Well, you only picked certain ECF because they did not all agree with what you say, and you are superimposing onto what they did say your already perceived view. Regardless of the claim of only using the ECF as your source. They do not necessarily mean what you think they mean iow. Only the Bible is inspired and inerrant. The ECF's are not. Taking history into account in interpretation of the Bible is a proper hermeneutic. That means the cultural and historic situation at the time of the writing. How the first hearers would understand it. Not how the ECF's would understand it. Rev is a good example of the need for that hermeneutic. It is a letter written to seven churches and is dealing with things they are going through. They are also a mixture of Jews, Jewish converts, and Gentiles.
You say that the ECF's considered the millennium literal. Does that automatically mean that the 1000 years is literal? This is a common mistake when people argue against amillennialism, as referring to no millennium---which is of course what the word means. But it does see the millennium as literal---it is real---but the number 1000 is not literal as Rev testifies to within itself as a book of truths symbolically portrayed, including the numbers. The meaning of the symbolic images and representatives are found within the OT itself---and this is something the original recipients would be familiar with.
The thousand years in this view represents a long period of time which only God knows the duration of because he is the one who determines it. The entirety of Scripture and Rev specifically if it is not read as a massive enigmatic puzzle to solve in order to determine when we escape tribulation---not just the end times eschatological explicitly---demonstrate it is likely the time period between the first and second coming. We are in a tribulation. It will get worse for his people, the church, Jew and Gentile alike, regarding persecution the closer we get to his return. Rev is given to us for the same reason it was given to the seven churches. To encourage them to stand fast in their faith and cling to him. That no matter what was occurring on earth, not matter how much it looked like God was powerless in the face of evil, things were going exactly according to his purpose, and even if they died for their faith, yet they would live.
None of those receiving that letter was raptured out of tribulation. So how would such an idea have applied to them? If that is what they thought, it would be as though they were being lied to. The book of Rev is given to all Christians of all times for the same reason. To encourage and strengthen.
There is so much in your assessment of the situation above that violates Scripture, that I am not going to untangle it. I simply suggest that you take a look at other views with a willingness to listen and learn, instead of clinging to the one tired old dispensational pre-trib, pre-mil view. I recommend A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger. It is very comprehensive and yet an easy read. It is in there that he sets the views side by side and shows exactly where pre-mil dispensationalism is in conflict with Scripture.
You say only the Bible is inspired and inerrant, do believe that the Bible is the only words the Father through the Holy Spirit gave to man? Is the Father silent after John put the last period in Revelation? Why did Jesus and the disciples quote from non canonical books and those quotes are in scripture? All truth is the Fathers truth, if it is true it is of the Father if it is a lie it is of the enemy, You say the the ECF are not inspired, how do you know? Show me in Scripture that only 66 books chosen by man are from the Father and all other writings are not, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has many more books that they call Scripture the Latin Roman Church has chosen 66 books for the tradition that they established the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has many more that in their tradition are Scripture, who is correct?, the only books that Jesus called Scripture was the OT, which never said to write a NT, you have to go on faith that man was following the Holy Spirit and whatever tradition you follow you follow out of a heart of learning and striving the know the Trinity and becoming more and more dead to self and more conformed to Jesus. I believe the Father is still at work today and he still speaks to people today, if so are his words that he spoke to the writers of the NT from one part of his being and when he speaks today from another or is all of the Fathers words carrying the same weight, does the Father have inspired thoughts and uninspired thought?
I believe that all that the Father speaks to humans or to his heavenly beings are all the same, and he is still speaking to humans today and guiding us into the truth, that is why I place weight on what the ECF taught, did they get everything correct? no no man does, The Trinity is infinite we are finite anything that we come up with will always be short, the finite can't comprehend the totality of the infinite.
The Church for the first 300 years till Augustine taught that the premillennial view was the correct way to read Scripture, there were a few that did not agree and taught Amillennialism but they were few and in the minority.
### Premillennialism (Literal 1000-Year Reign) in the Early Church
Premillennialism, also known as chiliasm, was the predominant eschatological view in the first three centuries of Christianity. This perspective interprets Revelation 20 literally, expecting Christ to return and establish a physical, earthly kingdom lasting 1,000 years before the final judgment and eternal state. It was widely held by many early church fathers, often tied to expectations of Christ's imminent return and a future restoration.
| Papias of Hierapolis | c. 70–155 AD | A disciple of John the Apostle (according to Irenaeus), Papias taught a literal millennium with earthly abundance and Christ's reign. He influenced others like Irenaeus. |
| Epistle of Barnabas (attributed, not the apostle) | Late 1st–early 2nd century | Describes a future earthly rest after six "days" of creation (symbolizing 6,000 years), followed by a millennial sabbath, implying a literal reign. While some debate its exact millennial stance, it aligns with premillennial expectations. |
| Justin Martyr | c. 100–165 AD | In *Dialogue with Trypho*, he affirmed a literal 1,000-year reign in a rebuilt Jerusalem, based on Revelation and Old Testament prophets like Isaiah and Ezekiel. He noted that not all Christians agreed but described it as the view of "right-minded Christians." |
| Irenaeus of Lyons | c. 130–202 AD | A student of Polycarp (who knew John), Irenaeus defended premillennialism in *Against Heresies*, describing a literal earthly kingdom where the righteous reign with Christ for 1,000 years after the resurrection. |
| Tertullian | c. 155–240 AD | In *Against Marcion*, he supported a literal millennium, emphasizing Christ's physical reign on earth after His return. |
| Hippolytus of Rome | c. 170–235 AD | Wrote extensively on eschatology, affirming a literal 1,000-year reign following the Antichrist's defeat. |
| Commodianus | c. 240 AD | Described a future millennial kingdom in his poetic works, aligning with premillennial views. |
| Victorinus of Pettau | d. c. 303/304 AD | In his commentary on Revelation, he interpreted the millennium literally as a time of earthly peace under Christ's rule. |
| Others (less detailed evidence) | Various | Figures like Melito of Sardis (d. c. 180), Theophilus of Antioch (d. c. 183), Julius Africanus (c. 160–240), Methodius of Olympus (d. c. 311), and Lactantius (c. 250–325) also held premillennial views, often emphasizing a future earthly kingdom. |
Historians like Philip Schaff note that premillennialism was the prevailing view for the first 300 years, though it was not universal and often lacked the dispensational distinctions seen in modern versions.
### Amillennialism in the Early Church
Amillennialism views the "1,000 years" in Revelation 20 symbolically, representing the current church age between Christ's first and second comings, with no literal earthly millennium. This perspective was a minority view in the first 300 years and emerged primarily through the allegorical interpretation methods of the Alexandrian school. It was not fully systematized until Augustine in the 5th century, who is often called the "Father of Amillennialism." Early hints appear in anti-chiliastic (anti-literal millennium) writings, but clear proponents are fewer and later in this period.
| Alogi (a group rejecting John's writings) | 2nd century | Rejected Revelation entirely, implicitly opposing literal millennial interpretations. |
| Caius (or Gaius) of Rome | Early 3rd century | Criticized chiliasm and rejected a literal millennium, attributing Revelation's authorship issues to heretics. |
| Clement of Alexandria | c. 150–215 AD | Favored allegorical interpretation of Scripture, denying a physical earthly kingdom and laying groundwork for symbolic views of the millennium. |
| Origen | c. 185–254 AD | Pioneered extensive allegorical exegesis, rejecting literal premillennialism as "carnal" and interpreting the millennium spiritually as the current reign of Christ in believers' hearts. His influence was pivotal in shifting away from literal views. |
| Cyprian of Carthage | c. 200–258 AD | Emphasized spiritual interpretations, rejecting a future earthly millennium. |
| Dionysius of Alexandria | c. 190–265 AD | Argued against literal interpretations of Revelation, calling it non-literal and possibly not by John, thus supporting an amillennial-like view. |
Sources indicate that amillennialism gained traction in the 3rd century, influenced by Neo-Platonism and opposition to overly literal (sometimes heretical) chiliastic groups like the Montanists. However, it was not the majority position until after Constantine's era. Many early fathers, even if rejecting a national restoration of Israel, still held to a literal millennium—highlighting that full amillennialism was embryonic at best.
Even the Essenes from before Jesus believed that the Father created the earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th and that the time of man was divided up into ages, Three- 2000 years ages and the last age being 1000 years that the earth would rest, and every prophecy that they made was 100% correct.
When we read Scripture we are to try to figure out what is literal and what is allegorical, The Father did not tell us so we must pray and study and be led by the Holy Spirit and try our best to understand what the Father is doing and has done and will do. We are all trying, with finite brains, to understand an infinite Trinity, but if we get things wrong the Father is big enough to handle it and we rest in the fact that He is a loving Father and all his actions are out of love for us and it will be ok in the end.
The Trinity knew what they were doing before any of this cosmos was created and like Phil 2:10-11 " Every knee should bow of those in heaven, and those on earth, and those under the earth and every tongue gladly confess that Jesus is Lord" so it will be ok in the end, the Father knew what he was doing.
