Historicism Maintained: The Wounded Head

by Jerry Q. Huerta
copyright 2019

There is no doubt that time is healing the Papacy’s deadly wound, as the world has come to
wonder after the beast. This work proposes that the healing of the Papacy’s deadly wound is also
a result of the preterist and futurist’s assailment of historicism. Nevertheless, neither time, or the
preterist or futurist’s assailments erase that separation of church and state that had its origins in
Protestant dominions and that Papal authority suffered a deadly injury as a result of this
separation. Under the rubric of “church and state,” the New World Encyclopedia affirms that the
power that the Papacy once wielded ended with the separation of church and state or
disestablishment.

The abuse of Papal authority intensified the irreconcilable conflicts of interest and led to
the secular authorities limiting the powers of religious authorities either bringing them
into submission as happened in Protestant countries after the Reformation or establishing
a separation between church and state as in the United States so as to guarantee freedom
of religion and independence of government.1

Such an interpretation of the wounding of one of the heads of the beast with seven heads and ten
horns stems from the hermeneutics of historicism, which has been assailed with a great deal of
success by futurism and preterism in recent times.

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. (Revelation 13:3)

The historicist progressive and continuous method views the seven heads as symbolic of seven
kingdoms as opposed to individuals. The individualistic view is that of preterism and futurism, in
one form or another. In essence, the head that is wounded has a government just as the kingdoms
that preceded it, making it the fifth kingdom in Daniel 7. The kingdoms in Daniel 7 that preceded
the Papacy or little horn were the neo-Babylon Empire, the Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek
Empire, and the Roman Empire. The historicist method leads to the interpretation that the sixth
kingdom reigns during the time that the head is wounded, or that it is the wounded head that
“was, and is not” during the time of the sixth head or kingdom in Revelation 17:8, 11. The
Papacy is the fifth kingdom, one of the five that are fallen from the future perspective of the
judgment of the harlot, Babylon, who sits upon the scarlet beast.
Futurists, which include amillennialists, acknowledge that John is taken by the Spirit to
the future perspective of the judgment of the harlot, Babylon. Futurist John F. Walvoord,
commenting on Revelation 17, states,

The situation here described is apparently prior in time to that described in Revelation 13,
where the beast has already assumed all power and has demanded that the world should

[1]
 worship its ruler as God. The situation, therefore, seemingly is in the first half of Daniel’s
seventieth week before the time of the great tribulation which is the second half. While
such a relationship has many parallels in the past history of the Roman church in relation
to political power, the inference is that this is a future situation which will take place in
the end time.2

Amillennialist Kim Riddlebarger also views the judgment of Babylon as a future event.

When we take a panoramic view of redemptive history, we see that the city (Babel) on
the plains of Shinar (cf. Gen. 11) has come full flower in Revelation 18 in the form of
Babylon the Great only to meet its demise at the time of the end in but a single hour (Rev.
18:17).3

With inconsistency, Walvoord alters his point of view on Revelation 17 to the past, when John
wrote the Revelation and interprets the sixth head, the one that “is,” as the ancient Roman
Empire.

The seven heads of the beast, however, are said to be symbolic of seven kings described
in verse 10. Five of these are said to have fallen, one is in contemporary existence, that is,
in John’s lifetime, the seventh is yet to come and will be followed by another described
as the eighth, which is the beast itself. In the Greek there is no word for “there,” thus
translated literally, the phrase is “and are seven kings.” The seven heads are best
explained as referring to seven kings who represent seven successive forms of the
kingdom… The mountains, then, are not piles of material rocks and earth at all, but royal
or imperial powers, declared to be such by the angel himself.4

Walvoord proceeds to delineate on the heads as “seven great world-powers,” starting with Egypt.

Preceding Rome the world had but five great names or nationalities answering to imperial
Rome, and those scarce a schoolboy ought to miss. They are Greece, Persia, Babylon,
Assyria, and Egypt; no more, and no less. And these all were imperial powers like Rome.
Here, then, are six of these regal mountains; the seventh is not yet come. When it comes
it is to endure but a short time. This implies that each of the others continues a long time;
and so, again, could not mean the dictators, decemvirs, and military tribunes of the early
history of Rome, for some of them lasted but a year or two. Thus, then, by the clearest,
most direct, and most natural signification of the words of the record, we are brought to
the identification of these seven mountain kings as the seven great world-powers, which
stretch from the beginning of our present world to the end of it.5

Amillennialist Herman Hoeksema also interprets the heads as imperial powers or kingdoms,
commencing with Egypt.

[2]
 To recapitulate in brief, therefore, there are to be eight world-powers in all. Six have
been, in Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The seventh is not yet, or,
if it is today, it has not yet become plainly manifest. Its existence shall be peculiar in this
respect, that it shall aim at the unification and combination of all the powers that exist at
this time. And this shall lead to the final league of nations to realize the kingdom of
Antichrist.6

In the futurist school, the heads commence with Egypt and Assyria in order the make the sixth
head the Roman Empire, but this contradicts their future perspective of the judgment of the
harlot Babylon, by which John determines the five kingdoms that have fallen. Altering the point
of view also conflicts with the evidence that it is the eighth head that is the head that “was”
before the time of the sixth head.

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 17:10-11)

The evidence affirms that it is the eight head/kingdom that is revived and not the sixth. This
substantiates the revived head must come from the five that are fallen and cannot be the sixth
head. This evidence destroys any notion of a revived Roman empire when the point of view is
“John’s lifetime.” Furthermore, the Revelation substantiates it is the sea-beast whose head is
wounded.

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.
(Revelation 13:12)

Walvoord agrees, the “first beast” in the text above is the sea-beast.

After the revelation of the first beast, John now beholds another beast coming up out of
the earth and occupying a secondary role supporting the activities of the first beast. In
contrast to the first beast which comes out of the sea, the second beast is said to come out
of the earth.7

The consequences of Revelation 13:12 and 17:10-11 is that it is the sea-beast who is wounded
and “is not” when the next beast comes up out of the earth. Said texts affirm the wound is healed
sometime after the two-horned beast comes up out of the earth, inasmuch as there would be no
need to make an image to the beast fully healed. It logically follows that the sixth head/kingdom
in Revelation 17 is the beast that comes up out of the earth and represents the time when the sea-
beast “is not,” and the image is the seventh head to follow. But logic is of questionable value in
interpreting the Revelation in some of the schools of thought. This evidence eliminates the sixth
and the seventh heads as the wounded head. The wounded head must come from one of the five

[3]
that are fallen. The futurist’s interpretation of a revived Roman Empire conflicts with chapters 13
and 17, insomuch as they have the five that are fallen and eligible to be revived as Egypt,
Assyria, Neo-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, but not the Roman Empire. Revelation 17:10-
11makes in quite clear, the eighth head is the one that “was” before the sixth and if Rome were
the sixth it cannot be the head that is revived.
The future point of view of the judgment of the harlot Babylon avoids the contradictions
by the futurist. The five that have fallen from this view commence with neo-Babylon, in
conformity with the beast’s association with the leopard (Greek Empire) and the bear (Medo-
Persian Empire) and the lion in Revelation 13:2, which indicates the heads commence with the
Neo-Babylonian Empire. The beast with seven heads is nowhere associated with Egypt or
Assyria. From this point of view, the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7, the Roman Empire, is
the fourth kingdom that has fallen. This point of view makes the fifth kingdom the Papacy,
which avoids the futurist problem that the Roman empire cannot be the revived head in
conformity with Revelation 13:12 and 17:10-11. This view accounts for all the beasts in
Revelation. The sea-beast in Revelation 13:1 is the fifth kingdom that has fallen, that “was, and
is not” at the time of the sixth head/kingdom rules. This view makes the beast from the earth in
Revelation 13:11 the sixth kingdom that reigns while the fifth head “is not.” The only beast to
account for is the seventh, which is the “image” made to the fifth beast by the two-horned beast
in Revelation 13:14-15. The seventh reigns for only a short time before the healing of Papacy is
complete in the historicist’s perspective.
As stated above, the futurists interpret the heads as kingdoms, but alter the rendition to fit
their paradigm of a future “person” whose head is mortally wounded and miraculously healed.
Futurist Thomas Ice states: “In fact the view of a personal antichrist has been the dominate view
throughout most of church history.”8 Ice’s statement stems from the historical evidence that the
patristic or anti-Nicene church held the view that the antichrist would be a person donning
Christianity and heading a great apostasy. Head of Classics at The Pennington School, New
Jersey, J.A. Cerrato, an episcopal priest, comments on the patristic view of the end of this world,

Irenaeus, Tertullian, and the commentaries of advance and particular chronological

schema, summarized as follows…. The domination of world history by the succession of
four empires, the last being imperial Rome… The decline of the Roman empire into ten
sub-kingdoms as the antecedent to the emergence of a single world deceiver.9

By the fourth century, the pagan Sibylline prophecies were conflated with scriptural prophecy to
bolster the view of an individual as antichrist and augmented it with the revival of the Roman
Empire.10 Walvoord makes a poignant comment related to this issue: “The point is that portions
of the book of Revelation can be appreciated and understood now. Other portions will not be
understood until they are fulfilled.”11 Walvoord is merely relating what other dispensationalists
have stated. At the turn of the last century Sanford Calvin Yoder wrote: “In the light of
everything that has happened to the interpreters, who so minutely interpret the predictive
elements of Scripture, the old adage of the fathers still stands–that prophecies are best interpreted
after they are fulfilled.”12 The relevance of Walvoord and Yoder’s comments lies in their lack of

[4]
adherence to them. While the patristic interpretation of the antichrist is subject to revision, the
part that the phenomenon occurs at the fall of the Roman Empire and its division does not, if one
adheres to the precept that “prophesies are best interpreted after they are fulfilled.” In Daniel 7,
the Roman Empire is prophesied to have its dominion taken away, which does not allow for the
pagan Sibylline predictions of its revival.

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. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit,
whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne
was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came
forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times
ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I
beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even
till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As
concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were
prolonged for a season and time. (Daniel 7:7-12)

Daniel 7:12, above, affirms the end of the Roman kingdom, its dominion is taken away as
one of the beasts, while the dominion of the little horn endures until the developments of the
judgment that was set in verse 10 are exhausted. Then the corpus of the little horn is given to the
burning flame, witnessed in Revelation 19:20. Nevertheless, futurists meld the fourth beast with
the little horn, which they view as the revived Roman Empire as if the western empire did not
have its dominion taken from it in the fifth-century by a half a score of kings and princes.
According to Fellow and Tutor in History at Worcester College Oxford, Dr. Peter Heather, the
Roman Empire had its dominion taken away in AD 476.

In September 476 AD, the last Roman emperor of the west, Romulus Augustulus, was
deposed by a Germanic prince called Odovacar, who had won control of the remnants of
the Roman army of Italy. He then sent the western imperial regalia to Constantinople.
The Roman empire in western Europe - a centralised superstate which had been in
existence for 500 years - had ceased to exist, its single emperor replaced by upwards of a
dozen kings and princes.13

Including the Roman Empire as one of the “beasts” who has its dominion taken but life
prolonged cannot be avoided, especially when futurists concede that the part of “prolonging of
their lives” represents how the beasts absorbed various attributes of their predecessors, which
futurist Bruno Kolberg affirms,

[5]
 How are we to understand this statement given that Babylon, for instance, ceased to be an
empire when it was conquered by its successor? In other words, its reign was not
prolonged for any period of time afterwards? From the secular record, we know that
ancient Near Eastern empires absorbed various attributes of their predecessors. The
fourth beast is the ultimate end-product of that ongoing process. This is seen in
Revelation 13:2, which depicts the same kingdom as being like a leopard, with feet
as a bear, and a mouth as a lion’s. These wild animals are the very ones mentioned in
Daniel 7. Their being recalled in Revelation 13 shows that Satan’s final kingdom will
incorporate all the evil attributes of its predecessors.14

No doubt, the Papacy absorbed the attribute of the marriage of state and religion from the other
beasts, including the Roman Empire. However, Kolberg and other futurists neglect that the sea
beast also has the ten horns that were on the fourth beast in Daniel, which affirms that it also
absorbed the attributes of the fourth beast whose dominion was taken. The ten horns on the sea
beast in Revelation 13 indicate the western Roman Empire’s dominion was taken, but lived on
through the sea beast, just as the other beasts in Daniel 7:12.
Futurists are as remiss in failing to applying the precept that “prophecies are best
interpreted after they are fulfilled.” History affirms the fourth beast suffered the loss of its
dominion, but the territory and its subjects did not vanish. The Papacy subsumed the territory
and subjects of the western Roman Empire, which is signified in the Revelation by John’s
testimony that the dragon gave the sea beast “his power, and his seat, and great authority”
(Revelation 13:2). Associate professor of law, E. Gregory Wallace, utilized the historicist’s
guidelines when he wrote his article on religious freedom, where he stated,

Asserting the intrinsic superiority of the spiritual over the temporal, the popes would
claim the higher power for themselves, which included the power to depose emperors.
Such claims were backed by the powerful presence of the Catholic church in society. The
church had its own laws, courts, and bureaucracy—it was itself very much like a state.
National power often was fragmented and the only bond of unity that held society
together was its common Catholic religion. Pope Innocent III proclaimed at the beginning
of the thirteenth century that “[e]cclesiastical liberty is nowhere better cared for than
where the Roman church has full power in both temporal and spiritual affairs”220 and
that it had been left to Peter, the first pope, “not only the universal church but the whole
world to govern.”221 The popes deposed or threatened with deposition at least six kings
and excommunicated emperors and kings on more than ten occasions. Papal claims
reached a crescendo with Boniface VIII’s bull, Unam Sanctam (1302), and its bold
declarations that “the spiritual power has to institute the earthly power and to judge it”
and “it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the
Roman pontiff.”15

[6]
Again, history affirms the popes wielded tremendous authority over the region of the Western
Roman Empire when it collapsed, which Wallace backs. As previously stated, verse 11 of Daniel
7 prophesies the dominion of the little horn endures until the ramifications of the judgment set in
verse 10 are exhausted and there is no warrant to interpret the little horn as a sole individual at
the head of the revived Roman Empire. In truth, futurists, such as David J. Engelsma, concede
the little horn in Daniel 7 is synonymous with the sea beast in Revelation 13, which affirms the
little horn as the “fifth beast” in Daniel 7.

But what does that little horn of the fourth beast represent? What is the beast out of the
sea? It is Antichrist. In Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, God reveals that Antichrist will be a
political entity, a world-government.16

Daniel is considering the judicial fate of the little horn or sea beast in verse 11 of Daniel 7 when
he prophesies that “the other beasts” have their dominions taken but lives prolonged, which
includes the fourth beast in verse 12 of Daniel 7. Conceding that the little horn is the “fifth beast”
in Daniel 7, the futurists inadvertently substantiate “the other beasts” in Daniel 7:12 includes the
fourth beast, the Roman Empire.
In expounding on the preterist Kenneth Gentry’s rendition of the seven heads, futurist
Andrew M. Woods maintains that consistency must be maintained, if,

the beast’s death was personal and individual (in the death of Nero), as Gentry
contends,67 then his revival must also be personal and individual rather than national and
impersonal. Therefore preterists are interpreting the prophecies regarding the beast’s
death as being fulfilled in Nero’s individual, personal death while also interpreting the
prophecies regarding the beast’s revival as finding their fulfillment in Rome’s political
revival.17

Woods disparages the inconsistency of the preterist’s view that the wounding of “one of his
heads” is rendered personal and individual and its revival national and impersonal but fails to
account for dispensationalist’s version of futurism in rendering of the heads with the same lack
of consistency. The consequence of rendering the heads on the beast as imperial powers in
chapter 17 is that they must remain as imperial powers in Revelation 13. It is the same beast in
different circumstances. Only one head/kingdom rules at a time. As revealed above, Walvoord
renders the heads as imperial powers in Revelation 17,18 but erroneously renders the wounded
head in chapter 13 as an individual. Futurists are clearly inconsistent in their interpretation of the
heads on the beast. It is hard to avoid that the succeeding chapters impart the imminent judgment
conveyed in Revelation 17, where the revival of the wounded head is still in the future, conveyed
by testimony that the beast that John saw “was, and is not” and is yet to come as the eighth
(Revelation 17:8, 11). Here we have evidence that the wounding is not an ephemeral
phenomenon but spans the era of the “imperial powers” of the sixth and seventh heads before it
is fully revived, which does not support the view of an individual as antichrist. Furthermore, time

[7]
is healing this wound through the futurist, and preterist’s assailing of historicism. This paper
proposes this assailment is accomplishing this healing, even as historicism is maintained.
The fall of the Roman Empire and its division into Germanic kingdoms that comprised
Europe today was well behind the Protestant revision that the antichrist was a fifth kingdom
embodied by the Papacy. As stated above, “prophecies are best interpreted after they are
fulfilled,” which allows for the revision of the patristic view that the antichrist is a personal,
individual entity, especially when considering the proper rendition of the heads on the beast with
seven heads as kingdoms. One can only foolishly argue against the principle that God reveals the
meaning of his prophecies progressively, which is the object of the principle “prophecies are best
interpreted after they are fulfilled.” The futurist’s antichrist relies on the patristic view. However,
they capriciously dismiss the patristic view that also held that the antichrist would appear with
the fall of the Roman Empire, at the rise of the ten horn nations. Progressive revelation has
vindicated that the patristic view of the antichrist was subject to revision, while the timing of its
rise was not. Only the historicist’s rendition of the seven heads remains consistent and accounts
for the prophecy that the antichrist would rise with the fall of the Roman empire, not its revival.
The patristic view held the antichrist would appear at the fall of the Roman empire, not its
revival. The notion that the antichrist would appear at the revival of the Roman Empire stems
from the pagan Sibylline oracles and is the fulfillment of Paul’s warning that the time would
come when many in the church would “turn away their ears from the truth,” and “be turned unto
fables” (2 Timothy 4:4). The historicists maintain that the seven heads on the beasts are
kingdoms, and Daniel and Revelation account for all of them. The sea-beast is the fifth kingdom
and synonymous with the little horn, and the sixth kingdom is the beast that rises from the earth,
making the image it forms the seventh kingdom or head. Separation of church and state had its
origins in Protestant dominions and it cannot be whitewashed that papal authority suffered a
deadly injury as a result, which is illustrated as the beast that “was, and is not” and it yet to
come, in Revelation 17.
In maintaining historicism, one must examine the criticisms of those who assail it. One
such critic is Bruce W. Gore M.A., J.D., adjunct professor of biblical studies at Whitworth
University, Spokane, Washington. Gore has a YouTube channel where he does biblical studies,
and some of those studies deride historicism. Gore calls historicism an “interpretive scheme.”19
Gore views are preterist in his interpretation of the Revelation, in that he immediately promotes
the temporal indicator that the events portrayed “must shortly come to pass” (Revelation 1:1).
Gore attempt to associate all the symbolism and narration with the destruction of Jerusalem in
AD 70, precluding the historicist as well as the futurist’s interpretations. He condemns the
historicist’s scheme as being utterly irrelevant to the people in the first century. Gore never
bothers to ask himself, what does the Revelation mean to the people who come after the first
century if it only pertains to the people of the first? Nevertheless, Gore makes the common
preterist mistake of hitching his theory on the imminence of classic prophecy, applied in the
Olivet Discourse, failing to grasp the principle of dual fulfillment. Classic prophecy joins
imminent judgment and distant eschatological events in the same context to promote vigilance
and discourage apathy. Historicist Jon Paulien defines classic prophecy.

[8]
 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.20

Temporal indicators are often used to promote vigilance and discourage apathy, which is the
object of Christ’s admonitions in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:42-51) and the use of
imminence in Revelation 1:1. If the Revelation explicitly conveyed that its narration pertained to
the two-thousand years’ history between the two advents, it indeed would have incited apathy
and lethargy. Gore and preterism are not able to grasp that the “things which must shortly come
to pass” are the unfolding events of the next two thousand years, which has meaning to every
Christian in this age. No one is left out.
Gore follows with disparaging remarks against the historicist’s representation of
protracted time, expressed in brief intervals, such as in the example of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people” (Daniel 9:24). The overwhelming majority in
Christianity acknowledge that Daniel is not expressing a literal 70 weeks or 490 days but 490
years to prophecy Christ’s first advent, and futurist and preterist must agree, such as preterist
Kenneth Gentry, below.

The Seventy Weeks represent a period of seventy times seven years, or 490 years.21

There is ample and sound support for interpreting brief intervals as protracted time, specifically
in prophecy. Such support quashes disparagement against historicism but is not within the scope
of this paper. There is ample support for the principle in the work of the historicists.
Gore’s chief complaint is that “historicist interpreters have been unable to date, to
establish an objective criterion by which the book is to be understood.”22 And then he continues,
“the book of Revelation is interpreted in light of external events so that external events interpret
the book rather than the other way around.”23 He concludes, “the interpretive scheme has to be
reworked every time a new generation comes along with new Western history to deal with.” 24
While it is true that individual sections have been and are continuing to be worked out in
historicism, this is to be expected because God reveals the meaning of his prophecies
progressively, through the principle “prophecies are best interpreted after they are fulfilled.”
While the historicists have settled a great deal of the Revelation, revisal continues on parts
because of the said precept. Said precept is the object of this paper, and the book, Thy Kingdom
Come: Re-evaluating the Historicist’s Interpretation of the Revelation by the author of this work.
Gore is remiss in grasping that the “objective criterion” of preterism has all sorts of
unworkable interpretations that do not adhere to the historical accounts they claim. The wounded
head on the beast is a prime example. As Woods expounded above, the preterists attempt to
reconcile the seven heads in Revelation 17 to seven Roman Emperors will never work out
because not one of them suffered a deadly wound that was miraculously healed. That is why
preterists must make all sorts of outlandish claims, such as Nero representing the wounded head
and the healing conveyed as Vespasian’s rule. This interpretation invariably leads to ad hoc
explanations that the wounding is personal and individual, and the healing is national and

[9]
impersonal. Numerous unworkable interpretations simply do not adhere to the historical accounts
that preterism claims because their “objective criterion” is flawed from the start. One conclusion
that can be drawn from preterism and futurism also, for this matter, is that they have an
inadvertent workable part in history, and that is the healing of the wounded head by their assault
on historicism.
As stated above, one must expect that the unfolding history of the church, illustrated in the
Revelation, and Daniel, for that matter, will continue to be examined by the historicists until all
is reconciled and fits perfectly with history. That is the intent of prophecy. Prophecy has always
been dealt with in this manner. It stirs man to seek God, for God “is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).

1
New World Encyclopedia, s.v. church and state, last modified on 21 February 2017,
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Church_and_State
2
John F. Walvoord, Revelation (The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries), Moody
Publishers; New edition (April 1, 2011), 255.
3
Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, Baker Books;
Expanded ed. edition (August 15, 2013), 147.
4
John F Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 17. The Destruction Of Ecclesiastical
Babylon, Walvoord.com, 2007, https://walvoord.com/article/275
5
Ibid.
6
Herman Hoeksema, Behold He Cometh (Grandville, MI: Reformed Free Publishing
Association, 2000), 576.
7
Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 13. The Beast and the False Prophet, Walvoord.com,
2007, https://walvoord.com/article/271
8
Thomas Ice, When the Truth Gets Left Behind, Rapture Ready.com, Last Modified on October
10, 2016, https://www.raptureready.com/2015/12/10/when-the-truth-gets-left-behind-by-
thomas-ice/
9
J. A. Cerrato, Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the
Corpus, Oxford University Press; 1 edition (October 24, 2002), 236.
10
See The Kingdom of God, https://www.academia.edu/s/1434b63feb/the-kingdom-of-god-
resolved
11
John F Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, Introduction, Walvoord.com, 2007,
https://walvoord.com/article/258
12
Sanford Calvin Yoder, He Gave Some Prophets (Wipf & Stock Pub., October 1, 1998), 73.
13
Dr Peter Heather, The Fall of Rome, BBC Website, History, Last updated 2011-02-17
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofrome_article_01.shtml
14
Bruno Kolberg, Daniel’s Fourth Kingdom, E-book version 2011.3 (30 May, 2015), 64.
http://www.redatedkings.com/download/4thKingdom.pdf
15
Wallace, Justifying Religious Freedom: The Western Tradition, Penn State Law Review, Vol.
114, No. 2, 2009, 536.
16
David J. Engelsma, The Beast from the Sea, Standard Bearer, vol. 71, No. 15, May 1, 1995,
380.
17
Andrew M. Woods, Have the Prophecies in Revelation 17–18 about Babylon Been Fulfilled?
Part 1, Bibliotheca Sacra, January–March 2012, 94.
18
Supra 4 and 5.

[10]
19
Bruce W. Gore, The Historicist Approach to Revelation, Bruce Gore channel,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mx6pHBAL4k
20
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.
21
Kenneth Gentry, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and Biblical Prophecy,” Chalcedon.edu, June 13,
2005, https://chalcedon.edu/resources/articles/daniels-seventy-weeks-and-biblical-prophecy
22
Supra, 19.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.

[11]