How important is history to prophecy? A person's history at predicting things is important should you be curious about their ability to prophesize, right? If you want to get a prophecy from someone you would look at their track record which would include reading the history of their past interactions. Right now we have things called 'Reviews' on everything from products we might consider buying, to shows we might want to watch, to places you might want to go to eat, drink, sleep, or for recreation. You know what I'm talking about. People scarcely decide to go somewhere new where they are going to spend their hard earned money without checking it out first. We search the internet for reviews- people who have had the experience with the people, places or things we are interested in. Their history with the aforementioned things gives us insight. The more money we are considering spending often determines just how deeply we are going to search out proper reviews. We want to know as much as we can about something before we invest in it. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! So, what does this have to do with our studying? The reason I hope you are studying is to KNOW TRUTH. The reason I hope you are studying is because we are told by Jesus we will be blessed, and you want to be blessed by Jesus. The reason I hope you are studying is because you know that we are to, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15 I hope you are studying to know the love of God so perfectly given to us in His word. If you are studying for these reasons then you know the importance of what you are doing. If we can spend sometimes hours reviewing things online before we commit to spending our money, time, effort, how much more time should we be spending studying the Word of God, as we desire to do as our Lord and Savior would have us do? I'm saying this to impress upon you the need to NOT look at this study as tedious and too long to read, too much to get into, because that is what Satan wants you to do. Satan wants you to discount the knowledge of history as being completely unimportant when it comes to salvation. Satan would rather have you toss all this knowledge away as meaningless, than have you study to know truth. Prophecy goes hand in hand with history and if we can see from history that there is so far a 100% accuracy rating on prophecies that have come to pass through time, we do not have to have ANY doubt whatsoever that the rest of the prophecies will come to pass just as they've been written. If you can get a 100% rating in a review with thousands having reviewed something, you would have no doubt about believing what you were setting out to do would be a good thing. We need to know truth, facts, and prophecy with history reveals that we can know without doubt what lies ahead for mankind. God help us, bless us as we seek to know His truth and do His will always!
Continuing on with our study-
Daniel 7:13,14 'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.'
Jesus receives His kingdom.
Read Luke 19:10-12- 'For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. {19:11} And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. {19:12} He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.'
Obviously this is in the Heavenly Sanctuary, in the heavenly temple, when the close of the priestly work is over, all people, nations, languages shall serve Him. None of the wicked. Jesus goes to a far country to receive for Himself the kingdom and then to return.
READ Daniel 7:15-18 -'I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. 16. I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. 17. These great beasts, which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth. 18. But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.'
This vision that troubled Daniel was interpreted for him. He wanted to understand the truth, we too want to understand it all. The one interpreting the vision says, 'These great beasts, which are four, are four kings which shall arise out of the earth.' We understand through history itself of the four great kingdoms that reigned on Earth. It's plain to see if you study history how this is so and has come to pass.
What happens after the fourth kingdom is finally destroyed?
'But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.'
God's saints. The righteous in God. Those first in the kingdom are the least here and now, servants.
This will come to pass as well, just as all that was predicted prior to this has come to pass. Nothing can stop the prophecy from being fulfilled.
READ Daniel 7:19,20 - 'Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; 20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.'
Daniel wanted to know the 'truth of the fourth beast' the fourth kingdom. He understood the other three beasts previously described but the fourth held some confusion for him. Seriously, it is no wonder that the ancient kingdoms were easy for him to understand, they would not last nearly as long, or be nearly as horrific and unnatural as the fourth beast. The fourth kingdom would last in part clear to the end of time, clear to our day and age.
The first kingdom like a lion- he knew what lions were and the nature of lions.
The second kingdom like at bear- he knew what a bear was and the nature of a bear.
The third kingdom like a leopard- yes, he knew was a leopard was and the nature of a leopard.
And he understood that winds meant strife, that wings swiftness- this wasn't some terrible creature he'd never seen before. Bears with ribs, yes understandable. Leopards with wings, understandable as well. But there is no natural animal symbol for Daniel to compare to the fourth beast, the fourth kingdom, such a creature doesn't exist in any form.
The fourth kingdom like a beast dreadful and terrible, nails of brass, teeth of iron, but what beast holds these elements of cruelty, of fierceness? Daniel hadn't a clue.
Then a little horn would come up out of this beast, thrusting aside three of the ten horns it had on its head. And the horn had eyes! Horns didn't have eyes! This horn had eyes of a man and a mouth! A horn with a mouth speaking proud, arrogant claims.
It wasn't any wonder Daniel wanted to understand this fourth beast, this fourth kingdom better than he did. So in even more symbolic language he is told more about the beast. Symbolic and yet as history is the key to understanding, it is just that, understandable without any mistaking.
READ Daniel 7:21,22 - 'I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; 22. Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.'
The little horn on the fourth beast was going to make war with the saint and prevail against them and it would do so until the Ancient of days was come.
The rise of the fourth kingdom which we know to be Rome, which conquered Greece, and then the division of Rome eventually into ten kingdoms happened between 351-476 AD. History- all history. The ten horns- ten kingdoms all existing at the same time, the little horn- another kingdom but obviously not anything like the other kingdoms.
Kingdoms are political as a rule. Babylon, Medes-Persia, Greece, Rome, ten kingdoms it divided into, all politically gained, all sharing that sameness. has any kingdom come up among the ten kingdoms of the Roman empire since 476 AD? A kingdom different from all the others? Yes? No? The answer is, yes. This kingdom wasn't political in nature but spiritual. This kingdom that was different from all the others was the kingdom of the Papacy. Never before was there such a kingdom, never. This power, this kingdom is proven in its very symbols.
READ Daniel 7:23 - 'Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.'
Truthfully has there ever been a kingdom, a power such as the papacy which had made war unlike any other kingdom? Fifty million martyrs. History proves this cruel persecution. History of the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and Protestants in general, by the papal power.
It is stated on good authority that the persecutions, massacres, and religious martyrs by the church and bishop of Rome, have shed far more blood of the saints of the Most High any other kingdom. Century after century, after century of persecutions.
READ Daniel 7:23-26 - 'Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and. shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. 24. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise; and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. 25. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. 26. But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.'
More details of the fourth beast, the fourth kingdom, the fourth ruler.
The little horn- wants attention, wants power. The first bishops of Rome had high rank. Read this-- "All the inhabitants of the earth belong to her," said Julian; and Claudian declared her to be "the fountain of laws." " If Rome is the queen of cities, why should not her pastor be the king of bishops?" was the reasoning these Roman pastors adopted. "Why should not the Roman Church be the mother of Christendom? Why should not all nations be her children, and her authority their sovereign law? It was easy," says D'Aubigne, from whom we quote these words (" History of the Reformation," Vol. I, chap. 1), " for the ambitious heart of man to reason thus. Ambitious Rome did so."
The bishops in the different parts of the Roman empire felt a pleasure in yielding to the bishop of Rome some portion of that honor which Rome, as the queen city, received from the nations of the earth. There was originally no dependence implied in the honor thus paid. " But," continues D'Aubigne, "Usurped power increases like an avalanche. Admonitions, at first simply fraternal, soon became absolute commands in the mouth of the pontiff. The Western bishops favored this encroachment of the Roman pastors, either from jealousy of the Eastern bishops, or because they preferred submitting to the supremacy of a pope rather than to the dominion of a temporal power."
Keep reading- History tells the tale-
Such were the influences clustering around the bishop of Rome, and thus was everything tending toward his speedy elevation to the supreme spiritual throne of Christendom. But the fourth century was to witness an obstacle thrown across the path of this ambitious dream. Arius, parish priest of the, ancient and influential church of Alexandria, sprung his doctrine upon the world, occasioning so fierce a controversy in the Christian church that a general council. was called at Nievea, by the emperor Constantine, A. D. 325, to consider and adjust it. Arius maintained "that the Son was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first, and noblest of those beings whom the Father had created out of nothing, the instrument by whose subordinate operation the Almighty Father formed the universe, and therefore inferior to the Father both in nature and dignity." This opinion was condemned by the council, which decreed that Christ was of one and the same substance with the Father. Hereupon Arius was banished to Illyria, and his followers were compelled to give their assent to the creed composed on that occasion. (Mosheim, cent. 4, part 2, chap. 4; Stanley, History of the Eastern Church, p. 239.)
The Arians became bitter enemies of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church, history shows this to be true. While the Arian's would get the upper hand remember what prophecy states- the little horn would uproot three horns. Read this-
From Albert Barnes which seems very appropriate when discussing the papacy overthrowing three Arian kingdoms. '"In the confusion that existed on the breaking up of the Roman empire, and the imperfect accounts of the transactions which occurred in the rise of the papal power, it would not be wonderful if it should be difficult to find events distinctly recorded that would be in all respects an accurate and absolute fulfillment of the vision. Yet it is possible to make out the fulfillment of this with a good degree of certainty in the history of the papacy." - Notes on Daniel 7.
Mr. Joseph Mede believes this- he supposes the three kingdoms plucked up to have been the Greeks, the Lombards, and the Franks; and Sir Isaac Newton supposes they were the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Lombards, and the Senate and Dukedom of Rome. Bishop Newton (Dissertation on the Prophecies, pp. 217, 218) states some serious objections to both these schemes. The Franks could NOT have been one of these kingdoms; for they were never plucked up before the papacy. The Lombards could NOT have been one; for they were never made subject to the popes. Says Albert Barnes, "I do not find, indeed, that the kingdom of the Lombards was, as is commonly stated, among the number of the temporal sovereignties that became, subject to the authority of the popes." And the Senate and Dukedom of Rome could NOT have been one; for they, as such, never constituted one of the ten kingdoms, three of which were to be plucked up before the little horn.
But we apprehend that the chief difficulty in the application made by these eminent commentators, lay in the fact that they supposed that the prophecy respecting the exaltation of the papacy had not been fulfilled, and could not have been, till the pope became a temporal prince; and hence they sought to find an accomplishment of the prophecy in the events which led to the pope's temporal sovereignty. Whereas, evidently, the prophecy of verses 24, 25 refers, not to his civil power, but to his power to domineer over the minds and consciences of men; and the pope reached this position, as will hereafter appear, in A. D. 538; and the plucking up of the three horns took place before this, and to make way for this very exaltation to spiritual dominion. The insuperable difficulty in the way of all attempts to apply the prophecy to the Lombards and the other powers named above is that they come altogether too late in point of time; for the prophecy deals with the arrogant efforts of the Roman pontiff to gain power, NOT with his endeavors to oppress and humble the nations after he had secured the supremacy.
The position is here confidently taken that the three powers, or horns, plucked up before the papacy, were the Heruli, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths; and this position rests upon the following statements of historians.
Odoacer, the leader of the Heruli, was the first of the barbarians who reigned over the Romans. He took the throne of Italy, according to Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. III, pp. 510, 515),in 476. Of his religious belief Gibbon (p. 516) says: " Like the rest of the barbarians, he had been instructed in the Arian heresy; but he revered the monastic and episcopal characters, and the silence of the Catholics attests the toleration which they enjoyed."
Again he says (p. 547)- " The Ostrogoths, the Burgundians, the Suevi, and the Vandals, who had listened to the eloquence of the Latin clergy, preferred the more intelligible lessons of their domestic teachers; and Arianism was adopted as the national faith of the warlike converts who were seated on the ruins of the Western empire. This irreconcilable difference of religion was a perpetual source of jealousy and hatred; and the reproach of barbarian was embittered by the more odious epithet of heretic. The heroes of the North, who had submitted, with some reluctance, to believe that all their ancestors were in hell, were astonished and exasperated to learn that they themselves had only changed the mode of their eternal condemnation."
The reader is requested to consider carefully a few more historical statements which throw some light on the situation at this time. Stanley (History of the Eastern Church, p. 151) says- "The whole of the vast Gothic population which descended on the Roman empire, so far as it was Christian at all, held to the faith of the Alexandrian heretic. Our first Teutonic version of the Scriptures was by an Arian missionary, UIfilas. The first conqueror of Rome, Alaric, and the first conqueror of Africa, Genseric, were Arians. Theodoric, the great king of Italy, and hero of the 'Nibelungen Lied,' was an Arian. The vacant place in his massive tomb at Ravenna is a witness of the vengeance which the Orthodox took on his memory, when, in their triumph, they tore down the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes.
Ranke, in his History of the Popes (London, edition of 1871), Vol. I, p. 9, says- " But she [the church] fell, as was inevitable, into many embarrassments, and found herself in an entirely altered condition. A pagan people took possession of Britain; Arian kings seized the greater part of the remaining West; while the Lombards, long attached to Arianism, and as neighbors most dangerous and hostile, established a powerful sovereignty before the very gates of Rome. The Roman bishops, meanwhile, beset on all sides, exerted themselves with all the prudence and pertinacity which have remained their peculiar attributes, to regain the mastery, at least in the patriarchal diocese."
Machiavelli, in his History of Florence, p. 14, says- "Nearly all the wars which the northern barbarians carried on in Italy, it may be here remarked, were occasioned by the pontiffs; and the hordes with which the country was inundated, were generally called in by them."
These extracts give us a general view of the state of affairs at this time, and show us that though the hands of the Roman pontiffs might not be visibly manifest in the movements upon the political board, they constituted the power working assiduously behind the scenes to secure their own purposes. The relation which these Arian kings sustained to the pope, from which we can see the necessity of their being overthrown to make way for papal supremacy, is shown in the following testimony from Mosheim, given in his History of the Church, cent. 6, part 2, chap. 2, see. 2 - "On the other hand, it is certain, from a variety of the most authentic records, that both the emperors and the nations in general were far from being disposed to bear with patience the yoke of servitude which the popes were imposing upon the Christian church. The Gothic princes set bounds to the power of these arrogant prelates in Italy, permitted none to. be raised to the pontificate without their approbation, and reserved to themselves the right of judging of the legality of every new election."
An instance in proof of this statement occurs in the history of Odoacer, the first Arian king above mentioned, as related by Bower in his History of the Popes, Vol. 1, p. 271. When, on the death of Pope Simplicius, A. D. 483, the clergy and people had assembled for the election of a new pope, suddenly Basilius, lieutenant of King Odoacer, appeared in the assembly, expressed his surprise that any such work as appointing a successor to the deceased pope should be undertaken without him, in the name of the king declared all that had been done null and void, and ordered the election to be begun anew. Certainly the horn which exercised such a restrictive power over the papal pontiff must be taken away before the pope could reach the predicted supremacy.
Meanwhile, Zeno, the emperor of the East, and friend of the pope, was anxious to drive Odoacer out of Italy (Machiavelli, p. 6), a movement which he soon had the satisfaction of seeing accomplished without trouble to himself, in the following manner. Theodoric had come to the throne of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Moesia and Pannonia. Being on friendly terms with Zeno, he wrote him, stating that it was impossible for him to restrain his Goths within the impoverished province of Pannonia, and asking his permission to lead them to some more favorable region, which they might conquer and possess. Zeno gave him permission to march against Odoacer, and take possession of Italy. Accordingly, after a three years' war, the Heralian kingdom in Italy was overthrown, Odoacer was treacherously slain, and Theodoric established his Ostrogoths in the Italian peninsula. As already stated, he was an Arian, and the law of Odoacer subjecting the election of the pope to the approval of the king was still retained.
The following incident will show how completely the papacy was in subjection to his power. The Catholics in the East, having commenced a persecution against the Arians in 523, Theodoric summoned Pope John into his presence, and thus addressed him- "If the emperor [Justin, the predecessor of Justinian] does not think fit to revoke the edict which he has lately issued against those of my persuasion [that is, the Arians], it is my firm resolution to issue the like edict against those of his [that is, the Catholics] ; and to see it everywhere executed with the same rigor. Those who do not profess the faith of Nicaea are heretics to him, and those who do are heretics to me. Whatever can excuse or justify his severity to the former, will excuse and justify mine to the latter. But the emperor," continued the king, "has none about him who dare freely and openly speak what they think, or to whom he would hearken if they did. But the great veneration which he professes for your See, leaves no room to doubt but he would hearken to you. I will therefore have you to repair forthwith to Constantinople, and there to remonstrate, both in my name and your own, against the violent measures in which that court has so rashly engaged. It is in your power to divert the emperor from them; and till you have, nay, till the Catholics [this name Theodoric; applies to the Arians] are restored to the free exercise of their religion, and to all the churches from which they have been driven, you must not think of returning to Italy." - Bower's History of the Popes, Vol. 1, p. 325.
The pope who was thus peremptorily ordered not to set his foot again upon Italian soil until he had carried out the will of the king, certainly could not hope for much advancement toward any kind of supremacy till that power was taken out of the way. Baronius, according to Bower, will have it that the pope sacrificed himself on this occasion, and advised the emperor not by any means to comply with the demand the king had sent him. But Mr. Bower thinks this inconsistent, since he could not, he says, " sacrifice himself without sacrificing, at the same time, the far greater part of the innocent Catholics in the West, who were either subject to King Theodoric, or to other Arian princes in alliance with him." It is certain that the pope and the other ambassadors were treated. with severity on their return, which Bower explains on this wise- " Others arraign them all of high treason; and truly the chief men of Rome were suspected at this very time of carrying on a treasonable correspondence with the court of Constantinople, and machinating the ruin of the Gothic empire in Italy." - Id., p. 326.
The feelings of the papal party toward Theodoric may be accurately estimated, according to a quotation already given, by the vengeance which the took on his memory, when they tore from his massive tomb in Ravenna the porphyry vase in which his Arian subjects had enshrined his ashes. But these feelings are put into language by Baronius, who inveighs against Theodoric as a cruel barbarian, as a barbarous tyrant, as an impious Arian." But " having exaggerated with all his eloquence, and bewailed the deplorable condition of the Roman Church reduced by that heretic to a state of slavery, he comforts himself in the end, and dries up his tears, with the pious thought that the author of such a calamity died soon after, and was eternally damned! " - Bower, Vol. I, p. 328; Compare Baronius' Annals, A. D. 526, p. 116.
While the Catholics were thus feeling the restraining power of an Arian king in Italy, they were suffering a violent persecution from the Arian Vandals in Africa. (Gibbon, chap. 371 see. 2.) Elliott, in his Horae Apocalypticae, Vol. III, p. 152.. note 3, says- " The Vandal kings were not only Arians, but persecutors of the Catholics; in Sardinia and Corsica, under the Roman Episcopate, we may presume, as well as in Africa."
Such was the position of affairs, when, in 533, Justinian entered upon his Vandal and Gothic wars. Wishing to secure the influence of the pope and the Catholic party, he issued that memorable decree which was to constitute the pope the head of all the churches, and from the carrying out of which, in 538, the period of papal supremacy is to be dated. And whoever will read the history of the African campaign, 533-534, and the Italian campaign, 534 - 538, will notice that the Catholics everywhere hailed as deliverers the army of Belisarius, the general of Justinian.
The testimony of D'Aubigne (Reformation, book 1, chap. 1) also throws light upon the undercurrents which gave shape to outward movements in these eventful times. He says- "Princes whom these stormy times often shook upon their thrones, offered their protection if Rome would in its turn support them. They conceded to her the spiritual authority, provided she would make a return in secular power. They were lavish of the souls of men, in the hope that she would aid them against their enemies. The power of the hierarchy, which was ascending, and the imperial power, which was declining, leaned thus one upon the other, and by this alliance accelerated their twofold destiny. Rome could not lose by it. An edict of Theodosius 11 and of Valerian III proclaimed the Roman bishop 'rector of the whole church.' Justinian published a similar decree."
But no decree of this nature could be carried into effect until the Arian horns which stood in its way were overthrown. The Vandals fell before the victorious arms of Belisarius in 534; and the Goths received a crushing blow in connection with their unsuccessful siege of Rome in 538. (Gibbon, chap. 41)
Procopius, relates that the African war was undertaken by Justinian for the relief of the Christians (Catholics) in that quarter; and that when he expressed his intention in this respect, the prefect of the palace came very near dissuading him from his purpose but a dream appeared to him in which he was bidden "not to shrink from the execution of his design; for by assisting the Christians he would overthrow the power of the Vandals. " - Evagrius' Eccl. Hist., book 4, chap. 16.
Listen again to Mosheim- "It is true that the Greeks who had received the decrees of the Council of Nicaea [that is, the Catholics], persecuted and oppressed the Arians wherever their influence and authority could reach; but the Nicenians, in their turn, were not less rigorously treated by their adversaries [the Arians], particularly in Africa and Italy, where they felt, in a very severe manner, the weight of the Arian power, and the bitterness of hostile resentment. The triumphs of Arianism were, however, transitory, and its prosperous days were entirely eclipsed when the Vandals were driven out of Africa, and the Goths out of Italy, by the arms of Justinian." - Mosheim's Church History, cent. 6, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 3.
Elliott, in his Horae Apocalypticae, makes two enumerations of the ten kingdoms which rose out of the Roman empire, varying the second list from the first according to the changes which had taken place at the later period to which the second list applies. His first list differs from that mentioned in remarks on chap. 2: 42, only in that he put the Alemanni in place of the Huns, and the Bavarians in place of the Lombards, a variation which can be easily accounted for. But out of this list he names the three that were plucked up before the papacy, in these words- " I might cite three that were eradicated from before the pope out of the list first given; namely, the Heruli under Odoacer, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths." - Vol. III, p. 152, note 1.
Although he prefers the second list, in which he puts the Lombards instead of the Heruli, the foregoing is good testimony that if we make the enumeration of the ten kingdoms while the Heruli were a ruling power, they were one of the horns which were plucked up.
From the historical testimony above cited, we think it clearly established that the three horns plucked up were the powers named; viz., the Heruli in A. D. 493, the Vandals in 534, and the Ostrogoths in 553. The effective opposition of the Ostrogoths to the decree of Justinian, however, it is to be noted, ceased when they were driven from Rome by Belisarius in 538.
To Be Continued…..