Status
Not open for further replies.

Sam Jer

Puritan Board Freshman
Revelation 17
Does this passage refer to the papacy? There is a whole lot in there that seems to fit, but if it is that, consistent exegesis would require a historicist framework for the rest of the book

(Admins, feel free to change the link so it does the popup thing. I don't know how to do that)
 
Revelation 17
Does this passage refer to the papacy? There is a whole lot in there that seems to fit, but if it is that, consistent exegesis would require a historicist framework for the rest of the book

(Admins, feel free to change the link so it does the popup thing. I don't know how to do that)

I think it is the other way around. Proper exegesis must first determine whether the historicist framework is correct, and if it is, then identifying it as the papacy follows.
 
I think it is the other way around. Proper exegesis must first determine whether the historicist framework is correct, and if it is, then identifying it as the papacy follows.
But wouldn't the determination of the right interpretation of the book as a whole require examining the interpretations of specific passages?
 
But wouldn't the determination of the right interpretation of the book as a whole require examining the interpretations of specific passages?
The early church would then have no clue on this passage and the church today has no confirmation there will be nothing in the future that can replce the papacy in this chapter
 
But wouldn't the determination of the right interpretation of the book as a whole require examining the interpretations of specific passages?
Yes and no. That involves the hermeneutical spiral. Ideally, our assumptions about the text should be challenged on whether they can best explain the text. We all bring our assumptions to the text before reading. That does not mean every assumption is equally good.

As to the text at hand, I see no reason to assume the papacy in Revelation 17 nor historicism at all.
 
Yes and no. That involves the hermeneutical spiral. Ideally, our assumptions about the text should be challenged on whether they can best explain the text. We all bring our assumptions to the text before reading. That does not mean every assumption is equally good.
How do we decide which assumptions to take to the apocalypse though?
As to the text at hand, I see no reason to assume the papacy in Revelation 17 nor historicism at all.
- Women in the wilderness - connection to ch. 12 (assuming ch. 12's women is the ecclesia)
- Seven heads - mountains - hills of Rome
- Kings give power, only to take it away later - the same European countries who enthroned the papacy are the ones who took it away
- it just fits. Unless one assumes an idealist approach from the get go, you would need to either point to an event that fits better, or demonstrate that the papacy does not fulfil the prophecy and therefore we are still waiting
Ext...
 
The early church would then have no clue on this passage and the church today has no confirmation there will be nothing in the future that can replce the papacy in this chapter
This argument from idealists always confused me to be honest, since most idealist interpretations can work as the application of the passage even if the primary meaning is more specific.
I may still land on idealism though. It is quite tempting to be honest.
 
How do we decide which assumptions to take to the apocalypse though?

For starters, whatever fits the genre of apocalyptic. But regardless, once we submit our minds to the evidence, our minds either conform to the evidence or we ignore it and cognitive dissonance builds up. But in the Battle of Armaggedon, you will have the pope leading the final assault on Jerusalem, and I am not sure that is right.
- Women in the wilderness - connection to ch. 12 (assuming ch. 12's women is the ecclesia)

That is a reasonable assumption, but by no means a self-evident one. Even if it does mean ecclesia, there is no reason to immediately assume the Roman communion.
- Seven heads - mountains - hills of Rome

That sounds reasonable, but can easily be referring to secular Rome and its rule.
- Kings give power, only to take it away later - the same European countries who enthroned the papacy are the ones who took it away

Historically, it's not that tidy. The pope crowned Charlemagne, not the other way around. Vatican II and Mussolini did more to divest Rome of any power than medieval European monarchs.
- it just fits. Unless one assumes an idealist approach from the get go, you would need to either point to an event that fits better, or demonstrate that the papacy does not fulfil the prophecy and therefore we are still waiting

Parts (not all) do fit. But coherence is only one criterion for truth and by no means the most important. I'm not an idealist, so I don't have a dog in that fight.
 
This argument from idealists always confused me to be honest, since most idealist interpretations can work as the application of the passage even if the primary meaning is more specific.
I may still land on idealism though. It is quite tempting to be honest.
you have to work out historicism on its own, whether or not alternatives have their own supposed problems or not
 
Parts (not all) do fit. But coherence is only one criterion for truth and by no means the most important. I'm not an idealist, so I don't have a dog in that fight.
Which don't?
you have to work out historicism on its own, whether or not alternatives have their own supposed problems or not
Fair enough, but if you want to argue that the beast is not Rome because of idealism, I can point out why I am not sure you're argument for idealism works.
 
Which don't?

Fair enough, but if you want to argue that the beast is not Rome because of idealism, I can point out why I am not sure you're argument for idealism works.
Re: my first comment here, I think it is admissible. Holding onto the implications of what I mentioned is by no means ‘nonsensical’. I’m just stating the implications of historicism, if one accepts it fair enough
 
I'm going to bracket that question for now, as it would probably derail the thread. @Jerusalem Blade and I have pointed out numerous problems with historicism in the past.
I don't think it would derail the thread. If anything it would refocus it. I mean unless you will criticize the historicist view of the four horsemen or something like that. My OP was:
Does this passage refer to the papacy? There is a whole lot in there that seems to fit, but if it is that, consistent exegesis would require a historicist framework for the rest of the book

(Admins, feel free to change the link so it does the popup thing. I don't know how to do that)
(Either way I will try to search the board for posts on historicism from the two of you.)
 
I don't think it would derail the thread. If anything it would refocus it. I mean unless you will criticize the historicist view of the four horsemen or something like that. My OP was:

(Either way I will try to search the board for posts on historicism from the two of you.)
I better understand the question now. I'm still going to hold off the counter-examples for the moment.

The papacy being the referent here is a necessary condition for Reformed historicism, it is not a sufficient condition. One can imagine a complex of factors that allow the papacy being the referent without requiring the unique interpretation of Western European history that historicism requires.
 
I better understand the question now. I'm still going to hold off the counter-examples for the moment.

The papacy being the referent here is a necessary condition for Reformed historicism, it is not a sufficient condition. One can imagine a complex of factors that allow the papacy being the referent without requiring the unique interpretation of Western European history that historicism requires.
That's true, but this interpretation would still not be consistent with the idealist and most of the futurist approaches
 
Samuel, this has gotten sort of vague and abstract, it seems to me. I wonder if you have read any idealist / contemporary presentations of the Amillennial understanding (such as the excellent Dennis E. Johnson Triumph of the Lamb)? We understand that the papacy is certainly a precursor – one might also say a type – of harlot Babylon, and the popes a type of that man of sin, the antichrist, or even a fulfillment of it at that period of time in which it flourished.

What presentations of Revelation 17 by contemporary Amils have you seen?

Rome back in the time of John's Apocalypse was also a manifestation of the beast with its military might and persecution of the saints, even as the militaries under the control of the papacy were the beast up through many centuries including the time of the Reformation and beyond. Are you cognizant of the Reformed understanding of Babylon in Revelation?

The appeal of the Amillennial / "modified idealist" view is that it includes all the ages of the church, from John's day till the present. There was an earlier "idealist" schema (see William Milligan of the 1800s) that rescued Reformed eschatology from the historicist view, but it needed to be modified of its utterly non-historic view, which was a grave error.

Eschatology is the one branch of Christian doctrine still in flux, as the days bring new understanding to difficult visionary images in the Apocalypse. The Amil is the only view that is both relevant to our particular time, and all the times of the church age, and can also shed light on distinct spiritual currents and activities behind the scenes of our present world.

Historicism is just so eighteenth century!

What do you make of the new "recreational sorcery" and the inpouring of demonic influence and presence into our collective consciousness – the zeitgeist? Do you think papal Rome is the source of the filth and deterioration of sanity and civility spreading throughout the world today, especially targeting the youths through social media? Or can you conceive of a more cogent source, one contemporaneous with the realities of our day?

Dispensationalists – and other similar premils – sometimes see the present more clearly than even some Amils, though they so distort time-periods, doctrines, and sound interpretation that what of value they have is utterly lost amid the garbage.

Eschatology is of such importance in our day, and yet the confusion of views, and the "unlearnèdness" of shallow advocacy of various schools, so clouds the air of understanding that it's no wonder many despair of even approaching the subject any longer. Few there are who read and study the schools and issues before commenting.

It is a need of the day for clear, cogent, learnèd presentation of the one sound school – the Amillennial / "present millennium". Along with Reformed soteriology, sound and simple covenant understanding, and the infallibility of Scripture, eschatology is needed in the growing darkness, for – mark my words – times are drawing near that will require basic understanding in these areas so as not to be overwhelmed by the evils and calamities that shall befall us.
 
First of all, throughout you're reply you seem to assume I am a confident historicist. I am actually a confused "panmillennial" leaning towards historicism, but tempted by idealism. I do need to look more into what you call "the amil school" then I have so far. I need to do the same with virtually all all non-dispensational schools.
Rome back in the time of John's Apocalypse was also a manifestation of the beast with its military might and persecution of the saints, even as the militaries under the control of the papacy were the beast up through many centuries including the time of the Reformation and beyond. Are you cognizant of the Reformed understanding of Babylon in Revelation?

The appeal of the Amillennial / "modified idealist" view is that it includes all the ages of the church, from John's day till the present. There was an earlier "idealist" schema (see William Milligan of the 1800s) that rescued Reformed eschatology from the historicist view, but it needed to be modified of its utterly non-historic view, which was a grave error.
So, just to be clear here. You're view is that every generation has its beast, it's two witnesses, it's locust invasion and it's horsemen, but they may be manifested in different events in different times? And that therefore this whore refers to the papacy, but not exclusively so?
[At risk of detailing the thread] does your view have precursors in the 1st-18th centuries?
What do you make of the new "recreational sorcery" and the inpouring of demonic influence and presence into our collective consciousness – the zeitgeist? Do you think papal Rome is the source of the filth and deterioration of sanity and civility spreading throughout the world today, especially targeting the youths through social media? Or can you conceive of a more cogent source, one contemporaneous with the realities of our day?
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).
(At risk of detailing the thread) Where would you're view place Stalin and Hitler? Where is the current political crisis in [name African country]?
Eschatology is of such importance in our day, and yet the confusion of views, and the "unlearnèdness" of shallow advocacy of various schools, so clouds the air of understanding that it's no wonder many despair of even approaching the subject any longer. Few there are who read and study the schools and issues before commenting.
While the confusion on eschatology is greater then other doctrines, this is also true of every other doctrine.
Also, I think there is a very big difference between asking questions on the one hand, and boldly asserting a system on the other hand.
 
The historicist view of the seven vials I am most aware of has a category for today's secularism.

It might have a category for it, but it really can't know it until after the fact. Perhaps it could know it, but the way historicist commentaries work is post facto. Historicism reads prophecy from the pages of church history, particularly Western European church history.
(At risk of detailing the thread) Where would you're view place Stalin and Hitler? Where is the current political crisis in [name African country]?

An idealist, not that I am one, would say there isn't a need to have a hard and fast application. It is historicism that must come up with a referent (which is why it is susceptible to changing its fulfillments).
Also, I think there is a very big difference between asking questions on the one hand, and boldly asserting a system on the other hand.

Agreed. Read some of the threads on historicism and you will see both historicists and idealists boldly asserting systems.
 
Hello Samuel,

When you speak of idealism as an eschatological view, there are some pitfalls that must be acknowledged and avoided. There is “pure” idealism as distinct from “modified” idealism, which latter is contemporary Amillennialism. Two lengthy threads on this distinction here, and here. I was new to this view, and it took some time to comprehend it. Truly, being here on PuritanBoard has been an educational experience over the years!

Because I maintain there are actual historical referents in Revelation – apart from the 7 letters to the historical churches in Rev 2 and 3 – I have been called an historicist. And I can see a "pure" idealist saying that! Yet this is exactly why idealism has been so maligned, being identified with an errant form of idealism.

It is accepted among contemporary Amils that the “eclectic” or “modified idealist” view (Beale)[1] allows some departure from the idealist, though as to where the line is drawn there is no clear consensus. Beale himself says, “...certainly there are prophecies of the future in Revelation. The crucial yet problematic task of the interpreter is to identify through careful exegesis and against the historical background those texts which pertain respectively to past present and future.” [2]
[1] G.K. Beale, New International Greek Testament Commentary: Revelation (Eerdmans 1999), pp 48, 49.
[2] Ibid., p 49.

I readily concede that the criticism against even contemporary Amillennialism has some basis, due to the inability or reluctance of its most scholarly proponents to actually name an historical event in Revelation apart from the return of Christ and the 7 letters. I have briefly addressed that in the essay posted here, UNCOVERING PROPHETIC DETAILS IN REVELATION: Restoring confidence in the applicability of John’s Apocalypse, the final prophecy. In the main, however, the hermeneutic approach of the Amillennial "modified" idealist school is thoroughly sound.

Basically my view is this: the pharmakeia [sorceries] of Revelation 18:23 and 9:21 (a variant in the latter reading pharmakon – drugs – does not affect translation) are the very drugs used and heralded by the sixties and seventies counterculture that were exported into most of the world and which – in retrospect – are seen to constitute a prophesied event clearly depicted in Scripture. The emergence of sorcery in recent times has major eschatological implications.

Geerhardus Vos, although speaking of discerning the Antichrist, enunciated a hermeneutic principle applicable here,

“[It] belongs among the many prophecies, whose best and final exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (The Pauline Eschatology, p. 133)​

O.T. Allis in his book, Prophecy and the Church, expressed the same sentiment:

“The usual view on this subject [‘the intelligibility of prophecy’] has been that prophecy is not intended to be fully understood before its fulfilment, that it is only when God ‘establishes the word of his servants and fulfills the counsel of his messengers,’ that the meaning and import of their words become fully manifest.” (p 25)​

Stuart Olyott in his, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained, thinks likewise:

“We must realize that some of the Bible’s teachings relating to the very last days will not be understood until we are in those days. That is why it is both unwise and dangerous to draw up detailed timetables of future events. Some parts of the Word of God will not become obvious in their meaning until the days of which they speak have dawned.” (p 166)​

[These three men are all of the Amillennial school of eschatological interpretation.] The reason this has not been widely recognized is that those who live godly have no notion what the dark practice of sorcery entails, a practice that astonishingly became a national and even global recreation of sorts.

Although it may fascinate some, Historicism is not even a consideration among the better modern eschatological commentators. Its coin among some is that it was considered good by a number of Reformation divines, but its day is long gone. Their eschatology, being far from the final manifestations of Babylon and the Beast she rides, was premature. It has rightly been said that Historicism's failure to clearly show the fulfillment of Revelation in the ongoing circumstances of history up through the years has doomed it to continual revision as time passed and thus to a deserved obscurity.
 
Hello Samuel,

You asked, "So, just to be clear here. You're view is that every generation has its beast, it's two witnesses, it's locust invasion and it's horsemen, but they may be manifested in different events in different times?"

No. Every generation may well have its beast (i.e., a Christian-persecuting gov't), and the two witnesses stand for the legal testimony of the church (let every testimony be by two or three witnesses, is an OT and NT standard for valid legal testimony) regarding the truth of the gospel testified to throughout the Church age.

The locust invasion is a distinct event mentioned in the 5th trumpet judgment of Rev 9:1,2,3,4, and not a "recapitulated spiritual dynamic" throughout the NT Church age. The 4 horsemen of Rev 6 likewise refer to happenings that will occur throughout the NT Church period, but intensifying as the end draws nearer.

If you have checked out the link above, UNCOVERING PROPHETIC DETAILS IN REVELATION, you will see that the "locust invasion" is a highly significant historical event, with an actual "time-stamp" in Rev 9:15 signifying something occurring in history.

Our Lord has gone to great lengths providing crucial information for our wellbeing, that we might have an orientation as to where we are generally (not specifically) in the turbulent end times. Only a person spiritually blind and deaf can fail to see the darkness falling upon us. Now is our time to shine – that the light of our Saviour may touch many lives by the witness of our lives.

As in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes – foretold by Daniel – the OT saints were forewarned and strengthened in their time of great distress, so we also are being told, in the Apocalypse, what is drawing near, and warned not to capitulate to Babylon's seduction of comfort and safety, or fear of the beast's weapons and punishment. In His great love for His bride, our King gave us this vision and promise. He is with His people, and Revelation is His final prophecy for us, His beloved.

Samuel, you are in the State of Israel at present? In Jerusalem?
 
This does clarify you're view quite a bit. I have to admit though, that the more I read you're eschatological posts, the more implausible and eisegeted they look - although I could be wrong.
I would be curious to know - do you find something similar to you're view in the fathers or reformers?

Regarding the original question, you are still not very clear. Does your view grant that this whore refers to the papacy, even if as a precursor to the half-zombie behemoth you're eschatology seems to predict will soon arise on the world stage?

That these are difficult times, I readily agree, although we are not (yet, at least) plunged to the depths previous periods had in store.
 
the more implausible and eisegeted they look - although I could be wrong.

Historicism is by definition eisegetical. It reads Western European church history back into the text. That doesn't mean idealism is correct, but if it is eisegetical, historicism is more so.
I would be curious to know - do you find something similar to you're view in the fathers or reformers?

You won't see any of the fathers calling the papacy the Antichrist (for the obvious reason that many of them were in communion with the bishop of Rome).
Does your view grant that this whore refers to the papacy, even if as a precursor to the half-zombie behemoth you're eschatology seems to predict will soon arise on the world stage?

I don't want to speak for Steve, but you seem to be collapsing categories in this question. If the whore is the papacy, then it really can't be a precursor unless we are living in the final moments. I guess it could, but most see the Beast and the World Govt happening at the same time.
 
Samuel,

I will seek to further respond to your questions, but I nowhere assert that the antichrist / man of sin will be a "half-zombie behemoth". Rather, he will be a charming, intelligent, very powerful public figure who will win the hearts – or at least the compliance – of most of the unregenerate on earth. The devil can appear quite the winsome gentleman.
 
Samuel,

I will seek to further respond to your questions, but I nowhere assert that the antichrist / man of sin will be a "half-zombie behemoth". Rather, he will be a charming, intelligent, very powerful public figure who will win the hearts – or at least the compliance – of most of the unregenerate on earth. The devil can appear quite the winsome gentleman.
Sorry, I must have confused this with something else you said somewhere, perhaps about locusts or marijuana
Historicism is by definition eisegetical. It reads Western European church history back into the text. That doesn't mean idealism is correct, but if it is eisegetical, historicism is more so.
The whole purpose of this thread is for non-historicists to get a chance to demonstrate that the historicist interpretation of revelation 17 is eisegeted and that other systems have better answers. While the general criticisms of historicism, and the explanations of the amil idealist-futurist (?) pharmekia school, are helpful, these are secondary to the main point of my OP.
 
You won't see any of the fathers calling the papacy the Antichrist (for the obvious reason that many of them were in communion with the bishop of Rome).
First of all, this is not an actual answer to my question but more of a "right back at ya" answer.
Second of all, I am not much of an expert on the fathers, but I am trying to figure out the eschatologies they held, and it seems some held to a futurist interpretation that, were they to talk of today, would be historicist.
 
First of all, this is not an actual answer to my question but more of a "right back at ya" answer.
It is an answer to your question. The answer was no.
Second of all, I am not much of an expert on the fathers, but I am trying to figure out the eschatologies they held, and it seems some held to a futurist interpretation that, were they to talk of today, would be historicist.

Pre-Nicea some did hold to a historicist movement of some passages, though they did not see the papacy in there. After Augustine (read the last two books of City of God), it is a combination of idealism and futurism.
 
The whole purpose of this thread is for non-historicists to get a chance to demonstrate that the historicist interpretation of revelation 17 is eisegeted and that other systems have better answers. While the general criticisms of historicism, and the explanations of the amil idealist-futurist (?) pharmekia school, are helpful, these are secondary to the main point of my OP.
Maybe, but you told Steve that his position was eisegetical. Historicism by its very nature is eisegetical.
 
First of all, this is not an actual answer to my question but more of a "right back at ya" answer.

Rereading your OP, you asked if consistent exegesis demanded papacy = whore. In essence, my reply is that no exegesis could establish that. Exegesis brings something out of the text. The papacy is a concept read back into the text.
 
Maybe, but you told Steve that his position was eisegetical. Historicism by its very nature is eisegetical.
Rereading your OP, you asked if consistent exegesis demanded papacy = whore. In essence, my reply is that no exegesis could establish that. Exegesis brings something out of the text. The papacy is a concept read back into the text.
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.
It is an answer to your question. The answer was no.
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.


Pre-Nicea some did hold to a historicist movement of some passages, though they did not see the papacy in there. After Augustine (read the last two books of City of God), it is a combination of idealism and futurism.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top