V. The Twofold Issue-Antichrist’s Nature and Duration

It should ever be remembered that the heart of Bellarmine’s thesis—which was both clever and plausible, though deceptive—was simply this: (1) Antichrist is an individual Jew, and not an apostate Christian system. (2) Therefore the length of his exploits must harmonize with the life period of one man-three and a half literal years, and not 1260 years. This he premised upon the teachings of the early fathers, whose views were constricted and who were then without the later perspective of the year day principle for the longer time prophecies. In doing this, Bellarmine denied or ignored the clearer testimony of many reverent Catholics who had asserted, from Joachim’s time on ward for four centuries, that historical developments had identified Antichrist as a system, or organization, or falling away in the church-involving centuries of time, and therefore bringing to light the year day principle as the only consistent interpretation harmonizing with the prophetic symbols. ^{44Treatedfully in Volume I of Prophetic Faith; see also No. 10, under Brute, in this volume, p. 82.}PFF2 498.3

Bellarmine discussed in detail—his works fill nine ponderous foliotomes the standard prophecies pertaining to Antichrist, and others besides.PFF2 499.1

It is interesting to observe that he sometimes flung back against the Protestants certain prophetic interpretations which they had used against the Papacy. Thus, to Chytraeus the “fallen star” of Revelation 9 symbolized the Papacy, and the “locusts” were its army of clergy and monks; but to Bellarmine the same symbols represented Luther and his followers. ^{45Bellarmine, “De Summo Pontifici,” book 3, chap. 23, in Disputationes, tome 1, vol. 1, pp. 203, 206.} And to the opposers of the Protestant movement this interpretation had convincing appeal.PFF2 499.2

1. CONTENDS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL, NOT A SYSTEM

Pressing the twofold issue of the nature and length of the operation of Antichrist, Bellarmine places against the Protestant portrayal of Antichrist as an apostate system (a ruinous, ruling hierarchy in the church) the opposing picture of Antichrist as a single man, a Jew, in whom will dwell all the power of the devil, the same as all the power of God dwelt in Christ. ^{46Ibid., chap. 2, pp. 184, 185; chap. 12, pp. 193, 194.}PFF2 499.3

2. MAKES DANIEL’S LITTLE HORN A SINGLE KING

As to the prophecies, Bellarmine finds in the Little Horn of Daniel 7, as well as in chapters 11 and 12, a single king—Antiochus—who would take away three kings and subdue seven others to himself, and yet admittedly was a figure, or symbol, of Antichrist, and who, he contends, would therefore be one man only, and not a kingdom. ^{47Ibid., chap. 2, p. 185.}PFF2 499.4

3 ONLY “FORERUNNERS” OF ANTICHRIST DEPICTED BY PAUL

Bellarmine excludes 2 Thessalonians 2 from application be cause it involves a long apostasy under many rulers—the fore runners of Antichrist—and therefore could not refer to Antichrist himself. ^48Ibid. On this argument Bellarmine places Protestant and Catholic teaching in opposition, quoting first from the Protestant Magdebur Centuries concerning the apostate system operating in the Church of Rome:PFF2 500.1

“The apostles teach that Antichrist will not be one person only, but a whole kingdom through false teachers presiding over the temple of God, that is in the Church of God, in the great city, that is in the city of Rome.” ^{49Ibid., p. 184.}PFF2 500.2

Bellarmine stresses, in contrast, the Catholic “single man or single throne” concept:PFF2 500.3

“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.” ^50Ibid.PFF2 500.4

4. ARGUMENTS IN BEHALF OF LITERAL TIME

Revelation 13 and 17, Bellarmine argues, both mention ten kings who will be ruling over the earth when Antichrist comes, and assumes that both chapters limit his reign to a literal three and a half years. Hence, both Daniel and John speak of but one single king, ^{51Ibid., p. 185.} and that individual has not yet come. ^{52Ibid., chaps. 3, 4, pp. 186-188.}PFF2 500.5

In supporting this contention, Bellarmine insists that the “1260 days” of Daniel and John are but a literal three and a half years—a period that a single man could compass; and as there is a difference of thirty days between the 1260 and the 1290 days, Bellarmine contends that Enoch and Elias, the two witnesses, will be slain “one month [“30 days”] before Antichrist is destroyed.” ^{53Ibid., rhap. 8, pp. 190, 191.} Moreover, the difference between the 1290 and the 1335 days in Daniel 12 is seized upon as forty five literal days before the actual end of the world, when Antichrist will be slain. Thus Bellarmine’s long and tortuous arguments on Antichrist all center on these two interdependent points—Antichrist’s nature and duration.PFF2 500.6

5. ASSERTS ROME NOT YET DIVIDED

In the heading of chapter 2, “De Summo Pontifice,” Bellarmine expressly states that Antichrist is yet “to come,” ^{54Ibid., chaps. 2, 3, pp. 184, 186.} and chapter 3 is devoted to showing that “Antichrist has not yet come.” Chapter 5 declares that the Roman Empire is not divided according to the demands of prophecy—that is, the nations ruled by Roman kings—and until this happens, Antichrist cannot have come. The complete desolation of the Roman Empire must come, Bellarmine avers, before the advent of Antichrist, and this has not yet taken place. The Roman legs of iron are “very long,” he adds, and are in two parts, East and West; furthermore, no toe is a leg. ^{55Ibid., chap. 5, p. 188.} The Protestants had contended that the “letting” power of the Roman Empire had been removed, and that the Papacy had followed upon the fall of Rome. On the contrary, Bellarmine contends that the succession of the Roman emperors had continued so that the statue of Daniel 2 always had one leg to stand on. Here are his words, literally translated:PFF2 501.1

“That this has not ever been thus far 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.” ^56Ibid.PFF2 501.2

6. POPE NOT ANTICHRIST BECAUSE OF LONG DURATION

Chapter 8 deals with the duration of Antichrist. On this he cites Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine, Primasius, Gregory, Bede, Anselm, Haymo, Arethas, Richardus, and Rupertus—all of whom wrote before the recognition of the year day principle relating to the longer periods. Bellarmine’s argument is explicit.PFF2 501.3

“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 Antichrist. Then Antichrist has not yet come.” ^{57Ibid., chap. 8, p. 190.}PFF2 502.1

7. CAPITALIZES UPON PROTESTANT DIFFERENCES OVER 666

Chapter 10is devoted to an extended discussion of the number 666, whether a name or the number of years, and the variance of Protestant interpreters is emphasized, citing Bullinger, the Magdeburg Centuries, ^{58Ibid., chap. 10, p. 191.} and Chytraeus. Chapter 13 concerns the seat of Antichrist, which the Protestants placed in the city of Rome, proving the same from Revelation 17 and 2 Thessalonians 2. This, Bellarmine says, is fallacious, because as long as the pope has his throne in Rome the seat of Antichrist is not Rome but Jerusalem. This is his final statement on the seat of Antichrist:PFF2 502.2

“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.” ^{59Ibid., chap. 13, p. 195.}PFF2 502.3

Such are the leading counterarguments and positions of the astute Bellarmine.PFF2 502.4