by
Jerry Q. Huerta
copyright
2019
There
is no doubt that time is healing the Papacy’s deadly
wound, as the world has come to wonder after the beast. This work proposes that
the healing of the Papacy’s deadly wound is also a result of the preterist and
futurist’s assailment of historicism. Nevertheless, neither time or the
preterist or futurist’s assailments erase that separation
of church and state that had its origins in Protestant dominions and that Papal
authority suffered a deadly injury as a result of this separation. Under
the rubric of “church and state,” the New World
Encyclopedia affirms that the power that the Papacy once wielded ended with
the separation of church and state or disestablishment.
The abuse of
Papal authority intensified the irreconcilable conflicts of interest and
led to the secular authorities limiting the powers of religious authorities
either bringing them into submission as happened in Protestant countries after
the Reformation or establishing a separation between church and state as in the
United States so as to guarantee freedom of religion and independence of
government.[1]
Such an interpretation
of the wounding of one of the heads of the beast with seven heads and ten horns
stems from the hermeneutics of historicism, which has been assailed with a great deal of success by futurism and preterism in recent times.
And I saw one of his heads as it
were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world
wondered after the beast. (Revelation 13:3)
The historicist's progressive and continuous method views the seven heads as symbolic of seven
kingdoms as opposed to individuals. The individualistic view is that of
preterism and futurism, in one form or another. In essence, the head that is
wounded has a government just as the kingdoms that preceded it, making it the
fifth kingdom in Daniel 7. The kingdoms in Daniel 7 that preceded the Papacy or
little horn were the neo-Babylon Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek
Empire, and the Roman Empire. The historicist method leads to the interpretation
that the sixth kingdom reigns during the time that the head is wounded, or that
it is the wounded head that “was, and is not” during the
time of the sixth head or kingdom in Revelation 17:8, 11. The Papacy is the
fifth kingdom, one of the five that are fallen from the future perspective of
the judgment of the harlot, Babylon, who sits upon the scarlet beast.
Futurists, which include amillennialists, acknowledge that
John is taken by the Spirit to the future perspective of the judgment of the
harlot, Babylon. Futurist John F. Walvoord, commenting on Revelation 17, states,
The situation here described is
apparently prior in time to that described in Revelation 13, where the beast
has already assumed all power and has demanded that the world should worship
its ruler as God. The situation, therefore, seemingly is in the first half of
Daniel’s seventieth week before the time of the great tribulation which is the
second half. While such a relationship has many parallels in the past history
of the Roman church in relation to political power, the inference is that this
is a future situation which will take place in the end time.[2]
Amillennialist Kim
Riddlebarger also views the judgment of Babylon as a future event.
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).[3]
With inconsistency,
Walvoord alters his point of view on Revelation 17 to the past, when John wrote
the Revelation and interprets the sixth head, the one that “is,” as the ancient
Roman Empire.
The seven heads of the beast,
however, are said to be symbolic of seven kings described in verse 10. Five of
these are said to have fallen, one is in contemporary existence, that is, in
John’s lifetime, the seventh is yet to come and will be followed by another
described as the eighth, which is the beast itself. In the Greek there is no
word for “there,” thus translated literally, the phrase is “and are seven
kings.” The seven heads are best explained as referring to seven kings who
represent seven successive forms of the kingdom… The mountains, then, are not
piles of material rocks and earth at all, but royal or imperial powers,
declared to be such by the angel himself.[4]
Walvoord proceeds to
delineate on the heads as “seven great world-powers,” starting with Egypt.
Preceding Rome the world had but
five great names or nationalities answering to imperial Rome, and those scarce
a schoolboy ought to miss. They are Greece, Persia, Babylon, Assyria, and
Egypt; no more, and no less. And these all were imperial powers like Rome.
Here, then, are six of these regal mountains; the seventh is not yet come. When
it comes it is to endure but a short time. This implies that each of the others
continues a long time; and so, again, could not mean the dictators, decemvirs,
and military tribunes of the early history of Rome, for some of them lasted but
a year or two. Thus, then, by the clearest, most direct, and most natural
signification of the words of the record, we are brought to the identification
of these seven mountain kings as the seven great world-powers, which stretch
from the beginning of our present world to the end of it.[5]
Amillennialist Herman
Hoeksema also interprets the heads as imperial powers or kingdoms, commencing
with Egypt.
To recapitulate in brief,
therefore, there are to be eight world-powers in all. Six have been, in Egypt,
Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The seventh is not yet, or, if it
is today, it has not yet become plainly manifest. Its existence shall be
peculiar in this respect, that it shall aim at the unification and combination
of all the powers that exist at this time. And this shall lead to the final
league of nations to realize the kingdom of Antichrist.[6]
In the futurist school,
the heads commence with Egypt and Assyria in order to make the sixth head the
Roman Empire, but this contradicts their future perspective of the judgment of
the harlot Babylon, by which John determines the five kingdoms that have
fallen. Altering the point of view also conflicts with the evidence that it is
the eighth head that is the head that “was” before the time of the sixth head.
And there are seven kings: five are
fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must
continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the
eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. (Revelation 17:10-11)
The evidence affirms
that it is the eighth head/kingdom that is revived and not the sixth. This
substantiates the revived head must come from the five that are fallen and
cannot be the sixth head. This evidence destroys any notion of a revived Roman
empire when the point of view is “John’s lifetime.” Furthermore, the Revelation
substantiates it is the sea-beast whose head is wounded.
And he exerciseth all the power of
the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein
to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. (Revelation 13:12)
Walvoord agrees, the
“first beast” in the text above is the sea-beast.
After the revelation of the first
beast, John now beholds another beast coming up out of the earth and occupying
a secondary role supporting the activities of the first beast. In contrast to
the first beast which comes out of the sea, the second beast is said to come
out of the earth.[7]
The consequences of
Revelation 13:12 and 17:10-11 is that it is the sea-beast who is wounded and
“is not” when the next beast comes up out of the earth. Said texts affirm the
wound is healed sometime after the two-horned beast comes up out of the earth, inasmuch
as there would be no need to make an image to a beast fully healed. It
logically follows that the sixth head/kingdom in Revelation 17 is the beast
that comes up out of the earth and represents the time when the sea-beast “is
not,” and the image is the seventh head to follow. But logic is of questionable
value in interpreting the Revelation in some of the schools of thought. This
evidence eliminates the sixth and the seventh heads as the wounded head. The
wounded head must come from one of the five that are fallen. The futurist’s interpretation
of a revived Roman Empire conflicts with chapters 13 and 17, insomuch as they
have the five that are fallen and eligible to be revived as Egypt, Assyria,
Neo-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, but not the Roman Empire. Revelation
17:10-11makes in quite clear, the eighth head is the one that “was” before the
sixth and if Rome were the sixth it cannot be the head that is revived.
The
future point of view of the judgment of the harlot Babylon avoids the
contradictions by the futurist. The five that have fallen from this view
commence with neo-Babylon, in conformity with the beast’s association with the
leopard (Greek Empire) and the bear (Medo-Persian Empire) and the lion in
Revelation 13:2, which indicates the heads commence with the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
The beast with seven heads is nowhere associated with Egypt or Assyria. From
this point of view, the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7, the Roman Empire, is
the fourth kingdom that has fallen. This point of view makes the fifth kingdom
the Papacy, which avoids the futurist problem that the Roman empire cannot be
the revived head in conformity with Revelation 13:12 and 17:10-11. This view
accounts for all the beasts in Revelation. The sea-beast in Revelation 13:1 is
the fifth kingdom that has fallen, that “was, and is not” at the time of the
sixth head/kingdom rules. This view makes the beast from the earth in
Revelation 13:11 the sixth kingdom that reigns while the fifth head “is not.” The
only beast to account for is the seventh, which is the “image” made to the
fifth beast by the two-horned beast in Revelation 13:14-15. The seventh reigns
for only a short time before the healing of Papacy is complete in the
historicist’s perspective.
As stated above, the futurists interpret the heads as kingdoms but alter the rendition to fit their paradigm of a future “person” whose head
is mortally wounded and miraculously healed. Futurist Thomas Ice states: “In
fact the view of a personal antichrist has been the dominate view throughout
most of church history.”[8] Ice’s statement stems from
the historical evidence that the patristic or anti-Nicene church held the view
that the antichrist would be a person donning Christianity and heading a great
apostasy. Head of Classics at The Pennington School, New Jersey, J.A. Cerrato,
an episcopal priest, comments on the patristic view of the end of this world,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the
commentaries of advance and particular chronological schema, summarized as
follows…. The domination of world history by the succession of four empires,
the last being imperial Rome… The decline of the Roman empire into ten
sub-kingdoms as the antecedent to the emergence of a single world deceiver.[9]
By the fourth century,
the pagan Sibylline prophecies were conflated with scriptural prophecy to
bolster the view of an individual as the antichrist and augmented it with the
revival of the Roman Empire.[10] Walvoord makes a poignant
comment related to this issue: “The point is that portions of the book of
Revelation can be appreciated and understood now. Other portions will not be
understood until they are fulfilled.”[11] Walvoord is merely
relating what other dispensationalists have stated. At the turn of the last
century, Sanford Calvin Yoder wrote: “In the light of everything that has
happened to the interpreters, who so minutely interpret the predictive elements
of Scripture, the old adage of the fathers still stands–that prophecies are best interpreted after they are fulfilled.”[12] The relevance of Walvoord
and Yoder’s comments lies in their lack of adherence to them. While the
patristic interpretation of the antichrist is subject to revision, the part
that the phenomenon occurs at the fall of the Roman Empire and its division
does not, if one adheres to the precept that “prophesies are best interpreted
after they are fulfilled.” In Daniel 7, the Roman Empire is prophesied to have
its dominion taken away, which does not allow for the pagan Sibylline
predictions of its revival.
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. I beheld till the
thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was
white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like
the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came
forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand
times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were
opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn
spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and
given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had
their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.
(Daniel 7:7-12)
Daniel
7:12, above, affirms the end of the Roman kingdom, its dominion is taken away
as one of the beasts, while the dominion of the little horn endures until the developments
of the judgment that was set in verse 10 are exhausted. Then the corpus of the
little horn is given to the burning flame, witnessed in Revelation 19:20. Nevertheless, futurists meld the
fourth beast with the little horn, which they view as the revived Roman Empire
as if the western empire did not have its dominion taken from it in the
fifth-century by a half a score of kings and princes. According to Fellow and
Tutor in History at Worcester College Oxford, Dr. Peter Heather, the Roman
Empire had its dominion taken away in AD 476.
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.[13]
Including the Roman
Empire as one of the “beasts” who has its dominion taken but life prolonged
cannot be avoided, especially when futurists concede that the part of
“prolonging of their lives” represents how the beasts absorbed various
attributes of their predecessors, which futurist Bruno Kolberg affirms,
How are we to understand this
statement given that Babylon, for instance, ceased to be an empire when it was
conquered by its successor? In other words, its reign was not prolonged for any
period of time afterwards? From the secular record, we know that ancient Near
Eastern empires absorbed various attributes of their predecessors. The fourth
beast is the ultimate end-product of that ongoing process. This is seen in
Revelation 13:2, which depicts the same kingdom as being like a leopard, with
feet as a bear, and a mouth as a lion’s.
These wild animals are the very ones mentioned in Daniel 7. Their being
recalled in Revelation 13 shows that Satan’s final kingdom will incorporate all
the evil attributes of its predecessors.[14]
No doubt, the Papacy
absorbed the attribute of the marriage of state and religion from the other
beasts, including the Roman Empire. However, Kolberg and other futurists
neglect that the sea beast also has the ten horns that were on the fourth beast
in Daniel, which affirms that it also absorbed the attributes of the fourth
beast whose dominion was taken. The ten horns on the sea beast in Revelation 13
indicate the western Roman Empire’s dominion was taken, but lived on through
the sea beast, just as the other beasts in Daniel 7:12.
Futurists
are unmistakably remiss in failing to apply the precept that “prophecies are best
interpreted after they are fulfilled.” History affirms the fourth beast
suffered the loss of its dominion, but the territory and its subjects did not
vanish. The Papacy subsumed the territory and subjects of the western Roman
Empire, which is signified in the Revelation by John’s testimony that the
dragon gave the sea beast “his power, and his seat, and great authority”
(Revelation 13:2). Associate professor of law, E. Gregory Wallace, utilized the
historicist’s guidelines when he wrote his article on religious freedom, where
he stated,
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.”[15]
Again, history affirms
the popes wielded tremendous authority over the region of the Western Roman
Empire when it collapsed, which Wallace backs. As previously stated, verse 11
of Daniel 7 prophesies the dominion of the little horn endures until the
ramifications of the judgment set in verse 10 are exhausted and there is no
warrant to interpret the little horn as a sole individual at the head of the
revived Roman Empire. In truth, futurists, such as David J. Engelsma, concede
the little horn in Daniel 7 is synonymous with the sea beast in Revelation 13,
which affirms the little horn as the “fifth beast” in Daniel 7.
But what does that little horn of
the fourth beast represent? What is the beast out of the sea? It is Antichrist.
In Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, God reveals that Antichrist will be a political
entity, a world-government.[16]
Daniel is considering
the judicial fate of the little horn or sea beast in verse 11 of Daniel 7 when
he prophesies that “the other beasts” have their dominions taken but their lives
prolonged, which includes the fourth beast in verse 12 of Daniel 7. Conceding
that the little horn is the “fifth beast” in Daniel 7, the futurists
inadvertently substantiate “the other beasts” in Daniel 7:12 includes the fourth beast, the Roman Empire.
In expounding on the preterist Kenneth Gentry’s rendition
of the seven heads, futurist Andrew M. Woods maintains that consistency must be
maintained, if,
the beast’s death was personal and
individual (in the death of Nero), as Gentry contends,67 then his
revival must also be personal and individual rather than national and
impersonal. Therefore preterists are interpreting the prophecies regarding the
beast’s death as being fulfilled in Nero’s individual, personal death while
also interpreting the prophecies regarding the beast’s revival as finding their
fulfillment in Rome’s political revival.
Woods disparages the
inconsistency of the preterist’s view that the wounding of “one of his heads”
is rendered personal and individual and its revival national and impersonal but
fails to account for dispensationalist’s version of futurism in the rendering of
the heads with the same lack of consistency. The consequence of rendering the
heads on the beast as imperial powers in chapter 17 is that they must remain as
imperial powers in Revelation 13. It is the same beast under different
circumstances. Only one head/kingdom rules at a time. As revealed above,
Walvoord renders the heads as imperial powers in Revelation 17,[18] but erroneously renders
the wounded head in chapter 13 as an individual. Futurists are clearly
inconsistent in their interpretation of the heads on the beast. It is hard to
avoid that the succeeding chapters impart the imminent judgment conveyed in
Revelation 17, where the revival of the wounded head is still in the future, conveyed
by testimony that the beast that John saw “was, and is not” and is yet to come
as the eighth (Revelation 17:8, 11). Here we have evidence that the wounding is
not an ephemeral phenomenon but spans the era of the “imperial powers” of the
sixth and seventh heads before it is fully revived, which does not support the
view of an individual as the antichrist. Furthermore, time is healing this wound
through the futurist, and preterist’s assailing of historicism. This paper
proposes this assailment is accomplishing this healing, even as historicism is
maintained.
The fall
of the Roman Empire and its division into Germanic kingdoms that comprised
Europe today was well behind the Protestant revision that the antichrist was a
fifth kingdom embodied by the Papacy. As stated above, “prophecies are best
interpreted after they are fulfilled,” which allows for the revision of the
patristic view that the antichrist is a personal, individual entity, especially
when considering the proper rendition of the heads on the beast with seven
heads as kingdoms. One can only foolishly argue against the principle that God
reveals the meaning of his prophecies progressively, which is the object of the
principle “prophecies are best interpreted after they are fulfilled.” The
futurist’s antichrist relies on the patristic view. However, they capriciously
dismiss the patristic view that also held that the antichrist would appear with
the fall of the Roman Empire, at the rise of the ten horn nations. Progressive
revelation has vindicated that the patristic view of the antichrist was subject
to revision, while the timing of its rise was not. Only the historicist’s
rendition of the seven heads remains consistent and accounts for the prophecy
that the antichrist would rise with the fall of the Roman empire, not its
revival. The patristic view held the antichrist would appear at the fall of the
Roman empire, not its revival. The notion that the antichrist would appear at
the revival of the Roman Empire stems from the pagan Sibylline oracles and is
the fulfillment of Paul’s warning that the time would come when many in the
church would “turn away their ears from the truth,” and “be turned unto fables”
(2 Timothy 4:4). The historicists maintain that the seven heads on the beasts
are kingdoms, and Daniel and Revelation account for all of them. The sea-beast
is the fifth kingdom and synonymous with the little horn, and the sixth kingdom
is the beast that rises from the earth, making the image it forms the seventh
kingdom or head. Separation of church and state had its origins in Protestant
dominions and it cannot be whitewashed that papal authority suffered a deadly
injury as a result, which is illustrated as the beast that “was, and is not” and
it yet to come, in Revelation 17.
In
maintaining historicism, one must examine the criticisms of those who assail
it. One such critic is Bruce W. Gore M.A., J.D.,
adjunct professor of biblical studies at Whitworth University, Spokane,
Washington. Gore has a YouTube channel where he does biblical studies, and some
of those studies deride historicism. Gore calls historicism an “interpretive
scheme.”[19] Gore's views are preterist
in his interpretation of the Revelation, in that he immediately promotes the
temporal indicator that the events portrayed “must shortly come to pass”
(Revelation 1:1). Gore attempts to associate all the symbolism and narration
with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, precluding the historicist as well
as the futurist’s interpretations. He condemns the historicist’s scheme as
being utterly irrelevant to the people in the first century. Gore never bothers
to ask himself, what does the Revelation mean to the people who come after the
first century if it only pertains to the people of the first? Nevertheless,
Gore makes the common preterist mistake of hitching his theory on the imminence
of classic prophecy, applied in the Olivet Discourse, failing to grasp the
principle of dual fulfillment. Classic prophecy joins imminent judgment and
distant eschatological events in the same context to promote vigilance and
discourage apathy. Historicist Jon Paulien defines classic prophecy.
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.[20]
Temporal indicators are
often used to promote vigilance and discourage apathy, which is the object of
Christ’s admonitions in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:42-51) and the use of
imminence in Revelation 1:1. If the Revelation explicitly conveyed that its
narration pertained to the two-thousand years’ history between the two advents,
it indeed would have incited apathy and lethargy. Gore and preterism are not able
to grasp that the “things which must shortly come to pass” are the unfolding
events of the next two thousand years, which has meaning to every Christian in
this age. No one is left out.
Gore follows
with disparaging remarks against the historicist’s representation of protracted
time, expressed in brief intervals, such as in the example of the 70 weeks of
Daniel 9: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people” (Daniel 9:24). An overwhelming majority in Christianity acknowledge that Daniel is not expressing
a literal 70 weeks or 490 days but 490 years to prophecy Christ’s first advent,
and futurist and preterist must agree, such as preterist Kenneth Gentry, below.
The Seventy Weeks represent a
period of seventy times seven years, or 490 years.[21]
There is ample and
sound support for interpreting brief intervals as protracted time, specifically
in prophecy. Such support quashes disparagement against historicism but is not
within the scope of this paper. There is ample support for the principle in the
work of the historicists.
Gore’s chief complaint is that “historicist interpreters
have been unable to date, to establish an objective criterion by which the book
is to be understood.”[22] And then he continues,
“the book of Revelation is interpreted in light of external events so that
external events interpret the book rather than the other way around.”[23] He concludes, “the
interpretive scheme has to be reworked every time a new generation comes along
with new Western history to deal with.”[24] While it is true that
individual sections have been and are continuing to be worked out in
historicism, this is to be expected because God reveals the meaning of his
prophecies progressively, through the principle “prophecies are best interpreted
after they are fulfilled.” While the historicists have settled a great deal of
the Revelation, revisal continues on parts because of the said precept. Said
precept is the object of this paper, and the book, Thy Kingdom Come: Re-evaluating the Historicist’s Interpretation of the Revelation by the
author of this work.
Gore is remiss in grasping that the “objective criterion”
of preterism has all sorts of unworkable interpretations that do not adhere to
the historical accounts they claim. The wounded head on the beast is a prime
example. As Woods expounded above, the preterists attempt to reconcile the
seven heads in Revelation 17 to seven Roman emperors will never work out
because not one of them suffered a deadly wound that was miraculously healed.
That is why preterists must make all sorts of outlandish claims, such as Nero
representing the wounded head and the healing conveyed as Vespasian’s rule.
This interpretation invariably leads to ad hoc explanations that the wounding
is personal and individual, and the healing is national and impersonal.
Numerous unworkable interpretations simply do not adhere to the historical
accounts that preterism claims because their “objective criterion” is flawed
from the start. One conclusion that can be drawn from preterism and futurism
also, for this matter, is that they have an inadvertent workable part in
history and that is the healing of the wounded head by their assault on
historicism.
As stated above, one must expect
that the unfolding history of the church, illustrated in Revelation, and
Daniel, for that matter, will continue to be examined by the historicists until
all is reconciled and fits perfectly with history. That is the intent of
prophecy. Prophecy has always been dealt with in this manner. It stirs man to
seek God, for God “is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews
11:6).
[1] New World
Encyclopedia, s.v. church and state, last modified on 21 February 2017, https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Church_and_State
[2] John F. Walvoord, Revelation (The John Walvoord
Prophecy Commentaries), Moody Publishers; New edition (April 1, 2011), 255.
[3] Kim Riddlebarger,
A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, Baker Books;
Expanded ed. edition (August 15, 2013), 147.
[4] John F Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 17. The Destruction Of Ecclesiastical
Babylon, Walvoord.com, 2007, https://walvoord.com/article/275
[5] Ibid.
[6] Herman Hoeksema,
Behold He Cometh (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2000),
576.
[7] Walvoord, The
Revelation of Jesus Christ, 13. The Beast and the False Prophet,
Walvoord.com, 2007, https://walvoord.com/article/271
[8] Thomas Ice, When the Truth Gets
Left Behind, Rapture Ready.com, Last Modified on October 10, 2016,
https://www.raptureready.com/2015/12/10/when-the-truth-gets-left-behind-by-thomas-ice/
[9] J. A. Cerrato, Hippolytus
between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus,
Oxford University Press; 1 edition (October 24, 2002), 236.
[10] See The
Kingdom of God,
https://www.academia.edu/s/1434b63feb/the-kingdom-of-god-resolved
[11] John F Walvoord, The
Revelation of Jesus Christ, Introduction, Walvoord.com, 2007, https://walvoord.com/article/258
[12] Sanford Calvin
Yoder, He Gave Some Prophets (Wipf & Stock Pub., October 1, 1998), 73.
[13] 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
[14] Bruno Kolberg, Daniel’s
Fourth Kingdom, E-book version 2011.3 (30 May, 2015), 64. http://www.redatedkings.com/download/4thKingdom.pdf
[15] Wallace, Justifying
Religious Freedom: The Western Tradition, Penn State Law Review, Vol. 114,
No. 2, 2009, 536.
[16] David J.
Engelsma, The Beast from the Sea, Standard Bearer, vol. 71, No. 15, May 1, 1995,
380.
[17] Andrew M. Woods, Have
the Prophecies in Revelation 17–18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled? Part 1,
Bibliotheca Sacra, January–March 2012, 94.
[18] Supra 4 and 5.
[19] Bruce W. Gore,
The Historicist Approach to Revelation, Bruce Gore channel,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mx6pHBAL4k
[20] Jon Paulien, “The
End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical
Apocalyptic—Part One,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society,
14/2 (Fall 2003), 15–43.
[21] Kenneth Gentry,
“Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and Biblical Prophecy,” Chalcedon.edu, June 13,
2005,
https://chalcedon.edu/resources/articles/daniels-seventy-weeks-and-biblical-prophecy
[22] Supra, 19.
[23] Ibid.
