Theodoret of Ioannina and the Orthodox Reconstruction of Sacred History (1817): A Non-Augustinian Eschatology

By: Jonathan Photius – NEO-Historicist Research Project

Abstract

This article presents the first full reconstruction of the eschatological system articulated in Theodoret of Ioannina’s Exegesis of the Old and New Testament, read in conjunction with his earlier Exegesis of the Apocalypse. Far from representing a peripheral or idiosyncratic phenomenon, Theodoret’s work constitutes a coherent Orthodox historicist theology of history, grounded in a conjoined interpretation of Old Testament prophecy, the Johannine Apocalypse, and post-Byzantine ecclesial experience. By integrating biblical symbolism, imperial succession, ecclesiology, and measured historical duration, Theodoret articulates a non-Augustinian eschatology that resists both Western amillennial abstraction and modern futurist speculation. History itself functions as the arena of divine judgment and restoration, culminating not in political utopia but in a preparatory millennium preceding the Parousia.¹

I. Introduction: The Recovery of a Suppressed Orthodox Eschatology

Modern eschatological discourse has been overwhelmingly shaped by Western paradigms. Augustinian amillennialism, Protestant preterism, dispensational futurism, and postmillennial optimism dominate both academic theology and popular interpretation. Within this landscape, Orthodox historicist traditions—especially those formed under Ottoman domination—have been marginalized, caricatured, or dismissed as politically motivated prophecy. The work of Theodoret of Ioannina has suffered precisely this fate.²

Yet the Exegesis of the Old and New Testament does not represent an isolated outburst of apocalyptic enthusiasm. When read in continuity with the Exegesis of the Apocalypse and analyzed through the concordance tables preserved in Les Exégèses grecques de l’Apocalypse à l’époque turque (1453–1821), it becomes clear that Theodoret developed a systematic and internally disciplined eschatological framework.³ His interpretations are not episodic; they are rule-governed. Symbols retain stable meanings, historical referents shift according to providence, and ecclesial continuity governs interpretation.

According to Asterios A. Agyriou, Theodoret of Ioannina’s Conjoined Exegesis of the Old and the New Testament represents the final stage of his literary production and was written around 1817, within the immediate post-Napoleonic context and during the reign of Alexander I of Russia.¹

This article argues that Theodoret’s eschatology belongs to a continuous Orthodox historicist trajectory extending from Byzantine exegetes through post-Byzantine interpreters and into the nineteenth century. It further argues that this tradition cannot be assimilated to Augustinian amillennialism without doing violence to its structure, chronology, and theology of history.

II. Methodological Foundations: Conjoined Interpretation and Symbolic Stability

The defining feature of Theodoret’s method is what modern scholarship has termed exégèse conjuguée—a conjoined interpretation of Old Testament prophecy, New Testament teaching, and the Apocalypse of John.⁴ Scripture is not divided into sealed dispensations; nor is prophecy exhausted by a single historical moment. Rather, prophetic symbols function typologically across time.

1. Unity of Testaments

For Theodoret, Daniel, Ezekiel, the Psalms, the Gospels, and Revelation form a single prophetic continuum. Daniel’s beasts recur in Revelation’s beasts; Ezekiel’s Gog and Magog reappear in Revelation 20; the Ark of Noah prefigures the Church preserved in tribulation.⁵ This unity is not allegorical in the modern sense. It is historical and ecclesial.

2. Stability of Symbol, Mobility of Referent

A central rule governs Theodoret’s exegesis: symbols remain stable in meaning even as their historical referents change. Thus, the “Beast” always signifies an imperial persecuting power hostile to Orthodoxy, but it does not always signify the same empire. Islam, the Papacy, and revolutionary Western power can each function as beastly manifestations without collapsing the symbol itself.⁶ This principle is demonstrated schematically in Tables I–III of the concordance.⁷

Table I. Core Hermeneutical Principle of Theodoret’s Eschatology

Element	Principle
Scriptural unity	Old Testament, Gospels, and Apocalypse form a single prophetic continuum
Symbolic meaning	Stable and non-arbitrary
Historical referent	Variable across epochs
Interpretive authority	Ecclesial, not private
Verification	History confirms interpretation retrospectively

Table II. Major Apocalyptic Symbols and Their Historicist Meaning

Biblical Symbol	Meaning	Function
Ark of Noah	Orthodox Church	Preservation during judgment
Woman in the wilderness (Rev 12)	Orthodox Church	Concealment and protection
Beast from the Sea	Imperial power hostile to Orthodoxy	Political persecution
Beast from the Earth	False ecclesial authority	Doctrinal deception
Babylon	Corrupt Christendom / apostate civilization	Moral and spiritual collapse
New Jerusalem	Restored Orthodox Church	Pre-eschatological illumination

Table III. Empire and Sacred History (Daniel–Revelation Continuity)

Danielic Image	Revelation Parallel	Historical Identification
Iron Kingdom	Beastly dominion	Ottoman Empire
Bronze element	False prophet	Papal / Latin Christendom
Ten horns	Fragmented Western powers	Post-medieval Europe
Eighth king (Rev 17:11)	False liberator	Napoleon
Kings of the East	Agents of judgment	Russia

3. Ecclesial Hermeneutic

Interpretation belongs to the Church as a historical body. The Woman of Revelation 12 is not an abstract ideal; she is the Orthodox Church, historically driven into the wilderness during the Ottoman period and preserved through monastic life.⁸ History does not replace theology; it becomes its field of manifestation.

III. Theodoret against Western Eschatological Paradigms

A. Against Augustinian Amillennialism

Augustine’s identification of the millennium with the present Church age collapses Revelation’s temporal architecture into a generalized spiritual present.⁹ In doing so, it eliminates the expectation of a distinct historical phase of restoration prior to the Parousia. Theodoret’s system cannot be accommodated within this framework. His concordance tables explicitly distinguish between periods of persecution, concealment, judgment, restoration, and final consummation (Tables IV–V).¹⁰

Table IV. Antichrist as System (Not Individual)

Component	Manifestation	Role
Political	Islamic empire	Physical oppression
Doctrinal	Papacy	Spiritual deception
Civilizational	Revolutionary West	Secular corruption
Composite	Antichristic system	Sustained opposition to Orthodoxy

Table V. Chronological Structure of Sacred History

Period	Description
Apostolic era	Foundation
Imperial Christian era	Relative peace
Ottoman domination (≈1260 years)	Wilderness period
Collapse of beastly powers	Judgment phase
Silver Age	Orthodox restoration
Golden Age	Evangelical illumination
Gog and Magog	Final revolt
Parousia	End of history

B. Against Preterism

Preterist readings restrict Revelation’s fulfillment to the first century, severing the Apocalypse from the lived history of the Church. Theodoret rejects this implicitly and explicitly by applying prophetic symbols to the Ottoman period, the Papacy, and modern European upheavals.¹¹ Revelation interprets history beyond Rome.

C. Against Western Postmillennialism

While Theodoret affirms a future historical peace, his millennium is not the product of Western cultural ascendancy or gradual moral progress. It follows judgment, not reform, and is conditioned by repentance and ecclesial unity rather than political triumph.¹²

IV. Empire as Instrument of Divine Judgment

A defining axis of Theodoret’s eschatology is the theology of empire. Empires are neither neutral nor accidental; they function as providential instruments.

1. The Iron Kingdom: Ottoman Domination

In continuity with Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, Theodoret identifies the Ottoman Empire as the iron kingdom—durable, oppressive, and prolonged.¹³ Its function is disciplinary rather than redemptive, driving the Church into concealment and purification.

2. The Bronze Kingdom: Latin Christendom

Western Christendom, particularly the Papal system, corresponds to the bronze element of Daniel’s schema. Externally Christian yet doctrinally corrupt, it constitutes a second front of oppression—this time through deception rather than force.¹⁴

3. Revolutionary Europe and the Eighth King

Revelation 17:11 introduces the “eighth king,” whom Theodoret identifies with Napoleon.¹⁵ Napoleon is not the final Antichrist but an antichristic embodiment of secularized power and false liberation. This identification marks a significant historical recalibration while preserving symbolic continuity¹⁶

V. Antichrist as System, Not Person

One of the most significant contributions of Theodoret’s eschatology is his rejection of a singular, personalized Antichrist. Antichrist is a system comprising political domination, doctrinal deception, and civilizational corruption.¹⁷

The first Beast manifests as Islamic imperial power; the second Beast manifests as the Papal system; Babylon represents corrupt Christendom and, in its later phase, revolutionary Western ideology.¹⁸ This systemic understanding aligns with Byzantine exegetical precedent and stands in sharp contrast to modern futurist literalism.

VI. The Millennium Recovered: Silver and Golden Ages

Perhaps the most theologically decisive element of Theodoret’s system is his recovery of a real, pre-Parousia millennium.

Table VI. The Millennium in Orthodox Historicism

Feature	Description
Nature	Historical, not eternal
Duration	Finite, undefined
Character	Peaceful, evangelical
Precedes	Final revolt
Follows	Collapse of antichristic systems
Distinct from	Augustinian amillennialism
Distinct from	Western postmillennial optimism

1. The Silver Age

Following the collapse of oppressive empires, a period of Orthodox peace and evangelization emerges. This “silver age” is marked by restoration rather than perfection.¹⁹

2. The Golden Age

A subsequent “golden age” brings broader unity, conversion of nations, and doctrinal clarity. The Church becomes publicly luminous, preparing humanity for the Parousia.²⁰ The millennium is therefore preparatory, not eternal—a position irreconcilable with Augustinian amillennialism and distinct from Western postmillennial optimism. This structure is synthesized visually in Table VII.²¹

Table VII. Comparison of Eschatological Frameworks

Feature	Orthodox Historicism (Theodoret)	Augustinian Amillennialism
Millennium	Future historical phase	Present Church age
Role of history	Interpretive arena	Secondary
Antichrist	Systemic	Often personal or abstract
Church’s future	Restoration before Parousia	No distinct historical phase
Revelation	Progressive unveiling	Symbolic recapitulation

VII. Russia and the Kings of the East

Russia occupies a decisive yet restrained role in Theodoret’s eschatology. Identified with the “kings of the East” (Rev 16:12) and the Church of Philadelphia (Rev 3), Russia functions as an instrument of judgment and liberation, not as the Kingdom of God itself.²²

Crucially, Theodoret explicitly resists theophanic or messianic absolutization of empire. Russia serves the Church; it does not replace her.²³

VIII. Gog and Magog and the Final Revolt

After peace comes deception. Gog and Magog represent the resurgence of hostile forces following the millennium—a final confirmation that history cannot culminate in human perfection.²⁴ Only after this revolt does the Parousia occur.

**Gog and Magog** (Rev 20:7–9) advancing in rage, with the **New Jerusalem / heavenly city** descending or shining in the background.

IX. Conclusion: Toward an Orthodox Reconstruction of Sacred History

Theodoret of Ioannina offers a fully articulated Orthodox historicist eschatology that cannot be reduced to Western categories. His system preserves symbolic realism, historical sequencing, ecclesial centrality, and eschatological restraint. It demonstrates that Orthodox theology possesses its own robust grammar for interpreting history—one neither Augustinian nor futurist.

The recovery of this tradition is not merely antiquarian. In an age of secular empire, ecclesial confusion, and eschatological distortion, Theodoret’s work offers a corrective framework grounded in Scripture, history, and the lived experience of the Church.²⁵

Unified Conjoined Eschatological Matrix (Theodoret of Ioannina)

Biblical Locus	Symbol / Image	Théodoret’s Interpretation	Historical Referent	Eschatological Function
Gen 6–9 / Mt 24	Ark of Noah	Orthodox Church	Eastern Orthodoxy	Preservation during tribulation
Dan 2	Iron Kingdom	Empire of iron	Ottoman Empire	Long oppression of the Church
Dan 2	Bronze	Western powers	Papal / Latin West	Heretical domination
Dan 7	Four Beasts	Four imperial systems	Pagan Rome → Papacy → Islam → West	Sequential persecution
Dan 7:13–14	Son of Man	Messianic reign	Christ through history	Authority before Parousia
Rev 6	Seals	Phases of Church suffering	Roman → Islamic → Western	Progressive judgment
Rev 8–9	Trumpets	Warnings & chastisements	Islamic / Western wars	Calls to repentance
Rev 11	Two Witnesses	Orthodox testimony	Clergy & faithful	Perseverance under oppression
Rev 11:15	Kingdom proclaimed	Transfer of dominion	Orthodox resurgence	Beginning of restoration
Rev 12	Woman	Orthodox Church	Eastern Orthodoxy	Flight into wilderness
Rev 12	1260 days	Period of concealment	Ottoman era	Monastic preservation
Rev 13	First Beast	Islam	Ottoman power	Political persecution
Rev 13	Second Beast	Papacy / West	Latin Christianity	Doctrinal deception
Rev 17	Whore of Babylon	Corrupt Christendom	Papacy + West	Spiritual adultery
Rev 17:11	Eighth King	Napoleon	Revolutionary West	Antichristic empire
Rev 16:12	Kings of the East	Orthodox power	Russia	Instrument of judgment
Rev 19	Rider on white horse	Christ in history	Through Orthodox rulers	Victory before millennium
Rev 20	Millennium (1st phase)	Silver age	Orthodox peace	Evangelization
Rev 20	Millennium (2nd phase)	Golden age	Universal Orthodoxy	Preparation for Parousia
Rev 20	Gog & Magog	Final revolt	Western / secular powers	Last deception
Rev 21–22	New Jerusalem	Transfigured Church	Post-judgment	Eternal kingdom

Notes

Asterios Agryriou, Les Exégèses grecques de l’Apocalypse à l’époque turque (1453–1821) (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1985), 527–586.
Ibid., 527–530.
Ibid., 533–534.
Ibid., 573–574.
Ibid., 579.
Ibid., 575–576.
Ibid., 579–581.
Ibid., 569–572.
Augustine, The City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 2003), bk. 20.
Agryriou, Les Exégèses grecques, 581–583.
Ibid., 570–571.
Ibid., 575.
Ibid., 569–570.
Ibid., 575–576.
Ibid., 585.
Ibid., 583–585.
Ibid., 584–585.
Ibid., 585–586.
Ibid., 569–572.
Ibid., 571–572.
Ibid., 583–586.
Ibid., 579–580.
Ibid., 585–586.
Ibid., 586.
Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, PG 106; Arethas of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, PG 106.