Restraint in II Thessalonians 2

When I was a Futurist my position on the removal of Restraint in II Thessalonians 2:6-7 was that it corresponds to Revelation 9.  

Now in the context of my Post-Millennial Partial Preterism I’m thinking it refers to Revelation 20:7. Views that argue Revelation Chronologically starts over at least could make both these Abyss releases the same event, but I don’t want to get into the complexity of something like that right now.

The assumption of Futurists and sometimes Full Preterists that II Thessalonians 2’s “Man of Sin” is the same as the Abomination of Desolation of Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 is refuted by the observation that the Abomination of the Olivet Discourse passages Stands where it ought not while in II Thessalonians 2 the Man of Sin “sits” in the Temple of God.

I have for a while now come to agree with the Historicist reading that this “Temple of God” is The Church, The Body of Christ.  I have however resisted making that specifically about the Papacy tendency to instead make it more broadly all Episcopal Polity and Christian Monarchy.  But for this post I shall be different.

In Paul’s Epistles “Naos of God” is only used of The Church.  Other places where English Bibles use the exact three word phrase “Temple of God” are Matthew 21:12 where the word for Temple is Hieron, Matthew 26:61 where it’s Jesus’ false accusers misquoting what he said in John 2. And Revelation 11 where it appears twice and its Revelation 10 context verifies the Temple in Heaven is the Temple being referred to, which is thematically tied to the Church-Temple in my view.

A particular Sub-Doctrine of Papism is Papal Infallibility, and a concept heavily tied to that is Ex Cathedra (From the Chair) referring to the so-called Chair of St Peter in St Peter’s Basilica.

This doctrine first truly begins to form with a document attributed to Pope Gregory VII 1073-1085.  Then came some ideas of Peter John Olivi in the late 1200s. And controversies from the time of Pope John XXII 1316-1334 who himself opposed the doctrine actually as well as the Beatific Vision.

In 1336 Pope Benedict XII affirmed the Beatific Vision in a pronouncement considered to be Ex Cathedra.

However the Doctrine really took on its current form during the 17th Century Post-Counter-Reformation, largely from Dominican Scholars at the University of St Thomas Aquinas. They made arguments that because Jesus said He would Pray for Peter that this Authority was uniquely for Peter not all the Apostles or Church, which is silly because Jesus also clearly Prays for all of us.

This Doctrine makes the person of the Pope effectively equivalent with Jesus and God.  And it looks like over a thousand years after when I think the Millennium started is when it really takes off. 

As far as how this ties into my last post on Revelation 20, it could make verses 8 and 9 the later phase of the 30 years war, and maybe extend into the 7 years war and Napoleonic Wars or even WWI.

Optimistic Eschatology

A lot of other Post Millennial Partial Preterists are really invested in branding our eschatology as more Optimistic than any other, especially Premillennialism.

All Christians have an ultimately Optimistic worldview, we all believe Jesus wins in the end, in fact I’d dare say Optimism is an inherently Christian invention.  In my view how Optimistic a Christian is has more to do with Soteriology than Eschatology.  I believe in Universal Salvation and that is objectively the most Optimistic Soteriology, a Premillennial Futurist who agrees with me on that shares my Optimism more than a fellow Post Millennial who’s an infernalist or annihilationist.

The gist of the idea that Partial Preterist Postmillennialism is the most Optimistic Eschatology is believing that there is no inherent expectation that things will from where we are now get worse before they get better, that could happen but it’s not Biblically required to.

But that really depends on where exactly in Revelation Chapter 20 you think we currently are.

The first 6 verses are what definitely all Post Millennial Partial Preterists believe has already happened.  But a belief that nothing Bad has to happen between now and the Parousia would require believing even verse 10 is already in the past, or at least verse 9. 

I still favor a fairly literal interpretation of what a Thousand Years means, even though some of how I view other details of this same chapter can be considered less than strictly literal.  So if we entered the Millennium at any point in the first 1024 years of the Gregorian Calendar then verse 7 has already happened.  And currently the latest point I have considered for starting the Millennium in during the reign of Heraclius in the first half of the 7th Century.  But I’ve also considered as early as the Crisis of the Third Century and am preparing to consider even a Second Century model. 

It is tempting in that context to look at the Turks and/or Mongols of the late middle ages as Gog and Magog.  But as someone who’s a Revivalist not Reconstructionist I prefer not to look at the conflict in view here in Ethno-National terms. 

I view the Camp of the Saints and Beloved City as all Separatist Congregational Polity Christians not a specific Geographical Location.  While my Baptism of The Beast view has me viewing High Church Christianity as the Beast and False Prophet currently in the Lake of Fire.

So basically whether or not verses 8-10 have fully already happened I am undecided on.  But when trying to favor the most Optimistic view possible I tend to view real world evidence of the loosing of Satan as the rise of modern Capitalism which is Atheistic in Nature.  But I've also bene speculating on a connection between all this and a Historicist reading of II Thessalonians 2.

There is nothing Unoptimistic about being prepared for bad things to come.  As the last episode of the English Dub of Futari Wa Pretty Cure said "The Night is Darkest just before The Dawn".

Babylon in Egypt

The existence of a place called Babylon in Ancient Egypt, not poetically or spiritually but as it's literal official name, is a pretty fascinating subject.  Babylon in Egypt was also the embryo of the city now known as Cairo, the Capital of Modern Egypt and religiously important to both Muslims in Egypt and Coptic Christianity.

Speculation that this could be relevant to Biblical uses of the name Babylon mostly focus on 1 Peter 5:13's usage, since Marcus/Mark is said to be with him in the same verse and tradition says Mark went to Egypt.  But I'm as skeptical of the Mark in Egypt traditions as I am the Peter in Rome and John in Ephesus traditions.  My theory is the Christian Community of Alexandria was largely founded in the late 1st or early 2d century by Christians from Cyprus and their particular interest in Mark and Barnabas comes from their connection to Cyprus.  I think Peter and Mark were in Seleucia on the Tigris when that Epistle was written.

For New Testament relevance I've actually become very interested in Babylon in Egypt possibly explaining the use of the name in Revelation.

The main argument against this that isn't more an argument for Babylon being somewhere else would be that the only explicit reference to Egypt in Revelation is calling the "Great City" Spiritually Sodom and Egypt in chapter 11, with "Spiritually" in a context like this being presumed to be mutually exclusive to literally or geographically, and elsewhere The Great City is explicitly Babylon.  I have two responses to that.

1st from a certain POV you could almsot argue actual Egypt was only still Egyptian Spiritually by this point, the land had been increasingly colonized by the various Empires of Daniel 2&7 and their native languages were on the decline being largely only still used for Religious purposes, yet Egyptian Paganism still thrived both in Egypt and throughout the Empire.

2nd is that I feel the relationships between certain key terms in Revelation are not as geographically synonymous as a casual reading assumes, and that some relate to each other more abstractly.  The Babylon Fortress was from 30 BC onwards a Roman Military fortress, it was central to how Rome enforced it's military might in the region.  The fact is a significant number of the Roman troops involved in the 66-73 AD Jewish-Roman War were probably troops who had been stationed in the Babylon Fortress before it started.

So this view need not conflict with arguments for Babylon being Rome, the Seven Hilled City of Revelation 17 I still believe refers to the Seven Hills of Rome.  I stand by my argument for how the Great City of Revelation 11 could be Rome and for the Roma Cult argument that the Woman of Revelation 17 is the people of Rome no matter where they dwell.  The Beast is definitely still the Roman Empire.  Or "Great City" could refer to different cities in different contexts, sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes Rome and sometimes Babylon in Egypt.

But before I return to Revelation I want to speculate on how even some Hebrew Bible references to Babylon could be this Babylon in Egypt.  

The origins of there being a settlement in Egypt called Babylon do predate the Roman Fortress and possibly go back to Babylonian Refugees in Egypt during the time of Assyria's Conquests contemporary with King Hezekiah of Judah and thus also the Prophets Micah and Isaiah.  Based on the conclusions of my Languages of the Table of Nations theories the language of the Babylonians was a Canaanite Language, so Babylon in Egypt could be one of those Five Cities from Isaiah 19.

The Biblical chapter divisions we're used to aren't in the original text, the famous Bethlehem Prophecy of Micah 5 is actually in the context of Micah 4 which refers to the Migdal Eder and Zion.  Micah 4:10 has the Daughter of Zion after giving birth go to Babylon, well Christians know this was actually fulfilled by going to Egypt, both with Mary in Matthew 2 and then the people as a whole after being conquered by Titus, Josephus says Titus stopped at Alexandria with his Captives on the way to Rome and then once at Rome started his Triumph in the Temple of Isis.  Latter after the Fall of Masada the surviving Zealots go to Egypt to rile things up there.  This arguably also fulfills the prophecy of Israel returning to Egypt in Hosea 8:13-9:3.

In the time of Isaiah this Babylon in Egypt was possibly a settlement of ethnic Babylonians (like a little Italy or a Chinatown) so Isaiah could have referred to them in Ethnic terms, he could have called them the Daughter of Babylon for the same reason he called Tyre the daughter of Sidon.

Ezekiel 20:36 justifies calling the land of Egypt a wilderness fitting the third verse of Revelation 17.  And Ezekiel 23 associated Egypt with the theme of Israel's Idolatry as Spiritual Whoredom/Adulatory which is another theme Revelation 17 is drawing on.

What really compels me though is the possibly of the Babylon of Isaiah 13-14 being a Babylon in Egypt thus justifying placing the Seat/Throne of Satan in Egypt.  I've already talked on this blog about how I now view the King of Babylon of Isaiah 14 as having never been a mortal ruler but always a title of Heylel ben Shachar.

Sobek was often depicted as with Isis healing the murdered Osiris.  Sobek's association with Ra which became his main form during Ptolemaic and Roman times could explain why The Dragon of Revelation 12 is Red since Ra is usually depicted as a Red Sun rather then Yellow.  And that association with The Sun also provides relevance to the Babylon fortress being in the area of Heliopolis.

When people say the reason Rome is called Babylon in Revelation was to try and hide what they were talking about from Romans who might happen to read it I get annoyed.  What makes Babylon in some sense Rome is entirely Rome's own self identification, no Patriotic Roman reading the text would see chapter 17 refer to a City on Seven Hills with Seven Kings and fail to recognize that. It is attempts to find an alternate Sola Scriptura explanation for those symbols that leads one away from Rome and to Daniel 7 and other prophecies referencing the same animals or symbolic Harlots.  It is studying the Hebrew Bible references being drawn on that points one to Egypt as the secret actual focus of the narrative, if it's not as straight forward as simply being Babylon or more broadly Iraq.

And then there is how this could back up my Last Pharoah Theory.

https://materialisteschatology.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-last-pharoah-of-egypt.html