Millennium question

[garysibio]

I was under the impression that a belief in a literal thousand-year Millenium was considered heretical by the Church. The other day I was listening to a Catholic radio program and I thought I heard the speaker say that the Church allows for a variety of opinions on the Millennium including a literal one thousand year option. To be fair I’m not certain I heard him correctly. What is the Church’s stand on this?

 

[pablope]

I was under the impression that a belief in a literal thousand-year Millenium was considered heretical by the Church. The other day I was listening to a Catholic radio program and I thought I heard the speaker say that the Church allows for a variety of opinions on the Millennium including a literal one thousand year option. To be fair I’m not certain I heard him correctly. What is the Church’s stand on this?

From…scripturecatholic.com/second_coming.html

1. Post-millennialism – this view interprets the “thousand years” as a very long time. This view also holds that God’s kingdom is being advanced in the world by His grace and the world will eventually be Christianized. Then Christ will return at the close of this period during a time of righteousness and peace. The problem with this view is that the Scriptures do not teach that the world will be even relatively Christianized before the Second Coming. For example, in Matt. 13:24-30;36-43, Jesus says the wicked and the righteous will co-exist until the end of the world, when they will be judged, and either inherit eternal life, or be thrown into eternal fire.

(2) Pre-millenialism (also called “millenarianism”) – like post-millennialists, this view also interprets the “thousand years” as a golden age on earth when the world will be Christianized. But they believe that this period will occur after Christ’s second coming, during which time Christ will reign physically on earth. They believe the Final Judgment occurs when the millennium is over. But Scripture does not teach that there is a thousand year span between the Second Coming and Final Judgment. Instead, Jesus said that when He comes a second time in glory, He will immediately repay every man for what he has done. Matt. 16:27. When Jesus comes, He will separate the sheep from the goats and render judgment. Matt. 25:31-46. There is nothing about any period of time between His coming and final judgment.

(3) Amillennialism – this view also interprets the “thousand years” symbolically, but, ulike the pre and post views, not as a golden age on earth. This view believes the millennium is the period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on earth through His Church. This is because the saints who reign with Christ and to whom judgment has been committed are said to be on their thrones in heaven. Rev. 20:4; cf. 4:4; 11:16. During this time, satan is bound and cannot hinder the spread of the gospel. Rev. 20:3. This is why, they explain, Jesus teaches the necessity of binding the “strong man” (satan) in order to plunder his house and rescue people from his grip. Matt. 12:29. This is also why, after the disciples preached the gospel and rejoiced that the demons were even subject to them, Jesus declared, “I saw satan fall like lightening from heaven.” Luke 10:18. Nevertheless, during this period, the world will not be entirely Christianized because satan, though bound, is still in some sense able to prowl around and attack souls. cf. 1 Peter 5:8. **Of the three, this position is most consistent with Catholic teaching (the pre and post-millennium views have been rejected by the Church). **

 

[COPLAND_3]

The Catechism paragraph 676 says the Church rejects even modified forms of millennialism. Unless we have some kind of detailed explanation on it that is authoritative it makes it difficult to know exactly where the lines are drawn based upon that paragraph. But I do know that the danger in millennialism is that it draws a picture of the Church as being inferior to the carnal nation of Israel, as if God made the Church as a quick fix until the Jews finally come around to follow Jesus. That is not the thought among early millennialists, but the reformation brought back millennialism and developed an anti-catholic teaching to it that is truly dangerous.

The early Christian who were millennialists did not view the Church as a quick fix and inferior to nation Israel.

 

[COPLAND_3]

By the way here is a bunch of information on the subject from the ancient position on millennium, lots of quotes from the Fathers of the Church sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/revelation/rev-1/rev-2/rev-3/rev-4/rev-5/rev-6/rev-7/rev-8/rev-9/rev-10/rev-11/rev-12/rev-13/rev-14/rev-15/rev-16/rev-17/rev-18/rev-19/rev-20

 

[Nate13]

The preterist view point takes the 1000 years to mean primarily the 1000 years that passed between when King David was king and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70A.D. The preterist view point looks at the book of Revelation primarily as a telling of events up until 70A.D. Some people take the preterist view point as the ground point for reading revelation, and then look deeper from that point for future prophesies. In other words the 1000 years could have both a literal and figurative meaning.

 

[garysibio]

The preterist view point takes the 1000 years to mean primarily the 1000 years that passed between when King David was king and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70A.D. The preterist view point looks at the book of Revelation primarily as a telling of events up until 70A.D. Some people take the preterist view point as the ground point for reading revelation, and then look deeper from that point for future prophesies. In other words the 1000 years could have both a literal and figurative meaning.

The preterist position, even partial preterism, never made any sense to me. It seems to be an “intellectual” excuse for disbelief and skepticism.

 

[garysibio]

By the way here is a bunch of information on the subject from the ancient position on millennium, lots of quotes from the Fathers of the Church sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/revelation/rev-1/rev-2/rev-3/rev-4/rev-5/rev-6/rev-7/rev-8/rev-9/rev-10/rev-11/rev-12/rev-13/rev-14/rev-15/rev-16/rev-17/rev-18/rev-19/rev-20

It seems to me that the vast majority of the earliest ECFs were pre-Millenial. This idea is also supported by the article on the Millennium in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Papias is especially interesting since he was taught the faith by St. John who wrote Revelation.

 

[Nate13]

The preterist position, even partial preterism, never made any sense to me. It seems to be an “intellectual” excuse for disbelief and skepticism.

Who did you hear it from? I have also read Josephus’ works regarding the destruction of the temple and there really are a lot of correlations. It is probably one of the greatest tragedies of mankind. I have found it provides a solid base for finding other correlations as to how the book of Revelation might apply today. Its also instrumental in understanding covenant theology.

I’d also add that it helps explain why the apostle’s believed Christ would be coming back so soon.

 

[garysibio]

Who did you hear it from? I have also read Josephus’ works regarding the destruction of the temple and there really are a lot of correlations. It is probably one of the greatest tragedies of mankind. I have found it provides a solid base for finding other correlations as to how the book of Revelation might apply today. Its also instrumental in understanding covenant theology.

I’d also add that it helps explain why the apostle’s believed Christ would be coming back so soon.

Believe it or not it is possible to come up with an opinion on your owm. I didn’t hear it from anybody.

 

[Nate13]

Believe it or not it is possible to come up with an opinion on your owm. I didn’t hear it from anybody.

haha well I recommend Scott Hahn and listening to some of his insights and how he tries to connect the dots. He is not incredibly pushy and leaves it open for you to decide what you buy and what you don’t. The 1000 years between David and Christ does not prove anything on its own, but there are a lot of other cool correlations that make you wonder, whether the 1000 years actually had a real literal meaning to it, and not just a figurative future meaning.

 

[garysibio]

haha well I recommend Scott Hahn and listening to some of his insights and how he tries to connect the dots. He is not incredibly pushy and leaves it open for you to decide what you buy and what you don’t. The 1000 years between David and Christ does not prove anything on its own, but there are a lot of other cool correlations that make you wonder, whether the 1000 years actually had a real literal meaning to it, and not just a figurative future meaning.

I have.

 

[Nate13]

I have.

To each his own then

 

[garysibio]

To each his own then

Agreed.

 

[COPLAND_3]

It seems to me that the vast majority of the earliest ECFs were pre-Millenial. This idea is also supported by the article on the Millennium in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Papias is especially interesting since he was taught the faith by St. John who wrote Revelation.

There are a lot if the very early Fathers who were pre-mill, which is why I dont sneer at those who are premill. I have given many of the quotes in that link I gave above. I even go into some depth as to why the position was popular early on, here is a quote from the footnotes of the Aquinas Study Bible

As we can see below, the premillennial view was held by some very early Fathers of the Church, such as St. Papias, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, etc. Origen saw that this understanding was a Jewish idea, which makes sense because many Jews were expecting the Messiah to come and to overthrow the Roman empire, in which their false messianic hope led them to not recognizing the Suffering Servant who came not to establish an earthly kingdom but a heavenly one. Perhaps some of the Jewish Christians held on to that understanding and applied it to the 1000 year reign found in Revelation 20. Since it was very common for Jewish rites and traditions to be practiced from time to time in order to avert the lack of belief of the Jewish Christians so that they would not feel as if they were being dragged away all at once from their beliefs, more than likely the earthly messianic kingdom that many Jews had hoped for while under Roman oppression was then transferred over to Christ’s second coming and gained some popularity among some early Christians, even Gentile Christians.

Another observation I find concerning the premillennial views of some of the Fathers is that their explanation about the 1000 year reign is very limited in the sense of an exposition and articulation of the passage found in Revelation. Their whole eschatology is quite undeveloped as well as often being inconsistant and contradictory to some of their own words in their whole body of writings.

Eusebius seemed to think that St. Papias is the main reason why some Church Fathers after him adopted a premillennial position, because he was among the Apostolic times. Eusebius was fortunate enough to have access to his writings, which are lost now, and he did not appear to be impressed with Papias’ ‘understanding’ on many things. Perhaps some of the misunderstandings of Papias was adopted by later Fathers like St. Irenaeus, who also had spurious ideas such as Jesus living to an old age (Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6), which is another tradition that he very likely got from Papias.