Is this the papacy?

[RamistThomist]

Maybe the word "eisegetical" is confusing. What I meant is bad exegesis. In some sense, any interpretation that identifies fulfillment is eisegetical, even messianic prophecies.

Perhaps. We'd still need to see an actual argument from the text (not from church history). I grant your other point.

What do you think caused 1,700 years of interpreters all got it wrong? This is no refutation of you're view but you should at least be able to explain why everyone misunderstood.

I dispute your claim. It is certainly not the case that 1,700 years of church history got it wrong on this point. Some early interpreters employed a small and very limited historicist schema on some parts of Daniel. Even then, it's not clear. You can sort of see it in Hippolytus and Methodius. In the first full length commentary on Revelation by Andrew of Caesarea, you really don't see a historicist framework.

Notes on Andrew of Caesarea

St Andrew of Caesarea’s commentary on the Apocalypse is the first substantial Eastern reflection on the Apocalypse as a whole. Earlier saints like Methodios and Cyril of Jerusalem gave point…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

By the time you get to Augustine you don't see historicist at all. I could be wrong, but City of God seems quite clear.

This is anecdotal, but Irenaeus of Lyons seems to be a historicist premillennial. He does not address what in my opinion is the weakest point of historicism though. The reason for this would be the fact that the Roman empire was still around so the problem didn't happen yet. Ok, rabbit trail closed. Back to the main question.

Historicist is shifting in meaning. The way Irenaeus uses historicist is not the way the post-Reformation thinkers used it. In terms of the Roman Empire, Irenaeus would have seen the Antichrist as a political leader, not a religious one. That actually makes sense. The Pope fits the bill as the False Prophet, but not the Beast from the Sea.

 

[Sam Jer]

Historicist is shifting in meaning. The way Irenaeus uses historicist is not the way the post-Reformation thinkers used it. In terms of the Roman Empire, Irenaeus would have seen the Antichrist as a political leader, not a religious one. That actually makes sense. The Pope fits the bill as the False Prophet, but not the Beast from the Sea.

When I said:

He does not address what in my opinion is the weakest point of historicism though. The reason for this would be the fact that the Roman empire was still around so the problem didn't happen yet.

I was referring to this exact point. However, historicist interpretations of revelation 13 are not the subject here. Instead, I am looking for reasons not to see revelation 17 as the papacy. If I do end up embracing historicism, I will have to wrestle with that problem. If I end up embracing idealism (modified or not), there are other questions I would need to wrestle with.

 

[RamistThomist]

When I said:

I was referring to this exact point. However, historicist interpretations of revelation 13 are not the subject here. Instead, I am looking for reasons not to see revelation 17 as the papacy. If I do end up embracing historicism, I will have to wrestle with that problem. If I end up embracing idealism (modified or not), there are other questions I would need to wrestle with.

Okay. I think I see.

 

[RamistThomist]

Help me out. Is your argument something like this:

If papacy is the whore, then historicism follows.

or is it:

If historicism is true, then the papacy must be the whore

 

[Sam Jer]

My argument is:
The papacy seems to be the whore. Prove me wrong.

Now if the papacy is the whore, this narrows down the options eschatologically, by eliminating those views that are not amenable to that interpretation. But that is a sidenote

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Samuel,

You said in post 32, "I am looking for reasons not to see revelation 17 as the papacy."

Part of the problem here is that Revelation 17 does include the papal system and popes. An Amillennial understanding of the identity of the Beast [from the sea] (Rev 13:1) is that this represents a major persecuting government, of which there are a good number up through the ages, papal Rome being another of the major ones, and which lasted centuries and impacted much of Europe and Britain. This is why the Reformers saw it as the Beast (and the second Beast from the land aka false prophet – cf. Rev 13:11ff; 16:13; 19:20). The Reformers also saw Rome as the Babylonian world system, which it was at the time!

Yet it must be acknowledged that the secular Roman Empire was also a Babylonian system (defined by the Amils – and others – as the cultures of the world in opposition to God, His word, and His people). As argued in another thread, Peter referred to the secular Rome Empire as Babylon (1 Pet 5:13).

So it is true that Rev 17 does speak of the papacy, and it makes perfect sense the Reformers would see it as such.

Over the centuries, however, papal Rome's teeth have been pulled, and it no longer commands armies and such physical force as to operate in the Beast mode it once did. It is more of the order nowadays as the second Beast, a false prophet. It is not clear what role it will have in the end time battles that shall arise.

What nation – or coalition of nations – commands the military might equivalent to what Chaldean Babylon, Roman Empire Babylon, and papal Rome once had to enforce their Babylonian cultures (for whore Babyon rides the Beast; they work together – Rev 17:3) , and what nation – or coalition of nations – in our day commands the whorish lifestyle of luxury, immense wealth, and moral filthiness equivalent to the earlier Babylons?

So if you adjusted your question to read, "I am looking for reasons not to see revelation 17 as exclusively the papacy" the answer might fall into place. The beauty of the Amillennial eclectic idealism is that it includes all the ages of the church. The papal system of Rome was surely a manifestation of whore Babylon. Yet we hold there is a worse one at the end of time.
_____

In your [by the way, "you're" is a contraction of "you are"; you use it incorrectly] post 18 you said, "The historicist view of the seven vials I am most aware of has a category for today's secularism. Either way, there is nothing that necessitates that the new age / drugs / sexual revolution tide be prophecied (same goes for Islam and the papacy)."

What do you think the sorceries (or its cognates) spoken of in Rev 9:21; 18:23; 21:8; 22:15 consists of? Does not sorcery pertain to the opening of the human consciousness to the demonic realm – a reality adepts, shamans, and occultists of the world are all too aware of? And from whence does the dark cloud of madness and evil falling upon the entire world come, if not from the Pit?

 

[RamistThomist]

My argument is:
The papacy seems to be the whore. Prove me wrong.

Now if the papacy is the whore, this narrows down the options eschatologically, by eliminating those views that are not amenable to that interpretation. But that is a sidenote

"Seems" isn't an exegetical argument. A case could be made that the papacy is the False Prophet. That sort of works. But in any case, the the papacy as whore might actually rule out Reformed historicism. Reformed typically see the papacy as the Man of Sin/Antichrist. Unless I am mistaken, even on that reading, the whore isn't the Antichrist.

 

[Sam Jer]

Hello Samuel,

You said in post 32, "I am looking for reasons not to see revelation 17 as the papacy."

Part of the problem here is that Revelation 17 does include the papal system and popes. An Amillennial understanding of the identity of the Beast [from the sea] (Rev 13:1) is that this represents a major persecuting government, of which there are a good number up through the ages, papal Rome being another of the major ones, and which lasted centuries and impacted much of Europe and Britain. This is why the Reformers saw it as the Beast (and the second Beast from the land aka false prophet – cf. Rev 13:11ff; 16:13; 19:20). The Reformers also saw Rome as the Babylonian world system, which it was at the time!

Yet it must be acknowledged that the secular Roman Empire was also a Babylonian system (defined by the Amils – and others – as the cultures of the world in opposition to God, His word, and His people). As argued in another thread, Peter referred to the secular Rome Empire as Babylon (1 Pet 5:13).

So it is true that Rev 17 does speak of the papacy, and it makes perfect sense the Reformers would see it as such.

Over the centuries, however, papal Rome's teeth have been pulled, and it no longer commands armies and such physical force as to operate in the Beast mode it once did. It is more of the order nowadays as the second Beast, a false prophet. It is not clear what role it will have in the end time battles that shall arise.

What nation – or coalition of nations – commands the military might equivalent to what Chaldean Babylon, Roman Empire Babylon, and papal Rome once had to enforce their Babylonian cultures (for whore Babyon rides the Beast; they work together – Rev 17:3) , and what nation – or coalition of nations – in our day commands the whorish lifestyle of luxury, immense wealth, and moral filthiness equivalent to the earlier Babylons?

So if you adjusted your question to read, "I am looking for reasons not to see revelation 17 as exclusively the papacy" the answer might fall into place. The beauty of the Amillennial eclectic idealism is that it includes all the ages of the church. The papal system of Rome was surely a manifestation of whore Babylon. Yet we hold there is a worse one at the end of time.
_____

In your [by the way, "you're" is a contraction of "you are"; you use it incorrectly] post 18 you said, "The historicist view of the seven vials I am most aware of has a category for today's secularism. Either way, there is nothing that necessitates that the new age / drugs / sexual revolution tide be prophecied (same goes for Islam and the papacy)."

What do you think the sorceries (or its cognates) spoken of in Rev 9:21; 18:23; 21:8; 22:15 consists of? Does not sorcery pertain to the opening of the human consciousness to the demonic realm – a reality adepts, shamans, and occultists of the world are all too aware of? And from whence does the dark cloud of madness and evil falling upon the entire world come, if not from the Pit?

Okay. This clarifies you're view. I still don't know that I agree (I may post future threads on the topic), but this does make sense.
I would now need to wait for preterists and other schools of futurism to comment.

.But in any case, the the papacy as whore might actually rule out Reformed historicism. Reformed typically see the papacy as the Man of Sin/Antichrist. Unless I am mistaken, even on that reading, the whore isn't the Antichrist.

Interesting. I will look into it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Okay. This clarifies you're view. I still don't know that I agree (I may post future threads on the topic), but this does make sense.
I would now need to wait for preterists and other schools of futurism to comment.

Interesting. I will look into it.

If memory serves, the whore (to be defined later) rides the beast (whoever you want to call the Antichrist).

 

[Sam Jer]

If memory serves, the whore (to be defined later) rides the beast (whoever you want to call the Antichrist).

If one assumes idealism, this speaks against establishmentarianism in general. But I don't know if I will end up an idealist yet.

 

[RamistThomist]

If one assumes idealism, this speaks against establishmentarianism in general. But I don't know if I will end up an idealist yet.

Perhaps. I'm not really an idealist. Usually all sides see the "end times bad guy" as some sort of world government, except for preterists. They probably think it is Nero.

 

[Sam Jer]

Okay.
So, for those who do not think this is the papacy in any sense whatsoever, what would you're reasons to think so?

(Ramist and blade, if you feel you want to address a point not relating to revelation 17, I would appreciate it if you post it in a new thread)

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I've already spoken re the papacy; just to let you know, I am not an establishmentarian (John 18:36).