Could The Antichrist rule from Egypt?

This post is not a speculation on his ethnic ancestry, or his religious affiliation prior to the Abomination of Desolation, this is mainly just geographical.

The only clue Revelation gives us about where he will rule from is that it's West of the Euphrates, based on Revelation 16 when the 6th Bowl is poured out.  But since the Euphrates is also the Western border of what God promised to Abraham, perhaps it's not too difficult to extrapolate from that that it'll be West of what God promised to Abraham, that Israel is in the middle of this conflict as they were the Daniel 11 conflicts.

A lot of false assumptions about the Antichrist exist because of a desire to find him in as many Old Testament prophecies as possible.  I no longer view him as The Assyrian.  And in Daniel I feel only chapter 7 and 8 give us any hints about him and 8 is mostly typological.  Daniel 11:40-45 is the basis for thinking of Egypt as a nation he goes to war with, but that is actually about Augustus.

What about the Fourth Beast being Rome?  The Ten Horns I believe are European nations that emerged from Rome, the Little Horn emerges after them.  The Eight King I believe must be a king of one of the first three Beasts.  So it's a complicated relationship, basically I feel the Horns provide his military strength.  And it could be noted that the Roman Emperors took over the Pharonic Worship in Egypt, Egypt was treated uniquely among Roman Provinces, as the personal possession of The Emperor.

Rob Skiba's Yahuah Triangle theory is interesting, I disagree with the Pyramid stuff, but he has a valid point that throughout the The Bible the narrative seems to bounce back and forth between Israel, Mesopotamia and Egypt.  At face value Egypt seems absent from Revelation, but we often see typological parallels to the Exodus and Wandering in Revelation.

Some Jewish traditions name The Pharaoh of the Exodus Adikam, like the Sefar Olam and the Prayer of Asenath, and the alleged Jasher.  This obviously wasn't his real name since it's a blatantly Hebrew name.  It could be a shortened form of Adonikam, a name which in Ezra 2:13 is linked to the number Six Hundred and Sixty Six.

I have recently discussed reasons to suspect a connection between Satan's Seat and Egypt.

To many, all Daniel 8 tells us for certain is he'll come from or rule one of the Kingdoms Alexander The Great's empire was divided into.  One of those was Egypt, the Ptolemaic Dynasty.  Ptolemaioin is a known attested variation of the name Ptolemaios/Ptolemy that has a Greek Gematria value of 666.  3 Maccabees is an apocryphal book included in the Orthodox canon where Ptolemy IV Philopater seems to serve as a type of The Antichrist.

In Isaiah 19 the "Cruel Lord" who rules Egypt could be viewed as The Antichrist, but I also see it as fulfilled in the 20th century.  I'm still unsure entirely what to make of Isaiah 19, I'll likely return to it in the future.

The real smoking gun however to me is what I've noticed that few have before about Ezekiel 29-32.

A lot of people even who are Futurists think those Prophecies were fulfilled by the time the Old Testament ended.  There is a statement that is interpreted as saying Egypt would never have a native ruler anymore, and then saying that was fulfilled by the time the Ptolemaic dynasty took over.  But the statement was not about ethnicity but that no one would ever rule from Egypt again (perhaps more specifically Egypt being an Empire ruling other lands).  So we know that isn't fulfilled yet because of the Ptolemies, the Fatimid Caliphs and modern Egypt.

Bishop James Ussher tried to argue the prophecy of Egypt being uninhabited for 40 years was fulfilled during what we today call the Neo-Babylonian empire.  But archaeology is lacking for that and even his seeing it documented in Herodotus seems like a stretch.  I think it's possible that that 40 years is the first 40 years of the Millennium, which I don't view as being as Utopic as most people do.

Some verses here mention Nebuchadrezzar by name implying an at least typological connection to Ezekiel's own time.  But it's also important to remember that this isn't all one Prophecy, there are numerous "The word of Yahuah came onto me saying" indicating a separate prophecy.  All linked in some way but also separate.  Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned by name only in 29:17-21 and 30:1-19, the latter may have been given the same day as the former.  I could make this argument independent of those prophecies, but his role is still at least typologically linked due to the title Terrible of the Nations being applied to him.

Ezekiel 30:24 says "And I will strengthen the arms of the king of Babylon, and put my sword in his hand: but I will break Pharaoh's arms, and he shall groan before him with the groanings of a deadly wounded man.".  The word for "deadly" there can also be translated "mortally".  Being mortally wounded by a sword is a defining trait of The Beast in Revelation 13, and this is the only Old Testament prophecy that has that same terminology.  Later chapter 32 again refers to the Sword of the King of Babylon.

Then in chapter 32 and also slightly 31 it talks about Pharaoh descending into the underworld.  The most vivid description of the underworld the Hebrew Scriptures have.  Chapter 31 also says "the Pit" a likely idiom of specifically The Abyss.  The Beast ascends out of the Abyss.  32:17 dates this Prophecy to the 15th day of the month.  I've argued before the 15th of Nisan is when Jesus entered Sheol, so perhaps the Antichrist enters it on the same day.

A further striking detail is that Ezekiel 29:3 calls Pharaoh the "Great Dragon" this is the only place outside Revelation that the phrase "Great Dragon" is used.  Now at face value that seems to identify Pharaoh with Satan, and there are other Prophecies I see as about Satan even though it seems like a human ruler because it's in the context of Satan's relationship to that nation. Also later the Hebrew word translated "whale" in the KJV is the same word translated Dragon here.

But again the Dragon in Revelation gives his Seat to The Beast, so maybe the Pharaoh in 29:1-16 and 30:20-26 aren't the same. or maybe they're doing some kind of mimickery of the Ancient Egyptian view of the relationship between Osiris and Horus, both of the gods associated with the Rulership of Egypt, who were father and son and thus in comparative mythology get misleadingly compared to the Trinity.  And in that context Thoth could be the role taken by the False Prophet.

And given what I've said before about Babylon being in conflict with The Antichrist in Revelation. I think The Terrible of The Nations/King of Babylon/Assyrian of these prophecies is the man who will kill The Antichrist.  And may perhaps be a Messiah Ben-Joseph claimant given my theories about the Kings of the East and the Lost Tribes.

The talk of Egypt in Isaiah 27 could also be a clue.

I've done a post on how this could tie in with American Antichrist theories.

And now I've maybe found a smoking gun in Daniel 11?

Which Beast is actually in Control?

I'm still highly skeptical that the Islamic Anitchrist model will be how things play out.  But I also remain firmly confident that the Mahdi prophecy was made for the purpose of being a potential seed for the Antichrist.  The Abomination of Desolation itself shouldn't be expected in such false prophecies though, these are merely potential plans to set the stage for it, the Abomination is when the mislead ends and the real agenda is revealed.

Chris White in his criticism of the Islamic Antichrist theory, has among other things criticized the desire of Christians to misrepresent Islamic Eschatology so that Isa (Muslim Jesus) is subordinate to The Mahdi.  And all that is very good.

Here is the thing, is our traditional assumption that the Second Beast is subordinate to the First Beast possibly wrong?

For starters if either is being possessed or indwelt by Satan it would be the Second Beast, that's the one speaking with The Dragon's voice. 

The First Beast is defined as the object of worship.  But that could be consistent with being a mere figure head, a flesh and blood Idol for the people to focus on while someone else holds the real power.  In George Orwell's 1984 the possibly exists that Big Brother isn't even real, or who he's based on is long dead.  He's now merely a poster, a Face of the Party designed to be an object of both adoration and fear.

The First Beast is a political system, his Empire, not just the individual.  So the whole "Who is able to make war with him" I feel is explained in chapter 17 where it seems clear the 10 Horns are the source of his military power. The individual of the Eight King may not be a military figure at all.  The other major reason for seeing The Antichrist as a conqueror is Daniel 11:36-45 which I've discussed elsewhere.

The First Beast remains a central object of discussion after the Second Beast is introduced, that helps make it seem like he's more important.  But perhaps what we're told after the Second Beast is introduced is meant to help us better understand what was said before.

At the beginning we're told The Dragon gave his Power and Authority and his Seat/Throne to the First Beast.  But in Verse 12 it's the Second Beast who "exerciseth all the Power of the First Beast".  It's the Second who speaks with The Dragon's voice.  He's the architect of the Mark system.

In the first part of my False Prophet study I discussed the possibility that many Prophecies outside Revelation we assume are about The Antichrist could really be The False Prophet.  Including that the title Son of Perdition might belong to the False Prophet.  I saw at least one website long ago argue that the Second Beast not the First is the one we should apply the title Antichrist too.

 I argued in the third part of my False Prophet study that that term Antichrist could in fact require both Beasts put together.  John defines the Antichrist heresy as denying the Deity of Christ.  So the ultimate expression of that could be two individuals, one claiming to be God and not Jesus, and the other claiming to be Jesus and not God.  And that is an even more Ironic deception if even the False Jesus is in fact closer to having godlike powers then the false god.

At the beginning of the Book of Kings people like to see Adonijah as a type of The Antichrist, a usurper to the Throne of David.    But Adonijah was a pawn, a puppet, Joab (the type of Satan) and Abithar the Priest (False Prophet) are the real players of that Game of Thrones, opposed by Nathan and Zadok, and also Bathsheba.

Let's discus the mystery of The Image of The Beast.  Today we're obsessed with seeing this through a SciFi lens, wanting to see it as a Robot/Android, or a Hologram, or an Artificial Intelligence program on the Internet.  I myself have been guilty of that in the past, preferring the A.I. theory.  But I noticed reading Revelation 13 today it never describes the Image being made, just the Second beast giving Life to it.

Let's use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and go back to the first use of the term Image.  Genesis tells us Adam was made in the Image of God.  So there is a Scriptural precedent for describing a body of flesh as an Image.

And many including Chris White have conjectured independent of considering that, that The False Prophet will be responsible for The Beast's resurrection/mortal wound healing, or at least be publicly given the credit for it.

What if the Image of The Beast in Revelation 13 is the same thing as the Eight King in Revelation 17?  One of the first 7 Kings, probably one of the first 5, in some way "resurrected".

It's been confusing to me in the past about whether when the Man of Sin stands himself in the Temple and deifies himself as II Thessalonians 2 describes, or when the Image of Revelation 13 is set up is the more precise Abomination event.  But what if those are not separate things at all?

In the past I'd suggested the resurrection of the Antichrist is like an early form of the second resurrection.  Lately I've been rethinking the nature of the second resurrection (not in a way that conflicts with being Premillenal and Futurist).

What if the Eight King's resurrection is more like the original concept of a Zombie (before George A Romaro)?  A dead body that has been reanimated, but merely to be the pawn of the Witch-doctor who reanimated it.

The Fifth Trumpet, The Flood and Hanukkah

Some in the past have argued for seeing some kind of thematic connection between The Fifth Trumpet in Revelation 9 and The Flood account in Genesis 7 and 8 based on parallel time periods.  First 40 days and then five months.  I'd noticed this months ago and mentioned it on this blog.

More recently (it came up while I was engaging with Flat Earthers) I've realized that the Abyss/Bottomless Pit could possibly be the same place as The Great Deep where much of the Flood waters were before The Flood.  Abyss has sometimes been translated as Deep.  There is no water there now, it's all on The Earth's surface, but it's interesting.

That makes the possibility of a connection here even stronger.  A period of 40 days of something coming out of the Deep to punish mankind for five months.  Very different but an interesting connection.

In the very first post on this blog I argued that the opening of The Abyss in Revelation 9 is the removal of Restraint mentioned in II Thessalonians 2.  And I've discussed how the Antichrist's Resurrection is defined as him ascending out of The Bottomless Pit.  I do not consider those arguments dependent on identifying The Antichrist or False Prophet with anyone specific in Revelation 9, we can debate Apollyon all day. The point is nothing can ascend out of The Abyss before Revelation 9 happens.  I'll return to this later.

Could this connection mean the 40 days of Revelation 9 happen on the Hebrew calendar about the same time as the 40 days of rain from The Flood account?

The Rain began on the 17th day of what was the Second month but is now the Eight.  I believe back in Pre-Flood times all months had 30 days because the Lunar and solar cycles were in sync putting the end of the rain on the 26th of Kislev.  But a repeat of that today would put 40 days that began on the 17th of the Eight month as ending on the 27th of Kislev.

Both of those days have in common that they are part of the the Eight Days of Hanukkah.

In my discussion of Winter Pagan holidays I pointed out that the claims of Anitochus Epiphanes being born on the 25th of Kislev or December are spurious, but that he did die seemingly during or near the first Hanukkah according to the accounts in both books of Maccabees.

I had also pointed out in that post that the Solstices were when pagans placed deaths and resurrections/conceptions, not births.  And I have also argued that IF The Antichrist is someone from the past who already lived coming back, it would most likely be be Antiochus Epiphanes, and certainly could only be a Seleucid ruler.

If this theory is true, I believe it would be the Hanukkah that occurs 9 months before the Yom Teruah that marks the Midway Point of the Week, when the Seventh Trumpet will be sounded and The Rapture will happen.

The first of Tishri is when Noah removed the Cover of the Ark in Genesis 8:13.  That fits being connected to the 7th Trumpet.  Perhaps the 6th Trumpet will then be linked to the first day of Tammuz (Genesis 8:5).

Further Update:  Reading Maccabees more carefully it seems less likely Epiphanies died that close to Hanukkah.  The First Hanukkah celebration being at the end of Chapter 4 in First Maccabees, with the account of Epiphanies demise being Chapter 6.

However Second Maccabees tells the story of Epiphanies Demise in Chapter 9 and then the first Hanukkah celebration at the beginning of Chapter 10 right after.  I generally consider Second Maccabees less reliable however.

The Abomination of Desolation and it's relation to The Rapture

In the past I've said pretty definitively the AoD must happen before The Rapture.  As I've gotten deeper into the details of Prophetic Chronology I've rethought that.  But it is certainly still highly possible it happens first.

I absolutely still agree that 2 Thessalonians 2 refutes the Pre-Trib notion that The Church will never encounter The Antichrist.  And with it their entire Imminence Doctrine.  So I still stand by the gist of the very first post I ever made on this Blog.

2 Thessalonians 2 says the Man of Sin must be revealed first.  That he then describes his deifying himself in The Temple leads to the conclusion that his doing that is what reveals him.  I'm not so sure anymore, but I definitely still believe he's not fully revealed during most of the first half of the 70th Week.

The thing is that Paul goes on to elaborate on what he means.  Talking about lying signs and wonders, and a strong delusion.  And the removal of the Restrainer.  I still hold to the view of The Restrainer that I argued for in that first post.  That it's removal is in Revelation 9.  And that the AoD incident hasn't happened yet when that chapter ends, because it refers to normal non life-like idolatry.

An argument can be made that the Mortal Wound being healed is what reveals him.  To believers that incident should be clearly distinguishable from the true Resurrection of The Saved.

Ascending out of the Abyss I view as another idiom of his resurrection.  So either it happens before he kills The Two Witnesses, or they're killed by the other Beast.  But I prefer outside chapter 13 viewing all references to The Beast as the first.

Revelation 13 after talking about the Mortal Wound being healed, and allowed to continue 42 months.  Says something in verse 6 I feel is usually overlooked, as the actual direct reference to the AoD event in Revelation itself.

"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."

In fact this is also overlooked as an argument against both Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath in general.  Problem is Pre-Tribbers act like anything that disproves Post-Trib proves their view.  And visa-versa.

Matthew 24 is constantly debated.  In my view Revleaiotn is the key to deciphering the End Times Chronology, and other Prophecies, (including the Olivte Discourses), are not necessarily to be taken quite at face value.  At least not when they seem to be spanning many subjects in a short period of time.  Joel 2 also talks about the last two Trumpets and then goes on to the 6th Seal/Pentecost.

Now a face value reading of Matthew 24 can fit a Mid-Trib or Mid-Seventieth Week view, and I've aruged for that before.  With everything placed between the AoD and The Parusia being placed during the three and a half days The Two Witnesses are dead.  But recent insights of mine have lead to consider that Matthew 24 isn't so simple.  But what I argued for before could still be true.

Pre-Wrathers love to argue that they're the only ones taking Matthew 24 at face value.  But they don't in terms of their placing the persecution described in verses 9-14 after the AoD described in verse 15.  I know their argument is that it describes the persecution and then backtracks to describe how it started.  And that's perfectly grammatically justifiable even though it's not my view on that issue.  (To me that view is refuted by verses 9-14 clearly being about The Church and 15-20 clearly Israel correlating to Revelation 12:6, 14.)

But they won't accept that the same logic can apply to other apparent synchronizations.  A core wrong Assumption is the Parusia must be last because everything else is signs of that.  But The Rapture is only the beginning of the Parusia which spans the entire Day of The LORD.

In the Parable of The Fig Tree, when Jesus says "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.".  The preterist view of that is wrong, but so is the popular sensationalist view that it refers to 1948.  It's the Generation that sees all those signs that won't pass before the Parusia is completed.  Even what's in verses 27-31 are merely signs of what's to come.  So the order of the signs are flexible.

Besides, more talk of "False Christs and False Prophets" comes after the AoD in the Discourse.  Once the AoD happens there are no more plural "False Christs and False Prophets".

I've argued that the events of The Rapture/Parusia span 10 days, from Yom Teruah to Yom Kippur.  There are reasons I allude to elsewhere why I think perhaps he'll do the AoD on Tabernacles.  But that's all conjectural for now, the True Fulfillment of Tabernacles is the descent of New Jerusalem in my view.

It's also possible that the day the Image of The Beast is set up is not the same day The Man of Sin gives his big speech in the Holy of Holies deifying himself.  Looking at the type foreshadowing in Antiochus Epiphanes.  1 Macabees tells us he set up his Idol on the 15th day of that Month.  But did the big ritual consecrating it (possibly when he sacrificed the Pig) on the 25th, 10 days latter.

Rabbinic Tradition says the Golden Calf was set up on the 6th or 7th of Tishrei.  May not be significant but worth pointing out.

The Seven Kings of Revelation 17(and 13) Part 2: Maybe not John's Time

What if the "one is" detail is not as time sensitive as we think? Remember John was taken to Heaven, to God's throne, which means he was taken out of Space-Time.

I think back to my argument against the Bible skeptics interpretation that the author wanted people to think something wrong about when it was written. To a lesser extent that logic applies even to the fact that John is telling the truth, since a detail of the vision seems dependent on the present, and as Futurists/PreMillennials we believe the message was always meant to be understood by future generations, why not date itself? One answer might be that the 6th King had a reign that was so long it'd be nearly impossible to get the identity wrong so long as you have even a basic understanding of the 1st century. But still, it's odd.  And neither Nero or Domitian I'd consider to have had a reign that long.

Now I've seen people actually cite this Prophecy as if the "one is" part is referring to right now, as their citing it. That is certainly poor scholarship and truly amazes me that people do it.  And no they're not doing it in a way where you could say the entire Church Age is within the time allotted to the 6th King.

If you insist that the present in Revelation 17 must be in John's time when John is writing.  Then there verse 11 in proof that that the 8th King was one who died before Revelation was written.

The most attractive view after one considers the option of removing the Seven Kings from John's time is to consider a succession of Kings in the last days. Viewing them perhaps from the POV of the start of the 70th Week, or the midway point, or some other arbitrary event. Presidents of a United States of Europe would be the most popular from the Hal Lindsay/Left Behind style limitations people have these days.

I think the "was is and is not" means the 8th is one of the first 5.

Back when I used to lean towards the Mahdi/Islamic Antichrist view I kept this in mind looking at the Kings of modern Jordan and Iraq.

Jordan's current King, Abdullah II, is the 5th King, and he has 2 sons and 2 daughters.   Abdullah I was assassinated in Jerusalem in the Al-Aqsa Mosque with 3 fatal gunshots to the head and chest. Iraq had 3 Kings, the main current pretender, Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid, would be the 5th hypothetically, and is already a Grandfather as of May 17th 2001.

If some sort of Messiah Ben-Joseph deception is what will happen.  It might be leaders of Israel, or leaders of some Western nation British Israelists identify with Joseph (The US and the UK mainly).  Based on past precedent, when Prince Charles eventually becomes King that would be considered the start of a new dynasty for England.  But if it's not considered that, he'd be the fifth monarch of the current dynasty based on the current official numbering that Considers George V the first because he renamed it.  But more truly accurately either the sixth or seventh.

But perhaps looking before John's time is more logical then looking forward. You see whether Bible skeptics, Preterists, Futurists, Historicalists, or what ever almost all pretty much agree The Beast is basically Rome in some capacity. That understanding is consistent to me in some way with each suggestion I just made to look at.

But when thinking of Rome, to people who lived back then the first thing a succession of Seven Kings would make them think of is the succession of the Pre-Republic Kingdom of Rome founded by Romulus from 753-509 B.C.

According to legend, Romulus mysteriously disappeared in a storm or whirlwind, during or shortly after offering public sacrifice at or near the Quirinal Hill. A "foul suspicion" arises that the Senate, weary of kingly government, and exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them, had plotted against his life and made him go away, so that they might assume the authority and government into their own hands. This suspicion they sought to turn aside by decreeing divine honors to Romulus, as to one not dead, but translated to a higher condition. And Proculus, a man of note, took oath that he saw Romulus caught up into heaven in his arms and vestments, and heard him, as he ascended, cry out that they should hereafter style him by the name of Quirinus. From Plutarch's Lives. Livy repeats more or less the same story, but shifts the initiative for deification to the people of Rome.

So perhaps the notion of one of the 7 returning possibly came from that legend? the original Roman King in The Mountain myth?  Remus was the twin brother of Romulus but was never King and so isn't one of the 7, but he is in some accounts said to have been killed by a blow to the head with a spade.

It's interesting that in extra Biblical Rabbinic tradition that has developed over the Diaspora, the Anti-Messiah figure who kills Messiah Ben-Ephraim is named Armilus, a name generally agreed to be derived from Romulus. This is generally just assumed to be because he represents Rome/Edom in general, but given what we just observed maybe there is more to it. However in general I suspect that these Extra-Biblical Antichrist figures like Armilus, Dajjal, and Mabus are probably Satan trying to set people up to be distracted by a decoy Antichrist, or a few of them.

Of the second King, Numa Pompilius. Plutarch tells of the early religion of the Romans, that it was imageless and spiritual. He says Numa "forbade the Romans to represent the deity in the form either of man or of beast. Nor was there among them formerly any image or statue of the Divine Being; during the first one hundred and seventy years they built temples, indeed, and other sacred domes, but placed in them no figure of any kind; persuaded that it is impious to represent things Divine by what is perishable, and that we can have no conception of God but by the understanding".

This and other references to Numa that make him seem Monotheistic I tend to cite this along with Cicero's Intelligent Design arguments in Nature of The Gods when commentating on Romans 1 where Paul says the Romans were "without excuse" in their rejection of God as Creator.

The third King, Tullus Hostilius was said to be struck by Lighting for neglecting the gods. The fourth Ancus Marcius was a grandson of Numa, and had two sons.

Fifth was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus.

Tarquin is said to have reigned for thirty-eight years. According to legend, the sons of his predecessor, Ancus Marcius, believed that the throne should have been theirs. They arranged the king's assassination, disguised as a riot, during which Tarquin received a fatal blow to the head. However, the queen, Tanaquil, gave out that the king was merely wounded, and took advantage of the confusion to establish Servius Tullius as regent; when the death of Tarquin was confirmed, Tullius became king, in place of Marcius' sons, or those of Tarquin.

Servius Tullius is the sixth, why give John this revelation as if speaking from the POV of his reign? Maybe because he was the first who wasn't Democratically elected. Or perhaps because it was during his reign the 170 years Plutarch says Rome had no Idols ended, (if you interpret that he meant the period as beginning with Numa's reign).

The knowledge that even Classical writers had of Early Rome was very flawed due to the destruction of Roman records when it was sacked by Gauls in 390 B.C. Maybe originally the Edomites who traveled to Italy were attempting to be faithful to the God of their fore fathers, Isaac and Abraham, but their religion was corrupted and diluted over time until they finally fell outright into Idolatry, and it's that spiritual turning point of Rome the Angel is looking at them from?

The Romans did not view Servius badly though, but as the last of their Benevolent Kings.

However the reign of Servius Tullius is traditionally dated from 575-532 BC, on the Biblical Timeline that's the last Decade of Nebuchadenzar's reign through all his successors and the entire reigns of Nabonidus and Belshazzar through to the start of Cyrus.  That means a good deal of Daniel takes place then, all of Hebrew Daniel as well as Chapter 7, the chapter most relevant to Revelation 13 and 17.  Revelation is often viewed as the unsealing of Daniel, so perhaps the time when Daniel had those sealed visions is indeed the "present" being spoken of in Revelation 17.

Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was the Seventh and final King. He had a reign of 26 years, not the longest but at face value would hardly seem to justify "a short space" which is everywhere I've read interpreted to mean a very short reign, like the 2 year reigns of Titus and Nerva. And the Greek text seems to justify that. But maybe it's a matter that only the one yet future from this POV would need to have reign length addressed at all (and indeed he is the only of the 7 with such a clue) and from an Eternal perspective all reigns are short, besides The Messiah's Reign, of which The Thousand Years is merely a prelude.

But perhaps it just refers to him being the only one who didn't reign until he died, since he was expelled from Rome because of his Tyranny and thus the Republic was founded.  His reign was cut short.

Perhaps the "Eight King" is simply about how ultimately Rome returned to Monarchy, whether they wanted to admit it or not. You see the Emperors made a point even in the latter history never to officially call themselves Rex/King.

Or maybe all that is viewed as foreshadowing history of John's own time and/or the End Times.

In light of the possible connection between Edom and Rome, it's interesting that the Genesis 36 succession of Edomite Kings lists as total of 8.  The 8th is a namesake of one of the first 5..  The 6th King is Saul, who happens to share a name with Israel's first King.  And it seems Edom too was an elective monarchy of some sort.

Update August 2016:  I just did a post visiting the possibly of this applying to the Ptolemaic Dynasty.  On the subject of Egypt it could be interesting to note how in the traditional dynasty of the gods Osiris-Set-Horus are the 5th, 6th and 7th kings, meaning another example of the Fifth King being associated with dying and rising again.  I talk about possible history behind that mythology on my Revised Chronology blog.

The Seven Kings of Revelation 17(and 13) Part 1: Caesars of John's Time

Now I want to study who the Seven Kings represented by the Seven heads of the beast are.

Revelation 17:8-11 "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is......... And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

A key issue is whether "of the seven" means he is one of the 7 returning, or just descended from them in some way. I've checked the Greek and the plain reading on it's own supports the latter. It'd have said "one of the Seven" if it meant the former clearly.

But the talk of "was and is not, and shall ascend out of the Abyss" combined with the Mortal Wound healing in Revelation 13 lends circumstantial credence to the former. "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed:" Here it says one of, meaning a specific Head.

Now, most of my favorite Bible teachers are wrong in identifying these kings, they insist that they refer to seven world Empires, four of which are the four Beasts of Daniel, problem is that doesn't work for many reasons, Rome did not truly end it continues today and is being reunited, that's the point of the Fourth Beast prophecy.  There is no following empire, just different balances of power between pieces of Rome (Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Turkey/Ottoman, Syria, Egypt, Iraq/Baghdad).

They typically make Egypt the first world Empire. In Biblical symbolism Egypt represents the Word, that's why Biblical world empires have to conquer both Israel and Egypt. And they make the second Assyria.   Nebuchadnezzar's Empire which we scholarly types today call the "Neo-Babylonian Empire" was defined by Ancient authors like Herodotus and Xenophon as only another phase of the Assyrian Empire.

The Bible defines the fall of Nineveh as just that, Nineveh, not as the whole Civilization. The Dynasty and Capital changed, like happened to Rome many times, but it was the same Kingdom. The Lion with Eagles Wings symbol used of Nebuchadnezzar's Kingdom in Daniel 7 originated as a symbol of Assyria, both secularly and Biblically..

But more importantly the whole context here is clearly implying seven individual kings, one of which is (apparently) contemporary with when John wrote Revelation.

But a variant of the above problem is to make them 7 individual kings scattered throughout history, major kings of each supposed empire, or 7 conquers of Jerusalem, or 7 types of The Antichrist, ect. Those are just silly to me, the point is clearly successive Kings.

 I also believe the grammar of "was, is not and is to come" demands the Eighth King (Antichrist) is one of the first 5.  White's fatal flaw is insisting the 8th must be the 7th, when that not only isn't said in the text but in my view is directly contradicted.  The Present in the context of this prophecy is the 6th King and the 8th is already associated with the past but not the present.  The 6th or 7th or maybe both could be Decoy Antichrists.

Now there are two different views among Christian scholars as to under which Emperor John wrote Revelation, the most popular view is under Domitian, the other is Nero, I favor Domitian because of Ireneaus.

Now remember, John is writing in the reign of the 6th and 2nd to last of the 7, and the 7th is seemingly identified as having a very short reign. So far that can apply to both, Nero was succeeded by Galba (Less then a year) and Domitian by Nerva (About 2 years) both pretty short reigns.

The first 14 Roman Emperors where
Julius-Augustus-Tiberius-Caligula-Claudius-Nero-Galba
Otho-Licinianus-Vitellius-Vespasian-Titus-Domitian-Nerva

But also maybe the very brief reigns of the "year of the four emperors" don't count at all, they where basically usurpers. Perhaps John was starting with the first new Emperor after the Church age began.
Caligula-Claudius-Nero-Vespasian-Titus-Domitian-Nerva
Which would make it possible for Caligula-Nero to be among the relevant 7 either way. Beginning with the first new Ruler after the Crucifixion, and the first Julio-Claudian who was both Julian and Claudian.

So the passage says The Beast is the 8th king, and is "of the seven". The word translated "of" here can also mean "from" or "out of". Could it mean a clone? I used to be very attracted to that theory but not so much anymore.

I will acknowledge that Bible critics believe Revelation was written during Nero's reign but wanted his readers to think it was written during Vespasian's. So they view the 8 as.
Augustus-Tiberius-Caligula-Claudius-Nero-Vespasian-Titus-Domitian
The fallen 5 as the Julio-Claudians, the short 7th as Titus and Domitian being viewed by Christians as a return of Nero. But why didn't the text say at it's beginning "in the ____ year of Vespasian" if he wanted the original readers to think his present time was anytime other then their own?

The view that Nero was the Antichrist was very popular in the early Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Christian_tradition
Preterists use this to support their view. But what they forget is what went with that was the belief that Nero didn't actually die but would return. This myth wasn't limited to people that didn't like Nero, fact is Nero was popular with most of the common people of Rome(as well the east) who where hoping he'd come back.  Basically an Ancient Romans form of the King Under the Mountain myth.

Otho had a vague physical resemblance to Nero and tried to present himself as a new Nero. A person pretending to be Nero appeared in 68-69 A.D. in Greece. Another during the reign of Titus 79-81 and was entertained by the Parthians. And a third appeared 20 years after Nero's death during the reign of Domitian, he too had Parthian support.
Tacitus, Histories II.8, Dio, LXVI.19.3, Suetonius, LVII, Tacitus, I.2

Dio Chrysostom (40-115 A.D.), a Greek philosopher and historian, wrote "seeing that even now everybody wishes [Nero] were still alive. And the great majority do believe that he still is, although in a certain sense he has died not once but often along with those who had been firmly convinced that he was still alive."
Dio Chrysostom, Discourse XXI, On Beauty
That predates all known Christian sources on the subject.

According to the Talmud, Nero went to Jerusalem and shot arrows in all four directions. All the arrows landed in the city. He then asked a passing child to repeat the verse he had learned that day. The child responded, "I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel" (Ez. 25,14). Nero became terrified, believing that God wanted the Temple in Jerusalem to be destroyed, but would punish the one to carry it out. Nero said, "He desires to lay waste His House and to lay the blame on me," whereupon he fled and converted to Judaism to avoid such retribution. [Talmud, tractate Gitin 56a-b] Vespasian was then dispatched to put down the rebellion.

The Talmud adds that the sage Reb Meir Baal HaNess, a prominent supporter of the Bar Kokhba rebellion against Roman rule, was a descendant of Nero. There is no other example of the Talmud claiming a prominent Rabbi to be descended from a Gentile ruler.

But back to the Christian viewpoint, Domitian was the 2nd Emperor to persecute Christians, and because of that many Christians at the time thought he was Nero resurrected somehow, or perhaps possessed by the same demon(s).

The Ascension of Isaiah (Second century apocrypha) 4:2 says

"the slayer of his mother, who himself this king, will persecute the plant which the Twelve Apostles of the Beloved have planted. Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands." http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html

Of the Twelve, Nero's persecution took Peter. The "slayer of his mother" refers to his killing his mother Agrippina. This author might have seen Agrippina as the Whore of Babylon.

The Sibylline Oracles, IV, 119-124; V.137-141; V.361-396 appear to claim that Nero did not really die but fled to Parthia, where he would amass a large army and would return to Rome to destroy it.

Tertullian said

The Goths will conquer Rome and redeem the Christians; but then Nero will appear as the heathen Antichrist, reconquer Rome, and rage against the Christians three years and a half. He will be conquered in turn by the Jewish and real Antichrist from the East, who, after the defeat of Nero and the burning of Rome, will return to Judea, perform false miracles, and be worshipped by the Jews.

This scenario makes Nero a decoy Antichrist. The idea that there may be a Decoy Antichrist is important to the current theories I'm developing. Particularly in my study on the Resurrection of The Antichrist.

Lactantius (310 A.D.) wrote that Nero

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-15.htm "suddenly disappeared, and even the burial-place of that noxious wild beast was nowhere to be seen. This has led some persons of extravagant imagination to suppose that, having been conveyed to a distant region, he is still reserved alive; and to him they apply the Sibylline verses."

Lactantius, Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died II

Victorinus of Pettau

Now that one of the heads was, as it were, slain to death, and that the stroke of his death was directed, he speaks of Nero. For it is plain that when the cavalry sent by the senate was pursuing him, he himself cut his throat. Him therefore, when raised up, God will send as a worthy king, but worthy in such a way as the Jews merited. And since he is to have another name, He shall also appoint another name, that so the Jews may receive him as if he were the Christ. Says Daniel: “He shall not know the lust of women, although before he was most impure, and he shall know no God of his fathers: for he will not be able to seduce the people of the circumcision, unless he is a judge of the law.” Finally, also, he will recall the saints, not to the worship of idols, but to undertake circumcision, and, if he is able, to seduce any; for he shall so conduct himself as to be called Christ by them.

This one is trying to reconcile viewing Nero as the Antichrist, with the Antisemitic desire to see The antichrist as a Jewish Messiah which popped up following the Bar-Kochba revolt.

In 422 Augustine of Hippo, City of God XX.19.3 said "he now lives in concealment in the vigor of that same age which he had reached when he was believed to have perished, and will live until he is revealed in his own time and restored to his kingdom." Here he was referring to secular belief in Nero's return actually. He goes on to comment on those Christians still believing Nero would be the Antichrist, but he himself rejected that theory.

Some variant manuscripts have 616 as the Number of the beast rather then 666, (but Irenaeus a near contemporary of John knew about these and knew they were wrong). My hunch is the origin of this alternative was people who wanted Caligula to be the Beast (perhaps the earliest Preterists). His legal name Gaius Caesar, is spelled in Greek as Gaios Kaisar. Gaios is 284, and Kaisar is 332. 666 must be the valid one because that has Old Testament precedents. The measurements of the statue in Daniel 3. And 1 Kings 10:14 "Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred and sixty six talents of gold".

An Aramaic scroll from Murabba'at, dated to "the second year of Emperor Nero", (Hillers, D. R. (1963). Revelation 13:18 and A Scroll from Murabba'at. BASOR, 170. p. 65.) records the contemporary Aramaic spelling of Nero's name, in 2 forms. Nro Qsr, based on Nero Kaisar, the Greek form. And Nron Qsr, based on the Latin form, Neron Caesar. Aramaic letters are the same as Hebrew, so this allows us to compute the Hebrew numerical value of both names. The former is 616, the latter 666.

Now I feel it's Greek numerical value that should be used to compute the Number, and that doesn't match Nero at all. Since Revelation was in Greek, and 666 parallels Jesus's Greek numerical value, (Iesous=888). But that Nero's name can be made to match both the real number, and the popular alternative, 616, is convenient.

Another historical Detail of Nero often overlooked is what's compelling here. Most Pre-Christian Roman Emperors where cremated, their bodies burned completely leaving only ashes behind. However Nero was an exception, probably the only one. Acte had Nero buried in the Mausoleum of the Domitii Ahenobarbi, in what is now the Villa Borghese (Pincian Hill) area of Rome. What that means is he and he alone of the 14 possible candidates could possibly have remains still around today.

As interesting as all that is, I've come to feel any Romans Emperor view is actually too inherently conjectural. Rome did have way more then 7, and who should be counted as first isn't agreed on. And no single "dynasty" had a whole 7.

The Resurrection of The Antichrist: Ezekiel 28

The other major Hebrew Bible passage on the Fall of Satan is in Ezekiel 28. Some people discuss how Ezekiel 28 starts out talking about a human ruler of Tyre and then goes on to discus Satan as if it's ambiguous where this change happens, but it's not.

 Ezekiel 28 begins with "The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying", which is a typical Sign of a new message being given, that might be in some way connected to the prior message, but might not. Verse 11 says "Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying". It's after verse 11 it's talking about the "Anointed Cherub", the first 10 verses are about the human ruler.

The human ruler is the "Prince of Tyrus" the word for "Prince" here being Nagiyd, which is also translated Ruler, Captain, Leader, Governor and Noble. Satan is refereed to as the "King of Tyrus", the word for King being "Melek". The patron deity of ancient Tyre was Melqart, who's name was derived in part from Melek and means "King of the City". So part of the intent in referring to Satan this way may have been to link him to that false god. (Who the Ancient Greeks identified with Herakles/Hercules.)  Also the Hebrew word Melek for King is spelled the same as it's word for Angel, Malak,  M-L-K.  So the Holy Spirit could be doing some word play here.  Moloch is also spelled the same BTW.

Don't get over excited about an Antichrist passage seemingly calling him the "Prince of _____" or "King of _____". He will conquer and take over many Near Eastern locations, so none of these really tell us anything about his origin. Tyre may likely come under his control when he is victorious over the "King of the North" in Daniel 11:36-45. He'll also conquer Egypt (King of The South) which is important to remember later. This particular Prophecy is speaking of him in terms of his connection to Tyre because it spins off from Ezekiel's earlier prophecies of the contemporary conquest of Tyre by Babylon.

"Son of man, say unto the Ruler of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord Yahweh; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, "I Am A God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas"; yet thou art a man, and not a god, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: Therefore thus saith the Lord Yahweh; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; Behold, therefore I will bring foreigners upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.  Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, "I am God"? but thou shalt be a man, and no god, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord Yahweh."

Here we have a ruler explicitly thinking of himself as God-Like, and also being sent down to the Pit. The word for "pit" here is different in the Hebrew then in Isaiah 14, but the idea is still clearly the same.

We're also told specifically he will be killed, and his killer is refereed to as "the terrible of the nations". This figure is significant, to me since many of the False Prophecies I see as setting up Messianic Figures that I think The Antichrist could seek to identify himself with have what I like to call a "Decoy Antichrist" figure who will kill him setting the stage for his Resurrection. Messiah Ben-Ephriam is killed by Armilus and the Mahdi by Dajjal. There are also similar ideas in apostate Christians traditions, though they don't as specifically expect their hero to be killed. I'll return to this subject latter.

Some see "die the deaths of the uncircumcised" as meaning he is Jewish, and that dying like a Gentile is some kind of mystical disgrace. If that's the case then it certainly goes against seeing this as applying to Ithobaal III (Ethbaal) the Ruler of Tyre at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Tyre. But others see it the opposite, as simply saying he's Uncircumcised.

I believe The Antichrist will die only one death, because of what I mentioned before about Revelation 19 and being cast alive into The Lake of Fire. Some see Daniel 7:11 as clarifying that "The Beast" is killed first. "I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." While the Beast imagery in Revelation draws on Daniel 7 it's also different. In Revelation The beast is both the individual and his Kingdom, in Daniel 7 The Beast is only The Kingdom, the Little Horn is the individual who is The Antichrist. This detail of Daniel 7:11 is about Edom/Rome as a nation being destroyed, not an individual person being killed.

Chris White and some others like to diminish the Eschatological-Antichrist significance of this passage by saying it merely makes this ruler of Tyre a type. But the problem is none of this really fits Ithoball/Ethoball at all. I alluded to one possible problem already, but there are others.

 He was not killed by Nebuchadnezzar (who in a contemporary context is the only person "the terrible of the nations" could be, Ezekiel elsewhere gives this title him explicitly) or his armies, simply forced to abdicate. And there is no evidence he arrogantly deified himself, I don't know whether or not like in Egypt the ruler was ceremonially always viewed as a sort of avatar of the patron god, but that would be different from this Prophecy where someone really honestly believes he's divine in his own heart.

This prophecy appears to be about him before and up to his death. but since the Abomination of Desolation is clearly after his resurrection, isn't the focus on his deification a little out of place? This prophecy does not reference that specific event, it may not be a matter of not publicly proclaiming himself yet but believing it in his heart, and/or simply not silencing his supporters who deify him. In which case I think it might work well to see Herod Agrippa in Acts 12 as a type.

Acts 12:20-23 And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king's country.  And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.  And the people gave a shout, saying, "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man".  And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

This is verified by Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Chapter 8.

Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, [though not for his good,] that he was a god; and they added, "Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature." Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, "I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner." When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king's recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign;

The last part of Ezekiel 28 is about a judgment on Sidon. Which did not suffer any so epic Judgment in Ancient Times. I think it's possible to keep that passage in mind anytime tensions involving modern Lebanon are flaring up.

Ezekiel reuses some of the key themes of this passage in chapters 29-32. Another human ruler killed by "the terrible of the nations" and going down into Sheol. This time it's given new details like "and he shall groan before him with the groanings of a deadly wounded man." But there the human ruler is the Pharaoh of Egypt.

This time there definitely is a sense of near fulfillment in Ezekiel's own time, since "the terrible of the nations" is spoken of as synonymous with 'The King of Babylon" and Nebuchadrezzar is mentioned by name.

Along with this is a prophecy of Egypt being uninhabited for 40 years. Ussher believed this was fulfilled from about 572-532 B.C., but the documentation for that isn't solid. Some see in the text a possible allusion to this 40 year desolation beginning with the Aswan Dam being Nuked, with the references to a fire being set, and references to "the tower of Syene". Syene being where the Dam was build and no major ancient structure was built there.

Nebuchadnezzar is clearly only a type of The Antichrist's killer here. Many see him ironically as serving as a type of The Antichrist in Daniel 3. So I don't see this as definitive that the future "Terrible of the Nations" will be from or in Iraq. But Daniel 11:36-45 does refer to The Antichrist having trouble from the North and the East, after he's already conquered the King of The North (Syria). So that makes either Turkey and/or Iraq a likely candidate for this new adversary.

But if the King of Babylon detail is relevant, it seems awkward given it's The Antichrist who's the King of Babylon in Isaiah 14. After his Resurrection and return to power this enemy will quickly be taken care of. Armilus and Dajjal seem to be killed by the False Prophet figure in those false prophecies, but the heretical Christian traditions would rather see it be the Last Roman Emperor/Great Catholic Monarch who defeats the evil tyrant. Either way, it's likely The Antichrist will then take Rulership of Babylon, or whatever lands "the Terrible of the Nations" controls, for himself.

It's interesting to note that there are rival claimants to the Hashamite "King of Iraq" title right now. In addition to the proper claimants coming form two rival lines, there are those in the international community who'd rather give the title to someone of the Jordanian Royal Family.  But I'm no longer a fan of the Islamic Anitchrist view as I used to be.

That Nebuchadnezzar can be a type of The Antichrist to one Prophet, but a type of his killer to another, just further reinforces my belief that this individual will be a sort of "Decoy Antichrist". I've written elsewhere that I think there may be many potential Antichrists during the first half of the 70th Week, or perhaps even before the 70th week begins. And that no matter how convincing it might seem to view someone currently on the rise as The Antichrist, to remember that we will not know for certain who he is until the Abomination of Desolation happens.

The Resurrection of The Antichrist: Isaiah 14

Isaiah 13 and most of 14 is one Prophecy. 13 is talking about the Fall of Babylon, a prophecy that has not been literally fulfilled, an arguable near fulfillment exists in Isaiah's day, but it doesn't fit the full details even remotely. And attempts to make this fit the fall to Cyrus don't work at all. 14 begins with saying how Yaweh will choose Israel and give them the land.

I used to view The King of Babylon as not being The Beast, but as probably a decoy Antichrist the Beast will defeat, but I've changed my mind after only recently noticing aspects of this I repeatedly overlooked. Which is gonna cause me to have to go back and adjust some details of my older dissertations.

A note, I shall adjust the KJV rendering to better reflect The Hebrew, influenced by my own in depth study.

Now let's begin, verses 4-11 are talking about the human King.

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased ! the golden city ceased ! Yaweh hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.  He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.  The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.  Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the demons for thee, even all the rams of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.  All they shall speak and say unto thee, "Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?" Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the noise of thy viols: the maggot is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

So this Human ruler has died and is now in Sheol, called Hades in the Greek and often by us Hell. But this isn't the Lake of Fire.

Now people assume what comes next is mentioned for the purpose of comparing these two personages. I feel the grammar justifies that a new character is in mind, but the person we were discussing will come up again latter. Isaiah 14:12-14

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the Dawn ! how art thou cut down to the earth, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Highest.

This is one of the core passages on the fall of Satan from heaven. The only one besides Revelation that could help us time it chronologically, but Revelation is far more precise.

Now I think we learn why these two come together in verse 15

Yet thou shalt go down to Sheol, to the sides of the pit.

They are now in the same place. In the New Testament "The Pit" is used of the Abyss. Given Hebrew poetic style however, I think this reference means a synonym of Hades. Though it could work either way if the Abyss is a specific part of Hades, or a location right next to it. This Hebrew word is also used of just literal cisterns and dungeons also.

The big translation issue I noticed is that the part of the usual translations that imply he's being brought there against his will, like his fall was, isn't in the Hebrew. It can be read that he went down there on his own, his fall was only to The Earth.

In the past I've been against viewing The Beast as possessed by Satan like Judas was, simply out of lack of direct reference. But here once both characters are in the underworld, the grammar of the text does seem to treat them as one.

Now verses 16-19 is the key really interesting part.

They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lay in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

Generally we've considered the idea of the Beast's having his own Death and Resurrection merely implied by the "mortal wound" being healed in Revelation 13, and how Daniel 45 speaks of his end. But we miss how Isaiah here explicitly speaks of a King who'll go to Hell, but then be "cast out of his grave". And having some sort of wound from a sword.

Of the three ways the KJV translated that word throughout The Bible I chose "grave" because it most literally conveyed the idea poetically. It can also mean "sepulcher", and I do think as I explained elsewhere the Dome of The Rock could be his sepulcher. It's not Sheol however, which the KJV also often renders Grave, but I personally choose never to translate it that way.

Revelation twice when describing The Beast (both references timing wise I see as after his resurrection). Refers to him as ascending out of the Abyss. 11:7 "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them." 17:8 "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition".

I also see here a possible description of his post resurrection state. See I don't think The Antichrist's resurrection will be one like Lazurus, just being returned to how he was before. Though he's certainly not like our promised Resurrection either. That he and The False Prophet are in Revelation 19 cast into the Lake of Fire without being killed first implies to me that they are early partakers of the Second Resurrection. I've written on my theory about The False Prophet's identity elsewhere.

Since we who will be of The First Resurrection will have bodies like The Angels. I think it's possible that the bodies of The Second Resurrection will be like the bodies of Fallen Angels. II Corinthians 5:2 "For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven". The word translated "house" here is Oiketerion. A word used only one other time in The Bible, in Jude 6 where it's translated "habitation". "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Like Chuck Missler I view this word as being a technical term for the Incorruptible bodies of Unfallen beings.

Does this tell us anything about the timing of other events in relation to his resurrection, mainly the destruction of Babylon that was discussed before?

That his mortal wound's healing is mid week is pretty indisputable from other references. This account is in the context of the yet future Fall of Babylon. But the context here is a semi change of subject, it could be looking back to explain how this King became what he is now, when Babylon falls. Or it could be this is going on to describe how this King after is judged Babylon is judged. Or maybe Babylon's End Times Judgment really happens in phases? Now to continue. Verses 19-23

But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.  Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not stand, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with enemy cities. For I will rise up against them, saith Yahweh of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and offspring, and posterity, saith Yahweh.  I will also make it a possession for the porcupines, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, saith Yahweh of hosts.

The subject of Babylon itself seems to be returned to, as if the process of destruction began earlier but hadn't ended yet. It's interesting that he's spoken of as slaying his own people.

What new does this understanding tell us?

It kind of directly links the counterfeit resurrection to Satan's fall. Daniel 11:45 and 12:1 are the same continuous message originally, (the Chapter divisions are modern), also place "Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people" at the time the Willful King meets his end. Daniel 12:1 I also believe correlates to Revelation 12:7 "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon" which is directly linked to when The Woman (Israel) flees to the Wilderness.

Verses 24-27 are still the same Prophecy, no "Word of The LORD came unto me saying" or any other indicator of it being a change in subject. None the less some Bibles include a new Chapter heading here as if it were different that calls it Judgment on Assyria. The text in the KJV says The Assyrian however.

The Assyrian here could be one of 3 or 4 things

1. The same King of Babylon we'd been discussing. I consider this the least likely since the other passages people cite as calling The Antichrist as The Assyrian I see as flawed logically also. Micah 5 is being hypothetical, saying how Israel can't be attacked once The Messiah reigns. And I've come to see Isaiah 9-11, if End Times at all (it could be easily just be about events form Isaiah's time when he gave this Prophecy) as linking The Antichrist to Ephraim rather then Assyria. Because I see Isaiah 9:14-15 "Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail." as being a rare outside Revelation reference to The Antichrist being paired with a False Prophet.

2. Perhaps the "Terrible of The Nations" from Ezekiel I'll discus when I study those Chapters later.

3. The "King of The North" from Daniel 11:40. Could be the same person as 2 or maybe not.

4. It could be a flawed Translation, and simply mean Assyria, or the Assyrian people. Which could maybe overlap with either 1 or 2 or 3.

When it's said of The Beast "and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." The terminology could mean continue as in he should have ended already. I think specifically it's referring to the amount of time following his being cast out of Hades.

The Dome of The Rock and the Southern Conjecture

I favor the Southern conjecture of The Temple’s location. Threshing floors were never on mountain tops for one thing, and God commanded Israel NOT to build altars on High Places as the pagans did.

Hadrian had a huge Temple complex to Jupiter built over the entire modern Temple Mount site. Ancient sources say he had a huge Equestrian Statue of himself built over where the Holy of Holies had been. The same Architect built another Temple to Jupiter at Baalbek using the same design. That complex still exists, and a diagram of it fits over the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem perfectly, putting the Equestrian stature where the Al-Kas fountain is, not over either Mosque.
Temple Mount Southern Conjecture Pictures

So I think the future peace plan will have the Al-Kas fountain moved and have The Temple rebuilt between the two Mosques. This fits Revelation 11’s model of the outer court given to the Gentiles perfectly.

Also when Daniel 11:45 says “And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain;” I don’t think this is the Abomination of Desolation yet, because his “death” that leads to his counterfeit resurrection happens next “yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”

The word translated “palace” here is only ever used in Scripture this one time, ‘appeden (ap-peh’-den); Noun, Strong #: 643. Upon further study it’s actually a Persian loan word (Daniel by this time had no doubt picked up a lot of Persian in the third year of Cyrus), from apadana which means “audience hall”.

That is not an accurate description of The Holy Place of the Jewish Temple, which is confined and not public. When The Abomination of Desolation happens the whole world will be be able to see because the Man of Sin will brings news media with him, but it’s design is not to be an “audience hall”. And I don’t think Daniel would have used a gentile non Hebrew word to describe The Temple, this is clearly a Gentile place of worship.

I think he’ll actually place a Throne of sorts on the Rock venerated under the Dome of The Rock. The Dome of The Rock isn't like most Mosques, in fact I’m not sure it’s really considered one at all. In-spite of them usually not allowing cameras in it’s a much more open public area, it could easily serve as an “audience hall”.

I will share some facts I considered interesting back when I learned toward the Mahdi view.  There is no doubt much I always disagreed with here, but it says the entire design of the Dome of The Rock was about it’s Prophetic significance to Muslims.

  http://www.academia.edu/913208/The_Meaning_of_the_Dome_of_the_Rock-published_The_Islamic_Quarterly_Fall_1999
the Muslim Dome of the Rock commemorated an event (rather a connected series of events)which was (and still is) future—the Resurrection, Judgment, and final rule of God upon earth. This is why the Dome of the Rock remains a mystery from the art historical point of reference—commemoration looks to the past—but here, in the first great structure of Islam, the commemoration is eschatological and thus points to the future.-
Muslims also believe, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and other sources, that prior to the occurrence of the Resurrection and the Last Judgment,
Mekkah’s
black stone will come to the holy city of Jerusalem, as a bride to her husband, to perform a circumambulation around the Rock which the Dome covers. Then the angel of death,
Israfil
, will blow his trumpet—the last trumpet—and this will initiate the resurrection day.
[Busse, Sanctity, 468, n.141]
This Qur’anic statement is inexplicable if early Islam is to be understood in the same way as modern Islam is comprehended in its separation or distinction from the former faiths. However, if we accept the eschatological solution to the mystery of the origin of the Dome of the Rock, this Qur’anic statement becomes comprehensible.
The eschatological associations, which the Dome of the Rock possesses, are enunciated even in its inscriptions. For example, the inscription on the northeast outer ambulatory states,
To Him belongs dominion and to Him belongs praise. He gives life and He makes to die; He is powerful over all things.
[conflation of Qur’an 64:1 and 57:2]
Muhammad is God’s messenger, may God bless him and accept his intercession on the day of resurrection for his community.[Encyclopaedia of Islam, 267][emphasis mine]-
The Umayyards created a suitable covering over this Rock upon which the Judgment of the World would commence, and surrounded it with the crowns of those who must present themselves before God after the Resurrection. [See Figure 4,page 15]

I obviously don’t expect much of this to be literally fulfilled, and they don’t directly mention the Mahdi. But the key is it’s association with the Resurrection. While for Christians the Resurrection began with Jesus, for Muslims it will begin when Isa resurrects the Mahdi. So it’s easy to speculate that the Mahdi will reign from here publicly for a bit, be assassinated here, and his body entombed here until his counterfeit resurrection.

I think this significance for the Dome of the Rock could also tie into Isaiah 14’s talk of the Abominable Branch being cast out of his sepulcher/buryingplace/grave.  And Daniel 9:27’s talk of the desolating abomination spreading from a Wing of The Temple, which some have already seen linked to the Outer Court reference of Revelation 11.

I do believe the Beast’s receiving his Mortal Wound must be very Public, as Public as JFK’s assassination if the whole world can wonder at it’s healing without doubt it was purely supernatural. And so must it’s healing. So an “Audience Hall” is a fitting location.

I of course am no longer as sold on the Mahdi Antichrist theory, I was for awhile (when I wrote the first draft of this).  But it can work with other theories too.  Since it was built non Muslims have used The Dome of The Rock when they controlled the area.  Like the Knights Templars.

I've studied Chris White's False Christ theory, it's compelling though certain details I can't accept.  I could see a Jewish Leader, or Ally claiming to be messiah Ben-Joseph also making a makeshift "Audience Hall" out of it after retaking control of the Temple Mount.  But I suspect this is a change in control of the site that would happen after The Temple was already built.