My Interpretation of Protestant Historicist Eschatology

[Steven Yeadon]

I am writing my own viewpoint of Protestant historicist eschatology to be published as an essay in a Christian book I am writing about my life and journey to Jesus. It seems unique.

I believe wholeheartedly that the Spirit has led me here as I have read the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. I also wholeheartedly disagree with both Futurist and Preterist Beliefs on Revelation. I have said on this board that I am premillennial post tribulation rapture, which is true, but I interpret this in a Historicist framework.

I plan to one day go through all the prophecies of the bible. However, for now I am posting the section below on Daniel 2 with another section on both Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 being written out. I plan to then do a section on Daniel 8. And then end with a basic overview of Revelation 14 through Revelation 19. I plan to do this all in three posts. Here is the first one, which is short.

Daniel 2:

The following is the context and situation in which the prophetic dream is given:

24 Then Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to execute the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, “Do not execute the wise men of Babylon. Take me to the king, and I will interpret his dream for him.”

25 Arioch took Daniel to the king at once and said, “I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who can tell the king what his dream means.”

26 The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?”

27 Daniel replied, “No wise man, enchanter, magician or diviner can explain to the king the mystery he has asked about, 28 but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He has shown King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in days to come. Your dream and the visions that passed through your mind as you were lying in bed are these:

29 “As Your Majesty was lying there, your mind turned to things to come, and the revealer of mysteries showed you what is going to happen. 30 As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than anyone else alive, but so that Your Majesty may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind.


Then Here is the dream and the explanation of it:

31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39 “After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others.

41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.


I will now list what each part of the dream is to us over two thousand years of history later:

• Head of Pure Gold = The Babylonian Empire of King Nebuchadnezzar as he is referred to specifically
  
  
• Chest and Arms of Silver = The Medo-Persian Empire that replaced the Babylonian Empire
  
  
• That Kingdom will be Inferior to Yours = This must be explained since the Medo-Persian Empire was technically larger than Babylon's empire. Perhaps the fact that the Medo-Persian Empire was an alliance between the Medians and Persians, and also the fact that the Medo-Persian Empire was not as socially united as the Babylonian Empire. I say this latter part because the Babylonians forced conquered peoples to be Babylonian, whereas the Medo-Persian Empire allowed conquered peoples to stay themselves as long as they served the empire.
  
  
• Belly and Thighs of Bronze = The Grecian Empire that came after the Medo-Persian Empire
  
  
• Legs of Iron = The Roman Empire that Crushed Almost All of the Known World after the Grecian Empire
  
  
• Feet partly of Iron and partly of Baked Clay = The Church of Antichrist, which Originated out of the Roman Empire as the Roman Catholic Church, and the Empire of Anti-Christendom, which originated as the territories under ecclesiastical rule.
  
  
• So this will be a Divided Kingdom = There will not be just one king over all of Anti-Christendom, but several kings over it.
  
  
• Yet it will have some of the Strength of Iron in It = These kings will have the power to conquer as the Roman Empire did
  
  
• So this Kingdom will be Partly Strong and Partly Brittle = I cannot tell, but I suspect it has something to do with social cohesion in Anti-Christendom, given the reference to Medo-Persia's empire being weaker than Babylon's despite its larger size.
  
  
• So the People will be a Mixture and will Not Remain United = The peoples of Anti-Christendom will not view themselves as one, united people
  
  
• In the Time of Those Kings = During the reign of the Church of Antichrist, which started with the Roman Catholic Church, and Anti-Christendom’s kings on earth
  
  
• A Rock Cut out Not by Human Hands = Jesus the Christ Born of a Virgin by the Power of God Almighty
  
  
• The Rock that Broke the Iron, Clay, Bronze, Silver, and Gold to Pieces without Leaving a Trace = Jesus’ Second Coming
  
  
• The Rock that Turned into a Mountain and Filled the Whole Earth = Jesus’ Messianic Kingdom on Earth

 

[rsr]

I've seen such interpretations before. They are an attempt to fit the prophecy into a specific narrative.

As to the "inferior" kingdom, there is some discussion that it is the Median Empire, which was roughly contemporaneous with the Neo-Babylonian Empire and topped Assyria. It was short-lived, left little trace and thus could properly be be called inferior, at least when talking to Nebuchadnezzar.

That would make the Persian Empire the third kingdom, which was superior in almost every way to the Neo-Babylonian Empire — in wealth, duration and extent.

That would make Alexander's kingdom the fourth. Alexander was never defeated in battle and it is an open question how much of the world he would have conquered had he not died so young. The mixture of clay? After his death his general carved up the empire and ruled the states independently.

BiblicalStudies.org.uk: The Four Kingdoms Of Daniel by John H. Walton

Identification of the Latin Rite folks as the successors of the Romans is, well, fanciful.

I suppose there are many other interpretations that could be made, but I don't see particular value.

The key is: "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

And that would be the Kingdom of God.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I've seen such interpretations before. They are an attempt to fit the prophecy into a specific narrative.

And Dispensational or Preterist Theology isn't? I know opinion may vary on this, but I find them fitting prophecy to preconceived ideas even worse than historicist theology.

Identification of the Latin Rite folks as the successors of the Romans is, well, fanciful.

I have to ask, on what planet is that true? Menno Simons and Luther's perspective, if we lived it, make it absolutely required to include at least the Roman Catholic Church in the reign of Antichrist. I will have a ton more on this topic in my next thread on this issue, so I will hold my powder for now (wow, that the phrase was started by Paul Ryan).

I will have to take your other comments into consideration though. I may be mangling the timeline of kings, or misinterpreting what the Kingdom of God is. I will have to keep my eye on these two as I interpret other chapters of the bible's prophecies.

 

[rsr]

And Dispensational or Preterist Theology isn't? I know opinion may vary on this, but I find them fitting prophecy to preconceived ideas even worse than historicist theology.

I never mentioned any of those things. My attitude is strictly historicist, which means you don't try to fit things into a preconceived box. In this case, ending with the Roman Empire is assuming the premises from the conclusion.

I have to ask, on what planet is that true? ]/quote]

Actually, no, you don't have to ask. You wanted to ask. And the answer is this planet.

Menno Simons and Luther's perspective, if we lived it, make it absolutely required to include at least the Roman Catholic Church in the reign of Antichrist.

Very likely. That doesn't mean they were right. (BTW, I assume you're talking about the Beast of Revelation; antichrists are all around us, as Paul said.)

Trying to shoe-horn Rome into a continuation of the Roman Empire has many difficulties. First, all the other kingdoms had limited lifespans. The See of Rome was, in effect, a backwater of Christendom for much of its existence. The real power was in Constantinople for a thousand years. The pope's control over his supposed vicarage was severely limited by recalcitrant bishops and nobles. Kings deposed and imprisoned popes and antipopes popped up to usurp his authority. It's not until the Council of Trent that you begin to see what we now think of as the Roman Catholic Church.

And do you think that the Roman Catholic Church, despite its multitude of adherents, has the prestige it once had? The German bishops are threatening to overturn centuries of teaching on divorce, lots of traditionalists are very unhappy with Francis, Catholicism is fading in the West and it can't shake the horrible pedophila scandal.

I will have a ton more on this topic in my next thread on this issue, so I will hold my powder for now (wow, that the phrase was started by Paul Ryan).

I can hardly wait.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I never mentioned any of those things. My attitude is strictly historicist, which means you don't try to fit things into a preconceived box. In this case, ending with the Roman Empire is assuming the premises from the conclusion.

True, so I have been reading tons of wiki to figure out history for the Near East. The Media Empire did exist before the First Persian Empire did, but it did not conquer the city of Babylon or the Neo-Babylonian Empire until Cyrus the Great of the First Persian Empire. Then again, the next empire was supposed to be weaker than Nebuchadnezzar's, which makes the Median Empire a good candidate, absolutely. It could not conquer Nebuchadnezzar's line.

Ooh intriguing bible study, this is fun.

Pagan Rome, I posit, could be the feet of clay and iron. The empire of the Romans was always a mixture of peoples that led to much civil war. In addition, it really is culturally so similar to the Hellenists, who from Alexander's time could be seen as the only real actors in the region until Rome's fall. However, I would say that I had thought of this, but rejected it due to the next problem:

I do ask you about the problem of Jesus' Kingdom being set up, seemingly, during Greece, or more likely Rome. True the Kingdom is prepared in Rome's time, but it does not rule in the time of these Kingdoms, unless it is assumed that the bible here is referring to the idea that these kingdoms in some way still exist to the time of Jesus' return when they are subjugated by Jesus. We have Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Egypt, Italy, Iran, and Iraq to this day

I will have to post another post in this thread with my Daniel 8 materials, as they do not link to Roman Catholic Church, as this seems like a very informative discussion. I will have to simply post all of my Church of Antichrist and Anti-Christendom materials in one more thread, with such a title though it should generate a lot of discussion/backlash.

 

[rsr]

Pagan Rome, I posit, could be the feet of clay and iron. The empire of the Romans was always a mixture of peoples that led to much civil war.

There were really two problems: Subject peoples kept being unreasonable about being conquered, although these insurrections were not universal because the conquered peoples usually found they were better off under Roman rule, harsh though it was. (Palestine was an obvious exception.) As long as Rome kept the peace, enforced the laws and stimulated trade, rebellion was not a major issue. Non-Italians could become emperors, after all. That changed when the central government could not protect the provinces from the barbarians.

More ruinous were the real civil wars that pitted faction against faction and general against general.

And the overarching problem with Rome was that it was a pirate state. As long as the empire could conquer new territories and feast upon a bounty of slaves and loot (like the treasures of the Jewish Temple that built the Colosseum), it survived. When it could no longer expand it began to crumble.

In addition, it really is culturally so similar to the Hellenists,

While Rome was deeply indebted to Hellenistic culture, you should not confuse them. The Romans were violent in a way that was foreign to the Greeks; Hellenes amused themselves with foot races and throwing the javelin while the Romans adopted Etruscan blood sport (often human) for entertainment. The Greeks excelled in philosophy and science; the Romans in law and engineering. Hellenes created the Library of Alexandria and the Romans built the Colosseum and the Circus Maximus.

who from Alexander's time could be seen as the only real actors in the region until Rome's fall.

If you ignore Carthage and the Parthian Empire.

And one should be careful about the Fall of Rome. Exactly when did it happen? Truth is, Rome was a backwater by the time Alaric sacked the city in 410; the capital of the Western Empire was moved to Ravenna in 402. The Eastern Empire was still vigorous until it was conquered by Crusaders in 1204. (The Venetians found it convenient to eliminate its main rival in the Adriatic.) Still, it held on until 1453.

I do ask you about the problem of Jesus' Kingdom being set up, seemingly, during Greece, or more likely Rome. True the Kingdom is prepared in Rome's time, but it does not rule in the time of these Kingdoms, unless it is assumed that the bible here is referring to the idea that these kingdoms in some way still exist to the time of Jesus' return when they are subjugated by Jesus. We have Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Egypt, Italy, Iran, and Iraq to this day.

"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

What human kingdom will endure forever?

 

[Steven Yeadon]

There were really two problems: Subject peoples kept being unreasonable about being conquered, although these insurrections were not universal because the conquered peoples usually found they were better off under Roman rule, harsh though it was. (Palestine was an obvious exception.) As long as Rome kept the peace, enforced the laws and stimulated trade, rebellion was not a major issue. Non-Italians could become emperors, after all. That changed when the central government could not protect the provinces from the barbarians.

More ruinous were the real civil wars that pitted faction against faction and general against general.

And the overarching problem with Rome was that it was a pirate state. As long as the empire could conquer new territories and feast upon a bounty of slaves and loot (like the treasures of the Jewish Temple that built the Colosseum), it survived. When it could no longer expand it began to crumble.

While Rome was deeply indebted to Hellenistic culture, you should not confuse them. The Romans were violent in a way that was foreign to the Greeks; Hellenes amused themselves with foot races and throwing the javelin while the Romans adopted Etruscan blood sport (often human) for entertainment. The Greeks excelled in philosophy and science; the Romans in law and engineering. Hellenes created the Library of Alexandria and the Romans built the Colosseum and the Circus Maximus.

If you ignore Carthage and the Parthian Empire.

And one should be careful about the Fall of Rome. Exactly when did it happen? Truth is, Rome was a backwater by the time Alaric sacked the city in 410; the capital of the Western Empire was moved to Ravenna in 402. The Eastern Empire was still vigorous until it was conquered by Crusaders in 1204. (The Venetians found it convenient to eliminate its main rival in the Adriatic.) Still, it held on until 1453.


"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."

What human kingdom will endure forever?

I just got a really nice history lecture that would otherwise cost a bit of money. Thank you, you have really good points, and have delved deeper than myself on this stuff despite my love of the educational channels.

I will have to rethink including this stuff in my autobiography/testimony. I will post my stuff on the Church of Antichrist and Anti-Christendom in the next few days, at least the basics of which I can get in a systematic form from Menno Simons' works. Works that have challenged and changed me forever. I must include my struggle and acceptance of that broader stuff in my testimony, in order to do them justice to how they changed my whole perspective on the world. I will publish the stuff on Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 in my testimony if my interpretation does not waiver.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Here is the rest of my material that does not deal with the Church of Antichrist but does deal with bible prophecy.

Daniel 8:

Here is another vision of Daniels that I has been realized historically.

8 In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision,after the one that had already appeared to me.
2 In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal.

The Citadel of Susa is near the western border of present day Iran. Its territory belonged to The Babylonian Empire, then the Medo-Persian Empire, then the Grecian Empire, and then the Seleucid Empire after Alexander the Great’s death.

3 I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later.

Possibly to do with the Median Empire which grew out of current day Iran, and then was followed by the First Persian Empire, which also originated out of Iran but as a revolt against the Median Empire.

4 I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great.

The Medians and Persians, who came from the east of Susa, ruled the lands north, south, and west of Susa.

5 As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6 It came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at it in great rage. 7 I saw it attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering its two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against it; the goat knocked it to the ground and trampled on it, and none could rescue the ram from its power. 8 The goat became very great, but at the height of its power the large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven.

The first king of Greece, who is the large central horn of the goat, is Alexander the Great. He conquered the Medo-Persian Empire, and he conquered most of the known world by the age of 32. After Alexander dies in the prime of his life, four kingdoms do come out of his. They are the Ptolemaic Kingdom, the Seleucid Empire, the Kingdom of Lysimachus, and the Kingdom of Cassander.

9 Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 It set itself up to be as great as the commander of the army of the Lord; it took away the daily sacrifice from the Lord, and his sanctuary was thrown down.12 Because of rebellion, the Lord’s people[a] and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a ruler of the Seleucid Empire, is the best candidate for being this ruler, who is the horn that grows out of one of the four. Antiochus IV abolished the Jewish Laws and traditions, deposed the high priest, he abolished the sacrifices, he invaded Israel, burned down the temple of the Lord, built a military citadel in its place, and commanded worship of Zeus. He also appointed Jews, who allied with Antiochus against faithful Israelites and thus the Lord, as the high priests and rulers of the land

13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?”

14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

The Temple had its sacrifices returned to it around 1150 days after they were stopped by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I include the next section of the bible to confirm my observations. I was actually pretty astonished at how well I managed to deduce things from history, and I discovered the interpretation by the angels almost by accident.

The Interpretation of the Vision
15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard a man’s voice from the Ulai calling, “Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision.”

17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,”[b] he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.”

Possibly the “time of the end” refers to the coming of the messiah, who is Jesus.

18 While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet.

19 He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.[c]20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

23 “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy those who are mighty, the holy people.

25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes dies of a terrible illness.

26 “The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.”

27 I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.

 

[Reformed]

so I have been reading tons of wiki

You should stop right now. Wiki? Are you using Wiki to form your eschatological view? My goodness, Steven, you are like a theological Energizer Bunny (and that is not a compliment). I understand that you want to button down your theology, but you are going at it so fast and with constantly shifting positions, that you are making folks on this board dizzy. If I were a betting man I would wager that five years from now your beliefs will have morphed more than once.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

You should stop right now. Wiki? Are you using Wiki to form your eschatological view? My goodness, Steven, you are like a theological Energizer Bunny (and that is not a compliment). I understand that you want to button down your theology, but you are going at it so fast and with constantly shifting positions, that you are making folks on this board dizzy. If I were a betting man I would wager that five years from now your beliefs will have morphed more than once.

I'm using wiki to reference the historical data that rsr is presenting. I honestly, did not know of the Median Empire. I bet most believers don't. By including that one empire though, you completely change the meaning I had and end up in rsr's interpretation. I have tried to understand things in light of this middle eastern empire I never knew about.

I understand I may be going too quickly with my theology research. Having a list of theological quandaries makes me want to address all of them soon, but I now understand I need to let the board be fallow a little before venturing on with "I don't get this (insert theological subject) and am confused, I need to figure it out in a group."

In this case, though, I am approaching this stuff on the Church of Antichrist with a very made up mind. I still have Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 to exposit. In this case what I thought was a Church of Antichrist verse may not be so, as rsr had history knowledge I did not despite being a history buff.

-EDIT-

Also, I didn't budge an inch on family planning, and I only grew more determined with blessed wife's input.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I just got a really nice history lecture that would otherwise cost a bit of money. Thank you, you have really good points, and have delved deeper than myself on this stuff despite my love of the educational channels.

Try "The Fall of Rome" Podcast by Patrick Wyman...
I just listened to it, it's outstanding....and of course, free.

A lot of what RSR covered is talked about in it.