As
@SabbathBlessings already affirmed Adventists do think that the reign of Christ continues after the 1k years.
And I have seen very few anywhere who think there is a 1k years reign of Christ, but then Christ doesn't reign after that. Do you have any actual examples of people admitting this point?
Most do seem to make it about the events that happen there. Some see this from a dispensationalist lens with the focus more on Israel than the church, some see it from a lens of just the events before the final resurrection, because they are interpreting the text in a literal way.
I have some questions regarding this.
a. Do you personally use the Alexandrian method for anything other than apocalyptic?
b. From an Amil, Alexandrian exegesis how would you interpret Revelation 19?
c. How do you view the following statement that there were varying opinions on the matter in the time not far removed from the apostles?
Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho
Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson)
CHAPTER LXXX And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"
Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae,Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
In answer to your questions:
1. Following the example of the Cappadocians (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory Nazianzus) and St. John Chrysostom, I use an admixture of Alexandrian and Antiochene exegesis. In the Old Testament, I rely more on Alexandrian exegesis, and likewise in most of the Apocalypse, except in the epistles of our Lord to the local churches, which I read using a purely Antiochene exegesis. In the rest of the New Testament, likewise, I use a predominantly Antiochene exegesis, more often than not eschewing non-literal interpretation altogether. Conversely, there are some books in the Old Testament, for example, the Song of Solomon, which lend themselves to a predominantly Alexandrian typological-prophetic-figurative interpretation. Most involve a balance, which varies from book to book.
I follow this approach because Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who relied almost entirely on Alexandrian and Antiochene exegesis, respectively, both produced interpretations which were divisive and controversial, and in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, both were anathematized by Emperor Justinian as part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (anathemas which I reject, by the way; I would also note the Assyrian Church of the East venerates Theodore of Mopsuestia as a saint, and I am inclined to venerate both Origen and Theodore, but suffice it to say, their extreme approach was a possible contributor to their later unpopularity, although there were several other controversies involving them).
2. Chapter 19 of the Apocalypse of St. John is a glorious prophecy of the Eucharistic wedding feast between Christ and His Bride, the Church, which we anticipate every time we partake of His Body and Blood in the Divine Liturgy. It is a supreme triumph of Good over Evil, which culminates in the evil one being cast into the Lake of Fire.
3. Chiliasm was common among several pre-Nicene fathers, also including St. Irenaeus of Lyons, among others. Ultimately, over the course of the third and fourth centuries, it was deemed that this literal interpretation of the thousand years was carnal, and a higher, more spiritual interpretation was warranted, one which took into account the extreme martyrdom already faced by the Church and the eternal nature of the Eschaton. Indeed, this move away from Chiliasm I would imagine did little to help the cause of including the Apocalypse of St. John in the New Testament canon, and I think had it not been for St. Athanasius, who was not, as far as anyone knows, a Chiliast, having included it in his 27-book New Testament canon, it would have been omitted. Indeed the potential of the Apocalypse to cause confusion and lead to misinterpretation has been noted, for example, in the introduction to it in the Orthodox Study Bible, and Martin Luther even tried to delete it from the Bible, along with Esther*, Jude, James and Hebrews, and when that failed, he crammed them into the back, the famed “Antilegomenna.” However, if interpreted correctly, the Apocalypse can be of great benefit.
Returning to the pre-Nicene fathers and their Chiliasm, I will first approach this from an Eastern Christian perspective. It is the position of both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Church that individual church fathers are not infallible, and that what matters is the tradition of the church that forms from what Reformed Calvinist Christians coined the consensus patrum, something intuitively understood by Eastern Orthodox scholars, clergy and laity who have acquired a sense of “the fragrance of Orthodoxy” as a result of developing, through catechesis and liturgical participation, “an Orthodox Phronema.” For novices in the Orthodox faith, at least one major 20th century Orthodox scholar, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, in his classic Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, cautions against reading the works of Saints Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, and I think most catechists would likewise advocate against reading them without at a minimum being mindful of the Chiliastic content contained therein, and the erroneous nature thereof.
Now, if we approach this issue from the perspective of Roman Catholicism, it becomes a bit simpler, in that the Magisterium developed and the Nicene Fathers, like in Orthodoxy, concluded that Chiliasm was an error, and the Magisterium therefore excludes it. However, Catholics who are aware of that certainly can read Saints Justin Martyr or Irenaeus of Lyons, provided they do not read them in a manner contrary to the Magisterium, which is a general principle. In practice, Roman Catholics tend to read Patristic works much less intensively than their Orthodox brethren, and to the extent they do read Patristic works, the writings of St. Augustine absolutely dominate, being read probably hundreds if not thousands of times more frequently than the next most popular Patristic author. The wealth of Scholastic works by Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, and others, as well as works of mystical theology such as The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis, shifts the attention of Roman Catholics to more recent decades.
Likewise, with Protestants, these patterns largely hold true, but with a special focus on the works of the Reformers, that is, the writings of Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Richard Hooker, John Jewell, Archbishop Laud, George Fox, the Caroline Divines, the Puritans, John Wesley and the early Methodists, and so on. So there is much less interest in Patristic works. However, insofar as a Patristic work contradicts the various confessional documents of a given Protestant church, or in the case of Anglicanism, the Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican Tripod of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, those aspects which are contradictory will be ignored.
*Having translated Esther from the Hebrew Masoretic text, I can see why Luther regarded it of limited value; St. Athanasius for his part did not include it in his proposed Old Testament canon, which unlike his New Testament canon, was not used outside of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and I believe both the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Churches of Alexandria later replaced it with a canon based on that of the Septuagint. Speaking of which, Esther in the Septuagint is much more compelling and spiritual. There was for a time a myth that the Masoretic Hebrew text was more reliable, driven in part by St. Jerome and in part by the tragic loss of Origen’s Hexapla, the world’s first parallel Bible, which preserved several variant Hebrew texts. However, recently, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Qumran Cave has validated the Septuagint readings as well as several other texts, such as 1 Enoch, previously dismissed as apocrypha.
