Pope as Antichrist

[RamistThomist]

If historicists can be accused of rewriting their schema as history marches on, it seems like the same criticism could be applied to other views as none of them are entirely nailed down and agreed upon by all within their respective camps. If none of the above are correct, that would seem to leave idealism, but I haven't yet been convinced of it.

That is true, and I agree that idealism is incorrect. But if historicists are committed to the day-year hermeneutic, then they necessarily have to rewrite and update their schema as church history progresses (if only because more years have been added).

True, futurists do silly things on time tables, but early futurists didn't. Since they believed in an "any moment rapture," there was no point to come up with "what happens next."

 

[Megs]

That is true, and I agree that idealism is incorrect. But if historicists are committed to the day-year hermeneutic, then they necessarily have to rewrite and update their schema as church history progresses (if only because more years have been added).

Can you elaborate on this for me?

As I understand it, the day-year principle relates to how to understand the 1260 days, time times and half a time, etc. phraseology. I'm confused as to how that necessitates rewriting anything. For instance, F.N. Lee has a chart on historicim.net with his view of the 1260 years having ended with Wycliffe: http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/Prophetic Chart.pdf. If he was correct, then everything fits together as he put it in John's Revelation Unveiled.

The front page of historicism.net says

"The "Time, Times and Half a time," "3 1/2 years," "1260 days", and "42 month" time period, which occurs seven times in Daniel and Revelation, is understood by Historicists to be fulfilled in history."​

I'm probably missing something since it's been a long time since I waded through all this stuff (I've been trying to get through a Brakel's commentary, but it's taking me literally years to do so due to time and health constraints). Is there another day-year timeline given in the scriptures that comes into play also? If the timeline is understood as being fulfilled in history, where is the need to rewrite anything? Per F.N. Lee, we would be in the time of the sixth-seventh vial at present and still expecting more to come. It seems to me that, if historicism is correct, then the understanding of scripture would become clearer as time goes on. But I'm not seeing wholesale rewriting of any schema going on so I am very interested in learning more about this.

Thanks for your help and interaction on this!

 

[RamistThomist]

As I understand it, the day-year principle relates to how to understand the 1260 days, time times and half a time, etc. phraseology. I'm confused as to how that necessitates rewriting anything. For instance, F.N. Lee has a chart on historicim.net with his view of the 1260 years having ended with Wycliffe:

Lee's chart wouldn't have worked for anybody who lived before the time of Wyclif.

The main problem, though, is that it isn't exegesis. It is reading church history to see who fits where.

 

[iainduguid]

Can you elaborate on this for me?

As I understand it, the day-year principle relates to how to understand the 1260 days, time times and half a time, etc. phraseology. I'm confused as to how that necessitates rewriting anything. For instance, F.N. Lee has a chart on historicim.net with his view of the 1260 years having ended with Wycliffe: http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/Prophetic Chart.pdf. If he was correct, then everything fits together as he put it in John's Revelation Unveiled.

The front page of historicism.net says

"The "Time, Times and Half a time," "3 1/2 years," "1260 days", and "42 month" time period, which occurs seven times in Daniel and Revelation, is understood by Historicists to be fulfilled in history."​

I'm probably missing something since it's been a long time since I waded through all this stuff (I've been trying to get through a Brakel's commentary, but it's taking me literally years to do so due to time and health constraints). Is there another day-year timeline given in the scriptures that comes into play also? If the timeline is understood as being fulfilled in history, where is the need to rewrite anything? Per F.N. Lee, we would be in the time of the sixth-seventh vial at present and still expecting more to come. It seems to me that, if historicism is correct, then the understanding of scripture would become clearer as time goes on. But I'm not seeing wholesale rewriting of any schema going on so I am very interested in learning more about this.

Thanks for your help and interaction on this!

Hi Megs,
The larger challenge is the complexity of interpreting Biblical prophecy, as we can see by surveying prophecies already fulfilled. Some fulfillments are not as literal as you might expect. What exactly is the timespan for the 70 year exile that Jeremiah anticipates in Jeremiah 25:11-12? Does it begin in 586, when God devotes his own land to destruction (v.9)? End with the destruction of Babylon in 538 BC, per v.12, and as Daniel seems to think in Daniel 9? If so how is the seventy year clock still running in 520 BC (see Zech 1:12)? How is it we know that seventy times seven is hyperbolic in Genesis 4 and Matt 18:22, but want to start calculating dates from the seventy weeks in Daniel 9 (another date that only yields fruit by artificial measures)? On the other, hand it's not as if the idealists have it all their own way: Daniel 11 predicts with remarkable precision a whole series of events up until the 160's BC. If you were living in those days, would you not have been convinced that Antiochus Epiphanes was THE little horn and the end of history was upon you?

My point is that the fulfillment of future prophecy is hard to predict (see Num 12:6-8), and those who do so with great confidence are often wrong. Biblical prophecy will be fulfilled, and sometimes far more literally than we amillennial types expect, but we should expect that there will be plenty of surprises. In the meantime, it often strikes me that we completely miss the meaning of apocalyptic for its original hearers; we think we hear it saying "The end is nigh", when Daniel, at least, was being told that even if the seventy years was almost up, there was a much longer journey still to go for God's people. In the words of Churchill, it is not announcing the beginning of the end, so much as the end of the beginning, and God's persecuted people would need to endure to the end by faith through many dangers, toils and snares. It seems to me that that is a much more useful application of apocalyptic than trying to use it as a key to unlock history. Is the pope THE antichrist? Maybe. I certainly wouldn't let my guard down in that direction for a moment. He certainly ticks many of the boxes. Is it possible that history future still has more twists and turns ahead that are totally unpredictable right now, in which some new figure arises to take the pope's place? I just can't rule that out, based on my reading of Biblical prophecy.

 

[Minh]

Please keep in mind that there are some Popes in history who were genuine Christians. John Calvin spoke favourably of Pope Gregory who was very opposed to the titled of the Vicar of Christ even though Roman Catholicism continues to recognize him as such.

I have no sympathy with the fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines but I don’t think the identification of the pope as the Anti-Christ is warranted in Scripture. What if the next Pope decided to “infallibly” declare that sola fide is true?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Megs]

Lee's chart wouldn't have worked for anybody who lived before the time of Wyclif.

The main problem, though, is that it isn't exegesis. It is reading church history to see who fits where.

I'm not sure of your first statement but I don't have time to look into it at the moment (though now you have me racking my brain where I read about this so I hope to make time somehow). The blessings of trying to homeschool 7 children while recovering from a bad pregnancy and birth!

I think I'm missing the full import of your criticism. It seems to me like all prophecy interacts with history to some degree. People argue that Jesus was the Messiah based on what the prophecies said and how he fulfilled the prophecies in his life in history, even if the people of his time didn't understand every nuance of the situation. So I am not understanding why it's okay to compare Messianic prophecies to history and the historical person of Christ to see how they were fulfilled but not compare eschatological prophecies to history as well (barring some clear textual indicators to help sort them out). After all, they have to be comparing history to something, ie. an exegesis, in order for their scheme to work, right?

In Lee's article about the early church, he has 40+ pages of quotes showing that the church was expecting the downfall of Rome and something after that. I guess I'm confused as to why the church would have thought that way if prophecies weren't to be taken as having some sort of actual "literal" fulfillment in time in history. And how do we know from the text to treat eschatological passages different from Messianic ones? If adopting idealism, for instance, what is there in the text to allow someone to say Revelation is about no actual historical people or events in particular but to stop that person from concluding the same things about the Messianic prophecies? Just something that's rolling around in my head.

Hi Megs,
The larger challenge is the complexity of interpreting Biblical prophecy, as we can see by surveying prophecies already fulfilled. Some fulfillments are not as literal as you might expect. What exactly is the timespan for the 70 year exile that Jeremiah anticipates in Jeremiah 25:11-12? Does it begin in 586, when God devotes his own land to destruction (v.9)? End with the destruction of Babylon in 538 BC, per v.12, and as Daniel seems to think in Daniel 9? If so how is the seventy year clock still running in 520 BC (see Zech 1:12)? How is it we know that seventy times seven is hyperbolic in Genesis 4 and Matt 18:22, but want to start calculating dates from the seventy weeks in Daniel 9 (another date that only yields fruit by artificial measures)?

On the other, hand it's not as if the idealists have it all their own way: Daniel 11 predicts with remarkable precision a whole series of events up until the 160's BC. If you were living in those days, would you not have been convinced that Antiochus Epiphanes was THE little horn and the end of history was upon you?

I can't answer every question of yours in detail right now, but I expect that exegesis would be the answer. At present, I know not if the 70 years in Jeremiah was meant to be taken literally (whether or not we fully understand its reference) or if the number was symbolic of something (like the 144,000 in Revelation) without further study. But thank you for giving me more to look into! My list of study topics grows ever longer . I'm not sure, though, that being unable to pinpoint an exact answer would mean that the prophecy wasn't about an end to a particular exile, though.

As for the little horn, I think it depends on which one you're referring to. As I understand it, the little horn in Daniel 8 is taken by historicists to be Antiochus Ephiphanes (the horn that grows out of the Grecian empire as indicated by the biblical text) whereas the little horn in Daniel 7 is taken by historicists to be the papacy (the horn that grows out of the Roman empire as also indicated by the biblical text). So there are two little horns and from what I have read, the passage on Antiochus is believed to be about him and to foreshadow the papacy, Antiochus being a type of the papal Antichrist, so to speak.

But I'm not sure that not understanding everything about a prophecy in advance of an event discredits a particular understanding of the prophecy after the fact. Didn't the disciples ask Jesus if this was the time he was going to restore the kingdom? I don't think they fully understood his mission as it happened in real time, but maybe I'm wrong about that. But now, looking back, we see things more clearly. And I wouldn't say our understanding is wrong even if the people of Jesus' time couldn't see exactly how things would play out from their perspective.

I agree that prophecy is hard to interpret and I am still a novice at understanding it all, but when I read Robert Fleming, Jr., for instance, writing about events future to him, he seems to have been able to remarkably pinpoint the times and events of the French Revolution, loss of the papal states, fall of the Ottoman empire, etc. - all based on a historicist exegesis of eschatological passages. As I read and study, I see exegesis going on (see Lee's John's Revelation Unveiled for an example), although different scholars quibble over the exact details of how it all played and will play out. From their perspective, though, it doesn't matter since it all ends up in the same place with Jesus victorious - and that's all that matters.

 

[Megs]

Please keep in mind that there are some Popes in history who were genuine Christians....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know about this but the idea is that the papacy, ie. the papal office, is the Antichrist no matter who fills it. The papacy also grew in power and became more corrupt as time went on and Gregory knew the title being applied to him belonged to Antichrist. I don't know enough about him to say anything about his life in detail. I would be interested to know which popes are considered born again, though!

I personally do not think it is possible for a Pope to declare sola fide to be true since the church anathematized that position, but I sure would like to see a Pope truly repent and put his faith in Christ alone to save him!

I just don't see from a historicist perspective how anyone else but the papacy could have fulfilled the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7, etc. What other power grew up among ten and subdued three of them? (this is assuming historicism is true because I don't know what an idealist would say).

 

[RamistThomist]

In Lee's article about the early church, he has 40+ pages of quotes showing that the church was expecting the downfall of Rome and something after that. I guess I'm confused as to why the church would have thought that way if prophecies weren't to be taken as having some sort of actual "literal" fulfillment in time in history.

The problem with that line of argument is that it assumes that the early church knew of an institution called "The Papacy" as we know it. I deny that they did. Statements about the "fall of Rome" should be interpreted as such: Rome fell.

 

[RJ Spencer]

I'm an idealist, I see types of anti-Christ throughout the church age, just as there were many types of Christ throughout the OT. That being said I believe that the Pope is an anti-Christ, but not the anti-Christ. I do see the image of the beast as the man-centered theology pushed by Rome. I see Pelagianism and this growing Charismania movement in the same light, therefore those that push those ideologies are also anti-Christs.

 

[Megs]

The problem with that line of argument is that it assumes that the early church knew of an institution called "The Papacy" as we know it. I deny that they did. Statements about the "fall of Rome" should be interpreted as such: Rome fell.

Oops! I apologize if my writing was unclear. I meant that they were expecting the fall of the Roman Empire, not the papacy. They knew that an evil would arise after that fall, but they did not know exactly what form or name it would take. I don't see why they would have needed to.

From Lee's document (bold added):

Tertullian: "Again, in the Second Epistle [II Thessalonians 2:1-7], he [Paul] addresses them with even greater earnestness. 'Now I beseech you...that you be not soon...troubled..., 'as if...the day of the Lord is at hand.... 'For that day shall not come,' unless indeed there first come a falling away...and that man of sin be revealed' – that is to say, Antichrist.... What obstacle is there [to his being revealed], but the Roman State – the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist (upon its own ruins) [cf. Daniel 7:7-25 & Revelation 17:8f]?"

and: "For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole Earth...threatening dreadful woes, is retarded only by the continued existence of the Roman Empire [cf. Second Thessalonians 2:6f]. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration."

Hippolytus: "'Behold, a Fourth Beast!' [Daniel 7:7f].... That there has arisen no other kingdom after that of the Greeks save that [Roman Empire] which stands sovereign at present [!], is manifest to all.... From it, will spring ten horns.... We ought to look for the ten horns which are to spring from it – when the time of the Beast shall be fulfilled and the little horn which is Antichrist suddenly shall appear [future tense!] in their midst, and righteousness shall be banished from the Earth....

Lactantius: "Rome is doomed to perish. And that, indeed, by the judgment of God; because it held His Name in hatred.... Being the enemy of righteousness, it destroyed the people who kept the truth.... The Roman Empire and name, would be 'taken away' from the World.....

"I will show how it will come to pass. First, the [Roman] kingdom will be enlarged – and the chief power, dispersed among many and divided, will be diminished. Then, civil discords will be sown perpetually. "Nor will there be any rest from deadly wars, until ten kings arise at the same time. They will [future tense!] divide the World – not to govern it, but to consume it.... [Then,] another king shall arise...from an evil spirit – the overthrower and destroyer of the human race....

etc. etc. etc.

The point I was making was that the church was writing that the Roman Empire would fall, that it would break up into 10 kingdoms (horns), that a kingdom would rise up among them and subdue 3 of them (papacy), etc. That all presupposes a historicist interpretation of Daniel 2 and 7, ie. that when Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that he (representing Babylon) was the head of gold, he meant it to really apply to Neb/Babylon and not just as a general principle.

At the time of the Reformation, when it became abundantly clear which side the papacy was on, the opinion crystallized around the conclusion that the papacy was indeed the little horn kingdom anticipated in the scriptures. The early church didn't know it would be called the "papacy," but the argument is that they were anticipating it or something like it to arise upon the earth.

I am confused as to why the early church would have had to have known exactly what name or form the papacy would take in the future. They had the scriptures to exegete and could look for their fulfillment, as Lee's article seems to indicate they did.

Again, I apologize for any confusion. In discussions of eschatology, it's probably best to specify whether the topic is Rome pagan or Rome papal!

 

[RamistThomist]

that it would break up into 10 kingdoms (horns), that a kingdom would rise up among them and subdue 3 of them (papacy), etc.

That's the very thing being debated, so I am not likely to grant that as a supposition.

I am confused as to why the early church would have had to have known exactly what name or form the papacy would take in the future. They had the scriptures to exegete and could look for their fulfillment, as Lee's article seems to indicate they did.

Simple. If the papacy was conceptually foreign to them (as it was), then they could not have been writing about it. All Lee's argument proves is that some fathers wrote about a coming Roman imperial threat. That's all he proves.

 

[Minh]

NEXT: Is the Italian Prime Minister an Anti-Christ?

 

[Tom Hart]

NEXT: Is the Italian Prime Minister an Anti-Christ?

 

[Minh]

I am just confused about identifying the real Anti-Christ throughout history. After Christ's resurrection, it was Nero. During Reformation, it was the Papacy. 20th century, Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin. Now, it must be Donald Trump or Barrack Obama.

I would still respect those who hold to this opinion nevertheless.

 

[Megs]

That's the very thing being debated, so I am not likely to grant that as a supposition.

Simple. If the papacy was conceptually foreign to them (as it was), then they could not have been writing about it. All Lee's argument proves is that some fathers wrote about a coming Roman imperial threat. That's all he proves.

I don't understand your critiques and think we may be talking past each other.

I grant that you reject the historicist hermeneutic.

To your first comment, when Lactantius wrote of 10 future kings to come, are you saying that you reject that he believed there were 10 future kings to come (from his time)? And the same with other authors like Tertullian? I don't see how you can reject the fact that someone stated something even if you disagree with their opinion.

To your second comment, what perceived Roman imperial threat was coming to people writing that the Empire was going to be destroyed and that 10 kingdoms would take its place? Your comment does not seem to actually address what the writers were explicitly stating. They weren't talking about imperial Rome but about what was going to come after it. So Lee wasn't writing about some people talking about some imperial Roman threat and I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from what he wrote.

Also, your point about something being conceptually foreign is unclear to me. I've heard it said that the ancient Jews did not understand that there were to be two comings of the Messiah. Yet, they wrote down scriptures talking of his two comings. So, since they did not conceive of two comings, your logic would say that they therefore did not write about Jesus and his two comings. But they did.

I consider it entirely possible that one could receive or record a prophecy or vision from the Lord without understanding its full and complete meaning. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream and he didn't even remember what it was, let alone what it meant. Yet, it was about something, even if he couldn't conceive of what that was and had to have it explained to him. I personally don't see what's conceptually foreign about a prophecy stating that an empire would be destroyed and break up and then another ruler would arise from the break up but be different from what came before. That doesn't seem like a far-fetched conceptual stretch to me and simply asserting that it is so doesn't clear the issue up.

All this isn't to say that historicism is absolutely the only way to interpret scripture. I just don't see how some of your criticisms stick when one puts a historicist hat on.

NEXT: Is the Italian Prime Minister an Anti-Christ?

Maybe a small-a antichrist. To be Antichrist, he would have to fit the scriptures, depending on what school of thought you work from.

 

[Tom Hart]

I am just confused about identifying the real Anti-Christ throughout history. After Christ's resurrection, it was Nero. During Reformation, it was the Papacy. 20th century, Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin. Now, it must be Donald Trump or Barrack Obama.

I would still respect those who hold to this opinion nevertheless.

A lot of peoole have been wrong, certainly. Many in the early 19th century thought Napoleon was the Antichrist, or, in the next century, Hitler.

First, we need to understand that there are many antichrists, but one Antichrist. Napoleon and Hitler, among a host of others, were indeed antichrists, but not themselves the one man of sin.

I'd say Nero was an antichrist, too, and a type, if you will, of the antichrists to follow.

It's OK to be confused about the identity of the Antichrist. There's a lot of information and different opinions to wade through here. (But just to make it simple, it's the Pope. )

 

[RamistThomist]

Also, your point about something being conceptually foreign is unclear to me. I've heard it said that the ancient Jews did not understand that there were to be two comings of the Messiah. Yet, they wrote down scriptures talking of his two comings. So, since they did not conceive of two comings, your logic would say that they therefore did not write about Jesus and his two comings. But they did.

They were writing inspired Scripture, the fathers were not. If the fathers didn't understand that there was a papacy, they could not have written about it.

 

[RamistThomist]

To your first comment, when Lactantius wrote of 10 future kings to come, are you saying that you reject that he believed there were 10 future kings to come (from his time)? And the same with other authors like Tertullian? I don't see how you can reject the fact that someone stated something even if you disagree with their opinion.

I don't reject Lactantius said that. I reject that he was speaking about the papacy.

 

[Megs]

I don't reject Lactantius said that. I reject that he was speaking about the papacy.

We agree, then! Lactantius stated that the Roman Empire would break up into ten kingdoms, out of which would come Antichrist. That was the point of that quote.

The question is, where did Lactantius and others get the idea from that the Roman Empire was going to break up into ten kingdoms, from which would come the Antichrist?

 

[RamistThomist]

We agree, then! Lactantius stated that the Roman Empire would break up into ten kingdoms, out of which would come Antichrist. That was the point of that quote.

The question is, where did Lactantius and others get the idea from that the Roman Empire was going to break up into ten kingdoms, from which would come the Antichrist?

Daniel, but I would add several cautions:

1) We still aren't doing Greek and Hebrew exegesis, so much of this is speculative.
2) Many Western European leaders could fit the bill.
3) I offered several substantial criticisms of historicism earlier in this thread.

 

[Romans922]

3) I offered several substantial criticisms of historicism earlier in this thread.

My reasons for no.

1) Historicism has to continually rewrite their schema. If you were in the year 1630 and you were going to place the entirety of church history within the book of Revelation, it would look different than it would in 1830 or 1970.

2) If the Pope is the "man of sin in the temple of God," then we have to conclude that Rome is the temple of God. That then changes what you mean about baptism and who is in the (in)visible church.

3) If applied to Matthew 24, especially verse 15, then this means the Great Tribulation spans the entire church age, which is bizarre. Put more modestly, they could see the event as happening in AD 70. So when Titus entered the temple, being the abomination of desolation, that caused the Great Tribulation. A believer suffering persecution today isn't suffering because of Titus's actions, yet that's what the exegesis demands.

3.1) This means that the church age is one of unprecedented persecution, yet this doesn't seem correct.

1. This is demonstrably untrue. If you look at the best commentaries on revelation (which are hold to historicism lol), you will see a consensus on the broad meaning of the prophecies. Protestants unanimously understood these prophecies as proves by the universal consensus upon the papacy as that antichrist predicted by the apostle Paul and the apocalypse. I would recommend our RP father Alexander McLeod’s commentary on Revelation that shows the concurrence of historicist interpretation.

2. This seems like you aren't really familiar with historicist interpretations of Revelation. For the reformation was the promised toppling of the Antichrist from his throne as prophesied in Revelation. Therefore, he no longer has to be seen as within the visible church according to historicist exegesis. And the argument becomes a moot point.

3/3.1) Historicism is the hermeneutic which informs prophecy and applied to Matthew 24 leads to totally consistent exegesis without the straw men given in your arguments above. I'm not sure if you've read even a puritan historicist commentary on Revelation/Matthew from what I see above. If not, I recommend Durham, a’Brakel, or the following: http://quintapress.webmate.me/PDF_B...jgNLO6QriqN7nfB-mFWkmAG2o51b0OWUEyaHF5vRO__98

 

[RamistThomist]

2. This seems like you aren't really familiar with historicist interpretations of Revelation. For the reformation was the promised toppling of the Antichrist from his throne as prophesied in Revelation. Therefore, he no longer has to be seen as within the visible church according to historicist exegesis. And the argument becomes a moot point.

This is what I am talking about. Yuo are not doing exegesis. You are reading church history into the text. This is the complete reverse of what exegesis should be.

Said another way: these are assertions.

3/3.1) Historicism is the hermeneutic which informs prophecy and applied to Matthew 24 leads to totally consistent exegesis without the straw men given in your arguments above. I'm not sure if you've read even a puritan historicist commentary on Revelation/Matthew from what I see above. If not, I recommend Durham, a’Brakel, or the following:

You haven't demonstrated it is a straw man.

And while we can't prove the truth by counting noses, where are all the top line historicist commentaries today? Why don't we see the historicist equivalent of Beale or Mounce?

 

[RamistThomist]

If not, I recommend Durham, a’Brakel, or the following: http://quintapress.webmate.me/PDF_B...jgNLO6QriqN7nfB-mFWkmAG2o51b0OWUEyaHF5vRO__98

Reading the key verse (Matthew 24:21ff) right now. He says exactly what I said historicists say: the great tribulation applies to Jerusalem (p. 327; 311 of pdf text). Therefore, all of the criticisms that apply to preterism apply to this reading.

Yet on page 332 (319 in pdf) he references the "shortening days" point to Christ's bodily return. I agree with him. The problem is that Christ's bodily return shortens the Tribulation. Dickson, however, had the tribulation starting at the Fall of Jerusalem. That is precisely the very problem I pointed out. In Dickson's reading, whether he likes it or not, he has the Tribulation spanning the church age.

 

[Romans922]

This is what I am talking about. Yuo are not doing exegesis. You are reading church history into the text. This is the complete reverse of what exegesis should be.

I already provided exegesis earlier in this thread. I understand you don't agree with it, that's fine. I was merely answering your assertions about historicism.

 

[Megs]

Daniel, but I would add several cautions:

2) Many Western European leaders could fit the bill.

Could they? Which Western European leaders lived during the time when the Roman Empire had split into 10 kingdoms, who had a small kingdom of their own that slowly grew into a great power, that subdued/destroyed 3 of the 10 kingdoms, and that fit the other details of the prophecies in Daniel (chapters 2 and 7 in particular) and Revelation? I know of none but the papacy/Holy Roman Empire, though I'm open to convincing that someone else was the Antichrist.

My point was that the people in Lee's article understood prophecy a certain way, in a line of thought that developed and became more specific over history. They didn't believe a "leader" was coming. They believed a kingdom was coming that would topple 3 of the 10 kingdoms into which the Roman Empire would split.

Assuming their understanding of the scriptures was correct (and it might not have been but that's not what my point is here), to Lactantius, then, there only seems to be two viable schools of thought that fit what they were writing about: Historicism and Futurism. As the line of thought developed, only one of those schools of thought fits what they wrote about and that's historicism. They were interpreting the scriptures in a certain way and saw their interpretations unfolding in history. Even if you disagree with their exegesis, my point was simply that there is a line of thought stretching back into antiquity supporting historicism.

Here is a historicist interpretation of Matthew 24 in case it is of interest to anyone: https://antipaschronicles.blogspot.com/2014/01/fn-lee-on-matthew-23-and-24-with-added.html

Why don't we see the historicist equivalent of Beale or Mounce?

I can't answer that as I'm not a scholar, but I think F.N. Lee did a fine job laying out the historicist case in a way that a lay-person like me can understand. It's true that historicists are in the minority today, but so also are Calvinists. I don't think that has any bearing on which view is true.

 

[RamistThomist]

Could they? Which Western European leaders lived during the time when the Roman Empire had split into 10 kingdoms, who had a small kingdom of their own that slowly grew into a great power, that subdued/destroyed 3 of the 10 kingdoms, and that fit the other details of the prophecies in Daniel (chapters 2 and 7 in particular) and Revelation? I know of none but the papacy/Holy Roman Empire, though I'm open to convincing that someone else was the Antichrist.

My point was that the people in Lee's article understood prophecy a certain way, in a line of thought that developed and became more specific over history. They didn't believe a "leader" was coming. They believed a kingdom was coming that would topple 3 of the 10 kingdoms into which the Roman Empire would split.

Assuming their understanding of the scriptures was correct (and it might not have been but that's not what my point is here), to Lactantius, then, there only seems to be two viable schools of thought that fit what they were writing about: Historicism and Futurism. As the line of thought developed, only one of those schools of thought fits what they wrote about and that's historicism. They were interpreting the scriptures in a certain way and saw their interpretations unfolding in history. Even if you disagree with their exegesis, my point was simply that there is a line of thought stretching back into antiquity supporting historicism.

Here is a historicist interpretation of Matthew 24 in case it is of interest to anyone: https://antipaschronicles.blogspot.com/2014/01/fn-lee-on-matthew-23-and-24-with-added.html



I can't answer that as I'm not a scholar, but I think F.N. Lee did a fine job laying out the historicist case in a way that a lay-person like me can understand. It's true that historicists are in the minority today, but so also are Calvinists. I don't think that has any bearing on which view is true.

I understand what Lee is saying. I had been reading and listening to his stuff since 2005. The difficulty I have in your response is that it is a lot of assumptions and presuppositions, not hard exegesis.

 

[Megs]

I understand what Lee is saying. I had been reading and listening to his stuff since 2005. The difficulty I have in your response is that it is a lot of assumptions and presuppositions, not hard exegesis.

I understand. Unfortunately, I'm not able to do a hard exegesis myself on this. I did take Hebrew in my undergrad and can read some words but that's about it. All I can do is point to commentaries and other scholarly works by people as well as look at what the Scriptures say. What eschatological works in other traditions would you consider to be hard exegesis? Perhaps if I look at them I can point to something more along the lines of what you're looking for .

 

[RamistThomist]

What eschatological works in other traditions would you consider to be hard exegesis? Perhaps if I look at them I can point to something more along the lines of what you're looking for

My main concern is when we find out what a text means, we let the text tell us what it means. Later on, church history events might inform our reading, but they cannot dictate our reading.

In terms of length and price, the most accessible would be Robert Mounce, Revelation NICNT. Beyond that, I would go:

https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-B...RVF418PD7ZS&psc=1&refRID=3Y168AQB1RVF418PD7ZS

This is probably more accessible.
https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-V...MDYSDWJ7682&psc=1&refRID=SRC2YJ6M0MDYSDWJ7682

 

[Megs]

My main concern is when we find out what a text means, we let the text tell us what it means. Later on, church history events might inform our reading, but they cannot dictate our reading.

In terms of length and price, the most accessible would be Robert Mounce, Revelation NICNT.

Okay I just did a quick skim of Mounce so take this for what it's worth. To be honest, I don't see Mounce doing anything vastly different in his commentary from other commentators I have read or am reading such as a Brakel, Lee, Gill, Clarke, Henry, Elliott (haven't finished Horae Apocalypticae - I keep falling asleep while listening to it), etc.

I think the issue just comes down to a difference in what arguments and evidence we find persuasive.

I don't mind giving Mounce a closer reading once I have cleared off my backlogged reading list (I blame homeschooling - reading all those books for lessons all day wears one out!), but I have gone down the preterist rabbit-hole before and always found pieces of the eschatology jigsaw puzzle that just wouldn't fit.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph, though! (and would dispute that's what historicists were doing). In any case, it will probably take me quite a while to fully get through Mounce, so there's not much else I can point you to right now unless I can find a good article on 2 Thessalonians or Daniel 2 or 7, which are shorter passages and easier to read quickly.

 

[RamistThomist]

I used Mounce as an example. He follows an exegetical method and doesn't let later historical events determine the meaning of the Greek.