In the updated commentary on Rev. 17-18 I recently posted, I briefly summarized two major opinions concerning the end times world government. The view that it will be a revival of the Biblical Roman Empire has been universally accepted among believers for generations, but recent world events have caused some to propose an alternative in the form of an Islamic Empire.

The purpose of this study is to is to look at these alternatives in greater detail than I was able to do in the Rev. 17-18 commentary and see if we can come to a conclusion about which is more likely, because as I think you’ll see they both have some pretty compelling support.

The Roman View
The Roman view comes primarily from studies of Daniel 2 and its companion Daniel 7.  Daniel 2 contains a description of an enormous poly-metallic statue. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon saw it in a dream shortly after he had consolidated his rule over the known world with the defeat of both Assyria and Egypt in the Battle of Carchemish in 606 BC.

Remembering stories his grandfather had told him about the riches of Israel (Isaiah 39:1-2) Nebuchadnezzar had laid siege to Jerusalem before returning to Babylon.  Since they were outnumbered by the superior Babylonian forces,  King Jehoiakim pledged Judah’s loyalty to Babylon and agreed to pay an annual tribute to avoid being conquered.  As was customary in those days, Nebuchadnezzar took hostages from the royal family to insure Judah’s faithfulness to the agreement and headed back to Babylon.

Among the hostages were Daniel and his three friends, known by their Babylonian names as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. They were all probably in their late teens at the time and Nebuchadnezzar was likely only a few years older.  He had the four Jewish boys enrolled in a training program to help them learn the ways of Babylon and was amazed when they quickly excelled in every area of their training.

The meaning of the dream continued to evade him and when none of the wise men he had inherited from his late father could interpret it he became angry and threatened to have them all executed.  But the Lord  gave Daniel its meaning and he agreed to interpret it for the young king, earning him and his friends positions of great influence among the king’s advisors.

You can read Daniel’s interpretation of the dream in Daniel 2:31-45. For our purposes here  it’s enough to say that the statue represented four kingdoms who would control the world during a period of time known as Gentile Dominion.  This period would last from Nebuchadnezzar’s time to the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom.

Daniel said the head of the statue, made of gold, represented Babylon, the first Kingdom of Gentile Dominion.  The chest and arms of silver represented a kingdom that would rise after Babylon, to be followed by a third one, the belly and thighs of bronze, and finally the legs of iron with feet of iron mixed with clay, which spoke of the final kingdom.  After that God will set up a kingdom of His own that will never be destroyed or given to another people (Daniel 2:36-44).

Most scholars agree on the identities of the two kingdoms that followed Babylon.  In Daniel 8 we can read of a vision Daniel saw just before Babylon was conquered, where they were made known to him.  Daniel was told in effect they would be Medo-Persia and Greece (Daniel 8:20-21). He lived to see the Medes and Persians conquer Babylon, and knew from the vision that Greece would conquer Persia. This is confirmed by the historical record, which shows that events unfolded just as Daniel’s vision had indicated. That left only the fourth kingdom unknown to Daniel.

Daniel 2 described Gentile Dominion from man’s perspective, a bright, shiny statue constructed mostly of precious metals. Before looking at the 4th Kingdom, lets skip forward to Daniel 7 and see God’s view of these kingdoms, which is a series of voracious beasts. By laying it alongside Daniel 2 and using Daniel 8 for further clarification, we can see what Daniel saw.

Daniel 7:4 depicts Babylon as a lion with the wings of an eagle. It morphed into a man that represents Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon’s most powerful king.  Daniel 7:5 tells us the next beast was a bear, representing Medo Persia.   In Daniel 7:6 the third kingdom appeared to Daniel in the form of a winged leopard with four heads. This is a model of  Greece under Alexander and the  four generals who succeeded him.

By way of additional confirmation, Josephus recorded a supernaturally ordained meeting between Alexander the Great and Jeduah, the reigning High Priest of Israel at the time. Alexander was making his way south toward Egypt, conquering nation after nation as he did.  When he came to Jerusalem, the High Priest and his retinue, in their finest robes, opened the gates and met him outside the city, as God had told them to do.  Alexander had previously seen this exact event in a dream and took its fulfillment as a sign from God.  He spared the city and offered sacrifices in the Temple. When Jeduah opened the scroll of Daniel and read to Alexander portions of what we know as Daniel 8, written 200 years earlier, Alexander correctly interpreted it as referring to him (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, chapter 8).

The Empire that followed Greece was Rome, and that’s how the identity of the 4th kingdom, represented by the legs of iron in the statue and the terrifying, frightening beast of Daniel 7:7,  was determined in the Roman view.  Proponents say Rome was never conquered, but transformed itself into the Holy Roman Empire that finally became the Catholic Church, which is still a powerful force in the world with over a billion members and wealth beyond measure. During that time, various components of the old Roman Empire (Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, France, and especially Great Britain) were recognized as having world wide influence.  They say an end times version of the Roman Empire will appear again at the end of the age to preside over world affairs. This empire is represented by the feet and toes of the statue.

In the Roman view, the end times Empire will likely be some form of the European Union from which the anti-Christ will emerge to rule the world during Daniel’s 70th Week.  This opinion is supported by the fact that in Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27) the angel Gabriel said in effect that the anti-Christ would be someone from the people who would destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (Temple).  History shows that this happened while Rome was in the process of putting down Jewish rebellions in 69-70 and 135 AD.

The Islamic View
The Roman and Islamic views  agree through the first three kingdoms, Babylon, Persia, and Greece.  But then they differ.  The Islamic view skips right over Rome and says the next empire to occupy the territory of  Babylon, Persia and Greece was the Ottoman Empire that reigned supreme in the region from the 13th Century until 1923. Islamic proponents point out that the Roman Empire didn’t fit either the geographical footprint of the preceding kingdoms or the description of the terrifying and powerful 4th beast.  It expanded mostly to the west, and didn’t crush or devour its victims or trample them underfoot (Daniel 7:7) but allowed the nations it conquered to retain their own religions and customs. For example the Greek religion and culture had a powerful and lasting influence that overlapped the Roman Empire by hundreds of years. And until they took up arms against Rome, the Jews lived a relatively autonomous existence.

The Islamic view also disputes the opinion that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and its temple, saying the Romans leaders actually tried to prevent the destruction but the predominantly middle Eastern conscripts that made up the “enlisted” ranks simply disobeyed their leaders and sacked the city and temple of their ancient enemy.  Therefore it was the ancestors of the Arabs who would later become adherents of Islam who fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy by destroying the city and the sanctuary. That means the anti-Christ will come out of Islam, not Western Europe.

And finally, the Islamic view holds that the Roman position is Western in its orientation whereas the Bible has always focused on the Middle East.  Its advocates note that references to an Islamic Caliphate are becoming steadily more noticeable in Middle Eastern discourse.  They say Muslim groups in the region are working harder than ever to re-establish this caliphate.  These include such varied groups as the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Hamas, as well as the powerful Muslim Brotherhood and even the government of Turkey.  Therefore the end times Empire will in effect be a revived Ottoman Empire, from which an Islamic world leader will emerge to rule during Daniel’s 70th Week.

So Which Is It?
As we’ve seen, the actual identity of the fourth Kingdom was never given to Daniel.  For centuries the vast majority of scholars have assumed it was Rome because of the historical realities.  Rome directly followed Greece,  the Romans clearly took credit for destroying the Temple in 70 AD and the City of Jerusalem in 135 AD,  and Rome was the kingdom in power when John wrote the Revelation.  In Rev. 17:9-10 he said,

“This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while.”

Both views agree that the five kings who had fallen at the time of John’s writing  are Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Greece.  The one in power at the time was obviously Rome, but the seventh one was and is still in the future.  As we saw above, Daniel’s  prophecies focused on the time of Gentile Dominion that began with Babylon and includes only four kingdoms before the kingdom of God is established.  By comparing Rev. 17:9-10 with Daniel 2 and Daniel 7we can see Daniel’s fourth Kingdom had to be Rome and it has to appear in two forms to be John’s 6th and 7th kings.

Any Questions?
By the way, the Greek word John used in Rev. 17:9-10 was kings, not kingdoms, but scholars have assumed John was referring to the most prominent ruler of each, since they all had more than one. For example, at the time of John’s writing (about 95 AD) the Roman Emperor was Domitian, the 11th man to occupy its throne.

This prompts two questions. Is the coming one also a kingdom even though John called him a king and used a personal pronoun in referring to him? And in Rev. 17:11 John referred to the beast as an eighth king, this time using a personal noun (when used metaphorically the word beast refers to a brutal or savage man) and personal pronouns (he, his).  Is he a king, or another kingdom?

And there are others. Both these views have strong supporting features but neither is conclusive. For example, is the end times empire world wide or just regional?  Both the Roman view and the Islamic view have a decidedly regional focus.  What about the rest of the world? The Book of Revelation makes strong suggestions that the whole world will be involved.

And what about the religious aspect of the end times? Rev. 13:8 says all the inhabitants of Earth will worship the anti-Christ. Currently there are 2.2 billion “Christians” on Earth.  Will those who are left after the rapture suddenly convert to Islam as the Islamic view requires?   Or will the world’s 1.6 billion followers of Islam abandon Allah for a Western European Messiah as the Roman view would have us believe?

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Islam will no longer be a viable religious force after the Battle of Ezekiel 38.  Rough estimates indicate that as little as 15% of the Islamic world will be represented by the forces aligned against Israel, and remember it’s only their soldiers who die in battle, not their total populations.

And those who say that Islam will cease to exist after the Battle of Ezekiel 38 because its outcome will prove their god isn’t real simply don’t understand the emotional and spiritual foundation of religion. Remember, only Christians and Jews have a God who has proved His existence beyond question, but other religions have flourished through out the age of man despite their lack of such evidence.

Speaking of which, what about the billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others? Some of them are as passionate about their faith as anyone.  They aren’t going to easily abandon their long held beliefs either.

So both the Roman and Islamic views leave unanswered questions. But there is a supernatural  movement taking place on Earth today that addresses these questions. It’s already impacting millions and is growing rapidly all around the globe. Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, New Agers, the Eastern religions and others have all been able to embrace this movement with out denying their strongly held beliefs.  It claims the power to bring all the world’s religions together and reconcile all the apparently conflicting prophecies about End Times religion.  This movement will be the topic of our conclusion next week.

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” (Matt. 16:23)

In part one of this study we learned that Jesus was telling the disciples about His upcoming ordeal in Jerusalem where He would suffer many things at the hands of the chief priests and teachers of the law culminating in His death and resurrection.  Peter had taken Him aside and rebuked Him. “Never Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” (Matt. 16:22).

This resulted in the Lord’s sharp command to “Get behind me Satan.”

We spoke about forming new attitudes (Ephes 4:22-24) having our minds renewed (Romans 12:1-2) and turning away from evil desires (1 Peter 1:13-14) which are things we’re all called to do.  But don’t make the mistake so many make in thinking they only apply to removing the sin from our lives.   Peter was not committing some grievous sin when the Lord rebuked him. He only had in mind the things of men instead of the things of God.

The phrase things of men refers to things we normally don’t count among our sins.  These things can include patriotism, good works, ecumenism, self determination, self reliance, personal achievement and others.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death (Prov. 14:12)

It was natural for Peter to want to protect the Lord from what was coming.  They’d been  constant companions for over three years and in addition to knowing that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel, Peter had developed a genuine affection for Him. He even said he would die before disowning the Lord (Matt. 26:35) and stood alone with drawn sword against several dozen trained soldiers, intending to prevent His arrest (John 18:10). Had Peter had his way, he would have kept them from taking the Lord and would have whisked Him away to safety instead. Any able bodied man  would have felt the same way.

In Matthew’s account of the Lord’s arrest, we see the difference between the things of God and the things of men clearly revealed.

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” (Matt. 26:52-54)

Jesus was not in any danger, as Peter supposed, but was obeying the will of God.  The events of that night and the following day had all been fore ordained, and while He could have stopped them at anytime, Jesus had agreed in advance to allow them to happen. It was the only way mankind could have a hope of salvation.  Peter’s well intended defense was contrary to God’s will and would have only resulted in his own death.

One best-selling author of historical novels suggested that Judas might have had good intentions as well. This author speculated that Judas had convinced himself that the contention between Jesus and the religious authorities was just a misunderstanding.  Unlike the other disciples Judas was from a well connected family in Jerusalem and knew some of these leaders.  He believed they were sincere and if he could just get Jesus to sit down and talk with them he was sure they could resolve their differences. The author said this was the motive that led to his act of betrayal.  It seemed like the only way to arrange a meeting between them.  Afterward he realized his mistake and was filled with remorse. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4).

Of course we don’t know for sure what his motives were, but it’s not an unreasonable assumption. Judas could simply have had in mind the things of men, things like discussion, accommodation, and compromise.  And Satan could have used his desires to tempt him into betraying the Lord.

James said that God doesn’t tempt us, but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. He said desire gives birth to sin and sin gives birth to death (James 1:13-15).  It’s an adaptation of Proverbs 14:12 and tells us even honorable intentions can lead us into sin if they’re based on the things of man rather than the things of God.

Remain In Me
Jesus warned us to remain in Him. He said if we do we will bear much fruit, but apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:4-5). We know He wasn’t talking about our salvation.  In the first place salvation is not a fruit bearing event.  And earlier Jesus had said once we’re saved no one can take us out of His hands (John 10:27-30). The phrase “no one” includes us.  Paul said having been saved, we are no longer our own, but have been bought at a price (1 Cor. 6:19-20) and God has set His seal of ownership on us guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor. 1:21-22).  We couldn’t get away if we wanted to.

No, Jesus was talking about remaining in His will. Remaining in His will requires that we yield our life to him.  We stop conforming to the pattern of this world  and allow ourselves to be transformed by the renewing of our mind (Romans 12:1-2).  When we’re in His will we can be fruitful, but when we’re out of His will we can’t accomplish anything of value to the kingdom. And don’t forget, when we yield our life to Him He’ll give us the desire of our heart (Psalm 37:4). He said He came so we could have life and have it more abundantly (John 10:10).  It’s a win-win deal.

This is another slant on the things of man versus the things of God. When we’re in His will we’re doing things at His direction and in His strength. We’re doing the things of God, and no matter how miniscule the results seem to us, in His eyes they’re like gold, silver and precious gems.

But when we’re out of His will we’re acting on our own initiative and in our own strength.  That means we’re doing the things of man and no matter how much we think we’ve accomplished, in God’s eyes the results are like wood hay and straw (1 Cor. 3:12-13). That’s because the things of man work to Satan’s benefit and are of no more value to the kingdom than the branches that are pruned, thrown into the fire, and burned (John 15:6).

So Much For Good Intentions
If even good intentions can be used to lead us into sin how are we supposed to know the difference between the things of God and the things of man?  The Bible shows us several ways.  First, the presence of the Holy Spirit gives us the power of discernment. (As we’ve already seen, Peter lacked this power since he hadn’t received the Holy Spirit yet.)  Sometimes this discernment comes in the form of a “check” in our spirit. It’s a warning from the Holy Spirit to stop and think and often manifests itself as a lack of peace about a decision we’ve made or a direction we’re heading.

Other times we can tell something is not of God because it’s in conflict with what we know about God’s word. Paul described this inActs 17:11, warning us to search the Scriptures to see if what we’re hearing is consistent with God’s word.

In 2 Cor 10:3-5 he explained this in greater detail.  He wrote,

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

This is where our knowledge of God’s word is so important.  A stronghold is a strongly held belief.  If it’s contrary to our knowledge of God it’s part of the old self Paul told us to put off  as we’re being made new in the attitude of our mind (Ephesians 4:22-24).

Depending On God
Here’s an example.  For many, self reliance is a strongly held belief, sometimes expressed in an effort to store up money and goods against an uncertain future. But is it contrary to our knowledge of God?  Time after time the Bible argues against self reliance.  Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3). Are little Children self reliant?  Where our salvation is concerned, are we not to rely totally on the completed work of Christ instead of trying to work our own way in? (Ephes. 2:8-9).

And did Jesus encourage us to store up treasure on Earth, or did He specifically speak against it?

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.  For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”  (Matt. 6:19-21).

And didn’t Jesus call the rich farmer a fool for tearing down his “small” barn to build a bigger one to hold all his excess? (Luke 12:16-21) The Lord knew that once you begin storing up for the future, enough is never enough.

No.  He told us not to worry about these things, but to seek His Kingdom and His righteousness and all our needs would be met. (Matt. 6: 31-33).

The attitude of self reliance is a stronghold.  It’s part of the old self we’ve been told to put off, and it sets itself up against the knowledge of God.  We are to take it captive and make it obedient to Christ, and the way we do that is to obey His teaching.  He said not to worry about the future (Matt. 6:34) but instead to give generously to those in need because God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor.9:6-7).  He said doing so is the best way to insure we will always have more than enough for ourselves (2 Cor. 9:11).  Choosing to obey Him is how we’re made new in the attitude of our mind.

Becoming A Monarchist
A well known Bible teacher was once asked if he is a Republican or a Democrat. “Neither” he replied.   “I’m a monarchist, and I await my coming King.”

Another example of the things of man is patriotism, especially among Americans.  For reasons I don’t understand I woke up one morning recently with the words to “My Country Tis Of Thee” running through my mind.  After I had mentally sung them, I followed up with “America the Beautiful” and finally “The Star Spangled Banner”.  There were tears in my eyes as I was struck anew at the depth of the love I have for my country. For a brief moment the fact that the America I fell in love with is not the America that exists today was irrelevant.  I will freely admit that this love is a stronghold in my mind.

But the thought that America on its best day could compete with the future God has planned for those who love Him is a pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God and I had to remind myself that this was a part of my old self, the one I’ve put off in the process of being made new in the attitude of my mind (Ephes. 4:22-24).

Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus (Phil 3:13-14).

When I became a believer I became child of God (John 1:12) and a citizen of Heaven (Phil. 3:20),  part of a kingdom that resides temporarily in this world but is not of this world (John 18:36).  At that time I made a choice to seek His Kingdom and His righteousness because no man can serve two masters.  And though I treasure the memories I have of growing up in America, I know they are only part of my temporary life here.  I will not let them cloud the vision God has given me of the Kingdom He has in store for us, because that life will last for eternity (2 Cor. 4:18). I don’t want to return to the past.  I want to be taken into the glorious future He promised us.

I chose these two examples because they’re currently popular in our national thinking.  We have neither the time nor the space here to explore all the things of men that have formed our attitudes of mind. But if we follow Paul’s direction in Romans 12:1-2  we’ll be able to test and approve what God’s will is – His good and pleasing and perfect will.  Then we’ll each be able to distinguish between the things of God and the things of man in our own life, and we’ll be able to say to the things of man that continue to occupy our thoughts, “Get behind me Satan, you’re a stumbling block to me.”