Yes they do believe The Rapture happens before God's Wrath, but so do Pre-Tribbers and 100% of the many variations of Mid-Trib including my own. The only Pre-Millennial Futurists who aren't Pre-Wrath are the Post-Tribbers, (even they may sometimes try to deny it, but only they have The Church still on Earth during Revelation 16).
But right now the designation of "Pre-Wrath" has been hijacked by a very peculiar view created by a Marvin Rosenthal and currently mainly promoted online by Chris White and Alan Kurshner who recently announced a joint movie project.
They are Pre-Wrath but that's not actually the defining characteristic of their peculiar position. Calling it a "Sixth Seal Rapture" view would be way more apt, though some forms of Post-Trib as well as the position the Pastor I do not like to name promoted in his movie will also connect it to the Sixth Seal.
Their view is that it happens at the Sixth Seal and then in theory everything after that in Revelation is post Rapture. So they alone can uniquely be called the Sixth Seal Rapture view. There is a problem with their claim to being chronological but this post I don't want to be about if their view's right or not, I'll discus that in a future post after I create a certain Spongebob Meme.
If any view deserves to be defined by their Pre-Wrathness, it's my variation of Mid-Trib, I believe it happens exactly when Heavenly voices in Revelation say now Wrath has come. I will argue in a future post agaisnt Alan Kurshner's logic for making the Trumpets part of the Wrath.
But I have no particular desire to call my view Pre-Wrath because when the Wrath happens is not my main reason for the position I hold on the timing of the Rapture, it just happens to fit.
Now I know many forms of Mid-Trib are from their own POV either Pre-Trib or Post-Trib, but that isn't the same as this because everyone knows what Pre-Trib and Post-Trib without qualification means. For the record I'm a Post-Tribber from my own POV based on Matthew 24.
However lots of people are confused on what exactly calling yourself "Pre-Wrath" means. In the comments section of the YouTube video I linked to above a commentor replied to me that Pre-Wrath is Mid-Trib, totally ignorant that the makers of that video love calling Mid-Trib a "defunct view".
So my plea to White and Kurshner is start calling yourselves the Sixth Seal Rapture view.
P.S. Another thing amusing to me is that their PreWrath film is mainly directed agaisnt Pre-Trib. Debunking Pre-Trib is nothing new. They have convinced me they have a fairly different approach, but still, everyone knows the problems Pre-Trib has. Those of us promoting positions that can be labeled as "compromise" positions really need to put more leg work into destroying Post-Trib.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
The Idealist View and Revelation 16
The Idealist View of Revelation is a view that in contrast to Futurism, Preterism or Historicism says Revelation isn't really about any specific sequence of events that were yet future when the book was written but grander Spiritual Truths of the Biblical Meta Narrative.
I am a Pre-Millenial Futurist, but the Idealist view is one I can view as also true. Like how our typological Christological interpretations of Old Testament events doesn't mean we don't believe they actually happened as described. So the future events of Revelation can have typological significance looking back just as the Hebrew Bible has looking forward. Peter Hiett's Revelation Sermons are primarily advocating an idealist view and his is probably the best version of it.
And personally I think the most interesting part of the Idealist view is Revelation 16 as a sort of 5th account of The Crucifixion. The idea that Revelation is describing the Wrath the World deserves but that Jesus took upon himself.
I shall be going out of chronological sequence as I discus this view.
It starts with how the word for "Plagues" is a Greek word that also means wounds. It's never directly indisputably used of the Wounds that Jesus received, but it is used of the same kinds of wounds in places like Luke 10:30 and Acts 16:23.
The big smoking gun of the argument is Revelation 16:17 where after the Seventh Vial is poured out a voice says "It Is Done" and then a Great Earthquake happens. Now in the Greek this "It Is Done" does not seem to be exactly the same phrase as "It Is Finished" Jesus said on The Cross right before that Earthquake. But Jesus wouldn't have been speaking in Greek, so this can easily be a different Greek translation.
So in the first Vial the sores received by those who take the mark could correlate to Jesus sores from when He was scourged.
The two vials turning water into blood could be about the Blood of Jesus that was shed. Moses turned water into blood, Jesus turned Water into Wine and then at the Last Supper said a cup of Wine was His Blood. And when the spear pierced His side Blood and Water came out.
The fourth Vial about the Sun getting really Hot could have to do with Jesus being on The Cross at High Noon. The fifth Vial then caused Darkness which definitely happened while Jesus was on The Cross.
So the Sixth Vial is the difficult one to make work. The Euphrates River being dried up when interpreted symbolically is clearly about contact between West and East, the Euphrates at this time was basically the border between Rome and Parthia, and Biblically it was the Eastern Border of what God gave to Abraham.
In Antiquities of The Jews Josephus sometimes winds up going out of sequence. In Book 18 the account of the Crucifixion happens in chapter 3. Chapter 4 begins the account of how Pilate's Governorship ended and then how Tiberius died before Pilate got back to Rome. But when while talking about acts of Vitellius clearly jumps back to when Tiberius was still alive for some dealings he had with Parthia. In section 5.
Meggidon is possibly linked to the Crucifixion by Zechariah 12.
I am a Pre-Millenial Futurist, but the Idealist view is one I can view as also true. Like how our typological Christological interpretations of Old Testament events doesn't mean we don't believe they actually happened as described. So the future events of Revelation can have typological significance looking back just as the Hebrew Bible has looking forward. Peter Hiett's Revelation Sermons are primarily advocating an idealist view and his is probably the best version of it.
And personally I think the most interesting part of the Idealist view is Revelation 16 as a sort of 5th account of The Crucifixion. The idea that Revelation is describing the Wrath the World deserves but that Jesus took upon himself.
I shall be going out of chronological sequence as I discus this view.
It starts with how the word for "Plagues" is a Greek word that also means wounds. It's never directly indisputably used of the Wounds that Jesus received, but it is used of the same kinds of wounds in places like Luke 10:30 and Acts 16:23.
The big smoking gun of the argument is Revelation 16:17 where after the Seventh Vial is poured out a voice says "It Is Done" and then a Great Earthquake happens. Now in the Greek this "It Is Done" does not seem to be exactly the same phrase as "It Is Finished" Jesus said on The Cross right before that Earthquake. But Jesus wouldn't have been speaking in Greek, so this can easily be a different Greek translation.
So in the first Vial the sores received by those who take the mark could correlate to Jesus sores from when He was scourged.
The two vials turning water into blood could be about the Blood of Jesus that was shed. Moses turned water into blood, Jesus turned Water into Wine and then at the Last Supper said a cup of Wine was His Blood. And when the spear pierced His side Blood and Water came out.
The fourth Vial about the Sun getting really Hot could have to do with Jesus being on The Cross at High Noon. The fifth Vial then caused Darkness which definitely happened while Jesus was on The Cross.
So the Sixth Vial is the difficult one to make work. The Euphrates River being dried up when interpreted symbolically is clearly about contact between West and East, the Euphrates at this time was basically the border between Rome and Parthia, and Biblically it was the Eastern Border of what God gave to Abraham.
In Antiquities of The Jews Josephus sometimes winds up going out of sequence. In Book 18 the account of the Crucifixion happens in chapter 3. Chapter 4 begins the account of how Pilate's Governorship ended and then how Tiberius died before Pilate got back to Rome. But when while talking about acts of Vitellius clearly jumps back to when Tiberius was still alive for some dealings he had with Parthia. In section 5.
When Tiberius had heard of these things, he desired to have a league of friendship made between him and Artabanus; and when, upon this invitation, he received the proposal kindly, Artabanus and Vitellius went to Euphrates, and as a bridge was laid over the river, they each of them came with their guards about them, and met one another on the midst of the bridge. And when they had agreed upon the terms of peace Herod, the tetrarch erected a rich tent on the midst of the passage, and made them a feast there.That is interesting. Also later after his time as governor of Syria was over Vitellius actually made himself a sort of High Priest of the Imperial Cult of Caligula, making him a possible Type of The False Prophet.
Meggidon is possibly linked to the Crucifixion by Zechariah 12.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Revelation Chapter 6 and the Non Signs
I apologize that this post shall in some sense be repeating some stuff I covered early in the Blog's history, but it shall also reflect some things I've changed my mind on and is a good reintroduction to how to refute the "Pre-Wrath" view of Chris White.
The basic error of their view is identifying The Parousia in Revelation using the characteristics of it from the Olivte Discourse that are the least unique to the Parousia and also least important to defining what the Parousia is.
The thesis of this post is that all of Revelation Chapter 6 (the first 6 seals) correlates to the "Non Signs" or "Beginnings of Sorrows" portion of the Olivite Discourse.
Matthew 24:4-8, Mark 13:5-8 and Luke 21:8-11 is what Chuck Missler liked to call the "Non Signs" portion of the Olivite discourse. Jesus specifically said "that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet." Chris White however continues to obsess over insisting these are End Times specific events (he specifically argues they are the first half of the "70th Week"). But that is willful disregard of what Jesus specifically told us.
In Matthew 24 the persecution refereed to happens after the era of these non signs, in Luke 21 it is said to happen before them (Luke's I believe is about the Jewish in origin persecutions depicted in Acts) and in Mark 13 this persecution seems to be happening at the same time. Mark is about the many persecutions Christians have faced in the last 2000s years, (even after the West became Christian in other regions persecution continued, especially for the "Nestorian" Church.) Only Matthew is about a specifically End Times global persecution that might be carried out by the "Antichrist" but it might be the "Antichrist" will present himself as "saving" Christians from it. And that is how I feel the Fifth Seal factors in.
I used to disagree with associating the Non Signs with the Four Horsemen because I understood this fact and I used to believe the Four Horsemen are specifically end times. But I have come to take what can be considered a Historicist view of Revelation 6. My overall view of Revelation remains Futurist because, well I'm open minded on the first 4 Trumpets (chapter 8 is more plausible to interpret histrionically then chapter 9) but the Seventh is definitely yet Future, the Seventh Trumpet is the Last Trump, that I still strongly believe. But one element of the Non Signs is missing when you make them just the Four Horsemen, the Earthquakes.
The "Pre-Wrath" view of Chris White and some other views I've seem argued for, insist the Sixth Seal is the Rapture because Matthew 24:29 refers to an Earthquake and the Sun being darkened and stars falling from heaven. In Revelation the Sixth Seal is the first time those three things happen but it's not the last. And in Matthew 24 this is NOT the first reference to Earthquakes. Also The Sixth Seal doesn't talk about lighting or thunder.
The Earthquake of Matthew 24:29 I view as the Earthquake of the Seventh Trumpet in Revelation 11:19, and maybe the Ark being seen in Heaven is the Sign of the Son of Man of Matthew 24:30. The stars falling from Heaven is what the Dragon's tail does in Chapter 12, the start of Chapter 12 is also what I believe Luke's "Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars" refers to. And the Sun and Moon were already darkened in the 4th Trumpet.
The thesis of this post is that all of Revelation Chapter 6 (the first 6 seals) correlates to the "Non Signs" or "Beginnings of Sorrows" portion of the Olivite Discourse.
Matthew 24:4-8, Mark 13:5-8 and Luke 21:8-11 is what Chuck Missler liked to call the "Non Signs" portion of the Olivite discourse. Jesus specifically said "that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet." Chris White however continues to obsess over insisting these are End Times specific events (he specifically argues they are the first half of the "70th Week"). But that is willful disregard of what Jesus specifically told us.
In Matthew 24 the persecution refereed to happens after the era of these non signs, in Luke 21 it is said to happen before them (Luke's I believe is about the Jewish in origin persecutions depicted in Acts) and in Mark 13 this persecution seems to be happening at the same time. Mark is about the many persecutions Christians have faced in the last 2000s years, (even after the West became Christian in other regions persecution continued, especially for the "Nestorian" Church.) Only Matthew is about a specifically End Times global persecution that might be carried out by the "Antichrist" but it might be the "Antichrist" will present himself as "saving" Christians from it. And that is how I feel the Fifth Seal factors in.
I used to disagree with associating the Non Signs with the Four Horsemen because I understood this fact and I used to believe the Four Horsemen are specifically end times. But I have come to take what can be considered a Historicist view of Revelation 6. My overall view of Revelation remains Futurist because, well I'm open minded on the first 4 Trumpets (chapter 8 is more plausible to interpret histrionically then chapter 9) but the Seventh is definitely yet Future, the Seventh Trumpet is the Last Trump, that I still strongly believe. But one element of the Non Signs is missing when you make them just the Four Horsemen, the Earthquakes.
The "Pre-Wrath" view of Chris White and some other views I've seem argued for, insist the Sixth Seal is the Rapture because Matthew 24:29 refers to an Earthquake and the Sun being darkened and stars falling from heaven. In Revelation the Sixth Seal is the first time those three things happen but it's not the last. And in Matthew 24 this is NOT the first reference to Earthquakes. Also The Sixth Seal doesn't talk about lighting or thunder.
The Earthquake of Matthew 24:29 I view as the Earthquake of the Seventh Trumpet in Revelation 11:19, and maybe the Ark being seen in Heaven is the Sign of the Son of Man of Matthew 24:30. The stars falling from Heaven is what the Dragon's tail does in Chapter 12, the start of Chapter 12 is also what I believe Luke's "Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars" refers to. And the Sun and Moon were already darkened in the 4th Trumpet.
Actually I have now realized Matthew 24:29 does NOT even refer to an Earthquake, that word is in the three Olivte Discourse passages only during the Beginnings of Sorrows. At the Parousia it's the powers in heaven that are shaken, which I think is an allusion to Revelation 12's War in Heaven. I do believe an Earthquake happens at the time of the Parousia because of where I place it in Revelation, but there is in fact no Olivte Discourse basis for that.
Revelation 11 also clearly tells us that Wrath does NOT come till after the Seventh Trumpet. So when the Kings of the Earth think Wrath has arrived in Revelation 6:15-17 they are wrong and mistaken and indeed not heeding what Jesus said about the Non Signs.
No account of the Olvite Disocurse refers to the Moon becoming Blood, Blood is a BRIGHT shade of Red so the Moon being darkened CANNOT be the same thing. Only three verses of Scripture refer to the Moon becoming like Blood, the Sixth Seal, Joel 2 and Acts 2 when Peter quotes Joel 2.
Joel 2 says the Sun will be darkened and the Moon become like Blood BEFORE the Day of the LORD, not on or during but BEFORE. And Peter is referring to this prophecy as having already been fulfilled in some way by Pentecost, presumably by the Earthquake and Darkening of the Sun associated with the Crucifixion.
So I don't think the Sixth Seal is about a singular event, it's a Prophecy of every-time people mistakenly think the End is Nigh because of perfectly common events like Earthquakes, shooting stars and Eclipses. Earthquakes are often accompanied by volcanoes and there are accounts of volcanic eruptions making the Sun look dark and the Moon look red.
I've seen an argument that these kings of the Earth saying "hide us from the face of Him that sits on the Throne" is proof they are seeing the Parousia right now. But again Jesus warns of there being people who will think the Parousia has happened or is happening but it isn't. The fact that a lot Christian are forgetting to factor into all this is that now over half the world's population believes in the Biblical God and Jesus in some capacity at least nominally.
So again we can't build doctrine on the testimony of fallible mortals.
Revelation 11 also clearly tells us that Wrath does NOT come till after the Seventh Trumpet. So when the Kings of the Earth think Wrath has arrived in Revelation 6:15-17 they are wrong and mistaken and indeed not heeding what Jesus said about the Non Signs.
No account of the Olvite Disocurse refers to the Moon becoming Blood, Blood is a BRIGHT shade of Red so the Moon being darkened CANNOT be the same thing. Only three verses of Scripture refer to the Moon becoming like Blood, the Sixth Seal, Joel 2 and Acts 2 when Peter quotes Joel 2.
Joel 2 says the Sun will be darkened and the Moon become like Blood BEFORE the Day of the LORD, not on or during but BEFORE. And Peter is referring to this prophecy as having already been fulfilled in some way by Pentecost, presumably by the Earthquake and Darkening of the Sun associated with the Crucifixion.
So I don't think the Sixth Seal is about a singular event, it's a Prophecy of every-time people mistakenly think the End is Nigh because of perfectly common events like Earthquakes, shooting stars and Eclipses. Earthquakes are often accompanied by volcanoes and there are accounts of volcanic eruptions making the Sun look dark and the Moon look red.
I've seen an argument that these kings of the Earth saying "hide us from the face of Him that sits on the Throne" is proof they are seeing the Parousia right now. But again Jesus warns of there being people who will think the Parousia has happened or is happening but it isn't. The fact that a lot Christian are forgetting to factor into all this is that now over half the world's population believes in the Biblical God and Jesus in some capacity at least nominally.
So again we can't build doctrine on the testimony of fallible mortals.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Looks like PreWrath is gonna be a relevant topic again
It had at least been off my radar since Chris White went inactive, he was the only PreWrath proponent I had any monicum of respect for, Alan Kurschner is a Calvanist and Trump supporter, the most evil ideological combination imaginable.
But he's back now and working specifically on a Pre-Wrath documentary with Kurschner.
For those who may have forgotten, what "Pre-Wrath" means in this context is a weird garbled chronology of Revelation that places The Rapture in the 6th Seal, it kind of shares several of the problems Pre-Trib and Post-Trib have.
I spent the early days of this Prophecy Blog saying a lot specifically against the logic of that model. Back then I was still believing a number of things I've since changed my mind on, including my Soterology to an extent.
Chris White liked to call Mid-Trib a "defunct view", well part of my mission statement on this blog has been to make it very funct. But I've gotten complacent and distracted and spent a lot of my recent time playing Devil's Advocate with Historicism.
My form of Mid-Trib isn't what you expect, I'm not "from my own pov Pre-Trib" just the opposite, we entered Great Tribulation when Stephen was Stoned and it ends by definition at the Parusia. I also am not to invested in arguing it's the halfway point of a seven year time period (though I view that as likely) the point is it happens Between the Trumpets and Bowls in the chronology of the Book of Revelation.
The Seventh Trumpet of Revelation 11 is the Last Trump of the Parusia, it will sound on Yom Teruah and is also typologically the fulfillment of the Silver Trumpets of Numbers 10 as well as Joel 2:15.
A lot of White's old stuff is still on on YouTube re-uploaded by others, some of which I agree with and some I don't. But his video on his theory about The Manna being a specific type of Dessert Truffels is gone it seems, that was one of my favorites.
Update November 1st: I've solved the Manna Video problem.
https://twitter.com/JaredMithrandir/status/1190301958076280832
Another thing I disagree with White on now is the Nephilim issue.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-nephilim-and-sons-of-god.html
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-two-seed-line-theory.html
But he's back now and working specifically on a Pre-Wrath documentary with Kurschner.
For those who may have forgotten, what "Pre-Wrath" means in this context is a weird garbled chronology of Revelation that places The Rapture in the 6th Seal, it kind of shares several of the problems Pre-Trib and Post-Trib have.
I spent the early days of this Prophecy Blog saying a lot specifically against the logic of that model. Back then I was still believing a number of things I've since changed my mind on, including my Soterology to an extent.
Chris White liked to call Mid-Trib a "defunct view", well part of my mission statement on this blog has been to make it very funct. But I've gotten complacent and distracted and spent a lot of my recent time playing Devil's Advocate with Historicism.
My form of Mid-Trib isn't what you expect, I'm not "from my own pov Pre-Trib" just the opposite, we entered Great Tribulation when Stephen was Stoned and it ends by definition at the Parusia. I also am not to invested in arguing it's the halfway point of a seven year time period (though I view that as likely) the point is it happens Between the Trumpets and Bowls in the chronology of the Book of Revelation.
The Seventh Trumpet of Revelation 11 is the Last Trump of the Parusia, it will sound on Yom Teruah and is also typologically the fulfillment of the Silver Trumpets of Numbers 10 as well as Joel 2:15.
A lot of White's old stuff is still on on YouTube re-uploaded by others, some of which I agree with and some I don't. But his video on his theory about The Manna being a specific type of Dessert Truffels is gone it seems, that was one of my favorites.
Update November 1st: I've solved the Manna Video problem.
https://twitter.com/JaredMithrandir/status/1190301958076280832
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-nephilim-and-sons-of-god.html
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-two-seed-line-theory.html
Friday, October 11, 2019
The Vicar of Christ
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
The Seven Church Ages view of Revelation 2-3
[This theory I've semi-abandoned, I'm planning to revise it.]
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Chilialsm vs Premillennialism.
I am definitely a Premillennialist but I'm not comfortable with being called a Chilialist. That might confuse you since enemies of Premillennialism treat the two terms as utterly synonymous.
I'm Premillennial because I believe the visible Parusia of Jesus Christ (and Bodily Resurrection of Church Age Believers) precedes the start of the Millennium described in Revelation chapter 20, and thus since that Parusia obviously hasn't happened yet, the Millennium hasn't started yet.
However what Chiliasm seems to refer to, especially when spoken of negatively by some early Christians, qualifies as that but also seems tied to fundamental misunderstandings of what the Millennium is. Though those misunderstandings are to varying degrees also held by a lot of my fellow contemporary Premillennialists.
What I'm referring to is also distinct from the disagreements Dispensationalists and Supersecenists and Two House Theology have about what the Millennium is.
I've already discussed on this blog how The Millennium is not a Utopia or a Paradise, the paradise we await comes after that in Revelation 21-22. The Millennium will probably be better then the world currently is, but it is still to a large extent an era in which the battle against Sin isn't over. The main place I point to as being an allusion to the Millennium outside Revelation is 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, what Paul places between the Parusia and the General Resurrection.
I have already expressed on this blog annoyance at how many Christian prophecy teachers will refer to various Hebrew Bible Prophecies as being about the Millennium when they are clearly about the New Heaven and New Earth and New Jerusalem, and in fact they are the very Prophecies Revelation 21-22 is quoting, like Isaiah 65-66 and Ezekiel 40-48.
I do think there are some Old Testament allusions to the Millennium, like Daniel 7:12. My current view of Ezekiel 38-39 means we possibly see glimpses of the Millennium in those chapters, as well as possibly the chapters preceding those. And Maybe also the end of Zechariah 14.
I've also noticed a tendency for Chilialsm to be linked to viewing the Millennium as the last era of the Physical Word, that Revelation 21-22 are just describing a purely spiritual existence in which anything that looks physical there is merely an allegory, that it's really just about our Spirits becoming one with The Force. Of course Amillennial and Postmillennial views are often also guilty of that heresy in their own way. Especially since any view that we're already in the Millennium is an obvious gateway drug to rejecting the Bodily Resurrection altogether.
In my view Revelation 21-22 is a physical carnal world, in fact it is our world perfected to it's Pre-Fall condition. And any desire to reject or weaken that is Platonic, Neo-Plaotnic or Gnostic heresy.
Basically what most Chiliasts think the Millennium is like is how I view Revelation 21-22.
My last post already addressed the misconception that Premillenialists think the Kingdom has an end.
When I say there was no Amillennial or Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation 20 before Augustine and certainly not before Nicaea, I'm open to being proven wrong on that. But you need more then just the existence of people not liking Chilialsm and it's implications. You need to specifically prove that they interpreted the Thousand years of Revelation 20 as not a literal time period and/or having already began.
And again, many people who wanted to reject any notion of a Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, like Eusebius of Caesarea.
Update Correction: Ticonius does beat Augustine to forming a Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation, in fact he is who Augustine got it from. Still his Commentary was published in 380 AD, same year Christianity formally became the state religion of the Empire and after over half a century of being effectively the state region. And it went hand in hand with being a purely Spiritual interpretation of Revelation. And he was a Donatist, so officially a Heretic according to the Council of Nicaea.
I'm Premillennial because I believe the visible Parusia of Jesus Christ (and Bodily Resurrection of Church Age Believers) precedes the start of the Millennium described in Revelation chapter 20, and thus since that Parusia obviously hasn't happened yet, the Millennium hasn't started yet.
However what Chiliasm seems to refer to, especially when spoken of negatively by some early Christians, qualifies as that but also seems tied to fundamental misunderstandings of what the Millennium is. Though those misunderstandings are to varying degrees also held by a lot of my fellow contemporary Premillennialists.
What I'm referring to is also distinct from the disagreements Dispensationalists and Supersecenists and Two House Theology have about what the Millennium is.
I've already discussed on this blog how The Millennium is not a Utopia or a Paradise, the paradise we await comes after that in Revelation 21-22. The Millennium will probably be better then the world currently is, but it is still to a large extent an era in which the battle against Sin isn't over. The main place I point to as being an allusion to the Millennium outside Revelation is 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, what Paul places between the Parusia and the General Resurrection.
I have already expressed on this blog annoyance at how many Christian prophecy teachers will refer to various Hebrew Bible Prophecies as being about the Millennium when they are clearly about the New Heaven and New Earth and New Jerusalem, and in fact they are the very Prophecies Revelation 21-22 is quoting, like Isaiah 65-66 and Ezekiel 40-48.
I do think there are some Old Testament allusions to the Millennium, like Daniel 7:12. My current view of Ezekiel 38-39 means we possibly see glimpses of the Millennium in those chapters, as well as possibly the chapters preceding those. And Maybe also the end of Zechariah 14.
I've also noticed a tendency for Chilialsm to be linked to viewing the Millennium as the last era of the Physical Word, that Revelation 21-22 are just describing a purely spiritual existence in which anything that looks physical there is merely an allegory, that it's really just about our Spirits becoming one with The Force. Of course Amillennial and Postmillennial views are often also guilty of that heresy in their own way. Especially since any view that we're already in the Millennium is an obvious gateway drug to rejecting the Bodily Resurrection altogether.
In my view Revelation 21-22 is a physical carnal world, in fact it is our world perfected to it's Pre-Fall condition. And any desire to reject or weaken that is Platonic, Neo-Plaotnic or Gnostic heresy.
Basically what most Chiliasts think the Millennium is like is how I view Revelation 21-22.
My last post already addressed the misconception that Premillenialists think the Kingdom has an end.
When I say there was no Amillennial or Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation 20 before Augustine and certainly not before Nicaea, I'm open to being proven wrong on that. But you need more then just the existence of people not liking Chilialsm and it's implications. You need to specifically prove that they interpreted the Thousand years of Revelation 20 as not a literal time period and/or having already began.
And again, many people who wanted to reject any notion of a Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, like Eusebius of Caesarea.
Update Correction: Ticonius does beat Augustine to forming a Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation, in fact he is who Augustine got it from. Still his Commentary was published in 380 AD, same year Christianity formally became the state religion of the Empire and after over half a century of being effectively the state region. And it went hand in hand with being a purely Spiritual interpretation of Revelation. And he was a Donatist, so officially a Heretic according to the Council of Nicaea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)