This morning I read an article claiming that during the millennial kingdom the temple described in Ezekiel chapter 40 points to a new temple that will exist during the millennial kingdom on Earth. I understand this view is held by some premillennialists who adopt a literal interpretation of the thousand year reign of Christ. They say Jesus will literally come to earth to rule from the city of Jerusalem. Here is an extract from the article in question: >Most premillennial scholars agree that the purpose of animal sacrifice during the millennial kingdom is memorial in nature. As the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the death of Christ to the Church today, animal sacrifices will be a reminder during the millennial kingdom. To those born during the millennial kingdom, animal sacrifices will again be an object lesson. During that future time, righteousness and holiness will prevail, but those with earthly bodies will still have a sin nature, and there will be a need to teach about how offensive sin is to a holy and righteous God. Animal sacrifices will serve that purpose, "but in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year" (Hebrews 10:3). https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html The article concedes that a primary objection to this point of view is that Christ offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, and there is therefore no need to sacrifice animals for sin. However, it then goes on to assert that since animal sacrifices did not take away sins in the Old Testament the need for animal sacrifices during the (literal) thousand year reign of Christ (ruling from Jerusalem) will serve as an object lessons for human sinners who will be alive after the second coming of Christ Jesus. Is this the view of “most premillennial scholars”? Is Ezekiel chapter 40 a description of a physical new temple to be built in Jerusalem where animal sacrifices will once again happen under a Jewish priesthood from the lineage of Zadok the Priest?

I'm writing an essay about Christian Zionism, and I'm a bit unclear on the end-times beliefs of pre-millennialism and post-millennialism. I understand the basic timelines of both, but where does Jewish emigration to Israel fit in? At what point (and in which belief system) are Jews either supposed to convert to Christianity or be ruled by a tyrant?

I am working on writing a blog post about the rapture and am curious about the different theories of the rapture. Could someone explain to me the Mid-Tribulation Rapture theory and show some supporting verses for it, as given by those who support this theory? I previously asked about the Pre-Tribulation theory [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57792/rapture-according-to-pre-trib-theory) .

Why does Revelation 21:1 talks about the new heavens and new earth after the millennial reign described in Revelation 20 while Isaiah 65 seems to indicate that the new heavens and earth come first before the millennial reign because there is still death on Earth (vs20) at that point? The end of Revelation indicates that death is gone seemingly after the millennial reign when the new heavens and earth are created. > Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. (Revelation 21:1 NKJV) > “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. “No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and another eat; For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, Nor bring forth children for trouble; For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the Lord, And their offspring with them. “It shall come to pass That before they call, I will answer; And while they are still speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, The lion shall eat straw like the ox, And dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,” Says the Lord. (Isaiah 65:17‭, ‬20‭-‬25 NKJV)

It is a well-known fact that after Augustine, and partially due to his influence, amillennialism became the dominant framework for eschatology within Christendom until after the Reformation. The modern Catholic Church expressly rejects premillennialism ([CCC 676](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/676.htm)) . I have often heard premillennialist blame the Catholic Church for suppressing premillennialism from the time of Augustine until the Reformation. I am wondering **at what time the Catholics first rejected premillennialism officially**, and whether they have ever declared it heretical.

I'm not a fan of dispensational premillennialism, but I don't know of any denominations that specifically hold to it. I'm just fairly curious. I've met individual people that believe it, but never an entire denomination that supports it. Do any such denominations exist?

(Follow-up to my recent question about the reappearance of premillennialism in modern times.) It is commonly claimed that the reason premillennialism disappeared following the time of Augustine was due to some kind of suppression by the institutions of the Church (e.g. "Chiliasm was suppressed by the dominant Catholic Church ", "By the beginning of the fourth century millennial teaching was, for the most part, extinguished throughout the Roman empire. For the next 1500 years pre-millennialism was rejected as heresy. ", "Both the theological and political atmosphere was against it "). As the answers to my other question demonstrate, the Catholic Church did not officially take a position on millenarianism until the 20th century. My question is about the basis for these claims of suppression of premillennialism by the Roman Church. **Between the time of Augustine and the Reformation, are there any examples of premillennialists being excluded from the Church on that basis, or of influential theologians calling premillennialism heretical?** To be clear about the scope I'm asking about, the time period begins with the publication of *City of God* in 426 and ends with the start of the Reformation in 1517. I am also not asking about people who held premillennialist views but were considered heretical for other reasons. If there are no such examples, a reputable citation for that claim would be appreciated.

Revelation 20:1-10 speaks of Christ reigning for a thousand years, which is taken as a literal kingdom of Jesus on earth after his second coming by premillennialists. Amillennialists, on the other hand, understand the thousand-year-reign of Christ to refer to the era of the church, which will conclude with the second coming and final judgment. This debate is ancient. Justin Martyr's *Dialogue with Trypho* (composed around 160 AD) is the earliest extant work to explicitly weigh in on the issue. Justin takes a premillennialist view, prefacing the discussion with a disclaimer that faithful Christians are not in agreement on it (ch.81). Irenaeus also advocated premillennialism. Eusebius, himself amillennialist, gives an interesting report of a debate on the issue in Alexandria taking place in around 250 AD (*Ecclesial History* 7.24-25). In *City of God* (dating to the early 5th century), Augustine reports his own switch from premillennialism to amillennialism, with a brief but compelling argument for why this is correct (Book XX). As I understand it, amillennialism was far-and-away the dominant view from the time of Augustine until the Reformation. Calvin dismisses premillennialism as "too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation," (*Institutes* Book 3, XXV.5), but he seems to misunderstand it as postulating that the resurrected saints will only live for that thousand years. In the present time, the situation seems to have changed. Premillennialism is an integral part of Dispensationalism, which remains quite popular in American churches. But even outside Dispensationalism, one finds many premillennialist theologians, such as John Piper or Wayne Grudem or [reportedly] Charles Spurgeon. My question is: **Among non-Dispensationalist theologians, why has premillennialism returned?** Does the resurgence of historical premillannialism have anything to do with the advent of dispensational premillennialism?

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.

**Edit**: The question refers only to the literal millennium view! Some background of my question: I have watched videos by some exegetes, who claim Jesus will never go out of the Temple in Jerusalem during His reign of 1000 years, once He has defeated all His enemies at the beginning. Some of the exegetes even claim Jesus will be visible only in form of [Shekhinah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah) in the Temple. So I am wondering if all this is true. I would really prefer if we’d be able to have a cup of coffee in a local café during a conversation with Jesus. The following Bible verse gives me some hope: Matthew 26:29 >I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. Could we else infer from the Scriptures what it will be like in the 1000 years kingdom in terms of (personal) interaction with Jesus?

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennial_Day_Theory) states that Young Earth Creationists are among [premillennialists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism) , as well as several early church fathers, who believe that > human history will continue for 6,000 years and then will enjoy Sabbath for 1,000 years (the millennial kingdom) thus all of human history will have a total of 7,000 years prior to the [new creation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_to_Come) . **Question**: What have been the year(s) suggested by post-2000 YEC / premillennialists to be the year 6000 since the creation of earth? **Optional question**: If they still use the [Ussher Chronology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology) (see also an article on [suggestions for correction](https://answersresearchjournal.org/comments-usshers-date-of-creation/)) , how do they correct the calculation, since by straightforward addition year 6000 should have occurred in 1996 AD ? ----------- Related question: [Quotations from the early church fathers who support the Jewish year 6000 as significant to eschatology](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84736/10672)

**TLDR** Dispensational Premillennialism teaches that the resurrection of believers occurs at the Rapture, which seemingly conflicts with Jesus's promise to raise Christians on the "last day." John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. **Analysis** I really enjoyed learning about Dispensational Premillennialism from teachers like John MacArthur and RC Sproul. The literal approach to attempting prophesy really resonates with me. Most common objections to the framework have reasonable answers on sites like GotQuestions, but I can't really find any compelling answers that directly address Jesus' clear words that the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day. The Lord mentioned this promise several times. Even Martha reflects on Jesus' teaching: John 11:24 Martha replied, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Now, my understanding of the dispensational timeline is: (1) Church Age <= (we are here) (2) Resurrection of believers, both living and dead, at a time that no one can predict; aka Rapture (3) Tribulation lasting seven years (4) Second coming of Christ and Sheep/Goat Judgement (5) Literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth (6) Brief rebellion, led by Satan who is "loosed for a while"; Rebellion is summarily squashed. (7) Unbelievers resurrected into new bodies suitable for eternal punishment; They're thrown into their final destination, the Lake of Fire. (8) New heaven and new earth. Time ends, eternity begins. So it would seem then that the timeline indicates the resurrection of believers occurs at Step #2. Whereas, if we take Jesus at His word, and the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day (of time), it would take place just prior to Step #8. If we were talking about unbelievers, then the timeline holds true since they are indeed resurrected on the last day prior to being cast into the lake of fire. But clearly Jesus is talking about *believers* being raised on the last day. **So how might a Dispensational Premillennialist interpret the phrase "last day" in a way that is consistent with their timeline?** Thanks!

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?

What are some common church fathers cited as believers in dispensational premillennialism?

I'm not looking for Biblical support of the doctrine, but for a post-Biblical teaching that clearly articulated a pre-tribulation rapture, as opposed to a post-tribulation or mid-tribulation rapture, or clear documentation that an early Christian group specifically held pre-tribulation views.

Gabriel told Mary that her son would someday sit on the Throne of David, which of course, did not exist at that time. Christ now sits on His Father's Throne. When will Jesus sit on David's Throne? Does this assume a literal millennial reign on earth?

> **Related:** > > - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3131/what-are-the-differences-between-the-different-millenialisms > - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7053/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-historical-premillennialism [Dispensational Premillennialism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism#Dispensational_premillennialism) is a view of the end times that (very, very basically) says that Christ will return to rapture believers, then there will be a tribulation, then the millennium. (something like that. Disp. Premils: please edit. Also, see Caleb's answer on the above related question ) **What is the biblical basis for this belief?** Also, what logical deductions that support this belief can you make from biblical passages? If tradition can be a convincing argument, feel free to use it.

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 ?

Premillennialists believe Jesus will return, reign with His saints for 1,000 years, and then after the 1,000 years are completed the final judgment of the wicked will happen. Matthew 25:31-46 states that "when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another . . . ." The righteous will be sent off into the kingdom, while the wicked will be sent off into Hell. And so "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." I'm curious how Premillennialists typically explain this passage. At first blush it looks like it's saying the final judgment happens *right at the Lord's return* -- for both the righteous and the wicked.