Chapter8 futurism - the counterfeit prophecy

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST
CHAPTER EIGHT
FUTURISM: THE COUNTERFEIT PROPHECY
In the Protestant world today—especially in America—the most widely known
and the most acceptable position on prophetic theology is the system of Dispensational
Futurism. This system teaches that prophecy—both Old and New Testament—has met a
partial fulfillment up to the time of Christ, while the major bulk of prophecy is still yet
unfulfilled and inevitably will be fulfilled within the framework of a future seven-year
tribulation. The time frame between Christ and the arrival of the seven-year tribulation is
viewed as a parenthesis in history, where the major bulk of prophecy has no fulfillment.
In the seven-year tribulation, it is believed that the Antichrist will rebuild the temple at
Jerusalem, rule the world in the temple, persecute the Jews, and pretend to be God up to
the time that he is destroyed by Christ (See Tim Lahaye. Revelation Illustrated And Made
Plain, 94, 95).
The Protestant denominations associated with the dispensational futurist colleges
are traditionally viewed as being Protestant, because they are believed to be the offspring
of the Protestant Reformation. Protestant futurists see themselves as distinct from Roman
Catholicism, because they believe that the Bible is their only rule of faith, whereas
Catholicism is viewed as an organization that bases their beliefs largely on traditions—
traditions that are not in accordance with the Bible.
The questions that we wish the reader to ask throughout this chapter are: Are
dispensational futurist organizations truly Protestant by the true definition of the word,
and is the theological system of futurism truly a product of the Bible? It is our overall
purpose in this chapter to demonstrate that dispensational futurism is neither Protestant
nor is this doctrine derived from the Bible. Rather, the so-called Protestant dispensational
futurist ideology is a product of Catholic elaborations of Church father traditionalism—
stemming back to extra-biblical sources that span from the second century B.C. through
the second century A.D. It is our purpose to reveal the fact that futurism is a counterfeit
prophecy designed by the Jesuits to subvert Protestantism under the control of the
Papacy.
Some Of The Basic Differences Between Protestantism And Catholicism
In order to ascertain whether modern day dispensational futurists are Protestant or
whether they are more closely related to Catholicism, we must understand the
foundational differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. We will explain the
differences as they relate to the issue of this chapter. What is Catholicism by definition?
Catholicism is an ideology that has its foundation in traditions that stem from the Church
fathers and other extra-biblical sources. This is described in the dogma that came out of
the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563). Froom explains:
Tradition and Scripture were ostensibly placed on a par, though by implication
Scripture is made subservient to tradition through insistence that it be understood
only in the light of the tradition of the church, specifically, the ‘unanimous
teaching of the fathers.’ The Latin Vulgate was declared the one authentic
By D. S. Farris
1

version, with the intermingled apocryphal books as canonical (Prophetic Faith
Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 475).
Now, before we move any further, we must underscore that the Papacy still functions on
the same ideological foundations that were established at the Council of Trent. The
Papacy still bases its dogmas, not only on the traditions of the Church fathers, but also on
extra-biblical writings, such as the apocrypha and the pseudapigraphal writings. These
writings consist of books, such as: Tobit; Baruch; Maccabees; Esdras, Testament Of
Twelve Patriarchs, and the book of Enoch—to name a portion.
What is Protestantism by definition? In order to accurately answer this
question, we must ascertain Protestantism in the days of its inception. The Protestant
Reformation based its reforms on the Bible. The goal of Protestantism was to be modeled
as closely as possible with the Bible—rejecting the absolute authority of the Church
fathers. They also rejected the apocryphal or pseudapigraphal writings as non-canonical
and mythical.
Another point to be noted in ascertaining the meaning of Protestantism is that the
name points to the great “protest” of Catholic men against the traditions of the
hierarchical Church. The “protesters” of the Papacy separated themselves from the
hierarchical Church as a distinct movement whose goal was to make the Bible the
supreme authority of their doctrines.
One of the primary and outstanding foundations of Protestantism was its view of
prophecy. The Reformers viewed prophecy as a continual process of fulfillment—without
parenthetical divisions. Consequently, the Reformers were known as historicists. To the
Protestants, the prophecies of scripture had been fulfilled in the past, were being fulfilled
in the present, and were to be fulfilled in the future. The application of Historicism was
one of the most fundamental marks that divided Protestantism from Catholicism.
The Protestant application of Historicism lead the Reformers to identify the
existence of the Papacy as being the great apostasy (Falling Away) foretold in 2
Thessalonians 2:3, and they saw the Pope as the fulfillment of the position of the “man of
lawlessness” in verse 4. The Reformers believed that the great “falling away” had taken
place in Christendom, and the man of lawlessness had manifested himself as the head of a
corrupted church. This was the opinion, for example, of the German Reformer and
founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther (1483 – 1546):
I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more, that the Pope is really
the Antichrist, whom the world expects according to a general belief, because
everything so exactly corresponds to the way of his life, action, words, and
commandments (Sammtliche Schriften. Edited by Joh[ann] Georg Walch, Vol
21a, col. 234).
The French Reformer, John Calvin (1509 – 1564), believed that the Antichrist was being
fulfilled in the Papacy:
Some people think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff
Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the
same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak and
whose language we adopt (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol.
2: 410, 411).
Copyright 8/27/03
2

Throughout the centuries—before and after these Reformers—multitudes of confessors
proclaimed the same thing as they: that the Antichrist was a corrupt church with a corrupt
position of popery—tyrannizing the people into submission to church dogmas, which
were antagonistic to the Bible. Protestant historicists in both Reformation days and the
present day have come to the conclusion that the Papacy is the prophesied Antichrist.
The books of Daniel and Revelation are clearly predicated to the Papacy, for the Catholic
system and her history unequivocally coincide with the definition of the Antichrist (see
chapters’ 5 and 6).
Why is it clear to historicists that the Papacy is the prophesied Antichrist?
Historicists use the whole Bible as an organic unit without arbitrary divisions. Because of
this principle of studying the Bible as a whole book, we find that the New Testament
interprets the Old. We find the unity of God’s saints in all ages as one people (Heb. 11).
We need not chop up the Bible—especially prophecy—to fit up to some Zionist
expectation for the nation of Israel. The New Testament perspicuously interprets the
Church as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises.
As a result of this clear understanding of scripture, we can see that prophecy has
progressively unfolded throughout the centuries. Why would it? Biblical prophecy
pertains to the Church—the spiritual temple—with her connection to the Davidic temple
where Jesus reigns as both king and priest; thus, Israel in her local settings was a type of
a much greater Israel inclusive of all nationalities—with the heavenly Jerusalem being
the focal point of all unilateral provision. The unity of the scriptures, the unity of the
saints, the Church constituting God’s temple, and the progressive unfolding of prophecy
through history has led historicists to realize that the Pope is the Man of Lawlessness in
the midst of Christendom fulfilling the abomination of desolation. This was the view of
the Protestant historicists of the past, and is still the view of modern day Protestant
historicists.
The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is thus summarized:
Catholicism based its doctrines on traditions that stem from the early church
fathers and extra biblical sources, whereas Protestantism sought to base its
doctrines solely on the authority of the Bible—applying the methodology of
Historicism; and Protestantism was a movement that “protested” against the
Papacy. Note: These fundamental distinctions between Catholicism and Protestantism
are of the utmost importance. As we move through each section in this chapter, we ask
the reader to keep these fundamental distinctions in mind, because the sources that were
used as authorities to form the creeds of either Catholicism or Protestantism are the main
foundations that distinguish the two systems.
The Jesuit Scheme Of Prophetic Interpretation
Question: What kind of problems did the Papacy have with the Protestant Reformation?
Froom explains:
The Reformers in all lands had been unanimous in applying most of the
prophecies of Antichrist to the Papacy, though some applied one or two
symbols to Mohammedanism, as a paralleling Eastern Antichrist. In fact, it was
this united Protestant stand on the Papacy that became the spring of their
reformatory action. It was this clear understanding of the prophetic symbols that
By D. S. Farris
3

led them to protest against Rome with such extraordinary courage and
effectiveness, nerving them to break with her, and to resist her claims, even unto
death. These positions were, moreover, shared by hundreds of thousands, and
were adopted by both rulers and people. Under their influence, whole nations
abjured allegiance to the bishop of Rome. It was clearly a crisis of major
proportions (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 485. Emphasis mine).
Question: What did Rome do to thwart the Protestant message that the Antichrist was
fully realized in the Papacy? Froom reveals:
Rome’s answer to the Protestant Reformation was twofold, though actually
conflicting and contradictory. Through the Jesuit Ribera, of Salamanca, Spain,
and Bellarmine, of Rome, the Papacy put forth her Futurist interpretation. And
through Alcazar, Spanish Jesuit of Seville, she advanced almost simultaneously
the conflicting Preterist interpretation. These were designed to meet and
overwhelm the Historical interpretation of the Protestants. Though mutually
exclusive, either Jesuit alternative suited the great objective equally well, as both
thrust aside the application of the prophecies from the existing Church of Rome.
The one accomplished it by making prophecy stop altogether short of Papal
Rome’s career. The other achieved it by making it overlap the immense era of
papal dominance, crowding Antichrist into a small fragment of time in the still
distant future, just before the great consummation. It is consequently often called
the gap theory (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 486, 487).
The Protestant writer, Joseph Tanner, tells us:
Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her
most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavoring by different
means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men’s minds from
perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system.
The Jesuit Alcasar devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method
of interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus endeavored to
show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled
at Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy. On the other hand the
Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the Papal
Power by bringing out the Futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies
refer not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future supernatural
individual, who is yet to appear, and to continue in power for three and a half
years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded
as the Founder of the Futurist system in modern times (Daniel and the
Revelation: The chart of prophecy and our place in it. A study of the Historical
and Futurist Interpretation, 16).
George S. Hitchcock, a Catholic writer, also agrees that the systems’ of preterism and
futurism both have their origin in the Jesuits:
The Futurist School, founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591, looks for Antichrist,
Babylon, and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, at the end of the Christian
Dispensation.
Copyright 8/27/03
4

The Preterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains the
Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem, or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D.
(The Beast and the Little Horn, 7)
Since our focal point of analysis is the system of futurism, we ask for emphasis: What
was the basic view of Jesuit futurism?
Futurism contended insistently for an individual Antichrist, not a system or
dynasty; for a diminutive three and a half literal years, not twelve and a half
centuries; for an individual Jew of the tribe of Dan, a clever infidel, to set himself
up in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, not a succession of bishops in the Catholic
Church. Thus the prophecies allegedly had only to do with the first few centuries
after Christ, and then three and a half years sometime in the future. Between the
two was the great gap of the spreading centuries with which prophecy had not to
do. Antichrist obviously had not come-because the time of the end had not come
(Froom, Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 488, 489).
Up to this point, we can deduct that two systems of prophetic interpretation were
developed through the Jesuits to destroy the Historical Protestant’ school of
interpretation. Francisco Ribera (1537 – 1591), Jesuit scholar of Salamanca, and Robert
Bellarmine (1542 – 1621), Italian cardinal and Jesuit, developed the system of futurism.
Jesuit futurism allows prophecy to be fulfilled up to the time of Christ; and then,
prophecy is forced up in the distant future—prior to the end of the world—as a three and
a half year tribulation. The Jesuit Alcazar, through his system of preterism, has the whole
of prophecy fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled in Rome.
(1) Comes out of Rome
(2) Comes up among divided kingdoms
(3) Continues to exist among kingdoms
(4) Is different from other kingdoms
(5) Is stronger than other kingdoms
(6) Uproots three kingdoms
(7) Speaks great words against God
(8) Kills the saints
(9) Thinks to change times and laws
(10) Rules 1,260 prophetic days
THE PAPACY FULFILLED EVERY MARK
3. 5 Years
Gap Theory
The Jesuits Ignore Fulfilled Prophecy To Save The Papacy
Tribulation
PRETERISM FUTURISM
Christ
3. 5 Years 3.5 YearsChurch Dispensation
( Parenthesis )
Gap Theory Of Dispensationalsim
What is extremely obvious about these systems is the fact that they deliver a
message that can be visualized through the “gap theory.” They are systems that can be
visualized as a mechanism that does everything to excuse the Papacy from the BIG
By D. S. Farris
5

PICTURE of prophecy. Common sense can detect that the “gap,” which the Jesuits have
placed between Pagan Rome and the three and a half year tribulation, is a blank spot
purposely created to blind men’s minds from seeing the fulfillment of the tyranny of the
Papacy. As we have analyzed in chapters’ 5 and 6 of this course, Historicism is based on
serious research, not just theological, but also historical. In fact, Historicism is congruous
with the nature of God (Rev. 1:4, 8, 19; 22:16). The Jesuit systems are based on a
research that overlooks the research of the Church age; which means, their system is an
omission of credible knowledge, and thus research that does not really amount to much.
The Jesuit systems are a prime example of the fallacy of false alternative; meaning, they
“exclude relevant possibilities without justification.” Both preterism and futurism had the
same purpose: a speedy resolution to solve and eliminate the Protestant identification of
the Papacy as the Antichrist. Because Alcazar’s system was not very convincing—even
among the Jesuits—the Jesuits for the most part focused on the futurist scheme as the
theological savior of the Catholic Church.
Indeed the Jesuits were busy in every frontier of knowledge to win the world to
the control of the Catholic Church, and it is clear that they have had great success in the
evangelical world today. In today’s evangelical world, one only has to turn on the
television, and they can hear the doctrines of the Counter Reformation preached by “so
called” Protestant teachers. One thing is certain; there could never be a successful
ecumenical movement if Protestants still held to the Reformation view of Antichrist. It is
the Jesuit view of prophecy that is causing the evangelicals in today’s Protestantism to
wonder after the Beast. This is an issue that will be thoroughly covered in following
chapters. Now we are going to demonstrate the sophistries of the futurist scheme and
reveal its insufficiency as a proper method of prophetic interpretation.
Prophetic Ideas of Ribera and Bellarmine
(1) The first few chapters of Revelation are assigned to
John in his own time.
(2) Five of the seals are applied to the Christian era.
(3) At the sixth seal, the saints will be sealed by the angel
of Revelation 7.
(4) The sixth seal more or less initiates the three and a
half year tribulation.
(5) Prior to the coming of antichrist, the ten horns destroy
the Papacy after a falling away from the Pope.
(6) Then the antichrist comes and destroys three of the
kingdoms and initiates the three and a half year
tribulation.
(7) During the duration of the three and a half years—
under the seventh seal—the seven trumpets meet their
fulfillment.
Copyright 8/27/03
6

(8) Enoch and Elijah are the two witnesses of Revelation 11 who prophesy for three and a half
years.
(9) During the three and a half years of tribulation, the woman of Revelation 12 (the remnant of
the church) flees from the antichrist. Revelation 12 and 13 are treated as parallel—as the reign of
antichrist.
(10) During the three and a half years, the antichrist reigns in a literal temple in Jerusalem.
(11) The antichrist is only one man who possesses all the power of the devil. As a man, he is
Satan incarnate.
The analysis and picture of the Jesuits above comes from Prophetic Faith Vol. 2, Froom uses the
following commentaries: [Francisco Ribera, In sacram Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistae
Apocalypsin Commentarij. ( Lugduni: Ex Officina Iuntarum, 1593).
Froom also gives illustrations of Robert Bellarmine’s Futurism from (Robert Bellarmine,
Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini . . . de Controversiis Christianae Fidei, Adversus Huius
Temporis Haereticos. Cologne: Anton & Arnold Hieratorus Brothers, 1628. 4 Vols.)
Jesuit Construct
A.D. 100
Rev. 2 and 3
( Rev. 6 )First few chapters
fulfilled in John's
time frame.
3. 5 years
6th seal 7th seal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Rev. 8, 9 Trumpets)
(Rev. 7)
Saints Sealed
Gap Theory
Before the appearing of the Antichrist,
the ten horns will overthrow Papal Rome
after a "future falling away from the Pope."
( Rev. 17 )
Antichrist will then appear and uproot
three of the horns. This will initiate the
the 3. 5 year tribulation.
Rev. 11 (The two witnesses)
Seals 1 - 5 span Church era
1 2 3 4 5
Bowl Judgements
Rev. 13
Rev. 12
( Dan. 7 )
Antichrist Rules
Remnant Flees
( Temple )
Most
Holy
Place
Note: The following is the Dispensational Futurist Construct:
By D. S. Farris
7

Dispensational Futurist Construct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
144, 000 sealed
under sixth seal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
( The seals )
( The trumpets ) ( The plagues )
3 . 5 Years 3 . 5 Years
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rev. 12 ( Israel is pursecuted )
Rev. 13 ( Reign of Antichrist )
Ecclesiastical Babylon ( The Papacy and fallen
Protestantism ) are destroyed by the 10 horns.
The little horn or Antichrist arises out of the 10 horns
and uproots three of these powers. This initiates the
Great Tribulation for three and a half years.
Lahaye has witnesses in first 3 . 5 years. Larkin has witnesses in 2nd 3 . 5 years.
Rev. 11
Antichrist makes 7 year covenant with Jews.
He helps the Jews build the Temple.
Most
Holy
Place
Antichrist Rules in Temple
COMPARRISONS BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS
In looking at the 11-fold illustration of Jesuit futurism in comparison with modern
dispensational futurism, here are some fundamental differences:
(1) Modern dispensational futurism possesses an extra three and a half years for the
tribulation period, while the Jesuits’ tribulation period was three and a half years—
complete.
(2) Modern dispensational futurists make Revelation 1 – 3 apply to the whole Church
dispensation, whereas the Jesuits made these chapters applicable to John’s time.
(3) Modern dispensational futurists do not apply any of the seven seals to the Church
period, whereas the Jesuits did. Dispensational futurism applies the seals as Judgments in
the first three and a half years. The white horse is the Antichrist, and the other riders
represent the judgments that follow his coming (See Tim Lahaye, Revelation Illustrated
And Made Plain, 98 – 108)
(4) Modern dispensational futurists apply the woman of Revelation 12 to Israel not the
remnant of the Church (or the Papacy) as the Jesuits did.
Copyright 8/27/03
8

The First Structural Similarity Between The Two Systems
6th seal
144, 000 sealed
under this seal.
7th seal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
( Trumpets )
Two Witnesses
3 . 5 Years
The structure of the Jesuits’ prophetic picture is very much like modern dispensational
futurism. The difference lies in the fact that modern futurists have spread these ideas out
into seven years, whereas the Jesuits crunched these ideas into three and a half years.
Modern futurism is only a more developed version of the work that Ribera and
Bellarmine developed.
(1) Concerning the two witnesses, Lahaye asserts: “They will be on the scene during the
first half of the Tribulation Period to counteract the lying wonders of the antichrist”
(Revelation Illustrated And Made Plain, 152).
Lahaye makes Moses and Elijah (The Jesuits make the two witnesses, Enoch and Elijah.)
the two witnesses, and he teaches that prior to the second three and a half years they will
be killed for a period of three and a half literal days (Revelation Illustrated And Made
Plain, 152-154). Ribera too makes the death of the witnesses literal time (See Prophetic
Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 491). On the other hand, Larkin says, “the time when these
“TWO WITNESSES” are to prophecy must correspond with the last half of the “Week,”
or the time of THE GREAT TRIBULATION” (The Book Of Revelation, 84, 87). He too
makes the witnesses, Moses and Elijah. Ribera’s view is somewhat of a combination of
the two, because of the fact that he crunches the whole of the tribulation in three and a
half years. Ribera says:
And they shall prophesy 1260 days. It signifies a time of three years, and a half
not complete . . .Gloss: Note that these days do not completely make up three
and a half, just as Christ did not complete a half year of preaching. And since it
is probable that they will begin to prophesy at the same time in which the tyranny
of Antichrist will begin, seeing that, as it were, they had been given as his
antidote, they are killed by the same Antichrist on the 20th day before the end,
and before his death (Cited in Prophetic Faith Vol. 2, 492).
(2) Larkin teaches that the interval between the sixth and seventh seal is for the sealing of
the 144,000 (The Book Of Revelation, 65). Larkin has the sealing of the 144,000 as
something that takes place under the sixth seal. Larkin’s pattern is similar to Ribera on
this point.
By D. S. Farris
9

(3) Both Larkin and Lahaye illustrate the seven trumpets following the seventh seal as
Ribera does.
The Second Structural Similarity Between The Two Systems
Ten horns come prior to Antichrist, not before.
Ten horns destroy Ecclesiastical Babylon.
Little horn emerges and uproots three, leaving
seven for the Great Tribulation.
Rev. 12 Saints flee in wilderness
Rev. 13 Cruel reign of Antichrist.
7 Bowl Judgements
3 . 5 Years
Antichrist
sits in the
Most Holy
(1) Concerning the arrival of the 10 divisions of Rome, Larkin envisions the iron legs of
Rome as being divided between the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire. He
illustrates in his chart that these legs are very long and stretch all the way up to the seven-
year tribulation. Larkin maintains that the ten toes or horns will meet fulfillment in this
seven-year period. Larkin says, “These ‘TEN TOES’ have not as yet manifested
themselves, so the historical fulfillment of the Image is not yet complete” (The Book Of
Daniel, 48). This too is Bellarmine’s thesis against the argument that the little horned has
been fulfilled in the Papacy:
That this has not ever been thus fulfilled is clear since, up to this time, the
succession and name of the Roman emperors remains, and by the marvelous
providence of God, when the western Empire fell, which was one of the legs of
the statue of Daniel, there remained the whole empire in the east, which was the
other leg. But since the eastern Empire had to be destroyed by the Turks, as now
we see done; again God raised up in the west the former leg, that is, the western
Empire, through Charlemagne, which empire endures up to now (Cited in
Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 501).
(2) Concerning the destruction of the Papacy and the fallen Protestant churches, Lahaye
explains:
Antichrist will permit the one-world church to govern his actions during the first
three-and-a half years of the Tribulation while he is gathering more and more
power; but in the middle of the Tribulation, when he feels he can become an
autocratic ruler, he and the ten kings will throw off the harlot because, in reality,
while being dominated by her they “hate the harlot” (Revelation Illustrated And
Made Plain, 236, 237).
In other words, prior to the second three and a half years, the ten horns will destroy the
Harlot. This too is Ribera’s theory:
Copyright 8/27/03
10

In Revelation 17 Ribera admits the woman to be not only pagan Rome but also
Rome Christian after a future falling away from the pope. He admits, further,
that before the consummation the ten kings, prefigured by the ten horns, will
overthrow Rome just prior to the coming of Antichrist (Leroy Froom, Prophetic
Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 491).
(3) Modern dispensational futurism teaches that, following the destruction of the Harlot,
the Antichrist uproots three of the horns. Larkin says:
As the “LITTLE HORN” of Daniel’s “Fourth Wild Beast” he will destroy three
of the “Ten Kings” and firmly establish himself in the place of power, and as he
as the “LITTLE HORN,” does not appear until after the “TEN HORNS,” or “Ten
Federated Kingdoms,” come into existence, it is clear that the Antichrist does not
form the “Federation,” but is the outgrowth of it (The Book Of Daniel, 148).
Blasius Viegas (1554 –1599), a Portuguese Jesuit who continued Ribera and Bellarmine’s
work, endorses this interpretation:
Now, as the angel here declares to John that ten Kings will hate the Harlot, and
will entirely desolate and burn her, it may be gathered plainly that, a little before
Antichrist’s coming, or at least in the beginning of his reign, the city of Rome
will be overthrown and burnt by those ten Kings: for when Antichrist rules, there
will be, not ten Kings, but seven (Commentarii Exegetici in Apocalypsim Ioannis
Apostoli. (Eborae: Apud Emmanuelem de Lyra, 1601) cap. 17, sec. 3, pp. 798,
799).
(4) According to Lahaye, the woman of Revelation 12 represents Israel who will be
persecuted by the Antichrist in the last three and a half years (See Revelation, 160 –169).
Therefore modern futurists parallel Revelation 12 and 13 within the last three and a half
years. Ribera and Bellarmine teach the same concept, except that the woman is the
remnant of the Papacy after a future falling away from the Pope.
(5) Dispensational futurists do not visualize the 1,260 days and 42 months as being
symbolic time as the Reformers did; modern futurists expect these symbols to represent
literal time. This is one of the reasons why dispensationalists cannot see Papal Rome as
being the Antichrist. This was the Jesuit argument used in the Counter Reformation
against Protestantism. Bellarmine acutely argues:
The fifth argument is taken from the duration of Antichrist. Antichrist will not
reign except for three years and a half. But the Pope has now reigned spiritually
in the church more than 1500 years; nor can anyone be pointed out who has been
accepted for Antichrist, who has ruled exactly three and one-half years; therefore
the Pope is not the Antichrist. Then Antichrist has not yet come (Cited in
Prophetic Faith, Vol. 2, 501 – 503).
(6) We have demonstrated throughout this course that dispensationalists teach the temple
in Jerusalem will be rebuilt through the Antichrist. John Hagee insists:
By D. S. Farris
11

The Jewish temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem. During the first half of his rule,
the Antichrist will allow the Jewish people to resume making sacrifices in the
temple. They will rejoice and many of them may even believe him to be their
Messiah. But during the last three-and-a -half years of his reign, he will forbid
the offering of sacrifices (Beginning Of The End, 128).
The difference between dispensational futurism and Jesuit futurism on this point is
simply thus: Ribera and Bellarmine apply the rebuilding of the temple to three and a half
years—complete, whereas dispensationalists apply the rebuilding of the temple to the
first three and a half years, then the Antichrist rules in the temple for the second three and
a half years.
The Protestants in Luther’s day did not believe that the temple, as described in 2
Thessalonians 2:4, was to be a building in Jerusalem. They believed that Christendom
was the temple and that the man of sin was the Pope. Clarence Larkin argues against the
Protestant position where he emphasizes, “Again, the Lord, who destroys Antichrist ‘at
His Coming,’ comes to Jerusalem, not to Rome, the seat of the ‘Papal System’”
(Dispensational Truth, 115). This is nothing new, for Larkin is only quoting the Jesuit,
Bellarmine:
The Pope is not antichrist since indeed his throne is not in Jerusalem, nor in the
temple of Solomon; surely it is credible that from the year 600, no Roman pontiff
has ever been in Jerusalem (Cited in Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2,
502).
(7) Concerning the Antichrist, Larkin declares:
While there are many things in the history of the Church of Rome, and in the
conduct of her Popes that ‘foreshadow’ the Antichrist, yet it is clear from the
preceding scripture that the ‘Papal System’ is not the Antichrist, and that these
scriptures can only be fulfilled in the person of some ‘Individual’ yet to appear”
(Dispensational Truth, 115. Empasis mine).
This too was the Jesuit argument. Bellarmine argues:
For all Catholics think thus that Antichrist will be one certain man; but all
heretics teach as cited above that Antichrist is expressly declared to be not a
single person, but an individual throne or absolute kingdom, and apostate seat of
those who rule over the church (Cited in Prophetic Faith, Vol. 2, 500).
Not only do dispensational futurists emphasize the singularity of the Antichrist as the
Jesuits do, but they also make the Antichrist a Jew who will posses all the power of the
devil. Larkin says that Satan “is to incarnate himself in the ‘Antichrist’” (The Book of
Daniel, 139). Concerning the nationality of the Antichrist, Lahaye elaborates:
He will be predominately Roman. Daniel 11: 36, 37 tells us that he regards not
‘the God of his fathers.’ Taken in context, this suggests he will be a Jew. In all
probability the Antichrist will appear to be a Gentile and, like Adolph Hitler and
others who feared to reveal Jewish blood, will keep his Jewish ancestry a
secret” (Revelation, 172. Emphasis mine).
Copyright 8/27/03
12

These two ideas are in agreement with the Jesuits. Ribera makes the Antichrist a Jew
from the tribe of Dan. Bellarmine makes him a Jew “in whom will dwell all the power
of the devil, the same as all the power of God dwelt in Christ” (See Prophetic Faith,
Vol. 2, 499. Emphasis mine)
What is the difference between Jesuit futurism and modern dispensational
futurism? They both have the same structures. The Jesuits placed both of the structures
found in the dispensational construct into three and a half years—complete. Said another
way, dispensationalists have divided the Jesuit structure into two three and a half year
periods. It is unquestionable that dispensational futurism is Jesuit constructed theology.
Dispensationalists simply borrowed these structures and added additional ideas; but
nevertheless, the main structural foundation of their system is the work developed by the
Jesuits.
What was the main reason for developing futurism? As Joseph Tanner
emphasizes, the system of futurism was developed by the Jesuits to “divert men’s minds
from perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system.”
The “Gap theory” that was applied by the Jesuits had only one real purpose as Froom
argues:
. . . a gap of centuries leaves as the only adequate reason for the theory the
necessity of parrying the application to the Papacy of the specifications set by
prophecy for that period following the breakup of Rome. So Futurism
deliberately overlaps the centuries of the Middle Ages and seeks to fasten all eyes
on a superman Antichrist at the end of the age (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers,
Vol. 2, 802, Appendices).
Froom explains this precisely and accurately. The Gap was developed to hide Rome’s
division between A.D. 376 – 476. It was developed to hide the career of the Papacy. In
chapter five, we analyzed the fact that pagan Rome partitioned and was succeeded by
Papal Rome. This is not imaginative; this is a historic reality. Futurists apply historical
and theological jugglery to omit what is clear. The Presbyterian scholar, Thomas
Brightman (1562 – 1607), noticed this scheme, where he says:
Indeed Francis of Ribera the Iesuit, thrust his whole Prophecy almost into these
straits, wisely indeed to save his Popes head (A Revelation of the Apocalypse in
The Workes of That Famous, Reverend, and Learned Divine, Mr. Tho:
Brightman, Chap. 1, 8)
We need not omit what is reality to sustain imaginary prophecy in order that the Beast
may continue to prepare multitudes for the second death.
The Early Church Fathers
(Irenaeus and Hippolytus’ View On Antichrist)
In an attempt to parry the identification of dispensational futurism to the Counter
Reformation and the Jesuits, dispensationalists argue that their views come from the early
Church fathers. They argue that the Jesuits simply borrowed a preexisting prophetic
interpretation, which predates the Protestant Reformation and the Jesuit Order. This is an
By D. S. Farris
13

argument that is—in many cases—omitted from discussion by those who emphasize that
the Jesuits created modern futurism. Unfortunately, there are those who—in arguing the
case of this chapter—do not give the “early father argument” the attention it needs. The
result of this neglect has caused dispensationalists to believe that they are not a product of
Jesuit subversion; but rather, they are teaching theology, which comes from the Church
closest to Christ. As we are going to see—from this point to the end of the chapter—the
“early father argument” is a device that works well against the uninformed, for when one
becomes informed of the extra-biblical influence in the writings of the Church fathers,
this argument becomes a fantastic joke. What is not realized by many today, is that the
Protestants were well informed about this argument. The Jesuit scheme of reliance on the
early fathers did not impress Thomas Brightman, for he realized that the Jesuits were
great schemers:
For when as I had by chance light upon Ribera, who had made a Commentary
upon this same holy Revelation; Is it even so (said I) doe the Papaists take heart
again, so as that book which of a long time before they would scarce suffer any
man to touch, they dare now take in hand to intreat fully upon it? What? was it
but a vain image or bug, at the sight wherof they were wont to tremble a few
years since, even in the dim light, that now they dare be bold to look wishly upon
this glasse in this clear sun-shine, and dare proclaime to the world, that any other
thing rather is poynted at in it than their Pope of Rome (A Revelation of the
Apocalypse, Preface).
Brightman wondered how—all the sudden—the Papacy could have taken such a great
interest in prophecy and come out with truth that surpassed the scholarship of
Protestantism. What would make him raise such a question? He probably wondered how
an organization as diabolical as the Jesuit Order could have been more impressed by the
Holy Spirit on Holy Writ than evangelicals who were put to death in the inquisitions. He
asked questions that should be asked today. But let us ask another question just as
important as Brightman’s: Did the Jesuits borrow an already existing prophetic system of
interpretation? The Jesuits did not grab onto a system; they grabbed onto basic ideas and
molded these ideas into a system.
Irenaeus of Gaul, the bishop of Lyons (c. 130 -c. 202), and his student, Hippolytus
(d. c. 236), called bishop of Rome or Porto; known as the First Systematic Expositor.
The Jesuits used these Ante-Nicene fathers to argue against Protestantism. In
order to argue against the Historicist system rediscovered in Reformation days, these
church fathers are still used. As we are going to see in this chapter and following
chapters, reliance on the early fathers is very deceptive.
Note: We are in agreement with these men on the following interpretation:
(1) That Daniel 2 and 7 were parallel prophecies pointing to the four major kingdoms
with the arising of the Antichrist. Hippolytus says:
The Golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the
shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes;
Copyright 8/27/03
14

the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the
sovereignty from Alexander’s time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and
terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of
the feet which were part clay and part iron, and the ten horns, were emblems of
the kingdoms that are yet to rise; the other little horn that grows up among them
meant the Antichrist in their midst; the stone that smites the earth and brings
judgment upon the world was Christ (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, 210:
Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, sec. 28).
(2) According to Irenaeus, the Antichrist, Sea Beast of Revelation 13, Man of
Lawlessness of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 – 11, and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 all refer to the
same man (See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, chaps. 25 – 28 in Ante Nicean
Fathers, vol. 1, 553 – 557).
Note: We are in agreement with Irenaeus’ parallelism on these symbols; however, we do
not agree that these symbols point to an individual exclusively.
(3) The Antichrist is delayed until Rome’s division when he comes and destroys three
kings:
Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings,
amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom
the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the
beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three
of the former shall be rooted up before his face (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, chap.
XXV, sec. 3, in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 553).
Note: We are not in agreement with the following interpretation:
(1) The Antichrist will be a man who possesses all the power of the devil:
For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not
as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, in subjection to God, but an
impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a
robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to
persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having
in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols (Irenaeus, Against Heresies,
chap. XXV, sec. 1, in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 553).
(2) The Antichrist will sit in the Jerusalem temple. This is the abomination of desolation:
Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles
when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our
Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for
those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy
shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: “But
when ye shall see the abomination of desolation which was spoken by Daniel the
prophet, standing in the holy place . . . . (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, chap. XXV,
sec. 2, in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 553).
By D. S. Farris
15

(3) The Antichrist will rule in the Jerusalem temple for three and a half literal years:
But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will
reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem (Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, chap. XXX, sec. 4, in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 560).
(4) Froom illustrates that Hippolytus was the first to set a date for Christ’s second
coming. Hippolytus set a date for Christ’s second Advent on the basis of the “six
thousand year” theory. Hippolytus set Christ’s second coming at A.D. 500 on the basis of
the Septuagint chronology, which was many centuries ahead of the Jewish chronology
(See Prophetic Faith, vol. 1, 278).
Hippolytus says that Jesus was to appear in the year 5500:
For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under
Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6000
years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest,
the holy day “on which God rested from all His works” (Fragments From
Commentaries, “On Daniel” fragment 2, sect. 4 in ANF, vol. 5, 179).
Consequently, this interpretation brings the year 6000 approximately 500 years after
Christ, which is 250 years after Hippolytus’ day:
From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make
up the 6000, and thus the end shall be (Fragments From Commentaries, “On
Daniel” fragment 2, sect. 6 in ANF, vol. 5, 179).
(5) Irenaeus applies the second half of Daniel’s 70th
week to the reign of Antichrist.
Though their are no explicit statements about a Gap, it is assumed that Irenaeus intended
a “gap.”
And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints
shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: “And in the midst
of the week,” he says, “the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the
abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the
consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.” Now three years
and six months constitute the half-week (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, in
Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, Chap. XXV, sec. 4. 554).
Hippolytus applies the whole 70th
week to the Antichrist, 7 years prior to A.D. 500. He
was the first to officially invent a Gap theory (that is, if it cannot be proven that Irenaeus
had such a theory in mind), and Hippolytus also applies the two witnesses to Enoch and
Elijah:
For he says, “And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be in
the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease.” By one week,
therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world; of
which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will
preach 1, 260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people
and to all the nations (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, sec. 43, in ANF, vol. 5,
213).
Copyright 8/27/03
16

(6) Antichrist will be from Dan:
For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the
tribe of Dan (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, sec. 14, in ANF, vol. 5, 207).
Note: When we take the views of Irenaeus and Hippolytus together, we come up with the
following view on Antichrist:
Construct Based On View Of Irenaeus And Hippolytus
5500
From Creation
Christ
Hippolytus
( 236 )
Irenaeus
( 130 - 202 )
6000
From Creation
3 . 5 3 . 5
A. D 500
Gap
Millennium ( 1, 000 years )
(1) Jerusalem Temple
(2) Antichrist possesses all the power of the Devil
(3) Antichrist is from the Tribe of Dan.
(4) Antichrist persecutes Elijah and Enoch.
Second Coming of Christ
Note: This next diagram illustrates Irenaeus and Hippolytus’ view in conjunction with
what actually happened in history:
3 . 5 3 . 5
A. D. 500
Early Father's View
on Antichrist
376 - 476
Anglo Saxons
Franks
Alemanni
Lombards
Ostrogoths
Visigoths
Burgundians
Vandals
Suevi
Heruli
Rome Divided
Heruli Destroyed
A. D. 493
Hippolytus' Supposed Gap
A. D. 534 A. D. 538
Vandals Destroyed Ostrogoths Removed
From Rome
The three Horns Removed by the Papacy
look back and see the true
fulfillment of Prophecy.
Modern Historicists
By D. S. Farris
17

Note: The Protestant Reformation of Luther’s day did not have the historical method of
interpretation nearly as crystallized as modern historicists, but they were able to see the
fact that Rome had already been a divided kingdom in their day; and they saw that the
Papacy had met the fulfillment of the prophecies pertaining to the Antichrist.
The views of the Ante-Nicene Father’s were very underdeveloped. Their views
on Antichrist were not the elaborately constructed Jesuit system or the Dispensational
system. We could not have expected the early fathers to posses a clear and concise
knowledge on the fulfillment of these prophecies. Froom explains this excellently:
There could be no concept, on the part of any of these early expositors, of a long
reign of entrenched apostasy through centuries—as the symbolic time would
indicate—before the final developments and the return of Christ. Time was
naturally foreshortened to them, for they looked for the speedy return of their
Lord. Indeed, only as history actually unrolled the prophetic scroll through
fulfillment, could its intent be perceived (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 1,
242).
The Reformers were able to see that the 1,260 days and the 42 months of Antichrist could
not be literal time, for all the other elements of the prophecy (Rome’s division; the great
apostasy; the Papal tyranny; the bequeathing of the seat of the Caesars to the popes) had
been fulfilled in hindsight and were being fulfilled right in front of their faces. The Jesuits
grabbed onto concepts, which were not founded upon the canonical body of scripture,
and they developed these concepts into a system to hide the Papacy from being detected
as the fulfillment of the Antichrist. Let us now prove this assertion.
The History Of Extra Biblical Writings
The Old Testament canon of scripture closed with the book of Malachi around
425 B.C. The New Testament writings were written during the first century A.D., and
they were completed by the latter half of the first century. Between the time of Malachi
and the New Testament, many Jews settled in Alexandria. In time these Jews adopted the
Greek language and gradually lost Hebrew. The Alexandrian Jews who had a desire to
retain the body of Old Testament writings sought to gain a Greek translation of the
scriptures. Over a period of three hundred years, the whole of the Old Testament was
translated for the Greek speaking Jews.
The Hexateuch was translated in the third century B.C.; the Prophets in the
second century B.C.; the writings in both the second and first century B.C. (See Prophetic
Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 1, 75). These writings in whole, the true canon of the Old
Testament, consisted of:
The Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
The Prophets: Joshua, Judges, 1, 2 Samuel, 1, 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel
The Twelve: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
Copyright 8/27/03
18

The Writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1, 2 Chronicles
During the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into, what was later
called, the Alexandrian Septuagint, there were Alexandrian Jews who claimed to have
divine revelation from God. These so called prophets and seers could not find official
entrance for their writings into the true canon in Palestine; however, these pseudo
prophets’ writings found their way into the Septuagint. The additional books that were
added to the true canon consisted of:
1, 2, 3, 4 additional Kings, 1, 2 Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach or
Ecclesiasticus, Esther with additions, Judith, Tobit, Epistle of Jeremy, additions to Daniel:
Songs of the Three Children, Susannah, Bel and the Dragon: 1, 2, 3, 4 Maccabees, Psalms
of Solomon, Enoch, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses.
These extra biblical books were of Jewish origin, and they later received the name
“Apocrypha,” which means, “hidden” or “concealed.” Related to the Apocrypha, there
were also pseudepigraphal (false prophetic) writings, such as:
Ethiopic Enoch, written between 200 – 63 B.C.;
Jubilees, written in Palestine between 109 – 105 B.C.;
The Testament Of The Twelve Patriarchs, written between 109 – 106 B.C.;
The Secrets of Enoch or the Slavonic Enoch, written between A.D. 1 – 50;
The Assumption of Moses, written between A.D. 7 – 29
Note: From the days of the writing of the Alexandrian Septuagint to the writings of the
New Testament, there were constant supposed revelations placed into and beside the true
canons of scripture.
EXTRA BIBLICAL INFLUENCES ON THE CHURCH FATHERS
Between Malachi and the writings of the New Testament, two major bodies of
Jews formed. Kenneth Scott Latourette explains:
When Christianity began, Judaism was by no means uniform. Often it is said to
have displayed two main divisions, Palestinian and Hellenistic. By the first is
meant that which prevailed in Palestine and which, supposedly, had been less
subject to alien influences than the second. Hellenistic Judaism was that which
predominated among the Jews outside the homeland, where the inherited faith
had been modified by the pervading Greek culture, which had acquired such
currency and prestige under Alexander and his successors (A History of The
Expansion Of Christianity: The First Five Centuries. 4th
edition, Vol. 1, 39).
Greek Hellenism influenced the Alexandrian Jews; and consequently, the pseudepigrapha
and apocrypha writings had within them a combination of pagan and Jewish concepts. It
is from the Alexandrian stream of extra biblical concepts that we find much of the beliefs
By D. S. Farris
19

of early Roman Christianity. Dr. Adolph Harnack emphasizes that the early Christian
apologists are of the same stream as the mystical Alexandrian Jews:
The Gospel was hellenised in the second century in so far as the Gnostics in
various ways transformed it into a Hellenic religion for the educated. The
Apologists used it—we may say inadvertently—to overthrow polytheism by
maintaining that Christianity was the realization of an absolutely moral theism.
The Christian religion was not the first to experience this twofold destiny on
Graeco-Roman soil. A glance at the history of the Jewish religion shows us a
parallel development; in fact, both the speculations of the Gnostics and the
theories of the Apologists were foreshadowed in the theology of the Jewish
Alexandrians, and particularly in that of Philo…Three centuries before the
appearance of Christian apologists, Jews, who had received a Hellenic training,
had already set forth the religion of Jehovah to the Greeks in that remarkably
summary and spiritualized form which represents it as the absolute and highest
philosophy, i.e., the knowledge of God, of virtue, and of recompense in the next
world. Here these Jewish philosophers had already transformed all the positive
and historic elements of the national religion into parts of a huge system for
proving the truth of that theism. The Christian Apologists adopted this method,
for they can hardly be said to have invented it anew (History Of Dogma:
Translated From The Third German Edition by Neil Buchanan, Vol. 2, 174, 175).
Not only did the early apologists become a Christianized version of the Alexandrian
Jews, the apologists made use of the extra biblical influences. Harnack tells us:
Not only the genuine Greek portions of the Septuagint, but also many
Apocalypses were quoted by Christians in the second century as of equal value
with the Old Testament. It was the New Testament that slowly put an end to these
tendencies towards the formation of a Christian Old Testament History Of Dogma,
Vol. 1, 115).
The problem that the apologists faced was that—though the New Testament was
completed by the later part of the first century—the New Testament writings were
scattered throughout different regions; it was not until the third or fourth century that the
New Testament writings were brought together for debate as to the authenticity of
canonizing; Consequently, the apologists relied mainly on the Septuagint. The Apostles
used the Septuagint; however, they made a sharp distinction between canonical and non-
canonical scripture, for Jesus was their instructor on Holy-Writ (Luke 24:44, 45); and
Jesus never once cited a pseudepigrapha text. On the other hand, the early Church fathers
associated with Alexandria and Rome did not make these distinctions.
What popular dispensational teachers must realize is that the foreign influences,
which inevitably were to corrupt Christianity, began very early. Many Jews preceding and
proceeding Christ’s day were tinctured with extra Biblical ideas, and these same
influences were already at work in the Apostle Paul’s day. Paul himself said in Acts 20:28
– 31 that “No sooner would he depart and men would arise within the Church who would
speak perverted things.” These perverted things—in part—come from the extra-biblical
writings. We completely agree with Manly P. Hall where he emphasizes:
Copyright 8/27/03
20

The discrepancies in the writings of the early Church Fathers not only are
irreconcilable, but demonstrate beyond question that even during the first five
centuries after Christ these learned men had for the basis of their writings little
more substantial than folklore and hearsay. [Hall went on to say] To the easy
believer everything is possible and there are no problems. The unemotional
person in search of facts, however, is confronted by a host of problems . . . (The
Secret Teachings of All Ages, CLXXVII).
Froom tells us:
These second-century writings are in sharp contrast to the inspired Scriptures of
the apostles. These successors were already definitely influenced by the
sophistries of the day, which had introduced such legends as that of the phoenix,
and other fables. The views of some were tinctured with Jewish concepts; others
were marred by gross extravagances (Prophetic Faith, Vol. 1, 206).
Froom claims that the legend of the phoenix was believed by some of the early fathers.
The “Introductory Notice” in the Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 1, p. vii explains: “The
Apostolic Fathers are here understood as filling up the second century of our era.” This
was the Church period from A.D. 100 – 200. These are the fathers that precede Irenaeus
and Hippolytus. Even back here we find things that confirm what both Manly P. Hall and
Leroy Froom state. In The First Epistle Of Clement chap. XXV we read: “The Phoenix
An Emblem Of Our Resurrection.” Clement endorsed this fable:
Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in
Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain
bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and it lives five
hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die,
it builds itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh, and other spices, into which,
when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain
kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird,
brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in
which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of
Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the
sight of all men, it places them on the alter of the sun, and having done this,
hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the
dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was
completed (The First Epistle Of Clement, Chap. XXV in ANF, vol. 1, 12).
Hall explains: “The phoenix was regarded as sacred to the sun, and the length of its
life (500 to 1000 years) was taken as a standard for measuring the motion of the heavenly
bodies and also the cycles of time used in the Mysteries to designate the periods of
existence” (The Secret Teachings Of All Ages, XC). On the same page, Hall says, “To the
ancient mystics the phoenix was a most appropriate symbol of the immortality of the
human soul. . . .” We have already seen in chapter 6 that the Phoenix was sacred to the
god of 666, for the Phoenix is another name for Lucifer and has the numerical value of
666. How is it that an early Church father borrowed such an idea from the system of
666? Obviously the system of 666 had made its way into early Roman Christianity very
early—very early indeed. The early Church became tinctured by different fables, and as
By D. S. Farris
21

we are going to see, some of the most dangerous fables come, not only from Paganism,
but also from the pseudepigraphal writings.
The Pseudepigraphal Millennium
Froom emphasizes: “Justin Martyr, for instance, quotes and esteems the book of
Enoch, and Tertullian defends it” (Prophetic Faith, Vol. 1, 294). On another page, Froom
says, “Clement of Alexandria accepts and cites the Old Testament Apocrypha freely, and
considers the miracles related in the book of Tobit as authentic” (Prophetic Faith, Vol. 1,
295). In light of these statements, we must ask the question: Could it be that the Irenaeus
and Hippolytus merged apocalyptic concepts from the pseudepigraphal writings with
those of Daniel and Revelation? Yes! These Fathers received their concept on the
millennium from extra-biblical sources. Irenaeus endorsed certain Jewish
pseudepigraphal concepts on the millennium:
. . the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come,
in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each
branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one
of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand
grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine
(Irenaeus Against Heresies book 5, chap. XXXIII, sect. 3 in ANF, vol. 1, 563.
Emphasis mine).
In section 4 of the preceding citation, Irenaeus says: “And these things are borne witness
to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp.” The
preceding citation of plenty, from Irenaeus, is identical with the writing of the Apostolic
Father, Papias (see Fragments Of Papias, chap. IV in ANF, vol. 1, p. 153).
Let us underscore that whether or not there will be great plenty in the millennium
is not the issue; the issue is that we cannot find any scripture from Genesis to Revelation
that says anything this fanciful. However, we find that the early fathers used a multiple
of 10 for the Sirach Baruch to form their concept of plenty in the millennium. In II
Baruch 29:5, 6 we read:
The earth also shall yield its fruit ten thousandfold and on each vine there shall
be a thousand branches, and each branch shall produce a thousand clusters, and
each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a core of vine
(Cited in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament,
Vol. 2).
What do the preceding comparisons between Baruch and the Church fathers tell us? The
preceding comparisons tell us: in all probability, Irenaeus heard or read something about
Papias who supposedly heard something from Polycarp who supposedly heard something
from John; but in actuality, heard something from the Sirach Baruch. This is the “folklore
and hearsay” of the early fathers.
We must emphasize that there are elements of truth in the extra biblical writings,
but whatever truth exists in these writings, is layered by non-Biblical concepts. The issue
then is not whether or not certain elements of the extra biblical writings elude to a truth in
the true canon of Scripture, the issue is that the early fathers often grasped onto not only
Copyright 8/27/03
22

certain elements of truth in the extra biblical writings, but also the foreign ideas that were
attached. The ultimate result was that the Church fathers compared, similarly, an element
of truth in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha with truths in the true canon of
scripture, and then induced the attached falsehoods of the extra biblical texts into the true
Scriptures. This kind of layering, which ultimately leads to theological distortions, can be
visualized in the Church fathers’ emphasis on the concept of “6,000 years for man’s
probation.” The Apostolic Father Barnabas (not to be confused with the apostle) teaches:
“And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the
seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it.” Attend, my children, to the
meaning of this expression, “He finished in six days.” This implieth that the Lord
will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand
years. . .Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all
things will be finished. “And He rested on the seventh day.” This meaneth: when
His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the
ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest
on the seventh day (The Epistle Of Barnabas, chap. XV in ANF, vol. 1, 147.
Emphasis mine).
Barnabas went on to say further in this paragraph:
Ye perceive how He speaks: your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but
that is which I have made, [namely this] when, giving rest to all things, I shall
make a beginning of the eight day, that is, a beginning of another world.
Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day also with joyfulness, the day also on
which Jesus rose again from the dead (The Epistle Of Barnabas, chap. XV in
ANF, vol. 1, 147. Emphasis mine).
We do not preclude the possibility that God may end human history after 6,000 years and
begin the millennium of Revelation 20 at the 7th
millennium, for God does work in 7’s.
Though this is a possibility; it is only possible by an inductive theory of a very limited
availability of deductible scriptures. For example in 2 Peter 3:8, we read that a day with
God is as a thousand years. But can this be rightly correlated with the Creation Week of
Genesis to produce 6,000 years for man’s probation. Let us be careful in this matter, for
there are teachers in Christendom who destroy the Creation Week with this very theory in
a different form; they say that God created the world in 6,000 years, which is completely
false! One must realize that in Peter’s day the longest stretch of time with barriers was a
thousand year period. Even in the world today, we have the year, the decade, the century,
and the millennium. Peter was simply saying: “Man’s greatest conception of time is like a
day to God.” In essence, 2 Peter 3:8 and the fact that there is 6 days of creation in
Genesis is not enough to be extremely dogmatic about the 6,000-year theory. If this is a
truth, God has not explicitly revealed it to us in the canonical scriptures.
Let us ask: What is the problem with the preceding citation from Barnabas? The
problem is that we cannot find such a vivid account in the scriptures, an account that
makes the six days of creation a type of 6,000 years for the probation of man with the
seventh millennium being the Sabbath millennium, while the eighth millennium is an
antitype of keeping the eight—instead of the seventh—day in the present? There is no
such statement in the word of God—not one! Where did Barnabas receive this idea? It is
By D. S. Farris
23

likely that he borrowed this idea from the “Slavonic of Enoch” 32:2; 33:1, 2 written by a
Hellenistic Jew who was undoubtedly pagan in his beliefs:
And I blessed the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, on which he [Adam] rested
from his works. And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should
be the first-created after my work, and that the first seven revolve in the form of
the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there
should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years, nor months nor
weeks nor days nor hours (Cited in Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of
The Old Testament, Vol. 2).
The problem with Barnabas is that he layered explicit pseudepigraphal illustrations with
canonical scriptures, which are not—by themselves—adequate to prove the theory. Thus,
the canonical Bible was contorted to justify extra biblical concepts.
We have already established that there will be a millennial period of 1,000 years;
Revelation 20 makes this clear. But there is no indication in Revelation 20 of an earthly
millennial period. The early fathers were absolutely correct in teaching that there was
going to be a 1,000-year millennium, but they interpreted Revelation 20 through the
lenses of Jewish extra-biblical apocalyptic writings; consequently, their vision of the
Messianic Age became almost homogeneous with that of the Jewish myth. The idea that
the millennium must take place on earth and that the Jews must return to their land is
supplied by pseudo prophetic writings, such as the preceding pseudepigrapha. Another
pseudo book that emphasizes the return of the Jews to Palestine is Jubilees. This book
teaches that there is to be a great tribulation in which the Gentiles come against Israel as
the object of oppression. In this time frame, the Jews are said to study the law anew and
return to righteousness, and this righteous transition is to inaugurate the messianic age.
Jubilees 23:27 – 29 states:
And the days shall begin to grow many and increase amongst those children of
men till their days draw nigh to one thousand years, and to a greater number of
years than was the number of the days. And there shall be no old man nor one
who is not satisfied with his days, for all shall be as children and youths. And all
their days they shall complete and live in peace and in joy, and their shall be no
Satan nor any evil destroyer; for all their days shall be days of blessing and
healing (Cited in Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old
Testament, Vol. 2).
Books like the Slavonic Enoch, with its 6000-year theory for the probation of man, and
Jubilees, with its mention of a 1000-year life span during the millennium, supplied the
induction of taking the new earth in Isaiah and placing it into the 1,000 years of
Revelation 20. This is an induction that cannot be accomplished without these
pseudepigraphal books. This was the case with the early fathers; they were influenced by
extra-biblical sources.
Copyright 8/27/03
24

Beliar, The Pseudo Anti-Messiah
Did the early apostolic fathers (the Church fathers that immediately came after
the apostles), as in the case of the millennium, interpret the Antichrist through the lenses
of Jewish extra-biblical apocalyptic literature? We cannot deduct this from the account of
their writings, but this is possible on account of the fact that there were Christianized
pseudepigraphal writings during the first century that focused on the pseudo antichrist.
We will talk about this on following pages. What we can detect in the writings of the
apostolic fathers is simplicity on the theological point of the Antichrist. They expected
Antichrist to come at Rome’s breakup. They did not teach that the Antichrist was to be a
Jew from Dan who would possess all the power of the Devil or any of the fanciful ideas
that are seen in Irenaeus and Hippolytus’ writings. However, the Ant-Nicene fathers’
Irenaeus and Hippolytus and others that followed propagated these ideas, and now we
must analyze the true sources of these concepts.
In the time frame of the early fathers, writings called “Pseudo Sybylline Oracles”
were in circulation. There were essentially three types of these writings: Pagan, Jewish,
and Christian. The pagan sibyls were a poetic type of writing that pagan prophetesses and
fortunetellers used to propagate their pagan beliefs amongst the populaces in their
societies. Both Jews and Christians, in the hope of winning pagans to their beliefs, wrote
their Jewish and Christian prophetic expectations in the format of these Pagan Sibyls.
There were three big problems that the Christians faced: (1) These Sibylline Oracles were
largely poetic forms of the general pseudepigraphal writings in circulation; meaning,
these writings were a more corrupted version of the pseudepigraphal books (as though,
the general pseudepigrapha was not corrupt enough). (2) The Jewish versions of these
Sibyls were constantly mixed up with the Christian versions; and consequently, the
Christians became even more tinctured with fanciful concepts about prophecy. (3) The
pagans paid little—if any—attention to this scheme; and consequently, the Christians—
more than anyone—were left reading all the garbage. Interestingly, Hippolytus wrote
some of these spurious or dubious writings. He says:
Since the saviour of the world, with the purpose of saving the race of men, was
born of the immaculate and virgin Mary . . . in the same manner also will the
accuser come forth from an impure woman upon the earth, but shall be born of a
virgin spuriously (Appendix To The Works Of Hippolytus, chap. 22. in ANF, vol.
5, 247, 248).
Hippolytus, in chapter XXVI of this same work, describes fanciful accounts of the
Antichrist’s power:
Under the eye of the spectators he (the antichrist) will remove mountains from
their places, he will walk on the sea with dry feet, he will bring down fire from
heaven, he will turn the day into darkness and the night into day, he will turn the
sun about wheresoever he pleases; and, in short, in presence of those who behold
him, he will show all the elements of earth and sea to be subject to him in the
power of his specious manifestation.
By D. S. Farris
25

Hippolytus’s antichrist is a character that we cannot find in the Bible. The Man of
Lawlessness described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 – 10 is described as coming with power,
signs, and lying wonders, but these scriptures do not describe the fanciful ideas seen in
this Pseudo work of Hippolytus. What is extremely fascinating about this whole scheme
is the fact that the Jews used a similar character in their sibyls:
[63] From the stock of Sebaste Beliar shall come in latter time [64] and shall
raise the mountain heights and the sea, [65] the great fiery sun and the bright
moon, [66] and he shall raise up the dead and perform many signs for men: [67]
but they shall not be effective in him. [68] nay, but he deceives mortals, and
many shall he deceive, [69] Hebrews faithful and elect and lawless too, and other
[70] men who have never listened to the word of God. [71] But at whatsoever
time the threatened vengeance of the Almighty God draws near, [72] and fiery
energy comes through the swelling surge to the earth, [73 and burns up Beliar
and the overweening men (Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old
Testament, Vol. 2 The Sibylline Oracles, book 3, lines 63 – 73).
The work by Hippolytus looks like a work derived from the preceding Jewish source or
other pseudepigraphal sources that explain antichrist in this fanciful way. We must ask
who was the Jewish apocalyptic character, Beliar? The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The
Bible reveals:
ANTICHRIST. Strictly defined, a mythical demonic or demonic-human
adversary of Christ who will appear before the Second Advent as the last
oppressor and persecutor of the Christians, only in turn to be defeated and
overcome by Christ in his return to earth. The term has also been used for the
opponent of a Jewish messiah, but in such cases “anti-messiah” is
preferable. More broadly, the term is also applied to a historical or mythical
potentate who wages war against the faithful (The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of
The Bible, Vol. 1, 140, art. Antichrist. Emphasis mine).
These writers speak of a mythical type, demon-man antichrist, and they also describe that
the Jews believed that an “anti-messiah” of this character would come. These writers
point out that “there are some Jewish prototypes—if, indeed, not antecedents and
models—for the Christian concept of Antichrist” (The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The
Bible, Vol. 1, 141, art. Antichrist. Emphasis mine). One of these prototypes is described in the
following:
A somewhat different tradition is provided by the TESTAMENT OF THE
TWELVE PATRIARCHS, with Beliar, a demonic figure from the tribe of Dan,
causing Israel to turn aside from the worship of God. However, the Messiah, of
the tribe of Levi, will bind him and cast him into everlasting fire (Test. Dan 5:10
- 11; Test. Levi 18:12; Test. Judah 25:3) (The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The
Bible, Vol. 1, 141, art. Antichrist. Emphasis mine).
After reading this document, we must further concur with these writers where they
emphasize:
These and similar patterns of Jewish thought concerning the oppressors of the
Jews and the anti-messiah provided prototypes and sources, even, for the
Antichrist of Christian beliefs, despite certain differences between the Jewish and
Copyright 8/27/03
26

Christian concepts (The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Vol. 1, 141, art.
Antichrist. Emphasis mine).
Whether directly or indirectly, the TWELVE PATRIARCHS is one of the sources that
Irenaeus and Hippolytus used to form their view on the Antichrist. This pseudo book
dates back between 109 – 106 B.C., written by a Pharisee who was undoubtedly tinctured
with the flow of extra-biblical influence (See Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha
Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2, 282). Why is this significant? This is roughly 200 to 300
years before the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The view that Antichrist was to be a man
possessing all the power of the Devil from the tribe of Dan had been the teaching in this
extra-biblical writing before the birth of Christ; long before the writings of the New
Testament; long before the early Apostolic Fathers; long before the Ante-Nicene fathers.
The view of Hippolytus and Irenaeus has nothing whatsoever to do with the account of
Antichrist given in the New Testament. It is obvious that these Ante-Nicene fathers
borrowed their view of the Antichrist from The Twelve Patriarchs and other writings, so
where did they receive their view on Daniel’s 70th
week?
Distortion Of Daniel’s 70 Weeks
There are three important keys to understand why Hippolytus concocted the gap
theory for the 70th
week of Daniel 9:
(1) In the Testament Of The Twelve Patriarchs, Beliar is inextricably tied to a
distorted version of the 70 weeks.
(2) In the Testament Of The Twelve Patriarchs, the Millennium comes at the end of
the 70 weeks.
(3) Hippolytus believed that the millennium was to come at the end of 6,000 years.
Let us now analyze these three points:
THE TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS has a distorted version of the 70
weeks. T. Levi 16:1 – 5 says:
And now I have learned that for 70 weeks ye shall go astray, and profane the
priesthood, and pollute the sacrifices. And ye shall make void the Law, and set
at nought the words of the prophets by evil perverseness . . .And your holy places
shall be laid waste even to the ground because of him. And ye shall have no
place that is clean; but ye shall be among the Gentiles a curse and a dispersion
until He shall again visit you, and in pity shall receive you (Cited in Charles,
Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2).
Question: Who was the primary cause of the sacrificial pollution in the 70 weeks, and
who was to bring restoration back to Israel?
Answer: T. Levi 18:2, 8 – 14:
Then shall the Lord raise up a new priest, and to him all the words of the Lord
shall be revealed; and he shall execute a righteous judgment upon the earth for a
By D. S. Farris
27

multitude of days. And there shall none succeed him for all generations for ever.
And in his priesthood the Gentiles shall be multiplied in knowledge upon the
earth, and enlightened through the grace of the Lord: in his priesthood shall sin
come to an end . . . . And he shall open the gates of paradise, and shall remove
the threatening sword against Adam. And he shall give to the saints to eat from
the tree of Life, and the spirit of holiness shall be upon them. And Beliar shall
be bound by him, and shall give power to his children to tread upon the evil
spirits (Cited in Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament,
Vol. 2).
The Messiah was to come and make an end of Sin after he destroyed Beliar; then, the
Messianic reign was to begin. T. Dan. 5:10 – 12 shows:
And there shall arise unto you from the tribe of [Judah and of] Levi the salvation
of the Lord; And he shall make war against Beliar. And execute an everlasting
vengeance on our enemies; And the captivity shall he take from Beliar [the
souls of the saints], And turn disobedient hearts unto the Lord, And give to them
that call upon him eternal peace. And the saints shall rest in Eden, And in the
New Jerusalem shall the righteous rejoice (Cited in Charles, Apocrypha And
Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2).
These pseudepigraphal texts taken together teach that there will be a period of 70 weeks
in which Beliar will hold Israel captive. Beliar will pollute the sacrifices, make void the
law, and bring disaster to Israel. At the end of this period, the Messiah will come and
bound Beliar and make and end of sin. After the Messiah accomplishes this, the New
Jerusalem will be set up for the saints. The following diagram depicts the concepts of the
Twelve Patriarchs:
MESSIANIC KINGDOM
70 Weeks
( 1 ) Profane the priesthood
( 2 ) Pollute the sacrifices
( 3 ) Make void the Law
BELIAR Beliar is bound by the Messiah
( T. Levi 18: 2 - 14; T. Dan 5: 10 - 13 )
( T. Levi 16: 1 - 5 )
Where did Hippolytus receive his view on the 70 weeks of Daniel 9? From the
same place he received his view on the devil-man antichrist from Dan—The Twelve
Patriarchs. Whether by direct or indirect reading, Hippolytus was a recipient of T. Levi’s
version of the 70 weeks. It does not take a great stretch of the imagination to figure this
one out. Reading Daniel 9:24 – 27 side by side with the pseudepigraphal concept for
decades could only lead to the conclusion that Beliar was somehow tied in with Daniel
9:24 – 27. Hippolytus, in realizing that Christ will come back and destroy the Man of
Lawlessness, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 – 9, and with a predilection for thinking
Copyright 8/27/03
28

that Beliar was somehow tied into Daniel’s 70 weeks; most likely applied the 70th
week to
the Man of Lawlessness right before the Messianic age, which he thought was to come in
A. D. 500. The notion that Beliar was attached to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and the
notion that the end of the world was to come in A.D. 500 created a justification for
separating the 70th
week as the Beliar persecution. The mention of sacrificial pollutions,
profaning the priesthood, and making void the law in T. Levi and T. Dan was
paralleled with the abolishment of the sacrifices in Daniel 9:27. Hippolytus’s gap was a
justification to somehow keep the 70 weeks—with the notion that Beliar was attached—
connected to the millennium.
Up to this point we can say that “The Twelve Patriarchs” definitely has the
potential to supply a distorted view of Daniel’s 70 weeks, but this pseudepigraphal work
is not the only extra-biblical influence which could have supplied a misconstruing of
Daniel’s prophecy; there are others. The Syriac Baruch 28:1 – 3 mentions a period of 7
weeks divided into two parts of a week. Chap. 27:1 – 14 explain that 12 woes of
tribulation take place in this week. Chap. 29:4 – 9 explain the Messianic period as
following this tribulation week. Then there is 2 Esdras 7:27 – 33, 37, which describe a
400 year Messianic reign. At the end of this period, the Messiah dies for 7 days; and after
the seven days, the New Age follows. Notice that these pseudepigraphal writings have the
outer structure of a week and also 7 days preceding the Messianic period. What happens
when we analyze Daniel 9:24 – 27 through the lenses of the following pseudepigraphal
concepts for decades upon decades? We come up with ideas either similar or identical to
the views of Irenaeus and Hippolytus.
MESSIANIC KINGDOM
70 Weeks
( T. Levi 18: 2 - 14; T. Dan 5: 10 - 13 )
( T. Levi 16: 1 - 5 )
MESSIANIC KINGDOM3. 5 WEEKS 3. 5 WEEKS
Two parts of a week of 7 weeks
( Syriac Baruch 28: 1 - 3 )
THE TWELVE WOES
( Tribulation )
By D. S. Farris
29

MESSIANIC KINGDOM7 DAYS
( 2 Esdras 7: 27 - 33, 37 )
Messiah
and all men
die
400 Year Messianic reign
5500
From Creation
Christ
Hippolytus
( 236 )
Irenaeus
( 130 - 202 )
6000
From Creation
3 . 5 3 . 5
A. D 500
Gap
Both the Syriac Baruch and 2 Esdras create ideological patterns of two parts of a week or
7 days preceding the Messianic age. These patterns in conjunction with “The Twelve
Patriarch’s” version of the 70 weeks of sacrificial pollutions—produced by Beliar—
create the perfect lenses to distort the 70th
week of Daniel 9 as something applicable to
the Antichrist.
The extra-biblical influence on the early Church fathers does not stop here. Beliar
centered pseudepigraphal writings continued to be written. In the first century A.D.—
before the New Testament had been compiled together—there were obviously
Christianized pseudepigraphal versions of the Beliar myth. The Interpreter’s Dictionary
Of The Bible reveals:
The Testament of Hezekiah (3:13b - 4:18 of the Ascension of Isaiah), from about
the end of the first century, presents a more fully developed antichrist tradition.
It is predicted that in the last days there will be a falling away and much disorder
in the church. Shortly before the second advent of the Beloved (Christ), Beliar,
the demonic ruler of this world, will descend from the firmament in the likeness
of a man, of a lawless king who had killed his mother (Nero). He will persecute
the church, putting one of the Twelve (possibly Peter is meant) to death. He will
also speak and act like Christ, will call himself God, will perform wonders and
miracles, and will set his image up in every city for people to worship. During
this sway of 3. 5 years many will follow him, but others will faithfully await the
Lord’s return. When Christ does appear with his angels and armies of holy ones,
he will drag Beliar and his armies into Gehenna. A messianic interim of
indefinite duration will follow (The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Vol. 1,
Copyright 8/27/03
30

p. 142, art. Antichrist. To see an illustration of this Christian pseudepigraphal,
look at: Willis Barnstone, The OTHER Bible: Ancient Alternative Scriptures.
(Harper San Francisco: A Division of Harper Collins Publishers, 1984)
These writers go on to say:
It is obvious that the Antichrist and the pseudo Christ are assimilated into one
person in this form of the tradition. This person, moreover, is a mythical
demonic-human character, for he is Beliar (the equivalent of Satan) incarnate...
(The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, Vol. 1, 142, art. Antichrist).
Before Irenaeus and Hippolytus came into being, yes, before the writing of the New
Testament in the first century, the stages had been set to misconstrue the prophecies, not
only in Daniel, but also in 2 Thessalonians and Revelation. In the ASCENSION OF
ISAIAH, there is, not only mention of a period of three and a half literal years of the
reign of Antichrist, but this writer literally uses the title “Beliar” for the Antichrist—in
opposition to Jesus. Furthermore, the concept of three and a half literal years was already
being molded as literal time around the mythical Antichrist before Irenaeus and
Hippolytus came into the picture. It is unquestionable that FOURTH EZRA, II
BARUCK, THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH, and THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS were
lenses for interpreting Daniel 9 and other prophecies in 2 Thessalonians and Revelation.
MESSIANIC KINGDOM
70 Weeks
( T. Levi 18: 2 - 14; T. Dan 5: 10 - 13 )
( T. Levi 16: 1 - 5 )
MESSIANIC KINGDOM7 DAYS
( 2 Esdras 7: 27 - 33, 37 )
Messiah
and all men
die
400 Year Messianic reign
MESSIANIC KINGDOM3. 5 WEEKS 3. 5 WEEKS
Two parts of a week of 7 weeks
THE TWELVE WOES
( Tribulation )
3 . 5 Years
Beliar Comes Against The Church
ASCENSION OF ISAIAH
By D. S. Farris
31

5500
From Creation
Christ
Hippolytus
( 236 )
Irenaeus
( 130 - 202 )
6000
From Creation
3 . 5 3 . 5
A. D 500
Gap
A.D. 100
Rev. 2 and 3
( Rev. 6 )First few chapters
fulfilled in John's
time frame.
3. 5 years
6th seal 7th seal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Rev. 8, 9 Trumpets)
(Rev. 7)
Saints Sealed
Gap Theory
Before the appearing of the Antichrist,
the ten horns will overthrow Papal Rome
after a "future falling away from the Pope."
( Rev. 17 )
Antichrist will then appear and uproot
three of the horns. This will initiate the
the 3. 5 year tribulation.
Rev. 11 (The two witnesses)
Seals 1 - 5 span Church era
1 2 3 4 5
Bowl Judgements
Rev. 13
Rev. 12
( Dan. 7 )
Antichrist Rules
Remnant Flees
( Temple )
Most
Holy
Place
6th seal
144, 000 sealed
under this seal.
7th seal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
( Trumpets )
Two Witnesses
3 . 5 Years
Ten horns come prior to Antichrist, not before.
Ten horns destroy Ecclesiastical Babylon.
Little horn emerges and uproots three, leaving
seven for the Great Tribulation.
Rev. 12 Saints flee in wilderness
Rev. 13 Cruel reign of Antichrist.
7 Bowl Judgements
3 . 5 Years
Antichrist
sits in the
Most Holy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
144, 000 sealed
under sixth seal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
( The seals )
( The trumpets ) ( The plagues )
3 . 5 Years 3 . 5 Years
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rev. 12 ( Israel is pursecuted )
Rev. 13 ( Reign of Antichrist )
Ecclesiastical Babylon ( The Papacy and fallen
Protestantism ) are destroyed by the 10 horns.
The little horn or Antichrist arises out of the 10 horns
and uproots three of these powers. This initiates the
Great Tribulation for three and a half years.
Lahaye has witnesses in first 3 . 5 years. Larkin has witnesses in 2nd 3 . 5 years.
Rev. 11
Antichrist makes 7 year covenant with Jews.
He helps the Jews build the Temple.
Most
Holy
Place
Antichrist Rules in Temple
Very factually Adolph Harnack says:
It [the Jewish apocalyptic literature] was an evil inheritance which the Christians
took over from the Jews, an inheritance which makes it impossible to reproduce
with certainty the eschatological sayings of Jesus. Things directly foreign were
mixed up with them, and, what was most serious, delineations of the hopes of the
future could easily lead to the undervaluing of the most important gifts and duties
of the gospel (History Of Dogma, Vol. 1, 101).
In light of this knowledge, we are not impressed with either dispensational or Jesuit
reliance on the early fathers for the authentication of their theology, for as Harnack says,
“A wealth of mythologies and poetic ideas was naturalized and legitimized, in the
Christian communities, chiefly by the reception of the Apocalyptic literature” (History Of
Dogma, Vol. 1, 102). On the part of the Jesuits, reliance on Irenaeus and Hippolytus for
the correct interpretation on prophecy was a hopeless case of authoritative jugglery to
escape the inevitable derogation from Christendom; it was jugglery to avoid the
realization of the ignominy and perfidy in the Beast of Revelation 13. For
dispensationalism, reliance on these Church fathers is jugglery to escape the fact that they
Copyright 8/27/03
32

are a product of the Jesuit order and a disgrace to the evangelicals who sealed their
prophetic testimony with blood. The former Jesuit, Alberto Rivera, states the matter
factually:
The "Early Fathers" observed most of the ancient Babylonian system plus Jewish
theology and Greek philosophy. They all perverted most of the teachings of
Christ and His apostles. They paved the way for the Roman Catholic machine
that was to come into existence ("Dr. Rivera's Introduction" The Secret History
Of The Jesuits, Introduction)
The truth of the matter—after rightly dividing the facts—is that dispensationalism is the
product of a Jesuit system that borrowed ideas from men who borrowed ideas from
pseudepigraphal works. Futurism is nothing more than Jesuit elaborations on myths that
are no more real or sacred than the “tooth fairy,” “the Easter bunny,” or “Santa Clause.”
THE SOURCE OF THE BELIAR CHARACTER
What Does The Bible Say About Beliar?
Where did the Jews receive the knowledge to create the character, Beliar? The
term Beliar is the Greek equivalent of “Belial” meaning “worthlessness or worthless one”
and can be found in the following texts in the KJV of the Bible:
Duet. 13:13 (children of Belial); Judg. 19:22 (sons of Belial); 20:13(children of Belial); 1
Sam. 1:16 (daughter of Belial); 2:12 (sons of Belial); 10:27(children of Belial);
25:17(son of Belial), 25 (man of Belial); 30:22 (men of Belial); 2 Sam. 16:7(man of
Belial); 20:1(man of Belial); 23:6(sons of Belial); 1Kings 21:10 (sons of Belial); 21:13
(children and men of Belial); 2 Chron. 13:7(children of Belial); 2 Cor. 6:15 (Belial)
The Newer translations of the Bible (NIV; NAU; NRS; NKJ) completely omit the
word Belial in the Old Testament as it is written in the KJV. In the Newer translations we
find worthless, wicked, or evil modifying the nouns. For example: Deuteronomy 13:13
says “wicked or worthless men” instead of “children of Belial.” Why do the newer
translations omit the term Belial from being a character or even the devil in the Old
Testament? The Heb. Beliya ‘al denotes “worthlessness” or “wickedness” in a general
sense, not as a person. Deuteronomy 15:9 says, “Beware lest there be a wicked (Heb.
Beliyaal) thought (Heb. Dabar “speech” “word”) in your heart.” Proverbs 19:28 says,
“An ungodly (Beliyaal) witness scorneth judgment.” Psalm 18:4 says, “The pangs of
death surrounded me, And the floods of ungodliness (Beliyaal) made me afraid.” The
reason this word is not used as a character in the Old Testament is obvious. THE
ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY in the article BELIAL tells us:
Beliyya ‘al in Hebrew means wickedness and is often found in compounds
expressing evil people. The use of beliyya ‘al as a proper name for Satan is not
found in the Hebrew Bible, but Belial as the leader of the forces of darkness is
ubiquitous in the pseudepigraphic and Qumran material (ANCHOR BIBLE
DICTIONARY, Vol. 1, 654).
By D. S. Farris
33

Why does Belial have the appearance of a character in the KJV of the Old Testament? It
has been argued that the KJV—though a good Bible—has carried some of the italicized
words and concepts from the Latin Vulgate version of the Old Testament; meaning, the
Catholic scholars who attempted to polish up the work of William Tyndale were
themselves tinctured with ideas found in the Latin Vulgate. (We do not mean to say that
the King James is directly translated from the Vulgate; we say the men who did the
translating brought with them words from the Vulgate.) Jerome, a great scholar of the
Catholic Church, translated the Latin Vulgate from the Septuagint. Jerome did not want
the Apocryphal books in the Latin Vulgate (he hated these books), but the Roman
churched pressured him into adding the extra-biblical writings. Consequently extra-
biblical concepts and this word—developed in the time frame of the pseudepigraphic
writing—were added to the Vulgate. The Vulgate goes as far as to interpret Beliyaal as
Diabolus (devil) in 1 Kings 21:13. The term Belial was a word coined to represent the
devil himself and also the anti-messiah; this term was interpreted both ways.
The Greek rendering of this word is Beliar. There is only one instance in the
whole of the Bible where Beliar is used. The term Beliar is found in 2 Corinthians 6:15:
“And what concord hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath he that believeth with an
infidel?” This text undoubtedly parallels the Devil and his offspring (seed of serpent)
against Christ and His offspring (seed of woman). There is nothing here to indicate a
pseudepigraphic usage of the term, otherwise Paul would have defined this term as such;
and he would have used the term in conjunction with the Man of Lawlessness; but, he did
not! The fact that this term exists only once in the whole of the Bible and was used by
Paul in the letter to the Corinthian church indicates that he had a special reason to use this
term. The Ascension Of Isaiah—1st
century Christian pseudepigrapha—indicates that
Christians were being inundated with Jewish apocalyptic myths concerning Beliar. Paul
said of himself in 1 Corinthians 9:19 – 23:
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I
might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the
Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that
are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not
without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are
without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am
made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for
the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
It is likely that Paul used this term, because this term had already been widely used
among those who were indoctrinated with pseudepigraphal concepts, and this may have
been the case with some in the Church of Corinth. It is also likely that Paul purposely
used this term in reference to the devil as the author of darkness to thwart the
pseudepigraphic misconceptions of that word, for in the preceding verse, Paul said, “what
communion hath light with darkness.” The term “Darkness” definitely belongs with the
Heb. Beliyaal. If the word “Beliar” was to have any meaning of significance, Paul made
certain that it was placed in the category of darkness as a whole, not a mythical devil
man. We concur with the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT :
Copyright 8/27/03
34

This name for the devil is found in the NT only at 2 Cor. 6:15. It cannot be
determined with any certainty whether Paul had particular reasons for the choice
of this unusual name. Though it might be a title for Antichrist, this is not likely
(THE THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Vol. 1, art.
“Beliar.” p. 607).
Beliar Comes From Persian Mythology
Two to three centuries before the birth of Christ, the term Beliar was developed
from Beliyaal to depict the devil himself. The attributing of Beliar to an anti-messiah
was developed through the indoctrination of Zoroastrianism, a pagan
monotheistic/polytheistic kind of religion, which paralleled the true religion of Jehovah
during the Persian supremacy. This religion taught that God was both good and evil
(Persian Dualism). The Good god was “Ahura Mazda,” and the evil god was “Angra
Mainyu.” It was believed in this Pagan system that Mazda created all material things—
all things of substance. On the other hand, Mainyu had no material form, neither could
he or his demons manifest themselves as physical things, for Mazda created all matter.
The only way Mainyu could—in a sense—become material was through infesting
something…as parasites reside in men or animals (See John R. Hinnells, The Persian
Mythology, From The Library Of The World’s Myths and Legends). Said another way, he
could only embrace the material through possession.
The spiritualism of the incarnation of evil in the material world was
conceptualized through the seven-fold dualism of Zoroastrianism. It was believed that
Mazda watched humanity through the sun, and he wore the stars like a garment. Mazda,
it was believed, had six offspring, which governed his creation. Mazda with his offspring
represented the “Amesha Spentas.” The Amesha Spentas were believed to be seven
immortals that protected the creation. Each one of these guardians represented a facet in
nature and protected that part of nature—keeping balance in the world. Angra Mainyu
was the exact counterpart to Mazda. He had a counterpart for each of Mazda’s offspring.
It was believed that the seven evil immortals were constantly attempting to possess that
which the seven good immortals protected. Because many Jews and Christians came to
believe and propagate the Beliar myth, this has led different writers to conclude that the
entire concept of Satan found in Judaism and Christianity comes from Zoroastrianism.
Will Durant explains:
But just as these angels and the immortal holy ones helped men to virtue, so,
according to the pious Persian (influenced, presumably, by Babylonian
demonology), seven devas, or evil spirits, hovered in the air, always tempting
men to crime and sin, and forever engaged in a war upon Ahura-Mazda and every
form of righteousness. The leader of these devils was Angro-Mainyus or
Ahriman, Prince of Darkness and ruler of the nether world, prototype of that busy
Satan whom the Jews appear to have adopted from Persia and bequeathed to
Christianity…Zarathustra [Zoroaster] seems to have regarded these evil spirits
as spurious deities, popular and superstitious incarnations of the abstract
forces that resist the progress of man (Our Oriental Heritage, 367. Emphasis
mine).
Another writer says:
By D. S. Farris
35

Chapter8 futurism - the counterfeit prophecy

Chapter8 futurism - the counterfeit prophecy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Chapter8 futurism - the counterfeit prophecy

Similar to Chapter8 futurism - the counterfeit prophecy (17)

More from Antonio Bernard

More from Antonio Bernard (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter8 futurism - the counterfeit prophecy