By Jerry Q. Huerta
Copyright 2019
This work
presents a resolution between the initiation of the kingdom of God that
was at hand in Matthew 3:2 and Mark 1:15 and its future
consummation conveyed in 1 Corinthians 15:50. For the
patristic church, the phrase kingdom of God (synonymous with the kingdom of heaven) did not provoke any conflict
between it being at hand or its initiation and its future consummation, most
likely because in “looking for the speedy return of Jesus, they anticipated
with his appearing the consummation of the kingdom.”[i] It was only when Christ
failed to meet their expectations of a speedy return and the next generation of
adherents came to prominence did the New Testament’s (NT)
supposed conflict between the initiation of kingdom and the future consummation
begin to cause divergence in doctrine. This conflict
crowned at the legalization of the Christian religion by Constantine and acceptance
of the allegorical interpretation of 1000 years of Revelation 20, which
supplanted the chiliast’s interpretation of the future consummation of the
kingdom of God.[ii]
Prior to Constantine, premillennialism held the general
sway that the kingdom of God should
be interpreted as eschatological. Justin
Martyr (c. 100 – c. AD 165), an Ante-Nicene
patriarch and premillennialist,[iii] maintained that, “But I and others, who are right-minded
Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the
dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and
enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”[iv] Hippolytus, another chiliast, interpreted the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and
fourth beast in Daniel 7 as imperial Rome.
The
golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the
shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented
the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of brass, and
the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the sovereignty from
Alexander’s time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible,
expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of
the feet which were part clay and part iron, and
the ten horns, were emblems of the kingdoms that are yet to rise; the
other little horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist in
their midst; the stone that smites the earth and brings judgment upon
the world was Christ.[v]
At the legalization of the Christian church, Hippolytus’s interpretation unsettled the
emperor’s title of Pontifex Maximus that made him the head of the state religion and the Oriental custom of
deifying the emperors, which they had imbibed from the Persians, and neither of
which did Constantine renounce.[vi] The chiliast’s perception that the stone in Daniel 2 would end the kingdoms of
the world did not sit well with the emperors and set the stage for the
diminishing of Chiliasm and the increase of amillennialism through the allegorical
method of interpreting Daniel 2 and Revelation 20, developed by theologians
such as Clement (c. 150 – c. AD 215) and
Origen (185 – AD 254) of Alexandria. Yet, the chiliast’s interpretation of
the prophecies of Daniel were not easily dismissed and are still a viable
affirmation that the kingdom that was at
hand was not the “stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image
upon his feet” (Daniel 2:34).
Part of the significance of Daniel’s interpretation of
the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was that God “removes kings and sets up
kings” (Daniel 2:21). The account in Daniel and history affirm that God’s
removal of kings is precipitous; there is an ordained time when the powers of
kings are broken by God’s consummate power. One might speak of the
decline of Rome, but historians confirm the campaign that represented the end
of the fourth kingdom.
In September 476 AD,
the last Roman emperor of the west, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by a
Germanic prince called Odovacar, who had won control of the remnants of the
Roman army of Italy. He then sent the western imperial regalia to
Constantinople.
The Roman empire in
western Europe - a centralised superstate which had been in existence for 500
years - had ceased to exist, its single emperor replaced by upwards of a dozen
kings and princes.[vii]
There is no support in Daniel 2 for a doctrine that holds the removal of
the ordained powers from one kingdom on the image to the next lasting eons,
which became the doctrine of those who opposed premillennialism.
The doctrine of premillennialism troubled the emperors,
the ordained power of the legs of iron, which caused the chiliast’s
interpretation to fall out of favor with those who garnered influence with
Constantine’s administration of the church and state affairs. The amillennial
interpretation supplanted that of the chiliasts, the former maintaining that
the stone kingdom, the kingdom of God in Daniel 2, was fulfilled by the
church at the commencement of Christ’s first advent.[viii] In such an
interpretation, the ordained powers that formed the legs of iron and the feet
are held to become increasingly subject to the church and entirely resigned at
Christ’s return.[ix]
Romans 13 would inevitably undermine amillennialism’s doctrine by the time of
the Reformation, bearing in mind that the text was used to establish that
matters of worship are under the sole dominion of God, following Christ’s
command in Matthew 22:21, which advocated religious freedom. The significance
of Daniel 3 and 6 cannot be overlooked in substantiating this separation of
church from the powers that be. Romans 13 unquestionably elaborated
on the ordained powers in Daniel 2, and restricts those powers to political
issues, and that “all souls” are subject to them, the church notwithstanding.
Critical analysis of Romans 13, at the time of Reformation, led the
Protestants, such as Calvin, to expose the papacy as the antichrist.
Calvin says as much in
an extraordinary comment on Romans 13:10, expressing a view on the essential
responsibilities of temporal government:
Since magistrates are
the guardians of peace and equity, those who desire that every individual
should preserve [one’s] rights, and that all [persons] may live free from
injury, must defend to the utmost of their power the order of magistrates….
Paul’s repetition of the statement of love is the fulfillment of the law is to
be understood, as before, as that part of the law that refers to human society.
There is no allusion at all here to the first table of the law, which deals
with the worship of God.
It is of no little
interest that Roger Williams himself, in referring to “that excellent servant
of God, Calvin,” invokes this very passage in defense of his theory, outlined
above, that the appropriate jurisdiction of the state concerns only the second
table of the commandments and not the first.[x]
Martin Luther also expounded on Romans 13 in his endeavor to vindicate
that the pope was the fulfillment of the Antichrist in scripture. In his
article, Flexible Interpretations of “The Powers That Be” from Constantine
to Mandela and Beyond, Louis W. Hensler III expounds on Luther’s
critical analysis of Romans 13.
In 1523, Luther
published his most thorough written work on the secular state, and he started
the substantive part of that work by citing Romans 13 as one of two
biblical bases “for the civil law and sword.”237 Just as Boniface
VIII had cited Romans 13:1 in support of papal authority over temporal
rulers, Luther cited the same verse as rejecting the idea that worldly rulers
must be subject to the pope: “St. Paul says to all Christians, ‘Let every soul
(I take that to mean the pope’s soul also) be subject to the temporal
authority; for it does not bear the sword in vain, but serves God by punishing
the wicked and benefiting the good.’”[xi]
Luther’s advocacy of a more pronounced literal approach
to the scriptures and his interpretation of the pope as the antichrist led to a
revival of historic premillennialism and Hippolytus’s interpretation of the ten
toes in Daniel 2 (ten horns in chapter 7) as “emblems of the
kingdoms that are yet to rise” out of the downfall of the Roman empire and that
“the other little horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist
in their midst.”
In the following
century (seventeenth century), premillennialism was not a conventional belief
yet. But, some premillennial renewal took place in that century as an
undercurrent, partly because Luther himself had actually advocated a more
literal approach to the Bible, and partly because the
German Calvinist Johann H. Alsted (1588-1638) revived premillennialism
in spite of Calvin's opposition. Alsted's work was adopted by
the Anglican theologian Joseph Mede (1586-1639), who popularized
premillennialism in the English-speaking world through his book, Clavis
Apocalypticae (The Key to the Apocalypse),[6] and
is therefore called the “father of modern premillennialism.” In the New World,
Puritan ministers such as Thomas Shepard (1604-1649) and Increase Mather
(1639-1723) were premillennialists. The Baptist Roger
Williams (c.1603-1683), the founder of Rhode Island, was also a
premillennialist.[xii]
Luther
paved the way for the modification of [traditional] eschatology by his
historicist approach to the last book of the Bible . . . Henceforth most
Protestant writers who commented on the Apocalypses of John and Daniel followed
his lead and saw in their highly symbolic visions and dreams prophecies of the
downfall of the Turks, of the destruction of the city of Rome, of the demise of
the Papacy, and of the ultimate triumph of the protestant Biblical religion….
Perhaps the most interesting and
revolutionary development of Puritan eschatology was that which led to the wide
acceptance in Cromwellian England of the doctrine of the future millennium. It
was the influential writings of John Henry Alsted, the German Calvinist, and Joseph
Mede, the Cambridge Puritan, which suggested to Puritan preachers that sound
Biblical exegesis demanded that the millennium of Revelation 20 be viewed as in
the future, not in the past or present. Social conditions in England made
millenarianism, connected with an historicist approach to the books of
Revelation and Daniel, most attractive, and, though the conservative
millenarianism of Mede always had its supporters in the 1630s and 1640s, an
extreme chiliasm appealed particularly to radical, sectarian politicians and
preachers.[xiii]
The emphasis of the Reformation was soteriology, which led to the exposé that
papacy was the antichrist. This exposé, in turn, led to the revival of historic
premillennialism and the formation of the school of historicism. In
the perception of historicism, the historical evidence that the papacy arrogated
a great deal of governing authority in defiance to Romans 13 conform to Daniel
and John’s prophecy that the antichrist would be “speaking great things and
blasphemies” (Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5). In 1887 historicists H. Grattan
Guinness interpreted the blasphemy of the little horn in Daniel and the
sea-beast in Revelation as being fulfilled by the popes of the papacy.
We ask then, Has the
Papacy exhibited this mark also? Time would fail me to quote to you verbatim
its great words, its boastful self-glorifications, and its outrageous
blasphemies against God! You will find pages of them quoted in my work on “The
Approaching End of the Age,” and volumes filled with them exist, for Papal
documents consist of little else. The Papal claims are so grotesque in their
pride and self-exaltation, that they almost produce a sense of the comic, and
that feeling of pitying contempt with which one would watch a frog trying to
swell itself to the size of an ox! I must however mention some of the claims
contained in these “great words,” which will show you the nature of Papal
blasphemies. It is claimed, for instance, that “no laws made contrary to the
canons and decrees of Roman prelates have any force,” that “the tribunals of
all kings are subject to the priests,” that “no man may act against the
discipline of the Roman Church,” that “the Papal decrees or decretal epistles
are to be numbered among the canonical Scriptures,” and not only so, but that
the Scriptures themselves are to be received only “because a judgment of holy
Pope Innocent was published for receiving them.” It is claimed that “emperors
ought to obey, and not rule over pontiffs”; that even an awfully wicked pope,
who is a “slave of hell,” may not be rebuked by mortal man, because “he is
himself to judge all men and to be judged by none,” and “since he was styled
God by the pious prince Constantine, it is manifest that God cannot
be judged by man”![xiv]
In continuing the
analysis of the amillennialism’s interpretation of Daniel 2, one must conclude
that their view of the kingdom of God equates the ordained rule of
Christ with the rule in 1 Corinthians 15:25, which has the Messianic
kingdom coexist with ungodly powers in Providence, and the view persists to
this day. Apart from the practical evidence that Rome was persecuting the
church in Paul’s day, he also testified that “all that will live godly in
Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution,” and that “evil men and seducers shall
wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:12-13). This cohabitation
is acknowledged by Augustine’s two cities analogy in amillennialism’s
attempt to verify their realized eschatology,[xv] or their interpretation
and perception how the kingdom of God was at hand (Matthew 3:2;
Mark 1:15). However, as previously stated, amillennialism did not become
dominant until the time that Christianity became the religion of the state,
which ended the prohibitions against Christian participation in public matters.
As an associate professor of law, E. Gregory Wallace, states in his article on
religious freedom, it was at this time that: “the doctrinal unity of Christians
was transformed from a religious concern into a political one.”[xvi] As soon as doctrinal
unity of Christians transformed from a religious concern to a political one,
amillennialism’s claim that the ordained rule of Christ in Daniel 2 represents
a spiritual kingdom, as opposed to a worldly one,[xvii] succumbed to a temporal
reality, which this work will show led to the little horn’s abominations
outlined in Daniel 7, 8 and 9. It was under amillennialism’s allegorical
interpretation of Daniel 2 that the church became political, John 18:36
notwithstanding.
Constantine is still
lauded by many amillennialists for his policies of religious toleration, but
since the Reformation, such praise is hard to be found. The Reformation
revealed that Constantine, for all practical purposes, became the head of the
church, which was a continuation of the pagan policy of the marriage of state
and religion in all the kingdoms of antiquity, epitomized in Daniel 2, 3 and 6.[xviii] Furthermore, this
marriage between state and religion was strengthened by Constantine’s decision
to grant bishops judicial authority.[xix] Such decisions led his
successors to perform the first execution for heresy in AD 385, “when two
bishops persuaded the imperial usurper Maximus to agree to the execution of
Priscillian and six followers in Spain.”[xx]
As stated previously, the chiliast’s
interpretation of Daniel troubled the emperors in the prospect that the feet
and toes and the ten horns in Daniel 2 and 7 were emblems of kingdoms that were
yet to rise out the fall of the Roman empire. [xxi] Furthermore, asserting a
nascent notion of recapitulation, the chiliast interpretation held the stone
kingdom to commence after the antichrist is “given to the burning flame” and
his dominion taken in Daniel 7:11, 26. Under such an interpretation, any
evangelical partnership with the Roman empire was out of the question. Here,
again, the obligatory submission to the powers that be (Romans 13) did
not support any evangelical partnership with the state. The church had no
provision for a Christian emperor. Professor of History, Arthur H. Williamson, maintains,
with the acceptance of Christianity by Constantine came the imperial apologist
who,
succeeded in
interweaving the triumphalist claims and prophecies of the classical era into
the Judeo-Christian apocalypse. The Byzantines would create a synthesis of
Daniel, Ezekiel, Paul,
Sibylline prophecies, and pagan literature (notably absent was the violently
anti-Roman Revelation). From Constantinople radiated nothing less than Daniel’s
fifth empire, the final world order before the return of King Jesus. The
emperor stood in the ‘‘figure’’ of Christ, representing and anticipating the
divine autocrat. The political disasters of the
seventh century that occurred with the coming of the Slavs and the Arabs
crystallized this eschatology around a vision of Roman restoration—a vision
that would endure in centuries to come. There would arise a great Last World
Emperor who would overthrow the enemies of the faith and confront the Pauline
Antichrist. Thereafter Christ would return and the Last Judgment would occur.[xxii]
The provision that was made to account for a Christian emperor was to supplant
Chiliasm with amillennialism and later conflate the pagan Sibylline prophecies
with Daniel to create the fable of the Fifth Empire or the Last Emperor (2
Timothy 4:4), which Williamson briefly outlined above. Professor of Religious
Studies, Stephen J. Shoemaker, elaborates more on this phenomenon and comments
that,
the Last Emperor was
imagined as a ruler who would appear in the end times to restore the Christian
Empire’s greatness just prior to the second coming of Christ. This future
emperor, it was believed, will subdue or convert all of the Christian faith’s
enemies an opponents and establish righteousness on the earth. Then he will
travel to Jerusalem, where he will lay down his crown and imperial garments,
yielding sovereignty to God, and thus bringing an end to the Christian Roman
Empire and setting in motion the events of the eschaton.[xxiii]
Later in his article, Shoemaker continues to elaborate on the fable of
the Last Emperor.
After the Last Emperor
annihilates the peoples of God and Magog, “then he will come to Jerusalem, and
there having laid down the diadem from his head and all his royal garb, he will
hand over the kingdom of the Christians to God the Father and Jesus Christ his
Son.”
With the Roman Empire
now having come to an end, “the Antichrist will be openly revealed.” The
apocalypse then concludes with his defeat “by the power of the Lord by the
Archangel Michael on the Mount of Olives” (10).
There is no provision in the fable for a
protracted kingdom of the antichrist and the ten kings associated with his
dominion; hence, the stone kingdom becomes the Fifth Empire or kingdom in the
fable. According to the fable, the antichrist is merely a transitory prominent personage
that opposes the return of Christ.
According to the fable, at the defeat of the antichrist/beast, Christ then
renders his kingdom to the Father according to 1 Corinthians 15;25, which inaugurates
the eternal estate after the final judgment, depicted in Revelation 21-22.
Under scrutiny, the notion that the fifth kingdom is the stone kingdom
undermines the eschatology of amillennialism, postmillennialism (to include
preterism) and dispensationalism. Contemporary amillennialist, Anthony A.
Hoekema, maintains the antichrist may have antecedents or types but the
prophecy in Daniel 8 is exhausted at the return of Christ, based on the Olivet
Discourse.
As we saw above, however,26 in the
Olivet Discourse Jesus refers both to the impending destruction of Jerusalem
and to the end of the age, the former being a type of the latter. We may
therefore expect that there will be a third major fulfillment of the
“abomination that makes desolate” or “desolating sacrilege” prediction found in
Daniel’s prophecy. This final fulfillment will come at the end of the age, and
will involve the antichrist who, in the words of II Thessalonians 2:4, will
exalt himself “against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes
his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
We
conclude that the New Testament teaching about the antichrist does indeed have
Old Testament antecedents, and that both Antiochus Epiphanes and Titus were
types of the antichrist who is to come.”[xxiv]
Dispensationalist, John F. Walvoord, also maintains the stone kingdom as
the Fifth Empire in his analysis of Daniel 7:23-27, albeit in the future, and in
conformity with his observance of premillennialism.
The interpreter of the
vision states plainly in verse 23 that the fourth beast represents the fourth
kingdom, an earthly kingdom which will be different from the preceding kingdoms
and will devour the whole earth, that is, be worldwide in its sway. In the
process, it will tread down and break in pieces the preceding kingdoms. By so
much, the interpretation eliminates the idea that the fifth kingdom refers to
the rule of God in the new heavens and the new earth (Rev 21 and 22) or that it
is merely a spiritual kingdom which gradually gains sway by persuasion, such as
the kingdom of God in the earth at the present time. By its terminology the
interpretation of verses 23-27 demands that, for the fifth kingdom to overcome
the fourth, the fifth must be basically a sovereign and political kingdom,
whatever its spiritual characteristics. By so much, it also demands that this
be a future fulfillment, inasmuch as nothing in history corresponds to this.[xxv]
Again, there is no provision in the fable of the Fifth Kingdom for a
protracted kingdom of the antichrist. Any protraction of the kingdom of the
antichrist in this age must make it the fifth kingdom, and this is why
historicism is incompatible with amillennialism, dispensationalism and even
precludes postmillennialism. In likeness with amillennialism, postmillennialist
Francis Nigel Lee, attempted to reconcile the fifth Kingdom with the church that
began with the first advent.
So the Roman kingdom's
‘legs’ were split into its “toes” between AD 351 and 476. Hence it must
follow that the Fifth or Stone Kingdom of Christ was set up, here on Earth,
before then. In other words, the Stone Kingdom commenced at Christ's First
Coming -- when He was incarnated.[xxvi]
Yet, Lee embraced Luther’s exposé that the papacy was the antichrist. Luther
wrote that Daniel “saw the terrible wild beast which had ten horns, which by
the consent of all is the Roman empire, he also beheld another small horn come
up in the middle of them. This is the Papal power, which rose up in the middle
of the Roman empire.”[xxvii] When Lee embraced
Luther and the Reformation’s assertions that Daniel exposes the papacy as the
little horn, he inadvertently acknowledged that the fifth kingdom after Rome
was the papacy, which is the sine qua non of historicism. So, while the
historicists may fail to be in accord on other historical phenomena, on this
topic they are of one consensus; the Roman empire had an end and the papacy had
a beginning as the kingdom of the antichrist, and the latter followed the
former as the fifth kingdom. Amillennialists and dispensationalists, as well as
contemporary postmillennialists, refuse to see the historical correlation
between the feet in Daniel 2 and breakup of the Roman empire into the contemporary
nations of Europe; in refusing to do so, they acquit the blasphemous history of
the papacy. Amillennialism is vexed by the correlation between history and
Daniel 2 and 7. Their interpretation that there are no other kingdoms after the
fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 except that of Christ’s would make the Roman
empire the head on the beast that was wounded and lives again in Revelation
13:3 and 17:8, which contradicts their perception that the antichrist is merely
some future transitory prominent personage. Lee’s assertion that the stone
kingdom represents the Fifth Empire is irreconcilable with historicism. In
truth, Luther entrenched himself in amillennialism due to his repugnance of
premillennialism; he failed to grasp that his exposé that the little horn is
resolved in the papacy refutes amillennialism.
Walvoord maintains the
fifth kingdom is “a sovereign and political kingdom,” grounded on
dispensationalism’s rendition of Daniel 7:23-27. Dispensationalism’s rendition
of Daniel 7:23-27 relies on the Hebrew word וְשָׁלְטָנֵ֣הּ, which is defined as
dominion or sovereignty, and translated as “dominion” in the King James
version of Daniel 7:26.
But the judgment shall
sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it
unto the end. (Daniel 7:26)
Daniel used the exact word for the “dominion” of God in Daniel 4:3.
How great are
his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.
(Daniel 4:3)
There is no reasonable explanation for Walvoord’s perception that וְשָׁלְטָנֵ֣הּ
is defined as “a sovereign and political kingdom” in Daniel 4:3 and 7:27 but is
defined as something other than “a sovereign and political kingdom” in 7:26.
The dominion of the little horn is related as “a sovereign and political
kingdom,” in the same capacity as the previous beasts/kingdoms in Daniel 7.
There is sufficient evidence that Daniel’s chapter 7 employs recapitulation and
elaborates upon the same kingdoms in chapter 2, specifically the feet, which
the patristic church established in the second-century and the patristic view
is still recognized today. Daniel 7 expands upon the time of the feet in the
image of Daniel 2, the end of the Roman empire and its breakup into the modern
nations that we have today. The
conclusive evidence substantiates that the little horn in Daniel 7 must be
rendered as the fifth kingdom that rises during the time of the kings who
represent the feet of the image in Daniel 2. To reiterate, the endeavor of this
work is to present the resolution between the initiation
of the kingdom of God that was at hand (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:15) and
its future consummation (1 Corinthians 15:50). The kingdom of God that was
at hand cannot be reconciled as the fifth kingdom or the stone kingdom in
Daniel 2. Daniel’s use of recapitulation in chapter 7 establishes a more
detailed account of the time symbolized by the feet in Daniel 2 and reveals the
little horn as the fifth kingdom, following the Roman empire. And, as will be
developed presently, there are two other kingdoms that must rise after the
papacy that John’s Revelation prophecies.
As previously stated, there is a historical correlation
between the feet in Daniel 2, the breakup of the Roman empire, and the rise of
the papacy. Amillennialists attempt to mitigate this correlation with elements
of the fable of the Last Emperor. They believe that there are no other kingdoms
in prophecy after the Roman empire, in their eschatological dogma of a future
Roman Empire. Amillennialist, Kim Riddlebarger maintains that Daniel 7:7-12,
points beyond the
evils wrought by Antiochus to someone or something else, far more sinister,
especially since the blaspheming horn will be destroyed by the by the Ancient
of Days–Jesus Christ–at the time of the end (v. 11). This is clearly a prophecy
of the Roman Empire and perhaps of the ten kingdoms that originate from it.[xxviii]
Riddlebarger claims a future correlation
between the antichrist, the Roman Empire, and the ten kingdoms or horns. Under
scrutiny, Riddlebarger’s interpretation is nothing more than a revision of the fable
of the Last Emperor. This future revision must intentionally overlook that the
ten kingdoms Riddlebarger mentions have a past correlation between the papacy
and its “establishment” of religion with states that became the European “See.”[xxix] The papacy’s penchant for continuing the
marriage between religion and state of the pagan kingdoms that preceded it
resulted in the deaths of thousands of religious decenters, no doubt plucking
up much of the good wheat along with the tares.[xxx] Amillennialist, David
J Engelsma, also ignores the historical correlation between the horns in
Daniel 7, the papacy and breakup of the Roman empire into the nations of Europe
with his “final development of the old Roman Empire.”
The four beasts of
Daniel 7 are four great world-kingdoms: in order, the Babylonian empire (headed
by Nebuchadnezzar), the kingdom of the Medes and Persians (of which Cyrus was
the outstanding ruler), the kingdom of the Greeks and Macedonians (under
Alexander the Great), and the Roman empire, the fourth beast. The beast of
Revelation 13 is the final development of the old Roman empire yet in the
future, but it definitely takes up into itself the other great kingdoms.[xxxi]
Through the historicist’s lens, Engelsma’s rendering that the “beast of
Revelation 13 is the final development of the old Roman empire yet in the
future” is undoubtedly based on the fable of the Last Emperor. Such a revision
of the fable claims a historical correlation between Daniel and Revelation but ultimately
fails to observe a great deal of the correspondence.
It must be noted, here, that
Riddlebarger accepts that the little horn in Daniel 8, “points beyond the evils
wrought by Antiochus to someone or something else.” Riddlebarger accepts that
the criteria concerning the little horn in Daniel 8 are not exhausted in Antiochus
Epiphanies, making the historical correlation between the little horn and
Antiochus wanting. This paper is a postscript to the
book, Thy
Kingdom Come: Re-evaluation of the Historicist’s Interpretation of the
Revelation. The final chapter in said book conveys the evidence
that Antiochus Epiphanies did not fulfill all the criteria concerning the
little horn in Daniel 8. The principal evidence that exposes the erroneous
interpretation that the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanies is,
the historical fact that
pagan Rome had defeated Antiochus Epiphanes’s father, Antiochus Magnus, at the
Battle of Magnesia at Sipylum in 190 B.C., where Antiochus Epiphanes became a
hostage of Rome until his accession. Antiochus Epiphanes was a vassal of Rome
and this evidence alone settles the matter; the desecrations of the temple in
Jerusalem by the Seleucid potentate was done under pagan Rome’s authority. Rome
was the “mighty power,” the king of fierce countenance, spoken of in Daniel
8:23–25.
It was Rome who sanctioned Antiochus Epiphanes’s actions. The Parthians broke
Antiochus’s kingdom; the hands of man broke his kingdom. Yet, as prophesied,
the “king of fierce countenance” was not to be broken similarly: “he shall also
stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand”
(Daniel 8:25). The “king of fierce countenance” is “broken without hand,” which
connects his demise to “the time of the end” (Daniel 2:34, 8:17). The prophetic
time span must be addressed; a significant aspect of the little horn power is
that it is not like the previous beasts; it is diverse and spans millennia, in
correspondence with the twenty-three hundred evenings-mornings. Daniel fell ill
and fainted at the vision and some thirteen years later he continued to
be troubled, demonstrated by his inquiry into Jeremiah’s prophecy (Daniel 9:2).
Daniel petitions God to “let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy
city Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:16), and his supplications support the perception
that the twenty-three hundred evenings-mornings are a protracted phenomenon, as
Daniel’s anxiety would not be as troublesome if the interval were merely a
matter of days; only his impression that the phenomenon was a protracted event
would elicit so much distress.
One must look beyond Antiochus Epiphanes in order to fully exhaust the
criteria that expose the little horn in Daniel 8 and to correlate the history
where it casts “down some of the host and of the stars to the
ground, and stamped upon them” in Daniel 8:10.
Through the historicist’s lens,
there is a historical correlation between the shifting of the crowns on the
beast with seven heads and ten horns in Revelation, and Daniel’s transition of
power from the fourth kingdom to the little horn. In Daniel 7:7, 19 the fourth beast
is prophesied to have “stamped the residue,” which corresponds to the power executed by the dragon in
Revelation 12.
And there appeared a great wonder
in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon
her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be
delivered. And there
appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven
heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast
them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be
delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod
of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
(Revelation 12:1-5)
The historical correlation between
the dragon power in Revelation 12 and the fourth beast in Daniel 7 is a development
of the Reformers. Nineteenth-century Historicist John Fry rendered the dragon
power of Revelation 12 as a,
symbol of the fourth empire, in all its
extent and duration, is certainly before us… And the tail drawing the third
part of the stars of heaven is meant to denote the apostasy of the Christian
clergy of the empire: so that Rome, from first to last, is, as it were, painted
on the red dragon. But we have a very distinctive mark whereby to judge of the
particular time meant to be pointed out: the crowns are upon the heads of the
beast. It is, then, Rome, not yet divided, but under one of its supreme forms
of government, that we are to contemplate as the body possessed by the great
adversary on the occasion intended to be symbolized.[xxxiii]
There is a clear historical correlation in Fry’s rendition that the
dragon power in Revelation 12 represents the fourth beast “from first to last.”
It was pagan Rome that stood before the woman to devour her child, Christ, and
attempted to stamp out the “residue” in fulfillment of Daniel 7:7, 19. In
accord with the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the remnant
or residue: “has a special significance in the prophecies of Isaiah, as
denoting ‘a holy seed,’ or spiritual kernel, of the nation which should survive
impending judgment and become the germ of the people of God, being blessed of
God and made a blessing.”[xxxiv] Romans 11:5 affirms
the spiritual kernel that pagan Rome attempted to stamp out was the nascent
church, in fulfillment of Daniel 7:7, 19. However, when the dragon power behind
pagan Rome failed to stamp out the residue entirely, the dragon turned to the
seducing influence of power and corruption ensued. The seventeenth-century
historicist John Owens wrote that the ecclesiastical offices of the patristic
church had been sufficient to resist heresy but,
in process of time,
when the power of the Roman empire gave countenance and protection unto the
Christian religion, another way was fixed on for this end, viz., the use of
such assemblies of bishops and others as they called General Councils, armed
with a mixed power, partly civil and partly ecclesiastical — with respect unto
the authority of the emperors and that jurisdiction in the church which began
then to be first talked of. This way was begun in the Council of Nice, wherein,
although there was a determination of the doctrine concerning the person of
Christ then in agitation, and opposed, as unto his divine nature therein, according
unto the truth, yet sundry evils and inconveniences ensued thereon. For
thenceforth the faith of Christians began greatly to be resolved into the
authority of men, and as much, if not more weight to be laid on what was
decreed by the fathers there assembled, than on what was clearly taught in the
Scriptures.[xxxv]
One cannot discount that the stars in Revelation 12 are a figure of God’s
people in sundry passages of the Bible, such as Numbers 14:17 and Daniel 12:3.
God has planted his church “in heavenly places,” according to Ephesians 1:3 and
2:6, and this is the object of the symbolism of the stars and the woman
observed in heaven in Revelation 12. The meaning is evident; the church was
established to guide mankind to the knowledge of God. When the dragon, through
pagan Rome, could not stamp out the remnant of Israel (the patristic church)
through violence, he resorted to sabotage through the Roman Christian empire,
and caused a part of the church to fall by seducing them to resort to the sword
to uphold their authority, no doubt plucking up much of the good wheat along
with the tares.[xxxvi]
The dragon’s tail, representing “the prophet that teacheth lies” (Isaiah 9:16),
cause a good number of the visible church to fall from the “heavenly places,”
conveyed in Ephesians 1:3 and 2:6. In interpreting the symbolism of Revelation
12, one cannot discount the figure of a woman, espoused or wed to Christ,
also signifies the saints in Revelation 19:7-9.[xxxvii] Matthew 12:48-50
substantiates the hermeneutic that the church signifies both mother and bride
to Christ. As Fry stated, the crowns on the heads, as opposed to the horns,
facilitates this correlation with the history; the horns had not yet received
their crowns, for they had not yet worn-down the Roman empire, when pagan Rome
stood before the woman and later legalized the church and became the Roman
Christian Empire.
In correlating the phenomenon
where the little horn casts “down some of the host and
of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them” with history (Daniel 8:10), one
cannot discount the criterion that the little horn grows out of the fourth beast
in Daniel 7, the Roman empire.
After this I saw in
the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong
exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and
stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the
beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the
horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom
there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this
horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
(Daniel 7:7-8)
As stated above, Daniel’s fourth beast is synonymous with the dragon
power in Revelation 12, and the symbolism accurately correlates with the
history of pagan Rome and the Roman Christian Empire. Moreover, the criterion
that the little horn grows out of the fourth beast in Daniel 7 accurately
corresponds with the narrative that the dragon power gives
the sea-beast “his seat, and great authority” (Revelation 13:2). Revelation
12-13 relates a linear narration in the transition of power from the Roman
empire, the fourth kingdom, to the fifth kingdom, the papacy, illustrated as
the sea-beast. The sifting of the crowns epitomizes this transfer of power. The
horns receive their crowns at the breakup of the Roman empire, which is
illustrated in Revelation 13:1. Furthermore, the sea-beast also makes war with
the saints, which history affirms. The nineteenth-century historicist J. A.
Wylie, detailed the papacy’s war against the Protestants in the German states,
and deception was part of its arsenal.
In most of the
southern German States the Protestant cause was overthrown by the same arts. In
truth, this maxim of Rome, that faith is not to be kept when to keep it would
tend to the advantage of Protestantism or the detriment of Popery, kept Germany
in the flames of war, with short intervals, for upwards of a century. The
advantages which the Protestants had secured by their arms, and which they had
compelled their enemies to ratify by solemn treaty, were perfidiously denied
and infringed; they were thus forced again and again to take up arms; and the
successive wars in which Europe was involved, and which occasioned so great an
expenditure of blood and treasure, grew out of Rome’s maxim, which in almost
all these particular cases was directly applied and enforced by pontifical
authority, that such oaths and treaties “were from the very beginning, and for
ever shall be, null and void; and that no one is bound to observe them, or any
of them, even though they have been often ratified and confirmed by oath.”[xxxviii]
The Protestants thundered, “who is able to make war with” the papacy, as the
papacy waged war against them in fulfillment of Revelation 13:4.
And they worshipped
the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast,
saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and
power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened
his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle,
and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the
saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and
tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him,
whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:4-8)
Contemporary preterism and futurism have whitewashed twelve centuries of the papacy’s use of the sword, the
civil authorities of the European See, to wear out the saints and all
those who opposed its authority. The nineteenth-century catholic prelate
Tommaso Maria Zigliara in a subcategory to his treatise titled, On the
Subordination of the State to the Church, maintained the pope held all
things necessary for the “valid authority over all peoples or nations.”[xxxix] In truth, Zigliare
substantiated that the papacy is the fifth, ordained power “over all kindreds,
and tongues, and nations” as the sea-beast in Revelation 13:7, above. The initiation of the kingdom of God that was at
hand at Christ’s first advent (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:15) cannot be maintained by
the power of the sword, as the sword will continue to be wielded by the powers that be, and the
beast with seven heads and ten horns signifies those ordained powers in this
age. The scriptural evidence clearly states that the object of the
next age, the Messianic kingdom, is to have the nations “beat their swords into
plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks” and that “nation shall not lift
up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4;
Micah 4:3).
Just as the dragon power is synonymous with the fourth
beast in Daniel, the sea-beast is synonymous with the little horn in Daniel,
and both make war with the saints, as well as all other criteria developed in
Daniel 7 and 8. The saints are given over to both entities for the exact amount
of time, when the hermeneutics in scripture are applied, which was explained by
the nineteenth-century publication: The Christian Register, and Theological
Review. (Cataloging the details of historicism is beyond the scope of this
paper. Investigating the scriptural support for the principle of prophetic time,
such as Ezekiel 4:5-6, is left to the reader.)
But what period did
Daniel intend by his times? When do they begin, and when end? In the
language of prophecy a time means a year of 360 days, each day for a
common year. A prophetic year, then, is 360 common years. Daniel’s time,
times, and the dividing of a time, therefore, being three times and an
half, are three prophetic years and an half, or 1260 common years. These 1260
years, therefore, are included in the prophetic period of time, times, and
the dividing of a time.[xl]
The sea-beast is allowed forty-two months, which comes to 1260 years, the
exact amount of time the little horn is allowed in prophetic time, using the
common year of the Hebraic calendar and the hermeneutic supplied by the Bible.
Both entities also blaspheme or “speak great words
against the most High” (Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:6). And most significant of
all is that God ordained that a rebellious or apostate host would be given over
to both entities to defile God’s sanctuary and hamper the mediation of God’s
sanctuary.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the
prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and
the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him
against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down
the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. (Daniel
8:11-12)
And there was given
unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given
unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in
blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that
dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to
overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and
nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are
not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world. (Revelation 13:5-7)
It is one thing to cite historicists in affirming that the sea-beast is
synonymous with the little horn, especially in Daniel 8, but it is even more
significant when the testimony of a futurist assents. Futurist and
dispensationalist Clarence Larkin assented that the little horn in Daniel 8
cannot be Antiochus Epiphanies but must be the same entity in Daniel 7 and the sea-beast
in Revelation 13.
When we compare these
“Foreviews,” and note the similarity of conduct of Daniel's “LITTLE HORN,”
Paul's “MAN OF SIN,” and John's “BEAST,” and that Daniel's “LITTLE HORN” and
John’s “BEAST” are to continue for the same length of time–“Forty and Two
Months,” or 3 years, and that Daniel’s “LITTLE HORN,” Paul's “MAN OF SIN,” and
John's “BEAST,” are all to be destroyed in the same manner at Christ’s “Second
Coming,” we see that they all prefigure the same “Evil Power,” which is after
the “Working of Satan,” and which John in 1. John 2:18, calls THE ANTICHRIST.
In other words when we find in prophecy “Three Symbolic Personages” that come
upon the stage of action at the same time, occupy the same territory, exhibit
the same character, do the same work, exist the same length of time, and meet
the same fate, they must symbolize the SAME THING.[xli]
Larkin’s rendition assents to the historicist’s view that the defilement
of the sanctuary by the sea-beast and the little horn in Daniel 8 correspond
with Paul’s projection that the son of perdition would attempt to supplant the
worship due God, “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing
himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Yet, the futurist’s view that
the prophecy is still ahead cannot whitewash the twelve centuries of the
papacy’s use of the sword, the civil authorities of the European See, to wear
out the saints and all those who opposed its authority. Again, the evidence
from one of the beast’s own prelates, Zigliara, substantiates the 1260 days must be interpreted as years,
insomuch as Zigliara equates the titles of Wonderful, Counsellor, God
the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace to the
Roman Pontiff, which he affirms,
prevailed, to the good
of peoples, in the Middle Ages, that is, when truly Christian peoples and kings
received and venerated, in the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ—whose name,
as Isaiah says, is Wonderful, Counsellor, God
the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.[xlii]
Zigliara affirms the blasphemy of Christ’s name and his tabernacle by the
Roman Pontiff and the host of the European See during the Middle Ages, which
quashes the preterist and futurist’s schools of thought. The papacy is the
fifth kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7 that is examined further in John’s apocalypse
as the sea-beast in Revelation 13.
Knowing that John’s
sea-beast is synonymous with the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8, we can deduce
that the casting of the stars to the earth in Revelation 12:4 and the similar
event in Daniel 8:10 are explained as a two-part or bipartite attempt by the
dragon to sabotage the church by continuing to seduce them to resort to the
sword to uphold their authority. To reiterate, God’s intent was to plant his
church in “heavenly places,” which is expressed in Ephesians 1:3 and 2:6, but
the dragon seduced a number of the hosts to apostatize or fall from this
station through the Roman emperors and the Roman popes. Through recapitulation,
Daniel 8 develops this bipartite association between the fourth beast and the
little horn of Daniel 7. The dragon, through the Roman empire, the fourth
beast, sought to seduce the church into wielding the sword as the corrector of
heretics, just as the dragon, through the papacy, lured the horns or nations
that formed the European See to commit supposed heretics to the sword and flame.
In Daniel 8:11, the Roman
Empire magnified itself against the “prince of host” Christ, as did the papacy,
which Zigliara substantiated
previously in his work, Summa philosophica in usum scholarum,
Vol. 3. The Roman Empire cast
down the sanctuary of God in AD 70, while, in agreement with historicist
Gerhard Pfandl, the papacy cast down the sanctuary by,
placing human
intercession into the hands of the priests, the use of confessional, and by
sacrificing Christ anew in every Mass, the Papacy has eclipsed Christ’s
heavenly ministry in the minds of the worshipers. Believers no longer approach
Christ directly; instead they go to the priest, to the saints, or to Mary. By
substituting the priest’s service here on earth for Christ’s role in the
heavenly sanctuary the little horn has symbolically “cast down the place of his
sanctuary” to the earth and thereby defiled it.[xliii]
Daniel 8:9 conveys that the little horn rises out of one of “them” and
“waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the
pleasant land.” Those who maintain the horn represents Antiochus
Epiphanies interpret the antecedent of the pronoun “them” as the horns. As
previously stated, Antiochus does not exhaust the criteria that identify the
little horn, while the bipartite interpretation that the little horn is the
Roman Empire and the papacy fulfills all the criteria and correlates with the
history of the latter entities. The most revealing bipartite interpretation is
that both the Roman Empire and the papacy both came from out of the Western
Macedonian dominion and “waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward
the east, and toward the pleasant land.” The historical accounts relate that
the Roman Empire,
conquered Macedonia
and waxed exceeding greater than Alexander “towards the south, and towards the
east, and towards the pleasant land” (Daniel 8:9). Rome waxed to the south and
Egypt was ultimately made a province of Rome in 30 BC. Antiochus Magnus was
defeated by Rome and made to pay tribute and Syria became a
Roman province in 65
BC as Rome waxed to the east. The pleasant land is Judea and Rome made it a
province in 63 BC.[xliv]
In support of the bipartite interpretation of the little horn in Daniel 8,
pope Urban II sanctioned the first Crusade that invaded the pleasant land
from the same western dominion that was once Macedonia and inevitably took
possession of Jerusalem for the pope in AD 1099. The fourth Crusade sacked
Constantinople in AD 1204, which fulfilled the criterion that the little horn
waxed exceeding great to the east. In AD 1218 the fifth Crusade besieged the
Egyptian port of Damietta and held it for two years at the completion of the
siege, fulfilling the criterion that the little horn waxed exceeding great to
the south.
The bipartite attempt by
the dragon power to seduce the church to defile itself by welding the sword
through the Roman Empire and the papacy came to an end with the rise of the
Protestants, and specifically protestant America. The papacy corresponds
historically with the king that “was” and “is not” in Revelation 17, as the
Protestant’s disestablishment of religion wounded it. Here we find the
significance of the absence of the crowns in the description of the beast with
seven heads and ten horns. The twentieth-century historicist George McCready
Price rightly interpreted the significance of the missing crowns in Revelation
17 and how they match perfectly with the history of the papacy and the
Protestants.
The ten horns of the
scarlet beast of chapter 17 have no crowns upon them, suggesting that this
vision applies at a later period, after the ten horns have ceased to do the
bidding of the Papacy, a fact further suggested by the statement that these ten
kings “have not yet received royal power,” or the power to oppress or lord it
over the minds and lives of men; “but they are to receive authority as kings
for one hour, together with the beast.” (Revelation 17:12, R.S.V.) In other
words, at the time here spoken of intolerance and persecution had ceased for
the time being, but would again be revived, along with the power of the beast
from the abyss, the bottomless pit. And how accurately this describes
our own times, when
the power to persecute has been quiescent for nearly two centuries, but when
the ominous signs of the revival of intolerance are visible to all![xlv]
As previously stated, the schools of thought competing with historicism
must whitewash the history of the papacy and Protestantism in order to maintain
their eschatology. Wallace supports Price’s historical correlation that the
scarlet beast in Revelation 17, that “was” and “is not,” at “the time” of the
judgment of the whore Babylon, was heralded in Revelation 13 and represents the
disestablishment of religion by Protestantism. Wallace’s support is in the
historical evidence that the papacy often coerced the kings of Europe into
bowing to its authority, before disestablishment occurred.
This struggle for
supremacy was repeated again and again in the centuries that followed. The
emperors sought to retain power over the church through appointment of bishops
and other means. Asserting the intrinsic superiority of the spiritual over the
temporal, the popes would claim the higher power for themselves, which included
the power to depose emperors. Such claims were backed by the powerful presence
of the Catholic church in society. The church had its
own laws, courts, and bureaucracy—it was itself very much like a state.
National power often was fragmented and the only bond of unity that held
society together was its common Catholic religion. Pope Innocent III proclaimed
at the beginning of the thirteenth century that “[e]cclesiastical liberty is nowhere
better cared for than where the Roman church has full power in both temporal
and spiritual affairs”220 and that it had been left to Peter, the
first pope, “not only the universal church but the whole world to govern.”221 The popes deposed or threatened with deposition at least six kings and
excommunicated emperors and kings on more than ten occasions. Papal claims
reached a crescendo with Boniface VIII’s bull, Unam Sanctam (1302), and its
bold declarations that “the spiritual power has to institute the earthly power
and to judge it” and “it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human
creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.[xlvi]
It was the papacy that legitimized
the use of the sword against supposed heretics, which was taken from the horns
at disestablishment; hence the missing crowns on the horns. Price’s
interpretation maintains that John was taken by the Spirit unto the future
judgment of the harlot Babylon, a time in which the papacy’s power is broken by
the Protestant’s disestablishment of religion, which has been the history for
some two-hundred years.
And there came one
of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto
me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that
sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed
fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the
wine of her fornication. (Revelation 17:1-2)
Here is one of the many issues where the revision of the Fable of the
Last Emperor starts to unravel. Amillennialists, even the idealist, maintain
the end of Babylon is yet to come,[xlvii] which supports Price’s
interpretation that John is taken, by the Spirit, to our present time to
witness the judgment of the whore Babylon. Furthermore, from this future
perspective of the judgment of Babylon, the sixth kingdom or head on the beast
with seven heads and ten horns cannot be Rome.
The woman in Revelation 17 is specified to sit on seven
mountains, which cannot be interpreted as a simultaneous achievement but as a
consecutive one, insomuch that it is fallacious to interpret that a woman can
be seated on seven mountains simultaneously. The competing paradigms view the
mountains as literal and represent the seven hills of Rome, which is flawed.
The heads, mountains and kings are meant as appositives or to rename the same
kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7, which the nineteenth-century historicist A. R.
Fausset upheld.
The connection between
mountains and kings must be deeper than the mere outward fact to which
incidental allusion is made, that Rome (the then world city) is on seven hills…
The seven heads can hardly be at once seven kings or kingdoms (Re
17:10), and seven geographical mountains. The true connection is, as the
head is the prominent part of the body, so the mountain is
prominent in the land. Like “sea” and “earth” and “waters . . . peoples” (Re
17:15), so “mountains” have a symbolical meaning, namely, prominent seats of
power. Especially such as are prominent hindrances to the cause of God (Ps
68:16, 17; Isa 40:4; 41:15; 49:11; Eze 35:2); especially Babylon (which
geographically was in a plain, but spiritually is called a destroying mountain,
Jer 51:25), in majestic contrast to which stands Mount Zion, “the
mountain of the Lord's house” (Isa 2:2), and the heavenly mount; Re 21:10, “a
great and high mountain . . . and that great city, the holy Jerusalem.[xlviii]
Fausset was inspired; prophecy is replete with examples where mountains
symbolize kingdoms. The fable of the Last Emperor cannot endure the
illumination that the mountains represent kingdoms. Daniel and the Revelation
relate seven consecutive kingdoms that the woman sits upon, which commence with
Babylon. Rome does not rise again, which would make it the wounded head, but
the disestablishment that the Protestants fostered correlates historically with
the wounding of the papacy, the fifth head. So, there is sufficient scriptural
support to vindicate that the little horn in Daniel is the fifth kingdom.
Upon the establishment of the ancient city of Jerusalem
the city becomes personified as a woman, the people of God, as in Galatians 4:26
(Isaiah 2:3, 51:17, 52:1, 2, 9; Jeremiah 51:35, 52:1-2, 17; Ezekiel 5:5, 16:2).
Hence, the woman appears as a wonder in heaven by John in Revelation 12. The
people of God were personified as a woman, Jerusalem, and Jerusalem becomes “the
city set upon a hill,” which is the source of Christ’s theological perception
in Matthew, below.
Ye are the light of
the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a
candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light
unto all that are in the house. (Matthew 5:14–15)
The term hill (ὄρους) and woman are used as in many cases as theological concepts,
as opposed to literal entities.
Son of man, cause
Jerusalem to know her abominations. (Ezekiel 16:2)
Thus saith the LORD; I
am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem
shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy
mountain. (Zechariah 8:3)
When the elect remnant of Jerusalem was sent unto the Babylonian
captivity Jeremiah prophecies to them that if they went peacefully, accepted
their fate and petitioned for the peace of Babylon God would abide with them and
promote the tranquility of the mountain/kingdom (Jeremiah 29:5-7; 51:25); in
essence, they were a city that was set on a hill to be a light to the world.
It is in this capacity that the powers that be “are not a terror to good
works, but to the evil” in Romans 13:3, which also sustains that worship is under
the sole jurisdiction of God, while God ordained civil matters to the powers
that be. This was a precursor of the promise to Abraham that through his
descendants the nations would be blessed. In like manner, God’s people were
also used to bring the light of the true God to the Persians, the Greeks, and
the Romans and this is how the woman sits on seven consecutive mountains. The
woman Babylon is also related to a great city in Revelation 14, 16, 17
and 18.
Maintaining that the mountains are symbolic of kingdoms,
Price argues against the common misconception that the mountains commence with
Egypt and Assyria.
For many centuries the
Catholic Church has had her own interpretation of this chapter, as will be
found in her notes in her Douay Bible. Her theologians, followed closely by the
Modernistic critics, have always assumed that the time viewpoint from which the
angel’s explanation was given to John was the time of the Roman emperors.
Accordingly they have always thought they had to bring in Egypt and Assyria to
lead off the list of Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece, in order to have five
“kings,” or empires, which at that time had “fallen,” as stated in verse 10.
Pagan, or imperial, Rome was then reigning, and would be No. 6 of the series.
Of course the next one, No. 7, which at that time had not yet come, would be
the horrible antichrist. This was also the teaching of the early church
fathers.[xlix]
The evidence that the beast with seven heads and ten horn is “like unto a
leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of
a lion” in Revelation 13:2, supports Price’s argument, as such imagery supports
that the heads commence with Babylon, the lion in Daniel 7. Such evidence
supports part of the aim of this work that the fifth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7
is the papacy, which had its own “laws, courts, and bureaucracy—it was itself
very much like a state,” which Wallace confirms, in support, above.[l] As one of the five that
were fallen, the papacy becomes the fifth kingdom that is fallen when John
witnesses the judgment of harlot Babylon at the time of the end (Daniel 8:17),
maintaining the Roman empire as the fourth kingdom, just as in Daniel 2 and 7
and 8. The sixth kingdom logically follows the sea-beast, as the “beast coming
up out of the earth” that “had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon”
(Revelation 13:11). The “image” that the two-horned beast makes becomes the
seventh head and harbinger of the eighth head, who was one of the five that
were fallen and lives again. Again, this paper is a postscript to the book, Thy Kingdom Come: Re-evaluation of the Historicist’s
Interpretation of the Revelation. In chapter 4 the evidence is
presented that establishes that when the number of beasts/kingdoms in Daniel 7
are added to the number of beasts/kingdoms in Revelation they come exactly to
the number of the heads on the beast with seven heads and ten horns.
With the aforesaid in
mind, there are four beasts in the Revelation, one of which is the image of the
sea-beast (Revelation 11-20): first, the sea-beast (Revelation 13:1); second,
the lamb like beast (Revelation 13:11); third, the image of the sea-beast; and
the fourth, the scarlet-colored beast (Revelation 11:7: 17:8, 11). One of the
beasts is resurrected, which reveals that two of the beasts are actually the
same dynastic kingdom that has a “is not” span, making but three beasts to
determine. Considering Daniel’s little horn is
John’s sea-beast we
are left with but two beasts in the Revelation to identify, in addition to
Daniel’s five beasts, which comes to seven, the exact number of kings in
Revelation 17:10….
Only
the perception where Rome is the fourth king (of the five that were
fallen) allows for the sixth king to correspond to the two-horned beast, which
makes the image that becomes the seventh king, before the eighth king regains
its power in correspondence with all the beasts in Revelation. Only the perception
where Rome is the fourth king allows for correspondence between the
wounding of the beast in Revelation 13:3 and that of the time the beast “is
not” in Revelation 17:8–11. Only the perception where
Rome is the fourth king allows one to grasp that the wounding, or in
other words, the “is not” phenomenon is the historical fulfillment of our
modern separation of church and state and the rejoining of the two as the sine
qua non of the seven kings, nay eight.[li]
The evidence that the seven heads of the beast are seven mountains/kingdoms
and that God has set his people like a city set on a hill also reveals
the harlot Babylon represents the great falling away prophesied in 2
Thessalonians 2:3 and 2 Timothy 3:1-7 (Luke 8:11–13; 1 Timothy 4:1–4;
Hebrews 3:12–14). Again, this is the object of the book to which
is work is a postscript: Thy Kingdom Come: Re-evaluation of the
Historicist’s Interpretation of the Revelation. This paper substantiates
that the initiation of the kingdom of God that was at hand at
Christ’s first advent (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:15) cannot be maintained by the
power of the sword, as the sword will continue to be wielded by the powers that
be, and the beast with seven heads and ten horns signifies those ordained powers
in this age. God ordained Christ’s kingdom for the age to come.
The question remains,
what is the resolution between the initiation of the kingdom of God
that was at hand in Matthew 3:2 and Mark 1:15 and its future consummation
conveyed in 1 Corinthians 15:50? There can be little doubt that the consummate
security of the age to come has a footing in the present through us, who
genuinely avow Christ. The NT states we are delivered from the power of the
prince of this world (John 16:11), Satan, through Christ, which also conveys
the kingdom of God has come to fruition.
We give thanks to God
and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you…. Giving thanks
unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of
the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have
redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. (Colossians
1:3, 12-14)
Christ proclaimed the arrival of the kingdom of God with his ability to
cast out demons.
But if I cast out
devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew
12:28)
Christ’s proclamation that the kingdom of God was at hand (Matthew 3:2;
Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9) and its subsequent arrival impart the underpinning of the
consummate attributes of the age to come. The age to come is intruding into the
dominion of Satan through the redemption of Christ and his mediation. As
covenantalist Meredith G. Kline expressed it,
the Covenant of
Redemption all along the line of its administration, more profoundly in the New
Testament but already in the Old Testament, is a coming of the Spirit, an
intrusion of the power, principles, and reality of the consummation into the
period of delay.[lii]
Kline labels his doctrine, eschatological intrusion.
Now the consummation
that Kline wrote about is the age to come, and the phrase the kingdom of God
also is placed in this future age by Christ’s testimony.
Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that
doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that
day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast
out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess
unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew
7:21-23)
Verily I say unto you,
I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it
new in the kingdom of God. (Mark 14:25)
And as they heard
these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem,
and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. He
said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for
himself a kingdom, and to return. (Luke 19:11-12)
Again, we can take great solace in the NT evidence that the
eschatological kingdom of God establishes an absolute peace, security, the
power and principles of Christ in temporal as well as in a spiritual sense,
which are now merely intruding into the dominion of Satan. This intrusion is by
Providence. In other words, the teleological goal of Providence is to end of
the ordained worldly powers of God in this age and to establish Christ’s
consummate reign in the age to come. The early church’s failure to grasp the
concept that the consummate age was intruding into this age led the allegorists
to disdain Chiliasm. As stated above, this controversy ended at the
legalization of the Christian religion by Constantine, and acceptance of the allegorical
interpretation supplanted Chiliasm. This controversy has reared its head again
in comparatively recent times in such doctrines of Amillennialism,
Postmillennialism, and Premillennialism. Kline’s perception of eschatological
intrusion is on the right track, but it is much simpler than his take on the
issue.
When Christ proclaimed
the kingdom was at hand, he was utilizing classical or general prophecy,
specifically what is termed prophetic telescoping today, which historicist Jon
Paulien defines,
It was argued that
general prophecy, because of its dual dimensions, may at times be susceptible
to dual fulfillments or foci where local and contemporary perspectives are
mixed with a universal, future perspective.
Classic prophecy expresses imminence in the same context with the distant
eschatological consummation, without chronological notification within the
context, which exposes the folly of the theory of preterism. Preterism hitches
their theory on the imminence in classic prophecies, such as the Olivet
Discourse, but fails to grasp the principle of dual fulfillment in the method
and account for future fulfillment. The Old Testament’s typical use of the “Day
of the Lord” and the New Testament’s prophecy of a future “Day of the Lord”
(Zephaniah 1:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:2) emphasizes this principle. Classic
prophecy is the method Christ used when he prophesied the kingdom of God was at
hand. In support, Christ testified that Elijah must precede the restoration of
all things but that he had already come in the person of John the Baptist.
And his disciples
asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And
Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore
all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him
not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son
of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of
John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:10-13)
Christ interprets the phenomenon of Elijah as having the dual foci that
Paulien related, “where local and contemporary perspectives are mixed with a
universal, future perspective.” Additional support is in Christ’s rendering of
Isaiah 61.
And Jesus returned in
the power of the Spirit into Galilee… and, as his custom was, he went into the
synagogue… and stood up for to read… The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because
he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal
the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the
acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it
again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the
synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this
scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luke 4:14, 16-21)
Christ fell short of confirming the “day of vengeance of our God” in
Isaiah 61:2, and the only tenable explanation is that it is held in abeyance
until the consummation of the kingdom of God (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8). In the
absolute sense, “deliverance to the captives” is a delivery from our enemies on
the day of vengeance, when the wicked are vanquished (Matthew 13:38; 2
Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 18:4-5). In eschatological intrusion, deliverance
is from sin and the second death (Romans 6:14; Hebrews 9:25; Revelation
20:11-15). The “recovering of sight” in the absolute sense is common (1
Corinthians 15:52-53), while in the Providential sense, it is a miracle (Matthew
9:30; John 9:11). Being “set at liberty” in the age to come ends all oppression
(Romans 8:18-23), in the Providential sense, it is peace in oppression or adversity
(2 Corinthians 8:4-9; Philippians 4:12-13). Christ expressed imminence and
fulfillment of each aspect in what Isaiah prophesied, except for the “day of
vengeance of our God;” that day is held in abeyance until Christ returns. These
aspects of the eschatological kingdom are intruding into Satan’s domain through
Christ’s Providence until he consummates them at his return.
There is one other issue concerning the eschatological
intrusion of the kingdom to come that must be addressed; was Christ's
Providential intrusion of his Church into Satan's domain prophesied? If it was,
then the notion that Christ established the promised Messianic kingdom, the
stone kingdom of Daniel 2, at the first advent is erroneous. The parables in
Matthew 13 concerning “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,” reveals this
eschatological intrusion. One of the parables is explicit in revealing this
intrusion.
Another parable put he
forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which
sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed
tares among the wheat, and went his way. (Matthew 13:24-25)
Christ interprets the illustration later in the chapter as God sowing or
scattering his elect people throughout the world to produce a good harvest of
souls. The command to go “into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature” (Mark 16:15) is this sowing. Jeremiah, Hosea, and Zechariah’s
prophecies are the source of the parable.
Behold, the days come,
saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with
the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. And it shall come to pass, that
like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw
down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and
to plant, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 31:27-28)
And I will sow her
unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained
mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art
my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God. (Hosea 2:23)
And they of
Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as
through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart
shall rejoice in the LORD.
I will hiss for them,
and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have
increased. And I will sow them among the people: and they shall remember me in
far countries; and they shall live with their children, and turn again.
(Zechariah 10:7-9)
In a subsequent verse of Jeremiah, within the context, he reveals this
day as the day God makes a New Covenant with Israel and Judah.
Behold, the days come,
saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and
with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the
land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto
them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law
in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
they shall be my people. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)
When the Romans scattered the remnant of Jews who avowed Christ and the
elect descendants of the lost tribes, Israel/Ephraim, received the gospel (1
Peter 1:1-2), the prophecies mentioned above and the mysterious kingdom of
God/heaven becomes the eschatological intrusion into Satan’s domain. The nations
to which the elect remnant of Israel migrated fulfilled the kingdom that was at
hand, while in classic prophetic style, the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:34, which
ends the need to preach because everyone knows the Lord, was held in abeyance.
Christ did not come to establish the Messianic kingdom, as Covenantalism and
dispensationalism maintain. The first advent was intended to deliver the elect
of Israel from sin and the second death through Christ’s sacrifice and the
establishment of the NC, and then scatter the house of Israel throughout the
world to gather in the gentiles. The Covenantalist and dispensationalist have
failed to grasp that it was the second advent in which God intended to gather
Israel to receive their inheritance, and establish the stone kingdom of Daniel
2, which is prophesied in Jeremiah, below (Isaiah 14:1, 27:12-13, 43:5-6,
65:8-10; Ezekiel 34:13, 36:24, 37:25; 39:28; Zephaniah 3:20; Amos 9:14-15).
Behold, the days come,
saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King
shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is
his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, behold,
the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth,
which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But, The LORD
liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of
the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they
shall dwell in their own land. (Jeremiah 23:5-8)
[i] Henry Martyn Herrick, The kingdom of God in the writings of the Fathers, Nabu Press (April 10, 2012), 11
[ii] Wikipedia: “Millennialism (from millennium,
Latin for “a thousand years”), or chiliasm (from
the Greek equivalent), is a belief advanced by some religious
denominations that a Golden Age or Paradise will occur
on Earth prior to the final judgment and future eternal state of
the ‘World to Come.’” s.v. Millennialism, last modified May 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism
[iii] The Ante-Nicene Period (literally meaning
"before Nicaea") of the history of early Christianity was the period
following the Apostolic Age of the 1st century down to the First Council of
Nicaea in 325.
[iv] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho Chapter
80
[v] Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist, 28
[vi] William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L.:
“Diocletian was in many respects a remarkable man… He made of himself an
Oriental monarch. He assumed the diadem of the East… He compelled his subjects
to salute him with low prostrations, and to treat him not as a citizen, but as
a superior being…. Constantine was to break away from the
traditions of the old empire by establishing a new capital… This site was
favorable alike for defense, for commerce, and for the establishment of an
Oriental system of government.” Outlines
of Roman History, New
York, Cincinnati, Chicago: American Book Company (1901), 290-294; Wikipedia:
“With the adoption of Christianity, the Roman emperors took it on themselves to
issue decrees on matters regarding the Christian Church. Unlike the Pontifex
Maximus, they did not themselves function as priests, but they acted
practically as head of the official religion, a tradition that continued with
the Byzantine Emperors.” s.v. Pontifex maximus, May 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus
[vii] Dr Peter Heather, The Fall of Rome, BBC
Website, History, Last updated 2011-02-17 https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofrome_article_01.shtml
[viii] Gerhard Pfandl, Interpretations of the kingdom of
God in Daniel 2:44, “The interpretation of the stone as the church which,
as we have seen, did exist in the third century and was continued in the fourth century in The Apostolic
Constitution (c. 380),23 was taught as well as by Augustine
(354-430), the most illustrious of the Latin fathers.24 He, more
than anyone before him, emphasized the idea of the kingdom of God as the church
ruling on earth. In his magnum opus The City of God he writes,
"Therefore, the Church even now is the kingdom of Christ, and the kingdom
of heaven. Accordingly, even now his saints reign with Him."25
In the history of theology, Augustine's thought on this subject was pivotal. He
provided the materials which later writers used to build the medieval theory of
the religio-political state church.” Andyews University Seminary
Studies, Vol. 34, No.2, 249-268.
[ix] Ibid. “The fact that Augustine, long before the end
of the Roman empire, could say that the stone (Christ) had filled the whole
face of the earth with His kingdom (the Church) indicates that he, and those
Church Fathers who held the same view, saw no conflict between the already existing
stone-kingdom and the picture of the stone shattering the image at the feet.
They obviously interpreted the shattering of the kingdom not as a sudden event
but rather as a gradual process in which the Church would finally–in the days
of the feet of iron and clay–overcome all earthly powers.”
[x] Thomas Davis, John Calvin's American Legacy,
Oxford University Press; 1 edition (March 29, 2010), 57
[xi] Louis W. Hensler III, Flexible
Interpretations of “The Powers That Be” from Constantine to Mandela and
Beyond, Regent University Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2015, 68
[xii] New World Encyclopedia, s.v. Millennialism,
last revision October 5, 2018,
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Millennialism
[xiii] Peter Toon, Puritans, the Millennium and the
Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology 1600 to 1660, James Clarke
Lutterworth (September 1, 2002), 6-7.
[xiv] H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism
and the Reformation: From the Standpoint of Prophecy, Toronto,
S.R. Briggs 1887, 46-47
[xv] Wikipedia: “According
to realized eschatology, the Messianic Era, a time of universal peace and
brotherhood on the earth, without crime, war and poverty, to some extent, is
already here. With the crucifixion of Jesus the Messianic Era had
begun, but according to inaugurated eschatology it will completed and
brought to perfection by the parousia of Christ.” s.v. Messianic Age, last
modified July 2019
[xvi] E.
Gregory Wallace, Justifying Religious Freedom: The
Western Tradition, Penn State Law Review, Vol.
114, No. 2, 2009, 515.
[xvii] Kim Riddlebarger: “What we do find in the Gospel accounts is Jesus’s proclamation that a
spiritual and nonnationalistic kingdom had drawn
near because he had come.” A Case for Amillennialism:
Understanding the End Times, Baker Books; Expanded ed. edition (August 15, 2013), 121.
[xviii] Wallace: “The state in classic antiquity laid claim
to complete control over the order and structure of human society. Religious
and civil authority were unified: pagan gods and political rulers were one,
church and state were indistinguishable, and the individual’s religious
allegiance was bound up with his political allegiance. Political rulers
asserted authority over the spiritual decisions of their subjects, frequently
applying the coercive power of civil government to ensure orthodox belief and
practice. Religious toleration, if it existed at all, was a matter of
expediency rather than principle.” Justifying Religious Freedom: The Western
Tradition, 568
[xix] Claudia Rapp: “Since the authority to administer
justice at the local level had until then rested exclusively with provincial
governors and local magistrates, Constantine’s decision to extend judicial
authority to bishops has often been interpreted as an imperial initiative to
treat the bishops as officers of the state and to integrate them into the
administrative structure of the empire. Constantine could thus be cast in the
role of the shrewd politician who exploited and corrupted the hitherto pure and
innocent episcopate by exposing it to the dirty business of everyday, urbane
concerns.” Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian
Leadership in an Age of Transition (Transformation of the Classical Heritage
Book 37), University of California Press; 1 edition (May 1, 2013), 243.
[xx] Wallace, Justifying Religious Freedom: The Western
Tradition, 511.
[xxi] Hippolytus, On Christ and Antichrist, 28.
[xxii] Arthur H. Williamson, Apocalypse Then: Prophecy
and the Making of the Modern World, Praeger (March 30, 2008), 13-14.
[xxiii] Stephen J. Shoemaker, The Tiburtine Sibyl, the
Last Emperor, and the Early Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition, Academia.edu,
220.
https://www.academia.edu/24597775/The_Tiburtine_Sibyl_the_Last_Emperor_and_the_Early_Byzantine_Apocalyptic_Tradition_uncorrected_proofs_
[xxiv] Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing (March 1, 1994), 156.
[xxv] John Walvoord, Daniel: The Key
to Prophetic Revelation, Moody Publishers; New Edition edition (May
8, 1989), 174-175
[xxvi] Francis Nigel Lee, Daniel’s Eschatology, Lamp
Trimmers 2000, 426
[xxvii] Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation: From the
Standpoint of Prophecy, Toronto, S.R. Briggs 1887, 231-232
[xxviii] Kim Riddlebarger, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the
Truth about the Antichrist, Baker Books; First Edition edition (June 1,
2006), 50
[xxix] Wikipedia: “The Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes; Latin pronunciation: [ˈsaŋkta
ˈsedes]; Italian: Santa Sede),
also called the See of Rome, refers to the jurisdiction of the Bishop
of Rome, known as the pope, which includes the apostolic episcopal
see of the Diocese of Rome with universal ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the worldwide Catholic Church, as well as
a sovereign entity of international law.” s.v. Holy See, last
modified September 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See
[xxx] Charles Smull Longacre: “‘Doubtless those holy men,
emperors and bishops, intended and aimed right to exalt Christ; but not
attending to the command of Christ Jesus, to permit the tates to grow in the
field of the world, they make the garden of the church and field of the world
to be all one; and might not only sometimes, in the zealous mistakes, persecute
good wheat instead of tares, but also pluck up thousands of those precious
stalks by commotions and combustions about religion, as hath been since
practiced in the great and wonderful changes wrought by such wars in many great
and mighty states and kingdoms, as we heard even now in the observation of the
king of Bohemia.’” Roger Williams His Life, Work, and Ideals, Review and
Herald Pub. 1939, 154-155
[xxxi] David J Engelsma, The Beast from the Sea, Standard
Bearer, vol. 71, No. 15, May 1, 1995, 381.
[xxxii] Marsue and Jerry Huerta, Thy Kingdom Come:
Re-evaluating the Historicist’s Interpretation of the Revelation, iUniverse
(December 28, 2018), 292-293.
[xxxiii] John Fry, The Second Advent, vol. 2, Printed
for Ogle, Duncan, and co.1822, 388.
[xxxiv] International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia Online, s.v. Remnant, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1939, https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/R/remnant.html
[xxxv] John Owen, Christologia, Or a Declaration of the
Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ, God and Man (London: Published by
William Baynes 1812), 19-20.
[xxxvi] Supra, endnote 30.
[xxxvii] Henry Grattan Guinness: “The woman clothed with the
sun, with the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars, of Ch. 12, is,
according to Victorinus, and all the early interpreters, ‘the ancient Church of
fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles.--- In his treatise on Christ
and Antichrist, Hippolytus says, ‘By the “woman clothed with the sun” he meant
most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is
above the sun.’” History Unveiling Prophecy or Time as the Interpreter,
Fleming H. Revell co. 1905, 33-34
[xxxviii] J.A. Wylie, The Papacy, Concrete Books. Kindle
Edition 2018, 280-281.
[xxxix] Tommaso Maria Zigliara, Summa philosophica in usum scholarum, Vol. 3, (Paris G. Beauchesne, 1910), 316; article is translated by
Timothy Wilson for The Josias.com, https://thejosias.com/2015/12/01/on-the-subordination-of-the-state-to-the-church/
[xl] The Christian Register, and Moral and Theological
Review, Volume 1, T. & J. Swords, 1817, University of Chicago, 15.
[xli] Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation,
(Erwin W. Moyer Co., Printers, Philadelphia, Pa., 1910), 118.
[xlii] Supra, 39.
[xliii] Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel: The Seer of Babylon,
Review & Herald Publishing (July 1, 2004), 80.
[xliv] Supra. 291.
[xlv] George McCready Price, Time of the End (Southern
Pub. Association; 1st edition, 1967), 33.
[xlvi] Wallace, Justifying Religious Freedom: The Western
Tradition, Penn State Law Review, Vol. 114, No. 2, 2009, 536.
[xlvii] Riddlebarger: “When we take a panoramic view of
redemptive history, we see that the city (Babel) on the plains of Shinar (cf.
Gen. 11) has come full flower in Revelation 18 in the form of Babylon the Great
only to meet its demise at the time of the end in but a single hour (Rev.
18:17).” A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, Baker
Books; Expanded ed. edition (August 15, 2013), 147.
[xlviii] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, 1871,
Rev 17:1-18, s.v. seven heads and seven mountains
[xlix] Supra 45, at 39.
[l] Supra 46.
[li] Supra 32, at 131 and 161.
[lii] Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical
Authority, Wipf & Stock Pub; 2nd ed. edition (November 1, 1997), 156.
No comments:
Post a Comment