'Last things' in the Fathers

[Richard Leigh]

Hi everyone,

I have been given a challenge at my own church (which as you know is not Orthodox). A man who'd long since transfered into our congregation from another of the same denomination (Lutheran, Missouri Synod) asked me if I knew anything about the origin of amillennialism (that the millennium of the Revelation or Apocalypse is figurative without any expected historical reality). I of course told him "Yes" and told him what I knew of Augustine's change of heart from "historic pre-millennialism" (as per, e.g., Lanctatius) to the classical amilllennialism of RCism, and through her, to Lutheranism (and the Calvinist Reform churches called "Presbyterian" for that matter).

Surpirse of surprises he told me that the "original teaching" of the church was that of Orthodoxy [yes, with capial "O"!] and that he thought the historic premillenialistic doctrine was what they [you] taught. He said that he's just read that Origin authored the amillennial doctrine out of his Alexandrian penchant (don't throw tomatoes yet) for obscuring the scriptures by interpreting them allegorically. Thus, he said, the thousand year reign on earth prophesied by John was "allegoralized" or "spiritualized" away. I know, btw, that he is getting this out of a book he's reading.

Well, as you might have guessed, knowing of me what you do by now, I knew better than this, but since my friend independently thinks so highly of Orthodoxy, I though I'd ask you folks if anyone out there knows some patristic referrences other than Eusebius regarding what Orthodoxy actually teaches regarding the end times, specifically the coming of Anti-christ and the Lord's return for the church, and if there is any particular interpretation regarding the meaning of John's use of "A thousand years".

I will be checking Origen on my own (I will have to carefully explain the truth regarding allegory to my friend, don't worry.)

With you all in the battle against
that which is not flesh and blood,

Richard

[Daniel Jeandet]

From commentry on Apocalypse By: St. Victorinus

An ecclesiastical writer who flourished about 270, and who suffered martyrdom probably in 303, under Diocletian. His commentary on Apocalypse is a sound, fundamental, exegesis for understanding this exceedingly symbolic book.

FROM THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER

1-3. "And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a chain in his hand. And he held the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and cast him into the abyss, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be finished: after this he must be loosed a little season." Those years wherein Satan is bound are in the first advent of Christ, even to the end of the age; and they are called a thousand, according to that mode of speaking, wherein a part is signified by the whole, just as is that passage, "the word which He commanded for a thousand generations," although they are not a thousand.

Is this the right thousand? Or is it this one:

4, 5. "And I saw thrones, and them that sate upon them, and judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were slain on account of the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast nor his image, nor have received his writing on their forehead or in their hand; and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years: the rest of them lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." There are two resurrections. But the first resurrection is now of the souls that are by the faith, which does not permit men to pass over to the second death. Of this resurrection the apostle says: "If ye have risen with Christ, seek those things which are above."

6. "Blessed and holy is he who has part in this resurrection: on them the second death shall have no power, but they shall be priests of God and Christ, and they shall reign with Him a thousand years." I do not think the reign of a thousand years is eternal; or if it is thus to be thought of, they cease to reign when the thousand years are finished. But I will put forward what my capacity enables me to judge. The tenfold number signifies the decalogue, and the hundredfold sets forth the crown of virginity: for he who shall have kept the undertaking of virginity completely, and shall have faithfully fulfilled the precepts of the decalogue, and shall have destroyed the untrained nature or impure thoughts within the retirement of the heart, that they may not rule over him, this is the true priest of Christ, and accomplishing the millenary number thoroughly, is thought to reign with Christ; and truly in his case the devil is bound. But he who is entangled in the vices and the dogmas of heretics, in his case the devil is loosed. But that it says that when the thousand years are finished he is loosed, so the number of the perfect saints being completed, in whom there is the glory of virginity in body and mind, by the approaching advent of the kingdom of the hateful one, many, seduced by that love of earthly things, shall be overthrown, and together with him shall enter the lake of fire.

full text - http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/commentary-apocalypse.html

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Daniel,

Well, given the continuity of the verses, these are taken to be the same thousand years, so, the answer is yes, to both. Thanks for that reference to Victorinus. I will check out the other end of that link you provided.

Tnanks again,

Richard

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard,

Regarding millennialism/amillennialism, you might point your acquaintance toward Irenaeus, Adversus haereses book 5, chapters 15 through to the end; Justin Martyr's second apology and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; the collected fragments of Papias; the De resurrectione of Methodius of Olympus, and others of this genre.

INXC Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Matthew,

Yes, thank you. I see that Justin personally fully expects a New Jerusalem on this earth 1000 years befor the end of that age while acknowledging that not all Christians are of that opinion. Ireneaus seems to agree with him and Papias regarding the order of events though I cannot be sure how necessary a specific 1000 yr number is. Victorinus seems also to favor this general course of events while definitely affirming that the number 1000 is allegorical.
Eusebius thinks that Papias was a little weak in this eschatalogical (end times study) teaching.

I thought Chiliasm (= millennialsim) was a heresy, so I'm eager to learn more about where that was definitely realized and taught. I'm not thinking (though I don't know) that my friend is particulary stuck on millennialism in the sense of holding the Lord to that exact number, but he is at least a "historic pre-millennialist" in the Justin/Irenaean sense of resurrection to a New Jerusalem that takes up space on this untransformed earth for a time before the end of that coming age and all of its righteous inhabitants are taken up to God.

So, my question evolves (i.e., unfolds) to whether or not this general scenario as sketched out by Ireneaus is considered Orthodox teaching or not?

Thanks especially for Methodius of Olympus, I'll see if I can find him.

Richard

P.s., my access to the Fathers is RC with their obvious (and often Augistinian) bias, so, notes to the writings will point to the direction of eschatology toward their (hence "our") amillenial perspective. Thus, Ireneaus' eschatology is accorded his "visits to [or origin in?] the east" I'm trying to factor our their bias here and trying to learn if there actually is an "Eastern" (I expect, "Orthodox") view on the matter that is different from the Western amillenial totally spirituallized one. Thanks again. ---RL

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Matthew, Father Averky, Father John,
and Ireneu, Daniel, et al.,

I have now looked this problem up in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Father Michael Pomazansky, Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, tans. who directed me to the 2nd Ecuminical Council (of Constantinople, the first) gathered partly in defense against Apollinarian Chiliasm. So I looked that up in The Rudder (D. Cummings, trans.) which has commentary by Apostolos Makrakis.

While it agrees with salient doctrines presented by Augustine, it is clearly not Augisinian in origin.

My next question to you all is this:
how much Orthodox authority can I accord to (a) Pomazansky (perticularly as translated by Rose) and (b) the canons compiled by Stt. Nocodemus and Agapius as comented upon by Makrakis (particularly as translated by Cummings)? My first guess is that the translators are trustworthy, given their respective support for the material they are translating.

Respectfully yours,

Richard

[V. Rev. Fr. David B. Sedor]

About two weeks ago I finished "The Mountain of Silence" by Kyriacos Markides. What a wonderful book! I highly recommend it to all on this list.

Now, two weeks later, I need to locate a few specific passages in the book, and I can't find them! Can anyone point me to the places where Fr. Maximos and the author discuss: 1. liberation theology, and 2. social justice

I'm very grateful for any help anyone might be able to give me. Thank you!