Follow
In the previous two weeks we have discussed the dating of the book of Revelation based on the internal evidence. As we noted last week, the angelic narrator provides textual cues as to the dating of the book, and three of those cues are found in Revelation 17: the placement of the “scarlet coloured beast” of Revelation 17 chronologically between the red dragon of Revelation 12 and the sea beast of Revelation 13; the description of the beast which “was, and is not; and shall ascend,” and the placement of the vision between the fifth and seventh king of the empire (Revelation 17:10). John’s narrator was clearly providing cues to the dating of the book, and was using Danielic imagery to do it. When understanding Revelation 17 through the lens of Daniel 2, there are only three possible periods during which Revelation could have been written—during the Legs, during the Feet, or during the Toes of the Statue. Last week we ruled out the period of the Toes because the vision takes place when the ten Toes or ten Kings are yet future, and “have received no kingdom as yet” (Revelation 17:12). This week, we will rule out the period of the Feet altogether.
One of the most perplexing problems in eschatology is the placement of the arrival of the Stone in the timeline of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. Many an author could be cited who takes the Stone to signify Jesus’ birth during the Roman Empire. Many others could be cited who take the Stone to signify Jesus’ return in glory. Both interpretations carry with them some logical inconsistencies.
Does the First Strike of the Stone Refer to Jesus’ First Advent?
The Stone, as Daniel informs us, was to strike the Feet of the Statue:
“Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.” (Daniel 2:34).
But Jesus did not smite the Roman empire at His incarnation. The Roman empire actually smote Him, and then smote His apostles and disciples after Him. By all accounts, Jesus was entirely passive toward the Roman Empire, and His apostles were, too. Jesus had very little to say of the Roman power except that we ought to render to Cæsar his due (Luke 20:25). After the Roman power struck Jesus, Paul was then judged and imprisoned by it (Acts 25:10, 28:19-31). James was killed by it (Acts 12:2) and John was imprisoned by it (Revelation 1:9). Neither Jesus’ incarnation, nor His earthly ministry, nor the ministry of His apostles can be construed as a judgment against the Fourth Empire. Jesus’ entire earthly ministry, and most of the ministry of His apostles, by all outward appearances, took place during the period of the Iron Legs. Jesus’ earthly ministry and the first decades of the Church can therefore hardly be construed as the impact of the Stone.
Nevertheless, Jesus is truly a Stone (Mark 12:10), and He really was born under Roman rule, and therefore we can understand why—although we do not agree with them—some visual representations of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream have the Stone striking and breaking both the Feet and the Legs simultaneously, as shown below:
But that is not what Nebuchadnezzar saw.
Does the First Strike of the Stone Refer to Jesus’ Second Advent?
On the other hand, if Daniel 2:34 is to signify Jesus’ return in glory when He is to “smite the nations” (Revelation 19:15), then the Stone of Daniel 2 ought to have struck the statue in the Toes, for by the time of His return, the Toes and Horns have already manifested, and the Beast has already arisen among them: “the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse” (Revelation 19:19). If Jesus’ future return in glory is represented by the strike of the Stone, we can thus also understand—although we do not agree with them—why some visual interpretations of the statue have only the Toes made of Iron & Clay, as shown below:
But that is not what Nebuchadnezzar saw.
Daniel 2:34 does not have the Stone striking the image in the Legs and breaking the Legs, and therefore it does not refer to Jesus’ arrival. Daniel 2:34 does not have the Stone striking the Image in the Toes and breaking the Toes, and therefore it does not refer to Jesus’ return. Rather, Daniel 2:34 has the Stone striking the image in the Feet of Iron & Clay, and breaking them.
The particular chronology of the three phases of the Fourth Empire in Daniel 2—Legs, Feet and Toes—is important to us because of how Daniel, Jesus and John together refer to it. The way they refer to it helps us establish the dating of the vision of Revelation. The vision was provided to John because “the time is at hand” (Revelation 1:3), and thus, an eschatologically significant transition was about to occur. What was that eschatologically significant transition?
As we shall demonstrate, John received his vision because the period of the Iron & Clay Feet was about to begin, and thus he must have been writing in the period of the Iron Legs. The “time” that was “at hand” was the transition from Legs to Feet, and with the Feet would come one of the most eagerly anticipated events in all of Danielic eschatology: the transfer of the kingdom.
Daniel’s Testimony of the Transfer of the Kingdom
As Daniel testifies, the transition from Legs to Feet occurs when “they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men” (Daniel 2:43). Significantly, when explaining the strike of the Stone on the Feet, Daniel relates the period of the Feet to the time when God will “set up a kingdom” that “shall not be left to other people.” That event would occur “in the days of these kings”:
“And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:43-44)
The kingdom would be set up in the period of the Iron & Clay Feet. When taken together with Daniel 7, the Stone striking the Feet signifies that the God of Heaven would set up a kingdom “in the days of those kings” (Daniel 2:44). In those days, “the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom” (Daniel 7:18), and “the kingdom shall not be left to other people” (Daniel 2:44). The kingdom was to be transferred from one people to the saints “in the days of those kings” and “those kings” were of the Iron & Clay period, and the kingdom would never be transferred again. The language is that of a kingdom transfer, and a kingdom transfer is exactly what Jesus said was right around the corner. But in Jesus’ day, the transfer had not yet occurred.
Jesus’ Testimony of the Transfer of the Kingdom
John the Baptist had come to deliver the message that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, and Jesus took up the message after him. As we noted in The Fifth Empire, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” literally means “The kingdom of heaven draweth nigh” or “The kingdom of heaven approacheth.”
On one occasion, Jesus spoke of that kingdom in terms of a husbandman’s vineyard. In the parable, the current tenants of the vineyard caught the husbandman’s son, “cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him” (Matthew 21:33-39). Jesus asked the Jews what the lord of the vineyard would therefore do to them when he “cometh,” and they answered,
“He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” (Matthew 21:41).
Jesus affirmed their interpretation and responded,
“Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:42-43)
The Pharisees correctly perceived that He had spoken of them (Matthew 21:45).
On another occasion, and using a similar parable, Jesus spoke of a king preparing a wedding banquet for his son. Instead of planning for the wedding, those who were invited “made light of it,” abused his servants, “entreated them spitefully, and slew them” (Matthew 22:2-6). How was the king to respond to such disrespect?
“[W]hen the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.” (Matthew 22:7)
As the parable concludes, the invitation is extended to others and the original guests are rejected (Matthew 22:8-14).
In yet another parable about the Kingdom, Jesus speaks of taking a possession away from an unfruitful servant and giving it to the fruitful one, for the unfruitful servants had said, “We will not have this man to reign over us” (Luke 19:14). What was the nobleman to do with such an insolent citizenry?
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)
At another time, Jesus addressed the scribes and pharisees, commanding them to “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers” (Matthew 23:32), which is a term describing the accrual of sins for a day of judgment (Genesis 15:16, Romans 2:5). He told them they would persecute, scourge and crucify the prophets who He Himself would send them (Matthew 23:34), so that the prophecy would be fulfilled, and the end result would be that their house would be desolated in accordance with Leviticus 26:31:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” (Matthew 23:37-38).
Natural questions that might arise from these parables are:
“When did the Lord of the Vineyard miserably destroy those wicked men?”
“When did the King destroy those murderers and burn up their city?”
“When did the Nobleman slay those who would not receive Him as king?”
“When was their house desolated?”
“When was the Kingdom taken away from the Jews and given to another nation?”
Surely none of these things had happened in Jesus’ earthly lifetime, and none of them happened in the three decades immediately following His death and ascension. The answer to all the questions is 70 A.D.. Jesus would wait until 70 A.D. for them to “fill up the measure of their fathers,” then He would burn their city and destroy “those wicked men” who “would not that I should reign over them,” and it is then that He would “desolate their house.” It was in the destruction of Jerusalem that the kingdom was taken away, the house was left to them desolate, the vineyard was taken away from the Jews and given to another nation. As Jesus had warned: “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh” (Luke 21:20). Within one generation, the time would come when the kingdom would be taken away, and that time would be visibly apparent to anyone who was paying attention. The time of the kingdom transfer was fast approaching, a transfer that Daniel had long ago foreseen.
Consistent with Daniel, Jesus places these events in the period of the Iron & Clay of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. Note that in the context of these parables, Jesus identifies Himself as the Stone, and then uses the imagery of Daniel 2:34-35 to explain when these things would occur. They would occur during the period of the Iron & Clay Feet, and that period was not far off:
“Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.” (Matthew 21:42-44)
That last sentence is nothing other than a reference to Daniel 2:34-35, the impact of “the stone that smote the image” (Daniel 2:35). Nowhere else but in Daniel 2 is such imagery found of a stone breaking something upon upon impact, and then grinding it to dust. It is in the first strike of the Stone that the Feet of Iron & Clay are broken (Daniel 2:34), and in the second strike that the entire statue—Iron, Clay, Brass, Silver and Gold—is “broken to pieces together,” and ground into powder, “and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors” (Daniel 2:35).
Jesus’ use of such plainly Danielic imagery in the context of a statement that the Kingdom would be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation is simply a restatement of Daniel’s prophecy that “in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people” (Daniel 2:44). What was to be taken away from the Jews and given to the saints of God would never be taken away again (Daniel 7:18), and would never be given to another people (Daniel 2:44).
The stone of Daniel’s prophecy is a Stone of judgment, and Jesus had not come at his first advent to judge the world. He had not come to judge the Roman empire but to be judged by it, and He had not come at His first advent to demolish the preceding empires, either. As He Himself testified, His first advent was not an occasion for judgment (John 3:17, 12:47), and it is a matter of record that His interaction with the Roman empire was entirely passive (Matthew 26:53-54, Luke 20:25, John 18:36). In other words, though Jesus is the Stone, His first advent was not the first strike of the Stone against the statue. That would not happen until the Iron period was over, and Jesus had come during the period of the Iron Legs. The period of the Iron & Clay was still in the future, but His disciples would recognize its soon arrival by the fact that Jerusalem had been surrounded by armies.
Jesus said, “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh” (Luke 21:20). Jerusalem’s desolation was the event that would signal the fulfillment of the Pharisees’ own prophecy that “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen” (Matthew 21:41), and when Jesus spoke of it, He used language that was resonant of the impact of the Stone upon the Feet of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue.
The time that was approaching, but had not yet come in Jesus’ day, was the transition from Legs to Feet, and when the period of the Feet arrived, the kingdom would be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation. Clearly Jesus had made the prophecy during the Iron Leg period, and clearly the fulfillment would take place only after the Iron period was over, just as Daniel had prophesied.
John’s Testimony
When the angel explained to John the urgency of his message, he said “for the time is at hand” (Revelation 1:3). What “time” would that be? The “time” that was nigh and on the eve of fulfillment was the time of the transfer of the Kingdom that Daniel said was to occur in the period of the Iron & Clay Feet. As Jesus had said, that transfer would occur shortly after the time “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies” (Luke 21:20). That was the time, according to the parables, when the Lord of the Vineyard would miserably destroy those wicked men, when the King would destroy those murderers and burn up their city, when the Nobleman would slay those who would not receive Him as King, when the Jews’ house would be desolated and when the Kingdom would be taken away from the Jews and given to another nation.
The “time” that was “at hand” was pregnant with Danielic eschatological significance, and in accordance with Jesus’ description in Matthew 21:43-33, it was the time of the Iron & Clay Feet. That time had not come in Jesus’ earthly life, nor in the few decades immediately following His resurrection. The time was near and only one king of that period remained, “and when he cometh, he must continue a short space” (Revelation 17:10). Then the Iron period would be over. The period of the Iron & Clay would begin.
As we noted in Part 1, when John’s angelic narrator explains the “scarlet coloured beast” of Revelation 17, there is an immediate and chronological significance to the seven kings, five of which had fallen, one of which was currently ruling and one of which would follow (Revelation 17:10). We believe that immediate and chronological significance is found in Daniel’s segmentation of the Fourth Empire into the three periods of Iron Legs, Iron & Clay Feet, and Iron & Clay Toes. Once the internal data is analyzed, it is clear that John had been writing during the period of the Iron Legs, and the period of the Feet was right around the corner.
Various other explanations have been given for the significance of those seven kings, and we will address at least one of them next week. For now, we will conclude this week by highlighting the Roman Catholic error in the timing of the kingdom transfer. In the realm of eschatology, there are two significant kingdom transfers that occur. The first is the transfer of the Kingdom of Heaven from the Jews “to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matthew 21:43), a transfer that Daniel and Jesus place in the period of the Iron & Clay Feet (Daniel 2:44, Matthew 21:44). The second is a transfer of an earthly kingdom to the dominion of Antichrist, a transfer that takes place after the period of the Toes, for it is from the Toes that Antichrist must arise (Daniel 7:8, 20, 24; Revelation 13:2, 17:12-13).
As we pointed out in What the Fathers Feared Most and One Kingdom Too Late, Roman Catholics mistake one for the other, and so believe that that the transfer of an earthly kingdom from the Roman Empire to Roman Catholicism must be the transfer that Daniel had in mind in 2:44 and 7:18, 27. By way of example, former Protestant turned Roman Catholic apologist, Taylor Marshall wrote,
“The culmination of Daniel’s Four Kingdoms—the Roman Empire—is handed over to people of Jesus Christ. The Church is not the Roman Empire, but it receives the Roman Empire. Daniel spoke of this before the coming of Christ, and the recorded history after Christ bears witness to this truth.” (Taylor Marshall, Eternal City, Kindle edition)
As noted, Marshall’s transfer is one kingdom too late. The transfer of a heavenly kingdom occurs under the period of Iron & Clay Feet. The transfer of an earthly kingdom occurs under the period of the Toes. The former is the transfer of a kingdom to the saints from the Jews. The latter is the transfer of the kingdom to the Roman Catholic Antichrist from pagan Rome.
As we pointed out in The Fifth Empire, the cause of Marshall’s confusion is that he has collapsed the two judicial movements of Daniel 2:34-35 into a single swift judgment. Collapsing those two movements into one, Marshall has equated the possession of a heavenly kingdom with dominion over an earthly one. They are not the same thing. Unfortunately, some Reformed eschatologists make the same mistake. But dominion over an earthly kingdom is not what the saints received during the Iron & Clay Feet, and possession of a Heavenly kingdom is not what Roman Catholicism received during the period of the Toes. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Conflating those two kingdom transfers has caused even Christians to think that the Christian Church took over the Roman empire, and has caused Roman Catholics to think their religion is the Christian Church. That confusion is corrected if we keep those kingdom transfers separate, and we are greatly aided by the language of Daniel and Jesus in maintaining the separation of the two. That language of Jesus also helps us identify the looming eschatological transition that was about to occur at the time of John’s vision, and thus helps us to place Revelation in the period of the Iron Legs.
We will continue on this theme next week.
Tim, I think its important to note the paragraphs where you gave a scriptural description of how Christ, the apostles and the church submitted to the judgment of the govrrnment. We must never forget that if a position is proved from scripture that it compels us to believe it. Imho, you have given me sufficient biblical evidence to believe the dating, and the 2 strike theory that you have put forward. I dont know about you, but I thank God for the being acused of being bible only, or a biblicist, or an independent, because it tells me I will never value what any man, not even the church says, if it isnt what scripture teaches. It doesnt mean that we dismiss the study of great men. But what you have put forward has shown that the inteligencia of the 2nd Reformation got it tragically wrong, and the ramifications and negative eventualities should not be understated. If your exegesis is correct, it also should put in perspective the priesthood of believers. No man has a corner on truth, no matter what their pedigree. It seems to me that the 2nd reformation, for all the great work they did as Godly men, bought into the lie to some extent that they posessed apostolic infalibility. No man can tell us someone spoke with inherancy outside the apostles , because in the end that is a fallible opinion. On a side note, you did a great job of showing how the kingdom was taken away and given to the church. But, one thing I am having a great deal of trouble with in Refomrmed eschatology, is the future ofvthe Nation of Israel. It seems to me when verses in OT specifically makes promises to Israel, it is difficult to substitue the word church. It seems convienient to take the first half of OT verses and make the promises all for the church, and then take the next half that makes the punishments all Israel. I see a plan for the nation of Israel in the milineal kingdom and the gospel. Do you? Thanks K
“Who really owns the Holy Land”, was helpful to sort out some of the errors about Israel.
http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=225
Tim. You say with ” the scarlet beast” there is a chronological significance with the 7 kings. How does that chrnologically tie together? You mean where the Roman Antichrist falls chronologically in the history of the 7 kings? Forgive me if you have covered this and I missed it. K
Kevin,
The chronological significance is that the Scarlet Beast currently “is” (Revelation 17:8), and the sixth king currently “is” (Revelation 17:10). At the time of the vision, there is something presently significant about the Scarlet Beast’s rule. But there is something figurative about the Scarlet Beast’s rule, as well. It’s connection to Daniel 7 is clear. The angelic narrator’s placement in the chronology is clear, too. The Antichrist cannot, of course, fall chronologically within the history of the 7 because Antichrist must come up among the ten kings which as of yet have no kingdom yet. Throughout the chapter, the narrator continues placing John’s vision in the context of a Danielic chronography. Clearly something chronological was being conveyed. That was my point. I see from your later comment that you got it on a second reading.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, I just read this for the time. How you are able to tie this all together so beautifully is a gift. God’s word sews it together so acurately between Daniel, Jesus, and John. What struck me is Jesus in Mathew 21 making reference to smiting them to dust, a recapitulation of Danielic language. I convinced of when you peg John writing Revelations. I want to go back and be certain of the the language and the verses where we know its two knocks of the stone? I just have to find it. It is clear to me that God always made things clear from his word, signs, new moons, etc. When he wants us to know something its inbhis word, if we will do the work. MacArthur after 60 years of preaching always said, each time I teach a passage God unfolds something more about that passage, and it is awesome to uncover these things from God’s word. Hidden, but not burried. K
TIM–
You said: “Antichrist must come up among the ten kings which as of yet have no kingdom yet.”
Really? Not among 13 kings like you have convinced yourself earlier? What changed your mind?
Bob,
If you read carefully, you will note that I have always maintained that the Little Horn came up among ten. Nothing has changed.
Thanks,
Tim
If you read carefully, you will note that I have always maintained that the Little Horn came up among ten. Nothing has changed.
At this point we invite our readers to return to Daniel chapter 7, and read it closely, noticing three things:
1) Each of the first four empires is described in its final, not its initial, configuration;
2) Daniel never says that “the first horns” were ten in number; and
3) Daniel never says that “three of the ten” horns were removed.
Based on the text, therefore, we suggest to our readers that the expectation of a ten-way division of the fourth empire is but a tradition, and prophecy does not bow to tradition. The Roman Empire was to be divided 13 ways, and that is precisely what Daniel had foreseen.
Quite right, Bob. And if you read carefully, you will note that I have always maintained that the Little Horn came up among ten. Nothing has changed.
Thanks,
Tim
Sure, Tim. 😉
Tim, I re read the article and found the answer to my question. Forgive me, I get mixed up sometimes. Its allot to take in. K
Tim, maybe youve covered this, but what is the mortal wound in Rev 13, andvwhen it says ” the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words. Would this include the claims to be God in the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2? K
Tim, and ” And authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation, and all who dwell on the earth will worship” it. “” This is Catholics worshiping the church or the beast, or both? ” it” thanks K
Hi Tim,
I understand that Scripture teaches that one of the heads of the beast will recover from it’s mortal wound and this has been interpreted as the Roman State Church recovering (or the pope recovering, as in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress). Does the prophecy in Daniel, or John, indicate that this recovery will mean regaining power in a Civil or State sense, i. e. That the pope may once again wield the civil sword?
John,
The mortal head wound may be identified from the prophecies of Daniel. We do not need to assume that the head that was wounded was the “head” of the Beast of Revelation (who we typically identify as “antichrist”) as if THE head of antichrist was THE head that was wounded and he suffered a deadly injury and came back to life. Rather, we need to understand that the Beast of Revelation, “having seven heads,” is an aggregation of the four beasts of Daniel 7 (see also Daniel 7:12: “As concerning the rest of the beasts … their lives were prolonged for a season and time…). It is interesting to note that the head wound is not mentioned in chapter 12 or in chapter 17, but only in chapter 13 where the sea beast is depicted as an aggregation of the beasts of Daniel 7. The heads and horns and the composite body we see depicted in Revelation 13 are the fulfillment of Daniel 7:12, the heads being described in that chapter: the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires. The question that I believe we should ask is, “Which, if any, of the heads — Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome — suffered a mortal head wound and recovered from it?”
It can’t be Babylon, the 1-headed Lion. Even though Nebuchadnezzar had his reason taken away from him, his reason was restored to him and he remained alive, and his successors reigned continuously after him. It can’t be the Medo-Persian empire, the 1-headed bear, since the Medes and Persians ruled continuously in their respective periods. It can’t be Alexander, since he was a horn in Daniel 8, and when he was broken four others came up in his place, but he himself did not return. And besides, he isn’t depicted as one of the heads in Daniel 7 anyway. It can’t be the Roman Empire since Daniel 7 depicts the beast being slain and his body being destroyed, and the Little Horn taking over as the fifth empire. The Roman empire was transferred willingly to Roman Catholicism by her emperors, and so the decline of Rome as an empire, and the rise of Roman Catholicism to fill the void would not constitute a “head wound” that is healed, since a head wound rather implies a swift execution rather than a willing transfer of power. It can’t be the prolongation of the lives of the preceding beasts as depicted in Daniel 7:12 because together they had multiple heads, and Revelation 13 is explicit in the statement that only “one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and … was healed.” It can’t be some death blow administered to the Little Horn of Daniel 7 because he is only a Horn, not a head.
That leaves us with one of the four heads of the Leopard, the significance of which will become clear in a moment. It is in Revelation 13 that the Beast receives the “seat” and “great authority” of Satan, and His “seat” is located in Pergamos, for Jesus wrote to the Church at Pergamos which “dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is.” So we are looking for a head wound that is related to Satan and his seat, as they appear to be intrinsically related: “… the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed” (Revelation 13:2-3), thus showing that the Antichrist is empowered with Satan’s power and authority, which means we are looking for a head wound and recovery that is related to Pergamos.
That said, it is in Daniel 11 that we can find evidence of a mortal head wound administered to one of the four heads of the Leopard. I discussed this tangentially in my articles, The Shifting Frame, and When North was North…. It is the head wound that occurs in Daniel 11:19 when the northern king “shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land,” having been kicked out of Asia Minor within the Taurus mountains. I showed that there were four kingdoms that arose from Alexander’s empire, and I showed that three (West (Macedonia), East (Syria and Babylon, etc…) and South (Egypt and its territories south of the Taurus Mountains)) all existed continuously as distinct empires from their inception after Alexander’s death, but there is one that did not. The Northern Kingdom simply disappears from the Narrative in Daniel 11 from vv. 18-39, and then suddenly comes back into the Narrative in v. 40.
The Seleucids occupied the Northern Kingdom from Daniel 11:4 through Daniel 11:18, and were styled as “King of the North” during that period. But when Rome defeated Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 B.C., and kicked him out of Asia Minor and Thrace at the Treaty of Apamea in 188 B.C. (Daniel 11:18), the Roman army returned to Rome and left no one in charge of the northern territory. The “northern head” of the Greek Empire simply vanished from the narrative and no mention is made of it for 20 verses. Nobody was left to rule that Northern Kingdom. As the four empires of Daniel 11 go, they comprise the seven heads of Daniel 7, and at one point, one of them simply disappears: the northern kingdom of Alexander’s divided empire. The story of how that northern kingdom came back is a remarkable part of the history of Asia Minor and Thrace after Apamea.
The various kings who lived in Asia Minor eventually had to appeal to Rome to put somebody in charge, and so Rome decided to assign the northern territory to the tiny kingdom of Pergamos. That kingdom thus grew back up to rule all of Asia Minor and Thrace as the new king of the north. Lacking a son as a successor, the King of Pergamos ultimately bequeathed the northern territory to the Roman Republic which then, as the final “king of the north” in the narrative fulfilled the vision on Daniel 11:40-45 in its war against the Pirates of Pamphylia who, by then, were the “king of the south.”
The point I am drawing out here is that Revelation 13 depicts one of the heads of Daniel 7 being wounded by the sword and recovering from that wound, and depicts that head wound in the context of Satan’s throne being given over to Antichrist, and it depicts the wound and the healing as occurring before Antichrist even receives his civil dominion. We can rule out the Babylonian, Medo-Persian and Roman empires as the candidate heads for the reasons described above. We can rule out Alexander, as well, leaving us with the four heads of the leopard, which are the four kingdoms of Daniel 11:4. Daniel 11 depicts the four way division of Alexander’s empire, and further depicts the destruction of the Northern Head, which simply gets left out of the narrative after the Seleucids are kicked out in Daniel 11:18, and which kingdom, as it turns out, included Pergamos, and when the mortal wound was administered, that territory was eventually given to Pergamos, and it grew back into a full fledged “northern kingdom” which was eventually bequeathed to the Roman Republic, which then fulfilled the prophecy of the Northern Kingdom in Daniel 11:40-45.
The significance of all this is 1) the mortal head wound can be shown to be one of the seven heads of Daniel 7 (which Revelation 13 would require since the head wound is only mentioned in the context of the aggregation of the beasts of that chapter), and 2) it can be shown to include Pergamos, where Satan’s seat is, which ultimately links “one of his heads as it were wounded to death” to Satan and his seat as depicted in Revelation 2:13, and 3) it can be shown that the mortal head wound is not related to any interruption in the civil dominion of Antichrist but is instead related to how Antichrist is in fact a satanic power, for it is an aggregation of the Beasts of Daniel 7, and one of the heads of Daniel 7 was mortally wounded and was restored by being assigned to Pergamos. The head wound is about Antichrist being satanic, not about Antichrist himself being restored and brought back to life or to antichrist losing his civil dominion and having it restored to him. His universal dominion lasted 42 uninterrupted “months” (1260 yrs), after which he went back to ruling a tiny fiefdom in northern Italy. There is no further future reign in which he rules the world again and has global dominion. That time is depicted in the Scriptures as continuous and uninterrupted.
Much more to be said on this, but I thought I’d provide my thoughts, since it is a very good question.
Tim
Thx so much Tim!
The details you provide all make sense. I’m sorry I missed your explanation earlier in “When North was North”. When I re-read that, I can see it is there.
We appreciate so much your detailed analysis, as it is this which makes the Scriptures (and history) clear.
…..And given their record, it is a great relief to know that the Roman State-Church’s civil power has been removed by the Lord! Perhaps in the future you could comment upon the recent “incursions” they have made into the civil jurisdiction such as in WW2 with the Ustaše, as well as in places like Venezuela today.
We very much look forward to the future when you fulfill the prophecy “Much more to be said on this”. 🙂
Hi, John,
I didn’t really go into a lot of detail on the mortal head wound in “When North was North…” because it really is worthy of an individual article, which I will write eventually. I don’t deny that the Papal power, limited as it is in the civil sense to the tiny city-state of the Vatican in northern Italy, still exercises civil power within that realm and maintains diplomatic relations with other nations. It enters into treaties and concordats with them, and its bishops often opine on public policy (as the US Conference of Catholic bishops recently did on the matter of immigration.) But those incursions, in my opinion, do not rise to the level of “civil dominion” as depicted in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13. Any nation, kingdom or city may enter into agreements with other nations and even attempt to influence their policies, but that does not make them the reigning civil power over the known world.
Daniel 2:38 depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as universal:
Daniel 8:4 portrays the Medo-Persian empire as a universal reign over the known world:
Daniel 8:7 depicts the Greek empire as being universal and unopposed throughout the known world:
Daniel 7:23 depicts the Roman Empire as a broad, conquering empire with universal dominion:
This is the level of civil rule that qualifies for “civil dominion” in Danielic eschatology. The Little Horn’s reign is similar in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 and 17 when he is depicted as a kingdom (Daniel 7:24) “and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (Revelation 13:7) and the other nations give their power and strength to him (Revelation 17:13).
When we look at the succession of empires that hold civil dominion in Daniel 7, the Little Horn enjoys his dominion for 3 1/2 “years” or 42 “months” or 1,260 “days” and then he no longer is free to do as he pleases over all the earth. He does not cease to be antichrist or the sea beast and he does not cease to mislead and deceive. He simply ceases to enjoy unfettered civil dominion as he did for those 1,260 years.
So for all of Rome’s attempts to influence the civil powers of the world, no nation can be said to have global civil power simply because he engages in treaties with other nations and seeks to influence them. Were that the case, every nation on earth could be said to rule the entire world because of how it attempts to influence other nations.
Thanks for your comment,
Tim
Very helpful Tim! Thanks so much.
Hi Tim,
Is it fair to say that since we have shown to us the 5 kingdoms that rule over ALL men, and that the Little Horn, as the 5th kingdom, had that power removed, then, that also is the last kingdom that shall have such a worldwide power? (Which would also mean that there is not a 6th kingdom that will come to rule as a “one world government”, as the media is trying to scare us with?) Or am I making a mistake in arguing from the silence of Scripture? From what has been written here on your blog, I understand that the bowls and trumpets of Revelation do take us through to the next return of Christ and since there doesn’t seem to be any mention of another world power after the Little Horn, then none will appear. The media seem to want to scare us (and they’re doing a good job) with one giant vaccine for all and one world government for all, but if I understand what you have explained from Scripture, this can be dismissed as a figment of their imagination and they have no warrant from Scripture to make such claims. Thx.
John,
What is revealed to us in the Scripture is four successive kingdoms (Daniel 2, Daniel 7) followed by a 5th kingdom on earth (Little Horn) that persecutes the saints, and roughly at the same time, a heavenly kingdom of which the earthly saints are citizens, and after the 5th earthly empire is destroyed, the heavenly kingdom of the saints becomes and earthly kingdom, the final successor in a line of earthly empires. It is the last. This may be understood by harmonizing Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. The little horn reigns over an earthly kingdom, and his kingdom exists between the two strikes of the stone of Daniel 2, and is represented by the prolonged lives of the other beasts as the Little horn reigns on earth after the fragmentation of the 4th empire, but prior to the return of Christ to establish His earthly kingdom. The first strike fragments the Roman empire, preparing for the rise of the Little Horn from among the fragments. When Christ returns he takes away the dominion of the Little Horn (Daniel 2:35 “that no place was found for them”, 7:26 “they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.”) Following that event, with no place found for the aggregated empire of Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron and Stone (Dan 2) or Lion, Bear, Leopard, Beast & Horns (Dan 7), the Beast and the False Prophet are cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 19:20), followed by a literal 1,000 year reign, after which the Devil is loosed for a while, and finally cast into the same lake of fire into which the Beast and False Prophet had been cast (Revelation 20). Much more detail to be expounded there, of course, but you get the idea. The reason the Roman Catholic empire has so often been conflated with the Heavenly kingdom of the saints is that the Stone of Daniel 2 is assumed to strike the statue once (presumably indicating Christ’s incarnation and ascension), destroying all the preceding empires so that the stone (presumably Roman Catholicism) can grow up and cover the whole earth (presumably in reference to the ascension of the Roman Church to political power). But the stone doesn’t actually cover the whole earth until after the second strike, indicating that the stone that covers the whole earth cannot be Roman Catholicism.
But as to your statement “the 5th kingdom, had that power removed”—that’s not entirely fulfilled yet. Little Horn was to rise from the fragments of the Roman empire and “wear out the saints of the most High … and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time” (Dan 7:25) and “power was given unto him to continue forty and two months” (Revelation 13:5). The way this is translated into English it makes it sound like the Little Horn of Daniel 7 and the Beast of Revelation 13, the Man of Sin of 2 Thessalonians 3, has a kingdom that last 1,260 years, but that’s not entirely accurate. He has dominion (Daniel 7:12, 26). And he reigns over his dominions until Christ returns and takes it away (Daniel 7:26). But the scripture does not say his kingdom only lasts “time, times and an half” (Dan 7:25) or only lasts “42 months” (Revelation 13:5). What it says is that the saints “shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time” and he will be allowed to “do” or “make” 42 months. He uses his civil power to “wear out the saints” and “do” or “make” as he pleases. What that means is while he may have dominion for a long time (pretty much end of latter part of the 4th century until now), he is only allowed to exercise it without resistance or opposition and “do as he pleases” for 1,260 years or 42 months. Rev 13:5 means he is free to do as he pleases for 42 months, which he pretty much did from 395 to 1655 A.D.. The Roman papacy, rising as a claimant to 3 of the 13 dioceses of the Roman Empire, emerged no later than 381 AD when the bishop of Rome claimed that the successor to Peter ruled in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch—the three metropolitan sees of Italy, Egypt and the East (Oriens)—but did not actually take the civil power of the sword until 395 AD, at which point Roman doctrines were enforced by the sword, and that civil power was precipitously abandoned in 1655, and papal power receded to the levels enjoyed in the 380s.
So to get to your question, the Roman Papacy is the 5th empire, and it currently exists, but the days when it would “wear out the saints” and “do” as it pleased, are long since gone. There will be no other “global” empire or “one world government” to fulfill the prophecies of the dominion of the little horn or the irresistible power of the beast of Revelation 13. Those days have come and gone. He still has his dominion, but can’t do whatever he wants anymore and is obviously significantly reduced in his power to use the civil sword to advance his agenda.
That said, it should be noted that Daniel 2 and 7 reflect “one world governments” of the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks and Romans and the Papacy, but the “one world” over which they governed was pretty much the Mediterranean basin and its adjacent land masses in Europe, Asia and Africa. None of them ruled over the whole terrestrial sphere, but they did rule over—from the biblical perspective—”wheresoever the children of men dwell” (Dan 2:38), which is to say, the known, relevant world. Insofar as Daniel’s prophecies of the succession of empires, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 all ruled over the Mediterranean basin and its adjacent land masses, I don’t see any reason why the 6th earthly empire that “fills the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35) would rule over a different geographic region. I imagine Christ’s millennial kingdom, seated in Jerusalem, from a geopolitical perspective would be as vast as those that preceded it, but not literally “global” any more than the preceding empires were literally “global”, which would seem to account for the fact that Jesus punishes kingdoms that refuse to obey Him and celebrate Tabernacles (Zech 14)—which means there are some who do not obey Him—and for the fact that even after the Beast and False prophet of Revelation have been destroyed before the millennium, hell and death are not, and the Devil is yet released or a little while after the millennium to deceive the world one last time before he is finally thrown into the lake of fire, too.
I have no way of foreseeing the millennial kingdom aside from what can be deduced from the Scriptures, but while they do portray Jesus and His saints reigning on earth, they do not appear to portray a sinless world in which death and hell are destroyed and all people on earth are Christians, and happy and joyful, and inclined to obey the dictates of the greatest earthly king in history. That utopian outcome only comes after the millennial reign, after hell, death and the devil are destroyed, after the second resurrection and final judgment and there is a new heaven and a new earth. Only THEN “shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain” (Revelation 21).
I hope that makes sense. If I’ve got something wrong there, just let me know. There’s a lot of “history” still ahead of us, to be sure, but the rise of a one world government under the beast of Revelation 13 is not part of it. That history is already behind us.
This is fascinating. Its a logical conclusion from the texts.
Him Brother Tim
Quick question, you wrote:
He told them they would persecute, scourge and crucify the prophets who He Himself would send them (Matthew 23:34), so that the prophecy would be fulfilled, and the end result would be that their house would be desolated in accordance with Leviticus 26:31
But in Protocoll Lev. 26 i understood that the prophecy of the devastation was fullfilled already in the time between Daniel and Antiochus IV.
So the prophecy of Israel being devastated was fullfiled when the 70th week was over.
But this was before the time of Christ, thats why i dont understand the fullfillment you gave in this article of Jesus 😐
Thanks for clarification! (if you have time) but it is not an urgent like the others… so if u dont have time, skipp it 😀
Hi, Alessandro, “the prophecy” to which I referred was in the preceding sentence, “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers” (Matthew 23:32). So, “He told them they would persecute, scourge and crucify the prophets who He Himself would send them (Matthew 23:34), so that the prophecy would be fulfilled”.
Leviticus 26 is not a prophecy. It is a protocol on what the Lord would do to His people when certain conditions were met, and in this case “I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation,” (Leviticus 26:31).
The prophecy was that they would fill up the measure of their fathers’ sins. Leviticus 26 was the protocol, not the prophecy.
You observed, “So the prophecy of Israel being devastated was fulfilled when the 70th week was over.” That was the fulfillment of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 was the prophecy. Leviticus 26 was the protocol on which the Daniel 9 prophecy was based, but Daniel 9 was the prophecy, not Leviticus 26.
I hope that helps.
oh, okei, thank Tim!
Im sorry it was not a careful thought from me.
But thanks again very much for clarification!
Keep going Tim!
You must have dozens of different backlogged major topics to write about, even in 2022. I am still eagerly awaiting the series on the Vaudois that I believe you teased back in 2015. Still, I appreciate what is here, even if I have to parse through many comments to find it. Google indexes all your comments, so that really helps.
I appreciate this resource considerably.
+1
It would also be quite valuable to understand what happened to the Greek and Hebrew texts up till the time of Tyndale then Erasmus from the late 4th century.
With the third trumpet being the translation of the corrupt Latin Vulgate (https://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/06/the-trumpets-pt1/), is there any record as to what happened to the received Scriptures amongst the Vaudois etc whilst in the wilderness?
I read this paper on the Waldenses by the Seventh-Day Adventists that says this:
Some of Tim’s posts mention how intimately familiar the Vaudois (and Paulicians, and Bogomils, and Albigensians) were with scripture. For example:
These ‘heretics’ would cite scripture to Roman Catholic missionaries who would then be dumbfounded and confused: because the ‘heretics’ knew the Bible better than the missionaries. We see from the testimony of witnesses (such as the ones above) that they memorized much of it, but I don’t know enough to say what their written Bible was.
The link above is no longer valid. The archive link is here. You may want to consider replacing the link, as the old one now points to spam.
hi dear Timothy Kauffman..
I have changed my view on the olivet discurs, since i have listened to your podcast. Amazing what only 1 podcast can do.
I have one beg: Could you give me 1 or 2 or 3 books that you think are good about this topic? Or who do you thinks gives good informations about matthew 24? Any podcast? Any bibleteacher? I know Gary Demar, are there others?
Thanks!
Do you have a link to the podcast?
https://thorncrownministries.com/eschatology
epis. 23
Thank you.