Revelation is apocalyptic language and is often interpreted as the most difficult book of the bible to understand. However, I find there are valuable details that should inform our understanding of eschatology. For example, Revelation 20:4-5 states: >**4** I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. **5** (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. While this text includes language that should not be taken literally (like the 1000 years often meaning "a very long period of time" in the Hebrew culture of the time), this still informs us of two things: 1. There **must** be a resurrection that kicks off the millennial kingdom, as those resurrected individuals must reign during the millennium. 2. This resurrection is made up of those who have lost their life due to their testimony of Christ. I understand that Full Preterists claim the millennial kingdom began in 30 AD. However, I do not understand how they interpret the first resurrection of those who died for their testimony of Christ (no one had yet died for their testimony of Christ). I believe 1 Thessalonians 4:16 further addresses this issue: >For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. I've heard the argument that the first resurrection is the resurrection of our spiritually dead souls to the life of salvation, but both Revelation 20 and 1 Thessalonians 4 allude to the "dead in Christ". If we are speaking of spiritual death, then we must assume you can be spiritually dead (unsaved) in Christ.

Part of an answer to [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101909/how-do-dispensationalists-tell-which-passages-are-for-jews-and-which-are-for-gen) has prompted me to ask a question about the **biblical basis for refuting a literal interpretation of the millennial reign of Christ Jesus. Here is a partial quote of the Dispensational Futurist Interpretation:** >In Revelation the thousand years are taken literally, assuming Israel on earth, and the church suspended above it in heaven for the entirety of this period. Old Testament priesthood, sacrifices, temple, and covenant figures are expected to be reinstituted beneath the heavenly suspension of the church for the duration, the Lord himself being, as is supposed, on earth reigning over Israel and the world. One reason for challenging the literal interpretation is based on what happened when the Son of God died on the cross. The veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom by an unseen hand. See Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45. This signifies (to me) that the temple priesthood and animal sacrifices, and even the temple itself, had become redundant when the Son of God laid down his life as the final, the ultimate sacrifice. Why on earth would a literal temple, human priests, and animal sacrifices have to be reinstituted after Jesus cried out “It is finished!” (John 19:30) Rather than ask for the biblical basis for this dispensational literal view (because that question has already been asked and answered), I am looking specifically for New Testament verses where Jesus himself contradicts such an idea. I have already found some, but **I seek input from Christians who disagree with a literal temple, priesthood and animal sacrifices in the millennium.**

Among the different eschatological schemes in Christian theology, I perceive that amillennialism and historical premillennialism do not differ in what they believe will happen before the second coming of Christ. (Or at least, they do not have to. I know that there exist some disagreements about futurist vs. preterist understandings of Matt. 24 or about the gathering of Israel in Rom. 11, but it does not seem to be the case that the interpretations of these passages separate premillennialist from amillennialist in general.) Postmillennialism and dispensational premillennialism on the other hand differ from one another and the aforementioned views in that they assert a different timeline of pre-Second Coming events, with postmillennialism looking forward to a millennium of the triumphant church and dispensationalism looking forward to a pre-tribulational rapture (and a very different understanding of that tribulation than would be found in other views). I am wondering what difference does the distinction between historical premillennialism and amillennialism make, practically speaking? Does it have any effect on how Christians will conduct themselves in the present age? I can see that, if we look forward to different events *prior* to Christ's return, this may affect the way we live our lives now, in order that we might be prepared to face those circumstances. However, I do not see how the difference between historical premillennialists and amillennialists who agree on those issues would lead to any different practice of the faith in the present time.

I have heard some theologians coming from both amillennial and premillianial perspectives claiming Athanasius as one of their own. As is often the case with modern readers of the Church Fathers, there seems a great temptation to read modern-day views into the ancient texts... Of Athanasius's works, I have read *On the Incarnation* and most of the festal epistles, and I don't recall reading anything relevant to the issue of the millennium. However, I read them before I had much interest in the topic and might have missed something. Did Athanasius write anything (directly or tangentially) about the issue of the millennium? --- As a refresher on the issue of the *millennium*, it is a question of how to interpret Revelation 20:1-10, and the corresponding picture of eschatology. Premillennialists view this as a future, this-worldly reign of Christ that begins when he returns and concludes with the final judgment. Amillennialists and postmillennialists view it as symbolic of the period leading up to the 2nd coming, and that there is no substantial gap between the return of Jesus and the final judgment. Both points of view are ancient (among authors I have read, Pseudo-Barnabas and Justin Martyr are premil, while Augustine and Eusebius are post/a-mil), though the modern debates tend to look pretty different than the discussions I find in the Church Fathers.

The well-researched [answer](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/14060/3849) to BH.SE Question [What historical reasons resulted in Revelation being included in most Christian canons?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/13997/3849) referenced a few early church fathers that "voted yes" (Irenaeus, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen) as well as later Western Church fathers (Jerome, Ambrose, Rufinus, Augustine, and Innocent). The answer noted that > "[the book of] Revelation had the longest and hardest fight of any book to be recognized as inspired. Though numerous early authors quoted and approved of it, others argued against Revelation." and to combat the concern how the Book of Revelation is "obscure" and is being used to "speculate the future", St. Augustine warned that the book should only be included "**with an admonition against using the book speculatively**" (City of God XX.6-9). Fast forward about 1600 years, history has shown PLENTY of [failed predictions for the second coming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming) and [failed predictions for apocalyptic events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events) , which I think testifies to the wisdom of St. Augustine. Maybe it is wise that we should only interpret the the Book of Revelation according to how the supporters of its inclusion into the canon interpreted the book? Mainstream Christians have been respecting the early Church Fathers' interpretation of the Bible regarding the Trinity. **Why not respect them for the Book of Revelation as well**? Therefore, my question is: among the [many interpretations that are on offer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Interpretations) , **which interpretation(s) of the book of Revelation did the Church Fathers who accepted it into the canon hold?** Can we discern a **common** interpretation among them? I wonder whether there was a **consensus** regarding to the meaning of the most prominent [figures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Figures_in_Revelation) : the Beast, the Antichrist, the Markings, the Trumpets, the Dragon, the Woman, Gog and Magog, Armageddon, etc?

Millenialism , as such, postulates the return of Jesus Christ to *this present earth* to reign for a thousand, literal, years. The evidence for this is taken from the visionary mention in Revelation. This view has serious Gospel implications regarding an earthly reign and regarding the concept (held by some) of the re-instating of sacrifices on earth. The article to which I have linked, explains various historic forms of this doctrine. Anti-Millenialism states that resurrected saints and saints remaining on earth, will be *caught up* from this present earth to Jesus Christ and there shall be new heavens and a new earth (once Judgment is effected). They say that the thousand years in Revelation is a symbolic figure and relates to the present rule of Christ over deceased saints in heaven and faithful saints on earth, in a reign of Spirit, not physical. Importantly, and importantly to my present question, they say that Jesus Christ *shall never set foot, again, on this present earth.* There are implications to Jesus Christ returning to earth for a thousand years and re-instating an *earthly reign* : implications regarding the parables of Jesus, which express an immediacy and urgency regarding an *everlasting Kingdom*; and implications regarding the apostolic epistles which, again, express immediacy and urgency regarding a *finality* associated, immediately, with the return of Jesus Christ. My question is, Why did Jesus Christ ascend, if only to descend again, thereafter, in order to establish an earthly kingdom ? Why ascend at all ? Why not remain and reign on earth ? What do those say who adhere to the Millenial system ?

This question has some interesting background information on Church councils not having anything to say about Chiliasm: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14961/does-the-nicene-creed-condemn-chiliasm but my question seeks to know what caused belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ to surface after centuries of it being almost totally buried. **Who dug it up, and why, and when?** Modern readers might best identify Chiliasm with Premillennialism. There are two types – ***Dispensational Premillennialism*** – Expectation of a literal thousand-year kingdom in the future that will also culminate in human failure. Israel and the church represent two distinct peoples with different programmes in salvation history. Then there is ***Historic Premillennialism*** - a literal millennium in the future, but with less discontinuity between Israel and the church than in the dispensationalist view. It is my understanding that ***Dispensational Premillennialism did not spring up until the 19th century, the concept of “a secret rapture” being integral to John Nelson Darby’s scheme.*** The Reformation did not teach any literal thousand year rule of Christ on earth as far as I know, being amillennial on that point – the thousand years of Revelation 20 being symbolic, covering the whole age from Christ’s triumphant return to heaven until his sudden return to earth to usher in the Day of Resurrection and Judgment. However, I don’t know anything particular about Historic Premillennialism. I wonder if that school of thought kept Chiliasm from actually dying out? **Anybody know anything about Historic Premillennialism?** **I’m seeking answers from anyone familiar with Church History with regard to Chiliasm, as to who revived it, why and when.** This question is **not** interested in any opinions or interpretations of the various schools of thought on this topic. It simply seeks to trace some kind of historic date-line for the fading away then the re-emerging of this Chiliastic view.

We all agree that Christ has fulfilled the Jewish spring festivals. (Passover, Unleavened bread, First fruits, and Pentecost) However differences of opinion arise when it comes to the fall/autumn festivals of Trumpets, Day of Atonement and Tabernacles. Some say the fall festivals prefigure the resurrection at the last trump and are yet to be fulfilled. Others, in particular those of Preterist persuasion, say they were fulfilled in AD 70. My question asks, according to amillennial Christians did Christ fulfil the Jewish fall festivals, how were they fulfilled, and if they haven’t yet, when?

# My Question: Is amillenialism an ordinary (fallible) or extraordinary (infallible) teaching of the Catholic Church? In other words, is it possible to be Catholic while believing in the Millenium Kingdom? As many Protestants teach today. # Examples of Catholics teaching the Millenium Kingdom in the past: **The fourth century church historian Eusebius** considered Papias to be a primary source for the millennial views of early fathers. He wrote: > In these [Papias' accounts] he says there would be a certain > millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal > reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have > imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not > understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically > in their representations. . . . yet he was the cause why most of the > ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of the man, were carried > away by a similar opinion; as, for instance Irenaeus, or any other > that adopted such sentiments. **The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas** (cir. 117/132 AD ) held to the idea that after six thousand years of history that would correspond to six days of creation, there would be a seventh day “sabbath” rest which would last one thousand years. The following is from the Epistle of Barnabas: > 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. **St. Justin Martyr** in his Dialogue with Trypho (written cir. 155) describes the belief in a literal millennium as the orthodox doctrine, though admitting that some denied it. He sees the millennium centered in Jerusalem and predicted by Old Testament prophets. Justin wrote, > “But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are > assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand > years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, > as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.” **St. Justin Martyr** did mention that, “many who belong to pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” EVidently there were already others who did not believe in a literal millennium at that point in history, but Justin does not supply their names. **St. Hippolytus of Rome** (cir. 170-236) wrote extensively about the end times, including, Commentary of Daniel. Hippolytus took up the idea of a day being one thousand years and applied it to history. He reasoned: > For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in > Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the > thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in > order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God > rested from all His works.” For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of > the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” > when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day > with the Lord is as a thousand years.” Since, then, in six days God > made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And > they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: “five are fallen; one is,” > that is, the sixth; “the other is not yet come. **St. Irenaeus** discusses Biblical prophecy in Against Heresies (written from 180 to 199 AD12 ). He mentions the “seventh day” in regard to eschatological promises. He wrote, > “These [promises given by Christ] 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.” **St. Irenaeus** considered the promise that Jesus made to His disciples at the last supper to one day drink the fruit of the vine again with them “in my Father's kingdom” to be proof of a future, earthly kingdom to be established after the resurrection. Source of Quotes

Exactly when are the ‘Times of the Gentiles’ according to the Amillennial prophetic viewpoint? > “There will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this > people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive > among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the > Gentiles, until the **times of the Gentiles** are fulfilled.” (Luke > 21:23-24) I am looking for precise start and finish dates. What events mark those dates? Also, a brief summary of the Amillennial thinking concerning this prophecy would be useful.

I have recently been studying eschatology and have been looking at the main views of eschatology. So far, I have found four (I apologize in advance if I have misrepresented your view. I would appreciate any corrections, but that is beyond the scope of this question.): - Amillenialism: Jesus' Ascension began the "Church Age/Millennial Kingdom"; this age will be one of peace but will eventually turn into a period of tribulation against the Christians. Armageddon, the Rapture, Jesus' Return, and the White Throne will end this age and usher in eternity. - Post-Millennialism: The period between Jesus' Ascension and the Destruction of Jerusalem will be the Tribulation. The "Church Age" began in A.D. 70; at some point, the earth will develop a "Christian" culture ushering in a spiritual millennium of peace. The Great Rebellion, the Rapture, Jesus' Return, and the White Throne Pit will end the millennium and begin eternity. - Historic Pre-Millennialism: Jesus' Ascension began the "Church Age"; this age will be one of peace but will eventually turn into a period of tribulation against the Christians. Armageddon, the Rapture, Jesus' Return, and the Bottomless Pit will end this age and will begin Jesus' physical reign on earth of exactly 1000 years. The reign will end with the Great Rebellion and the White Throne to usher in eternity. - Dispensational Pre-Millennialism: Jesus' Ascension began the "Church Age"; this age will end unexpectedly with the Rapture. A literal tribulation of 7 years will begin on earth. Armageddon, Jesus' Return, and the Bottomless Pit will end the tribulation, and Jesus will begin his physical reign on earth of exactly 1000 years. The reign will end with the Great Rebellion and the White Throne to usher in eternity. What view did the early church have? Did they hold on to one of these views or did they hold on to a view that I have not listed? I appreciate the help.

Is there a definitive resource that outlines the views and the bible verses they use to support those views? Or are these views so hopelessly broad that its impossible to clearly define them? There seems to be so many books and internet resources it would take a millennium to read them all. Some short but seemingly inconsistent with each other, some far to long to be useful, and some providing general summaries of the views, but not showing bible verses that lead/support the views of that camp. Is it not possible to get a clear simple answer?

Revelation 20:1-3 states >"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while." 1 Peter 5:8 states: >"8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." *Without bashing amillennialism ,* what is a typical amillennial response to this seeming contradiction? If Satan is bound outside of this earth during the millennium, which is now, why should we be watchful of him as Peter warns?

Revelation 20:1-6 tells of 1000 years in which Christ will reign. I've heard there are different views on this 1000 years, mainly premillenialism, postmillenialism, and amillenialism. What are the differences between these views of the millenium in Rev 20:1-6? (Especially concerning the different timelines) > **Revelation 20:1-6 **
> 1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the > Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, > that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a > thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed > it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the > thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short > time. > > 4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given > authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded > because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. > They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received > its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and > reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not > come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first > resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first > resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will > be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand > years.