1.My goal was to find the earliest documented comments by the church fathers as to their end time views.Those who had contact with the apostles or their immediate disciples.Those I cited all had a premillienial bent to them.We don’t have a lot of documented views until a bit later voicing a non-premil view.I would state by the time of Augustine(third century) the use of the allegorically driven,four-fold method of interpretation(the so-called medieval quadriga) was beginning to permeate the church.Thus heavy reliance on allegory ,often at the expense of the plain, straightforward and consistent treatment of the escatological texts emerged.

2.I’m struggling to understand what proof you have that the early church(1st,2nd century) rejected the apostolic teaching that Christ would return at the end of Daniel’s 70th week to establish a literal kingdom from which He would fulfill God’s promises to His people Israel and Christ’s church?

3.My point about grammitco-literal interpretation was not meant to dinigrate fellow brothers Like Calvin.Sound exegesis takes into account figures of speech,symbolism,etc.The key is to be careful not to miss/confuse the context and purpose of a symbol.Or use it to fit or mold an explanation of a systematic principle or doctrine of Scripture into a pre-determined interpretive filter.Sound exegesis avoids the use of unwarranted “wooden literalism” but rather let’s all parts of speech ,in context,unfold the text.Seeking to be consistent in our hermeneutic is essential to unfolding what God meant by what He said!

My point was that when we seek the author’s intent alone in an eschatological passage or systematic doctrine(like the interpretation of end times in Scripture)we must let the straightforward meaning(that contained in the Spirit-inspired language of the bible in all it’s parts) be our only purpose.And when we do, we end up with a clear,consistent premillenial view.and, that the church is the church and it does not replace God’s plan for His people Israel(Rom. 9-11)

But you can’t just pick and choose some church fathers to support your view and not others Premillenialism was held by some but not all. Dispensationalism was held by none.

The reformers rejected allegorical interpretation yet still held an amillenial view. Why? Because they did not take the Bible for what it plainly said? I don’t think you give enough credit to the scholarship of John Calvin and erroneously oversimplify your hermeneutic. If you take the Bible for what it EXACTLY says and don’t allow for any kind of metaphorical language, figures of speech, or symbolism, you will completely miss the meaning of Scripture.

Look at how the writers of the NT interpreted the OT – Scripture interprets Scripture and teaches us how to understand it.