Tag Archives: Revelation

The Gunpowder Plot

Reformation.org on the attempted Jesuit takeover of the papacy and the U.S. This fits with the interpretation of the woman on the beast in Revelation 17 as the Jesuit order trying to control the international political order:

Beginning with the new millennium, the Militia of Satan opted for a new 3-pronged strategy:

      • Install a Jesuit White Pope in the Vatican.
      • Install a Jesuit Chief Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
      • Install a Jesuit President in the White House...

Read more: http://www.reformation.org/gunpowder-plot.html

Reflections on the Hitchcock-Hanegraff Debate on Revelation

Read an interesting discussion here:


Neither Repented They Of Their Sorceries

Revelation 9:21: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

“A new photograph collection, ‘Major Arcana: Witches in America,’ explores the idea of who identifies as a witch today – and there are no pointy hats, warts or green skin anywhere to be seen…”

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6337627/Hedge-witches-mass-hexing-Stunning-new-photos-reveal-faces-modern-witchcraft-America.html#comments

“Witches are sharing their magical teachings and talents with the masses using Instagram, and the most popular accounts have scored thousands of followers…”

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6334669/Meet-witch-influencers-Instagram.html

The Pretrib Contradiction

Alan Kurschner:

Premise 1: Pretribulationism claims that 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is a promise that exempts Christians from the future day of the Lord’s wrath: “For God did not destine us for wrath but for gaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9).

(So far so good)

Premise 2: Pretribulationism claims that all the seals in the book of Revelation depict the day of the Lord’s wrath, which includes the fifth seal.

(Not so good)

The Pretrib Contradiction: The fifth seal depicts the death of Christians; therefore, according to pretrib reasoning these Christians experience the condemnation of the wrath of God.

Read more: https://www.alankurschner.com/2018/01/18/the-pretrib-contradiction/

Elections and Earthquakes

A headline from last year showing, once again, that people do not always use the term “earthquake” to speak of a literal earthquake:

An earthquake – and an echo of the 1930s: Historian MARK ALMOND says the German election result puts the stability of the country in question

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4915796/German-election-earthquake-echoes-1930s-Mark-Almond.html

This ties in with the historicist claim that “earthquake” in Bible prophecy often means a major shakeup and not necessarily a literal physical earthquake.  That means this future event is likely not a literal earthquake:

Revelation 16:18: And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.

Why the Early Church Finally Rejected Premillennialism

By Charles E. Hill
Modern Reformation, Jan/Feb 1996, p. 16

Chiliasm is the ancient name for what today is known as premillennialism, the belief that when Jesus Christ returns he will not execute the last judgment at once, but will first set up on earth a temporary kingdom, where resurrected saints will rule with him over non-resurrected subjects for a thousand years of peace and righteousness.1 To say that the Church “rejected chiliasm” may sound bizarre today, when premillennialism is the best known eschatology in Evangelicalism. Having attached itself to funda-mentalism, chiliasm in its dispensationalist form has been vigorously preached in pulpits, taught in Bible colleges and seminaries, and successfully promoted to the masses through study Bibles, books, pamphlets, charts, and a host of radio and television ministries. To many Christians today, premillennialism is the very mark of Christian orthodoxy. But there was a period of well over a “millennium” (over half of the Church’s history), from at least the early fifth century until the sixteenth, when chiliasm was dormant and practically non-existent. Even through the Reformation and much of the post-Refor-mation period, advocates of chiliasm were usually found among fringe groups like the Münsterites. The Augsburg Confession went out of its way to condemn chiliasm (Art. XVII, “Of Christ’s Return to Judgment”), and John Calvin criticized “the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years” (Institutes 3.25.5). It was not until the nineteenth century that chiliasm made a respectable comeback, as a favorite doctrine of Christian teachers who were promoting revival in the face of the deadening effects of encroaching liberalism.

Read more: https://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/1996_hill_fathers-rejected-premill.html

The New Spiritual Temple

Martin Luther:

“St. Paul prophesied all this, when in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, he calls him: ‘The man of sin and the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.’

But that the Papists want to turn this passage from themselves and say, ‘Christ and Paul are speaking of the temple of Jerusalem, that Antichrist shall sit and rule there,’ amounts to nothing. For Christ says here, that Jerusalem together with the temple shall have an end, and after its destruction it shall never be rebuilt. Therefore since Paul is pointing to the time after the Jewish kingdom, and the destruction of the material temple, it cannot be understood otherwise than of the new spiritual temple, which as he says himself, we are. There, Paul says, the Pope shall sit and be honored, not above God, but above everything that is called God, for the name of God does indeed remain the highest honor, therefore he cannot exalt himself above the true God, but above that which is called God and is worshipped; that is, he is exalted against his preaching and honor, higher than the true God, as is apparent in that so many princes and the world are clinging to him and regard his command higher and greater than the command of God. If any man eats meat contrary to his command or goes out of the impure calling of the priest, monk, or nun, into married life, as God has commanded, or according to the institution of Christ takes the sacrament in both forms; that is the greatest sin. They regard much less stealing, adultery and all open vice against the command of God, and no one is even allowed to punish them for it. Yea, that they themselves defame the Word of God, persecute and kill the Christians, they esteem as the highest service of God, as it is also the highest service they can do for their god, the Pope. Is not this exalting and honoring Antichrist against God, so that if anyone speaks or does anything against this, if he gets into their hands, he must immediately die? I think now that enough has been pictured forth and explained concerning this abomination.”

~Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 1, Sermons on Gospel Texts, The Signs on the Day of Judgment, (Ages Software), qtd. in Rand Windburn, “The Abomination of Desolation: Past, Present or Future? Matthew 24:1-15 Examined,” page 21, online at http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/catalogue/abomination_of_desolation.pdf

Three States of the Church in Revelation

Dumbarton UMC - stained glass detail (balance scale)

Wilhelmus à Brakel:

These three states are prophesied in Revelation and presented under three symbols, namely:

  1. Seals, representing the church under the heathen emperors.
  2. Trumpets, representing the church under the Antichrist:
  3. Vials, showing the decreasing of the Antichrist and the plagues over him, while the church increases as much as the Antichrist decreases, sometimes the one, sometimes the other winning in the battle, with respect to the external.

Not to be Ignored: Rev. Wilhelmus a Brakel’s Commentary on Revelation (McCarter Providential Enterprises LLC: 2016), page 81.

The “Great City” of Revelation 11

Durham on why Revelation 11’s “Great city” is Rome and not Jerusalem:

“This great City is set out in three properties, which are spiritual, that is, mystically to be understood; So, 1 Corinth. 11, they all eat that spiritual food, &c. that is, something represented by these names, which is to be understood in a spirituall sense and not literally, but as she is called MYSTERIE, BABYLON, &c. Chap. 17:5 because their is a mysterious resemblance, so here she is called spiritually Sodom, that is, for luxury, pride, fulnesse of bread and spirituall uncleannesse, abominable, Ezek. 16:2. Egypt, that is, having and exercising a spirituall tyrannie over Gods people, and abounding in spirituall Idols, as, Egypt did in a more grosse way, for which Israel could not sacrifice among them. 3. It is said, that our Lord was crucified there; not literally, but spiritually as the word before cleareth, and as that word also doth clear that is, either not only was He crucified at Jerusalem, but also there, or it is spiritually Egypt, also spiritually our Lord was crucified there, which cannot agree to Jerusalem, neither to Egypt nor Sodom at that time literally taken: neither were it any mysterie, or spiritually to be understood of Jerusalem (which never getteth the name of the great City) literally. And it is rather designed by that paraphrase, where our Lord was crucified, than by Jerusalem, because mystically the true Church is still in this Book set out by that. This part of the description agreeth to Rome, 1. In that under its dominion, Christ was crucified, and by its Authority, to wit, by a President of theirs Pontius Pilate; for, He was delvered to the Gentile. 2. In respect; of His Members, Ordinances, &c. there He had been long persecuted and crucified in them and put to open shame, Heb. 6:6. In the street of this city, that is, publickly by their Authority, as malefactors used to be in the streets: this is not private murther, but open avowed persecution. See for this, Petrarcha, lib. Epist, sine titulo Epist. 16. who wrote three hundred years since.”

(Durham, Commentary on Revelation, 418)

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/historicist-hermeneutic-no-longer-feasible.93406/, comment 2

So Far Must the Beast have a Hand in It

Goodwin on the two witnesses:

“In that he calls the place where their dead bodies lie, and so, by consequence, where this slaughter is to be executed, ‘the city where our Lord was crucified.’ Which is not spoken of Jerusalem, but of Rome; that being here called the great city, which, chap. 17:18, is called ‘the city which then ruled over the kings of the earth;’ which can be none but Rome. And to make this good, we are to know, that the jurisdiction of the Roman empire was then in John’s time called ‘the city.’ And therefore the whole world was called Orbis Romanus, the Roman world. And in like manner now, all kingdoms subjected to the Pope are called the church of Rome, as together making that great city. And in that world the city of Rome was the regal palace, from whence issued out edicts and commands over all. And in such a sense it is said, ‘the city where Christ was crucified;’ because it was the Roman power and authority by which he was put to death, though it were done at Jerusalem, for thither did the jurisdiction of Rome reach; and therefore Christ says, ‘they should deliver him up unto the Gentiles,’ Matt. 20:19,—that is, the Romans, who then had trodden down that holy city, and got the command of it; the Pharisees owning Cæsar for their king. And thus now for the killing these witnesses, it must be that the beast of Rome shall again recover so much owning and acknowledgment in the places of the Reformation, whether by secret combination or by professed avouchment God only knows, where the witnesses are to be killed; so as, for his sake, and at his instigation, these Pharisees, either as joining with him, or else using the help of his party, shall kill them. And so far must the beast have a hand in it, that he may truly be said to do it; and that in order to the further advancement of his power in those places.”

(Goodwin, Works, 3.160)

Source: https://puritanboard.com/threads/historicist-hermeneutic-no-longer-feasible.93406/, Comment 2