Chapter Thirteen

The Two Beasts



 


In chapter thirteen we will be told many details about the “beast” which we have only seen briefly in the past.  We should always keep in mind that Satan is behind this beast and all of its evil deeds.  The purpose of chapter twelve was to show us the conflict between Satan and God’s people.  Chapter thirteen will now tell us who Satan used in his persecution of God’s people.



13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.


John
 said he was standing “upon the sand of the sea.”  We should keep in mind that John is in Heaven, and that all of the visions he is seeing are also in Heaven.  So John is not actually standing on the shore of a sea upon the earth.  But his vision makes it seem to him like he is.  While standing on the seashore, John sees a horrible and loathsome creature rise from the sea.  The significance of it rising out of the sea, is that this shows it is to have an effect over a very large area of the world.  It did not just impact a small land area, but since it comes from the sea it has access to many lands and nations.


This beast had “seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns.”  When we saw this beast in chapter twelve, we noticed that it had a crown upon each of its seven heads.  But there we were simply looking at the beast as a whole, and were not concentrating on any particular head.  Now, however, the time of the first six heads has come and gone and we are going to concentrate on the seventh and final head.  The seventh head will be our topic of discussion for the next several chapters.


The heads represent world powers that have been used by Satan against God’s people.  The first six have now fallen, and the seventh is just coming into power.  Its power is upheld by the ten horns, which have now received power.  These ten horns are ten earthly kingdoms, and the fact that they have crowns on them shows that they have now received power.


We will mention here who the seven heads are, but will defer any further discussion of them until chapter seventeen, where more details are given.  The seven heads in chronological order are:
Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the papacy.  Again, this will be seen more clearly in chapter seventeen.


Upon his heads the name of blasphemy.”  All of these seven powers have shown their disdain for God. 
Egypt held God’s people as slaves, and for a long while refused to allow them to go free.  They had no respect for the God of the Hebrews who sent two messengers, Moses and Aaron, asking for the release of His people.  It was not until God had inflicted severe hardships on Egypt that Pharaoh finally relented and allowed the Children of Israel to leave.


In the eighth century B.C the Assyrians came into the Promised Land, destroyed everything in their sight, and carried away the northern ten tribes of
Israel into captivity.  Babylon then came in during the sixth century B.C. and took the remaining two tribes of Judah into captivity.  Both Medo-Persia and Greece controlled Palestine and ruled over God’s people.  Rome likewise controlled the land, even in the time of Christ, eventually destroying Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  After the establishment of the Church, Rome persecuted Christianity intermittently for almost 300 years.  But the worst was yet to come.  For 1,260 years the papacy persecuted and oppressed the Church unlike anything in the past.  Each of these seven heads afflicted God’s people in their own way.  Each showed a great lack of respect for God and in their actions they blasphemed the name of God.  Thus each head had the name of blasphemy written on it.



13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.


Now John
 gives us a little more information about this beast which he saw rise from the sea.  It bears similarities to a leopard, a bear, and a lion.  The prophet Daniel described a very similar thing in his prophesy.  And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.  The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it.  And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’ After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it.  After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.  I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things” (Daniel 7:3-8).


These four beasts Daniel describes are the empires of
Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.  The reason he does no mention Egypt and Assyria is that they have already fallen by the time of this prophesy.  Babylon is pictured as a lion, which shows strength and ferocity, and indeed the Babylonians were great conquerors.  They overthrew the Assyrians, taking control of their empire, and even extended it in some places.  Most notably they extended their dominions by their deeper penetrations into the area of Palestine, where they captured the remaining two tribes of the Children of Israel.  This lion is pictured with the wings of an eagle which shows its ability to cover large areas swiftly and easily.  And indeed Babylon did control a very extensive empire.  Next we notice that this lion was made to stand erect and a man’s heart was given to it.  This shows the civilized and intellectual nature of the Babylonians.  They are probably best remembered for the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, which was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.  But their accomplishments in other areas, most notably astronomy and mathematics, were also very impressive.  They stood out among their contemporaries in the advanced nature of their civilization.


The second beast Daniel saw had the appearance of a bear; this is the Medo-Persian Empire.  A bear represents great strength and raw power, and this did characterize their empire well.  This empire has a hyphenated name because the Empire was actually comprised of two separate groups, the Medes and the Persians.  The fact that Daniel sees the bear raise “up itself on one side,” denotes the dominance of one of these groups over the other.  The Medes had more of an established history of strength, but it was the Persians who came to dominate the Empire.


The third beast had the appearance of a leopard; this is the
kingdom of Greece.  It is also sometimes referred to as Macedonia, after its first king Philip of Macedon.  While a leopard is not physically as strong as a lion or a bear, it is much swifter.  And this was the outstanding characteristic of the forces led by the second king, Philip’s son, Alexander the Great.  In only twelve years he conquered all of the territory belonging to the Medo-Persian Empire and brought it under his control.  This beast is also pictured with four wings and four heads which denotes the subsequent breakup of the Empire into four parts soon after Alexander’s death.


The fourth beast is “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly.”  It is so awful looking that Daniel does not even try to ascribe the characteristics of any animal to it.  This is a picture of the
Roman Empire; both phases of it, imperial and papal.  It had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it.”  This shows the very impressive strength of this Empire.  It subdued and controlled everything around it, nothing could stand in its way.  The Roman Empire is the largest, strongest and longest-lasting empire the world has ever seen.  But we also notice that “it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it.”  This has reference to papal Rome.  It was not strictly a secular kingdom, as all the others had been, but was a religious empire as well.  We also notice the ten horns, and this is how we know all ten of the horns were on the seventh head, and not distributed among all seven heads.  The little horn which came up among the other ten is the papacy.  This little horn will be discussed further in verse six.


After seeing these things, Daniel went to the angel who was talking with him, and asked him to explain these visions.  I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this.  So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things.  These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.  But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever” (Daniel 7:17-18).


Here the four beasts are identified as kings, a term which is quite often used to represent, not just a particular man, but an entire kingdom.  But these kingdoms will not stand, they will eventually be out done by the
Kingdom of God.  As the prophet Isaiah said , “It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it” (Isaiah 2:2).  The Lord’s Kingdom is not a secular one, but nonetheless, it has become the most long-lived in history.  Its influence is still felt around the world.


Daniel saw four separate beasts, whereas John
 sees but one which combines all the attributes of those four individuals.  It is interesting to note the various parts of the beast which are related to the three animals.  He was “like unto a leopard.”  This means his overall appearance was similar to that of a leopard.  A leopard’s coat is spotted to camouflage it from its intended prey.  This beast is likewise camouflaged so that the world will not see it for what it really is, the tool of Satan.  It can sneak up on its prey unnoticed and then pounce with great speed and overtake its unwary victims.


His feet were like those of a bear.  A bear’s main weapons are his feet.  He has enormous claws which can literally rip the flesh of animals from their bones.  So this beast possesses the destructive power of a bear.  Satan’s main goal in using these kingdoms is destruction; destruction of God’s people in particular.  He also has the mouth of a lion.  The mouth of a lion is his most destructive feature.  A lion has tremendously strong jaws and long sharp teeth.  He is able to easily bite through the bones of very large animals.  The lion is also known for his powerful roar.  It is this roar which had earned him the title “king of the jungle.”  This beast is not only out to destroy, but also to proclaim great things for itself.  We saw in chapter twelve that Satan’s problem which led him to sin, was pride.  That same pride is now manifested in the nations which he supports.  They roar loudly proclaiming their great power and dominion.  When all of these characteristics are put together we have an animal that is well camouflaged so that his true identity is difficult to discern until it is too late for the innocent victim to flee.  And when the animal is in position and pounces, he is equipped with the claws of a bear, and the teeth of a lion.  He then roars his triumph and his superiority after making his kill.


The last thing the verse tells us is that the dragon, which is Satan, is the power behind each of these heads.  He is like the puppet master pulling the strings.  His goal is the annihilation of righteousness upon the earth.  Satan gave his power, his seat, and his great authority to the beast with the hope that it could successfully destroy God’s plans and His people.



13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.


In John
’s time the first five heads had already had their day and had passed from the scene.  It was the sixth head, the Roman Empire, which was in power during John’s lifetime.  It is this sixth head that he sees which receives what appeared to be a fatal wound, but it somehow survived.  The Roman Empire “died” in A.D. 476 when Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustus I, the last official Roman emperor.  The Empire continued to exist for nearly a thousand years in the East at Constantinople, but it had died in the West.  And it never again returned as the world empire it had once been, although it did come back with great influence and power.  From the seat of the old Empire arose the Roman Catholic Church which dominated Western civilization during the Dark Ages.  Thus the sixth head “came back to life” as the seventh head, spiritual Rome.  Had it not been for the papacy, Rome would almost certainly have went the way of other great cities of antiquity such as Nineveh and Babylon.


And all the world wondered after the beast.”  The whole world watched with wonder and amazement as the power of
Rome increased, until it once again became the most important city in the world.  Rome regained its place of prominence that it had enjoyed for centuries as the head of a temporal empire.  The world had never seen a spiritual empire rise to such great heights, and they marveled at it.

 

“In A.D. 476, barbarian forces led by the Germanic general Odoacer deposed the last emperor of the West Roman Empire.  Many historians use this date to mark the end of the Roman Empire in the West and the start of the Middle Ages.  During the Middle Ages the influence and power of the church reached their peak.


The collapse of the
West Roman Empire meant that no one power had political control in the West.  Instead, all of Western Europe except Ireland, came to be ruled by barbarian kings, who were either Arians or non-Christians.  Beginning with the reign of Pope Gregory the Great in 590, the church set out to create a Christian world in the West.  Its chief instruments were the papacy and monasticism.


The papacy gradually replaced the empire as the center of authority in
Western Europe.  Ireland had been converted to Christianity in the 400’s, mainly through the efforts of Saint Patrick.  In 496, the king of the Franks, Clovis I, was converted.  His conversion brought Gaul into the Church and checked the spread of Arian heresy there.  Gaul was a huge region now occupied by Belgium, France, and part of western Germany.  From the 500’s to the 700’s, the papacy directed the conversion of other peoples of the West.  These people included the Visigoths in Spain, the Anglo-Saxons in England, and the Croats and Magyars in central Europe.


In the early 700’s, Moslems, who followed the religion of Islam, conquered
Spain.  Also in the 700’s, Viking raiders from northern Europe began to attack England and other Christian countries.  The conquest of Spain and the Viking attacks greatly disrupted Western European economic, political, and social life.  In the midst of these disruptions, the church stood out as the major force for unifying and civilizing the West.


Charlemagne, the greatest king of the Franks, became one of the most important persons in European as well as church history.  During his reign, he laid a foundation for the organized, civilized society later built in
Western Europe.  This foundation resulted from the ideals that Charlemagne pursued—orderly government, religious reform, and expansion through world conquest and missionary activity.


Charlemagne involved himself deeply in church affairs and became protector of the popes.  In 800, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Romans, which restored the idea of the empire in the West.  Charlemagne’s empire formed the basis of what became the
Holy Roman Empire in 962.


Innocent III became pope in 1198.  Under Innocent, papal influence over public life in Christian Europe
 reached its peak.  He was feudal lord over much of Europe, and he was a great administrator and jurist.


Boniface VIII became pope in 1294.  He tried to unify the Christian world more closely under the papacy.  Boniface insisted that kings of individual nations were subject to the Holy Roman emperor and that the emperor’s power, in turn, came from the pope.  In 1302, Boniface issued a bull (papal document) of immense importance.  This bull, called Unam sanctam, stated that ‘two swords’ served the church.  One sword was the spiritual power of the priests.  The other was the temporal (worldly) power of rulers.  The bull declared that, for salvation, every human being must be subject to the pope.”
[1]

 

Thus we see the resurrection of the deceased Roman Empire in the form of the papacy.  In many ways the popes had more power and control over the West, than did the emperors during the height of the Empire.  This resurrection of Rome was a truly remarkable event, and caught the attention of the entire world.



13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast?  Who is able to make war with him?


The pronoun “they” in this verse goes back to the previous verse and refers to “all the world.”  The world worshipped the dragon, which is Satan, by worshipping the beast which is a work of Satan.  Despite their professions of Christianity, the Roman Church
 was apostate, and to worship according to their doctrines was to worship Satan.  He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matthew 12:30).  If someone does not worship according to the biblical pattern, then their worship is not of God, but of Satan.  Therefore, most worship which in name is worship of God, is actually worship of Satan.


The beast, the Roman Catholic
 Church, was the object of admiration and awe.  People feared and respected the power and authority of the great apostate Church.  Although the papacy had no army of her own, she did have the military support of the European powers.  Therefore no one could make war against the papacy.  No one wielded as much power during the Middle Ages as did the popes.  Thus the phrases, “Who is like unto the beast?  Who is able to make war with him?.”



13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.


The “mouth” of the Roman Catholic
 Church is the pope.  It is not hard to show that he has spoken blasphemous things.  There was the decree of Gregory I (pope from 590 to 604) which forbade the clergy to marry.  This is totally without basis in the Bible, and in fact Paul predicted that such a thing would occur.  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry...” (I Timothy 4:1-3a).


There is also the doctrine of papal infallibility, which teaches that in all matters of doctrine the pope cannot be wrong.

 

“Vatican I was called by Pope Pius IX.  It opened Dec. 8, 1869, and is remembered primarily for approving the doctrine of papal infallibility.  This doctrine states that the pope can commit no error when he speaks as head of the church to proclaim, in matters of faith and morals, what is to be accepted by all Roman Catholics as the teaching laid down by Jesus Christ and His apostles.”[2]

 

It is certainly blasphemous to say any man is incapable of making a mistake.


Even the pope’s title is itself blasphemous.

 

“The pope’s full title is Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, and Sovereign of the State of Vatican City.  The pope is addressed as ‘Your Holiness.’”[3]

 

Nothing could hardly be more blasphemous than this title.  In the Bible cities did not have bishops, congregations did.  The bishops in the Bible were also known as elders (Titus 1:5), overseers (Acts 20:28), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11), in addition to bishop (I Timothy 3:1).  This office entitled a man to have authority in but a single congregation.  And in addition, one of the qualifications of a bishop was that he be “the husband of one wife” (I Timothy 3:2).  According to the Bible, the pope is not even qualified to have authority in a single congregation, let alone be the head of all churches!


“Vicar” means representative.  The pope claims to hold the place of Christ
 here on the earth, and to have the authority to speak for Him.  It is on the basis of this supposed authority that the pope claims the right to change church doctrine.  But the Bible says, “If ANY man preach ANY other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9).  No man has the right to change what God has ordained!


“Successor of the Prince of the Apostles.”  The popes claim to be successors of Peter, who they name as the chief of the apostles and the first pope.  There is not one shred of evidence to support the notion that Peter had a position of preeminence among the apostles, and there is certainly no evidence that he was the first pope!  The Catholics base their claim on the following passage: “And I say also unto thee, ‘That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’” (Matthew
16:18).  They claim that here Christ was endowing Peter with authority as THE head of the Church.


Much of the confusion comes from the Greek
 words for “Peter” and “rock.”  The Catholics claim that Christ said he was going to build His Church on the rock Peter.  Peter comes from the Greek “petros,” which Strong’s defines as, “apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock.”[4]  The word “rock” comes from the Greek “petra,” which Strong’s defines as, “a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):-rock.”[5]  The difference in the two is that petros means a small stone or a fragment of rock, while petra means a large massive rock.  The rock which Christ built His Church on was much larger and stronger than Peter.  This rock is easily identified from the verses preceding the one in question.  As with so many misunderstandings and misinterpretations in the Bible, the primary fault lies in not examining a passage in context.  When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, ‘Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?’  And they said, ‘Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.’  He saith unto them, ‘But whom say ye that I am?’  And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’  And Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’” (Matthew 16:13-18).


From the above passage we learn what gives Christ
 the power and authority to build a Church, namely that He is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  It is this “rock” of truth that Christ will build His Church upon.  It was not Peter, but what Peter said, that was the foundation for the Church.  Therefore the Catholics claim to power is invalid.  So also is the title “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles.”  Peter never claimed for himself any superior position among the apostles.  He was at the gathering of the chief men of the Church in Acts chapter fifteen, but he definitely did not preside over the meeting.  Peter also certainly was not infallible.  The Apostle Paul had to confront Peter over his conduct.  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11).  Would Paul have confronted “Pope Peter I” this way?  Paul and Peter were equals, as were all of the apostles.  Peter was not the prince of the apostles, and the popes are not his successors.


“Supreme pontiff of the
Universal Church.”  Pontiff means bishop or high priest.  The pope has the audacity to claim to be the head of the entire Church.  In the Bible no man is found who has authority in more than a single congregation.  This is quite a contrast to the governmental system which Rome has devised completely without God’s authority.  The Bible says that “Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23).  Yet the pope is so audacious as to claim this title for himself!


The rest of the titles denote his position of authority over the western Church
, and his temporal power.  He is to be “addressed as ‘your Holiness.’” Not even Christ Himself wore such a title.  No man in the Bible, New Testament or Old, has ever worn such a title with God’s approval.  This is indeed blasphemy.  The pope seeks to exalt and almost deify himself.


“The word pope comes from the Latin word ‘papa’ which means father.”
[6]  But the Bible says “call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9).  This verse is of course talking about calling anyone your spiritual father, not your physical father.  God is the spiritual father of all Christians, and no man should be given this title.  Despite the clear wording of Christ’s commandment to spiritually call no man by the title of father, all of the Catholic clergy wears this title.  Such brazen effrontery and audacity is hard to believe, yet millions around the world continue to uphold this work of Satan.

 

“The hierarchy of Rome which has occupied so large a portion of history; which has so forced itself upon communities and nations by priestly ambition and thirst for dominion; which arrogates to itself divine supremacy, and blasphemously usurps the prerogative, titles, and sovereignty of God—to absolve from sin, to dispense pardon, and eternal blessedness or eternal damnation to the souls of men—and which had so bound the conscience and frightened it into submission to itself...”[7]

 

The apostle Paul prophesied of the pope and the way he would blaspheme God.  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (II Thessalonians 2:4).  And this is exactly what the pope does.  He has proclaimed himself God on the earth.  Can there be any doubt that the pope is the “mouth speaking great things and blasphemies?”

 

Edward Gibbon also makes an observation about the Papacy’s handling of the Holy Scriptures.

 

“The catholics, oppressed by royal and military force, were far superior to their adversaries in numbers and learning.  With the same weapons which the Greek and Latin fathers had already provided for the Arian controversy, they repeatedly silenced or vanquished the fierce and illiterate successors of Ulphilas.  The consciousness of their own superiority might have raised them above the arts and passions of religious warfare.  Yet, instead of assuming such honourable pride, the orthodox theologians were tempted, by the assurance of impunity, to compose fictions which must be stigmatised with the epithets of fraud and forgery.  They ascribed their own polemical works to the most venerable names of Christian antiquity; the characters of Athanasius and Augustin were awkwardly personated by Vigilius and his disciples; and the famous creed, which so clearly expounds the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, is deduced, with strong probability, from this African school.  Even the Scriptures themselves were profaned by their rash and sacrilegious hands.  The memorable text which asserts the unity of the THREE who bear witness in heaven is condemned by the universal silence of the orthodox fathers, ancient versions, and authentic manuscripts.  It was first alleged by the catholic bishops whom Hunneric summoned to the conference of Carthage.  An allegorical interpretation, in the form perhaps of a marginal note, invaded the text of the Latin Bibles which were renewed and corrected in a dark period of ten centuries.  After the invention of printing, the editors of the Greek Testament yielded to their own prejudices, or those of the times; and the pious fraud, which was embraced with equal zeal at Rome and at Geneva, has been infinitely multiplied in every country and every language of modern Europe.”[8]


Power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.”  This is the fifth and final occurrence of the 1,260 year period in Revelation.  Table V gives a synopsis of the occurrences, which we will now discuss along with the endpoints of this period.

 

REPRESENTATIONS OF THE 1,260 YEAR PERIOD

Event

Duration

Reference

Holy City trodden under foot

42 months

11:2

Two witnesses will prophesy

1,260 days

11:3

Woman hiding in the wilderness

1,260 days

12:6

Woman hiding in the wilderness

T, T’s, ˝ T

12:14

Beast will continue

42 months

13:5

Table V

 

The Holy City and the Woman are both representations of the Church.  The Church will be forced to go into hiding because of the persecution of the beast during the time his power continues.  Also during this time the two witnesses, the Old and New Testaments will prophesy in sackcloth.  All of these things will be for 1,260 years.  This period began in A.D. 533 when Pope John II was finally recognized as the head of the entire Christian Church by Emperor Justinian I.

 

“The Emperor’s letter to the Pope, Reddentes honorem (June 6, 533), was incorporated in the Code of Justinian together with the Pope’s reply.  It contains remarkably deferential language with respect to the Apostolic See, acknowledged as ‘the head of all the Churches.’ The Emperor is anxious to inform them of ‘all that concerns the state of the Church.’ ...references to ‘the authority of your see’ that he is eager to increase and his fulsome praise of Rome as the center of unity and criterion of orthodoxy...  .”[9]

 

The letter mentioned above is included below.

 

“With honor to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, which is, and always has been remembered in Our prayers, both now and formerly, and honoring your happiness, as is proper in the case of one who is considered as a father, We hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of the Church, as We have always had the greatest desire to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See, and the condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they exist at the present time, that they may remain without disturbance or opposition.  Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and according to the doctrines of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought to the attention of Your Holiness.  For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what causes difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.”[10]

 

Another source sums up the relationship of Justinian to the Bishop of Rome this way.

 

“During Justinian’s reign the see of Rome enjoyed supreme Church authority.  In his letters to the bishop of Rome, Justinian addressed him as ‘Pope,’ ‘Pope of Rome,’ ‘Apostolic father,’ ‘Pope and Patriarch,’ etc., and the title of pope was applied exclusively to the bishop of Rome.  In one epistle the Emperor addressed the Pope as the ‘head of all holy churches’ (caput omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum), and in one of his Novels he definitely stated that ‘the most blessed see of the archbishop of Constantinople, the New Rome, ranks second after the most holy apostolic see of Old Rome.’”[11]

 

This proclamation is very important because for a long time Rome and Constantinople had been vying for supremacy within Christendom.  Finally, the emperor gives the nod to Rome, which legitimizes the pope’s claim to authority.  History also points out that John was likewise considered to be the head of the Church by the leaders of the West.

 

“In the sixth century men looked to the popes not only for guidance in spiritual matters but for help in their bodily necessities.  The famous Cassiodorus, the Roman minister of Theodoric the Ostrogoth, thus wrote to John II,...  : ‘You are the chief of the Christian people; with the name of “father” you direct everything.  You, to whom its guardianship has been entrusted, must look to the safety of the people.  We have to regulate some things, but you everything.  Your first concern indeed is to give spiritual food to your flock, but you cannot neglect their temporal needs.  For as man is made up of soul and body, so it is the business of a good father to nourish them both.’”[12]

 

Another interesting fact about John is that he was the first man who changed his name after he was elected pope.

 

“When the Roman priest Mercurius was finally elected, he took the name of John II, thus becoming the first pope to change his name.”[13]

 

Although this really proves nothing, it is interesting to note that something which is such an integral part of the papacy began with the man who was the first real pope.


The 1,260 year period ended on
August 10, 1793.  The French Revolution began in 1789, with many people giving July 14, the day the Bastille was stormed, as its official beginning.  For over three years France was ruled by the Assembly, with Louis XVI reduced to little more than a figurehead.  Finally on September 22, 1792, the Committee replaced the Assembly.  This was also the first day of the French Republic.


A couple of years later the Gregorian calendar was replaced in France by the republican calendar, which started counting, not from the birth of Christ
, but from the establishment of the French Republic.  At that time France was the most powerful nation in Europe.  For France to reject Catholicism was a tremendous blow to the power and influence of the papacy.  The papacy has never been the same since the French Revolution.


Before the Republic was established in
France, the anti-Catholic sentiment had been growing but was not well organized.  But it was less than a year after the emergence of the Republic that Christianity was replaced by the worship of Reason as the national religion of France.  This began the three and one-half year period where the two witnesses lay dead in the streets.  This three and one half year period is very important in that it helps us to confirm the endpoint of the 1,260 year period with certainty.  The 3˝ year period was easily identified, and found to last from August 10, 1793, to February 19, 1797.


Now we must look back at chapter eleven again.  Verse seven says “And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.”  The key here is that they will be “killed” after they have finished their testimony.  The testimony is that referred to in verse three of chapter eleven.  And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.”  The point is that the three and one-half year period was to follow the 1,260 year period.  Therefore the end of the 1,260 year period had to come on
August 10, 1793.  From 533 to 1793 we have exactly 1,260 years precisely what Revelation predicted.


We can now go back to Daniel’s prophesies once again, and find more details predicted about the papacy.  The four creatures that Daniel saw were certainly fierce looking, but the fourth one was by far the most dreadful judging from Daniel’s description.  Therefore it is not surprising that he specifically asked the angel about that one.  Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet” (Daniel 7:19).  The angel then told Daniel that “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces” (Daniel 7:23).  This fourth kingdom,
Rome, is said to be diverse, or different, from all other kingdoms.  This is true in the sense that in the later years it was a spiritual kingdom.  It began as the Roman Empire which was purely secular, but after the Empire fell, the papacy sprung from its ashes.  And the papacy was vastly different from any other kingdom which had ever existed.  And between the two they definitely did “devour the whole earth, and...tread it down, and break it in pieces.”  Combined, they held sway over the Western world for over two-thousand years.


Next, Daniel asked about the horns which he saw on this dreadful beast.  And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows” (Daniel 7:20). In his reply the angel explained to Daniel the meaning of these ten horns.  And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.  And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:24-25).


First we see the ten horns, which are said to represent kingdoms, and then we see the little horn rise up in the midst of the ten.  This horn “had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things.”  This is speaking of the papacy which arose amid the political disarray of
Western Europe in the sixth century.  The confusion of the time gave the pope an advantage which he used to become “more stout that his fellows.”  This means that the papacy came to be the dominant power in Europe.  It even says that three kingdoms fell before her.  We will now attempt to discover the identity of these ten kingdoms, and the three which fell before the papacy.


The first order of business is to establish the pertinent criteria for our search.  We need to define the characteristics that a kingdom must have in order to qualify as one of the ten.

 

1.  It must be an independent or sovereign kingdom.  In other words it is not simply a province or colony of some greater power.


2.  It must possess at least a moderate measure of power or influence in the area throughout which Christianity has spread.  The papacy’s influence, to some extent, would be felt in all Christendom
, therefore any kingdom which affected Christendom would also affect the papacy.  This would qualify it to be considered as one of the kingdoms among which the papacy arose.


3.  The first two criteria must have been met simultaneously during the time period in question.


4.  All ten kingdoms must have existed at the same time.


5.  All of the nations must have already been in existence when the papacy began.  As Daniel 7:8 shows us “I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn.”  Obviously these ten kingdoms were firmly established when the papacy rose up among them.

 

Next we need to define the period of time when these kingdoms are to have existed.  This can be done by understanding what is meant by the statement “there came up among them.”  It could be interpreted to mean the time when the earliest roots of the papacy began to appear.  But this would take us back to at least the second century, and the only real kingdom of any consequence at that time was the Roman Empire.  The logical choice is 533, the date of the ‘official’ beginning of the papacy.  It was here, with Justinian’s recognition of John II, that the real influence of the papacy outside Italy began.  However, it would take quite some time before the papacy would become “more stout than his fellows” (Daniel 7:20).


We can take, then, 533 as our target date and search for ten kingdoms that held sway over Christendom
 in A.D. 533 and the preceding decades.  The wording in Daniel suggests that these kingdoms were in place as the papacy reached maturity in A.D. 533.  We needn’t really bother with naming a date to begin this period during which these kingdoms must have existed.  The Bible give us no indication as to how long this period was to have been, and it would not be appropriate for us to simply guess.  All that really matters is that they still existed in 533 A.D.


I will first admit that it may not be readily apparent how to begin searching for these kingdoms.  The approach I took was to study the history of the later
Roman Empire and find those groups who had moved into the outlying areas of the Empire in her latter days.  Then by studying the history of these groups I discovered the names of still other groups with whom they interacted in some way.  By doing this I found all of the major and most of the minor groups of people who occupied Christendom during any of the time between A.D. 400 and A.D. 600.  The names that I uncovered, twenty-eight in all, are as follows: Avars, Alamanni, Alani (Alans), Angles, Bavarians, Britons, Bulgarians, Burgundians, Franks, Frisians, Heruli, Huns, Jutes, Langobardi (Lombardy), Ostrogoths (East Goths), Picts, Ravenna, Rome, Saracens (Arabs), Sarmatae, Saxons, Scots, Slavs, Suevi (Suabi or Suebi), Thuringi, Turks, Vandals, and Visigoths (West Goths).


We would hope that out of this group, when their histories are closely examined, that ten would emerge who precisely fit our criteria.  You may notice that not every one of the candidates is actually a kingdom, but that some are only cities.  I feel justified in doing this because they were not ordinary cities, but were centers of great political power and influence, which is, after all, exactly what we are searching for.


Now all that remains to be done is to compare the history of each group with our list of necessary characteristics and see who matches and who does not.  We will proceed in the order in which they are listed, which is, of course, alphabetically.



Avars

 

“Avars of Europe, sometimes called ‘pseudo-Avars,’ were probably a Turkish tribe, named Uigurs, who were subjected by the true Avars—a nation akin to the Huns, perhaps identical with the Yüan-Yüan, when the latter were driven out of Central Asia about A.D. 461.  The Avar confederation dominated the Volga steppes till 555, when the Avars were defeated and almost annihilated by the Turks.”[14]

 

The “Volga steppes” referred to here is a region of Europe which lies within present-day Russia.  They had a strong kingdom in this area for nearly 100 years, including twenty-two years after the official beginning of the papacy, therefore they meet our criteria.



Alamanni

 

“Early in the 5th century the Alamanni crossed the Rhine and conquered and settled Alsace and a large part of Switzerland.  In A.D. 495 they were conquered by Clovis, from which time they formed part of the Frankish dominions.”[15]

 

Clearly, since they were subjugated in 495, the Alamanni do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Alani (Alans)

 

“First met with North of the Caspian (c. 1st century A.D.) spreading into the steppes of Russia, the Alani made incursions into both the Danubian and Caucasian provinces of the Roman empire.  By the Huns they were cut into two portions, of which the western joined the Germanic nations in their invasion of southern Europe, and, following the fortunes of the Vandals, disappeared in North Africa.  Those of the eastern division, though dispersed about the steppes until late mediaeval times, were forced by fresh invading hordes into the Caucasus, where they remain as the Ossetes.”[16]

 

The Alans never comprised a kingdom so they too fail to meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Angles

 

“Angles made up one of the three Germanic tribes that invaded Britain during the A.D. 400’s and 500’s.  The other two tribes were the Jutes and Saxons, to whom the Angles were closely related.  The invaders established small kingdoms, some of which lasted until the Norman Conquest in 1066.”[17]

 

The Angles established several small kingdoms, but never established anything large enough for us to consider.  Therefore they do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Bavarians

 

“The earliest known inhabitants of the district afterwards called Bavaria were a people, probably Celtic, who were subdued by the Romans just before the opening of the Christian era, their land being included in the province of Raetia.  The cities of Augsburg, Regensburg, and Passau were originally Roman colonies.  During the 5th century it was ravaged by the troops of Odoacer and, after being almost depopulated, was occupied by tribes who, pushing along the valley of the Danube, settled there between A.D. 488 and 520.  They were, like the Franks, composed of a mixture of Teutonic tribes and were known as Bawarii or Baiuwarii, words derived most probably from Baya and given to them because they came from Baya-Hemum or Bohemia.  They are first mentioned in a Frankish document of 520.  Their country was bounded by the Enns, the Danube, the Lech, and the Alps.  The Bavarians soon came under the dominions of the Franks, and were ruled from 555 to 578 by dukes of the Agilolfing family, possibly of Frankish descent.”[18]

 

The Bavarians never comprised an independent kingdom so they also fail to meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Britons

 

“Britons, name applied to the inhabitants of Britain before the Teutonic invasions by the Angles and Saxons in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D.”[19]

 

The Britons were never more than a collection of independent tribes at any time, and then were subdued by the Angles and Saxons before the beginning of the papacy.  Therefore, they do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Bulgarians

 

“A people called the Thracians established the first civilization in what is now Bulgaria about 3,000 years ago.  The region was part of the Roman Empire from the A.D. 40’s to 395.  Slavs from what are now southern Poland and the Soviet Union settled in the territory during the 500’s.  In the 600’s, nomadic Bulgar tribes from central Asia migrated to the region.  In time, the Bulgars blended with the Slavic people.  The first Bulgarian Kingdom was established in 681.  It gradually became the most powerful state in the Balkans.”[20]

 

The Bulgarians did eventually form a powerful kingdom after migrating westward from Asia, but it was too late for our purposes.  Therefore they do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Burgundians

 

“In consequence of wars against the Alamanni, in which the latter had the advantage, the Burgundians, after having taken part in the great invasion of Radagaisus in 407, were obliged in 411 to take refuge in Gaul, under the leadership of their chief Gundicar.  As allies of the Romans, they established themselves in certain cantons of the Sequani and of upper Germany, receiving a part of the land, houses and serfs that belonged to the inhabitants.  Thus was founded the first kingdom of Burgundy, the boundaries of which were widened at times by Gundicar and his son Gunderic; its chief towns being Vienne, Lyons, Besancon, Geneva, Autun, and Mâcon.  Gundibald (d. 516), grandson of Gunderic, is famous for his codification of the Burgundian law known consequently as Lex Gundobada, in French Loi Gombette.  His son, Sigismund, who was canonized by the Church, founded the abbey of St.  Maurice at Agaunum.  But, incited thereto by Clotilta, the daughter of Chilperic (a brother of Gundibald, and assassinated by him), the Merovingian kings attacked Burgundy.  An attempt made in 524 by Clodomer was unsuccessful; but in 534 Clotaire (Chlothachar) and his brothers possessed themselves of the lands of Gundimar, brother and successor of Sigismund, and divided them between them.  In 561 the kingdom of Burgundy was reconstructed by Guntram, son of Clotaire I., and until 613 it formed a separate State under the government of a prince of the Merovingian family.”[21]

 

Although the Burgundian kingdom was interrupted from 534 to 561, it otherwise was a powerful kingdom for nearly 200 years.  This certainly meets our criteria, so Burgundy is the second kingdom we have identified.



Franks

 

“These Ripuarians (Franks) had settled in the 5th century on the left bank of the Rhine, but their progress was slow.  It was not until the middle of the century that they occupied Cologne, which was not permanently in their possession until 463.  The Ripuarians subsequently occupied all the country from Cologne to Trier.  Aix-la-Chapelle, Bonn and Zülpich were their principal centres, and they even advanced southward as far as Metz, which appears to have resisted their attacks.  The Roman civilization and the Latin language disappeared from the countries which they occupied; indeed it seems that the actual boundaries of the German and French languages nearly coincide with those of their dominion.  In their progress southward the Ripuarians encountered the Alamanni, who, already masters of Alsace, were endeavoring to extend their conquests in all directions.  The Ripuarians long remained allies of Clovis, the son of their king fighting under him at Vouillé in 507.  Ultimately, however, Clovis destroyed the Ripuarian dynasty and was himself chosen king of this people.  Thus the Salian Franks united under their rule all the Franks on the left bank of the Rhine.  During the reigns of Clovis’ sons they again turned their eyes on Germany, and imposed their suzerainty upon the Franks on the right bank.  This country, north of the Main and the first residence of the Franks, then received the name of Francia Orientilas, and became the origin of one of the duchies into which Germany was divided in the 10th century—the duchy of Franconia (Franken).”[22]

 

The Franks established one of the strongest kingdoms to exist in Europe since the Roman Empire, and since it was extant during the time period in question they certainly meet our criteria and are the third kingdom we have identified.



Frisians

 

“Frisians, a people who in the first century of our era were found by the Romans in occupation of the coast lands stretching from the mouth of the Scheldt to that of the Ems.  The first historical notices of the Frisians are found in the Annals of Tacitus.


In connection with the movements of the migration period the Frisians are hardly ever mentioned, though some of them are said to have surrendered to the Roman prince Constantius about the year 293.  About the year 520 the Frisians are said to have joined the Frankish prince Theodberht in destroying a piratical expedition which had sailed up the
Rhine under Chocilaicus (Hygelac), king of Gotar.  Towards the end of the century they began to figure much more prominently in Frankish writings.  It is probable that the Frisians were to some extent associated with the Angles and Saxons in the invasion of Britain.”[23]

 

The Frisians never comprised a kingdom, but seem to have been allied with others at various points in their history.  Therefore they do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Heruli

 

“A Teutonic tribe belonging either to the northern or the southern portions of the Jutish peninsula.  In the reign of Gallienus (A.D. 260-68), they were with the Goths ravaging the coasts of the Black Sea and the Aegean.  Soon afterwards, in A.D. 289, they appeared in the region about the mouth of the Rhine.  During the 4th century they frequently served together with the Batavi in the Roman armies.  In the 5th century the Heruli made piratical incursions in the western seas.  At the same time they had a kingdom in central Europe, in or around the basin of the Elbe.


About the beginning of the 6th century they were completely overthrown in war by the Langobardi.  Part of them migrated to
Sweden, while others crossed the Danube and entered the Roman service, where they were frequently recorded later in connexion with the Gothic wars.”[24]


“Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, endeavored to form a confederacy with the Thuringi, Heruli and Warni against
Clovis in order to protect the Visigoths in the early years of the 6th century, but very shortly the king of the Heruli was slain by the Langobardi and their existence as an independent power came to an end.”[25]

 

The Heruli once had a kingdom, but it was destroyed before the beginning of the papacy, therefore they do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Huns

 

“In 445 Bleda (Attila’s brother and co-ruler) died, and two years afterward Attila, now sole ruler, undertook one of his most important expeditions against the Eastern empire; on this occasion he pushed southwards as far as Thermopylae, Gallipoli and the walls of Constantinople; peace was cheaply purchased by tripling the yearly tribute (which accordingly now stood at 2,100 pounds of gold, or Ł84,000 sterling) and by the payment of a heavy indemnity.  In 448 again occurred various diplomatic negotiations, and especially the embassy of Maximinus, of which many curious details have been recorded by Priscus his companion.  Then followed, in 451, that westward movement across the Rhine which was only arrested at last, with terrible slaughter, on the Catalaunian plains (according to common belief it is the neighborhood of the modern Châlons, but more probably at a point some 50m. to the south-east, near Mery-sur-Seine).  The following year (452) that of the Italian campaign, was marked by such events as the sack of Aquileia, the destruction of the cities of Venetia, and that historical interview with Pope Leo I. which resulted in the return of Attila to Pannonia, where in 453 he died.  Almost immediately after the empire he had amassed rather than consolidated fell to pieces.  His too numerous sons began to quarrel about their inheritance, while Ardaric, the king of the Gepidae, was placing himself at the head of a general revolt of the dependent nations.  The inevitable struggle came to a crisis near the river Netad in Pannonia, in a battle in which 30,000 Huns and their confederates, including Ellak, Attila’s eldest son, were slain.  The nation, thus broken, rapidly dispersed, exactly as the White Huns did after a similar defeat about a hundred years later.  One horde settled under Roman protection in Little Scythia (the Dobruja), and others in Dacia Ripensis (on the confines of Serbia and Bulgaria) or on the southern borders of Pannonia.  Many, however, appear to have returned to what is now South Russia, and may perhaps have taken part in the ethnic combinations which produced the Bulgarians.”[26]

 

The Huns were, perhaps at one point, the strongest kingdom in Europe even before Rome officially fell.  But this kingdom disintegrated after the death of Attila, and therefore did not survive until the time the papacy arose.  So the Huns do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Jutes

 

“Early Germanic tribe of Denmark or northern or Rhenish Germany which, between 400 and 500 A.D., conquered southeastern Britain.  Little is known of the tribe prior to their settling in Kent, parts of Hampshire, and the Isle of Wight.  The people are believed to be related to the inhabitants of Jutland.  Their territory bordered that of the Saxons, who with the Angles, also settled Britain and drove the Britons westward into present-day Wales.”[27]

 

Although the Jutes were independent, they never established a kingdom of any power or influence during the time period in question.  Because of their isolation they had no real effect on the rest of Europe.  Therefore, they do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Langobardi (
Lombardy)

 

“Shortly before this time the Langobardi appear to have taken possession of the territories formerly occupied by the Rugii whom Odoacer had overthrown in 487, a region which probably included the lower province of Lower Austria.  At this time they were subject to Rodulf, king of the Heruli, who, however, took up arms against them.  The result was the total defeat of the Heruli by the Langobardi under their king Tato and the death of Rodulf at some date between 493 and 508.  By this time the Langobardi are said to have adopted Christianity in its Arian form.  Tato was subsequently killed by his nephew Waccho.  The latter reigned for 30 years though frequent attempts were made by Ildichis, a son or grandson of Tato, to recover the throne.  Waccho is said to have conquered the Suabi, possibly the Bavarians, and he was also involved in strife with the Gepidae, with whom Ildichis had taken refuge.  He was succeeded by his youthful son Walthari, who reigned only seven years under the guardianship of a certain Audoin.  On Walthari’s death (about 546?) Audoin succeeded.  He also was involved in hostilities with the Gepidae whose support of Ildichis he repaid by protecting Ustrogotthus, a rival of their king Thorisind.  In these quarrels both nations aimed at obtaining the support of the emperor Justinian, who, in pursuance of his policy of playing off one against the other, invited the Langobardi into Noricum and Pannonia, where they now settled.”[28]

 

Clearly the Langobardi comprised a powerful kingdom as the papacy arose, and are therefore the fourth kingdom we have identified.



Ostrogoths (
East Goths)


The history of the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths is intertwined so it is given together here all at once.

 

“The West Gothic Kingdom (Visigoths) of Toulouse grew within Gaul at the expense of the Empire, and in Spain at the expense of the Suevi.  Under Euric (466-485) the West Gothic power again became largely a Spanish power.  The kingdom of Toulouse took in nearly all Gaul south of the Loire and West of the Rhone, with all Spain, except the north-west corner, which was still held by the Suevi.  Provence alone remained to the Empire.  The West Gothic kings largely adopted Roman manners and culture; but, as they still kept their original Arian creed, their rule never became thoroughly acceptable to their Catholic subjects.  They stood, therefore, at a great disadvantage when a new and aggressive Catholic power appeared in Gaul through the conversion of the Frank Clovis.  In 507 the West Gothic king Alaric II. fell before the Frankish arms at Campus Vogladensis, near Poitiers, and his kingdom, as a great power north of the Alps, fell with him.  That Spain and a fragment of Gaul still remained to form a West Gothic kingdom was owing to the intervention of the East Goths (Ostrogoths) under the rule of the greatest man in Gothic history.


When the Hunnish power broke in pieces on the death of Attila, the
East Goths recovered their full independence.  Even before this time, in 406, a large body of Goths, apparently belonging to the eastern branch of their race, had invaded Italy under their king Radagais.  Later in the century, the East Goths entered into relations with the Empire and obtained a settlement in Pannonia.  Subsequently, they play in south-eastern Europe nearly the same part which the West Goths played the century before.  Towards the close of the 5th century their royal house produced a great figure, famous alike in history and romance, in the person of Theodoric, the son of Theodemir.  Theodoric the Great is sometimes the friend, sometimes the enemy, of the Empire, but in all cases alike he remains the national East Gothic king.  It was both as Gothic leader and as ally of the Empire that he set out in 488, by commission of the emperor Zeno, to recover Italy from Odoacer.  By 493 the East Gothic power was fully established over Italy, Sicily, Dalmatia and the lands to the north of Italy.  Under Theodoric the history of the East and West Goths converges again, through the marriage of the daughter of Theodoric to the Visigothic king Alaric II.  After Alaric’s fall in 507 his heir was protected by Theodoric, in whose later years the kingdoms of the East and West Goths were in effect united.


The East Gothic dominion was now again as great in extent and far more splendid that it could have been in the dominion of Hermanaric.  But it was of a wholly different character.  The dominion of Theodoric was not a barbarian but a civilized power.  His twofold position ran through everything.  He was at once national king of the Goths and successor, though without any imperial titles, of the Roman emperors of the West.


Such a system as that Theodoric established needed a Theodoric to carry it on.  On his death (526) the East and
West Goths were again separated.  Amalaric, son of Alaric II., succeeded to the West Gothic kingdom in Spain and Septimania.  Provence was added to the dominion of the new East Gothic king Athalaric, the grandson of Theodoric through his daughter Amalaswintha.  But the essential weakness of the East Gothic position in Italy now showed itself.  The long wars of Justinian’s reign (535-555) recovered Italy for the Empire, and the Gothic name died out.  The West Gothic kingdom lasted much longer, and came much nearer establishing itself as a national power in the lands which it took in.”[29]

 

This shows that both the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths were powerful kingdoms when the papacy arose.  Therefore, they are the fifth and sixth kingdoms we have identified.



Picts

 

“Picts, the name given to the ancient Celtic race of the Stone Age inhabiting Britain and later the Highlands.  In a battle of 640 they defeated the Britons, and for many years the inhabitants of the Roman provinces were exposed to devastating raids by the Picts and Scots.  They were finally conquered in 846 by Kenneth McAlpine.”[30]

 

The Picts were independent, but they were not a powerful kingdom at any time.  Therefore, they do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Ravenna

 

Italy was broken up into three separate areas—the new Lombard Kingdom; Ravenna, the garrison city of the Byzantine emperor; and Rome, the rallying point of the old nation, under the successor of St.  Peter.”[31]

 

This passage shows that Ravenna was considered to be on a par with Rome and the Lombard kingdom in Italy.  Even though it was only a city it still exerted considerable influence and ruled a sizable territory.

 

“Theodoric’s siege of Ravenna lasted for three years (489-492); ten days after his entry into the city he slew his rival at a banquet in the palace of the Laurel Grove (March 15, 493).  Ravenna was also Theodoric’s chief residence (493-526).


In 535 Justinian sent an army to destroy the Gothic monarchy and restore
Italy to the empire.  The Goths at length, weary of the feeble Vitiges, offered to transfer their allegiance to Belisarius on condition of his assuming the diadem of the Western Empire.  Belisarius dallied with the proposal until he had obtained an entrance within the walls of the capital, and proclaimed his inviolable fidelity to Justinian (539).  Under the rule of Narses and his successors the exarchs, Ravenna was the seat of Byzantine dominion in Italy.  In 728 the Lombard king Luitprand took and destroyed the suburb Classis; about 752 the city itself fell into the hands of his successor Aistulf, from whom a few years after it was wrested by Pippin, king of the Franks.”[32]

 

From these two passages I believe we can conclude that Ravenna was powerful and influential during the time the papacy arose, however, it was under the control of the Ostrogoths, who have already been identified as one of our horns.  Therefore it does meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Rome

After the capital of the Empire was moved to
Constantinople in 330 by Constantine, Rome certainly lost much of its power and influence.  It, however, did remain as the leading city in the West.  The legacy of Rome was strong and would not soon be forgotten.  After all, Rome gave rise to the greatest power the world had ever seen.  Rome seemed to almost have an aura of mystique which surrounded her, and caused people to continue to respect her long after she had fallen from the pinnacle of power.  As Catholicism expanded in Europe the popes exploited this mystique to increase their power and influence.  Soon, though not the political force she had once been, Rome was unchallenged as the spiritual capital of the West.  The Empire was gone, but Rome retained much of her influence, and as a consequence meets our criteria to become the seventh ‘kingdom’ we have identified.



Saracens (Arabs)

 

“Saracens were Muslims who invaded and occupied parts of the Christian world in Asia, Africa, and Europe during the 600’s and 700’s.  The Saracens included the people of Palestine and Syria, the Arab Moors who set up the Spanish kingdom in the 700’s, and the Seljuks who fought the Crusaders.  The Greeks and Romans first used the term Saracen to describe the wandering Arab tribes of the Syro-Arabian Desert.”[33]

 

During the seventh and eighth centuries the Saracens built a massive and extremely powerful empire stretching from Arabia through Africa into Spain.  The problem though, is that it occurred much too late to meet our criteria, therefore we must reject them as a candidate.



Sarmatae

 

“By the 3rd century B.C. the Sarmatae appear to have supplanted the Scythes proper in the plains of south Russia, where they remained dominant until the Gothic and Hunnic invasions.  Their chief divisions were the Rhoxolani, the Iazyges, with whom the Romans had to deal on the Danube and Theiss, and the Alani.”[34]

 

The Sarmatae were subdued by the Goths and Huns well before the beginning of the papacy, therefore they do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Saxons

 

“We next hear of them in connection with piratical expeditions in the North Sea about the year 286.  These raids became more frequent during the 4th century, and at the beginning of the 5th century the northern coast of Gaul and the south-east coat of Britain were known as litora saxonica.  During the same period the Saxons appear to have conquered a considerable portion of north-west Germany.  According to their own traditions they landed in Hadeln in the neighborhood of Cuxhaven and seized the surrounding districts from the Thuringians.  By the middle of the 4th century they had advanced westwards into the basin of the Ysel, and in the following century we find them in possession of the whole of the valley of the Ems, except the coastal district, while that of the Weser and its tributaries belonged to them as far south as the Diemel, where they bordered on the Hessian Franks, the ancient Chatti.  The conquest of the Boructauri who dwelt between the Lippe and the Ruhr marks the extent of their progress towards the south-west.  This took place shortly before the end of the 7th century.  They frequently came into conflict with the Franks and on several occasions had to submit to their supremacy.  No thorough conquest, however, was carried out until the time of Charlemagne, who, between the years 772 and 785, annexed the whole region as far as the Elbe, destroying in 772 the Irminsul, their great sanctuary, near Marsberg on the Diemel.”[35]

 

The Saxons did have a powerful kingdom when the papacy arose, therefore they do meet our criteria.  The Saxons are the eighth kingdom we have identified.



Scots

 

“The adjacent region to the north, comprising what is now Argyll County, was occupied toward the beginning of the 6th century by the Scots, Celtic invaders from northern Ireland, who established the kingdom known in history as Dalriada.  About the middle of the 6th century the Angles, Teutonic colleagues of the Saxons, overran most of Calcedonia south of the Firth of Forth and east of Strathclyde.  Together with the extensive Angle holdings in the north of what is now England, this region became the kingdom of Northumbria.”[36]

 

During the time when the papacy arose all of the groups occupying Britain (Angles, Britons, Picts, Saxons, and Scots) were disorganized and formed no important or powerful kingdom.  It was not until well after the time period we are concerned with was past that a powerful kingdom emerged in Britain.  Therefore, the Scots do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Slavs

 

“The first Slavs lived more than 5000 years ago.  They occupied a region that now forms part of the northwestern Ukraine and southeastern Poland.  From A.D. 200 to 500, they migrated to other parts of Europe.  Some settled in what are now parts of western Russia and eastern and central Europe.  Others migrated to the region of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans.


During the 800’s, the Slavs established the Great Moravian Empire, which united the peoples of central
Europe for the first time.  In 906 the Empire was conquered by the Magyars, the ancestors of the Hungarians.”[37]

 

As pointed out, the people of central Europe were never unified into a kingdom until the ninth century, which is much too late for our purposes.  Therefore, the Slavs do not meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Suevi (Suabi or Suebi)

 

“A collective term applied to a number of peoples in central Germany, the chief of whom were the Marcomanni, Quadi, Hermunduri, Semnones, and Langobardi; these tribes inhabited the basin of the Elbe.


From the 2nd to the 4th century A.D. the name Suebi is seldom used except with reference to events in the neighborhood of the Pannonian frontier, and here probably means the Quadi.  From the middle of the 4th century it appears in the regions south of the
Main, and the names Alamanni and Suebi are used synonymously.  The Alamanni seem to have been joined by one or more other Suebic peoples, some of whom accompanied the Vandals in their invasion of Gaul and founded a kingdom in north-west Spain.  Besides the Alamannic Suebi we hear of a people called Suebi, who shortly after the middle of the 6th century settled north of the Unstrut.  There is evidence for a people called Suebi in the district above the mouth of the Scheldt.  It is likely that both these settlements were colonies from the Suebi of whom we hear in the Anglo-Saxon poem Widsith as neighbors of the Angli.  The question has been raised whether these Suebi should be identified with the people whom the Romans called Heruli.  After the 7th century the name Suebi is practically only applied to the Alamannic Suebi (Schwaben), with whom it remains as a territorial designation in Württemberg and Bavaria.”[38]

 

The Suebi as a whole were never a powerful kingdom, although the Langobardi, whom we have dealt with separately, were indeed a powerful kingdom which we identified as our fourth kingdom.  The Suebi, as a whole, therefore, fail to meet our criteria and must be rejected.



Thuringi

 

“In the 5th century the Thuringians lived between the Harz mountains and the Thuringian Forest.  They were tributary to Attila the Hun, under whom they served at the battle of Châlons in 451.  In the 6th century they were conquered by the Franks and remained under the direct rule of the Frankish kings until 634, when King Dabobert I. appointed Radulf duke of the Thuringians, under whom they became virtually independent.  They were again brought under Frankish rule by Charles Martel, who abolished the office of duke and divided the country among Frankish courts.”[39]


“In 531 the Thuringian kingdom was destroyed by the Frankish king Theodoric.”
[40]

 

The Thuringi were always subservient to others while the papacy arose, and therefore fail to meet our criteria and must be rejected as being one of our kingdoms.



Turks

 

“The name Tukiue (Tou-Kiue) or Turk is first used by the Chinese in recording the events of A.D. 545, and the following years, when the Turks, or descendants of the Asena, revolted against the Jwen-Jwen.  These latter were crushed and disappeared from history, at least under that name.  The victorious Turks advanced across their territory, came into collision with the Hephthalites or Ephthalites, whom they defeated, and are heard of on the Oxus, about A.D. 560.  The period 546-582 marks the first brilliant epoch of early Turkish history.”[41]

 

The Turks would become a major force in European history in later centuries, even being the ones to finally conquer the seemingly invincible Constantinople in 1453, but as the papacy arose they were just emerging as a force in Asia.  Consequently, they fail to meet our criteria and must be rejected as one of our kingdoms.



Vandals

 

“Owing to defeat at the hand of the Franks the Vandals could not settle in Gaul and in 409 their king Gunderic led them across the Pyrenees.  They appear to have settled in Spain in two detachments.  One, the Asdingian Vandals, occupied Galicia, the other, the Silingian, Andalusia.  The Silingian Vandals were well nigh exterminated during the next 20 years but their Asdingian brethren marched across Spain and took possession of Andalusia.  In 428 or 429 the whole nation set sail for Africa, upon an invitation received by their king from Bonifacius, count of Africa, who had fallen into disgrace with the court of Ravenna.  Gunderic was now dead and supreme power was in the hands of his bastard brother Gaiseric who was for 50 years the terror of Constantinople and Rome.  Probably in the month of May 428, he assembled all his people on the shore of Andalusia, and numbering the males among them from the graybeard down to the newborn infant found them to amount to 80,000 souls.  The nation was transported to Africa on ships supplied by Bonifacius.  Although he soon returned to Imperial allegiance only three cities of Roman Africa-Carthage, Hippo and Cirta-remained untaken by the Vandals by May 430.  At length (Jan.  30, 435) peace was made between the emperor Valentinian III.  and Gaiseric.  The emperor was to retain Carthage and the small but rich proconsular province in which it was situated, while Hippo and the other six provinces of Africa were abandoned to the Vandal.  Gaiseric observed this treaty no longer than suited his purpose.  On Oct.  19, 439, he suddenly attacked and took Carthage.  The Vandal occupation of this great city, the third among the cities of the Roman Empire, lasted for 94 years.  Gaiseric seems to have counted the years of his sovereignty from the date of its capture.  Henceforward he made of Carthage a pirate’s stronghold, whence he issued forth, like the Barbary pirates of another day, to attack, as he himself said, ‘the dwellings of the men with whom God is angry,’ leaving the question of who those men might be to the decision of the elements.  Almost alone among the Teutonic invaders of the empire he set himself to form a powerful fleet, and was probably for 30 years the leading maritime power in the Mediterranean.


The wrongs of Hilderic, a Catholic
, with the blood of the emperor Theodosius in his veins, afforded Justinian a long-coveted pretext for overthrowing the Vandal dominion.  A great expedition under the command of Belisarius reached Africa in the Beginning of Sept.  533.  A large force of Vandals was then occupied in Sardinia under Gelimer’s brother Tzazo, and the landing of Belisarius was entirely unopposed.  He marched rapidly towards Carthage and on Sept.  13, defeated Gelimer at Ad Decimum, 10m. from Carthage.  Next day he entered Carthage and ate the feast prepared in Gelimer’s place for its lord.  On the return of Tzazo from Sardinia a force was collected considerably larger than the imperial army, but the Vandals were defeated and Gelimer took to flight.  He took refuge in a mountain fortress called Pappua on the Numidian frontier, and there, after enduring great hardships in the squalid dwellings of the Moors, surrendered to his pursuers in March 534.”[42]

 

The Vandals were certainly powerful for a time, and that time ended in 534, just after the papacy had officially risen.  Therefore they meet our criteria and are the ninth kingdom we have identified.



Visigoths (
West Goths)


The history of the Visigoths was discussed along with that of their kinsmen, the Ostrogoths.  From that discussion it was decided that the Visigoths were indeed a powerful kingdom as the papacy arose.  As a result they were the fifth kingdom we identified.


So out of the twenty-eight candidates we began with, we found nine that matched our criteria.  While this might be close enough if you work for the government, it definitely will not do where the Bible is concerned.  If the Bible says there were ten kingdoms, then there were unquestionably ten kingdoms.  The fault lies, not with the Bible, but with our search.


Have we perhaps misinterpreted or misunderstood the history of one of the groups we studied?  Or have we perhaps omitted some small group which the Bible includes as the tenth kingdom?  I believe our methodology has been sound and that our decisions on the twenty-eight we have thus far examined are accurate.  Furthermore, I believe that we have examined every group large enough to have possibly been included in the Bible’s list of ten kingdoms.  Then what can possible explain the discrepancy?


It is sort of like the old saying, ‘you can’t see the forest for the trees.’ Our phantom kingdom is not one of the small nomadic groups who burst on the scene for a time and then faded into obscurity after a crushing military defeat.  In fact, the kingdom we have failed to identify, exerted more power and influence in
Europe during this period of time than any other.  We have overlooked the very obvious, East Roman Empire.  Constantinople was the most powerful city in the Western world and exerted tremendous influence over many of the kingdoms we have already identified.


We need to realize that we are not restricted to looking for kingdoms based only in
Western Europe.  Our only qualification is that the kingdom exerted a fair amount of influence in the Christian world.  Daniel paints a picture of the papacy arising among ten kingdoms, and certainly no student of history could deny the tremendous impact the Byzantine Empire had on the development of the papacy.  In fact is was the proclamation of the Byzantine Emperor, Justinian, that we use to date the official beginning of the papacy.  Therefore, we can say that Byzantium does meet our criteria and is our tenth and final kingdom.


Now that we have identified the ten kingdoms our next task is to determine which three of the ten are the ones subdued by the papacy.  The first, and most obvious, is
Rome itself.

 

“The removal of the seat of empire to Constantinople effected a radical change in the political situation of Rome, but the civil administration remained unaltered.  The Gothic rule merely superimposed upon the Roman social order a Teutonic stratum that never penetrated beneath its surface.  The senate, the principal magistrates, both provincial and municipal, the prefect of the city, and the Roman judges enforcing the enactments of the Roman law, were all preserved.  Hence there was no visible change in the constitution of the city.  The wars of Belisarius and Narses against the Goths (A.D. 535-555) caused terrible slaughter and devastation in Italy, and finally subjected her to Constantinople.  In place of a Gothic king she was ruled at first by a praetorian prefect and later by an exarch (first mentioned in 584), who had his seat of government at Ravenna.  The pragmatic sanction (554), promulgating the Justinian code, separated the civil from the military power, and, by conferring on the bishops the authority over the provincial and municipal government, soon led to the increase of the power of the Church.


Roman institutions were altered; but their original features were still to be traced, and no heterogeneous element had been introduced.  The dawn of a new epoch can be dated from the invasion of the
Lombards (568-572).  Their conquest of a large portion of Italy reduced the inhabitants almost to slavery.  But, in the unsubdued parts of the country—namely, in Ravenna, Rome, and the maritime cities—a very different state of things prevailed.  The necessity for self-defence and the distance of the Empire, now too weak to render any assistance, compelled the inhabitants to depend solely on their own strength.  In Rome we behold the rapid growth of papal power and the continual increase of its political influence.  Not only the superintendence but often the nomination of public functionaries and judges was in the hands of the popes.  And the ascension to St. Peter’s chair of a man of real genius in the person of Gregory I., surnamed the Great, marked the beginning of a new era.  By force of individual character this pope was the true representative of the city, the born defender of Church and State.  His ecclesiastical authority, already great throughout Italy, was specially great in the Roman diocese and in southern Italy.  The offerings of the faithful had endowed the Church with enormous possessions in the provence of Rome, in Sicily, Sardinia, and other parts.  The administration of this property assumed the shape of a small government council in Rome.  The use made by the pope of his revenues greatly contributed to the increase of his moral and political authority.  When the city was besieged by the Lombards and the emperor left his army unpaid, Gregory supplied the required funds and thus made resistance possible.  And when the defence could be no longer maintained he alone, by the weight of his personal influence and the payment of large sums, induced the Lombards to raise the siege.  He negotiated in person with Agilult and was recognized by him as the true representative of the city.


A prefect of
Rome is not mentioned between 599 and 772, and then again there is silence until the time of the Ottos.  It is impossible to say whether the office was discontinued.  In the later days the prefect was an official of the pope, who had taken over the care of the aqueducts and the preservation of the city walls.  There is also much doubt about the existence of a senate.  We know that many senators had lost their lives in the long war.  The pragmatic sanction of 554 did mention the senate, but this was the last formal recognition of it as a governing body; and, if we may trust the despairing cry of Gregory the Great, it had disappeared, or at least was reduced to a shadow.”[43]

 

Clearly the popes came to dominate Rome not only spiritually, but also politically, economically, socially, and in just about every other way.  The rule of the popes supplanted the traditional government of Rome which had existed for centuries.


The other two kingdoms were subdued in a slightly different manner.

 

“In the last phase of the (Langobardi) kingdom it produced two rulers of unusual ability.  Liutprand, who destroyed the independence of the great southern duchies, Benevento and Spoleto, and Aistulf who threatened Rome itself.  Their success led directly to the events which brought the Lombard Kingdom to an end.  The popes, thoroughly alarmed, and hopeless of aid from the East, turned to the family which was rising in power among the Franks of the West, the mayors of the palace of Austrasia.  Pope Gregory III. applied in vain to Charles Martel.  But with his successors Pippin and Charles the popes were more successful.  In return for the transfer by the pope of the Frankish crown from the decayed line of Clovis to his own, Pippin crossed the Alps, defeated Aistulf and gave the pope the lands won by the Lombards from the empire, Ravenna and the Pentapolis (754-756).  Finally, invited by Pope Adrian I., Pippin’s son Charlemagne once more descended into Italy.  As the Lombard Kingdom began, so it ended, with a siege of Pavia.  Desiderius, the last king, became a prisoner (774), and the Lombard power perished.  Charlemagne, with the title king of the Franks and Lombards, became master of Italy.”[44]


“When Leo the Isurian published his decrees against the worship of images in 726, Gregory II. allied himself with Liuprand, the
Lombard king, threw off allegiance to Byzantium, and established the autonomy of Rome.  But the Lombards were unnatural allies, and increasingly the pope began to look for help in the Franks.  Pippin twice crossed the Alps and forced the Lombard king Aistolf to relinquish his acquisitions, including Ravenna, the Pentapolis, the coast towns of Romagna and some cities in the duchy of Spoleto.  These he handed over to the pope of Rome, in 756, a donation which confirmed the papal see in the protectorate of the Italic party, conferred upon it sovereign rights, and placed the popes in the position held by the Greek exarch.”[45]

 

The popes acquired Ravenna and Lombardy by bargaining with Frankish rulers.  The Lombards were one of the kingdoms, and Ravenna was the center of the holdings of the Ostrogoths.  In return for the military conquests of their enemies the popes crowned the Frankish kings as “Emperor of the Romans.”  Thus began the Holy Roman Empire (some give its official beginning as A.D. 962 with the crowning of Otto I), which will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.  The real temporal power of the popes is traced to this period of time when the papacy acquired great tracts of land through her dealings with the Franks.  But, regardless of the methods used, the papacy did eventually subdue three of the ten kingdoms we identified.


The fact that the ten horns Daniel mentions are seen on the fourth beast demonstrates the fact that they are not spread about on the seven heads.  At most they can be on the sixth and seventh heads, which are here represented by this beast.  Later it will be seen that they are indeed all on the seventh head.


In the present verse here in Revelation we have discussed the blasphemous conduct of the popes.  Daniel also pointed out this aspect of the papacy, “and he shall speak great words against the most High.”  Most of the pope’s proclamations throughout history have been contrary to the Bible.


In the end God’s people will win out over Satan’s.  The pope will be despoiled and his deceptions will be revealed.  The judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.  And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him” (Daniel 7:26-27).



13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.


Some of the blasphemies of the papacy were discussed in the previous verse.  Little more needs to be said here, except to reemphasize the fact that
Rome has profaned all things righteous and holy.  She has totally departed from the Bible, and in fact no longer uses the Bible written by God, but rather uses her own tainted version, the “Catholic Bible.”  This Bible is not God’s word but the Catholic’s interpretation of it.  Another example of the blasphemy of Rome is the supposed authority of the priests to forgive sins.  In the Bible we see men heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, and do all sorts of miraculous works, but there is not one single example in the entire Bible where a man was given the power to forgive sins.  Only God and Christ are ever seen to do that.  So the pope has indeed set himself up to be God.


The pope is said to “blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.”  God’s tabernacle is His dwelling place, Heaven
.  So the papacy, through her conduct and her teachings has blasphemed God, Heaven, and all the inhabitants of Heaven.  This is why it is quite proper to say that the pope has blasphemed everything righteous and holy.  He has made a mockery of Christianity.  It is no wonder that Muhammad rejected Christianity as well as Judaism, as corrupt.  He saw that neither were practicing what they professed, and so rejected them.  And certainly this has been true of many others throughout history.  Most people would have been exposed to Roman Catholicism and would have erroneously assumed that it was Christianity.



13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.


War with the saints” refers to the great persecutions brought against the Lord’s Church
 by the Roman harlot.  I think it is appropriate here to pause and discuss the saints of God.  The term saint(s) occurs 101 times in the Bible, thirty-nine in the Old Testament and sixty-two in the New Testament, including thirteen times here in the Revelation.  The common usage of the term today evokes thoughts of those who lived extraordinarily righteous lives, or perhaps performed some great act of faith and heroism, but nevertheless are now deceased.  The attachment of the word saint to the names of individuals is most prominent among Catholics, with a large number of ‘saints’ being honored with their own days.

 

“For legitimate public veneration of a person as a saint the sanction of at least the local church has always been necessary: he or she must be 'canonized', and over the centuries this has been effected in various ways.  The Virgin Mary, the apostles, and evangelists were recognized as saints by general consent; the early martyrs were spontaneously recognized as such by the faithful who had witnessed their sufferings; and so in a similar way were the early confessors.  Later on, individual bishops canonized, by giving permission for a religious festival, or feast, to be kept in a dead person's honour.  These local recognitions were frequently extended to other places, sometimes to the church at large.  Many of the greatest saints were canonized in this or a similar way, by a process of what may be called informal canonization, or by the prescription of long usage.

 

From the tenth century canonization in the West came more and more into the hands of the bishop of Rome; Pope Alexander III (d. 1181) in effect reserved future canonizations to the Roman see, and a process of formal canonization emerged.  But the present fixed process in the Roman Catholic church, involving a minute inquiry into the candidates life, has been in full operation only since 1634.”[46]

 

The papacy in essence claims that the only way someone can become a saint is by decree of a pope, a doctrine completely foreign to the Bible.  From the usage of the word in the Bible, it is quite clear that saint is synonymous with the term Christian.  There are dozens of passages in the Bible that make clear the true meaning of the word saint, the following are but a few examples.  And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda” (Acts 9:32).  Many epistles similarly open with greetings to all the saints in a particular locality.  But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.  For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem” (Romans 15:25-26).  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12).  But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints” (Ephesians 5:3).

 

The honorable names of many true first century saints have been hijacked by Rome in an attempt to bolster their claim to be the church that Jesus founded.  These men and women knew nothing of the great Harlot of the Tiber, for she did not exist in their day.  It was the unrighteous desires of evil men for power not granted them in the scriptures which led to the development of this beast.  The Apostle Paul new all too well the proclivity of certain men in this direction and feared what might become of the Lord’s Church.  For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.  But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.  For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (II Corinthians 11:2-4). 

 

The simplicity that is in Christ” was corrupted over the centuries and the chaste virgin that Paul spoke of became the Great Whore who sold all semblance of truth and righteousness in order to achieve enormous wealth and power.  It is just sad to think of how many real saints were slaughtered as heretics while many who proudly wore the mark of the beast were proclaimed to the world to be saints.

 

Daniel, in talking about the papacy said, “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them” (Daniel 7:21).  And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High” (Daniel 7:25).  Here “he” refers to the pope’s blasphemy and his persecution of those faithful to God.  John says that the beast shall “overcome them.”  Likewise, Daniel said he “prevailed against them,” and that he “shall wear out the saints of the Most High.”  But this does not mean that the Church will be wiped out, and cease to exist for a period of time.  Remember that chapter twelve told us that the Church, represented by the woman, would flee into the wilderness where it would be nourished for the 1,260 years of the pope’s power.  The Church would be scattered and oppressed, but would never die.


Likewise, Daniel, in speaking of the Church
, said it would last for ever.  And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever” (Daniel 2:44).  This is very similar to the captivity of the Children of Israel in Assyria and Babylon.  From the perspective of the world they had been destroyed.  But God kept His people intact and allowed them to return to the Promised Land.  Likewise, Christianity went into hiding for 1,260 years and to any casual observer appeared to be dead, but God took care of it, and finally it was allowed to emerge victorious over Satan.


During this time the papacy had the allegiance of the nations and was therefore able to make use of the secular governments to suppress those who held views which differed with the official Catholic
 doctrine.  Rome’s domination lasted until “the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom” (Daniel 7:22).  This was the end of the 1,260 year period when God brought judgment against the unrepentant papacy.  And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time” (Daniel 7:25).  We have already seen this way of expressing the 1,260 year time period in chapter twelve.


The persecution of the papacy against those who held “heretical” views on religious matters, often took very cruel and bloody forms.  Certainly many who were the victims of this persecution held views which were just as unscriptural as did the Catholics themselves, but we can be just as certain that many people who desired to follow the Bible were also victims.

 

“Then, in the 1200s, a storm of heretic-hunting burst upon Europe.  The first victims were the Albigenses, or Carthi, centered around Albi, France.  They doubted the biblical account of creation, considered Jesus an angel instead of a God, rejected transubstantiation, and demanded strict celibacy.  Bishops executed a few Albigenses leaders, but the sect continued growing.  The Third Lateran Council in 1179 proclaimed a military crusade against them, but it was a minor expedition with little success.


In 1208, Pope Innocent III declared a major crusade to destroy the Albigenses.  Some 20,000 knights and peasants answered the call, forming an army that scourged southern
France, smashing towns where the belief was strong.  When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers asked papal legate Arnald Amalric (or Arnaud Amaury) how they could distinguish the infidel from the faithful among the captives.  He commanded: ‘Kill them all.  God will know His own.’  Thousands were slaughtered—many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses or used for target practice.  The legate reported to the pope: ‘God’s wrath has raged in wondrous wise against the city.’


This was the beginning of numerous ‘internal crusades’ against nonconforming Christians and rebellious lords.


Another group targeted for extermination were the Waldensians, followers of Peter Waldo of Lyon, lay preachers who sermonized in the streets.  The church decreed that only priests could preach, and commanded them to cease.  They persisted.  The Waldensians had been excommunicated as heretics at the council of
Verona in 1184, and the Albigensian crusade was directed at them as well.  Executions ensued for five centuries.  The lay preachers fled to Germany and Italy, where they frequently were caught and burned.  Some hid in caves.  In 1487, Pope Innocent VIII declared an armed crusade against the Waldensians in the Savoy region of France.


Also condemned were the Amalricans.  French theologian Amalric of Bena preached that all people are potentially divine, and that church rites aren’t needed.  After his death in the 1200s, his followers were burned alive as heretics, and his body was dug up and burned.


A similar fate befell the Apostolic Brethren, who preached and sang in public.  Leader Gerhard Segarelli was burned as a heretic in 1300.  His successor, Dolcino, led survivors into fortified places to withstand attacks and wage counterattacks.  Troops of the bishop of
Milan overran their fort and killed nearly all of them.  Dolcino was burned in 1307.


In 1318 a group of Celestine or ‘Spiritual’ Franciscan monks were burned because they refused to abandon the primitive simplicity of Franciscan garb and manners.  Others executed as heretics included Beghards and Beguines, who lived in Christian communes, and the Brothers of the Free Spirit, a mystical order of monks.


The Knights Templar, religious warriors of an order which originated in the Crusades, were accused in
France in 1307 of spitting on crucifixes and worshipping the devil.  They were subjected to extreme torture, which killed some of them; others ‘confessed.’  About seventy were burned at the stake.


Killing heretics was endorsed by popes and saints.  They quoted Old Testament mandates such as ‘He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death.’  St.  Thomas Aquinas declared: ‘If coiners and other malefactors are justly doomed to death, much more may heretics justly be slain.’”
[47]

 

As Rome’s doctrine became increasingly unscriptural more and more people began to rebel.  As will be pointed out in chapter 18, the Catholic Church became enormously corrupt and the stench of its filth was not hidden from the masses.  Most still feared to question the papacy, but others, either foolhardy or brave, did take on the beast.  While many lost their lives or were otherwise punished, their efforts paved the way for continued resistance that eventually toppled this abomination.

 

Power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”  This alludes to the great power and influence that the papacy enjoyed for many centuries.  During the Dark Ages the papacy was the greatest political and economic power in the world.

 

“The modern conception of church and state as two distinct entities did not exist in the Middle Ages.  Christendom was a structure unified religiously, culturally, and politically and rested on pope and emperor.  The pope was believed to be superior by the will of Christ.  As all bishops stood under the pope, so all princes stood theoretically under the emperor.  Both powers were supreme; neither was absolute, for both stood before the law of God and the voice of conscience.  Relations between the two powers were constantly in a state of flux; their interests conflicted, and their spheres of influence overlapped.  As the Middle Ages grew older, tension mounted until it exceeded the strength of the structure of society.


Church
 and society were neither differentiated nor separated from one another in the Middle Ages.  The two blended.  The philosophy of the medieval church was concerned with the hereafter, but its actions were directed toward the temporal; the church did not retreat from the world, nor was the world withdrawn from the church.  The two coalesced at so many points that the separation became blurred.  Abuses that marked church life in the Middle Ages—overinvolvement in secular concerns and undue preoccupation with the affairs of princes and nations—were, to a large extent, due to the obscurity of the demarcation.


In its earliest stages the medieval church was relatively unorganized; the primacy of the see of
Rome was generally admitted by the faithful, but the bonds between it and the local or national churches were loose.  By reasons of its apostolic origins, the church of Rome enjoyed a preeminent position as the final court of appeals in matters of faith and morals.  In the mid-11th century a dramatic change overtook the church and its structure: the motivating force was the reaction of Pope Gregory VII (reigned 1073-1085) to the absorption of the bishops into the constitutional structure of the empire.  Secularization had gone as far as it could go without extinguishing the ‘liberty of the Church’ that ‘the justice of God’ demanded.  In the reform that Pope Gregory directed against the right of Emperor Henry IV to invest bishops the papal program ultimately succeeded in bringing the hierarchy of Germany—and ultimately of all Christendom—under the authority of the pope.  This was the beginning of ecclesiastical centralization: at this time the words ‘Curia Romana’ (Roman court) came into general use with regard to the ruling bodies in the church, and the title ‘Vicar of Christ’ was commonly attributed to the pope.  At this time, too, the college of cardinals, electors of the pope since 1059, emerged as a power in church administration.  Subsequently the church’s government tended to become more centralized, bureaucratic, and oligarchic.  Under the growing influence of Roman law, canon law became more and more universal in scope and extent.


By the opening years of the 13th century the Holy See virtually presided over the whole Western world.  Innocent III (reigned 1198-1216) demonstrated the international significance of the medieval papacy when he settled the feudal dispute between Philip Augustus of
France and King John of England.  Further, he condemned the Magna Carta as an illicit intrusion on his overlordship in England.  Maintaining that it was his right to give the imperial crown to whomsoever he would, because the empire pertained to the papacy by reason of its translation from the Greeks to the Romans to the Germans, and by reason of papal coronation and anointing, he constituted himself supreme judge in the so-called Throne Controversy between Otto IV and Philip of Swabia.”[48]

 

This passage leaves little doubt that the papacy was given power “over all kindreds, and tongues and nations.”  The pope was, in reality, the monarch of the entire Western world.  There were times when certain rulers would contest the authority of Rome, but over all, the pope reigned supreme for many centuries in Christendom.



13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Rome’s power and sway was nearly universal in medieval Europe.  All the nations of Europe accepted Roman Catholicism as their official national religion, and therefore Rome was in a position to dictate policy on many things to the temporal rulers.  And it literally became against the law not to be a Roman Catholic.  Therefore most people went along with it, even if they did not necessarily agree with it.  To most people it was better to go along with Catholicism than to suffer the consequences.


But we notice in this verse that not all people worshipped the beast.  Those who had their names written in the book of life did not submit to the coercion and persecution.  We also notice that the book of life belongs to the Lamb, who is Christ
.  The book of life contains the names of those who are faithful to God, and who, through their obedience to Him, have received the forgiveness of sins.  This forgiveness was made possible through the offering of the Lamb, Christ, who was the perfect sacrifice.  He bore the penalty for sins which every man really deserves, which is death.  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Hebrews 2:9).


The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”  We know that Christ
 was not crucified at the foundation, or beginning, of the world, but much closer to the end.  So what does this verse mean?  First we need to make very explicit the reason Christ had to die.  He died to bear the penalty for man’s sins.  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14).  When did man first sin?  It was near the foundation of the world, in the Garden of Eden.  So since Christ died because of the sins of man, His death really goes back to the beginning when Adam and Eve sinned.  It was when they sinned that Christ’s death on the cross became necessary.  God knew that He had made creatures subject to temptation that would inevitably sin.  Therefore, is was a given from the very beginning that Christ would have to die at some point to redeem the sinful creatures that God had made.


The Hebrew letter sheds a little further light on this subject.  For Christ
 is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.  For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.  For then would they not have ceased to be offered?  Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.  But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.  For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 9:24-10:4).  Christ died toward the end of the world, but His death reaches all the way back to the foundation of the world.  His life was given for all men who ever have lived or ever will live.



13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.


This is the same phrase which appeared at the end of each of the seven letters in chapters two and three.  It is the Lord’s way of telling us that something very important has just been said, and that we should pay very close attention to it.  What He desires for us to see here is the identity of the seven-headed beast He has just described.  This is the natural place for this phrase to appear, since He has just concluded his description of the seven-headed beast and is about to introduce another character to our story.  Before He moves on He wants to make sure we have understood everything thus far.  And it is very important that we do understand the first half of this chapter, because if we do not, we will be totally lost in the second half of the chapter, and indeed the rest of the book.



13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.  Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.


The “he” referred to in this verse is the beast.  This beast, the Roman Catholic
 Church, as the tool of Satan, has captured, or imprisoned, and murdered many of God’s people.  This persecution is what is under consideration here.  In the preceding verses we have discussed many aspects of the papacy’s war against the saints.  For centuries this war was very one-sided.  The papacy had the backing of the secular governments and found it very easy to suppress dissension.  But now God is promising to turn the tables on Rome.  This will be done by removing the support of the nations which have upheld Rome’s power for centuries.


God is promising His people that He will now pour out His wrath upon
Rome and avenge their tortures and deaths at the hands of the Catholics.  The Catholics will be the ones to be imprisoned and killed.  And this is exactly what we saw during the French Revolution.  Catholicism was the target of great persecution during this time, and for decades afterward in France and elsewhere around the world.  So God is promising His people that Rome will reap what it has sown.  God had promised to take vengeance on Rome for its past atrocities against Christians, but the saints must wait until God determines the time is right.  This is what is meant by the “patience and faith of the saints.”  They had to wait and trust God to do what He had said He would do when the time was right.  It was a bad situation, but their faith should be strong enough to see them through it.



13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.


Now John
 sees another beast appear on the scene, in addition to the seven-headed beast he has been describing in this chapter.  This beast came up from the earth, rather than the sea, where the seven-headed beast originated.  This shows that his effects would be regional and not global.  The papacy, which is the first beast, exercised power and authority over the whole of Western civilization, but this second beast will be limited in the range of its authority and power.


He had two horns.”  In his prophesy Daniel spoke of a ram with two horns.  The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and
Persia” (Daniel 8:20).  The two horns represented two nations, Media and Persia.  Clearly we are not talking about the same empire here, because the Medo-Persian Empire fell centuries before Christ.  But we do now have a good idea of what the two horns represent on the beast John saw.  This beast will most likely be a conglomeration of two nations, just as the two-horned ram in Daniel was.  So the beast John sees is actually a kingdom made up of two separate nations.


This beast had “horns like a lamb.”  This shows that it will have the appearance of being meek and gentle as a lamb.  And that it will appear to be similar to THE Lamb, Christ
.  But the fact that this beast spake as a dragon shows its true character.  Satan is the dragon, so if this beast speaks like a dragon, then he speaks like Satan.  So this beast, like the seven-headed beast, will be an instrument of Satan used against God’s people.



13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.


This new beast appears to be merely an assistant of the first one.  He has the same power, and certainly the same intentions (the destruction of God’s people), as the first beast.  But rather than supplanting the first beast, the second beast actually makes men worship the first beast.  We are not through with the first beast, but are merely entering a different phase of his power.  So we must be talking about something which took place during the 1,260 years through which the first beast had his power.  Or to put it more properly, we are looking for a kingdom, made up of two nations, which arose during the 1,260 years, and supported the papacy.  History tells us that there was indeed a kingdom which arose during the time in question which exhibited the characteristics we are looking for.  It was the
Holy Roman Empire.  This Empire was composed of Germany and Italy who were represented by the two horns of the beast.

 

Holy Roman Empire is the name given to the territory ruled by German kings between 962 and 1806.  The Holy Roman Empire was founded by Otto I of Germany, who was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in A.D. 962.  The essential feature of the Holy Roman Empire during the greatest phase of its history was the union of Germany and Italy (except the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies) under one ruler.”[49]

 

Much more will be said about the Holy Roman Empire later in this chapter.


Again mention is made of the “deadly wound which was healed.”  As we said before this is in reference to the supposedly fatal wound the
Roman Empire received in A.D. 476.  But the power of the Empire was revived in the form of a spiritual empire, the Roman Catholic Church.  So instead of dying, the first beast recovered from the wound and lived on.



13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,


This beast, which we have identified as the
Holy Roman Empire, will perform great wonders, even making fire to come down from heaven to demonstrate its power.  But this cannot be taken literally.  Only God, or His appointed representatives, have the power to literally rain fire from heaven.  And this beast certainly is not a representative of God.  What is meant here is that this kingdom will have great power and authority such that it will appear to be by the hand of God, the only one who is really capable of raining fire from heaven.  So there will be something about the Holy Roman Empire which will cause many people to attribute its power to God.  This is, of course, the fact that it is so intimately tied to the papacy, which most people naively assume to be an agency of God.

 

The fire will primarily come in the form of persecution and harassment by the civil authorities against those who teach and practice anything that differs with the dogma of the Roman Harlot.  And since it is all done in the name of keeping the purity of the faith it will appear to be Heaven sent.  It was the ability to coerce secular governments to vigorously attack all ideological enemies of Rome that gave the papacy its great power and longevity.



13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.


This verse continues the thought started in the previous verse.  The “miracles” performed by the beast, are not really miracles at all.  God is the only one who can perform miracles, either directly, or through an appointed representative.  To say this beast was capable of miracles was to say he was doing so in God’s name.  So this beast will appear to man to have received his power from God.  That is, the
Holy Roman Empire will appear to have been established by God, and to be ruling with His blessing.  The phrase “in the sight of the beast” sheds further light on this.  To say that someone does something in the sight of another is to indicate approval.  The idea here is that the first beast is overseeing the actions of the second beast.  Again, the first beast is the papacy, which most of the world considered to be the representative of God.  So to the world it would appear as if God approved of something if the pope approved of it.  The Holy Roman Empire would appear to the world to be the work of God because of its involvement with the papacy.  But in reality this was nothing more than a deception, since the popes represent Satan and not God.


Make an image to the beast” has reference to the beast which had received the deadly wound but had survived.  The wound was by a sword, which indicates defeat in battle.  The old
Roman Empire had seemingly been killed by military invasions, but was miraculously resurrected in the form of the papacy, spiritual Rome.  So the “image” is the likeness of old Rome.  In other words it will appear as though the old Empire has actually returned.  This new beast, the Holy Roman Empire, will cause spiritual Rome to take on the appearance of the old Roman Empire.

 

Holy Roman Empire is a “designation applied to an amorphous political entity of Western Europe, originated by Pope Leo III in 800 A.D., and in nominal existence until 1806.  In its initial stages, the organization was styled Empire of the West.  It became known as the Holy Empire in 1157 and as the Holy Roman Empire in 1254.


The
Holy Roman Empire represented, as the original styling implies, an attempt to revive the Western Roman Empire, which had collapsed in 476.”[50]

 

The popes and the Holy Roman emperors sought to exploit the legend of the old Empire by trying to revive it.  By claiming to be a revival of the old Empire the Holy Roman Empire gained much greater prestige that would have otherwise been possible.



13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.


The
Holy Roman Empire gave life to the image of old Rome.  It revived thoughts of how things were in the old days of the mighty Roman Empire.  Although the new Empire never reached the extent of power and wealth that the old one did, it nevertheless conjured up images in peoples minds of the old Empire and its glory.


The
Holy Roman Empire gave “power to...the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should...speak.”  To “speak” here means to do so with great authority.  The idea is that during this time the power of the papacy over nations and rulers should be increased.  He would be able to “speak” with authority, and to dictate official policy to kings and princes.


And cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.”  The
Holy Roman Empire acted as the executioner of the Catholic Church.  The Church tried to separate itself from the executions, but this was only a formality.  The following passage shows how the papacy used the secular governments to carry out executions of convicted heretics.

 

“Whatever scruples the Church had, during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as to its duty toward heresy, it had none as to that of the secular power, though it kept its own hands from blood.  A descent usage from early times forbade any ecclesiastic from being concerned in judgments involving death or mutilation, and even from being present in the torture-chamber where criminals were placed on the rack.  This sensitiveness continued, and even was exaggerated in the time of the bloodiest persecution.  While thousands were being slaughtered in Languedoc the Council of Lateran, in 1215, revived the ancient canons prohibiting clerks from uttering a judgment of blood or being present at an execution.  In 1255 the Council of Bordeaux added to this a prohibition of dictating or writing letters connected with such judgments.  Had this shrinking from participation in the infliction of human suffering been genuine, it would have been worthy of all respect; but it was merely a device to avoid responsibility for its own acts.  In persecutions for heresy the ecclesiastical tribunal passed no judgments of blood.  It merely found the defendant to be a heretic and ‘relaxed’ him, or relinquished him to the secular authorities with the hypocritical adjuration to be merciful to him, to spare his life and not to spill his blood.  What was the real import of this plea for mercy is easily seen form the theory of the Church as to the duty of the temporal power, when inquisitors enforced as a legal rule the mere belief that persecution for conscience sake was in itself a heresy, to be visited with the full penalties of that unpardonable crime.


The early teachings of Leo and Pelagius were revived as soon as heresy became alarming.  Early in the twelfth century Honorius of Autun proclaimed that the rebels against God who were obdurate to the voice of the Church
 must be coerced with the material sword.  In the compilations of canon law by Ivo and Gratian the allusions to the treatment of heretics by the church are singularly few, but there are abundant citations to show the duty of the sovereign to extirpate heresy and to obey the mandates of the Church to that end.  Frederic Barbarossa gave the imperial sanction to the theory that the sword had been entrusted to him for the purpose of smiting the enemies of Christ, when he alleged this in 1159 as a reason for persecuting Alexander III and supporting his antipope, Victor IV.  The second Lateran Council, in 1139, orders all potentates to coerce heretics into obedience; the third, in 1179, sanctimoniously says that the Church does not seek blood, but it is helped by the secular laws, for men will seek the salutary remedy to escape bodily punishment.  We have seen how inefficacious all this proved; and in despair of voluntary assistance from the temporal princes the Church took a further step by which it assumed for itself the responsibility for the material as well as the spiritual punishment of heretics.  The decree of Lucius III at the so-called Council of Verona, in 1184, commanded that all potentates should take an oath before their bishops to enforce the ecclesiastical and secular laws against heresy fully and efficaciously.  Any refusal or neglect was to be punished by excommunication, deprivation of rank, and incapacity to hold other station, while in the case of cities they were to be segregated and debarred from all commerce with other places.


The Church
 thus undertook to coerce the sovereign to persecution.  It would not listen to mercy, it would not hear of expediency.  The monarch held his crown by the tenure of extirpating heresy, of seeing that the laws were sharp and that they were pitilessly enforced.  Any hesitation was visited with excommunication, and if this proved inefficacious, his dominions were thrown open to the first hardy adventurer whom the Church would supply with an army for his overthrow.


It was applied from the highest to the lowest, and the Church
 made every dignitary feel that his station was an office in a universal theocracy wherein all interests were subordinate to the great duty of maintaining the purity of the faith.  The hegemony of Europe was vested in the Holy Roman Empire, and its coronation was a solemnly religious ceremony in which the emperor was admitted to the lower orders of the priesthood, and was made to anathematize all heresy raising itself against the holy Catholic Church.  In handing him the ring, the pope told him that it was a symbol that he was to destroy heresy; and in girding him with the sword, that with it he was to strike down the enemies of the Church.  Frederic II declared that he had received the imperial dignity for the maintenance and propagation of the faith.  Every prince and noble was made to understand that his lands would be exposed to the spoiler if, after due notice, he hesitated in trampling out heresy.”[51]

 

It was during the time of the Holy Roman Empire that the papacy enjoyed the height of her power.  It was also at this time that the drive to persecute all religious dissenters reached a fever pitch.  During this time thousands of Christians were labeled as heretics, unjustly tried, and cruelly tormented and executed.  Those who took a stand for God, and refused to worship the image of the beast, spiritual Rome, were in grave danger of losing their lives.  Only the protection of God saved the Church from extinction during this time.



13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:


This is the infamous “mark of the beast.”  Much has been made of this throughout history, but there is really nothing sensational here at all.  We went a long way toward answering it back in chapter seven.  There we saw the phrase “sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads” (verse 3).  It was explained there that the seal in the forehead represented a conscious decision to serve God.  The head is the seat of all rational thought and decision making.  So if the seal is located in the forehead the person has made a voluntary commitment.  Here the mark of the beast in the forehead denotes those who have made a conscious decision to serve the beast and to follow his evil ways.  In other words, we are talking about sincere devout Roman Catholics, those who recognize the pope as the head of the universal Church
.


But what does it mean to have the mark in the right hand.  There were many who did not necessarily subscribe to the Catholic
 viewpoint, but faced with the alternative of persecution, they acknowledged the supremacy of the pope, and practiced Catholic doctrine.  They did not truly accept Catholicism, but were merely “shaking hands” with it.  It was the most expedient thing for them to do.  The reference cited in the above verse contained a sentence which exemplified this attitude.

 

“The second Lateran Council, in 1139, orders all potentates to coerce heretics into obedience; the third, in 1179, sanctimoniously says that the Church does not seek blood, but it is helped by the secular laws, for men will seek the salutary remedy to escape bodily punishment.”[52]

 

Most men did not possess sufficient religious conviction to risk life and limb in the defense of their views.  Many people questioned the doctrines of the papacy, but they did so privately.  If done openly it would have almost certainly have been harshly addressed by the papacy.


We also notice that everyone “both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond,” received the mark.  Again the reference cited in the previous verse showed how even kings were subject to overthrow if they did not go along with the dictates of
Rome.  And certainly the weak and the poor could offer no opposition to the inquisitor, who in most cases, answered only to Rome.  So in Medieval Europe those who did not accept Catholicism, either genuinely or out of convenience, were marked as heretics and punished.  If they recanted their lives might be spared, but if they refused to denounce their heretical beliefs they would be executed without delay.  The mark itself is nothing more than practicing Catholicism.  It is said to be in the forehead if the person is sincere, and in the right hand if he is only going along with it.

 

The literal marking of men has been carried out by many cultures of the past.  Slaves were often tattooed or branded to facilitate their capture and return if they attempted escape.  It was also more difficult for someone to steal slaves if they were so marked.  While most slaves do not find themselves enslaved of their own will, there is nonetheless a strong parallel between slavery and Catholicism.  Many slaves were born into the condition and never knew anything else.  Likewise, most people in medieval Europe were born into a world where allegiance to Rome was a way of life.  The papacy had enslaved the masses but they had never known anything else.  For most, the mark of the beast was placed in their foreheads by their parents when they were children.  Few ever realized that they had the power to remove the chains and be free.


While the true “mark of the beast” is not physical, there are some tangible signs that indicate a person does submit to the beast.  Anything can be a mark of something if it identifies a person with that thing.  So anything which would reveal a person as a Catholic
 can truly said to be a mark of the beast.  Catholic priests and nuns are easily recognized by their dress, this is a mark which identifies them as servants of the beast.  On Ash Wednesday most Catholics will be seen with a small smudge of soot on their foreheads, this identifies them as servants of the beast.  And of course there is the famous “sign of the cross” which Catholics often make.  While all of these items are marks of the beast, none of them are actually THE mark of the beast.

 


13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.


We have already seen that those who refused to accept Catholicism were subject to persecution.  The papacy launched a severe campaign to stamp out religious dissenters beginning in the twelfth century.  There were many different punishments administered by the inquisitors, which included such things as flogging, forced pilgrimages, the wearing of crosses to denote your conviction as a heretic, seizure of property, imprisonment, and even death.  It seems quite odd that the cross would be the symbol chosen to mark a heretic, but it was done on a wide scale.

 

“In this respect the wearing of crosses was even worse.  The origin of this penance was that during his missionary labors St. Dominic had ordered penitents to wear two small crosses, sewn on the breast of their clothing in token of contrition.  The Inquisition adopted the practice and it was very frequently inflicted, being prescribed, like flagellation, for those who voluntarily made a confession of heresy.  Next to imprisonment this penance figures most often in the sentences of Bernhard Gui; it was rather less extensively used later.  The small marks which St. Dominic had required became under the Inquisition very large ones—as a rule two-and-a-half palms in height, two in breadth.  They were saffron in color and had to be worn one on the breast, the other on the back.  Other symbols besides crosses were sometimes used.  Thus false witnesses had to wear the symbol of red tongues, prisoners liberated on bail hammers, sorcerers the representation of demons.  The wearing of distinguishing marks was designed to be, and was felt to be, a less tolerable penalty than flogging.  The shameful garb had to be worn continuously indoors and out, exposing the wearer at all times to the jeers, if not the fanatical hostility, of the crowd.  The penance was enjoined sometimes for an indefinite period, and so long as he had to wear it, it would be difficult for the penitent to obtain employment.”[53]

 

One aspect of the Inquisition which had a profound effect on everyone was the laws of seizure of property of heretics.  Even if the accusations weren’t brought against an individual until after his death, his property would still be seized from his heirs.  If a person sold something to another person and was later found to be a heretic, the merchandise would then be seized even though its present owner was not a heretic.  This caused people to be very wary of whom they did business with.  There was also the possibility of being accused as a collaborator with heretics which added further uncertainty in business dealings.  This would make it extremely difficult for those who opposed Rome to buy or sell anything.  If a person would not openly proclaim allegiance to the papacy, as true Christians would not, they would likely be turned away by many business establishments.  The following passage touches on this subject.

 

“In addition to the misery inflicted by these wholesale confiscations on the thousands of innocent and helpless women and children thus stripped of everything, it would be almost impossible to exaggerate the evil which they entailed upon all classes in the business of daily life.  All safeguards were withdrawn from every transaction.  No creditor or purchaser could be sure of the orthodoxy of him with whom he was dealing; and, even more than the principle that ownership was forfeited as soon as heresy had been committed by the living, the practice of proceeding against the memory of the dead after an interval virtually unlimited, rendered it impossible for any man to feel secure in the possession of property, whether it had descended in his family for generations, or had been acquired within an ordinary lifetime.[54]

 

You can see from this just how difficult it must have been to live as a Christian during this time.  People were very wary of anyone who acted in the least bit suspicious.  Even if someone were trying to lead a Christian life in secret, it would be very hard to go undetected.  Even if you weren’t turned over to the inquisitors by your neighbors, they probably wouldn’t conduct any business with you if they had any reason to suspect that you held views contrary to the official Church doctrine as issued from Rome.  Thus we can understand this verse when it tells us that “no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast.”  In those days unless you were a practicing Catholic you would find it very hard to trade with anyone.  This is one of the main reasons why many people had the mark of the beast in their right hands.  Many of those who did not agree with the papacy, found themselves forced to submit to Rome by the economic realities of the time.  Only those with a strong spiritual character would have been able to resist the temptation to buckle under the pressure.


Save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”  We have already said that the mark of the beast is nothing more than living as a Catholic
, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.  Or in other words, accepting and following the dictates of Rome, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.  The name of the beast is the Roman Catholic Church or the papacy.  One has the name of the beast if he acknowledges himself to be a Catholic or a subject of the pope.  The number of the beast is simply another way to identify him and will be discussed in detail in the next verse.



13:18 Here is wisdom.  Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.


Here is wisdom.  Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast.”  This is the Lord’s way of trying to get our attention.  He is about to reveal something to us that we should not miss.  This is an important key to identifying the beast.  The number of the beast, we are told, is the number of a man.  So we are looking for a man whose name adds up to six-hundred-threescore and six.  A score is twenty, which means the number is six-hundred-sixty-six (666), expressed in more common terms.


We need to pay special attention to the statement “him that hath understanding.”  Now this does not mean that you must have a degree from Harvard to figure this out, but it does mean that we need to think about it before we just start trying to fit this number to every prominent person we can think of.  One does not have to look far to find any number of wild speculations as to the identity of this man.  People will put forward ideas that really have no basis in reality whatsoever.  We must realize that whoever this man is, he must fit one way or another with the rest of the book of Revelation.


For nearly two-thousand years now, man has argued and debated about the infamous “man of 666.”  I suppose the most common view today is that this man is the so-called “antichrist.”  But this simply is not possible.  The truth is that there is no such person as THE antichrist.  Despite all the hype in the world today, there is not one single shred of biblical evidence to support the notion of a man called the antichrist.


The word antichrist(s) is only used four times in the Bible; all by the Apostle
 John.  The word antichrist simply denotes a person who is against Christ.  Notice the following passages: “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time” (I John 2:18).  Here John says there were already MANY antichrists in his day.  Clearly he did not believe that there was to be just one person with that designation.


Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus
 is the Christ?  He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (I John 2:22).  Here John says that EVERYONE who denies Jesus in an antichrist.  Again this runs contrary to the idea that there is to be one man with this title.


And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus
 Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world” (I John 4:3).  Again, John applies the terms to all those who deny Christ.  And he once again says it was already present in his day.  There is no way to make this verse harmonize with the modern idea of AN antichrist.


For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus
 Christ