The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

II. Two Conflicting Alternatives Brought Forth

Rome’s answer to the Protestant Reformation was twofold, though actually conflicting and contradictory. Through the Jesuits 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 overleap 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. PFF2 486.4

According to the Protestants, the vision of Babylon and the supporting Beast is divinely interpreted in chapter 17 of the Apocalypse. It was on this that the Reformers commonly rested their case—the apostate woman, the Roman church; the city, seven-hilled Rome; the many waters, the many peoples; the Beast, the fourth, or Roman, beast of Daniel; the sixth head, the Caesars; and the seventh, the popes. Concerning the two alternatives, presented by Ribera and Alcazar, consigning Antichrist either to the remote past or future, Joseph Tanner, the Protestant writer, gives this record: PFF2 487.1

“Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men’s minds from perceiving the fulfilment 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 endeavoured to show that the prophecies of Anti christ were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled at Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy. On the other hand the Jesuit Riberatried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the Papal Power by bringing out the Futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly 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.” ² PFF2 487.2

Roman Catholics as well as Protestants agree as to the origin of these interpretations. Thus the Roman Catholic writer G. S. Hitchcock says: PFF2 487.3

“The Futuristic 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. PFF2 488.1

“The Praeterist 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.” ³ PFF2 488.2

Similarly, Dean Henry Alford (Protestant), in the “Prolegomena” to his Greek Testament, declares: PFF2 488.3

“The founder of this system [Futurist] in modern times ... appears to have been the Jesuit Ribera, about A. D. 1580.” ⁴ PFF2 488.4

“The Praeterist view found no favour, and was hardly so much as thought of, in the times of primitive Christianity.... The view is said to have been first promulgated in any thing like completeness by the Jesuit Alcasar... in 1614.” ⁵ PFF2 488.5

E. B. Elliott states precisely the same fact, only assigning slightly different dates; ⁶ and many others, such as Dr. Can dish, of Edinburgh, support the charges. Thus the fact is established. PFF2 488.6

Catholics dared not admit that the dynasty of the popes had fulfilled the prophecies of the Man of Sin, or that Babylon the Great was the Roman Catholic Church. Yet it was clear that no other power or system existing during the early and the later Middle Ages really answered the description. Hence, some de cleared that Babylon meant pagan Rome. Others, of the Futurist School, which won general acceptance among the Catholics, declared that these prophecies regarding Antichrist were still largely unfulfilled, and insisted on a literal interpretation, especially of the prophetic time feature. PFF2 488.7

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 nought to do. Antichrist obviously had not come—because the time of the end had not come. PFF2 488.8