What if the "one is" detail is not as time sensitive as we think? Remember John was taken to Heaven, to God's throne, which means he was arguably taken a place where Time is more relative.
Now I've seen people actually cite this Prophecy as if the "one is" part is referring to right now, as their citing it. That is certainly poor scholarship and truly amazes me that people do it. And no they're not doing it in a way where you could say the entire "Church Age" is within the time allotted to the 6th King.
Bible skeptics, Preterists, Futurists, Historicists, almost all pretty much agree The Beast is basically Rome in some sense. And indeed to people who lived in the first or second century AD the first thing a succession of Seven Kings ruling a City on Seven hills would make them think of is the succession of the Pre-Republic Kingdom of Rome founded by Romulus from 753-509 B.C.
According to legend, Romulus mysteriously disappeared in a storm or whirlwind, during or shortly after offering public sacrifice at or near the Quirinal Hill. A "foul suspicion" arises that the Senate, weary of kingly government, and exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them, had plotted against his life and made him go away, so that they might assume the authority and government into their own hands. This suspicion they sought to turn aside by decreeing divine honors to Romulus, as to one not dead, but translated to a higher condition. And Proculus, a man of note, took oath that he saw Romulus caught up into heaven in his arms and vestments, and heard him, as he ascended, cry out that they should hereafter style him by the name of Quirinus. From Plutarch's Lives. Livy repeats more or less the same story, but shifts the initiative for deification to the people of Rome.
So perhaps the notion of one of the 7 returning possibly came from that legend? the original Roman King in The Mountain myth? Remus was the twin brother of Romulus but was never King and so isn't one of the 7, but he is in some accounts said to have been killed by a blow to the head with a spade.
It's interesting that in extra Biblical Rabbinic tradition that has developed over the Diaspora, the Anti-Messiah figure who kills Messiah Ben-Ephraim is named Armilus, a name generally agreed to be derived from Romulus. This is generally just assumed to be because he represents Rome/Edom in general, but given what we just observed maybe there is more to it.
Of the second King, Numa Pompilius. Plutarch depicts the early religion of the Romans as imageless and spiritual. He says Numa "forbade the Romans to represent the deity in the form either of man or of beast. Nor was there among them formerly any image or statue of the Divine Being; during the first one hundred and seventy years they built temples, indeed, and other sacred domes, but placed in them no figure of any kind; persuaded that it is impious to represent things Divine by what is perishable, and that we can have no conception of God but by the understanding".
The third King, Tullus Hostilius was said to be struck by Lighting for neglecting the gods. The fourth Ancus Marcius was a grandson of Numa, and had two sons.
Fifth was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus. Tarquin is said to have reigned for thirty-eight years. According to legend, the sons of his predecessor, Ancus Marcius, believed that the throne should have been theirs. They arranged the king's assassination, disguised as a riot, during which Tarquin received a fatal blow to the head. However, the queen, Tanaquil, gave out that the king was merely wounded, and took advantage of the confusion to establish Servius Tullius as regent; when the death of Tarquin was confirmed, Tullius became king, in place of Marcius' sons, or those of Tarquin.
Servius Tullius is the sixth, why give John this revelation as if speaking from the POV of his reign?
The reign of Servius Tullius is traditionally dated from 575-532 BC, on the Biblical Timeline that's the last Decade of Nebuchadenzar's reign through all his successors and the entire reigns of Nabonidus and Belshazzar through to the start of Cyrus. That means a good deal of Daniel takes place then, all of Hebrew Daniel as well as Chapter 7, the chapter most relevant to Revelation 13 and 17. Revelation is often viewed as the unsealing of Daniel, so perhaps the time when Daniel had those sealed visions is indeed the present being spoken of in Revelation 17?
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was the Seventh and final King. He had a reign of 26 years, not the longest but at face value would hardly seem to justify "a short space" which is everywhere I've read interpreted to mean a very short reign, and the wording of the text seems to justify that. But maybe it's a matter that only the one yet future from this POV would need to have reign length addressed at all (and indeed he is the only of the 7 with such a clue) and from an Eternal perspective all reigns are short, besides The Messiah's Reign, of which The Thousand Years is merely a prelude.
But perhaps it just refers to him being the only one who didn't reign until he died, since he was expelled from Rome because of his Tyranny and thus the Republic was founded. His reign was cut short.
Perhaps the "Eight King" is simply about how ultimately Rome returned to Monarchy, whether they wanted to admit it or not. You see the Emperors made a point even in their later history never to officially call themselves Rex/King. Yet we see in John 19:12-15 that Jews in Judea didn't care about those semantics, and secular sources show the other conquered peoples of the East were the same. The Emperors also took on the Pharaonic Worship in Egypt. Maybe the name of Octavius/Octavian being related to the Latin for for the number Eight itself a pun being alluded to, which itself could reference Augustus and/or Octavius Mamilus.
However the possibility of the Eight being someone more Specific does still exist. There are two possible candidates for being an official Eight King/Rex/Basileus of Rome even using Rome's own perspective.
Odoacer was proclaimed King of Italy in 476 AD, when the Western Empire is conventionally said to have fallen. But this seems to have been used primarily of him as a King of the Arain East Germanic Barbarians in Italy at the time, in his relationship with the still existing Roman Political Structures (like The Senate and the Eastern Empire) other titles were used.
Heraclius was Emperor from 610-641 AD, while much of Reconquered Italy had fallen to the Lombards by this time a good chunk was till part of the Empire including Rome itself. In September of 629 after retaking the lands lost to Persia he had a Triumph of sorts in Constantinople and that is when he took on the title of Basileus as well as the Persian title Shahanshah "King of Kings".
BTW another theory about the name Armilus in Jewish texts is that it's some kind of Cryptogram for Hercalius since it first pops up in the context of the Jewish Revolt agaisnt Heraclius.
No comments:
Post a Comment