Follow
One thing that can be said of Jesus’ and John’s eschatology is that it is certainly Danielic. Jesus refers to Daniel both directly (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14) and indirectly (Matthew 21:44, 24:30, 26:64; Mark 13:26, 14:62) when speaking of the immediate and distant future. John’s descriptions of the dragon of Revelation 12, the sea beast of Revelation 13 and the scarlet beast of Revelation 17 are all derivative of the four beasts of Daniel 7. The scene of the throne room of Revelation 4-5 with “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (5:11) surrounding the Lord is clearly resonant of the same scene depicted in Daniel 7:10 where “thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.” Our eschatology, like Jesus’ and John’s, must be Danielic as well.
As we noted last week, we intend this week to discuss the traditional historicist interpretation of the seven kings of Revelation 17:10. It is our contention that the traditional historicist interpretation is insufficiently Danielic, and because of that, misses the significance of the seven kings.
The angelic narrator dictated, and John wrote,
“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.” (Revelation 17:10)
What is the significance of those seven kings? Clearly in the context of Revelation 17, those kings are related to the beast in a way that was immediate and relevant to John at the time of his vision. After all, of those seven, one was currently reigning as John was receiving the vision.
E. B. Elliott, in his Horæa Apocalypticæ, gives the traditional Protestant historicist interpretation of the heads, proposing that they signify the succession of “forms of Government” of the Roman nation. Of the first six heads, he writes,
“In explanation then of the first six Heads I adopt, with the most entire satisfaction, that generally received Protestant interpretation, which, following the authoritative statements of Livy and Tacitus, the two greatest of Roman historians, enumerates Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, and Military Tribunes, as the five first constitutional Heads of the Roman City and Commonwealth; then, as the sixth, the Imperial Head, commencing with Octavius, better known as Augustus Caesar” (Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol iii, 96, 98).
As he continues, Elliott observes that Protestants are divided on the meaning of the seventh head. One writer has the seventh head signifying the rise of the “Western Emperors” or “Demi-Cæsars” after the division of the Empire. Another has it referring to the “Dukedom of Rome” after the establishment of the Exarchate of Ravenna, and yet another to the era of Christian emperors after Constantine (Elliott, 101). Elliott for his part saw the seventh head as the reorganized administration of the Empire under Diocletian and his introduction of a diarchy—with an Augustus and a Cæsar or junior emperor—and then the tetrarchy under two Augusti and two Caesars:
“It is this quadripartite or bipartite diademed headship then, that, on Gibbon’s high authority, I regard as the Dragon’s seventh Head.” (Elliott, 108)
So the historicist position, irrespective of the identity of the seventh head, has been that the heads of the beast refer to “forms of Government.” In the particular context of Revelation 17, they have been taken to refer to forms of Roman government.
We must ask, though, whether this “generally received Protestant interpretation” has come down to us with any Danielic authority at all. In his several visions and their interpretations, Daniel’s narrator clearly referred to the eras of kings and to the succession of current and future kings in order to establish a chronology and a timeline. But does Daniel at any point refer to kings as “forms of Government”? Did he ever refer to a succession of kings as a succession of “forms of Government”? No, he did not.
In Daniel 2:44, Daniel refers to the kings of the Iron & Clay period, but nothing in the context suggests that his words, “in the days of these kings” is to be taken to mean “in the days of those forms of Government.”
In Daniel 7:17, the four beasts are taken to refer to “four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.” The kings are taken to refer to a succession of empires, and yet in that succession we do not find a significant variance in the modes of governance, as the Babylonians, Medes, Persians and Greeks were all ruled by kings in name, and then the Romans by kings in function, for both the Jews (John 19:5) and the Christians (1 Peter 2:13-17) regarded Cæsar as king. The succession of kings here does not refer to a succession of “forms of Government.”
In Daniel 7:24, the narrator explains that “the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise” from the Fourth Empire. The Little horn is to “subdue three kings.” Nowhere is it suggested in the text that the ten kings are ten “forms of Government,” or that the three subdued kings are three different “forms of Government” that are subdued.
In Daniel 8:20, we are informed that the two horns of the Ram “are the kings of Media and Persia.” The kings in this passage clearly do not refer to different “forms of Government,” but rather to the actual kings and kingdoms of Media and Persia.
In Daniel 10:13 the angel says that he “remained there with the kings of Persia.” Then in 11:1, he identifies events under “Darius the Mede,” and in 11:2 he enumerates a following succession of Persian kings to help Daniel understand the looming transition to Greek dominance:
“And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” (Daniel 11:2)
After the king of Medes shall arise kings of Persia, and then after the kings of Persia, a king of the Greeks. By any objective reading, he is referring to a succession of actual kings, not a succession of “forms of Government.”
In Daniel 11 there are plentiful references to kings and succession, but no references to kings as “forms of Government.”
We have revisited all these Danielic references to kings and successions of kings in order to show an apparent weakness of the “generally received Protestant interpretation” of Revelation 17:10. Elliott, of course, has not interpreted any of these Danielic references as “forms of Government.” There is no basis for interpreting “kings” as “forms of Government” anywhere in Danielic eschatology, and Elliott makes no case for it in Daniel. Why then ought we to take “kings” as “forms of Government” in such a Danielic passage as Revelation 17:10? Without any such example from Daniel and his narrators, and without so much as a hint from John, there is no basis for Elliott’s position at all. It comes to us with no Danielic authority whatsoever.
What actually does come down to us from Daniel is the use of a succession of actual rulers to highlight current and looming eschatological transitions. With Daniel, the angelic narrator clearly used kings and the succession of kings to aid Daniel’s chronological understanding of the visions, and in one particular case, to highlight Daniel’s precise location in that chronology. The closest parallel to Revelation 17:10 is Daniel 11:1-2. In this passage, the narrator identifies a Median king, Darius the Mede, and then explains that “there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all.” After him, “a mighty king shall stand up” (Daniel 11:3) referring to Alexander the Great, king of the Greeks.
Thus, in Daniel 11:1-3 the narrator has listed a succession kings in order to highlight not one, but two significant eschatological transitions of relevance to Daniel’s several visions. He highlights the looming transition from Median to Persian dominance—from the first to second Horn of the Ram, as it were (Daniel 8:3,20)—and the transition from Persian to Greek Dominance—from the Silver to the Brass (Daniel 2:39), or from the Bear to the Leopard (Daniel 7:5-6), or from the Ram to the He-goat (Daniel 8:4-5). Median to Persian to Greek dominance was a matter of great eschatological significance in the narratives of Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 11, and those transitions were highlighted for Daniel by an enumerated description of kings.
Daniel 11:1-3 was no reference to a succession of “forms of Government” at all, and John’s reference to a succession of kings in Revelation 17:10 is clearly a narrative tool of Danielic origin. Therefore, we see no reason why Revelation 17:10 ought not be interpreted the same way as its Danielic precursor: the identification of a looming eschatological transition by the enumeration of a succession of actual rulers. There is no basis in Danielic eschatology for any other approach.
That of course leaves us with a rather reasonable and penetrating question from the traditional historicist. What is the point of the reference to seven kings in Revelation 17:10? By asking this question in a rhetorical tone, one historicist attempted to dismiss an interpretation of the seven kings as a reference to the first seven emperors of the Empire: Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Galba. Because the meaning of the seven kings was not immediately obvious to him, he observed:
“And what would be the point of ending with Galba? What would be the point of the prophecy?” (John Pickle, Who are These Seven Kings?)
What indeed? In his mind, there could be no significance to the seven kings as kings, and therefore the matter was to be dismissed out of hand simply by asking the question. But there is a reason for such a listing of kings.
The point of listing a succession of kings is to highlight a significant eschatological transition. Of that we are informed by Daniel’s narrator himself. When interpreted outside of its Danielic context, the significance of the seven kings of Revelation 17:10 is completely lost and we are left to our own devices. By that means Protestants have historically found significance in the succession of Roman “forms of Government,” a concept completely foreign to Danielic eschatology.
But when it is interpreted within its Danielic context, the meaning of the seven kings of Revelation 17:10 becomes quite clear. Just as the narrator in Daniel 11 had listed a succession of actual Median, Persian and Greek kings in order to highlight looming and immediate eschatological transitions of the Horns of the Ram, or from Silver to Brass, Bear to Leopard, Ram to He-goat, the narrator of Revelation 17 has done the same thing in purely Danielic fashion. He has listed a succession of actual Roman kings in order to highlight the next eschatological transition, the transition from Iron to Iron & Clay, that is, from Legs to Feet.
As we noted last week, Daniel understood that the kingdom would be transferred during the period of the kings of the Iron & Clay Feet (Daniel 2:44). Jesus knew it as well, and invested considerable amount of time in His parables providing the details and timing of the near-term transfer. He even borrowed explicitly Danielic imagery to warn that Jerusalem’s desolation and the transfer of the kingdom would occur during the period of the Feet of the Fourth Empire of Daniel 2 (Matthew 21:43-44).
Jesus had become man during the period of the Iron Legs. The period of the impact of the Stone on the Iron & Clay Feet was not far away, and with it would come the desolation of Jerusalem, for “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh” (Luke 21:20). After Jesus’ ascension, John received a vision about something that was to begin in the immediate future, for “the time is at hand” (Revelation 1:1-3). His vision came during the reign of the sixth king, and there would only be one brief reign after his (Revelation 17:10) before the period of the Feet would begin. Following the Feet, there would then be the period of the Toes, which was still in the relatively distant future, a point that the angel makes clear to John: “the ten horns which thou sawest … have received no kingdom as yet” (Revelation 17:12).
Thus we have detailed for us in the Scriptures a thoroughly Danielic segmentation of the Fourth Empire into its three periods of Iron Legs, Iron & Clay Feet, and Iron & Clay Toes. We may therefore identify the kings of the three periods as follows:
The Kings during the period of the Legs of Iron: “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.” (Revelation 17:10)
The Kings during the period of the Iron & Clay Feet: “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay … . And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:43-44)
The Kings during the period of the Iron & Clay Toes: “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.” (Revelation 17:12)
Jesus came during the Iron Legs. Jerusalem was destroyed during the Iron & Clay Feet. Antichrist arose after the emergence of the Iron & Clay Toes. All three periods may be discerned from the Scriptures.
Thus, to answer Pickle’s question, “What is the point of ending with Galba?” The answer is simple: Galba was the last king of the period of the Iron Legs, as we noted in Part 1. That is the significance of understanding the seven kings of Revelation 17:10 as seven actual kings in succession since the rise of Julius Cæsar as Dictator perpetuo, in 44 B.C.. It is an interpretation that actually does come with Danielic precedence, for the narrator used exactly that approach in Daniel 11:1-3 to highlight a looming eschatological transition from the first to the second Horn of the Ram, from Silver to Brass, Bear to Leopard and Ram to He-goat. In Revelation 17, the looming transition is from Legs to Feet—from Iron to Iron & Clay—and thus, John’s vision occurred under the sixth king of the period of the Iron Legs: Nero.
Our primary point in this series is to identify the time of John’s vision by identifying the transitions from Legs to Feet to Toes. This week in particular we addressed the traditional historicist position that the kings of Revelation 17:10 are to be taken as a succession of forms of Roman government, a position with which we disagree. There is simply no basis in Danielic eschatology for taking kings to mean such a thing. While the Johannine narrator does not elucidate the meaning of the kings, the Danielic narrator did. Kings are enumerated as actual kings in order to highlight a looming eschatological transition. It is not difficult to see what that next transition was, for the Scriptures identify it for us.
We will continue on this theme next week.
Tim, if I inderstand you correctly, we see a patern of ” kings” identified in danielic eschatalogical chronological transition. And since this patern is consistent, it would be arbitrary to refer to the 7 kings as ” forms of government” so King means King in Danielic speak. To suddenly look for other meaning in this one instance would seem to be outside. Thanks K
Yes, that is my meaning. Barring some clarifying direction from John, we ought to look to Daniel to see how he treats a succession of kings. Here John is clearly borrowing from Daniel. To deviate from Daniel’s approach without any contrary contextual indication from John would be, as you say, “arbitrary.”
Tim
Tim,
I should not be responding to your commentaries so as to avoid controversy. However, you had said that Elliot and I would like to make one distinction (take it for what it is worth):
“E. B. Elliott, in his Horæa Apocalypticæ, gives the traditional Protestant historicist interpretation of the heads, proposing that they signify the succession of “forms of Government” of the Roman nation.
So the historicist position, irrespective of the identity of the seventh head, has been that the heads of the beast refer to “forms of Government.” In the particular context of Revelation 17, they have been taken to refer to forms of Roman government.”
While I’m not claiming you are in error with your statement above, I think there should be a distinction made with your claims of the “historicist position” in protestant history. There are two camps in historicist interpretation…one pre-mill and one post-mill as explained by an author I’ll not name here:
“Most Premils prior to the 20th century were historicists (like Taylor). A very helpful commentary on Revelation that I have used frequently is Horae Apocalyticae by E.B. Elliot (a historic premil). Obviously, when one gets to Revelation 19-20, we differ with these men who interpret Christ riding upon a white horse (in Revelation 19) to be Christ’s bodily Second Coming, and who interpret “the first resurrection” (in Revelation 20) to be the bodily resurrection of believers.”
Further, a sermon that you might find helpful that covers the passages you are interpreting below from an alternative historicist post-mill author besides Elliot is here:
God’s Gracious Covenant With Israel:
The Foundation For Worldwide National Covenanting #23 (Pt. 11), Revelation 17:9-11
February 14, 2010
Rev. Greg L. Price
In the previous two sermons, we considered the Preterist’s spurious claim that the Book of Revelation was written prior to the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. (which temple and city the Preterist alleges to be standing in Revelation 11:1-2 when John penned the Revelation) and that the Book of Revelation was even written prior to the suicidal death of Nero in 68 a.d. (which emperor the Preterist alleges to be yet alive in Revelation 13:18 when John was given this prophecy). But there is even a greater degree of confidence (according to Preterists) found in the next piece of internal evidence to which they point in order to demonstrate their contention that the Book of Revelation was written prior to the death of Nero (in 68 a.d.): namely, Revelation 17:9-11. Once again, I do not want to imply that all Preterists would agree with what is herein represented to be the interpretive position of Preterists; however, what is represented is a popular interpretive view of many Preterists.
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/226101055452.pdf
I’ll also share a view held by more that is more covenantal.
“Although the calling and conversion of the Jews in the future is included as a theological truth in the Westminster Larger Catechism (Question 191) and as a certain event in which to hope and for which to pray in the Westminster Directory For The Public Worship Of God (both of these were noted in the first sermon in this series), it should be noted that nothing in these two documents is either explicitly affirmed or denied as to the matter of Israel’s restoration to the land promised to them in God’s Covenant with them in the Old Testament. In fact, there is no unified consensus among the Reformed Churches and Teachers on these particular questions. Some divines simply acknowledged the spiritual conversion and calling of Israel, while others in addition to that also acknowledged the geo-political restoration of Israel (as a covenanted Nation) to the land promised to them by God in the Old Testament. Thus, I do not believe that the specific response one gives to the geo-political restoration of Israel as a covenanted Christian Nation determines in and of itself one’s orthodoxy. However, it does seem to me that the weight of biblical evidence lies with those Reformed divines who have promoted both the spiritual/Gospel restoration of Israel to Jesus Christ, but also the geo-political restoration of Israel as a covenanted Christian Nation to the land promised to them by God in His covenant with Israel. This I will seek to demonstrate in the sermons that follow.
Before looking specifically at the question before us today, I would briefly like to make it clear in a few statements what I deny and what I affirm about Israel and her future restoration.
1. I deny that the future restoration of Israel means a return to a rebuilt Temple or any of the Old Testament Ceremonies or Judicial Laws that were peculiar to Israel as a Church or as a Nation in the Old Testament. To the contrary, I affirm (according to the New Testament revelation) that the Temple is realized in the Church of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:20-22; 1 Peter 2:5), that the Old Testament Ceremonies were shadows and are realized in the sacrificial work of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 10:1), and that the Judicial Laws served to distinguish Israel from the heathen nations and are realized in our sanctification from sin unto Christ (2 Corinthians 6:17; Hebrews 6:18).
2. I deny that the future restoration of Israel means that Israel as a Nation or as a National Church will be exalted above or have a more favored status above any other Nation or National Church. To the contrary, I affirm according to the New Testament revelation that (both now and in the future millennium) “in Christ” there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11); that there is only one “new man” comprised of both Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:12-17); that there is one “household” of God composed of both Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:18); that there is “one body” of Christ into which all are baptized, whether Jew or Gentile (1 Corinthians 12:13); that Israel at the time of her future restoration will be grafted into the same olive tree (i.e. Visible Church of Jesus Christ) as are all Gentile and Jews now and as all Gentile Nations shall be in the future when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in (Romans 11:16-26); that there is only one Covenant of Grace in the Old and New Testaments (Galatians 3:15-18) and only one “New Covenant” sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ which encompasses all who come to Christ by faith, whether Jew or Gentile (Matthew 26:28; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Galatians 3:14; Hebrews 8:8; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24); and that there is only one gospel, one salvation, and one Savior offered to both Jew and Gentile, and that any other gospel or salvation offered than the one Paul offered is accursed (Galatians 1:6-10; Acts 4:12; Romans 1:16).
3. I deny that Christ shall bodily return to this earth in order to establish and exalt Israel as a Nation above other Nations and in order to reign upon the throne of David from the earthly city of Jerusalem. To the contrary, I affirm according to the New Testament revelation that Christ is now reigning as King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 17:14; Revelation 19:16), as the Prince of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5), and as the Prince of Israel (Acts 5:31); and that the resurrected Christ was seated upon the throne of David when He ascended to heaven and was seated at God’s right hand (Acts 2:29-36) from where He shall reign until every single enemy (without exception) has been subdued under His feet, the very last enemy that shall be forever subdued being death (1 Corinthians 15:22-26,50-54), which shall be swallowed up AFTER the millennium at the time of Christ’s bodily Second Coming.
4. I am not a Christian Zionist or Dispensationalist erroneously promoting the present Nation of Israel’s existence in Palestine as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. To the contrary, I affirm that the Old Testament prophecies that the restoration of Israel to her land as a covenant blessing requires first Israel’s national repentance and Israel’s national salvation through faith in Christ (Leviticus 26:40-42; Zechariah 12:10-14). It must be remembered that until Israel’s repentance and salvation, she is an enemy to Christ and to the Gospel of Christ (according to Romans 11:28).”
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/7609121923.pdf
I don’t intend to respond to your comments, but will read them during the week if there is anything meaningful. I assume there is likely going to be anti-Steelite language coming from some that I’ve seen so far stated about me (and I assume some may come discrediting the Pastor I’m quoting above) and therefore don’t plan to respond to any of that either. If you want to let it remain and posted to your blog (by whatever they may be) without checking the actual facts, that is certainly your right. I don’t plan to be drawn into the controversy defending “Steelites” on your blog. The recently publishied book by Dodson does an incredible job of that already…nothing more needs to be said from me.
Walt,
It appears to me that Elliott has adequately and accurately summarized the historicist tradition. Steele held to it, too:
If I understand you correctly, you do not believe I have actually misrepresented the historicist position on Revelation 17:10 (if I have, please let me know in what way I have misrepresented it), or even stated something that was not factually correct, but rather that I have cited a historicist who accurately cites the historicist position, but that he is a historicist who holds to other opinions with which you disagree, but which opinions are not plainly relevant to the historicist position on Revelation 17:10, which in fact has been cited correctly. Do I have that right?
Also, I looked through the sermon by Greg Price, but could not determine from it the significance of Revelation 17:10 or its relevance to the dating of the book of Revelation. I do enjoy his sermons, though.
Back to your point, it seems to me that you have taken my words, “Elliott … gives the traditional Protestant historicist interpretation” to mean “Elliott is the headwater and authoritative source of the traditional Protestant historicist interpretation.” I hardly meant that, and hardly meant to imply it. I believe Elliott was right when he said his position is the “generally received Protestant interpretation.” Do you disagree with his statement that the “generally received Protestant interpretation” is that the kings of Revelation 17:10 refer to “forms of Government”? Or is it that my statement is correct, but that you wish that I had cited a different source to confirm a statement from Elliott that is itself verifiably and factually true?
Thank you for your comment,
Tim
One more clarification that perhaps you could make in the future where you lump all historicists together. We view his research among the best, but nobody claims he is the sole authority on historicist protestant tradition as you imply in your testimony. Again, a comment from someone I’ll not name.
Please notice that “historicist research” are “among the best” which is more accurate than implying he is the main historcist author on our tradition, and even if Elliot himself claims he is following the historicist tradition it would be best to make some distinctions so your reader to not assume you are the only one who uses Scripture alone, and the rest of the reformers/historicists use tradition like the Roman Catholics and ignore Scripture.
“…. in short, Elliot was neither a futurist, nor a preterist. He was a historicist and premillenial. While his premillenial conclusions are obviously erroneous, his historicist research is, in my opinion, among the best that has been done thus far.”
Walt,
Historicists maybe lumped together into the historicist camp by the sheer fact they are all historicists, as is amply demonstrated by the fact that Elliott and Steele both maintained the same interpretation of Revelation 17:10. This writer excepted, I don’t know of any historicists who do not believe Elliott’s interpretation of Revelation 17:10, but I certainly have not read them all. So far as I can tell, neither Elliot nor Steele appeal to scripture to prove the interpretation of the meaning of kings in that verse. Elliot by way of example introduces the section by saying, “Let us turn to history for our interpretation.” In my humble opinion I believe he should’ve said “Let us turn to Daniel.” If there is a scriptural basis for the interpretation that he has provided I would be very interested to hear it. I just haven’t seen one.
That said, it is nonetheless true that Elliot’s interpretation of Revelation 17:10 comes down to us without any Danielic precedent.
Do you deny that? If so, what is your Danielic precedent?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim said ” so far as I can tell, neither Elliot or Steele appeal to scripture to prove the interpretation of the meaning of kings in that verse.” This is interesting. From my research i have learned Price and Steele for their soaring rhetoric, appeal to 2nd reformation history the way papal bishops reference the church fathers. You said ” Elliot, by way of example introduces the section by saying ” lets turn to history for our interpretation” In my humble opinion he should have said ” lets turn to Daniel” Bingo. Under the guise of sola scriptura, they elevate subordinate documents of the 2nd reformation above it. Reading quotes from Reg Barrow and hearing a quote from Price that he was the only lawful minister of the gospel gave me pause. Any church outside theirs is apostate. Calvin was friends with Melancthon and believed the Lutheran church was a true church. The argument put forth for ” forms of government” seems unconvincing from scripture. Thanks k
1 Corinthians 1:13″ if I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but I have not love, I have become a noisy gong, a clanging symbol.” The blessed trinity Me, myself and I. Walt, being confronted on your sin isnt anti steelite. You are still yet to apologize for your ad hominemn attacks. You have proven to be unrepentant. It has nothing to do with your sect, but you. God bless, hope you are well. K
Tim,
My point was to make a distinction that Elliot was not the only, nor leading, historicist that held to the historical protestant position. He has good research on the subject, and he was a pre-mill historcist that is different than a post-mill historicist.
I cannot label you as a combined dispensational amill-preterist as I’m sure in time there will be a more accurate label for your views. I was only pointing out that not all historicists are pre-mill Elliot believersin the history of protestant eschatology. That is all…no reason to be feel attacked.
http://media.sermonaudio.com/mediapdf/122712160161.pdf
“I. What Are The Seven Heads Of The Beast (Revelation 17:9-10)?
A. There are two different but complementary explanations given by the interpreting angel to the Apostle John as to the meaning of the seven heads of the Beast of Revelation.
1. First, the seven heads are said by the angel to represent seven mountains or hills (Revelation 17:9). This was a familiar and famous designation among the ancients for Rome—the city built upon seven hills. In fact, there was an annual feast in Rome called “the feast of the seven hills” (cp. the historian Seutonius in his The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, “Domitian, Chapter 4”; cp. also Durham, who cites the poets Virgil and Ovid in his Commentary upon the Book of the Revelation, p. 816). This great city that is famous for its seven hills is likewise identified in Revelation 17:18 as “that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth”, which refers to the worldwide empire of ancient Rome (Revelation 17:18). Thus, according to Revelation 17:9, these seven heads of the Beast are clearly associated with the political kingdom of Rome. We will consider in a future sermon this whore in greater detail, who sits upon the city of the seven hills (or Rome), but suffice it to say at this point, that this harlot (who is described earlier in Revelation 17:5 as “Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth”) is the Roman Catholic Church, whose capital is the Vatican in Rome (Revelation 17:18). This harlot church is the antithesis to the faithful bride and church of Christ. This harlot church seduces the masses (overn1 billion members throughout the world).
2. Second, the seven heads of the political kingdom of Rome are also said by the angel to represent seven “kings” (“And there are seven kings”, or better, “And they [i.e. the seven heads—GLP] are seven kings” Revelation 17:10).
a. Let’s first consider who these seven kings are not, and then we shall consider who they are.
1. First, I submit that these seven heads that are seven kings are NOT seven successive ancient world powers as some Historicists have proposed: namely, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the Gothic kingdoms. For according to this interpretation of the seven heads, Rome is only one of the heads (the sixth head, the one that “is” reigning at the time John pens this revelation).
(a) However, we have already spent time in the previous sermon demonstrating that this Beast of Revelation is the same as the fourth Beast of Daniel’s Revelation (Daniel 7), which was identified as the political empire of Rome. If the Beast in its entirety is the political empire of Rome, then it is inconsistent to identify the political empire of Rome as merely one of the heads of the Beast.
(b) Furthermore, I submit that Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece never did reign as heads over the political empire of Rome, which is the Beast of Revelation. For how could foreign kingdoms which ruled in power (some hundreds of years before Rome) be said to reign as heads over the political kingdom of Rome? They could not.
2. Second, these heads that are seven kings are NOT seven successive kings or caesars of Rome. Preterists claim that these seven kings are seven individual caesars beginning with Julius and proceeding to the seventh, Galba (with Nero being identified as the one that “is” presently reigning when John penned this prophecy in Revelation 17:10).
(a) The first reason why this interpretation of the seven heads to be the seven successive caesars from Julius to Galba fails is because it cannot provide a sound explanation of the healing of the head that is wounded to death (Revelation 13:3). The Preterist interprets the sixth head (i.e. Nero) as the head that “is” presently ruling (Revelation 17:10) and as the head that also received the deadly wound in Revelation 13:3 (which deadly wound occurred at his own hand, when he committed suicide). However, the Preterist cannot explain how this deadly wound of Nero, who is claimed to be the sixth head, was healed, so that he came alive and reigned as the eighth head (Revelation 17:11—Nero was, Nero was not, Nero is again). For clearly Nero did not come to life and reign after Galba (who is claimed to be the seventh head). To the contrary, it was Otho who came to power after Galba, and Otho only reigned for 3 months. Otho could hardly be some literal or figurative healing of Nero’s wound.
(b) The second reason why the Preterist interpretation of the seven heads to be the seven successive caesars from Julius to Galba fails is because Preterists fail to understand which head is the great persecutor of the faithful witnesses of Christ in the Book of Revelation. Preterists claim it is the sixth head (who they claim to be Nero) that is the great persecutor. However, this is not what our text teaches. Note carefully that it is not the sixth head (which head is mortally wounded) that is the great persecutor of Christ’s faithful witnesses, but rather, it is the eighth head (i.e. the healed or revived expression of the sixth head that received the deadly wound) that comes out of the bottomless pit to war against Christ and against His faithful witnesses (Revelation 11:7; Revelation 17:8,11). Once again, if these heads are successive caesars beginning with Julius, then the eighth head or caesar would be Otho, who did not persecute the Church and only reigned for three months.
b. Having briefly considered who these seven heads (i.e. seven kings) are not, let’s now turn our attention to considering who these seven heads (i.e. seven kings) in Revelation 17:10 are. c. The interpretation that I believe best explains the identity of the seven heads is certainly not original with me, but is rather the historic, Protestant interpretation of the seven heads of the civil Beast of Rome: namely, that the seven heads refer to a succession of forms of governments that ruled as heads over the political kingdom of Rome.
(1) First, the word “kings” (“And there are [or they are—GLP] seven kings” in Revelation 17:10) does not always mean individual kings in prophetic Scripture. Note that in Daniel 7:17 the four political kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome are called “four kings”; whereas in Daniel 7:23 these four kings are referred to as “kingdoms”. Why is that significant? It demonstrates that the word “king” does not have to refer to a single, individual king, but may actually stand for a government that includes many successive kings or rulers within it.
(2) Thus, when Revelation 17:10 says that the seven heads are seven kings, we likewise understand there to be a succession of seven forms of government that bear rule over the political kingdom of Rome. The following six stages of successive forms of government in political Rome have been identified by ancient Roman historians: Livy (who lived from 59 b.c.—circa 17 a.d.) and Tacitus (who lived from 56 a.d.—circa 118), both of whom identify the first six forms of government that reigned over political Rome as the following: (1) The rule of Kings; (2) The rule of Consuls; (3) The rule of the Council of Ten; (4) The rule of Military Tribunes; (5) The rule of Dictators; and (6) The rule of Emperors (cf. Tacitus, Annals, p.1; Livy, Book 1:60, Book 3:33, Book 4:7) .
(3) These were well-known and well-recognized successive stages of rule or government in ancient Rome. Thus, when the angel states in Revelation 17:10 that five of these kings (or forms of government over the political kingdom of Rome) are fallen at the time in which John pens the Book of Revelation, we should identify those five kings or stages of government that had fallen as: (1) The Kings of Rome; (2) The Consuls of Rome; (3) The Council of Ten of Rome; (4) The Military Tribunes of Rome; and (5) The Dictators of Rome.
(4) When the angel explains that one king (or form of government) is presently ruling (“five are fallen, and one is” Revelation 17:10), that would be the sixth head or form of government over the political kingdom of Rome, namely, The Emperors of Rome (which was the form of government in power at the time that John wrote the Book of Revelation, under Emperor Domitian). The sixth head of the Roman Beast (that of The Emperors of Rome) continued from Caesar Augustus (27 b.c., who was the emperor reigning at the time of Christ’s birth) until Romulus Augustus was forced to abdicate the throne of the Western Roman Empire in 476 a.d., which I submit was the point in time in which the sixth head of the Roman Beast received its deadly wound (as indicated in Revelation 13:3), and the point in time in which the Beast “was not” (Revelation 17:10).
(5) This deadly wound to the Emperors of the Western Roman Empire left the divided Western Roman Empire and particularly Rome under continuous upheaval with various barbarian rulers and the Emperor of the Eastern Empire vying for power for over two hundred and fifty years.
(6) Then the seventh head of the Roman Beast appeared in 753 a.d. when Pope Stephen II conferred upon Pepin III the title of “Patrician of the Romans” (i.e. Father or Defender of the Romans). This seventh head of Rome continued for “a short space”, about 47 years (Revelation 17:10). But it was not until the sixth head of Rome (i.e. of the Emperors) is healed in the eighth head that the rule of Emperors is revived to the Western Roman Empire, which occurs in 800 a.d.”
Tim said:
“That said, it is nonetheless true that Elliot’s interpretation of Revelation 17:10 comes down to us without any Danielic precedent.
Do you deny that? If so, what is your Danielic precedent?”
YES, the historicist POST-MILL position.
“c. The interpretation that I believe best explains the identity of the seven heads is certainly not original with me, but is rather the historic, Protestant interpretation of the seven heads of the civil Beast of Rome: namely, that the seven heads refer to a succession of forms of governments that ruled as heads over the political kingdom of Rome.
(1) First, the word “kings” (“And there are [or they are—GLP] seven kings” in Revelation 17:10) does not always mean individual kings in prophetic Scripture. Note that in Daniel 7:17 the four political kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome are called “four kings”; whereas in Daniel 7:23 these four kings are referred to as “kingdoms”. Why is that significant? It demonstrates that the word “king” does not have to refer to a single, individual king, but may actually stand for a government that includes many successive kings or rulers within it.”
Thanks, Walt. I saw that in Price’s sermon. In my opinion, his argument is insufficient and is a nonsequitur. As he has noted, “king” can refer to an individual king, or to an empire with many successive kings or rulers within it. Indeed it can. Babylon was a kingdom with a succession of kings. Media was a kingdom with a succession of kings. Persia was a kingdom with a succession of kings. Greece was a kingdom with a succession of kings. After this, we are to take Rome as a kingdom with a succession of forms of Government? On what basis? As I said, it is a non sequitur. It has no basis in Danielic eschatology. We can identify the first king of the kingdom of Babylon (Nebuchadnezzar). We can identify the first king of the kingdom of the Medes (Darius). We can identify the first king of the kingdom of the Persians (Cyrus). We can identify the first king of the kingdom of the Greeks (Alexander). We can even identify the first kings of the four nations that came up from Alexander. All of these came up, one after the other, in succession. Am I to believe that when we get to Rome, we cease talking about a succession of kings within a kingdom, and instead we are now talking about forms of government within a kingdom, and the first “king” (form of government) of the Romans predates all other empires and came up in the 750s B.C., a century and a half before Nebuchanezzar? On what basis? All the previous world empires arose in succession and their first kings are identified with their rise as a world power. Why trace Rome’s first king to a time before Nebuchadnezzar’s grandfather was even born?
Price also provides Tacitus and Livius to support the theory of seven successive forms of government as follows:
But Tacitus (Annals, 1.1) lists Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, Military Tribunes, Despots (revival of the dictatorship) and Princes (Emperors):
The office of Dictator was established very early in the history of Rome, and then was revived at the time of Sulla, prior to the Emperors. Do you think the first office of Dictator ought to be disregarded in the enumeration of forms of government? If so, why?
Thanks,
Tim
From the Preface I have, it says, “In 1598, the annotations on the Book of Revelation by Francis Junius, a Huguenot divine, were introduced into the Geneva Bible” (Metzger, Bruce M., “Book Notes,” Theology Today, Vol. 46, no 4 (January 1990): 463). The edition we have chosen as our source is a facsimile of the work of Tomson and Junius, dated 1599, however, “in 1599 alone ten editions appeared” (Dr. Roger Nicole, “The Original Geneva Bible,” Tabletalk Magazine, Vol. 19, no. 4 (April 1995).”
The link below comes from the following internet source, but is the same as my version of the text:
http://gsb.biblecommenter.com/revelation/17.htm
——————————
11 {22} And the beast that was, and is not, even he is {23} the eighth, and is {24} of the seven, {25} and goeth into perdition.
(22) This is spoken by synecdoche, as if to say, as that head of the beast which was and is not, because it is cut off, and Nerua in so short time extinguished. How many heads there were, so many beasts there seemed to be in one. See a similar speech in Re 13:3.
(23) Nerua Traianus, who in various respects is called here the seventh and the eighth.
(24) Though in number and order of succession he is the eighth yet he is counted with one of these heads, because Nerua and he were one head. For this man obtained authority together with Nerua and was Consul with him, when Nerua died.
(25) Namely, to persecute the Churches of Christ, as history agrees, and I have briefly noted see Geneva Re 2:10.
——————————–
For example, in Verse 10, he writes:
10 {18} And there are seven kings: {19} five are fallen, {20} and one is, {21} and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
(18) The beginning of these kings or emperors is almost the same as the beginning of the Church of Christ, which I showed before in see Geneva (2) Re 11:1. Namely from the 25th year after the passion of Christ, at which time the temple and church of the Jews was overthrown. In this year it came to pass by the providence of God, that that saying The beast was, and is not was fulfilled before the destruction of the Jews immediately following, came to pass. That was 809 years from the building of the city of Rome at which time John counted the emperors who had been, when he wrote these things, and foretells two others next to come: and with this purpose, that when this particular prediction of things to come should take effect, the truth of all other predictions in the Church, might be the more confirmed. God in ancient times mentioned this sign in the Law and Jeremiah confirmed it in De 18:1-22, Jer 28:8.
(19) Whose names are these: the first, Servius Sulpitius Galba, who was the seventh emperor of the people of Rome, the second Marcus Salvius Otho, the third Avlus Vitellius, the fourth, Titus Flavius Vespasianus, the fifth, Titus Vespasianus his son, of his own name.
(20) Flavius Domitian, son of the first Vespasian. For in the latter end of his days John wrote these things, as witnesses Irenaus; Lib. 5 adversus hareses.
(21) Nerua, The empire being now translated from the family of Flavius. This man reigned only one year, four months and nine days, as the history writers tell.
Walt, did you read the article? The point Tim made imho is that the historist position has no Danielic authority for ” forms of government” because when you look at Danielic postition on kings, it means kings, and it always accompanies a chronological, eschatological transition. He is applying that to Johns use. It seemsvto me forms of government is a big reach, unless of course Elliot was speaking infalibly or had special revelation. I quoted you last week as saying someday historists will be looking back on Tim’s position as accepted pecedence. I agree, its possible. K
TIM–
You said: “Babylon was a kingdom with a succession of kings. Media was a kingdom with a succession of kings. Persia was a kingdom with a succession of kings. Greece was a kingdom with a succession of kings. After this, we are to take Rome as a kingdom with a succession of forms of Government? On what basis? As I said, it is a non sequitur. It has no basis in Danielic eschatology.”
So in Danielic eschatology, you say to remain consistent, the “kings” are the Roman Emperors, either individually or as an empire of successive emperors. And you can name them, either individually or in succession. You can even name the first “king”. In the Roman Empire you claim Julius Caesar as the first. History claims Augustus as the first “king” of the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar was the first dictator of the Roman Republic. But that is just the first inconsistency in your theory. A minor one, but it is one nonetheless.
Daniel sees the image of a beast to denote an empire. He also uses the image of a head to denote a division of an empire such as the four heads of the third beast. I notice that Daniel is also consistent in his use of “kings” as absolute rulers in Daniel 2:
Dan 2:37 “You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the [fn]kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory;
He also equates “kings” and “horns” in Daniel 7:
Dan 7:23 “Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.
24 ‘As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings,/strong>.’
A king with absolute power such as Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander in Daniel 2 would then be equal in power to a king in Daniel 7, right?
Here is your biggest inconsistency of your theory. You equate the ten horns of Daniel as being diocese:
“The division of the empire started in 293 A.D. with the formation of 12 dioceses under four tetrarchs, presiding from Nicomedia, Smirmium, Milan and Trier. Each tetrarch was assigned the rule over three dioceses, and each diocese was in turn ruled from its chief metropolis by a vicarius or equivalent. Notably, the city of Rome was reduced in stature, and was made neither a tetrarch capital, nor even the chief metropolis of the Diocese of Italy. Nevertheless, the city of Rome was also assigned its own vicarius, and he ruled over his limited jurisdiction in the heart of Italy. Over the course of the fourth century, the tetrarchy faded away, but the diocesan system endured. Further reorganizations occurred in which two dioceses were combined into one, and two others were divided into four. The eventual outcome by the end of the fourth century was a fully reorganized Roman empire of thirteen dioceses under thirteen vicars—and within one of those dioceses, a greatly diminished city of Rome, a comparatively small vicariate in an empire of dioceses. Although the Vicar of Rome had not received a diocese to manage, the city of Rome and its suburbs comprised what could almost be called a little diocese of their own. We might even call it “the fourteenth diocese.”
Those vicars are not absolute rulers. They are subordinate to the Roman Emperors, both East and West, who are the “kings” of the Roman Empire. To be consistent with Daniel, the “horns” of Daniel 7 and “toes” of Daniel 2 cannot possibly be only vicars while the “kings” (Roman Emperors) are still on the throne. And like I mentioned earlier, the Roman Empire had a succession of “kings” all the way till the Turks finally conquered the Roman Empire in 1453 AD.
TIM–
You also said: “In Daniel 7:24, the narrator explains that “the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise” from the Fourth Empire. The Little horn is to “subdue three kings.” Nowhere is it suggested in the text that the ten kings are ten “forms of Government,” or that the three subdued kings are three different “forms of Government” that are subdued.”
And nowhere in Daniel does it suggest the ten kings are a change in government from an absolute empire to a divided tetrarchy turned into a diocesan vicarate system.
Except for the part where the horns on the goats head do just exactly that. One horn turned to four represents the division of a unified kingdom.
Dude That’s Just Like Your Opinion Man–
You must be referring to this:
Dan 8:8 Then the male goat magnified himself exceedingly. But as soon as he was mighty, the large horn was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven.
Notice the large horn is considered a king with absolute power. Possibly Alexander the Great. That large horn was broken and four horns took it’s place–four kings with absolute power reining in four different areas– possibly Alexanders generals. The Beast or He-goat is possibly the Greek empire with “king” Alexander the large horn, who died and left the empire to the four “kings” Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Mesopotamia and Central Asia, Attalid Anatolia, and Antigonid Macedon. These “kings” were not subject to any higher emperor nor were they subject to each other.
The Roman diocesan vicarate system was subject to the two “kings” at the time, the Western and Eastern Emperors of the Roman Empire. To remain consistent with Danielic prophesy, the vicars of the respective diocese cannot be considered “kings” as long as the real “kings” (the Roman Emperors) are still on the throne. They would be subordinate governors of the separate territories of the “kingdom”. Daniel never suggests anything like that.
Tim, Horton does an amazing job of pointing out that Augustine and many early fathers were so commited to the philosophers that the incarnation, ascension, parousia was compromised by collapsing the head into the body. Since antichrist Rome prsents itself as the natural body of Christ in an co ongoing atonement thru the acts of the church, and wielded the sword civilly, the looking out the window for his return is burried. I think some of this overrealized eclessialolgy also confused the Reformers and their pollyanish hope for Christian rule thru civil government. But in the thesis you are putting forward we understand from Daniel and Revelations that it os Antichrist that has been allowed to dominion and dominate the world systems. And it isnt until the return of Christ that He destroys these powers and rulers and authority. The fact that He has to destroy these at his second coming shouldvtell us He wasnt in temporal control of them, although God has ultimate soveriegnty over everything. Do you agree with this? K
This blog is so encouraging. It arms me to understand the Scripture in its intended context, not divorced from reality and assigned a “spirituality” so as to be irrelevant.
I has me thinking about the Scripture in a way that makes more sense. For instance, many believe and tell me that America is Babylon. Babylon the Great, out of whom we must come to avoid sharing in her sins. But, since Peter wrote from Babylin, I must look into whether the discussions and warnings concerned just the actual city.