Appendix E: The Rise of Papal Authority and the Historicist Antichrist

How the Bishop of Rome became the Pontifex Maximus --- and why Protestant historicists saw this as the fulfillment of Daniel and Revelation.

The Historical Arc

The identification of the papacy with the antichrist of 2 Thessalonians 2 is not a modern polemic. It was the standard Protestant position from Luther (1520) through the Westminster Confession (1646) to Jonathan Edwards (1739), and it rested on a specific reading of how the Roman bishop acquired titles, powers, and authority that historicists believed Scripture had foretold.

This appendix traces the key inflection points in that acquisition of authority, notes the voices --- both inside and outside the church --- that sounded warnings, and shows how historicist interpreters mapped these events onto the prophetic timeline.

Phase 1: The Title --- Pontifex Maximus (1st—5th Century)

The title Pontifex Maximus (“Supreme Pontiff” or “Greatest Bridge-Builder”) originated in pagan Rome as the highest priestly office. It was held by Roman emperors from Augustus onward, combining political and religious supremacy in a single person.

Key transitions:

Emperor Gratian (r. 375—383) renounced the title around 382 AD, marking the first time a Roman emperor declined the pagan priestly office. This created a symbolic vacuum.
Pope Damasus I (366—384) is among the first Roman bishops to be associated with the title’s prestige, though its formal adoption by the papacy was gradual.
Pope Leo I (440—461) significantly advanced papal claims to universal jurisdiction, asserting that the Bishop of Rome held the authority of Peter over all other bishops.

Why historicists cared: The transfer of a pagan imperial title to a Christian bishop looked, to historicist interpreters, like exactly what Paul had warned about --- “he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The title carried the connotation of supreme religious authority over all people, which historicists saw as blasphemous when claimed by anyone other than Christ.

Phase 2: The Warning Voices (4th—10th Century)

Even within the church, voices raised alarms about the accumulation of papal power:

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 318—386)

In his Catechetical Lectures (Lecture 15), Cyril warned that the antichrist would come when the Roman Empire dissolved:

“But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now drawing near.” --- Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 15.12 (NPNF, Series 2, Vol. 7)

Cyril identified the “restrainer” of 2 Thessalonians 2:6—7 with the Roman Empire. When it fell, the antichrist would fill the vacuum. Later historicists argued that the papacy did exactly this.

Gregory I --- Pope Gregory the Great (c. 540—604)

Gregory is a remarkable case: a pope who condemned the very claim to universal jurisdiction that later popes would make. When the Patriarch of Constantinople, John IV (“the Faster”), adopted the title “Ecumenical Patriarch,” Gregory rebuked him in one of the most frequently cited passages in historicist literature:

“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.” --- Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, Letter 33, to the Emperor Mauricius (NPNF, Series 2, Vol. 12, trans. Barmby)

Gregory argued that no bishop --- not even the Bishop of Rome --- should claim universal jurisdiction. The irony is inescapable: later popes claimed exactly the title Gregory condemned. Historicist interpreters from Wycliffe to Luther to Edwards cited Gregory against his own successors.

Arnulf of Orléans (c. 991)

At the Synod of Verzy (near Reims), Arnulf, Bishop of Orléans, delivered what may be the earliest direct identification of a specific pope with the antichrist. Addressing the corruption of Pope John XV, the speech survives through the account written by Gerbert d’Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II):

“Verily, if he be void of charity, and be blown up and advanced only with knowledge, then he is antichrist sitting in the temple of God, and shewing out himself as if he were God.” --- Arnulf of Orléans, Speech at the Synod of Verzy (991), as rendered in Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers

The core identification --- a pope described as “antichrist sitting in the temple of God” echoing 2 Thessalonians 2:4 --- is attested in the original Latin record, though the exact English wording varies by translator. The significance is clear: a bishop applied antichrist language to a sitting pope nearly five centuries before Luther.

Phase 3: The Justinian Decree and the 1,260 Years (533—538 AD)

The Decree of 533

In 533, Emperor Justinian I incorporated a letter to Pope John II into his revised legal code (Codex Justinianus 1.1.8, Krueger numbering). The letter declared:

“You are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way to increase the honor and authority of your See.” --- Justinian I, Codex Justinianus 1.1.8, letter to Pope John II (533; Scott translation)

This was the first time a Roman emperor formally recognized the Bishop of Rome as head of all churches in a document with the force of civil law.

The Liberation of 538

In 538, Justinian’s general Belisarius broke the Ostrogothic siege of Rome (which had begun in March 537). The Gothic War itself continued until 554, and the papacy did not acquire formal temporal sovereignty until the Donation of Pepin in 756. However, historicist interpreters saw 538 as the moment the Arian obstacle to papal authority in Italy was effectively removed, allowing the papacy to begin consolidating spiritual and political influence in the Western Mediterranean.

The Historicist Calculation

Many historicist interpreters --- particularly in the Seventh-day Adventist tradition, but also earlier figures --- identified 538 AD as the starting point for the 1,260 year-days of Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7, and Revelation 13:5:

538 + 1,260 = 1798
In 1798, Napoleon’s General Berthier entered Rome and took Pope Pius VI prisoner. The pope died in captivity in 1799.

Other historicists used different starting points:

606 AD (Emperor Phocas recognized the Bishop of Rome as “universal bishop”) → 606 + 1,260 = 1866
756 AD (the Donation of Pepin granted the papacy temporal sovereignty over the Papal States) → 756 + 1,260 = 2016

Jonathan Edwards considered multiple possibilities. He wrote that the 1,260 years “did not commence before the year of Christ four hundred and seventy-nine” — a lower bound, not an event date: writing in 1739, Edwards reasoned that the period could not have begun before 479, or it would already have expired (1739 − 1260 = 479). He considered both 606 and 756 as plausible starting points. He left the question open but was confident the period was drawing to a close.

Phase 4: The Papacy and the Empire (800—1300 AD)

The Coronation of Charlemagne (800)

On Christmas Day 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as Emperor, creating the symbolic alliance between papal spiritual authority and imperial temporal power that historicists identified with the “beast” of Revelation 13.

The significance: the papacy was not becoming an empire. Instead, the pope was claiming the authority to make emperors --- asserting that spiritual power was superior to temporal power. The emperor received his legitimacy from the pope, not the reverse.

The Investiture Controversy (1076—1122)

The conflict between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV over who had the right to appoint bishops crystallized the papal claim to supremacy over secular rulers. Gregory’s Dictatus Papae (1075) included claims such as:

The Roman pontiff alone is rightly called universal
He alone may depose emperors
He may be judged by no one
The Roman church has never erred, nor ever will err

Henry IV stood barefoot in the snow at Canossa (1077) seeking the pope’s forgiveness --- a moment historicists saw as the zenith of the “man of sin” exalting “himself above all that is called God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

Under Pope Innocent III, the council formalized papal authority over all Christendom, including the doctrine of transubstantiation and the requirement of annual confession to a priest. Innocent III called himself “Vicar of Christ” and declared: “The pope holds the place of the true God on this earth.”

Phase 5: The Reformers’ Case (1517—1650)

The Reformers did not invent the papal antichrist identification --- they inherited it from the Franciscan Spirituals, Wycliffe, and Hus (see Appendix C). But they systematized it:

Martin Luther (Smalcald Articles, 1537):

“This teaching shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God.”

John Calvin (Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:3):

“Paul, however, does not speak of one individual, but of a kingdom, that was to be taken possession of by Satan, that he might set up a seat of abomination in the midst of God’s temple --- which we see accomplished in Popery.”

Westminster Confession (1646), Chapter 25, Section 6:

“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.”

The Reformers’ argument was structural, not merely polemical: the papal office had accumulated exactly the characteristics Paul described --- sitting “in the temple of God” (the church), claiming divine authority, opposing the true headship of Christ, and being sustained by deception and spiritual power (2 Thessalonians 2:4, 9—10).

The Historicist Reading of 2 Thessalonians 2

The historicist interpretation maps Paul’s language onto the rise of the papacy:

Paul’s Text (2 Thessalonians 2)	Historicist Identification
”A falling away first” (v. 3)	The apostasy from apostolic simplicity (post-Nicaea)
“The man of sin… son of perdition” (v. 3)	The papal office as an institution
”Sitteth in the temple of God” (v. 4)	Claims authority within the Christian church
”Shewing himself that he is God” (v. 4)	Papal titles: “Vicar of Christ,” “Holy Father,” Pontifex Maximus
”He who now letteth [restrains]” (v. 7)	The Roman Empire (while it stood, the papacy could not rise)
“Then shall that Wicked be revealed” (v. 8)	The papacy fills the vacuum after Rome’s fall
”The Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth” (v. 8)	The Reformation (the preaching of the gospel) begins to destroy papal power
”Destroy with the brightness of his coming” (v. 8)	Christ’s return completes the destruction

Evaluating the Historicist Case

Strengths

Gregory I’s own condemnation of “universal bishop” as antichristian, followed by later popes claiming that very title, is a powerful internal testimony
The gradual accumulation of papal titles and powers does match a “rising” antichrist rather than a sudden appearance
The 1,260-year calculation (538—1798) aligns with a remarkable historical coincidence
The identification was held by the overwhelming majority of Protestants for 300+ years

Challenges

The historicist method requires identifying specific events with specific prophetic symbols, which can be subjective
Different historicists arrived at different starting dates (476, 533, 538, 606, 756, 800), suggesting the method is less precise than it appears
Modern Catholic scholarship would reject the premise entirely, noting that papal authority developed organically from Peter’s commission (Matthew 16:18—19)
Many modern Protestants have moved away from this identification, viewing the antichrist as a future individual rather than a system

What All Sides Agree On

Regardless of whether the papacy is the antichrist, a future individual, or something else entirely, the antichrist must appear before the gathering of believers at Christ’s return. Paul’s own words are clear: “that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed” (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

The question of who the antichrist is remains debated. The question of when --- before the gathering, not after --- was unanimous for 1,800 years.

Key Sources

Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, Letter 33, to the Emperor Mauricius (NPNF, Series 2, Vol. 12, trans. Barmby)
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 15 (NPNF, Series 2, Vol. 7)
Justinian I, Codex Justinianus 1.1.8 (Krueger numbering; Scott translation)
Luther, Smalcald Articles II.IV (Book of Concord)
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.7.25
Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption (1774), Part III
Bernard McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil (1994)
LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (4 vols., 1946—1954) --- the most comprehensive survey of historicist interpretation