Is 666 the Pope? - Part 4 - The Deadly Wound

Just as a reminder, we are looking at the first beast in Revelation 13 to see if it matches the Pope (Papacy), and we are examining the claims of the argument about the Pope to see if they are accurate.

Here is the resource, again, where the "Pope-is-Antichrist" teaching has been clearly stated.  Please remember that the WMSCOG is not the only (or the first) group to hold to this teaching.  So even when I write, "the WMSCOG says...," the other Pope-is-Antichrist groups also say something similar (and vice versa).

In Part 3, we saw how the Pope-is-Antichrist teaching of the 10 kingdoms arising out of the fall of Rome is not accurate with the historical record.  Since the Papacy has failed to match up with this prophecy, we already know that the Pope is NOT the Antichrist, as the WMSCOG teaching claims.  But for the sake of completeness (and just in case you are still not convinced), I'll continue with this study.

Continuing in Revelation 13...
Today, the "deadly wound":

Rev. 13:3-4

And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

The WMSCOG says that this "deadly wound" happened in 1798 when Pope Pius VI was taken captive by one of Napoleon's generals.  He died in 1799 while still being held by French troops.  It took almost 7 months for the next Pope (Pius VII) to be elected.  The church recovered, and the office of Pope is still occupied today.  Is this the "deadly wound" to the Papacy that was healed?

Read the verses carefully and see that this deadly-but-healed wound was such that "all the world marveled and followed the beast."  It's the kind of thing that would be all over the news and everyone would be talking about the miraculous recovery.  Does "all the world" stand in awe of the Papacy surviving this incident?  Are they amazed at the miraculous recovery and exclaim, "Who is like the Papacy [the beast]?"

What about these other "wounds" to the Papacy?...

Pope St. Hyginus--traditionally thought martyred about AD 140.
Pope St. Pius I--martyred by sword in 155.
Pope St. Anicetus--traditionally thought martyred in 166.
Pope St. Soter--traditionally thought martyred about 174.
Pope St. Eleuterus--traditionally thought martyred in 189.
Pope St. Callixtus--martyred about 223.
Pope St. Cornelius--"died a martyr, through extreme hardship" in 253.
Pope St. Stephen I--martyred by beheading in 257.
Pope St. Sixtus II--martyred by beheading in 258.
Pope St. Caius--legend says was martyred in 296.
(Wikipedia List of Popes)

Do you think those are too early in history to count?  Maybe they were early enough to be uncorrupted Popes (as the WMSCOG might define "corrupt")?

Think of this... the WMSCOG says the church was already becoming corrupted, even that early.  After all, Anicetus (who is on the list) was the Pope the WMSCOG accuses of taking the "lead in abolishing the Passover" in 155--a statement that is incorrect.  (See Part 1)

How about these later "wounds"?...

Pope Benedict VI--seized by Roman nobles, imprisoned and strangled in 974.
The East-West Schism--the division of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054.
[no Pope for 2 years]--A deadlock in voting resulted in no Pope in office from April 1292 to July 1294.
[no Pope for 2 years, again]--Another deadlock in voting resulting in no Pope in office from April 1314 to August 1316.
[no Pope, yet again for 2 years]--No Pope elected from July 1415 to November 1417.
The Protestant Reformation--the "revolt" in which Protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic Church beginning in 1517.
Pope Pius VI--taken prisoner by Napoleon's general in 1798, and died while still expelled from the Papal States in 1799.  (This is the incident used by the WMSCOG.)
Pope Pius VII--expelled from the Papal States by France from 1809-1814.
Pope Pius IX--During his time as Pope, the Papal States were lost to the Kingdom of Italy (1870).

Consider the list.  Any of these instances could easily be viewed as a deadly wound that healed.  Rev. 13:3-4 indicates only one deadly wound--the word for "wound" is singular, and here we have so many to choose from.  Why choose the one in 1798?  I'll examine that next time with Revelation 13:5-7.

In summary:
Yes, the Papacy (Catholic Church) has many "wounds" that could have caused its collapse, and it has survived.  But the prophecy only refers to one, and it is the kind of deadly wound which causes the world to "wonder, marvel, and be amazed" with its healing.  It's not describing a series of difficult struggles.  The Papacy doesn't work well with this prophecy.

Click here to go on to Part 5.

Is 666 the Pope? - Part 3 - The 10 Kingdoms

We established in Part 2 that we are looking at the first beast in Revelation chapter 13 to see if it matches the Pope (Papacy).  We are also examining the claims of the argument about the Pope to see if they are accurate.

Since I haven't yet found the World Mission Society Church of God's full and complete teaching about the Anrichrist online (please send me a link of you know of one), I'm going to refer you to another page (one of many) where the "Pope-is-Antichrist" teaching (as I'll call it) has been clearly stated.  This can be a resource to you as we consider the claims.

Please remember that the WMSCOG is not the only (or the first) group to hold to this teaching.  So even when I write, "the WMSCOG says...," the other Pope-is-Antichrist groups also say something similar (and vice versa).

Let's start at the beginning of Revelation 13 and take it one part at a time.
Today, the "10 Kingdoms":

Rev. 13:1-2
Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name....

This is similar to Daniel's prophecy:
Dan. 7:24

The ten horns are ten kings
      Who shall arise from this kingdom.
      And another shall rise after them;
      He shall be different from the first ones,
      And shall subdue three kings. 

"This kingdom" is the Roman Empire, which is well agreed upon by Bible scholars.
The WMSCOG says that when the Roman Empire finally fell, it was divided into ten kingdoms, three of which were put down by the Papacy, leaving seven.  Also, those three were "uprooted" because they did not agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The "little horn" of Daniel 7:8 is the Antichrist (the beast) that comes up in the midst of these 10 kingdoms.  The WMSCOG says that since the Pope (Roman Catholic Church) rose to power out of the fall of the Roman Empire, he fits this prophecy.

This "fact" of the 10 kingdoms is well-circulated by the Pope-is-Antichrist groups, but is it historically true?
In other words, can we find the same fact in academic sources, or has it been contrived to fit the argument (which would make it not a fact at all)?

Here's their list of the 10 kingdoms, the last 3 (in green) being the ones who were "subdued":
Visigoths
Anglo-Saxons
Franks
Alemanni
Burgundians
Lombards
Suevi

Heruli

Ostrogoths

Vandals

You might think, "I'm sure they've done their research, so it must be true."  If that's so, then it shouldn't be hard for me to find it too.

I've been looking all over, including reading the source, Ridpath's History of the World, that the WMSCOG trusts enough to quote from in their video (see Part 1).  Why is it so difficult to track down such a statement among legitimate academic sources?  (If you'd like to refer me to one, I'd be happy to hear from you.)

I will show you what I have found...

Here's a map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent in A.D. 117.  You'll see that it covered a very large territory.  However, the 10 kingdoms named in the Pope-is-Antichrist claim are all in western Europe.  The Roman Empire split in the 3rd century, so we'll just look at the Western Roman Empire.

The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire lasted until 1453, but the Western Roman Empire fell in 476, when Odoacer and the Heruli conquered Romulus Augustulus, the last Western Roman Emperor.  Here's what was left of the empire then (much smaller!).  Here's a map of Europe circa 476, where I count 8 kingdoms in the right area.

Here's another showing Europe in the time of Odoacer (476-493).  In this map you can see the Kingdom of Syagrius, which was the "last Roman foothold in the west" and was conquered by the Franks in 486.  Since it would technically be considered Roman, it shouldn't be counted.  That leaves 9 kingdoms, since the Lombards were not in the correct territory yet.

Perhaps the best map to use is this one of the Germanic kingdoms in 486.  It's before the first of the three kingdoms was subdued, according to the claim (the Heruli in 493).  It's still not quite a match.  It shows the Anglo-Saxons and the Britons as two separate kingdoms, and the Lombards are again not in the right territory.

Maybe we need to read the history books to see what's happening behind the maps.  Since the WMSCOG trusts Ridpath's History of the World enough to use it as a source, I'll use that as well as the internet.  Remember, I want to know that the Roman Empire was divided exactly into the 10 kingdoms listed above, and that only the 3 were subdued.  I also want to know whether or not the kingdoms disagreed with the Catholic Church.  Keeping the same order as the list above...

The Visigoths maintained their kingdom until 711, when they were conquered and confined to just Castile, which they sustained until the Middle Ages.  Their transition from Arianism to Catholicism happened between 577 and 584.  (Ridpath, pages 426-427)

The Anglo-Saxons maintained their hold in England until 1066.  Paganism was replaced by Christianity there in the 7th century.  (Wikipedia Anglo-Saxons)

The Franks held their kingdom for centuries, with the western part of the kingdom eventually becoming France.  Clovis I, the king of the Franks, converted to Catholicism in 496.  (Wikipedia Franks)

The Alemanni were conquered by the Franks in 496.  Then they were subject to the Ostrogoths, and then again under the control of the Franks in 539, where they were a "nominal dukedom."   Alemannia became Christian in the 7th century.  (Wikipedia Alamannia)

The Burgundian kingdom was conquered by the Franks in 534, becoming part of the Frankish Empire.  Burgundy was an Arian kingdom, but by the time they were conquered, many had converted to Catholicism, including the last king.  (Wikipedia Burgundians) 

The Lombards did not cross the Danube into the territory of the Roman Empire until the 540s, invaded Italy in 568 and finally established their kingdom in there in 572.  (Remember that the Western Roman Empire ended in 476, so that's nearly a century later.)  As for religion, the Lombards were mixed--pagan, Arian, and Catholic.  It wasn't until late in the 7th century that most of them were Catholic.  (Wikipedia Lombards)

The kingdom of the Suevi was incorporated into the kingdom of the Visigoths in 585.  The Suevi were mostly Arian until converting to Catholicism in the 560s.  (Wikipedia Suebi)

The Heruli, led by Odoacer, were the ones who brought an end to the Western Roman Empire in 476, and they are shown on the maps as the Kingdom of Odoacer.  They were conquered by the Ostrogoths in 493.  (Ridpath page 408)  Odoacer was an Arian Christian, but had good relations with the Catholic Church.  (Wikipedia Odoacer)

The Vandals were conquered in 534 by Belisarius, a general of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.  The reasoning for their attacking the Vandals was "partly with a view to exterminate the Arian heresy, and partly for the purpose of restoring the supremacy of the Empire throughout the West."  (Ridpath, page 430)

The Ostrogoths were already within the territory of the Roman Empire when their king, Theodoric (who was an Arian Christian), conquered Odoacer in 493 and replaced the Heruli in Italy, thus expanding the Ostrogothic Kingdom.  The Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian sent Belisarius to attack the Ostrogoths resulting in the Gothic War from 535 to 554, but their kingdom did not fall easily.  Belisarius captured Rome in 536 and Ravenna (the Ostrogoth capital) in 540.  Control of Rome went back and forth several times. (Wikipedia Ostrogoths and Gothic War)  Finally, the last of the Ostrogothic kings was defeated in 553.  (Ridpath page 354)  It's worth noting that the WMSCOG claims the Ostrogoths were destroyed in 538. (Part 1)

Those are the supposed 10 kingdoms.  BUT one of them, the Kingdom of the Lombards, did not establish their kingdom in the territory of the Western Roman Empire until nearly a century after the end of the Empire, and about 35 years after the last supposed uprooting of the 3 kingdoms.

Then there are these kingdoms in the territory of the Western Roman Empire which aren't even on the list of the 10:
The Britons were distinct from the Anglo-Saxons.  You can see it on this map. (Wikipedia Britons historical)
The Bavarians "were governed by their own kings both before and after the downfall of the West." (Ridpath page 396)

Also, five of the kingdoms were conquered, not three, when the Ostrogoths were finally defeated (Alemanni, Burgundians, Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths--six if you also count the Suevi which met its end later in 585).

Plus the Pope-is-Antichrist teaching says the 3 kingdoms were subdued because of their conflict with Catholic doctrine, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was the last of those 3.  However...
Only one of the kingdoms at that time was Catholic (the Franks).
Two of the kingdoms were conquered even though they were Catholic (the Burgundians and the Suevi).

In summary...

The fall of the Western Roman Empire does NOT fit this prophecy of the 10 kingdoms arising with 3 being uprooted to leave 7 kingdoms.  Therefore, the Papacy (or Roman Catholic Church) does NOT fit this prophecy either.

Next time I'll examine Revelation 13:3-4...

Click here to go on to Part 4.

P.S.--Here's a chart to help you organize all this information...

Kingdom	Conquered	Catholic?	Notes
Visigoths	711	Converted about 580	Arian, yet not "destroyed by the Papacy"
Anglo-Saxons	1066	Converted in 600s	Pagan, yet not "destroyed by the Papacy"
Franks	became France	King converted in 496
Alemanni	496	Converted in 600s	Controlled by the Franks, Ostrogoths, and then Franks again, should be counted with the other conquered kingdoms
Burgundians	534	Converted prior to 534	Conquered even though they were Catholic, should be counted with the other conquered kingdoms
Lombards	Kingdom not established until 572	Converted in 600s	Too late to be considered one of the 10, not even in Roman territory when Ostrogoths were supposedly conquered
Suevi	585	Converted in 560s	Not "destroyed by the Papacy" when they were Arian, yet conquered when they were Catholic
Heruli	493	Arian king	Conquered by the Ostrogoths
Vandals	534	Arian
Ostrogoths	553	Arian king	Not destroyed in 538 as claimed
Britons			Not mentioned in the Pope-is-Antichrist claim
Bavarians			Not mentioned in the Pope-is-Antichrist claim

Is 666 the Pope? - Part 2 - Which Antichrist

My quest with this series is to investigate the World Mission Society Church of God claim that the Pope is the Antichrist whose number is 666, referred to in Revelation 13:18.  In Part 1 we saw that the WMSCOG still has a problem with their information sources, like they had in trying to prove the cross is an idol.  But let's try to move beyond that and see what the Bible has to say about this claim.

To start with, we should know that this idea of the Pope's being the Antichrist is not new, and it did not originate with the WMSCOG.  It was a view held by major Protestant reformers, and the idea actually dates back several centuries before the Reformation, though the reasoning for it seems to have grown over time.  There are many websites discussing reasons why the Pope (or Papacy) might satisfy the Biblical descriptions of the Antichrist, so I don't plan on going into detail here.  Wikipedia has a good summary you can read.

We also should know that the Pope is not the only candidate in the running as the identity of the one whose number is 666.  You can read about a few others here, like Nero and Muhammad.  Here is an even longer list of possible Antichrists, and even Prince Charles is a possibility.  The European Union is a popular candidate.  But a search on the Internet shows that the Pope (or Papacy) is one of the lead choices among those who think they can identify the Antichrist.  Since that's also the WMSCOG's choice, I'm only going to focus on the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.

There's one more thing we need to do in preparing to study this, and that's define some vocabulary.  The word "antichrist" only appears in a few verses, all of them in 1 John and 2 John.  This is the complete list:

1 John 2:18

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3

and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

2 John 1:7

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The term "antichrist" is very broad.  It can refer to anyone "who denies the Father and the Son."  What we're wanting to talk about and study is something more specific--THE Antichrist, the major one of the end times, written about in Revelation

Notice the word "antichrist" doesn't appear in Revelation.  Instead, we have the word "beast."

Rev. 13:1

Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name.

But there is also a second beast.

Rev. 13:11-12

Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon.  And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

Revelation distinguishes the second beast from the first by calling the second beast the "false prophet."

Rev. 16:13

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Let's read a little more about the false prophet (the second beast).  You can see the first beast is just called the "beast"...

Rev. 13:13-18

13 He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. 14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived. 15 He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.

In Rev. 16:13 (above) there are three key players in the end time, what you might call an "unholy trinity."  They are the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet.  The beast is the one whose number is 666, the false prophet works on the beast's behalf, but who is the dragon?  The dragon is Satan.

Rev. 12:9

So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Though the dragon and the beast may have some similarities in description, they are not one and the same.  The dragon gives authority and power to the beast.

Rev. 13:2-3

Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.

We might call all three of these "Antichrists" (1 John 2:22), but that would get confusing.  They are three distinct persons.  For the sake of clarity, in my studies here I'm going to make the distinction of calling them by their Revelation titles: the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet.

The WMSCOG's position is that the Pope is the one whose number is 666.  I know that because they say so themselves, in their video at minute 6:00, "So, the identity of 666 is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope!!!"
666 is the number of the beast.  So to be perfectly clear, the WMSCOG claims the Pope (Papacy) is the beast.

Therefore my investigation will be whether or not the Pope matches the description of the beast.  It's important to have a clear focus.
More next time...

Click here to go on to Part 3.