You are here: Home / Archives for Eschatology

Demythologizing Skeptics, Scholars, & Absolute Eschatological Systems

06/29/2016 6 Comments
Papyri 115 one the most ancient examples of John's Apocalypse

Papyri 115 one the most ancient examples of John’s Apocalypse

“It seems like through out time, almost everyone has thought the end was near, what makes you think now is the time?” a famous radio host asked me.

First, I believe God has wanted every Christian in every era to believe it’s possible. In juxtaposition, I believe the devil has had a “man of lawlessness” ready in the wings, in every generation. It’s not a doctrine but I’m rather prone to it.  That said, there are unique things that characterize our current time that no other era could claim.

I was bit bewildered by the question because I had just explained that at no time in history-ever-could one man control the commerce of everyone, everywhere… But doesn’t the Bible imply as much?

“…and that no one was able to buy or to sell except the one who had the mark—the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom: the one who has understanding, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number, and his number is six hundred sixty-six.(Revelation 13:17-18,LEB)

Seriously, do preterists expect me to buy this applies to Nero? He had no hope of such control — sure he probably tried and it’s likely the convinced preterist has an example of a tax to present — but the text seems global -every nation and tongue- and it doesn’t seem to mention he is a miserable failure. I think it is forecasting this period we are now in… Moore’s law, the technological singularity, Noogenesis, Nirvana, Oneism, Coexist, perhaps even Together 2016? But such a control grid is about to be possible and my money is on OneWeb. I think they are a wise investment choice. I believe in them from a computer science technical perspective.

I’m not demonizing them, they want everyone to access ONE webeducation, OneWeb is amoral – it is a category error to demonize technology. People can study wicca or they can attend online seminary if they like. They have new options, including the Gospel. So does the international banking community. I’m saying it makes an idea that seemed absurd when John wrote it down around AD 90, quite plausible in a few short years. Yes, I argue it is a “technology statement” as Chuck Missler points out.

If you want to dig deeper in the biblical text, learn ancient languages. You need a minimum of a year in Hebrew and Greek to even understand the issues and questions being posed in academic journals of biblical studies. There’s a wealth of bible commentary and, my favorite, bible backgrounds  commentary, i.e. advanced historical research available to the average student. At no other time in history, could you have a seminary library at your fingertips like today.  I use Logos but there FREE versions  and online 1; online 2; online 3; too. Technology can be wonderful and God honoring!

…and it is also terrifying.


This imagery from Hiroshima framed my childhood and, thus,the apocalyptic is no mere pipe dream. Now when we get to biblical prophecies and the end times, it can get tense between saved believers. Great scholars disagree. RC Sproul is a preterist. I purchased his philosophy course. I purchased his church history course. I quote him often. I respect him deeply. He has good reasons for what he thinks. I don’t agree with him. I quote Dr. Peter Jones—a Presbyterian no less–and promote his ministry TruthXchange. Chris Rosebrough —- a dreaded Lutheran — helped me prepare to debate Russ Hocus Pocus on the Trinity. How can I partner with people who differ with my eschatology? Its not as important as false teachers, sin, relativism, same sex marriage and abortion but mainly ONE thing: we all believe the Bible, we just disagree on the exegesis. But those guys have at least done the work in Greek and Hebrew,, Even so, (I’m in trouble now) their view of the Bible is not really the final test. There are hills to stand and die on. One is the Gospel. I work wit hose fellows because they are experts, but mainly because of ONE reason:

We are still in lock step on the Gospel —all are sinful and justified by faith through grace alone – the gift of God, so no man should boast. — non negotiable.

No one has the absolute answer to the end times, I have never claimed so much.  If you want to understand the real issues — I recommend this:


It’s quite different when a naturalistic scholar demands Daniel was written “after the fact” – because the book internally claims to be by one Daniel. If they are correct, it is a farce. If they are incorrect, may God convict them, Dr Bruce Waltke has tried.

I am a premillennial dispensationalist because I feel like its basic premise is the closest to God’s intent, but I’m not married to it, nor inclined toward rapture date setting theories and debates. If you’re correct, we’ll talk in the sky, OK? I learn from people with various ideas about eschatology, especially those I disagree with.

Don’t tell me you are SURE about the end times scenario. No one is but God. I write in a genre I call speculative eschatology. I am NOT a prophet.

I believe the meaning of scripture is determined by the intent of the original author, the one God inspired, to his original readers (i.e. what was Paul telling the Thessalonians, not me in the 20th century). That said, Paul’s intent for them certainly informs how I view current events.

Even so, God used that author’s context (in this case Paul), worldview, language, and even more importantly vocabulary.  If you do not understand his perspective —a supernatural worldview informed by a divine council Deuteronomy 32:8 worldview— you often miss the point. I mean entirely. Understanding the vocabulary, means the first century meaning, the one the inspired author had in mind, because the Holy Spirit inspired the author and his words. Usually, scribes add to the text to “help” readers over time.

That’s how textual critics find the apostle’s words, they shave it down by comparing ancient papyri and determining the most likely original wording. It is established by facts that scribes tend to add, attempting to clarify—asserting their own meaning—and, as a result, the manuscripts tend to get wordier over time. With the best of intentions, monks changed the Bible.  Then, after the reformation began, it became the KJV when a Catholic Scribe Erasmus created a Greek New testament based on a handful of Greek manuscripts from the 8-9th century of the Eastern Byzantine tradition. It became Texts Receipts after the 1611 KJV Anglicans used it as their primary text along with the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale Bibles. It was great fro its time but pre- archeology.

Since then we have found 20,000 or so Greek papyri centuries older…. Archeology is now a discipline with peer review.

It means modern Bibles are very accurate and we have a great deal of certainty about the Gospel and many essential doctrines. The evidence Jesus rose from the dead is now MORE compelling—and that lends credence to the rest of biblical theology-—we stand at the first time in history when the supernatural events of Revelation have a high probability of coming to pass, WHY?

The “Chardinian Noosphere” or “AI Singularity” is about to make it possible for one man to control all who may buy and sell, I mean everyone.. even in rural India or subsaharan Africa. How can I say that — get ready (link to company website):

 

Filed Under Apocalyptic Literature, Apologetics, Bible Exposition, Eschatology Tagged With 666, Eschatology, Mark of Beast, Mark of the Beast, One web, Textual Criticism

Dispensationalism: the Key to Bible Prophecy (part 2)

07/04/2013 23 Comments

by Cris D. Putnam
Traditional Seven Dispensations

Traditional Seven Dispensations

I affirm Ryrie’s second point the basic dispensational philosophy of history as well. A philosophy of history is a systematic understanding in which past events and major sequences are unified and explained in light of a future ultimate meaning.[i] While all Christians believe the ultimate meaning is found in Christ, they disagree in the form and function. Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus, “To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,” (Eph 3:8–9, underline added). “The plan” is a rendering of the Greek οἰκονομία meaning “a plan which involves a set of arrangements (referring in the NT to God’s plan for bringing salvation to mankind within the course of history)—‘purpose, scheme, plan, arrangement.’”[ii]

In the second century, Irenaeus wrote, “He who, by Moses, instituted the legal dispensation, by which giving of the law we know that He spake to the fathers.”[iii] He then divides biblical history based on “four principal (καθολικαί) covenants given to the human race.”[iv] In the third century, church father Tertullian used the Latin word dispensatio to translate οἰκονομία and from that the English word dispensation derives. Hence, used in this way, a dispensation refers to a distinctive way in which God administers His relationship with mankind. As one can see, this line of thinking was present in primitive Christianity. In this way, nineteenth century dispensationalists were actually recovering theology that had been lost under centuries of Roman Catholic oppression.

As a system, dispensationalism has the most coherent philosophy of history because it accounts for the whole range of predictive prophecy. For example, the Old Testament predicts an earthly kingdom of universal peace (Is 2:2-4, 11:6-9, 65:17-25; Mic 4:1-5). Accordingly, futurist premillennialism accounts for the biblical data affirming that Christ will return to earth and rule over it for 1,000 years (Rev 20:4). Even so, I am willing to allow that “χίλια ἔτη” could be an idiom for a long period of time rather than insisting on precisely one thousand years. I agree with earlier divisions including the Adamic and Noahic dispensations found in revised dispensationalism. I somewhat appreciate the simplicity of the simple four-part structure associated with progressive dispensationalism: 1) Patriarchal (creation to Sinai); 2) Mosaic (Moses to Jesus ascension); 3) Ecclesial (ascension to second coming), and 4) Zionic (the millennial kingdom and eternal new creation).[v] However, Ryrie argues that progressive dispensationalists make the goal atemporal by conflating eternity and the millennium.[vi] While progressives place the millennial reign prior to the eternal state within the Zionic dispensation, it seems to confuse the matter. Thus, I agree with the older school that posits the eternal state as a distinct unit. Hence, my position entails: 1) Adamic; 2) Noahic; 3) Patriarchal; 4) Mosaic; 5) Church; 6) Millennial; 7) Eternal. These offer more explanatory scope than the abridged scheme presented by progressives. Ultimately, the exact number and name of the dispensations is not as important as one’s hermeneutic.

On the third point, a literal interpretation of scripture, I think the work of progressive dispensationalists is helpful. Literal interpretation needs to be informed by literary understanding (e.g. genre). While the historical grammatical hermeneutic is best, biblical scholarship is certainly more informed today than the days of Darby and Scofield. The radical bifurcation of the church and Israel advocated in classic dispensationalism goes too far. Classic dispensationalists posited the Church and Israel as eternally separate. The Rose Guide to End Time Prophecy is helpful:

      • Classic dispensationalists see the church as God’s heavenly people and Israel as God’s earthly people. These two groups will remain separate even in eternity. The church will be in heaven. Israel will be on the earth. (John Nelson Darby, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Cyrus I. Scofield)
      • Revised dispensationalists still see the church and Israel as distinct. At the same time, they expect the saved from both groups to coexist in eternity in glorified and resurrected bodies. Ethnic Israel is the physical seed of Abraham; prior to the end of time, the nation of Israel will still receive the land that God promised. God temporarily set aside the unbelieving nation of Israel so that he could bring together believing Gentiles with a remnant of believing Jews in the church. The church is the spiritual seed of Abraham and includes believing Jews and Gentiles. (John Walvoord, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost)
      • Progressive dispensationalists are similar in many ways to new covenantalists. According to progressive dispensationalists, God has had one plan that he has unfolded from the beginning of time to the present. Each dispensation has simply emphasized a different aspect of this one plan. Jesus inaugurated a kingdom during his earthly ministry, and he will bring this kingdom to fruition in a future millennium. The nation of Israel will still receive the land that God promised to Abraham, and Jesus will govern Jews and Gentiles according to their separate nationalities during the millennium. The plan of God will, however, ultimately culminate with one people, joined together in the presence of God for all eternity.(Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, Bruce Ware)[vii]

Even given classic’s extremes, they served as a needed corrective. Theology Professor at LBTS, Dan Mitchell cogently qualifies the final point, “It’s not so much the idea of a literal interpretation that marks the distinction, but it is the approach, do you approach the text inductively from Genesis forward or deductively from the fulfillment backward. If you have already decided that everything is fulfilled in Christ, then there really isn’t much to talk about in terms of future eschatology.”[viii] For these reasons, I believe the dispensationalism is superior to covenant theology and I find myself somewhere in the tension between the progressive and revised schools of thought.

This essay offered an analysis of dispensationalism. It sought to illustrate the value of the system by examining three defining points: the distinction between the church and Israel, the philosophy of history and a literal hermeneutic. The relationship between these points was shown. In the end, it seems that these points support the idea that dispensationalism is the key to biblical prophecy.


[i] Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference! : A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990). 22.

[ii] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 357.
[iii] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies” In , in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers With Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 424.
[iv] Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 429.

[v] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), 123.

[vi] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 22.
[vii] Dr. Timothy Paul Jones, Rose Guide to End-Times Prophecy, Kindle Edition (2012-03-06). Kindle Locations 5406-5417.
[viii] Dan Mitchell, “Dispensationalism and the Interpretation of Prophecy,” LBTS: Theo 630 lecture video, 3:32-3:57.
Filed Under Apologetics, Theology Tagged With Dispensational, Eschatology, replacement theology

Dispensationalism: the Key to Bible Prophecy (part 1)

06/28/2013 42 Comments

By Cris D. Putnam
DISPENSTION-History-chartArguably from the inception of the church (although lost under Romanism), dispensationalism has been and still is the key to biblical prophecy. Since its recovery in the nineteenth century there have been three major versions: classic (Darby, Larkin and Scofield), revised (Walvoord, Pentecost, Chafer, and Towns), and progressive (Bock, Blaising, Feinberg and Saucy) dispensationalism. All divide history based on God’s covenants as successive revelations in the progression of God’s redemptive program and sustain a premillennial futurist interpretation of prophecy. As a founding member of the revised school, Charles Ryrie emphasized three elements: 1) Distinction between church and Israel;[i] 2) Philosophy of History;[ii] 3) Literal interpretation of scripture.[iii] He offers strong and compelling arguments against covenant theology which is the system of theology that centers on two contrived covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.[iv] It typically dismisses God’s actual covenant promises to Israel and argues that most all of prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. While I’m largely in agreement with Ryrie that covenant theology is an artificial system lacking biblical support, I do think progressive dispensationalists make some good points.

Concerning point one, I strongly disagree with supercessionism (that the church has entirely superseded Israel or replacement theology). I believe God will fulfill His Old Testament promises as they were understood, not in the decontextualized manner applied to the Church found in Roman Catholicism and unfortunately most of evangelical covenant theology. In this sense, the reformers stopped short. God made specific promises to the descendants of Jacob and David concerning their ancestral line, the land and political sovereignty. Only the Mosaic covenant was conditional. The Abrahamic (Gen 12) and Davidic (2 Sam. 7) were unconditional and everlasting. The Davidic is often overlooked:

“And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’(2 Sa 7:10–17 cf. 1 Chron. 17)

Like the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant was irrevocable—“established forever” and despite innumerable acts of unfaithfulness on Israel’s part, God will be absolutely faithful. The Davidic covenant promises to Israel a political, religious, visible earthly kingdom, and God personally guaranteed that it would endure forever and that all nations would be blessed through it, based on His faithfulness.

“I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him, so that my hand shall be established with him; my arm also shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not outwit him; the wicked shall not humble him. I will crush his foes before him and strike down those who hate him. My faithfulness and my steadfast love shall be with him, and in my name shall his horn be exalted. I will set his hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers. He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. My steadfast love I will keep for him forever, and my covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his offspring forever and his throne as the days of the heavens. If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules, if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips. Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His offspring shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established forever, a faithful witness in the skies.” Selah( Ps 89:20–37)

God spoke through the original inspired author who certainly did not have an ethereal metaphorical Israel in mind when he composed those words. David understood the promises in a matter of fact manner. I have never read a supercessionist reply to these passages that did not cast God in the role of a prankster who deceived David.

Paul writes in Romans that Gentiles are grafted into Israel. This implies God’s chosen people includes the church as well as a remnant of ethnic Israel, now and especially at the Second Coming (Rom 11:26-27, Zec 12:10). While the distinction applies in this current dispensation due to Israel’s supernatural blinding (Rom 11:25; 2 Cor 3:14; Mat 23:39), I believe we merge into one people at Christ’s return. Thus, I commend the holistic view described by Bock and Blaising, “God will save humankind in its ethnic and national plurality. But, He will bless it with the same salvation given to all without distinction; the same, not only in justification and regeneration, but also in sanctification by the indwelling Holy Spirit.”[v] It seems unlikely that ethnicity will much matter upon Christ’s return to rule from Jerusalem.

 

Next week part two picks up with the dispensational philosophy of history.


[i] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995), 148.

[ii] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 20.

[iii] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 102.

[iv] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 32.

[v] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), 47.

 

Filed Under Eschatology Tagged With Eschatology, replacement theology, theology

The Significance of Eschatology in Theology and Preaching

10/25/2012 Leave a Comment

By Cris Putnam
I believe eschatology is not only an essential element of theology and preaching it is a necessary one. I argue its necessity in light of its unfortunate marginalization by a large percentage of the nominal church. Accordingly, I contend that the answer to the Gospel’s greatest challenge is eschatological. The ancient philosopher Epicurus asked, “if there is a benevolent and sovereign God, then why is there so much evil and suffering?” The Bible has a coherent answer to the problem of evil. Scripture presents a God who knows the end from the beginning and reveals future events (Is 46:9-10). It predicts that evil will not prevail in God’s economy (Is 11:6-9, 2:2-4; Re 21:4) and a day of reckoning is coming (Is 13:9; Ob 15 ff; 1 Th 5:2; 2 Pe 3:10; Re 16:16). Rather than understanding the term apocalypse as the “end of the world,” end time prophecy is the revelation of redemption.

The great hope and significance of existence is wrapped up in God’s eschatological plan. New Testament scholar Gordon Fee writes, “The theological framework of the entire New Testament is eschatological.”[1] The Greek word for the “end” is eschaton, meaning when God brings our present age to consummation. Jesus announced the kingdom was at hand at his first coming (Mt 3:2; Mk 1:15) but later qualified that it will not be fully realized until his second coming (Mk 14:25; Rev 20:4). The kingdom is inaugurated but not realized, a paradigm called the “already-not-yet” in New Testament theology. Bock and Blaising explain that this “links the plan of God into a unified whole.”[2] Based on this, one can see that eschatology is not a fringe element of Christian theology rather the fundamental structure by which it is understood. Since this is the case, why is it marginalized?

Timothy Jones warns of two contrasting errors: 1) a slip into unjustified speculation; 2) a slip into skeptical cynicism.[3] Given the inherent tension in the “already/ not yet” both are understandable. On one hand, we long for the resolution of evil and it is only natural look to for signs. On the other hand, the last two thousand years of anticipation compounded by the constant barrage of secularism promotes skepticism. Of course, either extreme results in error. In the first case, Harold Camping’s date setting resulted in the slaughter and arrest of hundreds of Hmong Christians.[4] On the opposite end, people leave the church because they have no hope. It seems like God wants every generation to expect the Lord’s return. John uses its promise as a call to holy living (1 Jn 2:28). Paul writes “Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.” (Ro 13:11) In fact, he encourages Titus, back in the first century, to wait for the “blessed hope” (Tit 2:13). For this hope to encourage, one must believe it can actualize.

 

 


[1] Fee, Gordon D. ; Stuart, Douglas K.: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan Publishing House, 1993, S. 145.

[2] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 98 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993).

[3] Timothy Paul Jones, Rose Guide to End-Times Prophecy, Kindle Edition, (Torrence, CA: Rose Publishing, 2012), Kindle Locations 59-63.

[4] Nicola Menzie, “Harold Camping Linked to Huge ‘Massacre’ of 100’s of Hmong Christians” The Christian Post, http://www.christianpost.com/news/harold-camping-linked-to-hmong-christians-massacre-in-vietnam-52351/ (accessed 10/25/2012).

Filed Under Eschatology Tagged With Eschatology

10 Nation European Union Newspaper Exegesis of Dan 7:24 & Rev 13:1

07/10/2012 8 Comments

Here is some unabashed “newspaper exegesis”  based on: “As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings.” (Da 7:24) and “And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads.”(Re 13:1)

I don’t know if my newspaper exegesis is accurate but what are we to make of the fact that Hal Lindsay believed in a “ten nation confederacy of European nations” (Late Great Planet Earth, 1970)? As well as Dallas Theological Seminary President and prophecy scholar John Walvoord anticipating the formation of a revived Roman Empire composed of a ten-nation confederacy? Walvoord wrote on Daniel 7:24:

The interpreter of the vision states plainly in verse 23 that the fourth beast represents the fourth kingdom, an earthly kingdom which will be different from the preceding kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, that is, be worldwide in its sway. In the process, it will tread down and break in pieces the preceding kingdoms. By so much, the interpretation eliminates the idea that the fifth kingdom refers to the rule of God in the new heavens and the new earth (Rev 21 and 22) or that it is merely a spiritual kingdom which gradually gains sway by persuasion, such as the kingdom of God in the earth at the present time. By its terminology the interpretation of verses 23–27 demands that, for the fifth kingdom to overcome the fourth, the fifth must be basically a sovereign and political kingdom, whatever its spiritual characteristics. By so much, it also demands that this be a future fulfillment, inasmuch as nothing in history corresponds to this.
The ten horns of the vision in verse 24 are declared to be ten kings that shall arise. They clearly are simultaneous in their reign because three of them are disrupted by the little horn which is another ruler, but not given the title of king here. He also will be different from the first, that is, from the ten horns, and shall subdue three of them.
The endless explanation of critical scholars attempting to find these ten kings in the history of the Grecian Empire or to find them later in Rome, by their very disagreement among themselves demonstrate the impossibility of satisfactorily explaining this verse as past history. If the ten kings are in power at the end of the age, which also seems to be supported by the ten kings of Revelation 13:1; 17:12, it follows that they must be still future. The fact that they appear in the book of Revelation, written long after the fall of the Grecian Empire, plainly relates them to the Roman Empire in its final stage.

John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key To Prophetic Revelation, 174.
And in his Revelation commentary:
The monstrosity of seven heads and ten horns probably refers to the remnants of the confederacy which formed the Roman Empire in the beginning, namely, the ten nations of which three were overthrown by the little horn of Daniel 7:8. The ten crowns, therefore, refer to the diadems or symbols of governmental authority. The fact that they have the names of blasphemy (“names” is properly plural) indicates their blasphemous opposition to God and to Christ.

John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 198.

with that in mind read the below:

10 countries for a United States of Europe

Die Presse, 20 June 2012

Ten EU foreign ministers participating in a “study group for the future of Europe” aim to exert pressure to transform the EU into a federation along the lines of the US. Together they have prepared what the front-page headline in Die Presse describes as a “Plan for transformation into a European state.” On 19 June, the ten ministers* presented an initial report to the EU officials who will likely benefit the most from the initiative: Commission President José Manuel Barroso, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi and Eurogroup President Jean-Claude Juncker.

More: http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/2211991-10-countries-united-states-europe

Here is a link to a translation of the original German article.

Filed Under Eschatology Tagged With End Times, Eschatology
« Older Posts