by God], let us fear Him, and forsake those wicked works which proceed from evil desires; so that, through His mercy, we may be protected from the judgments to come. For whither can any of us flee from His mighty hand? Or what world will receive any of those who run away from Him?[footnoteRef:5] [4: Clement of Rome, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 19, Location 663.] [5: Clement of Rome, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 28, Location 819.]

It is of pure necessity that the judgments mentioned by Clement be identified. No doubt, many will claim that these judgments must be those done at the return of Christ. And that these judgments are done upon all those who are against Christ at this time. Or perhaps they would claim that the judgments are the more general kind done to the any person denying Christ, regardless of the timing of the Second Coming. However, given that the wrath and judgments spoken of by Clement are contained in two concurring chapters. They are part of a narrative about escaping terrible punishments from God. This not only makes it likely that Clement is meaning to link wrath with judgments, but that there is no other cogent answer readily available. Indeed, judgments is in the plural form. The general sort of judgment that God uses on the unbelieving would not naturally be referred to in the plural but rather the singular. However, judgments in the plural is a clear Biblical teaching. Revelation speaks of many judgments happening upon the earth. The seven seals themselves can rightfully be described as such. However, the most powerful connection is found in Revelation 16. Here the seven bowls of wrath are poured out. Clement equated wrath and judgment as does John here in this very chapter.

Then the third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of waters; and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it." And I heard the altar saying, "Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments." (Rev. 16:4-7 New American Standard Bible)

Once the angel pours his bowl into the water ways he credits God with the result of them turning into blood. He calls God righteous because of Gods judgment in giving the inhabitants of the earth undesired blood in response to them spilling it. The altar also cries out that Gods judgments are true and righteous. This bowl of wrath is also identified as one of many acts of judgments. Given that Clement seemed to be speaking of the wrath and judgments as being related occurrences anyway, it is all but conclusive now that there is such a profound Biblical example of this happening as well. And it is likely that Clement was even referring to Revelation 16 to begin with. With the relationship of wrath and judgments established it can be said that Clement did not believe that those faithful to Christ would experience either. There yet remains a possible objection to using the idea of the faithful avoiding wrath and judgments to support Clement holding to a two stage return of Christ. This would be that perhaps Clement, when speaking on judgments is meaning that the faithful would only be protected from them in some manner but would yet be present. An examination of Clements teachings regarding Gods dealing with the righteous is needed.

Wherefore, let us yield obedience to His excellent and glorious will; and imploring His mercy and loving-kindness, while we forsake all fruitless labours, and strife, and envy, which leads to death, let us turn and have recourse to His compassions. Let us stedfastly contemplate those who have perfectly ministered to His excellent glory. Let us take (for instance) Enoch, who, being found righteous in obedience, was translated, and death was never known to happen to him. Noah, being found faithful, preached regeneration to the world through his ministry; and the Lord saved by him the animals which, with one accord, entered into the ark. (Clement of Rome, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 9, Location 418-425.)

Clement begins by explaining that God must be obeyed. This obedience comes about by asking for His mercy in tandem with forsaking evil acts. Clement then looks to examples of those who have been especially obedient to God. It is of rather profound significance that Clement mentions Enoch as the first of his examples. Genesis 5 is a list of male descendants from Adam to Noah. The years of each is given until he had a son and then the years until his death are given. Enoch is an anomaly in the list because while his years lived on the planet are given, his death is never recorded. Verse 24 simply says that Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. He was not implies that Enoch never died as the reason given was that God took him. God literally took Enoch off of the planet because he walked with Him. This is proof that God may act in such a way as to even completely remove the righteous from the Earth. In addition to the Genesis account even more evidence about Enoch is given in Hebrews where it is confirmed that Enoch did indeed avoid death completely. Here Enoch is said to have been pleasing to God. This is important because immediately after the writer of Hebrews says this he mentions that And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Heb. 11:6). Here it is taught that faith is required to please God. It is likely that Clement is holding to this when he means to equate those yielding to Gods will with Enoch. And with this being the case, Clement must mean that the currently living faithful could at least possibly expect God to act in the same manner as He did with Enoch on their behalf. Even more evidence exists for Clement equating the translation of Enoch to the faithful because he next mentions Noah.

The writer of Hebrews, too, mentions Noah immediately after discussing Enoch. Upon mentioning Noah here, Clement describes him as being found faithful. Because of this faithfulness, along with the animals God saved Noah by providing the ark. The writer of Hebrews explains that it was out of reverence for God that Noah prepared the ark. The ark also allowed salvation for Noahs household while at the same time condemning the world. The writer continues his analysis by saying that Noah became an heir of righteousness according to the faith. Clement mentions Noah several times in his letter to the Corinthians. He always mentions him as an example of God sparing the faithful from His wrath and judgments. The ark itself is a device used to separate the faithful from Gods judgment upon the world. Clements references of Noah in relation to the Second Coming and thusly the timing of the Millennium are especially profound because of Christs own use of Noah during the Olivet Discourse.

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and the one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. (Matt. 24:37-42)

The flood can be understood as the wrath of God upon the world. Men had become corrupt and in need of judgment. Those who were about to be punished had no idea of the imminent nature of the flood. They lived their lives as they always had, with no concern for the things of God. At the coming of the flood, the faithful men of the earth were safely in the ark. Christ indicates that when He comes the paradigm will be the same. But here the device of safety for the faithful is different. Instead of an ark to save them from water, it seems as though Christ will come and then will supernaturally take them. This is indicated by the examples of those in the field and at the mill. In both situations, those of faith were separated from the wrath unleashed by God upon the earth. It is not unfair to assign this understanding to Clement and his allusions. In addition to his references to Noah and the flood, he actually explicitly teaches that the wrath of God is not meant for the faithful in any situation.

On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodore when all the country round was punished by means of fire and brimstone, the Lord thus making it manifest that He does not forsake those that hope in Him, but gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and torture. For Lot's wife, who went forth with him, being of a different mind from himself and not continuing in agreement with him [as to the command which had been given them], was made an example of, so as to be a pillar of salt unto this day. This was done that all might know that those who are of a double mind, and who distrust the power of God, bring down judgment on themselves and become a sign to all succeeding generations. (Clement of Rome, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 11, Location 460-467.)

Clement explains that Lot was saved from the punishment that was done to Sodom (Sodore). Clement uses Lot as an example to prove that God saves those that are His while at the same time torturing those that are not. Lot was actually removed from Sodom before it was destroyed via fire. God enacted rightful judgment upon that evil city and removed the faithful beforehand. It is of interest that Lots wife was removed from the city with Lot, but she could not escape judgment. Clement says that she was of a double mind and did not trust in the power of God. He points to Lots wife as a sign to later generations of how God acts upon the wicked. In his day, Lots wife still stood as a pillar of salt. But even without that apparent reality now, she still serves as a Scriptural example of God removing the faithful from His judgment but also preventing those that are evil from escaping it. Clement understood the difference between the wicked vexing the righteous and God doing so. He clearly did not believe that God would subject the righteous to His wrath. He makes an important distinction by relying on more examples from Scripture.

The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the wicked. They were cast into prison, but only by the unholy; they were stoned, but only by transgressors; they were slain, but only by the accursed, and such as had conceived an unrighteous envy against them. Exposed to such sufferings, they endured them gloriously. For what shall we say, brethren? Was Daniel cast into the den of lions by such as feared God? Were Ananias, and Azarias, and Mishal shut up in a furnace of fire by those who observed the great and glorious worship of the Most High? Far from us be such a thought! (Clement of Rome, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 45, Location 1196-1202.)

According to Clement, God was not the persecuting agent upon the just. In each scenario he lists, the ungodly can be found as the source of torment upon the righteous. Even in these situations, those who knew God were said to have not only endured, but they did so to His glory. Daniel faced being surrounded by what would devour him and undergoing near certain death. But he was not caste into the den by God, but rather saved by Him from said danger. If one was determined to find a Biblical example of the righteous enduring punishment during the Tribulation then none could be better than that of Ananias, Azarias and Mishael. Nebuchadnezzar had these men thrown into a furnace that was heated to seven times its usual level. It was so hot that even those whose job it was to merely throw the men in were destroyed by the flames. However, by the power of God the flames did not consume Ananias, Azarias of Mishael. Clement did not choose to use this as an example of overcoming and surviving the coming wrath when he absolutely could have. Rather he only uses it to point to the fact that God does not put those that are His in such situations. The fact that Clement taught that God did not cause these hard times upon the faithful is important. This is because by his own reasoning Clement would not have held to the saved enduring the time of wrath he spoke of earlier.

Clement taught that the return of Christ would happen soon and that Christ would not tarry. By saying that He would not tarry, it can only be understood that Christ is not waiting for anything to happen before He returns. Yet, Clement also says that Christ will return to His temple. As covered above, these two statements seem to contradict. However, Clement teaches that some of the dead will rise just before Christ enters His Kingdom and that the living faithful will not have to endure the wrath and judgments that God will unleash. Although Clement does not expressly say that Jesus will return just before a period of judgment to save these faithful (although it is heavily implied), it is a natural conclusion to make. If this conclusion was not made then the writings of Clement can only be seen as being riddled with contradictions. This is not a fair conclusion to make as many of these contrary lines of thinking are found in the same immediate area of text to one another. The contrary statements of Clement can easily be harmonized by understanding that he was referring to not one, but two distinct comings of Christ just before the inception of the Millennium.

CHAPTER 3

BARNABAS

The Epistle of Barnabas is attributed to one Barnabas. Tradition identifies him as an Alexandrian Jew during the time of Trajan and Hadrian. His name may have actually been Barnabas, but it is at least just as likely that the epistle was attributed to that name given that it has apostolic authority behind it. However, as the epistle at times comes off as very Pauline, it could actually have been written by Pauls associate (although this is admittedly unlikely). Regardless, the epistle was written around 100 AD[footnoteRef:6], and the contents are therefore indicative of the thoughts of the early Church. Barnabas as he shall be referred to here, was influential during his time and for a couple of centuries afterwards until his work started to be less frequently read. [6: A. Cleveland Cox, Ante-Nicene Fathers (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Introductory Note, Location 7609.]

Barnabas devotes much of his writing to the events leading to the return of Jesus Christ. However, in doing so he presents what appears to be conflicting accounts of just when and how His return will occur. The primary conflict comes from statements about how Jesus will soon come in contrast with events that are to happen before He does.

It is well, therefore, that he who has learned the judgments of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them. For he who keepeth these shall be glorified in the kingdom of God; but he who chooseth other things shall be destroyed with his works. On this account there will be a resurrectionfor the day is at hand on which all things shall perish with the evil [one]. The Lord is near, and His rewardAnd may God, who ruleth over all the world, give to you wisdom, intelligence, understanding, knowledge of His judgments, with patience. And be ye taught of God, inquiring diligently what the Lord asks from you; and do it that ye may be safe in the day of judgment. (Barnabas, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 21, Location 8856-8863.)

This segment of text is from the end of Barnabas epistle. This is important to note as much of his earlier comments will be covered, and they will show that he anticipated many things had yet to occur before Christ could return. But here at the end, he fully anticipates a near return of Christ and the destruction of Satan (or the Anti-Christ). Just how and when Christ will return can be gleaned by carefully unpacking the timing of events that Barnabas sets up. Barnabas talks about those who keep with the judgments of God as being honored in the Kingdom. He speaks of a resurrection of the dead so that they can be judged either along with their works or not. This is highly indicative of those events being understood with a literal millennial reign of Christ. In no way does Barnabas indicate that by Kingdom he means some sort of vague allegorical idea. The day of judgment could either represent a period of wrath similar to Clement of Romes view or a final judgment of the unsaved. Surely the events Barnabas speaks to are not well assembled in any sort of chronology. Nevertheless, at least the return of Christ happening before the Kingdom is established, can be understood with some certainty. This is because it would be a complete anomaly in Scriptural exegesis and any legitimate theological writings for him to hold to Christ returning to a literal Kingdom at any time other than before its inception. As Barnabas expected the return of Christ to be near, then it is a strange thing for him to teach that the Millennium would not begin for at least 2,000 years.

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. (Barnabas, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 15, Location 8603-8612.)

Here the doctrine of the six days/six thousand years is well explained. This is actually a common teaching among the early Church. As explained in chapter one, the basic idea is that because God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh that there will be six thousand years of Earths existence before the Millennium. This early Church doctrine comes primarily from 2 Peter 3:8 where Barnabas takes the days of Genesis and applies them to Peters atemporal explanation of days being to God as Millenniums and the reversal also being true. The context of Peters epistle here does support this to at least some extent. Peters explanation of the six days/six thousand years paradigm is part of his overall reminder of the Second Coming of Christ. His teaching is that in the last days amongst the mockers, the Lord will return. Gods creation has a reservation prepared for it where it will be remade by fire for the Day of Judgment. Peter continues to explain that the day of the Lord will come like a thief and that the Earth and its works will be burned up. Barnabas echoes this type of thinking. He sees this time as when the Anti-Christ will be destroyed and even the sun, moon and stars will be changed.

There are a few ways in which Peters words about days and millenniums can be interpreted. But it is clear that Barnabas means the likening of days to millenniums to deal especially in the realm of eschatology. He takes the six days of creation as a sort of pattern for the timing of the rest of creation to follow. After the six thousand years, there will be a thousand years of rest. This period is the Millennium. It is not hard to understand why Barnabas came to this conclusion given that his interpretation of days would require for him to see the seventh day as a thousand year period. Also, this follows logically as Peter refers to the day of the Lord, where Barnabas quotes from. The Day of the LORD is found throughout Scripture in reference to a time when God would unleash His wrath and then reign upon the Earth. Barnabas reasoning again fits here with the use of day to describe a thousand year period, being the Day of the LORD.

Barnabas does not say how old he believed the earth to be. However, given that Barnabas rarely ever uses allegory (and never in regards to chronology) it can be safely assumed that he would have believed Earth was approximately 4,000 years in age. Also, he believes that the totality of earths existence before the Millennium will be 6,000 years. It would be very odd for him to believe this and yet not conclude that he lived just after the finish of the fourth day. Therefore, he must not have believed that Christ would return and begin His millennial reign for approximately 2,000 years. In the first excerpt of Barnabas above, it can be confirmed that he expected the return of Christ to be near. Barnabas also quoted from the same section of Scripture where Peter explains that the return of Christ will be like a thief in the night. Because of this apparent disconnect it is wise to seek more detail in his millennial views. The seventieth week found in Daniel is often appealed to by Anti-Nicene Church Fathers as it deals heavily with their eschatology.

Let us then utterly flee from all the works of iniquity, lest these should take hold of usThe final stumbling-block (or source of danger) approaches, concerning which it is written, as Daniel says, For for this end the Lord has cut short the times and the days, that His Beloved may hasten; and He will come to the inheritance. And the prophet also speaks thus: Ten kingdoms shall reign upon the earth, and a little king shall rise up after them, who shall subdue under one three of the kings. In like manner Daniel says concerning the same, And I beheld the fourth beast, wicked and powerful, and more savage than all the beasts of the earth, and how from it sprang up ten horns, and out of them a little budding horn, and how it subdued under one three of the great horns. (Barnabas, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 4, Location 7821-7827.)

Barnabas mentions works of iniquity just before speaking on the seventieth week. In the eighteenth chapter of his epistle, in relation to types of authority he says And He indeed (God) is Lord for ever and ever, but he (Satan) is prince of the time of iniquity.[footnoteRef:7] Barnabas uses iniquity in his description of what should be avoided and in reference to a certain period of time when Satan is in control. Given that iniquity is to be avoided before the seventieth week, then it is not a leap to understand that Barnabas may see this period at being congruent with the time when Satan has greater authority. [7: Barnabas, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 18, Location 8732.]

A final time of danger is expected by Barnabas which he identifies as the seventieth week spoken of in Daniel 9. This is a time identified by Daniel as the final week on Israels prophetic time table. It is of interest that Barnabas (among many of his contemporaries) believes that while the sixty-ninth week ended with the Messiah being cut off, he yet holds to the seventieth waiting to happen. He holds to a postponement of the final week as he did not identify it as happening directly after Jesus died and was resurrected.

Jesus speaks of a time of great tribulation during the Olivet Discourse. In it He declares that the days during this period of tribulation will be cut short for the sake of the elect. Barnabas says that the days would be cut short during the seventieth week. It is perfectly natural that Barnabas would identify the tribulation spoken of by Christ as being the seventieth week. Both deal with a time of great trouble and a new precedent of evil against Israel and upon the Earth. After the days are cut short, Barnabas says that Jesus will come to His inheritance. Jesus identifies Himself as King of the Jews (Mark 15:2). He is often referred to as the Son of David (Matt. 15:22, 20:30, Mark 10:47). Therefore, Jesus is the fulfillment of the unbreakable and eternal promise made by God (via Nathan) to David (2 Sam. 7:16). By inheritance, Barnabas is likely saying that Jesus is coming to the throne of David and ruling over His Kingdom. He clearly does not hold to Christ as yet having this inheritance. Barnabas says that He will come to this inheritance. Jesus is not said to currently have any inheritance here. It is something that Barnabas is awaiting to occur.

Barnabas paraphrases Daniel 7:7-8. He focuses on the little horn, and how it grew among the existent horns and then rooted up three of the horns. These ten horns were present on the fourth beast in Daniels vision. It is likely that Barnabas identifies the little horn as the Anti-Christ or the wicked prince. Barnabas says later in this chapter that the wicked prince would acquire power over the faithful and would seek to thrust them away from the Kingdom of the Lord.[footnoteRef:8] Barnabas actually refers to this horn as a king. Though not in Barnabas paraphrase, Daniel says that the little horn has eyes like a man and a mouth uttering great boasts. The Little Horn has attributes like a man, and boasts, which is indicative of one with an ungodly nature. Daniel explains that beasts are different kingdoms (Dan. 7:17). Thus, the little horn comes out of kingdom and is its king. Daniel himself identifies the little horn as a king (Dan. 7:24) and that he will wage war against the saints (Dan. 7:21). It is of interest to note that in Daniel 7 it is also prophesized that the Ancient of Days (God) defeats the fourth beast and its little horn, takes away the dominion of the other beasts and gives the Son of Man (Jesus) dominion, glory and a kingdom. This all the more underscores the likelihood of Barnabas holding to the timing of the tribulation being before Jesus receives His throne. [8: Barnabas, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 4, Location 7855.]

After the reference to Daniel 7, Barnabas says that We take earnest heed in these last days; for the whole [past] time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger, as becometh the Sons of God. That the Black One may find no means of entrance[footnoteRef:9] Barnabas seems to think that he is living in the last days. He does not say how long he expects these days to continue. However, for them to be the last, it could not be a great deal of time. Also, he holds that the time he is experiencing is a wicked one. During this period he admonishes the reader to withstand sources of danger and resist the Black One. By Black One he may be speaking of the Anti-Christ or Satan in general. The best explanation for Barnabas statements is that he believed he was either living in a time just before the tribulation or during it. He seems to be anticipating the rise of the Anti-Christ with his discussion of the fourth beast and the little king as occurring during the seventieth week or time of tribulation. As said before, Barnabas taught that Jesus was coming to His inheritance. This was said in tandem with his teaching of the seventieth week and the perceived last days nature of his time. [9: Barnabas, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 4, Location 7840-7848.]

Before concluding remarks can be made, a possible problem must be addressed. Though Barnabas usually seems to speak as if the verses he uses are to be understood literally, he does have one glaring use of allegory.

Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There iswhere He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord. I find, therefore, that a temple does existobserve ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. (Barnabas, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 16, Location 8677-8691.)

As indicated above, Barnabas believed he was in the last days in at least some manner. During the time in which Barnabas lived, building a temple could not be finished quickly. Barnabas seems to want to hold to living close to ending events, and as such he must deal with the problem of there simply being no temple. Barnabas explains that when the week is finished, the temple will be built. He uses the authoritative phrase it is written to give weight to his belief. Yet, there is no place in Scripture to be found that matches his quote. It is fair to make the conclusion that the temple must be again built, based on deduction from Daniel 9:24-27 and Ezekiel chapters 40-48 (among many others). Barnabas is clearly concerned with keeping his eschatology within strict Biblical parameters. Yet, he engages in allegory to explain how there was an actual temple during his time, namely the habitation found in believers. Most likely, Barnabas is appealing to verses such as 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 that teach on the bodies of believers acting as temples to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is not so much of an allegorical approach to simply say that the bodies of believers are true temples. However, the use of allegory here lies in that Barnabas is applying how the Holy Spirit dwells in believers to what was spoken of as a physical temple that was part of a line of previous physical temples.

Despite Barnabas using allegory here, this is no cause to conclude that he is engaging in allegory when he speaks on those issues paramount to concluding that his teachings lead to a two stage Second Coming. Indeed, the issue of the temple is the most profound example of Barnabas using allegory, and even then it is relatively mild given that he appealed to Scripture for the reason behind his finding. Also, Barnabas takes the time to explain just why it is acceptable to appeal to the bodies of believers as temples as part of his eschatological scheme. Given that he does not do this sort of explanation to avoid the less literal understanding in other places, it can be concluded that allegory is not a big part of his understanding of the Second Coming or events pertaining directly to the Millennium.

It has been well established through examples and analysis that Barnabas was premillennial and anticipated the return of Christ to be near. His premillennial views are closely linked to his literal approach to understanding the seventieth week of Daniel 9. Because of this, he foresees the Anti-Christ (the little horn) as having yet to arise during this yet to occur week. Even though Barnabas holds to Christ as coming to His inheritance as occurring after a time of tribulation or the seventieth week, he yet believes this to be happening soon. He may believe that Christs return is truly imminent or that it is just relatively close. The latter possibility leads to concluding that Barnabas believed that the events of the seventieth week must have been imminent, as otherwise His return would not reasonably be near. However, either possibility defies his rather developed teaching on the six days/ six thousand years time table.

Barnabas says that Christ will come and truly rest during the seventh set of a thousand years (the Millennium). Based on his timetable, Barnabas could not have expected this rest to happen for approximately 2,000 years. This sets up the key problem of trying to reconcile how he could have expected the soon return of Christ (either imminent or right after imminent events) with the reality of two days yet needing to pass before Jesus would return. Concluding that according to Barnabas teachings, Jesus Christ would return twice (both being near and yet after 2,000 years) is a logical deduction that can be made to reconcile otherwise very difficult and inconsistent narratives.

CHAPTER 4

IRENAEUS

Irenaeus is an especially important Anti-Nicene Church Father. He lived from 120 to 202 AD and was a pupil under Polycarp.[footnoteRef:10] As a student of a man who himself studied under the Apostle John, Irenaeus is naturally of great interest. He is clearly a futurist in regards to the reign of the Anti-Christ and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus serves as an excellent example of an Ante-Nicene Church Father who is not expecting an imminent return of Christ, but still holds to a very literal view of end time events. While Ireneaus could be pointed to as a problem for the thesis point concerning the imminent return, he still supports the overall narrative of conflicting teachings pointing to a two stage Second Coming. Irenaeus does not see an imminent return of Christ, but does see it as conceivably happening soon. He speaks on the possible name of the Anti-Christ and why it should not be asserted as of yet. [10: A. Cleveland Cox, Ante-Nicene Fathers (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Introductory Note, Location 17368.]

It is therefore more certain, and less hazardous, to await the fulfilment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved. For if there are many names found possessing this numberWe will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this time present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitians reign. (Irenaeus, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 30, Location 32608-32633.)

Irenaeus teaches that a couple of things must occur before the Anti-Christ is revealed. First must come the division of the kingdom into ten and then the kings over those divisions must be advancing their kingdoms when another leader comes to terrify them.[footnoteRef:11] Only after these things happen will Irenaeus become comfortable with pointing out with certainty the identity of the Anti-Christ. Irenaeus advises his contemporaries not to caste out names. This was the prudent thing to do as apparently there were many names at that time that could fit the number 666 in what must have been a fairly common use of Greek gematria. In the use of Irenaeus words above some text was not included which is represented by the . It is here where Irenaeus weighs the likelihood of a litany of names which include Evanthas, Lateinos, Teitan and Titan.[footnoteRef:12] Irenaeus admits that many of these names are possible or even probable (in the case of Leteinos). [11: Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 30, Location 32604.] [12: Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 30, Location 32616-32628.]

Even with a list of distinct possibilities, Irenaeus further explains why the identity should not be asserted by appealing to John not revealing his actual name in his apocalypse. Irenaeus explains that the vision was beheld recently and identifies it as happening during the reign of Domitian. No doubt this is why the date of Revelation is held to be in the mid-nineties AD. Irenaeus was writing Against Heresies in the middle of the first century. He is correct in saying that the vision was given to John in a time that was almost in his generation. By his own reasoning it would seem as if Irenaeus should conclude that John was not trying to identify any names of those in the first or second centuries. This is because Irenaeus says that it was not necessary for the present time that the name of the Anti-Christ should be revealed. However, he seems comfortable in taking contemporary candidates seriously.

Irenaeus readiness to at least accept possible names for the Anti-Christ does not settle with his belief in the doctrine of the six days/six thousand years doctrine.

For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year. (Irenaeus, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 28, Location 32515-32520.)

Among other places in his writings, Irenaeus touches here upon the six days/six thousand years belief. However, in this instance Irenaeus adds a fascinating aspect to this early Church teaching. He makes the interesting case that by the historical account of God creating the earth in six days is in fact also a prophecy. The idea that something can be a record, and yet telling of a greater truth, is a perfectly legitimate idea. It is a very common device used by theologians and supported by Scripture. In a sense, Ireneaus is appealing to a shadow or type ala Colossians 2:17. However, this shadow is not expressly identified in Scripture as such. From a regular reading of Genesis 2 and Second Peter 3 this teaching is not readily obvious. This makes it all the more intriguing that it was such a common belief. He says that all of these things will come to completion at the six thousandth year. By they coming to an end Irenaeus is speaking directly about the Anti-Christ here as evidenced by this teaching found directly before the above text on the six days.

Just after quoting John on the mark of the beast, Ireneaus says that is, six times a hundred, six times ten, and six units. [He gives this] as a summing up of the whole of that apostasy which has taken place during six thousand years.[footnoteRef:13] Irenaeus concludes that the mark of the beast is 666 because it emphasis the 6 days of creation up until that point where it finally reached a crescendo. Irenaeus does seem to set up a contradictory position here as he believed the Anti-Christ could come soon and yet must have believed in two thousand years needing to happen before that could occur. No doubt, the vagaries among Irenaeus work may be attacked as being at least in part allegorical. By doing so, those making this case could explain away his seemingly contrary positions. Yes, Irenaeus engaged in pointing to subjective types in Scripture. However, he believed in the historical account behind what he believed the type was pointing to. Irenaeus disdain for allegory is rather clear and he has no problem expressing that opinion. [13: Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 28, Location 32515.]

If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: When the cities of the Gentiles shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate. For, behold, says Isaiah, the day of the Lord cometh For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth. (Irenaeus, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 35, Location 33006-33017.)

It is clear that allegory was not something that Irenaeus thought highly of in prophecy. And because he did not see it as useful in prophecy, it is hard to imagine where he would find it useful. Irenaeus views allegorization as leading to inconsistency in exegesis in that the interpreter doing so will be rebutted by the Word itself. After quoting from Isaiah 6:11 the above text is interrupted. In this missing text he quotes from Isaiah 13:9, 26:10, 6:12 and 65:21. Irenaeus means to show the utter consistency that is to be found when one applies that these things pertaining to the Day of the LORD are speaking to the time when the just would be resurrected. He further identifies this time as taking place after the destructive rule of the Anti-Christ. He concludes that at this time those resurrected righteous will reign upon the Earth. This undoubtedly is understood by Irenaeus as the period in which the ultimate ruler will be Christ. It is also of note that Irenaeus takes the prophecies about the animals becoming peaceful and vegetarian in Isaiah 11 quite literally. He even mentions that those who try and equate these verses as describing men becoming peaceful upon belief in Christ are wrong in doing so.[footnoteRef:14] If there was ever to be a litmus test (at least among modern theologians) regarding whether an exegete employed allegory or not, Isaiah 11 would be it. And Irenaeus falls on the side of following the consistent and literal approach as opposed to allegory. [14: Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 33, Location 32864.]

Not only has this segment from Against Heresies displayed Irenaeus dislike of allegory and a desire to prop up a consistent hermeneutic on prophecy. But, it also has also provided further evidence that Irenaeus saw that the Anti-Christ and resurrection of the just was still to come and should be looked to as having a literal fulfillment. Allegory cannot be used to explain away the inconsistency of Irenaeus holding to the possibly soon coming of Anti-Christ (and by extension the inception of the Millennium) and his belief in the six days/six thousand years doctrine. But with this in mind, what is to be made of such a troubling inconsistency? If it is to be concluded that there is no primary source answer to this, it must be absolutely proven that Irenaeus did in fact hold to the millennial reign of Christ.

For what are the hundred-fold [rewards] in this word, the entertainments given to the poor, and the suppers for which a return is made? These are [to take place] in the times of the kingdom, that is, upon the seventh day, which has been sanctified, in which God rested from all the works which He created, which is the true Sabbath of the righteous, which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation; but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes. (Irenaeus, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Chapter 33, Location 32814-32821.)

Irenaeus wisely asks if the entertainments and suppers are to be found in the world as it currently is. Irenaeus is speaking specifically on Luke 14:12.13, where Christ speaks to who invited him. As part of a supplemental teaching on the parable of the guests, Jesus advises inviting guests that cannot repay the gesture. Jesus even says that at the resurrection of the righteous that the reward for inviting the poor will be given. Irenaeus holds that this teaching is about the Kingdom. This is not unusual as he already indicated that the resurrection would happen at the time of the Kingdom. It is likely that Irenaeus even believed that the entire parable of the guests spoke on some of the mysteries of the Kingdom, specifically rewards. This is due to the supplemental teaching as well as similar verses being said by Irenaeus as pertaining to the Kingdom. For example, in regards to the words of Jesus in Matthew 26:27 and Davids words in Psalms 104:30, Irenaeus says that these points combined prove that the resurrected righteous will inherit the Earth in which the wine is to be drunk with Christ. In fact, much of the fifth chapter of Against Heresies contains references to the Kingdom and how many verses all through the Bible in fullness speak to it.

The most telling line of the above text is that Irenaeus directly links the times of the Kingdom as the seventh day. Furthermore, he describes the seventh day here as a time of rest for God. As covered earlier in this chapter, in the six days/six thousand years doctrine, the seventh day is described as a day of rest. Irenaeus even pushes this doctrine further by identifying the Millennium as the true Sabbath (a loose reference to Isaiah 66:22, 23?). The righteous may be on the Earth, but they will not be working. Rather, they will be in celebration with Christ. There has been left no room for doubt that the seventh day or millennium is the same as the time in which Jesus will reign with His Kingdom on the Earth.

Irenaeus held to a literal Kingdom that was specifically to be in the land of Israel. He ties truths on the Kingdom directly into promises made by God to the Hebrew patriarchs.

But the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, declared to Abraham beforehand, That in thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which are of faith shall be blessed with faithful Abraham. The promise remains steadfast God promised him the inheritance of the land. Yet, Abraham did not receive it during all the time of his journey there. Accordingly, it must be that Abraham, together with his seed (that is, those who fear God and believe in Him), will receive it at the resurrection of the just. (Irenaeus, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Book 5 Chapter 32, Location 32766-32772.)

This is important to cover in that Irenaeus believes in a literal kingdom for reasons that extend to an earthly promise made to Abraham. Irenaeus teaches that the promise made to Abraham extends to both him and his seed. Because Abraham did not receive the land during his time on earth, it can only be that this promise will be fulfilled during the Kingdom. In saying that The promise remains steadfast, Irenaeus is saying that it is as true in his time as it was when God made it to Abraham. Abraham simply must receive his inheritance and will therefore inherit this land after he is resurrected. Because the promise extends to his seed, those who are saved through Christ can expect to live in this land as well. This connection to the promises to the Hebrews is not found here alone.

The blessing of Isaac with which he blessed his younger son Jacob has the same meaning, when he says, Behold, the smell of my son is as the smell of a full field which the Lord has blessed. But the field is the world. And therefore he added, God give to thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, plenty of corn and wine. And let the nations serve thee, and kings bow down to thee; and be thou lord over thy brother, and thy fathers sons shall bow down to thee: cursed shall be he who shall curse thee, and blessed shall be he who shall bless thee. If any one, then, does not accept these things as referring to the appointed kingdom, he must fall into much contradiction and contrariety, as is the case with the Jews, who are involved in absolute perplexity. (Irenaeus, ed. Roberts and Donaldson, Kindle Electronic Edition Book 5 Chapter 33, Location 32821-32827.)

This segment of text takes place after Irenaeus initial discussion on what will occur during the Kingdom and expected blessings. Upon speaking of Kingdom blessings he makes it a point to tie them into an initial blessing given by Isaac to Jacob. Isaac blesses Jacob with words that God codifies as they truly come from Him. Therefore, when Isaac says that the field is the world, he speaks of the world obeying Jacob and his inherited land of Israel. Jacob will have access to untold riches of food and wine that his land will produce in abundance. Kings are said to have to bow to Jacob. Even his brother Esau will have to come under the submission of Jacob and his house. Those who bless Jacob will be blessed and those who curse him will be cursed. This applies to Jacob, and his ancestors, which according to Irenaeus are all those who are saved by Christ. Yet, clearly Jacob never did see a land that produced such a level of goods; never did he have the kings of the Earth come and bow before him. Never did the nations come under the strict need to obediently follow Jacob. Because God absolutely must keep His promises, Irenaeus concludes that the blessings put upon Jacob must speak of the Kingdom. Only during this time could Jacob be resurrected to truly witness the blessing. Here his descendents may experience what God long ago promised. In his typical manner, Irenaeus says that those who deny that this can only happen in the Kingdom are in a great deal of personal deception liken to the Jews who do not accept Christ.

Making it clear that Irenaeus believed in the millennial Kingdom being related directly to Abraham and Jacob is quite useful for the overall thesis point. It displays clearly that Irenaeus believed in a Kingdom for reasons that go beyond a passage or two from New Testament prophecy. His belief in the Kingdom is firmly rooted in the very promises God made to the Hebrews and that the land itself is a critical aspect of the Kingdom. This mandates that the Kingdom be literally upon the Earth. Therefore, it cannot be said that Irenaeus contrary statements regarding the timing of end time events can be explained by saying that Irenaeus did not really believe in a literal millennial Kingdom.

Irenaeus heavily indicated that he believed that the Anti-Christ could become known at any moment during his lifetime. This is clear in that he very seriously considered several names that were of contemporary individuals. By believing in the soon coming of the Anti-Christ he logically held to the coming of Christ and the Millennial Kingdom to be happening soon as well. This is because Irenaeus ties these events as all happening one after the other without any breaks. Yet, the very examples that prove this above also speak of the six days/six thousand years doctrine. The coming of the Anti-Christ and later the actual Christ is said to happen at the end of the sixth set of a thousand years in Earths current existence, with the Kingdom exemplifying the seventh set of a thousand years. Irenaeus also spoke of the six days of creation as being historical. As he was against unneeded allegory it would be a very hard case to make that he did not believe he lived soon after the four thousandth year.

It is patently obvious that Irenaeus is highly inconsistent in believing that the Anti-Christ (and by extension Jesus Christ) could come in his lifetime and yet not come for another two thousand years. This is even more perplexing when it is realized that Irenaeus took the Kingdom to fulfill Old Testament promises to the Hebrew Patriarchs. This demands the need for the Kingdom to be upon this earth, which makes Irenaeus claims on the timing regarding Christ coming and His Kingdom quite contradictory as the Kingdom is no vague idea. While, Irenaeus cannot be said to have likely believed in Christ coming twice, it can be said that his teaching supports Christ coming soon (in his time) and later (some two thousand years hence). Both of these supported ideas occur before a literal Kingdom is to be established in the land promised to Abraham.

CHAPTER 5

TERTULLIAN

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (hereafter known as Tertullian) is best known as the father of Latin Christianity. He was a skilled theologian, with an aptitude for apologetics and polemics against various heresies. He was the first father to very clearly expound upon the vagaries of the Trinity and was the first Latin writer to use the term. Due to these facts and his profound body of work, he must be chosen as one of the fathers to be examined over less prolific Ante-Nicene Christians. Tertullian was from Carthage in the Roman Province of Africa and lived from 145 to 220 AD.[footnoteRef:15] Tertullian expected a soon return of Jesus. [15: Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Introductory Note, Location 49.]

But what a spectacle is that fast-approaching advent of our Lord, now owned by all, now highly exalted, now a triumphant One! What that exultation of the angelic hosts! What the glory of the rising saints! What the kingdom of the just thereafter! What the city New Jerusalem! Yes, and there are other sights: that last day of judgment, with its everlasting issues; that day unlooked for by the nations, the theme of their derision, when the world hoary with age, and all its many products, shall be consumed in one great flame! (Tertullian, ed. Menzies, Kindle Electronic Edition, The Shows Chapter 30, Location 3077-3081.)

No doubt Tertullian demonstrates here that he expects the Second Coming to be either imminent or within a very short amount of time. When Christ returns He will act as the ultimate victor. Apparently the saints are to experience the resurrection soon after this advent. However, Tertullian does not actually say that this will happen immediately afterwards. Usually this would not be questioned given that it is part of a summation of events. However, the very nature of imminent intratribulational writings demand that very little be inferred by the reader.

It must be concluded that Tertullian could have been speaking of the resurrection of the saints as taking place just after the return of Christ or sometime after. Tertullian is clearer on the timing of the Kingdom. It will happen just after the resurrection of believers. New Jerusalem is next mentioned and that links it closely with the Kingdom. It is likely that (like many of the other Ante-Nicene Fathers) Tertullian means to say that this city will be where Christ reigns. Mentioned after the Kingdom is the last Day of Judgment. This day of judgment is said to be the last, implying that Tertullian likely held to other periods of judgment. Tertullian does not say that the Day of Judgment is the focus of the unbelieving persons derision, but rather nations. This is an important distinction as during the millennial reign, Tertullian may understand that nations outside of New Jerusalem sneer at the day when they will be judged. There will be vast groups of people who mock the Lord and His justice. Finally, Tertullian is excited to look forward to the punishment of the wicked. As will be evidenced in later quotes, Tertullian observed great persecution upon the Church and desires justice. Regardless of what cannot be said for certain from the above text, what is certain is that Tertullian foresaw that Christ would be coming speedily and that at some time He would set up His Kingdom and finally judge the wicked.

There is a great inconsistency regarding the timing of the premillennial return of Christ within Tertullians writings. However, before these can be seen as obvious, the timing of certain events must be determined so that ignorance of these issues cannot be used to explain away the implication of a two stage Second Coming. The first of these is when the Anti-Christ will become known.

For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away,' he [Paul] means indeed of this present empire, 'and that man of sin be revealed,' that is to say, AntichristFor the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.' What obstacles is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into the ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish. (Tertullian, ed. Menzies, Kindle Electronic Edition, On the Resurrection of the Flesh Chapter 24, Location 22051-22058.)

Based on the previous context that day is referring to the Second Coming of Christ and a resurrection of the dead.[footnoteRef:16] By present empire Tertullian is referencing Rome. He identifies the man of sin as the Anti-Christ. By appealing to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Tertullian is speaking on a specific evil being. Tertullian is picturing this one being as the Anti-Christ, not one of many anti-Christs. Anti-Christ is often used by many of the fathers in this way, being a general term for a coming man during the Tribulation that exemplifies rebellion against God. Tertullian teaches that the Anti-Christ cannot be revealed until Rome is split into ten kingdoms. Once the Anti-Christ has come, only then will Christ return, because in doing so He will destroy the Anti-Christ. Finally, Tertullian makes it a point to explain that he who comes with the power of Satan (the Anti-Christ), will be able to display great signs, wonder and power. But he will do all of this with the power of deceit. [16: Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 24, Location 22046.]

It is of special interest, that Tertullian even calls the breakup of Rome an obstacle to the rise of the Anti-Christ. He sees the division of Rome as absolutely essential before the Anti-Christ can even become known. And only after the Anti-Christ has risen will Jesus return. His return will be in part as a response to the evil dominion that Satan has established via his proxy. Indeed, Romes coming division is seen by Tertullian as the first requirement for the end.

There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earthin fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woesis only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Romes duration. (Tertullian, ed. Menzies, Kindle Electronic Edition, Apology Chapter 32, Location 1355-1362.)

Tertullian actually teaches that Christians should pray for the stability of Rome. He speaks of the most important reason being that it would keep the end of things at bay. It is of note that he even desires that prayer be for Roman interests in general, not just the continued existence. As seen in earlier, Tertullian understands that when Rome is divided into ten kingdoms, the Anti-Christ will arise, and the real Christ sometime after that. He fears this division happening so much that he does not even want to risk Romes interests at all due to that possibly leading to the division.

Surely, Tertullian does not fear the coming of Jesus Christ. However, his fear of what must come first is clearly very strong. He understands that this will be a terrible time and would rather it be delayed. It is likely he desires this delay to last for his entire life so that he does not have to experience what is to come. Like Amos, he strongly advises not seeking out the day of the LORD. Because he speaks on the desire to keep Rome intact so that the coming shock upon the Earth be delayed, then he logically believes that these events are not necessarily determined to happen in his near future. And if this is the case, then how can Tertullian proclaim that the Second Advent will be happening soon?

The evidence that Tertullian believed that Rome must be broken up before the Anti-Christ is compelling. However, his teachings on the Anti-Christ as of yet have been somewhat vague. Fortunately, this is not a subject upon which he is at all silent.

it appears that by the very phrase which he uses, Until His anger pass away, which shall extinguish Antichrist, he in fact shows that after that indignation the flesh will come forth from the sepulchre, in which it had been deposited previous to the bursting out of the anger. Now out of the closets nothing else is brought than that which had been put into them, and after the extirpation of Antichrist shall be busily transacted the great process of the resurrection. (Tertullian, ed. Menzies, Kindle Electronic Edition, On the Resurrection Chapter 27, Location 22133.)

In referring to Isaiah 26:20, Tertullian means to prove that a resurrection of the flesh will not happen until the anger of God has abated. The anger identified here could rightfully be identified as that which comes at the end of the period of troubles in that it finishes off the Anti-Christ. However it is also possible that the destruction of the man of sin is only part of an overall anger that God directs upon the Earth. Tertullian speaks of indignation. It is not clear whether he means to say this is the same as the anger directed largely at the Anti-Christ or part of His general punishments during this time of tribulation. Essentially, it is important to avoid pointing to Gods anger as being limited to the Anti-Christ alone, unless the father actually says so. This will be covered in a chapter on the defense of imminency verses expectancy in the Ante-Nicene Fathers works.

Tertullian explains that some of the dead were placed in their tombs previous to the bursting out of Gods anger. Sadly this does little to aid in understanding how Tertullian viewed the timing of the anger and/or indignation. However, at least it is the case that those dead were placed there sometime before the Anti-Christ is to be destroyed. The closets are the tombs in which the bodies of the righteous are kept. Tertullian says that only after the total extermination of the Anti-Christ will there be a massive resurrection of the dead. The timing is important to note here. The Anti-Christ simply must come to power, rule and then be destroyed before the resurrection spoken of in Isaiah can happen. The timing of these events is established in the above texts and analysis. But does Tertullian clearly express that the literal Kingdom is to come after this resurrection? Yes, he absolutely does.

But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, let down from heaven, which the apostle also calls our mother from above; and, while declaring that our , or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of and the Apostle John beheld. (Tertullian, ed. Menzies, Kindle Electronic Edition, Against Marcion Book 3 Chapter 25, Location 12610-12611.)

Here Tertullian could not be more perspicacious. He plainly says that a Kingdom is promised to us upon the earth. By us Tertullian is pointing to him and all those who were saved through faith in Christ. By earth he means exactly that. This Kingdom would be a physical place, here upon the current planet. It is not in Heaven, nor is it to be some vague notion of an allegorical kingdom. The Kingdom is to be inhabited by Gods people before they gain their permanent residence in Heaven. Tertullian says that this will happen after the resurrection of the dead. As seen earlier, a resurrection would not happen until after the Anti-Christ had been destroyed. Therefore, the Kingdom cannot come upon the Earth until after the Anti-Christ has reigned and ultimately been dealt with.

The Kingdom is identified to not only be physical, but operated from Jerusalem and is largely Jerusalem. However, the Jerusalem spoken of by Tertullian is the New Jerusalem from Johns Apocalypse. Tertullian explains that this city is divinely built. He never saw this city and by extension the Kingdom coming about by human efforts. He says that the New Jerusalem will be let down from Heaven. The Kingdom is then thus the responsibility of Christ alone in its coming. Tertullian then alludes to Galatians 4:26. He identifies the Jerusalem spoken of by Paul here as one in the same with the divinely built city that will come down to Earth. This makes sense as Paul refers to this Jerusalem as our mother from above. This is part of a larger narrative about the New Jerusalem already in existence but in Heaven. And because Tertullian says that the believers citizenship is in Heaven, he means that they specifically live in this city currently there. Tertullian so strongly believes in the physical nature of the New Jerusalem that he actually teaches that it already appeared in the sky over Judea every morning for a period of forty days. He teaches that is was there to receive some saints at that time.[footnoteRef:17] This is a rather startling assertion for Tertullian to make. The important thing to note is that is speaks to his very strong belief in this citys literal existence even in his time. In saying that Ezekiel had knowledge of this city being a reality, Tertullian may be pointing to a number of passages, but none that are readily apparent. However, in saying that John beheld the city, he is clearly referring to the New Jerusalem of Revelation 3 and 21. This is just more evidence about how literally and congruent Tertullian viewed history, especially in regards to the Millennium. [17: Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Against Marcion Book 3 Chapter 25, Location 12610.]

Tertullian continues his teaching on this divinely crafted city. He actually identifies the city as the New Jerusalem, lest anyone should still question this. The purpose of the city he says is for receiving the saints upon the resurrection and renewing them with an abundance of spiritual blessings. In part these are recompense for the persecution they suffered. Tertullian teaches that in this way God is just towards His own in that they will have their joy in a special place.[footnoteRef:18] This place is where many of them will have suffered great afflictions, presumably the previous Jerusalem. [18: Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Against Marcion Book 3 Chapter 25, Location 12614.]

Tertullian continues to expound on the timetable of these events surrounding the Millennium. Here he explains what happens after the millennial Kingdom on Earth has finished.

Of the heavenly kingdom this is the process. After its thousand years are over, within which period is completed the resurrection of the saints, who rise sooner or later according to their deserts, there will ensue the destruction of the world and the conflagration of all things at the judgment: we shall then be changed in a moment into the substance of angels, even by the investiture of an incorruptible nature, and so be removed to that kingdom in heaven. (Tertullian, ed. Menzies, Kindle Electronic Edition, Against Marcion Book 3 Chapter 25, Location 12614.)

Tertullian mentions a process that the Kingdom goes through. This is quite reasonable as he already explained how the Kingdom is now in Heaven, where it will be on Earth and its final location in Heaven. In explaining what happens after the thousand years are completed, Tertullian makes it a point to say that during this time the resurrection of the saints will be complete. Earlier he said that the saints would be resurrected just before the Millennium. However, he now says that they will rise sooner or later based on their earned rewards. It is not clear whether he is saying that there are two different resurrections or several more than that. But it is highly interesting that here Tertullian speaks on more than one resurrection. This helps support a possible two stage return of Christ in Tertullians teachings because it would provide a reason for Him to do so.

The destruction of the world is now to take place as part of all things being consumed by flame. This is to happen at the judgment, not a judgment. By being changed into the substance of angels it is not clear what this means. But at least at its basic level the believers bodies would undergo a transformation that would cause them to be substantively different. By attaining a new rank via investiture, the saint takes on an incorruptible nature. Perhaps Tertullian says this because he believes this transformation comes naturally as now the saints will be translated to the Kingdom in Heaven. It has been now demonstrated that to Tertullian these events that follow the Kingdom do so immediately afterward. They are spoken of in terms of specific chronology and certainty in their literal fulfillment.

The very real fact that Tertullian was unsure about the specifics of the resurrection of the dead needs proper treatment.

they may be able to rise again; and then how are they alive? Or else caught up into the clouds; and how then are they here? Most miserable, no doubt, as the apostle declared them, are they who in this life only shall be found to have hope: they will have to be excluded while they are with premature haste seizing that which is promised after this life; erring concerning the truth, no less than Phy