The title "Vicar of Christ" as a title for the Bishop of Rome aka The Pope is a major factor in Papal Antichrist arguments, both among Historicists and Futurists who want to make a Papal Antichrist view work within Futurism. The title in the various ways it's been translated implies being a mortal representative of Christ who has all of Christ's authority.
One Biblical pillar of the argument is viewing the Temple that Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2 as being The Church not a Temple Building, and thus the true "Abomination of Desolation" is a Mortal Human within the Church claiming the authority of Christ. That is an issue I've discussed a lot in the past and may discus more in the future.
The other is interpreting the term "Antichrist" in John's Epistles as meaning "in place of Christ" rather then "opposed to Christ", thus suggesting "Vicar of Christ" can be viewed as a direct Latin translation of that term. My looking in the Strongs Concordance at other Biblical Greek words with the anti- preffix shows that it seems to be used with both meanings. But the context of what John was saying about "Antichrists" and the "spirit of Antichrist" supports the "opposed to Christ" meaning. Everything John says to define what makes one "an Antichrist" is about what they say Jesus is not rather then what they say they are.
I'm a Futurist who has been trying to be very open minded to forms of Historicism, but all while trying to make it less dependent on specifically the Papal view of The Antichrist. So what I want to explore here is how the Pope's claimed authority is not the only "Vicar of Christ" heresy within the Church.
The kernel of truth in the Vicar of Christ doctrine is that spiritually Jesus has given some of His Authority to All Believers. What I consider inherently dangerously heretical (whether or not it's relevant to Bible Prophecy) are two sometimes overlapping extensions of that.
1. Any individual or group or office within the Church claiming Christ like Authority even over other believers, that's the Doctrine of the Nicolatians.
2. Using this Authority to justify setting up any kind of Christian Theocracy, Christians seeking to rule over non-believers when Christ's Earthly Kingdom has not yet been inaugurated.
To an extent the Vicar of Christ idea is what justifies all ecclesiastical hierarchy, even Independent Baptists talk about the local Pastor as being an "Under Shepherd".
However the "Divine Right of Kings" doctrine is also based on claiming Kings are Earthly Vicars of Christ. But contrary to popular opinion forms of that idea predated the Protestant Reformation. The Biblical basis for the Medieval "Royal Touch" idea was Mark 16, again claiming specifically for the King something every Believer is theoretically capable of.
It used to be for the Eastern Orthodox Church the Eastern Roman Emperor (Byzantine Emperor in many modern history books) was their Vicar of Christ, that's discussed
right on the Wikipedia page. This
YouTube Video about Greek Orthodoxy reveals how even today they have the Emperor enthroned within their Churches. This is really creepy when you remember that claiming Caesar as their King was what those who called for Christ's Crucifixion did. In the sense that I view the Orthodox Church as Pergamon in Revelation 2-7, that Throne is Satan's Seat.
Even in the Old Testament human kings are viewed as mortals usurping authority that belongs to God, YHWH said through Samuel that Israel was rejecting Him as King when they asked for a Human King like the heathens had. Some Biblical Kings wound up being decent leaders, but the overall meta-narrative is still Anti-Monarchy. I personally believe that especially in The Torah "Moloch" should always be translated "King" and "Milcom" should read "Kings", the passages condemning their worship are actually condemning the worship of Human Kings. This also comes up in Ezekiel 28 and Acts 12 which I've argued elsewhere may be key to understanding what the Abomination of Desolation is. There is also an anti Monarchy theme to the story of Gideon and his sons.
Some Preterists (and secular scholars) think the Temple Paul was talking about in II Thessalonians 2 was a Temple of the Imperial Cult that existed in the city. Not every city had any particular Imperial Cult presence (in Asia the two Churches with specific references to Martyrdom in Revelation 2-3 were the two Imperial Cult centers of the Province), archaeologically we know Thessaloniki was an Imperial Cult center, so that could be relevant.
Galerius the chief architect of the greatest Roman persecution the Church faced, built a Rotunda in Thessaloniki that scholars are still unsure what it was for, the popular theory it was intended to be his Mausoleum though he wound up being buried in Serbia. At first glance that theory would seem to conflict with a Christ usurper within the Church theory. But in the future the Roman Emperors did transition from claiming to be Pagan gods to claiming to be the Vicar of the Christian God. It is connected to the Arch of Galerius which like other Triumphal Arches has imagery that basically Deifies the Emperor for whom it is named.
What's fascinatingly coincidental is how Thessalonica played an important role in that transition. The Edict that made Christianity the state religion of the Empire is known as the
Edict of Thessalonica because that's where it was issued, in fact
Theodosius I was also Baptized in Thessalonica by it's local Bishop. And he turned Galerius's unused Rotunda into a a Church.
Christian Emperors were having Messianic Mojo applied to them even before then however, just look at how Eusebius talked about Constantine.
I made a post focused on the reign of Justinian
arguing for the Eastern Roman Empire being The Little Horn of Daniel 7.
One thing kind of well known about the Roman Empire is that all through Antiquity it never officially admitted to being a Monarchy, they adamantly denied that the Emperors were Kings and never formally called them
Rex in Latin or
Basileus in Greek. Now it's popular to rather dismissively mock that, but I want to say as an American that I feel it's hypocritical to say obviously the Caesars were Kings but United States Presidents are not. There were limits on the Emperor's authority, they did often have to fight with the Senate. Their near Monarchical power came from combining offices that were usually separate under the old Republic. Princeps is literally the Latin word that President comes from (same with Premier and Prime). Imperator basically means "Commander in Chief of the military", and the President's Veto power gives him the power of a Tribune of the Plebs. The only meaningful difference is the U.S. President doesn't serve for life, but they would have if Alexander Hamilton had his way.
What's not so well known is that at a certain point this denial of Kingship stopped.
Emperor Heraclius (who possibly descended from the Armenian Arascid Dynasty and thus the Seleucids) abandoned the title Imperator and took the title Basileus in September of 629 AD, he also took the Persian title "King of Kings". So he can very literally be called the Eight King of Rome.
Leaving aside the symbolic political significance that had for Rome and looking at the above theological significance in light of what I've talked about in this post. He was not the first Christian to formally hold a title of Kingship, but none before him ruled a Kingdom nearly as large as his, and none before him ruled Jerusalem or the land of the Seven Churches that Revelation was written to, or Thessalonica.
On December 12th 627 AD Heraclius was wounded in battle at Nineveh but didn't die and then destroyed another important Persian capital. He also made a Covenant with the Jews that he broke in the Spring of 630 AD.
And like Justinian his relationship with the Miaphysite churches was complex.
When Constantinople fell in 1453 AD they had three claimed Emperors in Exile and then a number of states started claiming to be successor states to Constantinople. The one that's relevant to this discussion of the Eastern Empire however is
Russia's Claim, the theological position the Emperor had in the Eastern Orthodox Church wound up being inherited by the Tsars. Meaning the Orthodox Church didn't cease to have an Emperor serving as their Vicar of Christ till the deaths of Tsar Nicolas II and his family in July of 1918.
I've said before I don't like the logic of the Day=Year theory. But I shall briefly play Devil's Advocate for it's potential applicability here. On the Biblical Hebrew Calendar the year that Heraclius proclaimed himself Basileus started in March or April of 629. If we viewed that as the first year of a calendar, it's 1290th year would have been Spring 1918- March 1919, the year that Tsar Nicolas II died.
The Wikipedia Page for
647 refers to certain events that happened to the Byzantine Empire as "fatally" wounding it. The actions of Constans II in
658 to early
659 could be viewed as the healing of that "fatal" wound. 1260 years from then takes us to the same time period just discussed, the end and aftermath of WWI. Tsarist Russia wasn't the only Byzantine successor state to end (or change it's form of government) then, that was also when the Ottoman Empire ceased. It also ended two successions of Western Emperors in Austria and Germany.
Putin has not formally claimed this aspect of the Tsar's old authority yet. But his relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church suggests he may want to.
