THE OVERTHROW IN THE WEST: GERMANIC INVASIONS.
In the interpretation of his vision of the beast, John is told of its
rise, temporary removal, and reappearance: "The beast that thou sawest
was, and is not; and is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go
into perdition" (Rev. 17. 8). Here the Roman world-power, the imperial
dominion, is in view. In verse 11 the final king himself is similarly
described. The symbol of the beast is thus employed to describe first
the dominion and then its imperial head. This symbolic association of
locality and ruler is found elsewhere in Scripture, and is illustrated
in this very chapter. The seven heads of the beast, for example, are
interpreted in both ways: "The seven heads are seven mountains, ... and
they are seven kings" (v. 9, R.V. ) The distinction between verses 8 and
11 may be observed in this way: in the first part of the chapter,
verses 1-8, the beast is viewed as a whole, indicating world-wide
government; in verse 11 the scope of the symbol is limited, the beast is
a person, and is identified with one of the seven heads, or kings, he is
"himself also an eighth, and is of the seven." With this individual we
shall be occupied later.
A striking illustration of the symbolic use of the word "beast" to
denote both a kingdom and the ruler over it is to be found in Dan. 7,
where the following statements are made: "These great beasts, which are
four, are four kings" (v. 17), and "The fourth beast shall be the fourth
kingdom" (v. 23).
[Illustration: THE WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE UNDER GERMANIC TRIBES]
The statement of verse 8 seems, then, undoubtedly to refer to the
Empire; it did exist, it ceased to be, and it will reappear. The
assertion that it "is not" must not be taken to mean that the beast had
ceased to exist in John's time. The present tense is to be regarded as
prophetic. The verb "to be" often has the force of continuance of
existence. The whole statement implies a past existence, a
discontinuance of that existence, a future reappearance. In the vision
recorded in the thirteenth chapter, John saw one of the heads of the
beast "as though it had been smitten unto death." If, as seems probable,
this head is imperialism, then the overthrow of imperial Rome is
likewise indicated in that passage.
In the light, then, of the words: "The beast that thou sawest was, and
is not," we may now consider how the Roman Empire was overthrown.
Disintegration of the Western Half.
We have seen that, at the accession of the Emperor Valentinian I. in
A.D. 364, the Empire was divided into two parts. The succeeding century
witnessed the disintegration of the western half. The cause was
primarily from within. Augustus, the first Emperor, had instituted a
policy of settling colonies of "barbarians" from northern Europe within
the frontiers of the Empire. Later Emperors adopted the policy more
generally. The significance of this lies in the fact that by the
barbarians who had already been thus established in the Empire, the
attacks were commenced which resulted in the dismemberment of its
western provinces.
Alaric and the Goths.
At the close of the fourth century hordes of Gothic tribes from
north-eastern and eastern Germany set out, under Alaric their chief, in
quest of new lands. Settlements of these very Goths had already been
established south of the Danube by the Imperial Government as allies of
the Romans. After an excursion into Italy, in which they were
temporarily checked, they poured, in 406, into defenceless Gaul. From
thence Alaric returned to invade Italy, and three times in three years
besieged Rome (408-410), eventually sacking the city. After his death,
in 410, the Goths retired from Italy, entered Gaul, and permanently
occupied the southern part of that country and a large part of Spain,
where they were known as =Visigoths= (_i.e._, Western Goths).
Other Germanic tribes also streamed into Gaul. Of these, the =Franks=
(whence the name France) issued from districts around the middle and
lower Rhine and occupied northern Gaul; the =Suevi=, from north and
north-west Germany, passed through into Spain; the =Alani=, formerly
from eastern Europe, settled in west France and Spain; the
=Burgundians=, from eastern Germany, seized that part of Gaul which
eventually was named after them, Burgundy. The =Vandals=, from northern
and central Germany, after being defeated by the Franks, crossed into
Spain under their leader Genseric, and from thence established
themselves in the province of Africa, in 429. This occupation of Gaul
and Spain was soon perforce recognised by the Emperor at Rome. At the
death of the Emperor Honorius, in 423, Rome exercised little more than a
nominal authority over the greater part of the west.
From Britain the Roman troops were withdrawn by Honorius, in 409, though
the final abandonment of the island province did not take place till
436. Teutonic tribes from North Europe were soon engaged in invading
this part of the Empire. The =Jutes=, from Jutland, landed in 449, the
=Saxons= in 477, and about the same time the =Angles=.
Attila and the Huns.
Toward the close of the reign of Valentinian III. (433-455), Gaul and
Italy were invaded by the =Huns= under Attila. The Huns originally
inhabited a large part of central and northern Asia. In the latter part
of the fourth century they moved west into Scythia and Germany, driving
the Goths before them. Attila's dominions thereafter extended over a
vast area of eastern, central, and northern Europe, and he was regarded
as of equal standing with the Emperors at Constantinople and Rome. After
a gigantic but futile incursion into Gaul, in 451, the Huns rushed into
Italy, ravaging its northern plains. An embassy from Rome and an immense
ransom saved the situation. Attila died in 453, and Italy was evacuated.
The Huns eventually settled in south-eastern Europe, and their dominion
dwindled away. A trace of their name may be found in the word Hungary.
Genseric and the Vandals.
In North Africa Genseric the Vandal established a powerful dominion, and
set about preparing an invasion of Italy by sea. In 455 (the last year
of the reign of Valentinian III.) his army of Vandals and Moors attacked
Rome, which was again given over to pillage. Its wealth and treasures
were transported to Carthage, and with them the vessels of the temple at
Jerusalem; these had been brought to Rome in A.D. 70 by Titus, the
conqueror of Jerusalem. For twenty years after Genseric's achievement
Roman Emperors existed in little else than name, the real power being
in the hands of a barbarian officer. In 476 the last Emperor was deposed
by Odoacer, the king of the Heruli, a tribe which, issuing from the
shores of the Baltic, made successful inroads into Italy and occupied
much of the country. Odoacer was, at the request of the Roman Senate,
given the reins of government by the eastern Emperor Zeno, and news was
despatched to the court at Constantinople that no longer was there an
Emperor of the west. Subsequently, in 493, Odoacer was slain by
Theodoric, the king of the =Ostrogoths=, who then became predominant in
the Italian peninsula. The Ostrogoths (_i.e._, Eastern Goths) had broken
off from the main body of their nation, and after settling south of the
Danube moved into the province of Dalmatia.
Northern Limits of the Empire.
Other Germanic tribes, in addition to those named above, firmly
established themselves within the northern limits of the Empire. Of
these, two are worthy of mention, the =Alemanni=, who occupied most of
what is now Switzerland and districts northward, and the =Lombards=, who
settled in north Italy and the territory north-east of it.
The Ten Kingdoms not Formed by the Germanic Invasions.
There have been various attempts to identify with the ten prophetic
kingdoms the states formed from the western half of the Roman Empire by
the Germanic tribes from the north. Such attempts fail from the
standpoints both of history and of prophecy. To group the tribes so as
to make ten kingdoms out of them is, of course, possible in several
ways, for there were at least eighteen such tribes. Accordingly lists
put forward differ considerably. But such grouping is manifestly
arbitrary. Again, since these invading nations occupied only the western
half of the Empire, the above allocation of the ten kingdoms necessarily
leaves the eastern half out of consideration, and therefore excludes the
land of Palestine from this stage of the prophetic forecast.
Now the prophecies concerning the times of the Gentiles are invariably
focussed upon the Jews and their land. The dealings of God with the Jews
form the pivot of His dealings with other nations. Thus no scheme of
prophetic exposition relative to this subject is to be regarded as
Scriptural which excludes Palestine from its scope. To endeavour to
make the Word of God square with facts of history is to tamper with
Scripture and to run the risk of obscuring its meaning and force.
The idea that the formation of the ten kingdoms took place in the fifth
century fails to stand the test of Scripture in other respects. Of the
ten kings prophecy foretells that "they receive authority as kings with
the beast for one hour," that they "have one mind, and they give their
power and authority unto the beast" (Rev. 17. 13, 14). No such tenfold
confederacy has existed in Europe; it certainly never existed among the
chieftains of the Germanic tribes which invaded the west of the Roman
Empire in the fifth century, neither is there any record of such an
agreement among them. Nor, again, can it be said that they made war with
the Lamb and were overcome by Him (v. 14). These prophecies still await
fulfilment. Similar considerations apply to the passage in Daniel 7 in
reference to the fourth kingdom. The ten kings, it is said, would arise
out of that kingdom, and after them another king who would make war with
the saints and prevail against them until the Ancient of Days came (vv.
21, 22, 24).
Again, since the persecution under the king who arises after the others
continues until the Ancient of Days comes (v. 22), his war against the
saints must have lasted from the fifth century until the present time,
if he arose in that century. Moreover, as he was said to be going to
subdue three kingdoms (v. 24), the seven kingdoms not so subdued must
likewise have continued. This has obviously not been the case. From
every point of view it is impossible to assign the tenfold division to
any time in the past.
[Illustration: The Turkish Empire in the 16th Century.]