Apocalypse. Millennium
Chiliasm and Chillegorism
Valeriy Sterkh
Translator Evgeniy Terekhin
Translator Valeriy Sterkh
© Valeriy Sterkh, 2021
© Evgeniy Terekhin, translation, 2021
© Valeriy Sterkh, translation, 2021
Created with Ridero smart publishing system
Introduction
The verses in Johns Revelation (the Apocalypse) about the millennial reign of Christ together with the righteous are still subject to fierce debate. There are two major lines of interpretation of these verses: literal and figurative. Both (Chiliasm and Chillegorism) are very diverse and have several important distinctions. This paper is only concerned with the major differences. First of all, we will explore the exegetical views that emerged between the 1st and 5th centuries and form the basis for further interpretations.
The book also provides the analysis of Chiliasm and Chillegorism based on some written sources translated for the first time as part of this research.
Review of the 2018 edition
Apocalypse. Millennium: Chiliasm and Chillegorism by Valeriy Sterkh draws the readers attention to the question which is not fully resolved in the Eastern Christian tradition, and, one might say, has been forgotten. The book gives a detailed analysis of chapter 20 of the last book of the Bible The Revelation of John with a primary focus on the Millennial Kingdom of Christ on earth. In keeping with the existing methods of interpretation of this passage, the author differentiates between the two major views Chiliasm and Chillegorism. The first one is based on the literal rendering of the text in question, and the second one on its figurative (allegorical) interpretation. The term Chillegorism is not found in the theological literature; it is the authors invention to help systematize the concepts related to the Millennial Kingdom. The author considers Judeochiliasm to be a form of Chiliasm, classifying it, from the Christian perspective, as a heresy. Premillenarism is treated as a variant of the dogma of the Holy Fathers and the Church. According to the author, Postmillenarism and Amillenarism are forms of Chillegorism and subspecies of the patristic exegetical tradition.
Section 2 is a brief history of this debate. Section 3 explains some chronological aspects of the teaching about the Millennium. Section 4 is an introduction to the most important texts of the ancient Church writers who held to Chiliasm. It would be a good idea to include here the chiliastic texts of St. Victorinus of Petava, translated from Latin and published by N.A. Handoga. Its also a good idea to include not only the quotes from the commentary of St. Victorinus on the Apocalypse but also quotes from his treatise On the Creation of the World. Another suggestion is to translate the original excerpt from Chapters against Gaius by Hippolytus of Rome.
Section 6a is especially interesting because it deals with the biblical texts which allow for a chiliastic interpretation. The author did an excellent job collecting relevant excerpts and interpreting them from the point of view of patristic Chiliasm, presenting the biblical eschatology in a new light. Allowing for such an interpretation, at least in theory, helps the reader to discover new dimensions in Christian eschatology. The events preceding the end of the world appear more epic and more internally coherent than described in most books on dogmatic theology. The end will come not because of the wearing out of the world or because it is drowned in evil, but because Gods merciful plan for the earth will come to full fruition.
The chiliastic kingdom of Christ together with the righteous after His second advent looks more like the fulfillment of Gods promises to mankind, sealed in the Bible. It will a temporary era in the history of the earth, a golden age, a preparation and transition to the full acceptance by the creation of the eternal Kingdom and logical completion of the earthly history.
The author is not a professional scholar or theologian, and his work does not claim to be scientific research. However, it contains many bold and sound arguments in defense of Chiliasm, based on purely Orthodox insights into biblical and patristic theology. The author notes and demonstrates the weaknesses of chillegorical interpretations of the Millennium in light of the inner logic of the biblical texts in question.
Chiliasm and Chillelgorism serves as an introduction to a wide range of questions related to the millennial Kingdom of Christ. It is remarkable that the author stands up for the unpopular view of the ancient chiliastic writers and attempts to explore their arguments through the lens of the Bible and, partially, theology. An important addition to this book is a compilation Anthology of Chiliasm and Chillegorism by Valeriy Sterkh. It lists all the primary sources and the existing commentaries on the Millennium.
Most modern theologians, unfortunately, lack creativity in their approach, yet it can help to organically incorporate the chiliastic interpretation into the context of the Byzantine intellectual tradition and to enrich orthodox eschatology by solving a number of problems related to historiosophy and cosmology.
Gregory Musokhranov, a priest
Note: In subsequent editions, the author followed the suggestion of Father Gregory and included the texts of St. Victorinus and St. Hippolytus.
Section 1. Terminology
Millennium (Lat. Mille one thousand) a period of one thousand years.
Millenarism or Millenarianism (Lat. millenarius containing a thousand) is the belief in a coming, literally or figuratively, millennial fundamental transformation of society, after which all things will be changed.
Chiliasm (Greek χιλιας one thousand) or Millennialism (Lat. mille one thousand) a doctrine based on the literal interpretation of the prophecy of Rev 20:14 about the millennial reign of Christ together with the righteous.
Chillegorism (Greek. χιλιας one thousand; αλληγορία allegory) a doctrine based on the figurative interpretation of the prophecy of Rev 20:14 about the millennial reign of Christ together with the righteous.
Chiliasm is further subdivided into Judeochiliasm and Premillenarism.
Judeochiliasm is a chiliastic doctrine of the Messianic Kingdom which represents the Kingdom in an almost entirely carnal sense, with all sorts of sensual pleasures promised to the followers of the Messiah. As a rule, Judeochiliasm includes the idea of a full restoration of the ceremonial part of the Mosaic law in the Old Testament, that is, of Judaism.
Premillenarism or Premillennialism (Lat. mille one thousand; pre means before) chiliastic teaching placing the Second Coming of Christ before the millennial reign of Christ together with the righteous.
The two types of Chillegorism are Postmillenarism and Amillenarism.
Postmillenarism or Postmillennialism (Lat. mille one thousand; post means after) a type of Chillegorism which teaches that the Second Coming of Christ will occur after the millennial reign of the righteous; the reign here is understood as something already happening or something that will happen in the future. In Postmillenarism, the Millennium is seen as not exactly a 1000 years but as an extended period of some limited duration.
Amillenarism or Amillennialism (Lat. mille one thousand; a is a negation prefix) a type of Chillegorism which teaches that there will be no millennial reign of the righteous on earth. Amillennarists interpret the thousand years symbolically to refer either to a temporary bliss of souls in heaven before the general resurrection, or to the infinite bliss of the righteous after the general resurrection.
PS1. In modern theology, there is a tradition of using the term Chiliasm or Millennialism mainly in relation to the teachings that imply a literal interpretation of Rev 20:14. We will retain the same terminology here to avoid confusion. Also, a new term Chillegorism (i.e. allegorical Chiliasm) is introduced as a general concept of Postmillenarism and Amillenarism.
PS2. Some authors writing on the topic use these terms incorrectly, often confusing them with each other (especially Postmillenarism and Amillenarism). However, if the reader knows the proper meaning of these terms, such errors are fairly easy to spot. So, in the citations below, we retain the terminology as is.
Some will say that the fundamental difference between Postmillennialism [Postmillenarism] and Amillennialism [Amillenarism] is not entirely clear (Nikolay Kim, a priest, The Millennial Kingdom. Exegesis and the History of Interpreting the 20th Chapter of the Apocalypse. St. Petersburg, 2003, p. 28), or that the term Amillennialism [Amillenarism] is not a happy one (Anthony A. Hoekema Amillennialism//The Meaning of the Millennium, 1977; see also Jay E. Adams, The Time Is at Hand, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970. pp.711). The real reason for such confusion lies in the incorrect definition and use of the above terms.
PS3. There are other types of chiliastic and chilleagorical doctrines (Adventism, Jehovahs Witnesses [their activities are banned or restricted in some countries], Dispensationalism, Communism, etc.). Most of them are speculative, heretical or non-Christian in their nature. A detailed analysis of these teachings is not in the scope of this book.
Section 2. Background
Premillenarism as a doctrine was developed after the wide dissemination of the book of Revelation (The Apocalypse) which talks about the future millennial reign of the righteous. This doctrine can also be found in other canonical books of the Bible, though in a less clear way (See Section 6a).
In early Christian sources, Premillenarism appears as ideas about a separate resurrection of the saints (Didache, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Polycarp of Smyrna), a thousand-year Sabbath or a time of peace for the righteous (St. Barnabas, St. Justin the Philosopher and Martyr), the transformation of nature that happens in this time (St. Barnabas, St. Papias of Hierapolis). A highly detailed exposition of the patristic version of Premillenarism is found in Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus of Lyons.
Premillenarism was also supported by the Apostle Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, bishop Nepos of Egypt, Tertullian, St. Hippolytus of Rome, Commodian of Gaza, St. Victorinus of Petava, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Methodius of Patara and Olympus, Lucius Lactantius, St. Sulpicius Severus (presumably), St. Aurelius Augustine of Hippo (in his early works, later he leaned towards Chillegorism).
Premillenarism was opposed by the heresy of Hymenaeus and Alexander Philetus (who interpreted the resurrection allegorically [2 Tim 2: 1618; 1 Tim 1:1820]) as well as by the heresy of the Ebionites (Judeochiliasm), the heresy of Marcion (who taught about the resurrection of souls), the heresy of the Alogi (who rejected the books of the Apostle John), the heresy of Origen (taught about pre-existence and evolution of souls), the heresy of Marcellus of Ancyra (one of the founders of Postmillenarism), the heresy of Apollinaris of Laodicea (opposed by St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus who accused him of Judeochilasm).
The above-mentioned heresy of the Alogi even influenced the books which were included in the canon of the Holy Scriptures some Christians, following their deception, even questioned the apostolic origins of the Apocalypse (Gaius of Rome, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea), and as a result, the book of Revelation became part of the canon with much delay.
Over time, the heresies of Hymenaeus and Alexander Philetus and the heresy of Marcion were transformed into Chillegorism of the Alexandrian school (probably under the influence of Origen). This tendency was severely criticized by the bishop Nepos of Egypt in his book Refutation of the Allegorists [Denunciation of the Lovers of Allegory]. However, this new teaching found favor with those who had rejected the apostolic origins of the Apocalypse, namely Gaius of Rome, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea.
From the 4th century on, when Christians were no longer persecuted in the Roman Empire, the teachings of Gaius of Rome on the restraining of Satan (Rev 20:2) became popular among some theologians. This is when Chillegorism took its final form. The following people took an active part in this process: Ephrem the Syrian, St. Philastrius of Brescia, Tychonius Africanus, St. Jerome of Stridon, St. Aurelius Augustine of Hippo, Theodoret of Cyprus. Later, Chillegorism made its way into the widespread Interpretation of the Apocalypse by Andreas of Caesarea, which further popularized this teaching.
In the Russian Orthodox theology, Chillegorism was popularized by the metropolitan Macarius Bulgakov in his textbook The Dogmatic Teaching of the Orthodox Church. This textbook (more precisely, the Chillegorism it taught) was harshly and most vehemently criticized by the priest Boris Kiryanov in his book The Complete Explanation of the Earthly Millennial Kingdom of our Lord.
Section 3. The chronological aspects of the problem
Chronological considerations left their mark on both Chiliasm and Chillegorism.
The Apostle Barnabas suggested that the Second coming of Christ would happen 6000 years after the creation of the world. After that, the resurrection of the chosen righteous would take place the first resurrection [Rev 20:5]. After that comes the Millennium of peace [Rev 20:6]. He based this opinion on the correlation between the seven days of creation and the literal interpretation of the Biblical statement about the day of the Lord being like a 1000 years [Gen 1:12:3; Ps 90:4 (Ps 89:5 rus); 2 Pet 3:8]. The Old Testament promise of the seventh day, the Sabbath [Ex 20:8; Deut 5:12; Ps 24:34 (Ps 23:34 rus); Jer 17:2425], was interpreted as a prophecy of the millennial Kingdom (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter 15).
St. Justin the Philosopher and Martyr also supported this view by adding his interpretation of the verse from Isaiah the days of My people, the works of their hands, will be like unto the days of the tree of life [Is 65:1725] as well as his reckoning of Gods promise about Adam dying on the day of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil [Gen 2:17] Adam was not 1000 years old when he died (Conversation with Triphon, the Jew, 81).
This opinion is shared by St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies, 5, 28, 23), Hippolytus of Rome (Commentary on the book of Daniel, 4, 2324; Chronicle), Commodian of Gaza (Carmen apologeticum adversus judaeos et gentes), St. Methodius of Patara and Olympus (The Feast of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 9, Tisiana, chapter 1 and 5), Lucius Lactantius (The Divine Institutes, VII, 14).