Introduction

Millennium issue is one of the most controversial in Christian eschatology. Under the Millennium a period in 1000 years (derives from the Latin mille, thousand, and annus, year) is understood. A belief that a kind of gold age will occur on Earth, in which Christ will reign with the saints during one thousand years, prior to His final judgment, is known as Millennialism or Chiliasm (from Greek chilia – one thousand). This belief derives primarily from Revelation 20:1-6.

Divergent interpretations of Revelation 20 have led to the formation of four major views about the nature of the millennium: historic premillennialism, dispensational premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism.¹ All these views are to be thought of as modifying the second coming of Christ. Postmillennialism places the return of Christ after the millennium, premillennialism places the return of Christ before the millennium. Dispensational premillennialism teaches that a rapture of Christians will occur prior to a Great Tribulation of seven years’ duration; this will be followed by a millennial reign of Christ on earth. It is important to note that both postmillennialism and premillennialism consider the millennium as having place on the earth.

Amillennialism teaches that the second coming of Christ will be without a millennium. For amillennialists millennium is a synecdochic figure of speech.² Actually, amillenialists teach that the millennium of Revelation 20 is symbolic of the present age (between the first and second comings of Christ), when Christ rules his church from his seat at the right hand of God. According to A. Hoekema, “amillennial eschatology…gives us an inspiring vision of the lordship of Christ over history and of the ultimate triumph of his kingdom”.³

The main purpose of this paper is a comparison of two approaches toward Millennium issue: the Orthodox and the Adventist. The understanding of the Orthodox position in this crucial eschatological problem is very important for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in those countries, which traditionally were under the strong influence and dominion of the Orthodox Church. Before we come to analyzing the Orthodox understanding of Millennium we will briefly describe the Orthodox approach to eschatology in general. Orthodox perception of eschatology is crucial for understanding of Millennium.

The Place of Eschatology in the Orthodox Church

For the Orthodox Church eschatology is not just one of the many sections in the Christian theological system, but rather its basis and foundation. Florovsky emphasizes that “Christianity is essentially eschatological.”⁴ Bulgakov stresses this issue even more powerfully when he says that “...a non-apocalyptic, non-eschatological Christianity is a dangerous counterfeit of the real thing and a secularization of it.”⁵

Orthodox theologians do not limit the eschatology to the “last things,” that is, the Second coming, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgement etc. Well known Orthodox writer Alexander Schmemann notes:

Eschatology is not merely the last and strangest chapter in the treatise of theology..., not merely a map of future events... By limiting eschatology to the last chapter of all, we have deprived all the other chapters of the eschatological character that they ought to have. …In reality the whole of Christian theology is eschatological, and the entire Christian experience of life likewise.⁶

Because the realization of eschatological promises in the Orthodox understanding began right after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ it means, that “eschatology becomes present at the moment when man becomes capable of cooperating in the divine plan.”⁷ This realization of the last end, say Orthodox theologians, is the inner mystery of the Church and Liturgy. “The Church worship, - Schmemann affirms, - was born primarily as a symbol of the Kingdom and of the Church as entrance into the Kingdom.”⁸ So, the whole Liturgy is understood in the Orthodox Church as the sacrament of the Kingdom of God, and the Church - as the presence and communication of the Kingdom that is to come.

J. Meyendorff in his article “Does Christian Tradition Have a Future?”⁹ provides analysis of three main approaches to eschatology having place among contemporary scholars. First of all, he analyzes the so called “apocalyptical eschatology.” According to this approach, the Kingdom of God is coming soon; there is nothing to expect from history; Christians can do nothing to improve human reality. The Church is reduced to a “remnant,” that has no real mission or responsibility for society or culture. Everything is prepared for righteous, the New Jerusalem is coming from heaven and they have nothing to contribute to it. Meyendorff says that Christians sometimes adopt such kind of eschatology, especially when they find themselves in hostile societies. Such was the case of some early Christian communities and similar situation existed in communist countries.

The other approach to eschatology is the opposite extreme of apocalyptic eschatology. It is some kind of “humanistic” and “optimistic” eschatology. In that approach, the historical process is controlled by humanity and has a progressive character. The New Jerusalem is identified “...with human achievements, understood in secular terms.”¹⁰ The Orthodox Church rejects both “apocalyptic” and “optimistic” eschatology. Thus, answering to the “apocalyptic” approach, Meyendorff says:

Indeed, the Church believes that the “New Jerusalem,” the Kingdom to come, is not only a free gift of God but also a seal and a fulfillment of all the positive, creative efforts of mankind to “cooperate” with the Creator throughout the entire process of history.¹¹

The Orthodox Church sees in the optimistic idea of human progress some kind of “fundamental utopianism,” which “...ignores basic realities of human life, such as death and sin.”¹² The social progress cannot solve the problem of sin and death. Moreover, this optimistic eschatology “destroys the main content of Christian hope,”¹³ which is in the Christ's second coming, the resurrection of dead and liberation human beings from the power of death. So, this approach is totally incompatible with the Orthodox understanding of eschatology.

The third approach to eschatology, which is, according to Meyendorff, the only true, is based on the biblical concept of prophecy. He describes it as following: “Prophecy always places man before an option, a choice between two types of personal or social behavior. He is free to choose, but the prophet has informed him of the consequences.”¹⁴ Meyendorff calls this eschatology conditional, revealed to us in Scripture as “the history of the right choices made by human beings confronted by the prophetic word of God, responding correctly in the concrete historical circumstances of their time.”¹⁵

This view of eschatology is based on the Orthodox understanding of history. Orthodox theologians believe, in distinction from Platonism, that the Bible reveals actions of God in history. The Bible is incompatible with ontological dualism. Since world was created by God Himself - and not, for example, through the mediation of some demiurge (as the gnostic thought) - this world is good and is destined to salvation. However, the Bible affirms an existential dualism between “this world,” which is in a state of rebellion against its Creator, and “the age to come,” when God will be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). Nevertheless, Orthodox theologians emphasize the fact that God is meeting human being in history, in the midst of his/her daily existence. “History belongs to God,”- says Florovsky, - “and God enters human history.”¹⁶

God is the Lord of history and this history has a telos, a goal, and so, a meaning. God's revelation is historical, because happening in history and through history. Moreover, “...the biblical vision of world history, and of God's revelation in it, is eschatological vision and understanding.”¹⁷ That means that history

...is understood not merely in the linear sense, in the sense of historic continuity, historical process, and successive chronological movement and development, but rather in a unique eschatological event, where time and history are contained and at the same time are transcended, overcome, and brought into the new eschatological aion of the kingdom.¹⁸

This eschatological event, which is the key point for the whole concept of the Kingdom of God, is the incarnation of Christ. “Christ as the incarnate God-man is ...the Alpha and Omega of history, and of the whole of eschatology.”¹⁹ Christ is the core and the heart of the history of humanity. And because Church is understood in the Orthodox Church as the mystical body of the incarnate Christ, and is identified with Christ, it itself becomes the central focus of history. This view of eschatology and history determines the Orthodox understanding of the Kingdom of God as well as the Millennium.

Kingdom of God in the Orthodox theology

The concept of the Kingdom of God takes significant place in the Orthodox theology. According to A. Schmemann, “...the Kingdom of God is the content of the Christian faith - the goal, the meaning and the content of the Christian life.”²⁰ In Orthodox understanding the Kingdom of God is both present and future reality. Florovsky notes: “The Kingdom had been inaugurated, but it did not yet come, in its full power and glory... This tension between 'the Past' and 'the Coming' was essential for the Christian message from the very beginning.”²¹ This double-dimensional concept of Kingdom we see in Maximus the Confessor. Commenting Maximus' teaching on Kingdom of God, C. Tsirpanlis says: “Thus, God's Kingdom is not only a future or an apocalyptic event, but also an "inaugurated eschatology," or "continuous eschatology," that Kingdom being a soteriological experience of everyday life and the ultimate goal of history”.²² Therefore the Kingdom of God is both a present and a future divine reality, a historical and simultaneously eschatological experience, but not just an apocalyptic event. This teaching lays in the foundation of the Orthodox understanding of the Millennium, as we shall see later.

The Orthodox experience of the Kingdom is considered only in the context of Church itself, eschatological character of which is strongly emphasized in the Orthodox Church. In Orthodox theology the Church and the Kingdom are inseparable. “...The Church and the Kingdom are the same,” -says A. Yevtic.²³ This does not mean an abolishment of the difference between the uncreated and the created, between God and humanity. Yevtic continues:

This identification primarily indicates that the uncreated and the created, divine and created being, are brought into communion in Christ, into the unity of personal communion, into the unity of true life, which cannot be interrupted any longer either by nature or by any limitedness, corruptibility, perdition, or mortality.²⁴

According to the Orthodox theology the Holy Spirit plays the major role in the relationship between the Church and the Kingdom of God. The Church, thanks to the Pentecost of the Holy Spirit (and not only to the Incarnation), is not a mere historical reality, a human historical society - a “religious community,” which historically continues through centuries and has a certain mission in the world - but is much more. It is the reality of eschatological character.²⁵

The eschatological character of the Church is manifested primarily and most fully in the Eucharist. “It is in the liturgy, - writes Yevtic, - where the historical reality of the Church is connected by the Holy Spirit with the eschatological reality of the Kingdom.”²⁶ The Orthodox Liturgy begins with the solemn doxology: “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages.”²⁷ Eucharist for the Orthodox Christians is a mystical eschatological experience of the Kingdom of God.
This is why Eucharist is always eschatological in its very nature, it connects both present and future, history and eschatology.²⁸

So, we can clearly see that the Kingdom of God, in Orthodox understanding, is a spiritual, divine reality that is given to humanity by Christ in the Church. The Church is called the Kingdom of God on earth, and every Orthodox believer has an experience of the Kingdom when he celebrates and participates in the sacramental worship of Eucharist. But at the same time the Orthodox Church believes that the Kingdom of God will become the universal, final cosmic reality for the whole of creation at the end of the ages when Christ comes in glory to fill all things with Himself by the Holy Spirit, that God might be “all and in all” (1 Cor 15:28).

Second Coming, Resurrection and Judgment

The Orthodox Church strongly believes that the course of history will be brought to a sudden and dramatic end, through a direct intervention from the divine realm. Orthodox theologians do not elaborate much the picture of future events, and about the universe where God will be “all in all,” as K. Ware says, “...we should speak always with caution, respecting the need for silence.”²⁹ And he continues: “...There are, however, at least three things that we are entitled to affirm without ambiguity: that Christ will come again in glory; that at his coming we shall be raised from the dead and judged; and that ‘of his kingdom there shall be no end’” (Luk 1:33).³⁰

According to the Orthodox Church the General Judgment will be pre-acted by the resurrection of the dead. Death is, in the Orthodox understanding, the separation soul and body. But the human soul and body are interdependent, and they cannot properly exist each without other. Therefore, Resurrection is understood as a reunion of soul and body. The Orthodox Church believes that “the resurrection of the dead will be universal and simultaneous, both of the righteous and of sinners.”³¹ Gavin says, that “...the bodies of the dead will be transformed into incorruptible and spiritual bodies...” and that “the bodies will be the same materially and essentially.”³² In other words, the resurrected bodies will be essentially “the same ones that belonged to their souls in this earthly life.”³³ “...There will be continuity between the two,”- says Ware.³⁴ The appearance of form of the resurrected righteous will be different from that of resurrected sinners, and, though their bodies also “without any doubt will rise in a new form, but while receiving an incorrupt and spiritual nature, at the same they will express in themselves the condition of their souls.”³⁵

The Last Judgment is understood by the Orthodox Church as the “...moment of truth when everything is brought to light, when all our acts of choice stand revealed to us in their full implications...”³⁶ In the Orthodox understanding this general judgement is “universal,” “solemn and open,” “strict and terrible,” “final and definitive.”³⁷ The condemnation at the Universal Judgement is called the “second death” (Rev 20:14).

The Orthodox Church does not believe that this world will be totally destroyed and that God will create everything new “out of nothing” by the act of a second creation. According to Orthodox tradition, God loves the world, which he has made and does everything that he can to save it. As Ware mentions, “...man is not saved from his body but in it; not saved from the material world but with it.”³⁸ The restoration of this world to the state of paradise, for which it was originally created, is called by Orthodox theologians as “glorification of the world.”³⁹ “The glorified state, - Bulgakov says, - will be communicated to the whole of creation.”⁴⁰

With the end of this age and the “transfiguration” of earth, the eternal Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Glory is revealed (1 Cor 15:24-26, 28). Then the Kingdom of grace, the existence of the Church on earth will come to an end. As Pomazansky says, “...it will enter into this Kingdom of glory and will merge with the heavenly Church.”⁴¹

This future dimension of the Kingdom of God, Ware says, is “...beyond the scope of our fallen imagination.”⁴² But he emphasizes at least two things, in which we may be sure. First, eternity signifies “...an inexhaustible variety.”⁴³ Secondly, eternity signifies “...unending progress, a never- ceasing advance.”⁴⁴ In Orthodox understanding, therefore, perfection is not static but dynamic. “The essence of perfection, - Ware says, - consists precisely in never becoming perfect, but in always reaching forward to some higher perfection that lies beyond.”⁴⁵ And then he continues: “Never, in all eternity, shall we reach a point where we have accomplished all that there is to do, or discovered all that there is to know.”⁴⁶

The Orthodox Church and Millennialism/Chiliasm

We have already mentioned that according to the Orthodox tradition there is only one resurrection of the dead, and one General judgment, which coincides with the end of the world. The fact that the Orthodox eschatology does not distinguish between two resurrections, determines the Orthodox understanding of the Millennium. The end of the world, caused by the second coming of Christ, is not its destruction, but a renewal, “transfiguration.” Orthodox theologians do not understand these last things as taking place in time sequence. Therefore, in the Orthodox eschatology there is no room for chiliasm.⁴⁷ Actually Orthodox position on Millennium in general might be characterized as amillennistic.

Orthodox theologians consider the wide spreading of chiliastic ideas as a result of misinterpreting of the 20-th chapter of the Revelation. In Orthodox understanding “the first resurrection” (Rev 20:6) “signifies spiritual rebirth into eternal life in Christ through baptism, a resurrection through faith in Christ, according to the words ‘Awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.’”⁴⁸ Proceeding from this, the Orthodox Church understands by the thousand years reign “the period of time from the very beginning of the Kingdom of grace of the Church of Christ... until the end of the world.”⁴⁹ In other words, Orthodox Christians understand that the “thousand years” of Christ's reign with his saints and the limited power of the devil is now.⁵⁰ But in opposition to postmillennialists the Orthodox Church strongly opposed the idea that “the world will grow gradually better and better until mankind succeeds in establishing God's Kingdom upon the earth.”⁵¹

Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church is concerned by attempts in certain modernist theologians to introduce chiliastic ideas into Orthodox theological thought. This can be seen in the idea of “universal theocracy” of V. Solovyov,⁵² and “the idea of a supreme vocation” for the Church and its ministry in the world, that under different forms, animated most of the Russian thinkers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. S. Bulgakov, for instance, sees in the idea of regenerated state the fulfillment of the prophecy of the coming of the millennium. The powerful influence upon the state and culture is “the task, that presupposes new powers to be discovered in the Church.”⁵³ “The history of the Church has still a future, - declares Bulgakov,⁵⁴ - emphasizing the idea of future revealing the forces of Christian public life. The Church must not capitulate before the secularization and “...the rising flood of atheism.”⁵⁵

In recent years the discussion on Millennium in the Orthodox Church became even more intensive.⁵⁶ This was a result of reevaluation of early Church Councils’ decisions dealt with the issue of Millennium in the works of some ancient writers.⁵⁷ Contemporary Orthodox theologians agree that chiliastic views can be found in certain ancient Christian writers (for example Papias of Hierapolis, Justin the Matryr, Irenaeus of Lyons), but they assert that chiliastic views were spread in Christian Church chiefly among heretics. For example, Alexander Mileant, a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, recently wrote:

Chiliastic views in antiquity were spread chiefly among heretics. The Second Ecumenical Council in 381 A.D., condemning the heretic Apollinarius, condemned his teaching about the thousand-year kingdom of Christ. To put a stop to further attempts at introducing this teaching, the fathers of the Council inserted into the Creed the words about Christ: “His kingdom shall have no end.⁵⁸

To show that it is not quite so, we need to look briefly to the beliefs that took place in early Christian church on the issue of Millennium.

Chiliasm in the Early Christian Church

Chiliastic views were very popular in the Early Church. R. Wilken asserts that chiliasm penetrates the Christian church from Judaic expectations of the Messiah. “Early Christian chiliasm is obverse side of Jewish Messianism”, - he says. By Jewish Messianism the author means “the hope that the Jews will return to the land of their ancestors, reclaim the city, rebuild the temple, and establish in Judea a kingdom ruled by Jews… The Christian chiliasts appeal to precisely those biblical texts that undergirded Jewish messianic hopes”.⁵⁹ At the same time, Orthodox theologians say, we need to differentiate two kinds of chiliasm during the first centuries: sensual one or corporal/material, which is Jewish and spiritual one, which is Christian.⁶⁰ Sensual or corporal chiliasm is a belief in God’s kingdom on earth, restoration of Jerusalem in previous greatness and magnitude, fulfillment of all human expectations regarding happy and joyful life. Cerinthus was one of the prominent proponents of that view in the early church.⁶¹ He taught that Jesus would establish a thousand-year reign of sensuous pleasure after the Second coming but before the General Resurrection. In his association with the Jewish law and his modest assessment of Jesus, he was similar to the Ebionites and to other Jewish Christians.

The other form of chiliasm, more lofty and spiritual, exludes belief in any luxury and pleasure during a millennial period and does not link Millennium with restoration of Jerusalem. This form of chiliasm, as Dmitry Stepanenkov suggests, was formed under the influence of persecution against the Christian church, and later on, after the persecutions stopped, chiliasm was condemned by the Church’s Councils as a heresy.⁶² The Council of Constantinople in 381 and the Council of Ephesus in 431 traditionally have been mentioned as Councils that had dealt with issue.⁶³ Since then the official position of Eastern Christianity was mainly amillennistic. Francis X Gumerlock (who is an expert in Patristic commentaries on the book of Revelation) however refutes the perpetual myth that Chiliasm was condemned by the early Church councils. Paul L. King in his article entitled «Premillennialism and the Early Church» cites at least fourteen early Church fathers from the first four centures of Christian history who were adherents of chiliasm. He concludes that «the earliest church overwhelmingly maintained a premillennial viewpoint».⁶⁴ We will look briefly to the views of some of them.

The developing eschatological teaching we find in the remarkable literary piece of apostolic times Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Resurrection is the main theme of Christian faith according to that source. The author distinguishes between two resurrections, the first will be for the righteous people only, the second – for the rest in the very end of world’s history. This is the earliest mentioning of the double resurrection in patristic literature, which will become the basis for chiliasm. Although we do not find clear indication to the period of one thousand between two resurrections, the author clearly separate them in time.⁶⁵

The traces of Christian chiliasm we find also in the epistle of Barnabas, on of the influential apostolic fathers. His epistle had great authority in the ancient Church. One of the contemporary Russian scholars, specialist in patristic, K. Skurat notes, that the whole Barnabas’ eschatology is permeated by chiliasm.⁶⁶ In the 13th chapter of this epistle we read the following:

God made in six days the works of His hands, and He finished them the seventh day, and He rested the seventh day and sanctified it. Consider, my children, what that signifies: He finished them in six days. The meaning of it is this: that in 6,000 years the Lord will bring all things to an end. For with Him one day is a thousand years, as He himself testifies. Therefore, children, in six days - that is, in 6,000 years - shall all things be accomplished⁶⁷

The same is with S. Epiphanovich who characterizes Barnabas eschatology as “entirely chiliastic”.⁶⁸ According to Barnabas, the seventh thousand years of the world is to be a millennium of holy rest, in which the saints are to inherit their promises and iniquity be done away. This millennium of glory is to be introduced by the personal coming of the Messiah to abolish the empire of the wicked one, judge the ungodly, change the present constitution of things and renew the world.

Papias of Hierapolis is another example of chiliastic tradition from the ancient church. According to Eusebius, who was biassed toward chiliasm, Papias understood the Millennium as a literal period in which Christ will reign on earth and chastised Papias for his literal interpretation of figurative passages, writing that Papias «appears to have been of very limited understanding», and felt that his misunderstanding misled Irenaeus and others.⁶⁹ However that may be Papias taught that there will be a certain millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when Christ will reign bodily upon this very earth.

The same is with Justin Martyr, who writes that “there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare”.⁷⁰ He refers to John, who “prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that, thereafter the general, and, in short the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place”.⁷¹ It is important to note that Justin put the resurrected saints in the earthly Jerusalem, although there is no hint of that in Revelation 20.⁷²

Some other early Church fathers held premillennial beliefs and believed that the saints will reign with Christ on earth, but little explanation is given concerning the reason for this millennial reign. It was Irenaeus who came closest to stating the Millennium’s purpose when he writes that those who raised in the first resurrection by means of “the kingdom which is the commencement of incorporation, … are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature,” and that “it behooves the righteous first to receive the promise of the inheritance which God promised to the fathers, and to reign in it, when they rise again to behold God in this creation which is renovated, and that the judgment should take place afterward”.⁷³ Irenaeus connects John’s vision of the kingdom with the promises of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. He says: “John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first resurrection of the just, and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize with his vision”.⁷⁴

It is important to note that Irenaeus does not interpret those prophesies allegorically or anagogically. A. Skevington-Wood asserts: “Irenaeus denies with certainty any attempt to ignore chiliastic predictions due to the allegorical contrivances. This is just gnostic deception. Christians should be aware of that”.⁷⁵ Christopher R. Smith, clarifying chiliastic views of Ireaneus, mentions what distincts Irenaeus from other chiliasts. «For Irenaeus the period of restored paradise on earth is not designated in rewarding the saints for their sufferings. It is true, he mentions that, however his main accent is on preparation to the future glory, even stronger than on repayment of the previous sacrifices”.⁷⁶

During the III – IV centuries, chiliasm remained quite popular teaching among Christians. Its ideas were taught by Tertullian, Hyppolitus of Rome, Commodian, Victorin of Pictavius, Methody of Pathar, Lactancius, Appolinarius of Laodicia, and Sulpici Sever. However due to the sensual and material descriptions of the millennial kingdom by some heretical writers that teaching was not accepted by the Church, and some Fathers even strongly opposed it. Among the most active opponents of chiliasm were Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory the Theologian, Jerome, Augustine, and Ephrem the Syrian.

Adventist Position on the Millennium

Adventist theology is eschatological in its essence as well although eschatological character of Adventist theology is different from the Orthodox one. From the very beginning the SDA Church was oriented toward the future events, which will frame the Second coming of Christ. Adventist eschatology, which is based on a historicist interpretation of prophecy, is characterized principally by the premillennial Second coming of Christ. Traditionally, the Church has taught that the Second Coming will be preceded by a global crisis with the 4th commandment as a central issue. At Jesus' return, the righteous will be taken to heaven for one thousand years. After the millennium the unsaved will be punished by annihilation while the saved will live on a recreated Earth for eternity. Scholars such as Strand, Shea, and LaRondelle have set forth exegetical and structural reasons for this interpretation.⁷⁷ It is important to note that many contemporary premillennialists have presented convincing arguments interpreting Rev. 20 as a continuous sequence of events starting with Christ’s second coming, followed by the millennial reign of the resurrected saints and culminating with the resurrection of the wicked, the final judgment, and establishing the everlasting kingdom.⁷⁸

According to Adventist interpretation, the book of Revelation describes a sequence of escalating events, recognizing that each vision represents new details and new victories in the warfare against Satan.⁷⁹ In opposition to the Orthodox amillennialists Adventists believe in progressive rather than recapitulatory character of John’s visions.⁸⁰ That means that chapters 12 and 20 of Revelation which are considered by Orthodox scholars as describing the same events in a recapitulatory pattern, show the advance for the cause of God: the increasing victory of Christ and increasing defeat for Satan.

Thus, downfall of Satan described in Rev 20:1-3 differs from one described in Rev 12:9. Casting out to the earth and casting out to the abyss is not the same. Rev 12:9 does not indicate a cessation of Satan’s work of deceiving, while according to Rev 20:1-3 Satan is no longer able to deceive the nations. It is hard to agree with amillennialist idea that 1000 years symbolize the reign of Christ’s Church on the earth if Satan is totally paralyzed.⁸¹ The Christian era is characterized by active satanic deception, which is clearly seen from the New Testament (Matt 24:4-5, 11, 24; Eph 4:14; 2 Cor 11:14; Eph 2:2; 1 Pet 5:8 etc.). During the thousand years, Satan’s activity is totally curtailed. He is bound by the circumstances that bring an end to his powers to deceive. Only after the dead are raised at the end of the thousand years, he again will be able to deceive them (Rev 20:7-8, 13).

Adventists do not agree with amillennialists who interpret the texts from Rev 20:1-3 and Rev 9:1 as describing the same event. The state of the abyss in the fifth trumpet (9:1ff.), contrasts with its condition at the beginning of the thousand years in Rev 20:1-3. During Christian era Satan is not bound in bottomless pit because he has the key to unlock it. By contrast, in chapter 20, the devil is entrapped because an angel from heaven has resumed control of the key.

The same problem we have with equating the battle of Armageddon in Rev 16:12-16 and the final battle in Rev 20:7-9. There are clear differences between the two. In the former we have three instigators of the battle which are demonic spirits from the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, in the latter – only the dragon which is a symbol of Satan. In the climax of the battle of Armageddon (Rev 19:11-21) the participants are the armies of heaven under the leadership of the Rider on the white horse versus “the kings of the earth with their armies” under the leadership of the beast. This battle, as B. Neall rightly notes, reflects the last-day issue of worship of the beast in chapter 13 and following, and involves only the end-time enemies of God at the time of the parousia.⁸² In the final battle after one thousand years the participants are the enemies of God from all ages under the leadership of Satan, who have been raised from the dead to face the last judgment (Rev 20:12-13). The fate of the enemies is different in each battle: in the former, the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire (19:20), while their armies are slain by the sword and the birds devour their flesh (v. 21); in the latter – the ultimate consummation, the devil and all his hosts are consumed by fire in the lake of fire (vv. 9-10, 14).

Adventist theologians disagree with amillennial explanation for the last sentence of Rev 20:4 “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years”. It was Augustine who taught that this resurrection should be interpreted as spiritual resurrection of the soul to new life. The resurrection of the body will happen at the end, during the second resurrection when Christ returns and the final judgment take place.⁸³

Understanding the first resurrection in Rev 20:6 as spiritual rebirth contradicts to the biblical text, which uses the same Greek verb, eksesan, for both resurrections, and in the book of Revelation there is no apparent contextual basis for discriminating between the two. If resurrection in Revelation 20 are to be treated as two different types of resurrection then the conclusion seems to follow that those who are spiritually resurrected, or born again, are not physically resurrected. The use of hoi loipoi (the rest of...) in Rev 20:5 clearly distinguishes between the two groups, from one hand, and indicates that both groups participate in physical resurrection, from the other. Thus, a simple reading of Rev 20:4-6 suggests a thousand-year period with a resurrection at its beginning and a resurrection at its close. The text clearly indicates that the righteous, who are called “blessed and holy” (v. 6) are raised at the first resurrection and the wicked (“the rest of the dead”, v. 5) at the second.

Such an understanding of future events and the millennium is linked with Adventist theology of judgment. Adventists believe that the main purpose of the period designated in Revelation 20:1-6 as “thousand years”, is judgment. The immediate content of this reign summed up at the beginning of verse four shows in that direction: “Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed.” According to amillennial position and Augustine’s amillennial views in particular, these thrones indicate to the seats of the rulers (actually bishops) by whom the Church is now governed.⁸⁴ However this position is not supported by the context of Revelation. It is important to note that in all occurrences of the word “throne(s)” preceding Revelation 20, reference is made either to the throne of God or to the thrones associated with the throne of God,⁸⁵ which strongly favor a heavenly location of the thrones in Revelation 20:4.

There is no agreement among the scholars on the identity of those seating on the thrones. Some suggest that it might be indication to twenty-four elders mentioned earlier as sitting on the thrones (Rev. 4:4, 11:16).⁸⁶ Some see in seating on the thrones the martyrs mentioned in the latter part of verse 4, or the apostles on the basis of Matthew 19:28.⁸⁷ In Adventist understanding those who are seated on the thrones are all the saints of all ages, who have been raised in the first resurrection.⁸⁸ Before His ascension Jesus Christ promised to His disciples that He would go to prepare a place for them (John 14:3). This is a clear indication that Christ would take the redeemed to the place where He dwells, namely to the Father’s throne. With the same hope apostle Paul comforts his fellow Christians when says that those raised in the first resurrection, together with believers still alive at Christ’s second coming, “shall be caught up… in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess. 4:17). The resurrected saints will be taken to heaven, and it is there the book of Revelation pictures the innumerable multitude of the redeemed saints before the throne of God (Rev. 7:9-10; 15:2-4). That means that the thrones on which the resurrected saints are seated are located in heaven and not on earth, and the thousand years reign of the saints is a heavenly reign and not an earthly one.⁸⁹ Peter M. van Bemmelen makes an apt observation when he says: “on this point amillennialists have criticized premillennialists, claiming that there is no evidences in Rev. 20:4-6 for an earthly reign of Christ in a restored Jerusalem”.⁹⁰

It is evident that Adventist position differs from the prevailing interpretation among both historical and dispensational premillennialists, who locate the thousand years reign of Christ with the saints on the earth. The purpose of this reign is interpreted as providing an opportunity for the manifestation of Christ’s righteous rule over the world in which Satan cannot deceive the nations.⁹¹ However both of these positions have failed to understand the true purpose of the millennial reign, which is clearly stated in Rev. 20:4, where we read that to those who are seated on the thrones “judgment was committed”.

We have already mentioned that the statement of judgment is crucial for Adventist understanding of millennium. Adventist scholars see in judgment the true purpose of the millennial reign. As it is evident from Rev. 14:7; 16:5,7; 17:1; 18:8, 10, 20; 19:2, 11; 20:12, 13, eschatological judgments constitute a key theme in the latter part of Revelation. J. Mealy is right when he concludes that “In Rev. 19:11-20, the theme that is consistently dwelt upon is that of judgment [emphasis his], and, in particular, that negative form of judgment which deals with the eschatological encounter between God and his Christ on one side, and the unrepentant on the other.”⁹² What is the role of the saints in this eschatological judgment? Two statements by apostle Paul expressed in the form of question are crucial in this regard. Addressing to the church in Corinth apostle asks: “Do you know that the saints will judge the world?” and “Do you know that we are to judge angels?” (1 Cor. 6:2-3). The questions allow us to make a suggestion that the saints will somehow be involved in eschatological judgment of fallen angels and unrepentant people. It is important to note, that many evangelical scholars have recognized the connection between 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 and Revelation 20:4-6.⁹³ Some of them associate this judgment with Dan. 7:22, 27; Mat. 19:28; Luke 22:30.

Quite important in Adventist understanding of saints’ role in judgment, are the words from Rev. 20:6 where we have an emphatic statement that the resurrected saints “shall be priests of God and of Christ”. Peter van Bemmelen suggests that during the millennium the saints will exercise a priestly function.⁹⁴ He notes that in three places in the book of Revelation the redeemed are referred to as priests. The first passage where John states that Christ has “made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” (Rev. 1:6) seems to refer to the priesthood of God’s people in the present world. The second reference which says, that Christ has “made us kings and priests to our God and Father and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10) reflects a song of praise to the Lamb who was slain and by His blood redeemed people from every tribe and tongue and nation. The future tense of the final words suggests a future fulfillment of those words.⁹⁵ In the third reference (Rev. 20:6) priestly function of the saints is presented in a context of judgment, which takes place in heaven. As regards the phrase “we shall reign on the earth” from Rev. 5:10, the reigning of saints on earth refers to the time when the New Jerusalem will come down from heaven, when the final judgment will be executed upon Satan, his angels, and those who rejected God’s salvation, and God will dwell with His people on new or restored earth (Rev. 21:2-3).

Thus we see, that before the final judgment upon Satan, his angels and all those who rejected divine salvation offered through Christ’s sacrifice will be executed, Christ open the books of heaven together with the redeemed saints of all ages and sit in judgment. To them it will be given the privilege to judge the world and even the fallen angels (1 Cor. 6:2-3). This judicial proceeding will take time and that time is designated in Revelation as one thousand years reign. It is true meaning and purpose of the words “I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom judgment was committed” (Rev. 20:4).

Premillennialist view has been often criticized on the basis that Rev 20 is the only place in the Bible where a thousand years intervene between the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the wicked. To describe the events in the end of the world – the parousia, the resurrection, the judgment, and the fire the Scripture uses the expression “the Day of the Lord”.⁹⁶ How to correlate the Day of the Lord with 1,000 years? Beatrice S. Neall points to the fact that there are precedents in salvation history for extensions of time that exceed human expectations. For example, Eve expected her firstborn to be the promised Seed, but he did not come for thousands of years. The two advents of Christ were seen in the OT as one event. It wasn’t until NT times, that Christ’s second coming in glory was separated from his first coming. Already two thousands years have intervened to separate the two advents, although the NT writers saw themselves as living in “the last days”.⁹⁷ Therefor it should not surprise us if the events of “the Day of the Lord” are stretched our over a period of a thousand years. There is a principle of “repeat and enlarge” in eschatology therefore, it should not be surprising that John’s final vision enlarges the Day of the Lord prophecies to include a thousand additional years.⁹⁸

One more problem for Adventist understanding of Millennium is literal interpretation of one thousand-year period while the whole book of Revelation is symbolic in character.⁹⁹ Why interpreting such apocalyptic periods as 42 months and 1,260 days (Rev 11:2, 3); «a time, and times, and half a time» (Rev 11:9, 11); 1,260 days (Rev 12:6); «a time, and times, and half a time» (Rev 12:14); and 42 months (Rev 13:5), we use year-day principle, and why is that same hermeneutical principle not applied to the equally apocalyptic one thousand years? Answering to that question, Alberto Timm mentions the notion of “miniature symbolization”, which was elaborated by some historicists in XIX century. According to that idea the year-day principle of prophetic interpretation should be applied only to the time elements of those specific symbolic prophecies whose symbols represent broader entities than the symbols themselves. The predominant figure in the whole narrative of Revelatio 20 is the «dragon,» also called «old serpent» (v. 2). The presence of the «dragon» in Rev 20 does not have the same miniature symbolization tone as let's say the beast and his image gave to Revelation 13. This is due to the fact that in the book of Revelation, the «dragon» is not a miniature symbolization of a lager entity or community, but a designation for a real spiritual being called «Devil» and «Satan» (20:2; cf. 12:9). For this reason, it seems more consistent to understand the 1,000 years of Rev 20 as literal 1,000 years.¹⁰⁰

Summary and Conclusion

After making an analysis of Adventist and Orthodox understanding of Millennium we come to a conclusion that Adventist interpretation of Revelation 20 is following premillennist approach, the Orthodox – amillennialist. According to Adventist premillennist approach at the second coming of Christ, the righteous are resurrected from their “sleep” and are “caught up to meet the Lord in the air,” along with the righteous living (1 Thess 4:13-18). They receive the immortal bodies (1 Cor 15:51-54) and ascend to be with Christ in heaven (John 14:2-3), where they reign with Christ (Rev 20:4). This is the “first resurrection”. The thousand-year reign of the saints in heaven consists of a work of judgment, perhaps examining the books to determine the justice of God’s judgments (Rev 20:4, Dan 7:22, 1 Cor 6:2-3). The wicked living are “slain by the brightness of His coming” and by “the sword coming out of Hid mouth”. Their dead bodies lie on earth, to be consumed by fowls (2 Thess 2:8; Rev 19:21). That means an “abysmal” state of the earth. The great earthquake, hail, and wrath accompanying the second coming have devastated the earth, and slain all its inhabitants (Rev 16:18-21; Isa 24:19-22). Satan is figuratively “bound” on this planet (Rev 20:1). He can no longer deceive the nations because the wicked people are dead and the righteous ones are in heaven. At the end of the thousand years, the New Jerusalem, with God and the saints descends from heaven (Rev 21:2; 20:9). At the same time the wicked dead of all periods of history are raised to receive the final judgment (Rev 20:12-13). Satan deceives them into attempt to conquer the “beloved city”, the New Jerusalem. During that final battle fire comes from heaven and devours them (vv. 9, 14-15). After that God re-creates “a new heaven and a new earth” and dwells with his people forever (21:1-3).

This understanding of Millennium, as Beatrice Neall notes, is elegant in its simplicity.¹⁰¹ This view avoids the problem amillennialists encounter trying to explain how Satan has been bound for the last 2,000 years when he appears to be very active.

As we may noted the whole present system of the Orthodox theology and Christian experience are eschatological in their nature. However, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church eschatology is not limited to the “last things,” but has realized character. It gives us right to talk about the Orthodox eschatology as “realized,” but Orthodox theologians prefer to use the term “inaugurated” rather than “realized” eschatology, emphasizing the fact that the eschatological incision into history has already been made, but it does note rule out a further development of eschatology in the future. “Inaugurated eschatology” implies that eschatology has indeed begun but it is by no means finished. This approach is in agreement with the teaching of the Bible which teaches that the realization of the great eschatological event predicted in the Old Testament has happened in the ministry of Christ, and in the same time it involves an expectation for the future Kingdom of glory after the second coming of Christ.

According to the Orthodox Church the Kingdom of God on earth is “the unity with God, as the source of all life,” which takes place only in the Church in the process of Liturgy through the sacraments. Participating in the Liturgy an Orthodox believer experiences the mystical union with the Kingdom of God, he ascends to heaven where Christ has ascended.

This experience of the Kingdom is impossible outside the Church, because, according to the Orthodox understanding, the Church and the Kingdom are the same. This position is in a disagreement with the Bible, which never identifies the Kingdom of God with the Church. The Church is only manifestation of the Kingdom, but not the Kingdom itself.

The Orthodox Church strongly believes and she is right in this sense that the course of history will be brought to a sudden and dramatic end, through a direct intervention from God. It sees in the Second coming of Christ the realization of the future dimension of the Kingdom of God. The Orthodox teaching about literal and obvious to everyone the Second coming of Christ and restoration of the earth to the state of Paradise for which it was originally created is in accordance with what Bible teaches about this. But, in spite of the clear teaching of Christ about two resurrections (John 5:28-29), the Orthodox Church believes only in one general resurrection of the dead during the Second coming of Christ that leaves no room for millennium.

According to the Orthodox Church the thousand years of Rev 20 represent the entire Christian era beginning with Christ’s incarnation, His death, resurrection, and ascension and ending with His Second coming. Two resurrections in Rev 20:4-5 are understood as having different meaning: the first resurrection is the spiritual resurrection of the believers, while the second resurrection is the physical resurrection of the saints and the wicked at the Second coming of Christ. Such understanding of the Rev 20:1-6 allows to consider the Orthodox position on the millennium as amillennialistic. Thus, the whole eschatology of the Orthodox Church is amillennial in essence.

In spite of many differences in understanding of the Kingdom of God and Millennium between the Orthodox Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church there are some common points that can be helpful in evangelistic efforts in so called Orthodox countries. There is strong conviction among many contemporary Orthodox scholars that premillennial approach toward future events was prevalent in the Early Church. Many Early Church Fathers believed in literal millennium although they placed it on earth. Moreover, some researches show groundlessness of the claim that chiliasm was ever condemned by the Church on her Ecumenical Councils. According to historical theologian, Jaroslav Pelikan, chiliast beliefs escaped official anathema by all of the early councils because they did not deny the creed.¹⁰²

There are many similarities in perception of last events between Orthodox and Adventists. Quite pessimistic outlook to the future, rejection the idea of the “gold age” which will precede the Lord's coming, and belief in the imminence of Christ's Second coming provide good soil for a productive dialogue between Adventists and the Orthodox Church.