II. Conclusions Deducible From Volume II

In evaluating the evidence assembled in Volume II we may therefore logically conclude that the two major points of emphasis in prophetic interpretation, which stand out predominantly in the period covered, are (1) the well-nigh universal identification of the Papacy as Antichrist, and (2) the allotted time, chronology, and recognized close of its special prophetic period-and all in relation to the divine plan of the ages.PFF2 789.1

The church of the early centuries looked simply for an individual Antichrist, to whose exploits a literal three and a half years was then most naturally and logically assigned. To these early Christians all future time was foreshortened, because they expected the end of the age to come soon. Although their view reached beyond the actual breakup of Rome, it was circum scribed by the fact that Antichrist had not yet developed historically, and so could not possibly be identified in advance with certainty.PFF2 789.2

In later centuries the conviction developed that the Antichrist of prophecy was an extended system of organized apostasy, already long established within the church. As the centuries passed and the corruptions in the dominant church became more and more evident, the cry was increasingly raised that the various prophetic symbols of Antichrist-the Little Horn, Beast, Babylon, Harlot, Man of Sin, Mystery of Iniquity, and so forth—fitted Romanism just as a custom-made shoe fits the foot.PFF2 789.3

The sequence, the timing, and the character of the papal Little Horn seemed inescapable. First, Rome had come as the fourth prophetic empire; next, Rome’s breakup had followed; and then, after Rome’s partitioning, the Antichrist, or Little Horn, had appeared, pushing its way up through these permanent divisions of Roman territory and meeting all the specifications predicted. The logic of the reasoning seemed invulnerable. So it came to be commonly recognized that the concurrent “1260 days,” assigned for Antichrist’s special exploits, were obviously in prophetic or symbolic time, as verily as the other specifications of the Antichrist were symbolic. Understood in this way, the time feature became clear and consistent, and the conclusion inescapable.PFF2 789.4

It is likewise to be noted that all the great time periods of prophecy have been progressively discerned. They have always been recognized during the process of contemporary fulfillment. Thus, as noted in Volume I, the 70 weeks were seen by the Jews, writing in the third century before Christ, to be weeks of years. And it is known that there was widespread expectancy of the Messiah about the time of Jesus. In fact, Jesus Himself came saying, “The time is fulfilled,” with the acknowledged fulfillment appearing in His own life and death.PFF2 790.1

In the early centuries of the Christian Era the 1260 days were believed to center on the still future Antichrist. But until its actual appearance, and the long extent of its duration came to be recognized, the year-day principle was not extended to include this period. From Joachim (1190) onward, however, the 1260 prophetic days, as symbolizing years, were increasingly recognized by Jew as well as Christian, and by Catholic and non-Catholic alike. And beginning with Arnold of Villanova (1297), Walter Brute (1393), and Nicolas Krebs of Cusa (1440), the 1290, 1335, and 2300 days of Daniel were similarly seen to represent years.PFF2 790.2

With the Reformation came the full chorus of Protestant voices, hundreds strong, declaring the contemporary fulfillment of prophetic symbolism in the Papacy. Although some made supplemental application of one or two of the prophecies to the Turks, and there was a variety of timing in the attempt to locate the 1260 years, the unanimity of conviction concerning this rapidly expiring segment in the career of the Papacy was most significant.PFF2 790.3

During the Reformation and post-Reformation periods, the predominant Historical School system of prophetic interpretation took on impressive proportions, based on the accepted fulfillment of the anticipations of earlier times-the historical interpretation of the symbolic prophecies, and the year-day time periods—with the Papacy fitting inescapably into the continuous sequence of unfolding history. That sequence was not only historical but logical and inexorable—the four empires without a break between them; the disintegration of the Roman fourth empire, likewise without a gap following Rome; and then the appearance, among the still shifting fragments, of the Little Horn Antichrist in the early Middle Ages, similarly without a parenthesis, or blank space, intervening after Rome’s breakup.PFF2 790.4

It was the Jesuit countersystems of Futurism and Preterism that deliberately injected the scheme of a great gap of centuries, for the obvious purpose of shielding the Papacy from uncomfortable scrutiny and censure, by shifting the application to the remote future or the distant past. The obvious inconsistencies of these two systems have been duly noted. Protestants did not at first accept these Catholic counterinterpretations. Nevertheless, the device succeeded to an unanticipated degree, and con fusion ensued.PFF2 791.1

Meanwhile, the focal point of prophetic emphasis shifted to the closing date of the 1260—year period. Many had searched back to earlier times, seeking to assign the beginning of the era of the Little Horn to some point in the fifth, sixth, or seventh centuries. Now many began to look forward, endeavoring to compute the approaching end of the 1260 years. The story has been unfolded of how a sizeable number proclaimed the ending of the time in the aftermath of the French Revolution, and declared the capture of the pope in 1798 the exact counterpart of the prophetic demand. Clearly another epoch had been fulfilled in the sweep of prophecy, and was contemporarily recognized and declared.PFF2 791.2