First of all this is not my theory, I did not put it forward other then to illustrate the argument. the Argument for those parts would roughly be that taking the whole chapter is talking of Nero's persecution of the early church, also in particular martyrs and saints following in Christs sacrifice, One can argue that 13:17 is bowing down and accepting the pagan imperial roman cult and Nero's claim to be emperor (which requires him to call himself a god as per the roman tradition) and they are must bare the mark of the emperor (coinage or simply allegiance you decide) and 13:15 can be understood few fold first that the injury of the beast is the Judaea end of Judea (the temple falling but more importantly the weakening of the roman jewish kings (Herodian line ending before the fall of the temple) and the persecution of Christians now happening to in Rome (outside of Judaea/Palestine) in the image of Herod. Over all this lines up some fairly well. Finally 16 can be interrupted as the Plague of Rome or any wrath of god that one could interpreting as falling on Rome. For me however I would give the importance here (weather this is in the future or past) to the experience and something that greatly accords with gods wrath and judgement generalized into the apocalypse that we all face are death, Should we curse God for are suffering we shell be hated and put to hell righteously and are sufferings show the greatness of God and glorify god the blasphemy becoming the blade to torment the blasphemer and the to aid the vengeful angels in their ordering of the universe to reveal gods glory.

Finally A point I feel you might disagree with but would be something I hold given we are talking about this period Constantine is ordained by god and it's Constantine that redeems Rome and finally gives us the counsel of Nicaea and Catholic Church (One may hold Catholic as per the Nicean creed not the necessarily modern day Roman Catholic Church, indeed most Churches hold they are Catholic in that sense.).

Again I am unsure as to the interpretation of the Revelation and do in that their is no dogma or authoritative interpretation and sources that I hold authoritative conflict I am unsure, but I find it an amazing book that is important to me.

Let me also clarify that this is not Tertullian position either he is firmly a futurist (At least of his time). I think Tertullian made many mistakes though he is a great doctor of the church.