Follow
Last year we posted two separate entries, False Teeth and “Unless I am Deceived…,” both dealing with the anachronistic projection of late 4th century civil boundaries of the Roman Empire retroactively onto the early 4th century text of Canon 6 of the Council of Nicæa. The anachronism has obscured the meaning of the canon since the days of Jerome (398 A.D.), Rufinus (403 A.D.) and Innocent I (411 A.D.).
To illustrate just how pervasive and enduring that anachronism is, we note in Sara Parvis’ recent (2006) work on the Arian controversy that the Council of Tyre in 335 A.D. is described as a synod of bishops from the civil diocese of Oriens, supplemented by a few bishops from Egypt and Libya:
“[I]t is clear from the list of provinces that it was basically a synod of the civil diocese of Oriens (Cilicia, Syria, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, Arabia, and Palestine) … supplemented by a handful of bishops from the Egyptian provinces (mainly Melitians) and Libya…” (Parvis, Sarah, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006) 125)
Note that she has described Egypt and Libya as if they were outside of the diocese of Oriens at the time. In fact, Egypt and Libya had been part of Oriens since Diocletian’s reorganization in 293 A.D., and remained so at least until 373 A.D.. They were certainly within Oriens at the time of the synod of Tyre.
That seemingly innocuous error has been repeated in various forms since the days of Jerome, and has had a surprisingly significant impact on the historical assessment of canon 6 of Nicæa, a canon that was written specifically to address an Alexandrian boundary dispute that had occurred within the diocese of Oriens. Such geographic matters weigh heavily on a canon that was written to address a geographic controversy.
Ms. Parvis’ illustration above is just a recent example of a long history of analyses that assume Egypt and Libya were outside of Oriens in the early 4th century. That anachronism has been put to effective use by Roman Catholic apologists who wish to prove Roman episcopal primacy from the 6th canon of Nicæa, and their conclusions rest entirely upon that error.
The Trinity Foundation has recently published our articles on this topic in a revised compilation under the title, Nicæa and the Roman Precedent. Those interested in studying the implications of Jerome’s, Rufinus’ and Innocent’s error, and how it has affected 1600 years of Nicæan ecclesiology, can read further about it there.
Tim,
Great explanation and details on the subject above. It truly is incredible how you weed out these unknown issues in historical literature that make the Romish apologists look a bit silly for not digging into the details. Even watching those who have the truth exposed in front of them later ignoring it, covering it up or simply refusing to repent and retract it makes one further convinced how disappointing Rome truly is on truth, facts and evidence.
On another topic, I have been trying to get my head around the 1260, 1290 and 1335 day periods in Daniel, vs. the 1260 year period in Revelation.
I was trying to map out the periods in Daniel from our various comments back and forth, and then try to show the fulfillment (end dates), and then jumping to Rev. 1:1 which means “soon come to pass” or (counter argument) “soon begin in history” to see where you start the Romish Antichrist coming into power beginning the 1260 years ending with the period close to the killing times in Scotland (my observation here).
As you know, these two ending periods in Daniel & Revelation separate you from most other historicists as we have discussed in the past. Most hold the 1260, 1290 and 1335 as day-year periods starting in either 606, 706, 756 or 800 AD and fit perfectly into the 1260 year period of Revelations. As Pastor Price has noted,
“e. The Day-Year Principle likewise became the classic, historic Reformed and Protestant interpretation of prophetic time periods in the Books of Daniel and Revelation from the First Reformation onward. In fact, it was the Counter-Reformation efforts of the Roman Catholic Church that argued against the Day-Year Principle of the Protestant Reformation, and rather defended a literal interpretation of the 1,260 days of Revelation.”
Here is the basis for that argument. I know that you will not agree with this position using these four statements of evidence, but it would be helpful to see where you think we differ. Further, perhaps sometime you could write an article explaining how you don’t agree with the logic below on applying the day-year principle to Daniel but do with Revelations, and show the exact dates of each periods combined into one article. I would love to share that one article showing your reasoning to others who are interested to hear what you have to say on the subject.
Promise there will be no name calling or childish reply. Two of us are trying to map out the dates of various interpreters and commentaries throughout history.
——
2. The prophetic Book of Revelation is very dependent upon the prophetic Books of Ezekiel and Daniel for the right interpretation of a number of the symbols and figurative language used in it. In fact, the Apostle John makes 403 allusions, or indirect quotes, from the canonized books of the Hebrew Bible (cf. “Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels” found in UBS, pp. 891-901). The four Books of the Old Testament that are used most in the Book of Revelation are Isaiah (18% of those 403 allusions or indirect quotes), Psalms (17%), Ezekiel (14%), and Daniel (10%). In other words, nearly ¼ of the references to the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation come from the prophetic Books of Ezekiel and Daniel. Thus, as we approach the question as to how we are to compute and calculate the time periods found in the prophetic Book of Revelation (1,260 prophetic days, 42 prophetic months, and a prophetic time, times, and half a time i.e. a prophetic 3 ½ years), ought we not to presume that the same God who gave the inspired Day-Year Principle in order to interpret prophetic time periods in Ezekiel and Daniel would likewise expect us to use the same inspired Day-Year Principle to interpret prophetic time periods in the Book of Revelation, and especially since the prophetic Book of Revelation is so dependent upon the prophetic Books of Ezekiel and Daniel for the symbols, figurative language, and themes that we find in the Book of Revelation?
3. Such a presumption of continuity from the prophetic Book of Daniel to the prophetic Book of Revelation certainly ought to guide us in accurately interpreting the symbol of the Beast with the ten horns (in Revelation 13:1-2). As we approach this beast that is revealed in Revelation 13, should we assume absolute nothing about this Beast and come with a blank page and a completely empty mind, or should we assume a literal interpretation of a great and grotesque sea creature that will war against the faithful witnesses of Christ that literally has 7 heads and 10 horns? Or should we rather read what God has already revealed about this Beast in Daniel 7-8 (where we find a figurative representation of Daniel’s 4th beast to be one that also has 10 horns)? I dare say that most Christian interpreters would take the latter approach of presuming the symbol of the Beast with 10 horns in the prophetic Book of Daniel is the same Beast with the 10 horns in the prophetic Book of Revelation. And so they should. And that is precisely the same argument that I am using (and that Historicists use) when it comes to accurately interpreting the prophetic time periods of 1,260 days, 42 prophetic months, a prophetic time, times, and half a time i.e. 3 ½ prophetic years. I will be using the inspired Day-Year Principle to interpret these prophetic time periods in the prophetic Book of Revelation, just as God used the same inspired Day-Year Principle to interpret prophetic time periods in the prophetic Books of Ezekiel (Chapter 4:4-6) and Daniel (Chapter 9:24-25). That is not a blind leap of faith. That is simply allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, and allowing Scripture to provide us with the interpretive key to unlocking these prophetic time periods God has revealed in His Word.
B. The second piece of evidence for using the Year-Day Principle in our calculating the prophetic 1,260 days, the prophetic 42 months, and the prophetic time, times, and half a time i.e. the prophetic 3 ½ years is this: The uniqueness of these prophetic time periods should alert us to their being figurative (and that they represent different periods of time than are specifically stated).
1. The time periods of 1,260 days (in Revelation 11:3; Revelation 12:6); 42 months (in Revelation 11:2; Revelation 13:5); and a time, times, and half a time i.e. 3 ½ years (in Revelation 12:14) are all very unique and unlike the way time periods are expressed when they are intended to be literal years, months, or days in the rest of Scripture.
2. When the Holy Spirit refers to a literal period of 3 ½ years, it is simply stated elsewhere in Scripture as “three years and six months” (Luke 4:25; James 5:17), not “a time, a times, and half a time”. In fact, whenever the Word of God expresses broken periods of time (i.e. so many years and so many months) that are to be taken literally, it is stated as we find it in 2 Samuel 2:11 and Acts 18:11. Therefore, when we read of a time period that is expressed as “a time, a times, and half a time”, it clearly deviates from the ordinary way in which a literal 3 ½ year period of time is expressed in the Bible. It is like a flashing neon light that is intended to draw our attention to the fact that this uniquely stated time period is not to be interpreted literally, but rather according to the Day-Year Principle.
3. As for the time period expressed as “forty and two months” in Revelation 11:2 and Revelation 13:5—this time period (equivalent to 3 ½ years) is only stated in these two places here in the Book of Revelation and never anywhere else. This time period of 42 months is also absolutely unique and unparalleled in Scripture i.e. a time period stated in terms of so many months. The longest period of time expressed in terms of months in the Bible (outside of Revelation 11:2 and Revelation 13:5) is 12 months (and is only found in Esther 2:12 and Daniel 4:29, both of which are found in historical not prophetic sections of these Old Testament Books). I submit that when we see 42 months in this symbolic portion of God’s prophetic Word (Revelation 11:2 and Revelation 13:5), we are being led by the Spirit of God away from a literal to a non-literal interpretation of that time period (i.e. we are being led to calculate this time period by means of the Day-Year Principle).
4. As for the time period expressed as “one thousand two hundred and threescore days” (i.e. 1,260 days) in Revelation 11:2 and Revelation 12:6, this time period (expressed as over a thousand days) is also very unique in Scripture, and I submit that we are being taught once again by the Spirit of God to interpret these days in a non-literal sense and by the Day-Year Principle (just as we find a prophetic time period in Daniel 12:11 of 1,290 days and a prophetic time period in Daniel 12:12 of 1,335 days). The closest time period in Scripture expressed in terms of days (that is less than 1,260 days) is 150 days (and it is used in the historical [not prophetic] narrative of the flood in Genesis 7:24). So when we come to time periods in symbolic highly portions of God’s prophetic Word, we ought to be considering a non-literal use of those time periods as intended by the Holy Spirit (per the Day-Year Principle as found in the prophetic Books of Ezekiel and Daniel).
C. The third piece of evidence for using the Day-Year Principle in
our calculating the prophetic 1,260 days, the prophetic 42 months, and the prophetic time, times, and half a time i.e. the prophetic 3 ½ years is this: The original source for the prophetic time period, “a time, a times, and half a time” (Revelation 12:14) is Daniel 7:25 and Daniel 12:7 (in both of these passages the prophetic enemy of Christ’s faithful witnesses makes war against them for a prophetic period of “a time, a times, and half a time”, which is the same prophetic period of time mentioned in Revelation 13:5 (where the beast wars against the saints for the same period of time, 42 prophetic months).
1. This unique expression of “a time, and times, and half a time” (Revelation 12:7) is found only in prophetic portions of Scripture (not historical narratives in Scripture), and prophetic portions of Scripture that are filled with many symbols. For example, in Daniel chapter 7 (where we find in verse 25 “a time and times and the dividing of time”) there are symbolic beasts, symbolic horns, symbolic heads, and a symbolic little horn; and likewise in Revelation 12 (where in verse 14 we find “a time, and times, and half a time”) there is a symbolic woman that has a symbolic crown with 12 symbolic stars and is given two symbolic wings of a great eagle, and flees into a symbolic wilderness, and is pursued by a symbolic serpent. Thus, in the midst of such prophetic symbolism, I submit we should also expect to find non-literal time periods that are stated in a unique manner different from how the Lord expresses literal time periods in other places in Scripture.
2. Dear ones, we cannot approach the time periods in the prophetic Book of Revelation as if those time periods (e.g. “a time, times, and half a time”) are never mentioned prior to their use in the prophetic Book of Revelation. No, this time period (“a time, and times, and half a time”) has a background and use in a highly symbolic portion within the prophetic Book of Daniel (where God gives to us the Day-Year Principle). Thus, I submit that just as the 70 prophetic weeks of Daniel (i.e. 490 prophetic days) in Daniel 9:24 are rightly interpreted to mean 490 actual years, so likewise the prophetic time period in Daniel 7:25 of “a time and times and the dividing of time” (i.e. 3 ½ prophetic years, which is 42 prophetic months, and which is 1,260 prophetic days) ought to be interpreted as 1,260 years. In so doing, we have a perfect correlation between the prophetic time periods in the prophetic Book of Daniel and the prophetic time periods in the Book of Revelation.
D. The fourth piece of evidence for using the Day-Year Principle in our interpretation of the prophetic 1,260 days, the prophetic 42 months, and the prophetic time, times, and half a time i.e. the prophetic 3 ½ years is this: The Day-Year Principle helps us to understand other prophetic time periods mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
1. Revelation 2:10: “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”
a. To what do the “ten days” of tribulation refer? Are these ten literal days or using the Day-Year Principle do these ten prophetic days signify ten actual years of tribulation that the Church of Smyrna will face?
b. There are those who would interpret the ten days literally, but in so doing they cannot specifically indentify when these ten days of persecution were brought against the historic Church of Smyrna, to whom this letter in Revelation 2:8-11 is addressed.
c. There are others who would interpret the ten days symbolically as intending no specific time period, but rather simply referring to a short but definite period of tribulation that would befall the Church of Smyrna.
d. However, I would submit that these ten days of tribulation may and ought to be interpreted using the Day-Year Principle (since this is a prophetic portion of God’s Word that is filled with much figurative speech in Revelation 1:10-20). There was indeed an imperial ten year tribulation that was brought against Christians during the reign of Trajan (the persecution extended from 108-117, which is ten years when the beginning year and the ending year are included (just as Christ was in the grave for three days even though He died Friday evening and arose early Sunday morning—parts of a day or year are included in the time period). This ten year persecution under Trajan would have been likely 12-15 years in the future from the time that John was given this prophecy (while he was suffering under the persecution brought by Domitian against Christians).
(1) Consider what is stated in the Geneva Notes in regard to the “ten days” mentioned in Revelation 2:10.
That is, of ten years. For so commonly both in this book and in Daniel, years are signified by the name of days: that God thereby might declare, that the space of time is appointed by him, and the same very short. Now because Saint John wrote this book in the end of Domitian the Emperor his reign, as Justinus and Ireneus do witness, it is altogether necessary that this should be referred unto that persecution which was done by the authority of the emperor Trajan, who began to make havock of the Christian churches in the tenth year of his reign, as the historiographers [historians] do write: and his bloody persecution continued until Adrian the Emperor had succeeded in his stead: The space of which time is precisely ten years, which are here mentioned.
(2) During this period of persecution in Trajan’s reign, Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, wrote the Emperor Trajan and said that when someone informed upon a Christian, the Christian was brought before his tribunal and he asked him if he were a Christian. If he still admitted the charge after three such questions, he was sentenced to death. In his answer, Trajan assured Pliny that Pliny was following the correct procedure. If a Christian was reported, the Christian was to be punished unless he/she recanted and worshiped the gods of the Romans. This became official procedure, and governors throughout the empire followed the principles Trajan had approved (including Asia Minor, where the Church of Smyrna was located).
(3) It was also during this period of persecution under Trajan (about A.D. 115) that Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was seized and taken from Antioch to Rome. As Ignatius traveled, he wrote several letters to various churches, and one of those churches that he wrote to was this very Church of Smyrna. Upon reaching Rome, Ignatius was thrown to the wild beasts in the Coloseum. He boldly declared,
May the wild beasts be eager to rush upon me. If they be unwilling, I will compel them. Come, crowds of wild beasts; come, tearings and manglings, wracking of bones and hacking of limbs; come, cruel tortures of the devil; only let me attain unto Christ.
Dear ones, although I firmly believe that the Day-Year Principle gives us the Spirit-inspired key to unlocking the door to prophetic time periods in the Book of Revelation and in aiding us in identifying the two great enemies who war against Christ’s faithful witnesses and who will be destroyed by Christ in Revelation 19:19-20, I believe the exhortation from Jesus Christ in Revelation 2:10 is that which is even more important than a proper understanding of prophetic time periods. “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer.” We may not be suffering at the present time as did Ignatius and the Christians under Trajan’s persecution. Some Christians are, however, in various places in the world. How we need to uphold them in prayer. But what do you fear suffering? Loss of a loved one, loss of health, loss of work, loss of possessions, loss of the esteem of friends, loss of freedom etc.? Do not fear.
“Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”
Being faithful unto death is no less necessary to you and to me than it was to Ignatius. The consequences of being faithful were greater to Ignatius than they are to us, but the need to be faithful is just as much required of us. And perhaps because toleration and compromise are the religious principles that most people embrace in this present age, the dangers to being faithful are in some ways even greater. Being faithful to Christ is contrasted in Revelation to being an unfaithful wife who plays the harlot (Revelation 17). Faithfulness begins with a firm foundation built upon our justification by faith alone, assurance built upon the unfailing promises of God, and growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ. Compromise when it comes to the truth of Christ, dear ones, is not being faithful, it is playing the harlot.
And the promise upon which we are always to look with the eye of hope is the crown of life. Why are we not to fear? Why are we to be faithful unto death? Because the Lord has prepared for us a crown or reward of everlasting life with Him.
Thank you, Walt. I’m glad you enjoyed the article on Nicæa Canon 6.
Regarding your question on the prophetic periods, you are correct in your assessment that I do not agree with Pastor Price’s four evidences for applying the day-year method universally to the prophetic periods of Daniel and Revelation. I do understand that my position separates me from most other historicists. I would suggest that part of the reason the interpretations of the prophetic periods have remained obscure is precisely because the different periods—1,260 days, 1,290 days, 1,335 days, 42 months and “times, times and half a time”—have all been understood to refer to the same time period. There are contextual cues that differentiate between the periods, and those contextual cues are frequently set aside in the interest of identifying all the prophetic periods as one. To that point, I will highlight four critical points of Pastor Price’s four evidences in which his argument relies heavily upon an invalid inference.
I agree with Pastor Price when he says, “The prophetic Book of Revelation is very dependent upon the prophetic Books of Ezekiel and Daniel for the right interpretation of a number of the symbols and figurative language used in it.” That is true. However, Pastor Price draws an unwarranted conclusion from that statement:
If you think about it, the presumption is easily overturned, for “the same God who gave the inspired Day-Year Principle in order to interpret prophetic time periods in Ezekiel and Daniel,” also defined the expression “evening and morning” in Genesis to refer to a literal solar day (Genesis 1). It is true that we see a prophetic day-year method defined for us in the Scripture, but it is also true that the Scriptures identify for us the meaning of “evening and morning.” Why set that aside when we find in Daniel that there are 2,300 “evenings and mornings” described for us?:
As we have previously discussed, the word translated as “days” in Daniel 8:14 is literally “evenings and mornings.” But such a unique reference—this prophetic use of “evenings and mornings” occurs only here in Daniel 8—is dismissed by our translators as an oddity and is simply rendered as “days” in the KJV, and this leads me to the next reason Pastor Price’s assumptions are unwarranted.
He points out, correctly, that “This unique expression of ‘a time, and times, and half a time’ (Revelation 12:7) is found only in prophetic portions of Scripture,” which is true. However, from this truth he draws an unwarranted conclusion: “time periods that are stated in a unique manner different from how the Lord expresses literal time periods in other places in Scripture” must be interpreted as non-literal. But if that were true, would it not also necessarily be true that time periods that are stated in a manner that is uniquely literal in Scripture ought therefore be interpreted literally? Such is the case with that very unique reference to “evenings and mornings” in Daniel 8, and yet that unique reference is overlooked by Pastor Price. If the uniqueness of a reference holds some significance with Pastor Price (as it clearly does), why does the unique reference to “evenings and mornings” hold no significance at all?
Pastor Price writes, “we cannot approach the time periods in the prophetic Book of Revelation as if those time periods (e.g. ‘a time, times, and half a time’) are never mentioned prior to their use in the prophetic Book of Revelation.” That is true. But if it is true, it also must be true that “we cannot approach the time periods in the prophetic Book of Daniel as if those time periods (e.g. ‘evening and morning’) are never mentioned prior to their use in the prophetic Book of Daniel.” And yet Pastor Price approaches the 2,300 “evenings and mornings” in precisely the way he insists that we must not approach other prophetic time periods—as if “evening and morning” had never been mentioned prior to Daniel.
Regarding continuity, Pastor Price states, “a presumption of continuity from the prophetic Book of Daniel to the prophetic Book of Revelation certainly ought to guide us” in our interpretation of Revelation. I completely agree. It is clear that John draws on Daniel repeatedly, and there is an intrinsic continuity between what Daniel wrote and what John saw in his vision. But from that true statement, Pastor Price reasons inconsistently, for he writes,
Pastor Price takes the presumption of continuity (which is valid), and then uses that presumption to conclude, invalidly, that the 4th Beast of Daniel (which has only one head (Daniel 7:20)) must be the same beast depicted in Revelation 13:1-2, which has seven heads. Here Pastor Price advances one standard of continuity (i.e., we must not approach Revelation 13:1-2 “with a blank page and a completely empty mind,” but rather “read what God has already revealed”) and then applies it inconsistently. For the same Scriptures that say the Beast of Daniel 7 and the Beast of Revelation 13 each have 10 horns (which Price uses to advance an argument for identity), also say that the Beast of Daniel 7 has one head and the beast of Revelation 13:1-2 has seven (which militates against identity). Why focus on the similarity in the enumeration of horns, but ignore what God reveals about the different enumeration of their heads, and all this in an admonition not to approach Revelation apart from what God has revealed? Rather, in Revelation 13, we see that the Beast in verses 1-2 is a composite of the four beasts of Daniel 7, and the total number of horns and heads in Revelation 13:1-2 is as much an aggregation of the four beasts of Daniel 7 as are its body parts. A one-headed Lion, a one-headed Bear, a four-headed Leopard and a one-headed terrible beast = seven heads total. Add the 10 horns, and you have a seven headed, ten-horned beast in Revelation 13—the composite containing attributes of the four individual beasts, making the Beast of Revelation 13:1-2 a fifth beast, succeeding the 4th of Daniel 7.
But Pastor Price, making much of the similar enumeration of horns, while setting aside the different enumeration of heads, concludes that the beast of Revelation 13:1-2 must be the same as the 4th Beast of Daniel 7, and that both beasts persecute the saints for 1,260 prophetic days. In the process, he also sets aside what Daniel has said about the persecution of the saints in Daniel 7:21—specifically that it is not the 4th Beast, but its Little Horn, that makes war against the saints for “time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25). Thus, it is not the 4th Beast of Daniel 7, but the Little Horn of Daniel 7 that is identified with the Beast of Revelation 13:1-2.
These are just four examples of how Pastor Price lays down what he believes to be a Scriptural standard for interpreting prophetic periods, and then proceeds to apply that standard inconsistently. In any case, Pastor Price concludes that “we have a perfect correlation between the prophetic time periods in the prophetic Book of Daniel and the prophetic time periods in the Book of Revelation,” but 1,290 days cannot correlate perfectly to 1,260 days. In fact, I suggest that the difference between the days mentioned in Daniel 12 and the days mentioned in Revelation 13 is for our instruction, lest we inadvertently identify them, even with good intentions, and thereby obscure the meaning.
As I mentioned elsewhere, if Daniel uses “evenings and mornings” instead of “days” to refer to a prophetic time period (Daniel 8:14)—which is suggestive of literal days—and then refers to 1,290 days (Daniel 12:11)—the additional 30 days being suggestive of intercalation, which is only necessary if literal days are in view—and further makes clear that the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 take place during the 2,300 literal “evenings and mornings,” then I suggest that the 1,290 day long “time, times, and an half” of Daniel 12:7,11 must be literal, and cannot refer to the same period as the 1,260 day long “time, and times, and half a time” and 42 months of Revelation 12 & 13, since 1,290 cannot equal 1,260, even though they both can be described as “time, times and a half.” The difference between them is for our instruction, and to overlook that difference is to miss a rather significant matter in eschatology. As I have also mentioned elsewhere, the 1,290 day long time, times and a half of Daniel 12 clearly refer to a Greek antagonist, whereas the 1,260 day long time, times and a half of Revelation 12 clearly refers to a Roman one.
I’ll be happy to provide a listing of all the different time periods in a separate comment, but my main point here is that we ought not attempt to make all the time, times and a half refer to the same events and period if the textual cues point away from that conclusion.
Thanks,
Tim
7 Differences Between Partial Preterist and Historicist Postmillennialism
https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/7-differences-between-partial-preterist-and-historist-postmillennialism/
7 Differences Between Covenanters and Reconstructionists
https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.com/2015/06/07/7-differences-between-covenanters-and-reconstructionists/
Quote from this site:
http://virginiahuguenot.blogspot.com/
“A Plea Answered: Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Commentary on Revelation Translated
It was just over 7 years ago today that I published “A Plea to Translate Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Exposition of Revelation.” When Father Brakel’s “The Christian’s Reasonable Service” was translated into English in the 1990s — a great service to the church indeed — a decision was made not to translate the final portion of it consisting of his commentary on Revelation because it represented a postmillennial eschatological perspective (common to all Puritans, whether Dutch, Scottish, English or American). This omission in translation left a gap for English readers desiring both to have a full translation of à Brakel’s magnum opus, and those interested to read for themselves his understanding of the last book of the Bible.
I am pleased to report that this gap has finally been filled by J. Parnell McCarter and his team at the Historicism Research Foundation who have now produced an English translation of this work titled “Not to be Ignored: Rev. Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Commentary on Revelation” (2016), which is now available for purchase in paperback or digital format. For those who have been waiting, as I have, for this important work to be accessible in English, please see the announcement of this publication here for details on how to purchase your copy.
Many thanks to Mr. McCarter and those who assisted in the project for this valuable contribution to the church!”