ABBREVIATIONS IN ENDNOTES
|
BAGD |
Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd edition revised and augmented by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979. |
|
BDB |
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, editors. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. |
|
EBC |
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by F. E. Gaebelein. 12 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976-1995. |
|
EDT |
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by W. A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. |
|
ISBE |
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by G. W. Bromiley. 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-1988. |
|
JETS |
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. |
|
Liddell |
Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Henry. S. Jones. 10th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. |
|
LXX |
Septuaginta. Edited by Alfred Rahlfs. 2 volumes. Stuttgart: Wurttenbergische Bibelstalt, 1935, (United Bible Society Edition, 2 volumes in 1) 1979. |
|
NICNT |
New International Commentary of the New Testament. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. |
|
NIDNTT |
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by C. Brown. 4 volumes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-1978. |
|
NIDOTTE |
The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. VanGemeren. 5 volumes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. |
|
TDNT |
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley. 10 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976. |
|
TDOT |
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H. J. Fabry. Translated by J. T. Willis. 15 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-2007. |
|
ZPEB |
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by M. C. Tenney. 5 volumes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.
|
“Of course, belief is often controlled by the will; it can even be coerced. The obvious examples are political and religious. But the captive mind is found in subtler form in pure intellectual contexts. One of its strongest motives is the simple hunger for belief itself. Sufferers from this condition find it difficult to tolerate having no opinion for any length of time on a subject that interests them. They may change their opinions easily when there is an alternative that can be adopted without discomfort, but they do not like to be in a condition of suspended judgment.” (Thomas Nagel, Moral Questions, Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. xi, as quoted by John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker - Has Science Buried God?, Oxford, Lion Hudson, 2007, pp. 37-38.)
“However, alternatives cannot always be adopted without discomfort and ... there can be enormous resistance and even antagonism shown to anyone who wishes to follow where the evidence appears to lead.” (Lennox, p. 38). While Lennox is speaking directly to the clash of empirical indications conflicting with a scientist’s own world view, his words also speak to the near universal personal bias against anything that may ‘unsettle’ what was considered ‘settled.’
Scripture calls him the “other horn” (Daniel 7), “the prince of the people who is coming” (Dan 9:26), “the man of lawlessness,” “the son of destruction” (2 Thes 2:3), and “the beast” (Revelation 13 & 17). He is also known by the title “Antichrist.” While this title is not specifically given to him in the Bible, it does seem, to sum up his attitude toward the True God and his followers. “Antichrist” is a combination of two Greek words, ἀντί & Χριστός. The preposition ἀντί carries the meaning of “in place of, instead of” (BAGD, ἀντί, p. 73; see also NIDNTT 3:1179-80). When combined with the term Χριστός, this title means “in place of Christ, instead of Christ.” So, while the Bible does not use this title for him, it does describe the motivations found in his future actions. Since this is how he is popularly known, and because the many other actual scriptural titles are less known, the title “Antichrist” will be used in this book for this final human antagonist.
“The identification of this kingdom as Rome can hardly be questioned except by those whose presuppositions do not permit them to believe in the possibility of predictive prophecy. Rome did not enter the scene of Palestine as a crushing force until 63 B.C., when the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem. Since the book of Daniel had to be written long before that date, we are locked into the realm of predictive prophecy as we contemplate these astonishing words.” (John C. Whitcomb, Everyman’s Bible Commentary - Daniel, Chicago: Moody Press, 1985, p. 96).
It is crucial that the reader recognize the descriptive commonalities shared by the 4th beast of Daniel 7, the beast of Rev 13:1-10, and the beast of Revelation 17. Attempting to identify the beast apart from the common elements shared among these 3 passages puts the interpreter at a serious disadvantage. Failing to account for these common elements in the immediate context of the passages results in omitting contributing aspects the author chose to use, producing an interpretation less likely to carry the full measure of the author’s intended message. Similarly, an attempt to identify any of the constituent parts of the beast using an interpretation not fully grounded in the shared common features of its context is also less likely to reflect the intended meaning these parts of the beast were meant to reflect.
The three most common interpretations of Rev 17:8-11 are concisely presented by Pentecost. However, the reader should observe that none of these 3 interpretations recognize the context’s common elements with Rev 13:1-10 and Daniel 7. More specific interaction with these 3 interpretations will be provided going forward.
“Revelation 17:8-14. Another important passage which deals with the final form of Gentile world power presents several important considerations. (1) John seems to be giving the seat of authority in the end time (Rev 17:9) since Rome is the ‘seven-hilled city.’ (2) The final form of Gentile power resides in an individual called an ‘eighth’ king, who comes into authority over that kingdom ruled by the previous seven (Rev 17:10-11). This eighth is variously interpreted. There is the view of Scott, who writes:
The seven heads of the Beast represent seven successive forms of government from the rise of fourth universal empire on through its history till its end. ‘Five have fallen.’ These are Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, and Military Tribunes. ‘One is.’ This is the sixth, or imperial form of government set up by Julius Caesar, and under which John was banished to Patmos under Domitian. The previous forms of authority had ceased. ... ‘The other has not yet come.’ Thus, between the dissolution of the empire and its future diabolic reappearance, many centuries have elapsed. ... This is the seventh head. It is the rise of the fallen empire under new conditions as presented in Chap xiii.1. ... ‘And the beast that was and is not, he also is an eighth, and is of the seven.” The gigantic confederation of Rome is here regarded in its essential features as ever the same. He is an ‘eighth.’ [Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 351-352.]
Thus, the different forms of government are here in view. A second view is the view that these seven are seven historical Roman emperors, five of whom have already died, one under whom John lived, and one that shall come, in whose line the eighth, the beast, will come. [William R. Newell, The Revelation, p. 271]. A third view is the view that these eight represent the eight empires that have had dealings with Israel, all of whom will come to culmination in the Beast. Aldrich writes:
... seven great kingdoms are meant. The belief is that John here goes back farther than the prophecy of Daniel and includes all the great empires that have stood as enemies of God’s people. The five kingdoms which have fallen would be Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece. The sixth was the empire in authority when John wrote. ... The sixth kingdom in Revelation is the Roman Empire and that means that the seventh (with its related eighth head) is just another form or stage of that empire. [Roy L. Aldrich, Facts and Theories of Prophecy, pp.120-121]
Whichever of these views is adopted, it will be evident that the final ruler is the heir to all Gentile authority that previously existed.” (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958, p. 323-324).
These interpretations with their various modifications and other minor interpretations are also discussed by Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT, edited by F. F. Bruce, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977, pp. 314-317.
“The two horns of the ram (representing Media and Persia) were long. The horn that rose later than the other became longer than the other. Media was a powerful kingdom before Persia became powerful; however, after they formed their partnership kingdom, Persia dominated Media.” (Renald E. Showers, The Most High God, Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1982, p. 97).
“As soon as the goat became exceedingly powerful, the large horn between its eyes was broken. Four other horns rose up to replace it. Greece had hardly reached the peak of its power when Alexander the Great died at age thirty-two (323 B.C.). Four of his generals divided his kingdom among themselves. Ptolemy took Egypt, Cyrene, Cyprus, Palestine and several cities on the coast of Asia Minor. Seleucus possessed Syria, Babylonia, southern Asia Minor and the Iranian Plateau. Lysimachus controlled Thrace and Western Asia Minor. Cassander ruled Macedonia and Greece proper.” (Showers, p. 99).
One might object to the direct comparisons of the prophetic images from the Old Testament passage of Daniel 8 with the New Testament passages of Revelation 13 & 17. The objection would most likely involve a supposed violation of each passage’s contextual force upon the intended meaning of its prophetic image. When one, with these legitimate concerns, observes that the context is separated by original languages, Old vs. New Testament, past empires vs. future empires, these concerns must be addressed.
First, while the passages are separated by languages and historical periods of revelation, both passages involve the same apocalyptic genre. The imagery in both passages is nearly identical within this same genre. Second, the context of both passages involves the structure of an empire’s power. Third, the images in Daniel 8 are explained by the angel Gabriel. The image of the beast in Revelation 17 also receives attention by an angel. So, while there are differences in language and original historical settings, there are nevertheless extraordinary similarities between these two passages. Such similarities can lead the reader to reasonably conclude that the intended meaning of the image of beasts with multiple heads and horns in Daniel 7 & 8, explained by the angel Gabriel, conveys the same basic intended meaning as the image of a beast with multiple heads and horns in Revelation 17, also explained by an angel. The original concern over different literary contexts and their implications is addressed adequately by the remarkable ‘sameness’ of the prophetic images used to describe the political power structures within empires. The concern over possible violation of the passages’ contexts should dissipate as the original contexts are seen to be so very much alike in topic, the person who provides the revelation, and the imagery itself.
Hoyt envisions the heads of the beast in Revelation 17 as representing the empires of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and revived Rome, (Herman A. Hoyt, The End Times, Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1987, p. 154; cf. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, Wheaton, IL: Bridgepoint, 1993, pp. 93-94). Yet this contradicts the similar prophetic images in Daniel 8 of multi-headed creatures representing a concurrent exercise of power. This Empires interpretation of Revelation 17 also conflicts with the image itself. The image of the 7-headed & 10-horned beast is rooted in the 4th beast or empire from Daniel 7. This 4th empire follows that of Greece. Whatever the heads of this beast represent, they represent an aspect of only that 4th great empire. Both the 7 heads and the 10 horns represent a yet to arise aspect of Roman rule.
“‘But,’ some will say, ‘isn’t the language of prophecy full of symbols? And doesn’t this fact make it practically impossible for us to understand prophecy?’ The answer to these questions is found in the basic relationship between communication and language. Language is God’s gift to man. God planned it so that language would be fully capable of communicating to man all that God wanted to say. In the Bible, God communicates his message to us in language that conveys truth. In other words, God is revealing things to us in the Bible, not hiding things from us. This is true of the prophetic portions as well as other passages, ... But what about Revelation? It is full of symbols, and it plays a large part in a study of prophecy. Can we interpret it literally? The answer must be yes, for we must interpret it in the same manner as we interpret the rest of the Bible. If it uses symbols and figures of speech, they must convey literal truth in order to have meaning. ... Use of the symbol heightens the literal meaning of our statement. To be sure, there may be times when we do not understand the meaning of a symbol or even of a plain statement. In such cases we should not devise a symbolic interpretation, rather, we should continue to search for the literal truth that God is trying to convey through the statement. Straight forward, plain, normal literal interpretation is the most basic of all guidelines for the study of prophecy. A second ground rule for interpreting prophecy is this: compare one prophecy with another. This principle was stated by Peter: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). In other words, no prophecy is to be interpreted by itself, but in the light of all that God has spoken on the subject. Every prophecy is part of the total picture. No single prophet received the entire picture; rather, the plan unfolds piece by piece, without contradiction, to reveal the complete and perfect picture. If difficulties of interpretation arise, they are not contradictions, for the Bible is a harmonious and consistent whole.” (Charles C. Ryrie, The Final Countdown, Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1982, pp. 16-18).
Columbia History of the World, edited by John A. Garraty and Peter Gay, New York: Harper & Row, 1972, pp. 206 & 220; ZPEB. “Titus,” 5:759-760.
“Prophecy foresees in the end time a Gentile world power which will in some sense be a continuation of the old Roman Empire, but in a form represented by ten kings, or a ten-kingdom confederacy.” (James L. Boyer, Prophecy: Things to Come, Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1973, p. 118).
Among those who regard Daniel 7 and 9 as containing some prophetic events that are yet to be fulfilled, there is general agreement that a dominate Gentile power will arise in the end times through which these events will find fulfillment. However, not all agree that the center of that future power will be Rome. Hoyt believes the center of that power will be the actual city of Babylon.
“The final city of prominence in world empire will be the city of Babylon. It is the capital city where the king of the world will finally center his government.” (Hoyt, p. 154).
While not taking a position on where the final center of Gentile world power will be located, Blaising and Bock also do not see Rome as this center. In commenting upon Rev 17:9-10, they address the difficult task of reconciling Revelation’s clear references from the Old Testament that prophesied the destruction of ancient Babylon with other Old Testament passages that clearly speak of Roman power.
“Those who associate the image with Babylon are right in that it is the greatest Old Testament picture of such a power. That is why the beast is called Babylon. Those who associate it with Rome are right because Rome was the current manifestation of that beast in the time of John the writer. And yet the beast’s imagery reminds us that its real existence is from long ago. So Rome and Babylon both apply, and yet the beast is more than either national identification. But neither Rome nor Babylon is likely to be the final location of this world wide opposition, given the shifting nature of location of the eras represented by the heads of the beast. The text is both specific and indefinite at the same time. It describes what the beast is specifically, not where it will ultimately reside.” (Blaising & Bock, p. 95).
It is interesting to note that Hoyt, Blaising, and Bock reject the likelihood of Rome as the location of the final world Gentile power, and that all three also hold to the interpretation that the heads of the Beast in Revelation 17 (and presumably Revelation 13) represent past biblical empires.
“The seven heads of the beast chart the course of empire throughout the centuries. ... The seven heads or mountains mark the movement of great governments. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece are five that are fallen. The Roman Empire is the one during which John writes. Revived Rome is the seventh. The king of the seventh ... will be the eighth but belongs to the seven.” (Hoyt, pp. 153-154).
The interpretation of the 7 heads as viewed by Blaising and Bock follows the same pattern.
“The beast in Revelation 17 is composed of seven heads representing various kingships (or national dynasties in all likelihood). The representative imagery characteristic of Revelation is clearly present. No nation is the beast, especially a multiheaded one. The interpretation tells us that five heads have fallen, one is, and one is to come for a short time. Then comes an eighth figure related to, but distinct from, the seventh. ... We would suggest that this image refers to the sweep of history. The beast depicts each worldwide dynasty of biblical times: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persian and Greece are the five fallen kings. The sixth, Rome, is “the one that is” thus honoring the allusion to the seven hills in Revelation 17:9. The seventh, the one to come for a short time, may well be from a region unidentified in the text, as is also the eighth king, the beast.” (Blaising & Bock, p. 94).
Since Hoyt, Blaising, and Bock view the heads as representative of past empires, and not as contemporary elements of the beast, their interpretation is not bound to the same historical restrictions that bear upon the interpretation outlined in Chapter One. Viewing the 7 heads as aspects of the revived Roman rule precludes the interpreter from easily rejecting Rome. The literary connections from Revelation 17 to Daniel 7, and the yet to be examined elegant literary patterns which exert considerable contextual force upon Rev 17:11 cause the interpretation followed in this book to regard Rome as still the most likely, given the implied contemporary aspects.
McClain also sees that the prophecy of Dan 9:24-27 requires a break in the flow of its fulfillment. “Such a gap in time before the Seventieth Week is implied by the most natural reading of the prophecy. This seems so clear to me today that it is hard to understand how along with many others I could have missed the point so long. ... But let the student now read carefully the analysis of the ‘weeks’ in verses 25-27, ... and notice the order of events. First, in verse 25 we have a period of Sixty-nine Weeks ending with a definite historical event, the appearance of Messiah the Prince. Then, after these Sixty-nine Weeks come two other events, the death of Messiah and the destruction of the city. And after these two events, we come to the final one week in verse 27. If we follow the order of the record strictly, both the death of Messiah and the destruction of Jerusalem are placed between the Sixty-ninth and Seventieth Weeks of prophecy” (Alva J. McClain, Daniel’s Prophecy of the 70 Weeks, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969, pp. 33-34, cf. pp 34-45).
The final phrase of verse 24 “and to anoint the most holy” might also be a reference to the Messiah as he is finally anointed king note “to bring in everlasting righteousness.”
McClain holds that “the prince who is to come” is the antecedent of the pronoun in Dan 9:27. “... our first problem is to identify the antecedent of the pronoun ‘he,’ for this person is the chief actor and subject of the verse. Does the ‘he’ refer back to the Messianic prince or to the Roman prince? Grammatically, it might refer to either, although presumption favors the latter because he is mentioned last before the pronoun. ... The one who makes the seven-year covenant is the Roman Prince, the one ‘that shall come.’ It is he, not the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the subject of verse 27 [in Daniel 9] and the chief actor in the terrible events of its seven-year period.” (McClain, pp. 51-52).
Some feel the Antichrist must be the head of the governing apparatus to bring the 7-year covenant into being. Boyer sees the Antichrist as the ruling prince of Roman power when he established the firm covenant.
“The language which follows [Dan 7:8] makes it clear that the Antichrist quickly becomes the real head of the ten-power confederacy, which will be the form of this revived Roman Empire (Rev 17:12-13). As the prince of the Roman people he enters into a seven-year covenant, or treaty, with the Jewish nation in Palestine.” (Boyer, p. 74).
Ryrie correctly identifies the initiating event of the final 7 years as the establishment of the 7-year covenant with the many by “the prince who is to come.” However, he also sees this prince as already the leader of the confederation.
“The Tribulation actually begins with the signing of a covenant between the leader of the ‘Federated States of Europe’ and the Jewish people.” (Ryrie, p. 91)
It is accurate to say that the treaty is established by “the prince of the people who is to come.” This coming prince is connected to the revived Roman system. However, he need not be the ruler of the confederatio