NEW RESEARCH ON THE SIXTH SEAL
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
(Rev 6:12-16)
Hello Friends,
I have been looking more into the proper interpretation of this passage and how/where it fits into the historicist interpretation of prophecy.
E. B. Elliott interprets the above as the fall and banishment of paganism from the Roman Empire under Constantine. I have always taken exception to that interpretation. Constantine was the instrument in turning Christianity into the favored religion of Rome. However, this was done as a political strategy in an attempt to unite his crumbling empire. The banishment of paganism from the empire was likewise a political move; it hardly seems reasonable to me that the language given to us in scripture would be used to describe these events.
I had offered, as an alternate interpretation, that what Constantine had REALLY banished from his empire was not paganism but TRUTH. After all it was Constantine himself who convened and personally presided over the council of Nicea where it was formally affirmed that the 'orthodox' position included the belief that Jesus was God, and any disagreement was considered heresy. While this is true, further research has shown that by no means was this the end of the story.
In fact, Arianism (the belief that Jesus is less than, and subordinate to God) continued to flourish in the Eastern Half of the Empire. Constantine himself came to believe that Arianism was indeed 'orthodox' and called many Arian Bishops back from exile. Constantine's son who succeeded him as Emperor was totally Arian, and within 4 decades of Nicea the entire empire was Arian, not Nicene.
So can we really say that Constantine banished the truth from his empire? Do these events seem to answer to the description given under the sixth seal? I don't believe that they do once the whole story of Nicea and the years that followed are considered. The Arian and Nicene positions jockeyed back and forth for power and influence, each trying to use the political authorities and the emperor himself as leverage. In fact for many decades following Nicea, it appears that the Arian position was accepted as equally 'orthodox' as the Nicene.
So what happened? When and why did Arianism (which we arrifm to be the true faith) suddenly become 'heresy'. After the death of Constantine Rome went through a series of emperors. Though each envisioned himself as the one who would unite Rome and restore its old glory, the empire continued to deteriorate and de-stabilize. Finally the empire came under the rule of Theodosius.
Theodosius was militantly anti-arian. His solution was to unify his empire and Christianity by force if needed. Theodosius decided that a unified empire and unified Christianity (which by this time was already splitting between east and west) could only be accomplished by crushing Arianism once and for all.
In the year 381, Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople. The deck was conveniently stacked to insure that Trintarianism would become the new 'true and unifying' doctrine of the empire. (Prior to this, the 'trinity' as such was not an issue, only the relationship of the Son to the Father). The council adopted this new 'orthodoxy', and declared all Arians heretics. Theodosius immediately outlawed Arianism from the Empire.
For the first time, Arians became TRUE outlaws. They were to recant or be executed. Their writings were burned en masse. Anyone caught preaching the Arian doctrines or even possessing Arian writings was to be executed on the spot.
The new 'orthodox' Christians (those who had now accepted the Trinity) saw in Theodosius' decree a blank check to persecute anyone who did not agree with them. Suddenly not only Arians, but Jews, pagans, and anyone else who could be branded a 'heretic' found themselves a target. The empire exploded into chaos- from here it disintegrated rapidly and never recovered. The year was 381 AD.
Looking back at E.B. Elliot we see something amazing.
And so then in 396 the first fearful tempest burst (a tempest characteristic as well as introductory of all that followed) on the central and hitherto unravaged provinces of Thessaly, Greece, Epirus, and the Peloponnese, under the devastation of Alaric and the Goths.
The dates here could not correlate more perfectly. If Elliott was correct that the first trumpet blast corresponded with the Gothic invasions of Alaric which began in 396, then it is probably safe to believe that these judgments began in response to the banishment of truth from the empire which began in 381.
Of course Elliott was himself a Trinitarian, therefore he would not (or could not) see the council of Constantinople of 381 as something which would call down the judgment of God. Historically however, the correlation between the acceptance of trinity doctrine at this council, and the rapid decay and judgment upon the empire which quickly followed seems like too much to be deemed 'coincidence'.
So, within 15 years of accepting the doctrine of the trinity (as an official, wholly formulated doctrine - the point at which Christianity formally split with its Jewish roots which acknowledged God as a single individual) the Roman empire came under fearful judgments - judgments from which the empire would never recover.
--David
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
(Rev 6:12-16)
Hello Friends,
I have been looking more into the proper interpretation of this passage and how/where it fits into the historicist interpretation of prophecy.
E. B. Elliott interprets the above as the fall and banishment of paganism from the Roman Empire under Constantine. I have always taken exception to that interpretation. Constantine was the instrument in turning Christianity into the favored religion of Rome. However, this was done as a political strategy in an attempt to unite his crumbling empire. The banishment of paganism from the empire was likewise a political move; it hardly seems reasonable to me that the language given to us in scripture would be used to describe these events.
I had offered, as an alternate interpretation, that what Constantine had REALLY banished from his empire was not paganism but TRUTH. After all it was Constantine himself who convened and personally presided over the council of Nicea where it was formally affirmed that the 'orthodox' position included the belief that Jesus was God, and any disagreement was considered heresy. While this is true, further research has shown that by no means was this the end of the story.
In fact, Arianism (the belief that Jesus is less than, and subordinate to God) continued to flourish in the Eastern Half of the Empire. Constantine himself came to believe that Arianism was indeed 'orthodox' and called many Arian Bishops back from exile. Constantine's son who succeeded him as Emperor was totally Arian, and within 4 decades of Nicea the entire empire was Arian, not Nicene.
So can we really say that Constantine banished the truth from his empire? Do these events seem to answer to the description given under the sixth seal? I don't believe that they do once the whole story of Nicea and the years that followed are considered. The Arian and Nicene positions jockeyed back and forth for power and influence, each trying to use the political authorities and the emperor himself as leverage. In fact for many decades following Nicea, it appears that the Arian position was accepted as equally 'orthodox' as the Nicene.
So what happened? When and why did Arianism (which we arrifm to be the true faith) suddenly become 'heresy'. After the death of Constantine Rome went through a series of emperors. Though each envisioned himself as the one who would unite Rome and restore its old glory, the empire continued to deteriorate and de-stabilize. Finally the empire came under the rule of Theodosius.
Theodosius was militantly anti-arian. His solution was to unify his empire and Christianity by force if needed. Theodosius decided that a unified empire and unified Christianity (which by this time was already splitting between east and west) could only be accomplished by crushing Arianism once and for all.
In the year 381, Theodosius convened the Council of Constantinople. The deck was conveniently stacked to insure that Trintarianism would become the new 'true and unifying' doctrine of the empire. (Prior to this, the 'trinity' as such was not an issue, only the relationship of the Son to the Father). The council adopted this new 'orthodoxy', and declared all Arians heretics. Theodosius immediately outlawed Arianism from the Empire.
For the first time, Arians became TRUE outlaws. They were to recant or be executed. Their writings were burned en masse. Anyone caught preaching the Arian doctrines or even possessing Arian writings was to be executed on the spot.
The new 'orthodox' Christians (those who had now accepted the Trinity) saw in Theodosius' decree a blank check to persecute anyone who did not agree with them. Suddenly not only Arians, but Jews, pagans, and anyone else who could be branded a 'heretic' found themselves a target. The empire exploded into chaos- from here it disintegrated rapidly and never recovered. The year was 381 AD.
Looking back at E.B. Elliot we see something amazing.
And so then in 396 the first fearful tempest burst (a tempest characteristic as well as introductory of all that followed) on the central and hitherto unravaged provinces of Thessaly, Greece, Epirus, and the Peloponnese, under the devastation of Alaric and the Goths.
The dates here could not correlate more perfectly. If Elliott was correct that the first trumpet blast corresponded with the Gothic invasions of Alaric which began in 396, then it is probably safe to believe that these judgments began in response to the banishment of truth from the empire which began in 381.
Of course Elliott was himself a Trinitarian, therefore he would not (or could not) see the council of Constantinople of 381 as something which would call down the judgment of God. Historically however, the correlation between the acceptance of trinity doctrine at this council, and the rapid decay and judgment upon the empire which quickly followed seems like too much to be deemed 'coincidence'.
So, within 15 years of accepting the doctrine of the trinity (as an official, wholly formulated doctrine - the point at which Christianity formally split with its Jewish roots which acknowledged God as a single individual) the Roman empire came under fearful judgments - judgments from which the empire would never recover.
--David
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home