The idea that the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 6 isn’t “The Antichrist” or some other Villain but something more positive is almost unheard of among Futurists and thus something I was long hostile to when I was a Futurist. But now that my Eschatology is a mixture of Historicism and Post-Millennialism it’s one I need to consider. The idea I shall propose here is kind of mutually exclusive with some readings of Revelation 6 I’ve proposed before and that’s fine, I’m currently being Dogmatic about very little.
In Halley’s Bible Handbook it seems the standard Historicist take is that it’s The Church conquering the world not militarily but by spreading The Gospel. My take here shall be like that but a bit more specific.
I’m not in favor of interpreting him as an individual, as some secondary Messiah like a Christianized Messiah Ben-Joseph or the Last Roman Emperor or The Mahdi. I don’t like The Great Man Theory of History, so my Historicism prefers to focus on Collectives and Systems.
The word translated “conquering” and “conquer” is Nikao (in different forms) and it’s translated that way in The KJV only in this verse, everywhere else in the New Testament it appears it is some form of “Overcome”.
Each of the messages to the Seven Churches has near the end a promise to the Overcomer. However it is only Smyrna that Jesus promises to give a Crown (Philadelphia already has one). So I do think when simply reading through Revelation that Chapter 6 verse 2 is supposed to remind the reader of Chapter 2 verses 10-11.
Smyrna in Revelation is most well known for being directly and explicitly associated with Martyrdom. As the birthplace of the Roman Imperial Cult the pressure to conform to Imperial worship was harshest. Persecution of Christians in the province of Asia began in the Reign of Hadrian during the Governorships of Granianus and Fundanus. So this message reflects that being reassurance to Christians having a very difficult time and promising a reward to those who die for their Faith. That theme shall recur in the history I shall discuss even though the current descendants of Smyrna are pretty safe.
Saying “went forth conquering and to conquer” suggests that this Rider will not stay in a single location. The first Christian Community to pop up in what we today call France was based in Lyon and founded by immigrants from Smyrna, its two well known early leaders were Pothinus and Irenaeus both said to be students of Polycarp.
So like many Asian Churches in the second century they followed the Quatrodeciman position of observing Pascha on the 14th of Nisan rather than the following Sunday. While most Churches disagreed with this position it was only Victor the Bishop of Rome who wanted to excommunicate people over this and Irenaeus was one of those who wrote to Victor in defense of Quartodecimanism.
Irenaeus has been falsely accused of supporting Infant Baptism, however it is only false beliefs about what happens Metaphysically at Baptism tied to Infant Baptism that makes what Ireneaus said in Against Heresies II.22.4 sound like it’s relevant to Baptism at all, it in fact is not.
Vienne is a French City just a little south of Lyon, and as far as I can tell it’s the only other significant French city with even a claim that its Christian presence starts as early as the 2nd Century. But its earliest Traditional Bishops are not as historically well attested as Pothinus and Irenaeus. My hunch is that it first emerged as a Daughter of Lyon.
Hippolytus of Rome was not a student of Ireneaus, that claim first pops up with Photios of Constanople in the 9th Century.
This Lyon community suffered Persecution in 177 and again in 202.
Andelolus was a another Christian who came from Smyrna to southern France but not Lyon specifically, he was Martyred in 208.
Fabian who was Bishop of Rome from 238-250 AD sent missions to found Churches in other Parts of France, Paris, Aries, Narbone, Clermont, Limoges, Toulouse and Tours. Later the Churches of Reims and Soissons were founded by Sixtus and Sinicius sent by Sixtus II of Rome. The Gallican Church, the French Branch of the Roman Catholic Church, I believe descends clerically from these Churches. In time they made their own Bishops of Lyon and Vienne who would claim succession from the original Bishops of Lyon and Vienne but in my view the true Heirs of the Smyrnean of Lyon were Congregations that operated more underground.
When this shift in the official list of Bishops of Lyon and Vienne happened is hard to tell for certain however. The Bishops of Lyron who would have been contemporary with the Council of Nicaea (Vocius, Maximus or Tetrad) did not attended that Council, it’s well known that only five Bishops from the West attended Nicaea and only one of those was from France, Nicasius of Die, himself the first known Bishop of Die. Likewise neither Justus or Alpinus seem to have attended the Second Ecumenical Council. Sicarius, Eucherius and Patiens aren’t documented as attending the Councils of Ephesus of Chalcedon either.
Make no mistake I do believe these Christians were Theologically and Christologically Nicene, Trinitarian and probably also Chalcedonian on the core issues those councils were held over. Point is they didn’t submit themselves to Episcopal Authority, they operated Congregationally. The singular Bishops canonized on these later Episcopal Bishop Lists were probably just Preachers who happened to stand out.
Lyon was part of the Kingdom of the Burgundians when the Western Empire lost control of France. The Burgundians were Arians but like most other Gothic Arians were tolerant of the other Christians living in their kingdom so the original Christians of Lyon may have still thrived even under them. Their Kingdom however was Conquered by the Merovingians by 534 AD. Lupus was the first Bishop of Lyon after that point and some consider him the first Bishop of Lyon to be an Archbishop. Nicetius was given the title of Patriarch by the Bishop of Rome, Priscus was appointed explicitly by a Merovingian King and Aetherius was a close associate of Pope Gregory I.
Surviving underground outside the notice of recorded History during the “Dark Ages” would have been fairly plausible.
In the 12th Century the Waldenses emerged in the region of Lyon. Their origins are definitely more complicated than just being founded by a guy named Peter Waldo. Even their enemies referred to them as having existed since the time of Sylvester (in Catholic tradition the Pope at the time of Nicaea). There is strong evidence they were originally both Credo-Baptists and Congregationalists.
I’m certain they played a role in the origins of various Anabaptist movements of the 16th Century and through them can be connected to the origins of the General Baptists of England (but not the Particular Baptists, they simply broke off from the Pedo-Baptist Puritans) and the German Baptists. And from them came The Diggers, The Quakers, The Seventh Day Baptists, The Free Will Baptists and The Universalist Denomination of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. And perhaps through them also the SDAs and Pentecostals and their offshoots.
So yes I just argued for a form of Baptist Successionism, but I don't believe in the Doctrine that it matters if you have an unbroken chain of Believers Baptisms going back to the Apostles. And I reject the standard Landmarkism history claiming descent from the Montanists, Novatians and Donatists, Faustinius of Lyon was in fact on record as opposing Novatianism. The Landmark Baptists tend to be Calvinists, while giving that label to the Primitive Baptists is complicated. Those issues I may elaborate more on in future posts.
I do believe the early Brythonic Christians were Credo-Baptists, and the idea that through Olchon they can be connected to the Midland Association, Rhode Island and the Primitive Baptists is something I’m considering. But if that lineage can also be tied to Smyrna-Lyon even if it is true seems unlikely.
But since I’ve broached the subject of secret underground Proto-Protestantism in France I need to remind readers that NO I do not believe Jeanne d’Arc was a Proto-Protestant of any kind. She wanted to lead a Crusade against the Husites. And one website documenting her Catholic Orthodoxy even has some quotes to show that if anything those who burned her were more Proto-Protestant. But they would be more like Proto-Anglicans serving the interests of the King of England not Baptists who were originally the strongest defenders of Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State.
An attempt to return Lyon to the Congregationalist principles of Polycarp was made by Antoine-Adrien Lamourette appointed Bishop of Lyon under The Civil Constitution of The Clergy during The French Revolution. He was beheaded on January 11th 1794, another Christian Martyred by the Hebertists.
No comments:
Post a Comment