Two House Chronicles
The Proper Rendering of the Apocalypse of John
- Category: evaluation
- Published: Friday, 16 September 2016 21:07
- Written by Administrator
- Hits: 1224
Common Law Copyright 2016
by Hope Helen Huerta
Before rendering the Revelation of John the proper method of interpreting the genre of apocalyptic literature or scripture in general must be addressed. Conflict manifests in three differing methods over the “historic” rendering of Revelations: Historicism, Preterism, and Futurism. “Historic” is emphasize so as not to confuse the former three with Idealism, which is another alternative method that holds there are no historic phenomenon in the book; they see it simply symbolically as representing persistent experiences common to all ages.
The Preterist orientation views the Revelation as dealing with historical phenomenon that took place within the first few centuries of Christ’s first advent, and it must be emphasized here that they are not in complete agreement exactly what the symbols represent. There are endless debates on what emperor fulfilled the antichrist or the little horn mentioned in Daniel, as well as other criteria. And rightfully so because great conflict arises when trying to reconcile Roman emperors with the heads of the beasts in the Revelation.
The Futurist’s orientation interprets the Revelation as predominately revealing occurrences that happen just prior to Christ’s return and they too have difficulty agreeing on how the prophecies will work out. The identity of Babylon runs the gambit of the resurgent Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, Iraq, the United States, etc.
Historicism views the Revelation in the continuous-historical approach; it views the Revelation as the unfolding of historical phenomenon and entities, permitting recapitulation and interludes of parenthetical matter that stretch from John’s time until the eternal estate. The controversies within the methods Preterism and Futurism were mentioned because, ironically, the greatest criticism against Historicism has been that its proponents are not in one accord concerning details, which the critics attribute to the subjectivity of its proponents. As Leon Morris stated:
“Historicist views also labour under the serious disadvantage of failing to agree. If the main points of the subsequent history are in fact foreshadowed it should be possible to identify them with tolerable certainty, otherwise what is the point of it?”1
George Eldon Ladd criticized Historicism in the same manner when he stated:
“Obviously, such an interpretation could lead to confusion, for there are no fixed guidelines as to what historical events are meant.”2
Failure to agree on all details over the apocalypse troubles Preterists as well as Futurists, so Morris’s objection hardly perseveres under scrutiny. And all the paradigms, including Historicism, have guidelines by which they interpret fulfilled, or unfulfilled prophecy; consequently, Ladd’s objection to Historicism was clearly flawed. Without fixed guidelines any attempt to interpret prophecy is futile; yet, both Ladd and Morris by some guidelines were compelled to assert that the Preterism’s view of kings in Revelation 17 leads to conflict when viewed as the Roman emperors in John’s time.3 The most significant aspect of the beasts or kings in Revelation is that they persecute God’s elect, which all the paradigms concede and certainly qualifies as a fixed guideline to render the apocalypse; yet, from John’s time all renderings of the kings cannot abide without ad hoc explanations. The unfavorable judgment of the Preterism’s view of the heads by Ladd and Morris is supported by Historicism whether they realize it or not, but for not quite the same reasons. Futurists, such as E.W. Bullinger also attempted to harmonize the kings as successive dominant world powers,4 which recognizes the nouns below as appositives (seven heads renamed seven mountains and etc.).
“And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” Revelation 17:9-11
Nevertheless, Bullinger’s rendition of the heads also fails to agree with other Futurists. Indication that the eighth king somehow was before John’s time, but was not existing in John’s time and yet will be in some distant future from John’s time produces the most ad hoc explanations and disagreements in Preterism and Futurism. The point being, the issue is not that guidelines do not exist in all the paradigms, but what are the superior guidelines that can render the Revelation according to scriptures and that harmonizes with history?
Morris and Ladd have applied “classic prophecy” or general prophecy as a guideline, which Historicist Jon Paulien defined as, “contemporary perspectives,” that, “are mixed with a universal, future perspective,” in his essay: The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apocalyptic—Part One.5 Classic prophecy utilized expressions of imminence concerning impending judgment in the same context with distant eschatological phenomenon, without chronological notation; the technique has come to be called Prophetic Telescoping.6 Ladd affirms this dual focus in his introduction of his commentary on the Revelation:
“...the prophets had two foci in the prophetic perspective: the events of the present and the immediate future, and the ultimate eschatological event. These two are held in a dynamic tension often without chronological distinction, for the main purpose of prophecy is not to give a program or chart of the future, but to let the light of the eschatological consummation fall on the present (II Pet. 1:19). Thus in Amos’ prophecy the impending historical judgment of Israel at the hands of Assyria was called the Day of the Lord (Amos 5:18, 27), and the eschatological salvation of Israel will also occur in that day (9:11).”7
Morris and Ladd, for the most part, interpret of the Revelation as classic prophecy, as if the apocalypse focuses strictly on circumstance in John’s time and the time immediately preceding Christ’s return, which conveys that the book has little relevance for the people of God during the interim. This creates tension with the promise of blessings for those who read and “keep those things which are written therein” (Revelation 1:3). If the book has nothing to say about the lives of people who live during the interim—there is nothing to keep. Ladd, in his rejection of Historicism, verified he viewed the book as classic prophecy by conflating Preterism and Futurism:
“Therefore, we conclude that the correct method of interpreting the Revelation is a blending of the Preterist and the Futurist methods. The beast is both Rome and the eschatological Antichrist—and, we might add, any demonic power which the church must face in her entire history.”8
Such a view is clearly taken from classic prophecy and proves inadequate as the guidelines of Preterism and Futurism are irreconcilable, worlds apart. The most salient conflict comes in interpreting the heads/mountains/kings upon the beast in chapter 17 as appositives. Are the heads to represent the fall and rise of prominent worldly powers merely at the first and/or second advent—or are they intended to portray the continuous-historical approach of the rise and fall of worldly dominions prior to John’s time and leading up unto the second advent of Christ? Here we have the advantage of Daniel’s explanations of beasts as successive dominant world powers. The Revelation complements Daniel, which reveals the beasts as dominant world powers, which challenges the Preterist and Futurist guidelines that interpret the mountains, renamed heads and then kings, as individuals. They are forced to interpret the kings as individual because of the time constraints in pushing everything back or forwards. The continuous-historical guidelines hold the complementary nature of Daniel and Revelation without such restraints and for this reason represents the true hermeneutic in rendering the apocalypse of John as a unique genre in contrast to Classic prophecy: the apocalyptic genre. The Revelation has something to say about the lives of all the people who live during the interim between the advents when the mountains, renamed heads and kings, are perceived as successive dominant world powers.
Ladd is simply in error; Historicism has “fixed guidelines as to what historical events are meant” to determine the five dominant kingdoms that had fallen prior to John’s perspective. Morris clearly employed some of the same guidelines observed by Historicism in asserting the five kings that had fallen as the Old Babylonian, Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian and the Graeco-Macedonian empires.9 It is evident that such a rendering must be determined by some “fixed guidelines” and Ladd verbalizes such guidelines in his book in determining the great harlot as one who:
“... seduces the nations and persecutes the saints finds her support from the beast who appears in history in succession of secular, godless kingdoms; five belong to past history; a sixth kingdom—Rome—ruled the world when John wrote.”10
The only conclusion that makes sense is that Ladd’s and Morris’ criticism against Historicism is contradictory. Like Historicism they attempt to reconcile the heads/mountains/kings in the Revelation with history through a set of guidelines, which are not completely different from Historicism’s; they too see the heads as consecutive dominant world powers, which coincides with some in their renditions. The problem that arises concerning guidelines or presuppositions are the proper ones and not that guidelines do not exist in Historicism and the other paradigms. The guidelines of Ladd and Morris are flawed incipiently because they both fail to grasp that John’s perspective is not the first century but the distant future, the day of the Lord, preceding Christ’s return, which shall be explained presently. Ladd makes a salient mistake in his guidelines with the misapprehension that “secular” kingdoms existed in the distant past when they are a modern aberrant; his guideline is an anachronism. Consequently, the rejection of Historicism and its guidelines cannot be sustained in the common objections that its proponents are not in complete agreement when the same can be confirmed concerning Preterism and Futurism.
An in-depth analysis of the genre of Daniel and the Revelation must come to the conclusion that both books are contrasted from classic prophecy as they prophesy phenomenon during the intervening time betwixt the prophets and the eschatological consummation. Ladd inadvertently conceded this in his assertion the little horn of Daniel 8:9 was the historical, “person of Antiochus Epiphanes,”11 who lived some three hundred plus years after Daniel; such an assertion pertains to the intervening time betwixt the time of Daniel and the eschatological consummation. When we consider that Christ affirmed the abomination of desolation spoken of in Daniel as yet future (Matt. 24:15) then we have an even greater time span of events covered by Daniel and Ladd’s view of Daniel 8 is called into question. Christ provided one of the guideline upon which Historicism is founded in Matthew 24:15; the apocalyptic genre is to be contrasted from classic prophecy as it anticipates intervening phenomenon betwixt the foci Ladd mentioned, which exposes Ladd’s deficiency in attempting to blend Preterism and Futurism to explain the apocalypse of John. Moreover, Daniel is given additional data concerning the “vision” in chapter 8 in chapter 9 that clearly confirms the desecration of the temple in the vision was fulfilled by the Romans and not Antiochus Epiphanes and Ladd had to concede this concerning chapter 9 of Daniel.12 Ladd overlooked that the vision in chapter 8 is explained in chapter 9. Ladd, as a covenant-Premillenialist, rejected Historicism but here inadvertently affirms that Daniel is not to be gasped as classic prophecy but as depicting continuous-historical phenomenon and entities from the prophet’s time reaching into the time when the saints possess the kingdom (Dan. 7:22), which, again, supports the guidelines of Historicism. This reinforces that the Revelation is interpreted not as classic prophecy but the unique genre of apocalyptic in the nature of Daniel: the continuous unfolding of history from John’s time until the consummation of the kingdom of God, albeit viewed from a future perspective and not the first century.
One of the guidelines that cannot be overlooked in understanding the apocalypse is the perspective from which the phenomenon and entities are being viewed by John. The sixth head on the beast in Revelation 17 is the kingdom ruling at the time of John; consequently, if the period of time from which the scarlet beast and its rider are seen by John was the first century then the sixth head was fulfilled by pagan Rome. Starting with the guideline that the beasts persecute God’s people, if the sixth dominant world powers in Revelation 17:10 was fulfilled by pagan Rome then Egypt and Assyria must be considered in the five kingdoms that fell but Daniel is silent concerning these kingdoms. Here, the relevance that the beasts in Daniel are seen again in the Revelation cannot be dismissed; John's beast from the sea is a composite of the four beasts in Daniel. This demonstrates concurrence between the books, which led to the reevaluation of the traditional Historicist's perception of the sea-beast and the two-horned beast. By the mid-19th century the Protestant secularization had all but succeeded in the West, the power of the Papacy had all but abated and led to the reexamination of the traditional interpretation of the sea-beast and the two-horned beast in Revelation 13. From that perspective it could no longer be dismissed that the rise of America had led to the French Revolution which ended the 1260 years reign of the Papacy and fit precisely with the wounding prophesied in Revelation 13:3. This led to the progressive revelation that John’s sea-beast was the Papacy and the two-horned beast was Protestant America in place of the traditional Historicists’ interpretation the former was pagan Rome and the latter was the Papacy. Noted Historicist, theologian and editor of the Review and Herald, Uriah Smith wrote concerning this change.
“It was at the time when this beast went into captivity, or was killed with the sword (verse 10), or had one of its heads wounded to death (verse 3), that John saw the two-horned beast coming up… Can anyone doubt what nation was actually "coming up" in 1798? Certainly it must be admitted that the United States of America is the only power that meets the specifications of the prophecy on this point of chronology.”13
Progressive revelation also revealed Daniel’s little horn as John’s sea-beast, supported in their parallelism: they both came out of pagan Rome, spoke, “against the most High,” were diverse from the other beasts, had the same span of time given them to persecute the saints and were both, “given to the burning flame,” at Christ’s return.14
With the aforesaid in mind, there are four beasts in the Revelation, one of which is the image of the sea-beast (Rev. 11-20): first, the sea-beast (Rev. 13:1); second, the lamb-like beast (Rev. 13:11); third, the image of the sea-beast; fourth, the scarlet-colored beast (Rev. 11:7: 17:8, 11). One of the beast is resurrected, which reveals two of the beasts are actually the same dynastic kingdom that has an “is not” span, making but three beasts to determine. Considering Daniel’s little horn is John’s sea-beast we are left with but two beasts in the Revelation in addition to Daniel’s five beast which comes to seven, the exact number of heads/mountains/kings in Revelation 17:10. The progressive Historicist’s rendition of the sea-beast and the two-horned beast conforms to the actual history in the mid-19th century and more precisely parallels Daniel, while the traditionalists view was found wanting.
The traditional Historicists can only sustain their perception in abstracts, while Daniel and John relate observable dynastic, religion-state regimes, or predetermined to reinstate religion-state autocracy, as in the two-horned beast, which is ultimately reconciled as the sixth king in chapter 17. This supports the eighth king ruled prior to the sixth king and not that the sixth king's power was interrupted, as earlier Historicists have reckoned. The only determination that works is that the five fallen kings commence with Babylon, which makes Rome the forth king and the Papacy the fifth king—the sea-beast in the Revelation. Certainly, the Papacy followed Rome—and "was" prior to the sixth king when determining the Papacy as the fifth, one of the five that were fallen. The older, traditional Historicist's have attempted to hold the misapprehension Rome "was, and is not" by a wound inflicted by Christ, not to be healed again until the Papacy interacts with an international empire. It was Christ, not Rome, that suffered the deadly wound at the first advent. The traditional view pales in comparison with progressive Historicism's view that the wounding of Papacy occurred with the rise of America and secularization. The older Historicist's determination that the sixth king was Rome cannot be taken as seriously as the progressive, today. John picked-up where Daniel left-off to unveil two more kingdoms that persecute God's people, bringing the number of these kingdoms to seven, the complete, full number of the kingdoms that subjugate the covenant people of God in Revelation 17:10-11
Contrary to the opinions of Ladd and Morris concerning Historicism there is remarkable agreement with the proponents of Historicism; there is overwhelming agreement concerning the fulfillment of the five beasts in Daniel, including the little horn that rises out of the fourth beast. Historicism holds that Daniel prophesied that Babylon (the lion) would fall and be succeeded by the Persian empire (the bear), which fell and was succeeded by the Greek empire (the leopard) that fell and was succeeded by the pagan Roman empire (the diverse beast) that fell and was succeeded by a fifth dominant world power/beast that would persecute the saints. Historicism holds that the fifth beast in Daniel, the little horn, was fulfilled by a loose federation of western nations under the dominant and worldly power of the Papacy “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (Rev. 13:7). Herbert W. Armstrong is a typical example of a Historicists who wrote:
“We read in history that the popes were accepted as the “Vicars of Christ,” which means “IN PLACE OF Christ.” The teaching was that the Second Coming of Christ had occurred — Christ had returned to earth, as KING of kings and as LORD of lords, in the person of the popes. The millennium had begun.
_“For the entire 1260 years, the emperors accepted the popes as such, ruling the nations with a “rod of iron” as Christ is to do WHEN He really comes. Consequently they acknowledged the supreme religious power of the popes. The Church was organized as a GOVERNMENT... It embodied CHURCH government, and it also was a STATE, or civil government, always occupying a certain amount of territory over which it, alone, ruled as an independent sovereign state— in addition to actually ruling over the vast civil kingdom... Most nations send ambassadors to the Vatican, just as they do to the United States, or to Italy, Britain or the USSR.”15
Details vary but Historicists hold that the Papacy fulfills the little horn in Daniel and the sea beast in the Revelation, which exercised power over the Western nations up until the time of the Reformation when the nations started breaking away from its authority; it suffered a deadly wound. The authority of the Papacy was ultimately broken by Napoleon when he abducted the pope and confiscated his lands in 1798 AD, fulfilling the deadly wound in Revelation 13:3. With its power broken this gave way for the two-horned beast to rise, which is the sixth head in the sequence conveyed in Revelation 17:10. This is the perspective from which John saw the harlot woman riding the scarlet-colored beast. The truth is that Historicism was the dominate method of interpreting prophecy prior to the others. It was the method used by the early reformers for over three hundred years who witnessed the iniquities of the Papal institution, such as Martin Luther, who viewed the Pope as the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist. Today most people are ignorant of the history of the Papacy and cannot appreciate the religious freedoms we enjoy today as the outcome the suffering of thousands of martyrs throughout the ages who stood against the institution and were persecuted and tortured. Historicism commenced to be marginalized by the beginning of the nineteenth century due to its abuse by some in setting times for the return of Christ, which obviously did not come to fruition. It is ironic that Preterism does exactly the same thing through a hyper-allegorical method, yet it seems to be on the rise in recent times.
At this juncture it becomes unsustainable that the perspective of John was the first century or that the sixth king below was fulfilled by the pagan Roman empire. The sixth head of the beast is ruling at the time John sees the vision in Revelation 17 and when Daniel’s and John’s prophecies are reconciled the seven beasts correspond to the seven heads of which we are told:
“And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.” Revelation 17:10
When the visions of Daniel and John are reconciled the little horn in Daniel is the same beast John perceives rising “up out of the sea”, which is the fifth head/king, above. The next and sixth head is definitely the two-horned beast in Revelation 13 and as stated, above, there is almost universal agreement in Historicism that the little horn in Daniel, the fifth, was fulfilled by the Papacy during the dark ages and is the sine qua non of Historicism—which makes John’s perspective our day, as the Papacy’s hegemony “over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” in the west has long since passed, but is rising again today. In support that John’s perspective is from our day and not the first century the controversy over the meaning of the phrase τη κυριακη ἡμερα or “the Lord’s day” in Revelation 1:10 enters. The controversy concerns John’s intent concerning the phrase whether he meant the Hebrew idiom “the day of the Lord” or an expression just beginning to develop in his day meaning “the first day of the week” or Sunday. In support of the former the author Jerome Smith wrote:
“However, such an interpretation is open to the objection that (1) such a meaning has no relevance to the context; (2) the term is never so applied in Scripture, where the day of Christian worship is uniformly called the “first day of the week”; (3) such an interpretation does not agree with the Patristic understanding of the verse; (4) the interpretation is a reading back into the text of a term subsequently applied to Sunday. The term “Lord’s day” is better understood as John’s way of expressing the common Hebrew term “day of the Lord,” in a manner in Greek which places the emphasis upon “Lord’s” (by placing it in an initial position) in the same manner as the Hebrew expression places emphasis upon “Lord” (by placing it in the final position) in “day of the Lord.” Supposing the expression refers to Sunday cannot account for the presence of the Greek article “the” used in the expression. When the article is lacking, there are several possible explanations to account for the fact, but when an interpretation cannot account for the presence of the Greek article, the interpretation stands self-condemned (J. B. Smith, Comm. on Revelation, Appendix 5, p. 320). The expression “on the Lord’s day” would better be translated “in the Lord’s day,” as a reference to this specific prophetic time period. The Greek preposition en is more usually rendered “in,” only once in Revelation is it translated “on,” in the expression “on the earth,” Rev. Rev. 5:13. Everywhere else where en is followed by the word “day” it is rendered “in” (Rev. Rev. 2:13. Rev. 9:6. Rev. 10:7. Rev. 11:6. Rev. 18:8). Understanding this term to refer to the “day of the Lord” emphasizes that the events which transpire in the third division of the book (“things which shall be hereafter”) are events which take place during the “day of the Lord,” a future time which begins at the Great Tribulation and concludes with the judgment of the Great White Throne at the end of the Millennium, and specifically ties in the prophecies of this book with the rest of Scripture relating to this coming day.”16
There are arguments that John’s intent was the novel expression just rising into use meaning Sunday worship but as Smith stated, such an expression has no relevance to the theme of the apocalypse, where the Hebrew idioms of the little horn in Daniel and the sea-beast in John do. The correspondence between Daniel and Revelation reveals that John’s perspective is from our time as the sixth head, reigning from his perspective is the two-horned beast of Revelation 13:1-18, which will be revealed in succeeding essays. Grasping that John’s vision transcended time is not a great leap from grasping that Ezekiel’s visions transcended space.
“And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house... Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire... And he put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem...” Ezekiel 8:1-3
Ezekiel’s vision transported him geographically and since prophecy does concern the future it is evident that John’s vision was given an additional dimension of a future perspective, which is why it requires wisdom to discern (Rev. 17:9): “And here is the mind which hath wisdom...”
John’s perspective is not the first century but is from the future Day of the Lord surveying events past and the future to come. The evidence above exposes the inadequacies of Preterism, Futurism and reevaluates the interpretations of Historicism concerning the events succeeding the Papacy. In pursuing the reevaluation of the events succeeding the Papacy the correct interpretation of the locusts is a large part of this website. The Revelation is replete with Hebrew idioms associated with eschatological events concerning tribulations upon God’s people by the reprobate, followed by their deliverance from the enemy and concluded by the termination of the enemy. The idioms concerning the extraordinary phenomenon related with the earth, sun, moon and stars are clearly associated to the eschatological Day of the Lord. The call for the mountains and the rocks to fall on men who hide them from the wrath of God is clearly associated with the Day of the Lord. The devastation of Babylon is clearly associated with the Day of the Lord. The sounding of trumpets is associated with the Day of the Lord. The conflagration of the earth is associated with the Day of the Lord. The destruction of sinners, the punishment of the nations, the restoration of Israel and the consummation of the God’s kingdom on earth are all associated with the Day of the Lord and most significantly the locusts of the fifth trumpet are associated with the Day of the Lord. The 7 trumpets and 7 bowls depict eschatological events concerning trials upon God’s people followed by their deliverance from their enemies and then punishment upon their enemies at the return of Christ.
1 Leon Morris, The Book of Revelation-An Introduction and Commentary, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987, p.19
2 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972, p.11
3 Ibid., pg. 229, “Preterists interpreters usually apply the verse to the succession of Roman emperors... This interpretation makes no sense.... The problem is altogether avoided if John does not mean to designate a succession of individual kings or emperors, but a succession of kingdoms.”
Leon Morris, The Book of Revelation-An Introduction and Commentary, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987, p. 203-204, “The identification of the sixth depends on whether we accept Galba, Otho and Vitellius as emperors.... A different point of view is put forward by, for example, Hendriksen. He thinks that the kings symbolize not individual rulers but empires (so Ladd).”
4 E.W. Bullinger, Commentary on Revelation, Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, pg. 336, “Five are fallen, the 48 one (the sixth) is (at this stage of the Vision), the other (the seventh), is not yet come. If this be interpreted of Gentile Dominion at the future point of the Vision referred to by the Angel; then, as to the dominions, the five will have fallen: (1) Babylon, (2) Medo-Persia, (3) Greece, (4) Rome, (5) Mohammedan. The sixth will be the Kingdom of the Beast, (7) the seventh will be the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ.
5 Jon Paulien, The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apocalyptic—Part One, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003): 15–43., 2003, “It was argued that general prophecy, because of its dual dimensions, may at times be susceptible to dual fulfillments or foci where local and contemporary perspectives are mixed with a universal, future perspective.”
6 Dr. David R. Reagan, The Interpretation of Prophecy, Lamb & Lion Ministries website, http://christinprophecy.org/articles/the-interpretation-of-prophecy/, “Another peculiar feature of prophetic literature is called ‘telescoping’… The reason for it has to do with the perspective of the prophet. As he looks into the future and sees a series of prophetic events, they appear to him as if they are in immediate sequence. It is like looking down a mountain range and viewing three peaks, one behind the other, each sequentially higher than the one in front of it. The peaks look like they are right up against each other because the person viewing them cannot see the valleys that separate them.”
7 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972, p.13
8 Ibid. p.14
9 Leon Morris, The Book of Revelation-An Introduction and Commentary, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987, p.204
10 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972, p. 229
11 Ibid. p.230
12 George Eldon Ladd, The Antichrist and the Great Tribulation, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1978. Pages 58-72 “‘The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy. the city. and the sanctuary’ may well refer to the utter destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 A D by. Titus Vespasian, who later became the emperor of Rome ‘To the end’ of the destruction, war and desolation will continue.”
13 Uriah Smith, Daniel and Revelation, Review and Herald Publishing, 2006, pg. 229
14 Ibid. pg.226
15 Herbert W. Armstrong, Who is the Beast?, 1960
16 Jerome Smith, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992, s.v. “Not Sunday.”