Now we’ve finally come to the fourth beast which coincides with the statue’s legs of iron in Daniel chapter two. I will only be discussing three or four verses, but what loaded verses they are!
The vision continues from the last blog entry:
After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. (Dan. 7:7)
As I’ve explained previously, I’m viewing the fourth beast as Rome. Rome certainly did its share of crushing and trampling, and when pictured as a “beast” it makes sense that part of its demolition of the former empire and culture would be viewed as devouring. The thought that the beast “devoured,” or ate the previous beast, seems parallel to Rome as it adopted, absorbed or digested the previous empire and surrounding cultures. Rome assimilated surrounding lands and peoples into it’s beasty belly.
The Pope?
And as I perused the internet today it became apparent that many people that agree with me that Rome is the fourth beast part ways with me by viewing the ten horns as historical. They claim that the ten horns represent ten kingdoms that branched from Rome thus culminating into the Catholic Church.
I’ve spent a fair amount of time in study considering the papal system as the Antichrist, and I understand why some would come to this conclusion, especially those who were alive during the religious domination of the Catholic church in its historical setting. But as I set aside mere appearances and similarities and interpret the Bible with itself rather than with headlines or history it seems to me that this is an impossibility.
Many see the vision of Daniel and rightly conclude that the ten toes/horns are very closely related and linked to Rome. They then conclude that the ten toes/horns must be historical. But it seems as if they see what they want to see, maybe due to their extreme distaste for Catholicism, when they gloss over the details to arrive at their conclusion. I admit that the vision does appear to link the toes and horns in the manner these individuals are interpreting it, but the details of the vision and the book of Revelation make this a poor conclusion in my opinion.
The vision Daniel wrote of says this:
…it (Rome beast) was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. (Dan. 7:7)
As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom (Rome beast) ten kings will arise… (Dan. 24)
It does appear that the beast’s horns should be present along with the fourth beast when this is all we read, but verse 24 also says that the “little horn,” the Antichrist, will “subdue three kings.” Verse 8 tells us that it’s three of the first horns that are uprooted.
While I was contemplating the [ten] horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it (before/by the little horn)… (Dan. 7:8)
How can he subdue three of the ten kings if they are historical kings that aren’t in power at the time of the future Antichrist? These three kings that are subdued can be nothing other than three of the ten kings that are represented by the horns.
Later, the ten horns are seen once again in Revelation 12, 13 and 17. I will show more of the linkage between the horns of Daniel and Revelation at a later time, but for now notice what Revelation 17 says:
The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast. (Rev. 17:12-13)
Compare this to what Daniel wrote:
While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them… (Dan. 7:8)
Revelation informs us that the ten kings receive authority with the beast/Antichrist for one hour. This coincides with Daniel’s vision when he wrote that the “little horn,” or Antichrist will come “up among” the ten horns/kings. “With” and “among” seem pretty clear. The details are fuzzy, though, concerning exactly when the “little horn” will subdue three of the ten, but it seems logical to me that this subduing will take place after the Antichrist comes to power at the midpoint of the Seventieth Week when we consider the fact that Revelation says that the ten will give him their power. After all, the Antichrist and his power is not a real biblical issue before the midpoint.
Certainly Daniel makes it clear that it is the fourth beast that has ten horns, and that the ten grow from the head of the fourth beast. But considering the conclusions I have written of here, and other conclusion in the future posts I will make, I hope it is, or will be, clear that the horns are not contemporaries of, or even closely related in time to, the historical Rome/fourth beast.
The way the horns are presented as growing from the fourth beast is one reason why many conclude all are historical, but it is also one reason why many, including myself, see the ten kings and the beast empire as a sort of revived Roman empire. The horns must be future, yet they grow from the head of the fourth beast, thus the link to historical Rome and the term “Revived Roman Empire” to describe the empire of the future "lawless one." What exactly this "Revived Roman Empire" will be, I suppose only time will tell. And if you can think of a better term to describe the beast empire that will come from the fourth, dreadful and terrifying beast, I would like to hear it.
Click here to go to The Beast Empire—The Ten Toes After What?: Part 4
18 comments:
Dave,
I, for one, agree with all this. And, I agree that some want to place too much on the Catholic Church, as modern day Historicists tend to do. Not that I'm completely letting the Catholic Church off the hook for everything, because as a former Catholic, there is much that I disagree with concerning their views and practices. But, on this, I agree that the 10 horns/rulers/countries will be present when the Anti-Christ is on the scene. As an aside, didn't Martin Luther believe that the Pope was the Anti-Christ? Anyway, just my thoughts, Raul.
Don't think for a second that I'm letting the Catholic church off the hook. I would probably have to start another blog for that topic, though.
And yep, Luther believed the pope was the A. He was actually the one I was thinking of when I spoke of those living during the time of the dominant Catholic church. I probably should have mentioned it as an interesting side note. And I would like to hear about your experience in the Catholic church sometime.
Dave,
You said, "Don't think for a second that I'm letting the Catholic church off the hook."
Oh, I know Dave, that you're not letting the CC off the hook. That thought never crossed my mind.
You also said, "I would like to hear about your experience in the Catholic church sometime."
Sure, I would love to one day share my experience with the Catholic Church. I can talk about the time I spent learning prayers with a mean and strict Nun. I could share my perception of other churches or my concept of God. And, then, I could also discuss what convinced me to leave Catholicism. And, lastly, I could share my experiences of sharing Christ with my Catholic family and friends.
Raul,
That sounds like a great story that I have absolutely no experience in. Why don't you e-mail me so I can ask you a few questions.
davebussard@yahoo.com
I agree.
The ten kingdoms are future.
The 'Pope is the Antichrist' people like to make a lot of noise, but their arguments are not convincing.
God Bless
Matthew
Dave,
Wonderful, in fact, I was just thinking the same thing. That I could e-mail you my story. [Suggestion] What if you go ahead and e-mail me your questions at rauldelgado777@yahoo.com and ask me anything you like to know. I will then respond to your specific questions and throw in some other things as well. Yes?
Matthew,
I heard from someone else, that you had switched over to Pre-Wrath? Fantastic, I would really love to hear more. Anyway, great to have you back on Dave's blog. God Bless, Raul
Hear more? Don't think I have much to say on the subject of the rapture, except that I find Pre-Wrath arguments convincing.
God Bless
Matthew
Matthew,
I see. I just wondered what your perspective was coming from Post-Trib. Most Pre-Wrathers that I know, came from Pre-Trib.
Dave-
Another point would be that the ten horns are all visible at the same time. If we follow the interpretation of the four horns of the goat and four heads of the leopard, we see that they all existed at the same time and were not successive. So the ten horns must all be kingdoms that exist at the same time as a part of one empire.
Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13
-The Orange Mailman
That's a great point, Orange. That makes me think of something else that adds merit to all this. Clearly the little horn arises after the ten arise to power, and that's exactly what is shown—the little horn springing up when it comes to power. This shows order, and IF the ten were in succession, one rising after the other as Historicists claim, in order to be consistent the vision should show the the ten growing one after the other.
And this is similar to what we see in chapter eight. When Alexander the Great died we see the horn representing him being broken off. Then the four that replaced him are represented by four horns growing. If Historicists where right, then the vision of the ten should show each horn being broken off or uprooted before the next horn grows, and this should be repeated until the tenth horn springs forth. It couldn't be clearer, could it?
As usual, you made me think, Darrin. Thanks!
Dave
Raul, my perspective is that I have always believed that the church would go through tribulation and that the sixth seal corresponds with Matthew 24:30-31 and thus the rapture.
My Post-tribulationalism was dependant on the assertion that the seals, trumpets and bowls were non-consecutive. Once I questioned that assumption, suddenly Pre-Wrath made more sense.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Matthew,
Oh, ok, so once you got pass the idea that the seals, trumpets, and bowls weren't parallel, but instead ran consecutively, then, everything else fell into place. Interesting, thanks for sharing. Oh, may, I ask another question about Post-Trib? They assert or assume that the Great Tribulation runs for the entire second half of Daniel's 70th Week. In other words, they believe that it lasts 3.5 years, or the time, times, and half a time. Now, how do they interpret the following verses in Matthew 24:
21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.
22 Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
More specifically, verse 22, what to them is "cut short"? As you know, Pre-Wrathers believe that Great Tribulation will be cut short for the sake of the elect, when the Rapture occurs. And then, the Day of the Wrath gets underway. And, side-by-side, these to periods compose the time, times, and half a time or 3.5 years of the second half of Daniel's Week.
I held that the cutting short meant that the end of the tribulation would come a few days or so before the end of the Seventieth week, adding some uncertainty as to the Lord's coming.
I think Robert Gundry took that view.
God Bless
Matthew
Matthew-
Yes, that is Gundry's view. Funny thing is that when Rosenthal was reviewing his position he was influenced by Gundry's book "The Church and the Tribulation". So a classic Post-Tribber helped influence the Pre-Wrath position.
It's a great book but I have one main issue with it and that is his chronology, specifically the seals, trumpets, and bowls. It's quite difficult to see it his way. But I still get it out and read it once in a while as it has insights found nowhere else.
Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13
-The Orange Mailman
Yes, the 'Church and the Tribulation is among my favorite books.
Matthew,
that's is where some Post-Tribbers vary, right? What I am referring to is on when they think the Day of the Lord or Wrath occurs. You said you believed before that it was a few days at the end of the prophetic Week. I've heard some Post-Tribbers argue that it is a literal 24-hour day at the very end of the Week. And, then, there are some, like David Eells, who believe that the Day of Wrath will follow the Great Tribulation, as we Pre-Wrathers do. But, he thinks that the Day of Wrath follows after 3.5 years of Great Tribulation. In other words, he adds an extra amount of time after Daniel's Week to try and fit in the Day of Wrath. So, he borrows time from the 1000 years to make his scenario work. I guess what I'm trying to get at is if these individuals could just get away from believing that the Great Tribulation has to last 3.5 years, then they could allow for the Great Trib to be cut short by the Rapture, and as such, to make room for the Day of Wrath period, with both periods fitting nicely into the time, times, and half a time of the second half of Daniel's Week. Well, I won't belabor this anymore so that we can get back to the discussion at hand. Anyway, thanks for sharing your insights.
God Bless, Raul
I used to think the Day of the Lord was 24 hours and I think that some of the arguments for that are good.
But they are not conclusive enough to cause a problem for the Pre-Wrath position.
God Bless
Matthew
i see the ten horns as the ten greek kings and one is broken, the two horn lamb heal the broken horn which is rpme with the trinity. the trinty is the image of the greece beast. The four nations come out of Greece though the trinity. The trinity comes from goddess artemis who father is zeus. Rome accept their gods, and add to it. this makes the mark of the beast to trinity.
Post a Comment