Rome pulled out of England and The Netherlands in 410 AD.
That means that when I look at the religious demographics of Western Europe, for the most part the regions that stayed Catholic following the Reformation correlates to the Western Roman Empire at the time of the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. The Western Mediterranean, Austria and Southern Germany.
Now you might feel that's awfully arbitrary, after all the major Protestant Denominations especially the Anglican Church do not reject those councils, so why choose this time period's Roman borders?
It's less about those councils per se and more the influence of Augustine of Hippo and Pope Leo I. Augustine was active before then but his arguably single most important work, City of God, was written soon after 410. Leo can be argued to be the first Bishop of Rome who was a "Pope" in the sense of how we think of that today.
There are some notable counter examples to this thesis.
First of all Switzerland has a significant Protestant presence as perhaps the only European Nation where the population seems pretty evenly divided between Protestant and Catholic. Given the geographical nature of Switzerland it may be possible to argue Rome never fully subjected it regardless of it being all technically claimed by Rome. But this is also largely the product of this country being a place that usually welcomes refugees (though some in the country sadly tainted this reputation during the most pivotal refugee crisis of the 20th Century).
For the other type of exception I'm not interested in the places outside Europe where the Catholics have a foothold because of Colonialism and/or Jesuit Missionaries. Instead I'm interested in Ireland and Poland.
In the English speaking world I imagine it wouldn't surprise people too much to see me suggest a theory that the Irish stayed Catholic mainly out of rebellion against the British. What might not be quite so well known is how Poland and the part of Germany that would come to be known as Prussia had a similar relationship. Which actually factors into why Poland was where WW2 started (the European theater anyway).
All this is interesting, but there is a certain kind of Christian Racist who likes to suggest some Biological Determinism regarding who became Protestant and who didn't. And in the English Speaking world that often ties into British Israelism or Christian Identity. I remember a long time ago reading a website that very specifically said the Lost Tribes were those parts of Europe who embraced the Reformation. I don't recall the full details of the argument they made, but I suspect they may have tried to get around how complicated things were in France by suggesting the Huguenots were the true descendants of the Franks and Normans while the Catholic French are the Romanized Celts.
In terms of my looking into where various Y Chromosomal Haplogroups are dominant, Wales and Brittany are more genetically like each other then either is to England or France, same with Ireland and Scotland.
British Israelism in general is a Protestant phenomenon, for all the things I feel the Catholics are wrong on at least they generally understand that The Gospel isn't ethnocentric. There were some Catholic believers in Franco-Israelism at one point, but in origin that was more of a Huguenot thing.
The reason the Reformation wound up being so geographical is because it happened while Europe was still under Feudalism. The average peasant didn't care about any of these nuanced theological debates and just went to whatever Church was near by. So most regions just wound up following what their King, Duke, Prince or whatever chose to follow. And generally speaking the further away from Rome one was, the less concerned they were with having good relations with Rome, and perhaps sometimes resented the Popes wielding so much soft power over them.
The fact is it wasn't just in England under Henry VIII that the Reformation was Top Down rather then populist. Luther avoided the same fate as Jan Hus because he made friends with most of Northern Germany's Feudal Lords and then Gustav in Sweden, Christian III of Denmark and William the Silent's father followed suit. Then when a bunch of Peasants started taking this opportunity to bring back some of that Communist stuff Jesus talked about, Luther immediately sided with his new Aristocratic friends and a bloody war of suppression was waged.
And it was the same with the Calvinist Reformation, Zwingli took over Zurich and Calvin took over Geneva and then basically ruled them as Demagogues. And the foothold Protestants temporarily had in France was due to support from the Bourbons and some important Queens.
Update April 2021: I've learned that Luxemburg which is Catholic is also among what Rome had pulled out of by 410, so that's a further hole in this premise.
While speculation on the movements of people groups who tribally descend from the names given as sons and grandsons of Japheth in Genesis 10 will play a role in how I justify this thesis. The theory itself is predicated on suggesting that your religion (or the religion of your culture if you yourself are non religious) should be more of a factor then your biological ancestry in deciding which Genesis Patriarch you are a Son of Biblically.
And with that in mind Genesis 9 pays special attention to Prophesying that the house of Japheth will one day dwell in the Tents of Shem, via the Tabernacle tents can Biblically be an idiom of religious observance.
By Eastern Orthodox I mean Christian Churches or Congregations that uphold all Seven Ecumenical Councils as authoritative but also descend from the Eastern rather than Western side of the 1054 Great Schism.
The people most universally agreed to descend from Japheth are the Hellens/Greeks via Javan. Today that is Modern Greece and Cyprus, (and maybe also some nations north of Greece) and includes Hellenic minorities in Turkey, Alexandria, Antioch, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine & Jordan and other regions. That happens to correspond to the generally most well known sub Church of the Eastern Orthodox, The Greek Orthodox Church.
The second most significant congregation of the Eastern Orthodox Communion is the Russian Orthodox Church. I have a post strongly arguing that Magog is Russia. In which I also placed Meshech and Tubal in Georgia and argued for associating Gomer with Ukraine and the House of Togarmah with people groups who lived in parts of Russia, Ukraine and Georgia. Both of whom are also majority Eastern Orthodox nations. But I’m now also thinking of perhaps placing Togarmah in Belarus which takes us even further North. Note that "Mtskheta-Tbilisi" is in the official title of the Archbishop of Georgia.
Tiras the youngest son of Japheth is often identified with Thrace, the core Thracian nation of classical Antiquity was basically modern Bulgaria but at its greatest extent perhaps included pieces of every country bordering Bulgaria, all of which are Eastern Orthodox. Actually I'm finding the Thracians might have extended more into Romania and Moldova more then I originally thought.
I think an argument could be made for identifying the Southern Carpathian Mountains with the Riphean Mountains of Ancient Hellenic Geography, which thus works for identifying Riphath with Romania and perhaps also Moldova.
Ashkenaz I kind of want to place near Ukraine in all of that context. But I’m also thinking they could just be more Eastern Orthodox minorities within Turkey. The City of Nicaea is on the shore of a Lake called Ascanius. Nicaea was the seat of the 1st and 7th Ecumenical Councils, played a role in the First Crusade and was the capital of the Greek Eastern Empire while Constantinople was occupied by the Latins after the Fourth Crusade. That could be a good argument for making the Patriarch of Constantinople himself the Patriarch of Ashkenaz.
Germanic Jews are called Ashkenazim because of a Rabbinic tradition of associating Ashkenaz with western Germany and Northern France. But this tradition didn’t start till the 11th century and why it developed isn’t clear. Before that Rabbinic traditions usually placed Ahskenaz first in Scythia (same region Josephus placed Magog, in modern Russia and Ukraine) and then later identified them with the Slavs. The Slavic peoples are mostly Eastern Orthodox. But I’m now tempted in this context to identify Ashkenaz as specifically Serbia and/or Bulgaria, placing them next to Riphath.
After giving it more thought I'm starting to lean towards Russia being Magog and the other Slavic Churches being Gomer and his Sons while the Romanian Orthodox Church is Tiras. Or maybe Ecclesiastically the Slavs are just Gomer and Togarmah (or Gomer via Togarmah) as those names are paired together in Ezekiel 38 allowing Riphath to still be Romania. And Tiras can be Albania since the Orthodox Church of Albania's bishop is called the Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and Albania. Many Linguists do believe Albanian is the modern descendent of the language of the Ancient Thracians.
Madai is perhaps the most difficult son of Japheth to fit into this model. We could say he represents Eastern Orthodox minorities who exist in former regions of the Medo-Persian Empire, like the Antiochian Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodox Communities in Egypt, Sinai and Jerusalem. But maybe also Madai being the most separated from the other sons of Japheth resulted in him being the only one left out and so Madai is still Zoroastrianism. Either way the various Muslims of Iran I think are the spiritual descendants of Semites.
Apparently some Kurdish Christians have been Eastern Orthodox, though most have preferred the “Nestorian” Church. And I have in the past on this blog speculated on the theory that the Kurds partly descend from the Medes, while also partly descending from Israelites.
I don’t want this theory being used to demonize the Eastern Orthodox however, as often happens with those looking to Catholicism or Islam for The Antichrist. The Eastern Orthodox are fellow true Believers who I feel have at times been better stewards of The Gospel then any of us Western Christians. If this is what happens it’ll be The Antichrist taking advantage of what they’ve gotten wrong as well as what they’ve gotten right.
David Bentley Hart is a Greek Orthodox whose main criticism of his own denomination is their tendency to wind up serving the state, which he sees manifesting today in how Putin is using the Russian Orthodox Church. He doesn’t seem like someone who’s eschatology is Futurist and so wouldn’t endorse my theory for that reason but it’s something to note.
You might say that the Eastern Orthodox has been no less Statist than the Western Churches. However the messy relationship between Church and State in Catholic and Protectant nations has mostly been Churches bending the state to their will, for better or for worse. It is the Eastern Orthodox who have been most inclined to simply do what the Emperor says, even when that Emperor is ofically an Atheist like Stalin.
Below the Jump Break is some supplementary speculation that isn't actually important.
It only changed. And no I don’t just mean by that the Eastern Empire’s continuation.
During what everyone agrees qualifies as Roman history it’s form of government changed multiple times, regimes were replaced by military force, it divided into separate smaller states, it’s religion changed, it’s capital moved (not just the big move to Constantinople, eventually Rome was no longer even the regional capital of Italy), in one half it’s language changed, and we also saw the overall ethnic makeup of the citizenry shift via the assimilating of conquered peoples and immigrants.
So with that understanding of how flexible and changeable what Rome is can be, there is no real reason to refuse to accept the Ottoman Empire’s claim to simply being a change in religion and administration of the Eastern Empire. And the Tsar’s claim is just as valid since they replaced the Eastern Emperor’s role in the Eastern Orthodox Church, then WWI and it's aftermath saw those successor states’ forms of government change again back to being Republics, in name at least.
But even before the 1454 changes the Islamic states could already be viewed as Roman offshoots. After all I’ve become convinced the original Mecca was really Petra and it was in the Roman Province of Palaestina Salutaris or Arabia Petrea. And what we now think of as Islamic architecture clearly evolved out of Byzantine architecture. Arabs were already becoming a fixture of the Eastern Roman Empire even before Muhammad, just look at the history involving Mavia. And pre Constantine an Arab had become the actual first Christian Emperor, Philip the Arabian. People who study coins are also aware that prior to Abd Al-Malik the Arabs were still minting Byzantine style coins in the former Roman provinces (and Sassanid coins in Persia) using the same mints. So there is plenty of reason to view the Arab empire as also another Roman splinter state. We've also now discovered that Trajan had conquered more of Arabia then we used to think, extending to include Madain Selah, Dumat and Tayma.
But it’s not just the Eastern Empire that didn’t actually fall. Thersites The Historian has a video on how various elements of Feudalism basically evolved from the privatization of Roman Offices, Duke/Dux and Count/Comte both come from Roman titles. .The Senate continued to meet well after the Western Empire’s “Fall” into the 600s. Liberius was a roman Prefect in Fifth Century Gaul. The Pope and other Bishops had become Pontiffs so they carried on the Roman state religion clerically. Latin remained the language of the ruling class right on through the Reformation and has influenced multiple younger languages. Right on the Wikipedia Page for Sardinia it says "Early medieval Sardinian political institutions evolved from the millennium-old Roman imperial structures with relatively little Germanic influence.".
And Justinian’s reforms of the Roman law code are the foundation of Europe's legal system to this day. Certain history YouTubers have made a point out of how Rome's sense of Law and Justice was what they viewed as their defining characteristic over any other features of their culture. So how much the Laws of Europe are still Roman can be viewed as the strongest argument that Rome never fell.
In 800 AD Charlemagne was crowned the new Western Emperor by The Pope. The Holy Roman Emperors were the successors to his Principate, as later were the Habsburgs, Napoleons and Kaisers. WWI caused the end of four different Principates, but also a rise of new Republics.
And now the European Union is seeking to bring these disparate provinces back together.
Update 9/5/2020: here's a fun YouTube Video from Jack Rackman with the same premise.
Update May 2022: I made about how according to Genesis 10-11 The Bible defined Nations largely by their languages. Well the Language of Rome being Latin is in it's ancient from still the Liturgical Language of the Roman Catholic Church. But more importantly the languages as commonly spoken continued to change and evolve and split up into the modern Romance Languages, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan in the west as well as Romanian in Eastern Europe. And then while English is classified as a Germanic Language half our vocabulary comes from Latin.
My Ancestry of Charlemagne post among other things documents how Charlemagne descended from a lot of Ancient Romans, including specifically Gallo-Roman Aristocracy.
Update Ocotber 2022: Here's another Video on the Subject.
I am not making this post to argue absolutely Babylon=Rome in some preterist or Historicist sense. It should not be controversial to acknowledge that Rome is where Mystery Babylon was at John's time. Zechariah 5 gives us reason to suspect she moves around.
I disagree with the argument that Babylon is "Code" for Rome in some way meant to hide it from Roman authorities who might read the Book. It is largely Rome's own cultural symbolism that makes it explicit, applying purely prior Biblical meaning to the same symbols is if anything what weakens it. A city on Seven Hills which had Seven Kings is how Rome defined itself, not how it's enemies defined it.
People interpreting Revelation have tried to make Seven Hills a defining characteristic of countless cities, I've looked into the argument for applying it to Jerusalem and find it to be pretty bad. The thing is the only city already defined as a city on Seven Hills (whether that is strictly geographically accurate or not) before Revelation was written was Rome. And since it was written the only attempts to make a city a Seven Hill city as a positive trait with no regard for the Biblical implications are ones doing so in a desire to claim to be a New Rome or successor to Rome. It was done with both Constantinople and Moscow for example.
What I want to get into here is some stuff about Rome that may have been particularly relevant to the region of the Seven Churches The Revelation was first given to.
The City of Smyrna was where the Roma cult was founded in 195 BC. Roma was the City of Rome personified as a Goddess. Mellor has proposed her cult as a form of religio-political diplomacy which adjusted traditional Graeco-Eastern monarchic honours to Republican mores. Athens and Rhodes accepted Roma as analogous to their traditional cult personifications of the demos (ordinary people). In 133 BC when Pergamon became part of the Empire it quickly became another major center of the Cult of Roma.
We can't be certain what colors Roma would have usually be depicted wearing, what we know about how she was depicted comes largely from coins. But we know that during The Roman Triumph the Triumphitor wore Purple and their face was painted Red, so I feel Purple and Scarlet as the colors of Roma fits. Some want to point out Purple and Scarlet being the colors of the Veil of The Tabernacle/Temple of Solomon to support the Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon theory, but every-time the Veil is refereed to as Purple and Scarlet/Crimson in Exodus 25-28, 35-39 and 2 Chronicles 2-3 the color Blue is also mentioned, usually first, and no Blue is in Revelation 17-18. The Veil of The Temple is basically the Bisexual Flag.
In the Hellenistic world typically Male deities had male Priests and Goddesses had Priestesses. But the Roma Cult was explicitly an exception to this, her worship was lead by male Priests. And so I think that is partly what the False Prophet may have been seen as to the book's earliest readers in these cities.
In either 30 or 29 BC the worship of the Emperor in the provinces began, and in Asia particularity it was essentially just merged with the Roma Cult. Pergamon was the first city where the Imperial cult was established. From here on Roma increasingly took the attributes of an Imperial or divine consort to the Imperial divus, but some Greek coin types show her as a seated or enthroned authority, and the Imperial divus standing upright as her supplicant or servant. Thus her as a woman riding the Beast.
The reason Smyrna and Pergamon were the churches most facing persecution is because in these cities the worship of the Emperor was required by law, most Pagans didn't see it as a conflict. Jews were usually excepted as theirs was an ancient religion, but Christianity was new and so once it stopped being seen as a sect of Judaism the Christians had a problem in these cities.
People who like to argue the United States is Babylon could easily draw attention here to how the concept of Roma is basically the same as the concept of Columba/Columbia. But other such feminine personifications of the state exist in the modern world, the Pan-Europa movement has taken Europa of Green Mythology and made her more of a Roma type figure. I'm pretty sure Athena was originally just the Demos of Athens before Pan-Hellenism turned her into an Olympian all of Greece had to recognize. And of course I believe the Woman of Revelation 12 is the Demos of Israel being symbolically personified in a similar way.
It’s interesting how Rome is the one nation left out of attempts to say Western Nations come from the Lost Tribes. The Lost Tribes get identified with people in Greece, and then associated with people west and north of Rome, yet Rome itself in-between them is not. Troy is often made a stepping stone in this process yet Rome was the first to claim descent from Tory, all the others were just copying Rome, and Britan's claimed Trojan connection is deliberately derivative of Rome as it also comes via Aeneas. Since I no longer so strongly think Rome is Edom, I’m interested in exploring this possibility.
Some things about the myths of Romulus might first make one look to Benjamin to be the Israelite Tribe they're connected to, first the Wolf association (Genesis 49), then how the story of the Rape of the Sabine Women echos Judges 21. But those could both be about this Tribe’s relationship with Benjamin as opposed to Rome being Benjamin. Judges 21 also involved Ephraim. And being nursed by a She-Wolf could be a Prophecy that it would be a Benjamite who’d bring The Gospel to Rome, in the apocryphal Acts of Paul when he’s beheaded in Rome milk rather then blood spills from his wounds. Actually in 1 Corinthians 3 and 1 Thessalonians 2:7 Paul does use the imagery of a mother nursing her children with Milk to describe his nurturing of young Gentile believers.
In Greek Mythology the ultimate progenitor of the Trojans and Dardanians is Dardanus. Attempts to give him an Israelite origin suggest Dan, as well as Dara son of Zerah in 1 Chronicles 2:6 aka Darda of 1 Kings 4:31. Those names are evidence the name is Semitic in origin regardless of if he can be identified with a specific Biblical figure. Maybe Dardan means “Pearl of Dan/Judgment” like how Darda means “Pearl of Wisdom”, a fitting title perhaps for the Shrine the Ephraimite King Jeroboam built at Dan.
Dardanus is sometimes said to have his origins in Arcadia, which when comparing Pelops to Jehu I argue is sometimes code for Samaria, Micah 1 used an Eagle as a symbol of Samaria which became a symbol of Rome. Later Roman writers would however attempt to say Dardanus came from Italy.
Iasus is a name that pops up in Greek Mythology multiple times. While Iesous is how Joshua is transliterated into Koine Greek, Iasus could be a much more ancient Greek form of that name (just look at the difference between Iapetos and how Japheth is rendered in the LXX). Dardanus had a relative named Iasus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus said Iasus was his older brother but Virgl in the Aeneid (3.163f) seems to make Iasus his father. But it’s also easy to look at the biography of Dardanus and see him as partly based on Joshua himself. The Mountains of Ida could be Girezim & Ebal in this analogy, the city of Dardanus founded at the foot of Ida could then be Shechem or Shiloh. Analogies that also work for seeing Dardanus as Jeroboam. Or you could look at Dardania’s placement in Anatolia as making it the northernmost key city of the Trojan Empire which would again make it Dan in the sense of Dan’s importance to Jeroboam. Which would then perhaps make Ilion/Pergamos equal Bethel.
The Ephraimites carried away by Assyria I still believe were settled east of the Euphrates. Of those left after the captivity, the ones who rejected Hezekiah’s Passover Invitation I think mingled with gentiles to become the Samaritans. But some did accept the invitation. 1 Chronicles 9:3 says Jerusalem’s population included people form the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh. Joel 3 says the Philistines and Tyrians sold as slaves to the Ionian Greeks people of Judah and Jerusalem. Some Ionians and Greeks colonized southern Italy possibly before Rome was founded.
The Roman Republic was founded around 508-504 BC, but since 244 years seems too long a time for only 7 kings, the traditional 752 BC date for the founding of the city may have been exaggerated. Meaning Rome could have been founded after the Northern Kingdom fell. Joel is traditionally a contemporary of Jeroboam II.
The name Rome could have a Semitic origin in Strongs Numbers 7312-7319. Remus the brother of Romulus could come from Reem the Hebrew word translated Unicorn in Moses blessing on Joseph in Deuteronomy 33.
So adjusting something I argued before about Native Americans and the Lost Tribes. I think the Many Nations from Ephraim are the Latin Nations, the Iberian Penensula, Italy & Corsica, Mesoamerica and the Philippines. While Manasseh is the United States.
Now personally I like Chad Schafer, we're friends on Facebook, some of what I say here will come off harsher then I intend. It's just his theory I intend to be harsh on.
I like that he's drawing attention to often overlooked Eschatological significance of Egypt. And I think he's onto something talking about the Arch of Titus. The problem is how he brings those things together.
[[Update July 2018: I still disagree the theory but I now feel I was way to harsh in this Post.]]
I've explained my basic view of how Daniel 7 relates to Revelation 13&17, and later elaborated on that. Now I want to talk about the issue of The Little Horn, and how I've become unsure it's as directly relevant to The Antichrist issue as we assume.
I've explained that I view the Ten Horns as Ten Nations that emerged from the Western Roman Empire. I've given two theories on how to identify those Ten. The WEU theory, and the Danite theory.
Basically I have been considering that the Little Horn of Daniel 7 is an 11th Nation or Government to arise after those, rather then being necessarily the same as the Eight King of Revelation 17 or any other individual. I have three basic theories to suggest on which nation that could be.
First is the United States of America. Since the Little Horn isn't directly described as a King like the Ten are, perhaps that fits America being a Republic, that isn't in Europe but founded on European/Roman cultural pillars.
And perhaps the fact that since the U.S. was created, revolutions in Europe somewhat inspired by the American Revolution have removed some but not all European Monarchies. Could have something to do with the Three Horns being uprooted.
This could overlap with my American Antichrist theories. And perhaps also my America and Egypt observations as well dependent on how much you think the Little Horn of Daniel 8 is connected to the Little Horn of Daniel 7.
Second could be the European Union (or whatever it becomes) itself as a transnational Government. Which could fit better with the WEU theory on the Ten Horns. And perhaps #Brexit is the beginning of Three Horns being uprooted.
Third candidate could be Modern Greece. Officially it gets counted as the 10th Nation to join the EU when it joined in the 80s, which Bible Prophecy enthusiasts made a big deal of. But since the UK can be considered two nations in one (England and Scotland), you could also argue Greece was really the 11th.
That theory works best for making The Little Horn of Daniel 8 still the same Little Horn. And I've discussed Modern Greece's possible relevance to Bible Prophecy before, in the Last Roman Emperor post, and my main Historicism post.
Disclaimer: This is NOT in any way me trying to defend the Barack Obama as the Antichrist nonsense. Quite the contrary what has largely inspired this post is my suspicion that the Antichrist will probably come from the political right (and America is still the most conservative western nation). That he'll convince many Evangelicals he's one of us, or at least be the kind of politician too many of us tend to be too easily suckered in by. Obama is horrible, but not in my view Antichrist material.
This post is kind of a follow up to The Lost Tribes and Bible Prophecy. Which was itself a follow up to earlier posts of this blog. Thing is, if The Antichrist is the head of a western nation that comes to Israel's aid (being her ally at first but turning on her later) like Chris White and I in different ways suspect. Right now it seems the United States of America is the by far the most likely nation to do that. That doesn't prove anything because circumstances could change, but it's worth looking at.
Objections to the idea of The Antichrist being a United States President, or American in anyway, that are actually Biblical, tend to come purely down to passages taken as proving he does come from somewhere else.
I agree with Chris White's arguments against the Assyrian Antichrist. but not with his arguments against a Roman Antichrist. However America does have a Roman legacy as much as Europe. I think it's possible that the Little Horn in Daniel 7 isn't just the individual of The Antichrist, but also an 11th Nation. The U.S. as that 11th Nation could work quite well.
Chris White also insists Daniel 8 proves The Antichrist must come from the region of the nations conquered by Alexander The Great. But as I've arguedelsewhere I believe that connection is genealogical not geographical. (Though it is interesting the exiled Royal Family of modern Greece is living in New York, the youngest members of it including the current second in line to the throne were born here and thus under the 14th Amendment have American citizenship. But at this point I see no solid reason to accuse any of them, it seems unlikely any would seek to run for an American political office.)
So I see no solid reason to limit where he could come from.
In terms of the potential relationship to the Hersey that Western Nations are the inheritors of the Northern Kingdom. Britam (drawing on earlier ideas) affiliates the U.S. with Manasseh and the U.K. with Ephraim. It's interesting that the Continental United States is divided between east and west by a major river (Mississippi) just as the lands allotted to Manasseh were by the Jordan.
But a stronger thematic connection is that Gideon (the greatest hero of the Tribe of Manasseh) can be compared to George Washington. Both men after being the military leaders of successful rebellions were offered Kingship but turned it down. And also both later became symbolically affiliated with a Tree.
It's interesting then to return to the role both White and I feel the false Psalm 83 War belief could play. Psalm 83 makes an allusion to the narrative of Gideon, which leads to a desire to affiliate that Psalm with a call for a "New Gideon", which plays into the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept quite well.
In the Edom=Rome study I talk about how the Eagle was a major Symbol of Rome and became a major Western Symbol from that. I also talked about how UnBiblical the idea of the Eagle being linked to Dan is, and pointed to passages linking it to Edom. There is however one interesting Bible Prophecy that can justify linking the Eagle to the Northern Kingdom. Micah chapter 1 is a Prophecy mainly against Samaria. At the end in verse 16 it says.
"Make thee bald, and poll thee for thy delicate children; enlarge thy baldness as
the eagle; for they are gone into captivity from thee."
The Eagle as I said has been a symbol of The West for centuries. But the sub-species known as the Bald Eagle is indigenous to the New World, which is why it was chosen to be a specific symbol of the United States of America. Yet we have here Samaria being represented as a bald eagle in a time long before Columbus.
So I'm not saying The Antichrist certainly will be American, but I think Believers need to be more open to the possibility that he could be.
Satan I believe has been laying the groundwork for every possible option. And that American politically conservative Christians tend to marry their Faith and their Patriotism is something I consider a major problem. I call it Patriotic Idolatry, and definitely a form of the Sin of Pergamos.
And while Evangelicals love to preach against Mormon Hersey, they are very surprisingly willing to jump into bed with Mormons politically, when it comes to "Family Values" and other things. Mormons meanwhile have their Prophecy of a Rider on a White Horse, who'll become both President of the U.S. and Prophet of the Mormon Church at the same time, and "Save" the Constitution when it "hangs by a thread" by creating a Mormon Theocracy. Regardless of those concerns Evangelicals got behind Mitt Romney in 2012 and I fear may again in 2016. The Mormons also in-cooperate seeing America as Manasseh into their doctrine, and have even used the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept in their own weird way.
That rant doesn't mean I think it must be a Mormon who becomes an American Antichrist. That's just one option.
Back during the period just before and after 2000 there was a popular trend of making many independently produced Christian movies depicting the End Times (almost all with Pre-Trib suppositions), and with them were also books. These works also reflected this dangerous marrying of faith and patriotism, which I've already complained about. By having the U.S. be one of the few countries who manages to rebel against The Antichrist.
Two of those films go so far as to feature a President of the United States as a Hero standing up against The Antichrist.
First is Megiddo: The Omega Code 2, (a Sequel to the first movie only in having the same actor as it's Antichrist). That movie even makes it's hero the Antichrist's brother. Somehow one brother becomes President of the E.U. and the other President of the U.S.
In Left Behind: World At War (based on left over plot-lines of the second book), the President is African American, which I give them credit for. But also this time he does in fact die in his battle with The Antichrist.
Reason this is significant is that I think there will be a decoy Antichrist (maybe more then one) who will have an adversarial relationship with the real one. He's The Terrible of The Nations in Ezekiel. And I argued in my Four Horseman study that I think this individual could be who gives The Antichrist his mortal wound.
I know these authors might hate to think their own works may unwittingly help The Antichrist. But I'm afraid that may very well happen.
I shall return now to the assumption that the Angel meant John's own
time. Remembering how I ended my Edom=Rome study.
I've considered, and found some others have as well, that they might be
the Herodian dynasty.
In Revelation 13 it also says "upon his
heads the name of blasphemy". Herod, which is actually "Herodes" in the
Greek texts, derives from the same Greek root word as "hero" and "heroic". To
the Greeks however, Heroes were the Demigods, half human half god
beings, or deified humans. So the very meaning of the name of Herod was
Blasphemous. It's also occurred to me that the name could be a masculine form of Hera, after whom Herakles(Hercules) was named.
1. Herod The Great, 37-1 B.C. Was the first to
have the name and the first to rule as King, being proclaimed King of
The Jews (Rex Judearum) by the Roman Senate. He massacred the children
of Bethlehem.
2. Herod Archelaus, B.C. 1-6 A.D. Was mentioned at
the end of Matthew 2. When he was deposed The Scepter departed from
Judah. Babylonian Talmud, Chapter 4, folio 37
3. Herod Antipas, B.C. 1-39 A.D. Beheaded John The Baptist, and mocked Jesus on the day of The Passover.
4.
Herod Agrippa I, 37-44 A.D. Only one other then The Great to rule as
King of Judea. Martyred James and tried to kill Peter in Acts 12 which
goes on to record his death. And indeed from that account I've considered him more then any other Heordian a type of The Antichrist.
Acts 1220-23
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;
5. Herod of
Chalcis, ???-48 A.D. After the death of Agrippa was given stewardship
of The Temple and responsibility for appointing The High Priest.
6.
Herod Agrippa II, 48-100 A.D. Took responsibility for The Temple from
Herod of Chalcis. Paul was tried before him in Acts where he said
"almost you have convinced me to become a christian". Lived for awhile
in rumored Incest with his sister Berenice. He was the current Herodian
monarch through both Nero and Domitian's reigns. Died in about 100 A.D.
7 option 1. Tiberius
Claudius Atticus Herodes, Legatus of the Iudaea Province 99-102 A.D. He is
not known to have been biologically Herodian, but he happens to have
the name, and little is know about his ancestry. He was the last
Herodes to govern Judea or Jerusalem. And he did so for only 3-4 years.
7 option 2. Bar-Kokhba. Rashi described Bar-Kokhba as "one of the Herodian kings" at the same time as emphasizing his reign was short (two and a half years). In his commentary on Sanhedrin 93b.
My Genealogy of The Antichrist study documents potential ties between the Herodian dynasty and modern European Royalty through their intermarriages with Roman Aristocracy.
Rabbinic Judaism for the last two thousand years
has called Rome, and from that Europe/The West in general, Edom. Even the
United States is included, because we've inherited a great deal of Roman
influence in our form of government.
Rarely do Christians
inherit this concept, and some that do tie it into British Israelism
ideas (the "white" people who aren't Israelite are Edomite). The opposition to it I think is because these Jews also view
Christianity as a religion as synonymous with Rome/Edom. But coming
from an Independent Baptist or Pentecostal or Hebrew Roots viewpoint, one could easily view
paganized Christianity (or Christianized Paganism), who have been very
Anti-Semitic as religious Edom. Chiefly the
Catholic Church, but also the obscure Old Roman Catholic Church, the
Anglican and other Protestant Churches that didn't actually reform much
besides breaking with the Papacy. And to an extent also the Orthodox
churches and the Mormons, and JWs.
Many Rabbis might argue that it's symbolic or spiritual, and
does not require an actual genealogical/biological descent from Esau.
But I think that possibility is worth looking at. Britam takes the
descent literally, and identifies Edom today mostly with Germany, Italy
and less definitively Japan. If you see a certain Axis there, that's not a
coincidence. I think their logic behind seeing Germany as Edom is flawed, Germany is clearly much more culturally linguistically and biologically akin to the tribes they see as Israelite. I also think that if Italy is Edom then probably so is Spain/Portugal to some extent, and western Mediterranean islands like Malta and Corsica.
One could argue this is a purely extra-Biblical
association, but it does have a Biblical basis I'll get to soon. But
first, I know many would argue the Genesis 10 origin of Rome should be
viewed as Kittim based on Daniel 11:30, where the "Ships of Chittim"
refered to Rome's thwarting of Antiochus Epiphanes's designs on Egypt in
168 B.C.
This event took place on the Island of Cyprus
(and is sometimes cited as the origin of the expression "draw a line in
the sand" because that's what Laenas did). And Bill Cooler in After The FloodAppendix 3 documents that Kittim's original settlement before spreading
further west was on Cyrpus and the most ancient names for Cyprus
derive from Kittim.
11.
Kittim: This is a collective name of a people who are spoken of in the
Old Phoenician inscriptions as the kt or kty, and who settled on the
island of Cyprus. They were to give their name to the ancient Cypriot
city of Kition (modern-day Larnaka). The Romans preserved the name when
they named the city Citium, and Josephus gave the name as Cethimus.
(Refs: 1DB 3:40-1. JA 1.vi.1. P 1:26)
Elsewhere in Bible Prophecy
(like in Isaiah 23 where Alexander's Conquest of Tyre is in mind)
Kittim/Chittim is treated as synonymous with the peoples of his father
Javan and thus Greece.
Before I get into this however I want to say one more thing. Certain Prophetic
references certainly mean the Land of Edom geographically.
Particularly Isaiah 63 and Daniel 11:36-45. But I wouldn't always assume references to specific locations
within Edom mean it's to be understood geographically. Mount
Seir for example was Edom's sacred Holy Mountain, their equivalent to
Sinai or Zion or Moriah, or for a Pagan analogy Olympus. If Edom is
now Rome then maybe Seir is now Vatican hill?
Now, to get into why I consider this view valid.
Any Biblical Study of Rome ought to begin
with Daniel 2 and 7, if you disagree the Fourth Empire is Rome I have a study on that, and I also address those that insist 7 doesn't correlate to 2. But for now, let's start with Daniel 7:11-12
when the Messianic Age begins.
"I
beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn
spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed,
and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts,
they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a
season and time."
The
first three beasts will be part of the Millennium, one could argue all
three are alluded to in other Millennial Age prophecies outside Daniel
concerning Assyria, Persia and Javan, though for Persia that's true only
with a Post-Millennial interpretation of Ezekiel 38.
The Fourth
Beast is not however, it's completely destroyed. Outside Daniel cities
are sometimes foretold to never be inhabited again like Babylon. But a
whole nation having it's destiny to be completely cut off is unique to
Edom (Obadiah 9&10 and 18) and it's Bastard offshoot Amalek (Numbers
24:20). Even Sodom is foretold to be restored in Ezekiel 16. Jeremiah 46-49 also foretells judgment on several nations, but with Edom lacking a promise of restoration.
That Amalek comes from Edom is documented in Genesis 36:12.
Genesis 14's reference to "the land of the Amalekites" is Moses
describing that location as his readers would have known it.
I
don't believe this means that no descendants of Esau or Amalek will ever
be saved and walk the Earth during the Millennium and the New Heaven
and New Earth. It simply means that as a national identity Edom will
cease to exist.
Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35-36 also speak of the
future Judgment of Edom as being the last Nation destroyed
before the Millennium begins. Isaiah 63's reference to Edom is possibly further testimony of that.
It's also interesting that in Genesis 36 the earliest Kings of Edom were not a father-son inherited position. Which is like how the earliest Kings of Rome were from Romulus till the Etruscan dynasty.
One of Rome's major national
symbols was an Eagle, and it's from this Roman usage that America and
Nazi Germany chose the Eagle as a national symbol as well. People when
talking about the Tribe of Dan theories keep citing references from the
Targums to support viewing the Eagle as a symbol of Dan. But The Bible
never links Dan with Eagles, however Obadiah 4 and Jeremiah 49:16&22
use an Eagle as a symbol of Edom. Jeremiah also mention an Eagle here when talking of Moab but form a different angle, the soaring Eagle soars above Moab while it is Edom. Moab and Amon were also dispersed and I think I agree with the theory that they're now Spain and Portugal.
In the sense that the U.S. is
the inheritor of Rome's legacy, it's interesting to look at Obadiah
verse 4 "Though thou mount on high as the eagle, and though thy nest be
set among the stars, I will bring thee down from thence, saith Jehovah."
And remember that the U.S. was the first nation to set foot on another celestial body. And that when we landed on the
moon Neal Armstrong said "Houston, the Eagle has landed."
Before I
talk briefly on the Hebrew Bible's history of Edom, I want to say I
feel some offshoots of Edom traveled to other lands outside Biblical
Edom proper long before even the time of Moses. Lots of Esau's sons and
grandsons listed in Genesis 36 are never mentioned again, only a few are
linked to specific cities, lands, or tribes of Edom that come up later.
The
medieval manuscript claiming to be the Book of Jasher I by no
means consider a credible source in-spite of it's popularity in some
circles. However I feel it's worth mentioning that it identifies Zepho/Zephi son of Eliphaz as the grandson of Edom who contributed to
Rome's pre-history. But the narrative it uses to explain this is
ridiculous to any historically literate scholar. Ken Johnson takes it seriously though and imagines a made up connection between Zepho and Latin words for Wolf.
Many of my
fellow Creationists have considered linking Esau with the Neanderthals.
Because of his hairiness being emphasized, and the meaning of the word Edom
possibly implying red hair. Meanwhile the Edomites intermarried with
the Horites, and Horite is often interpreted to mean "cave dweller".
Likewise the same Obadiah and Jeremiah verses that link Edom with an
Eagle also talk of them "that dwellest in the clefts of the rock". I
believe the Neanderthals inspired the Woodwoses of Celtic/Germanic mythologies,
who are often linked to the Roman god Silvanus.
In that context
it's interesting to note that a map of sites were Neanderthal remains
have been found reveals that almost all of them are within the borders
of what would become the Roman Empire at it's greatest extent, and do
include cites on the Italian peninsula. And geneticists now believe
Neanderthals did intermarry with "normal humans" and have descendants
alive today.
The last references in the Historical books of The
Bible to the main Edomite nation interacting with Israel all occur in
both II Kings and II Chronicles before the reign of Hezekiah. The last
reference to the Amalekites chronologically is documented in I
Chronicles 4:41-43 where it records them being wiped out by the Simeonites
when they conquered the areas around Mt Seir in the time of Hezekiah.
The last
reference to Edom in Assyrian inscriptions is during the reign of
Esarhaddon (681 – 669 BC). I think it's possible many of them were
deported like the Northern Israelites and others Assyria conquered.
It'd be interesting if some of the same peoples British Israelim and
Franco Israelism and Britam traces back to "The Lost Tribes" are
actually of partially Edomite stock.
Psalm 137 and Obadaih are
cited as referring to Edom being involved in Jerusalem's destruction in
588 B.C. But the Historical books during this period never mention Edom,
they seem to have mostly disappeared generations earlier. Obadaih is a
Prophetic book and Psalm 137 is a poem, many Psalms even if not
blatantly defined as Prophetic have Prophetic qualities. This could
refer to Rome and/or the Idumeans involvement in the 70 A.D. destruction
of Jerusalem and The Temple, and the poetic link to Babylon in the
Psalm to Rome being one of the many cities where Mystery Babylon has
resided until she returns to Shinar (Zachariah 5). People of Idumean
descent fought on both sides in the 66-73 A.D. Jewish-Roman war. I'll
discus the Idumeans later.
The pre-Aeneas inhabitants of Italy are discussed by Eusebius quoting others. http://www.attalus.org/translate/eusebius3.html#263
The
Aborigines sound a little like they could be Neanderthals to me.
Pelasgians were a specific tribe of the pre-Hellenic inhabitants of
Greece, often used as a general term for all of them. Julius Pokorny
derives Pelasgoi from *pelag-skoi ("flatland-inhabitants"). Which
Biblically sounds like Peleg, son of Eber and ancestor of both Jacob and
Esau. The Thalassocracies listed by Diodorus and preserved by Eusebius list The Pelasgians as
the dominant Sea Power from about 1057-972 B.C. Which happens to be
about when Ussher dated the reigns of David and Solomon, and Biblically I
consider Ussher correct on the Kingdom period. So maybe these
Pelasgians could be Edomites who traveled to Italy.
The Sabine Tribe of Italy are important to Rome's origin, Numa the second King was a Sabine, a number of later individuals claimed descent form Numa. According to Plutarch the Sabines claimed descent from an ancient Spartan colony. I discus evidence of a possible Edomite connection for Sparta on my Revised Chronology Blog discussing the Hycsos.
My favorite
Christian scholars talking about the Herodian dynasty love to emphasize
their "Edomite" status, (which they assume is indisputable) but the New
Testament itself never does so. It doesn't even confirm his presumed
Idumean status, it only makes one reference geographically to Idumaea in
Mark 3:8. Strangely the NT doesn't discus Edom as a nation at all it
would seem, which is odd.
Malachi ends the Hebrew Bible setting up the New Testament in a few
ways, one by giving a key Prophecy of John The Baptist in 3:1. But
perhaps all the talk about Esau also sets up Rome's key role in the New
Testament narrative. This same Malachi reference is interestingly
alluded to by Paul in his Epistles to The Romans 9-11. Indeed one of the
only two NT references to Esau is in the Epistles to The Romans. And those references are speaking of Esau in a typological sense, which Calvanists don't understand.
Jospehus
is our main source on Herod, and he is ultimately a critic of the
dynasty, he says Herod was Idumean. Herod's official court historian
claimed he descended from Exilarchs, that is easy to write off as propaganda.
What we do know for certain is his Paternal Grandfather and Father both
first rose to power as governors of Idumea, and that the Hasmoneans had
forcibly converted the Idumeans to Judaism under Hyrcanus.
Idumea
refers to a geographical region in Greeco-Roman Judah that overlapped
mostly with the original allotment of Simeon. It doesn't geographically
equate to Edom, places like Seir, Bozrah and Teman where part of the Nebatean kingdom ruled by Aretas, Petra was his capital.
Any time you
see Idumea in the KJV of the Old Testament, that was the same Hebrew
word always used for Edom, no variant of pronunciation there. The KJV
translators were just being arbitrarily selective because of an assumption.
The modern Palestinians being
sometimes refereed to as Edomites is also probably because of partial descent
from the Idumeans. The Idumeans are not the only aspect of their
ancestry of course. They descend from many local populations who
converted to Islam (including Samaritans) and Arabs who migrated there
after the Islamic conquests. Today Palestinians make up about 75% of
Jordan's population, in addition to their settlements in Israel.
Dumah was a son of Ishmael mentioned in Genesis 25. Bill Cooper in After The FloodAppendix 1 says of them.
59.
Dumah: The Assyrians and Babylonians knew Dumah's descendants as the
Adammatu. Nabonidus later tells us how he conquered the Adummu. Ptolemy
referred to them as the Domatha; and Porphyry recorded their name as the
Dumathii. We know them today as the Idumaeans. The name of Dumah is
still preserved in the modern Arab city of Dumat-al-Jandal, the
erstwhile capital of his tribe (see Map 2.) (Refs: 1DB 1:873-4. NBD 328)
Cooper also records that this tribe had ties to Kedar when he discuses that nation.
So,
is the popular Idumeans=Edomites assumption in fact wrong? I firmly thought so, until I read Isaiah 21:11 "The burden of Dumah. He calleth to
me out of Seir, Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the
night?". This prophecy goes on to mention other tribes and places,
including Tema of Ishmael, Arabia, as well as descendants of Dedan (most
likely the Keturite Dedan).
So it might be there was some intermingling between Edom and Dumah. Or maybe that prophecy from Isaiah just alludes to the fact that those lands would one day be inhabited by Ishmaelites. Which was the case by NT times.
The Herodian Dynasty also intermingled with Roman Aristocracy, chiefly via
Antonius Felix's marriage to Drusilla daughter of Herod Agrippa, and a
son and grandson of Alexander who ruled Armenia (as Tigranes V and VI)
who obtained Roman citizenship. There are also speculations about the
Aristobulus of Romans 16 going to Britan, and Antipas & Antipater
being exiled to southern France. And how those might tie into British
Israelism and Merovingian-Rex Deus theories.
Some have guessed
these intermarriages are the origin of the Rome-Edom connection, but as
I've argued there's much more to it then that.
I think It's interesting actually that the Herodians were an
Idumean dynasty given rule of the Holy Land by an Edomite Empire, during
The New Testament era.
I discus Edom and Rome's relationship to Yahweh here.
One of the Edomite Kings of Genesis 36 was named Samlah. I've recently wondered is Samlah could be related to the Samnites. The Samnites were a tribe in ancient Italy, one of many that fought Rome at first but in time become Romans citizens after being annexed by Rome.
They were fighting wars with Rome during the time of Alexander The Great. The most notable Samnite of that period was Gaius Pontius. Because of the name many historians think it's probably that Pontius Pilate was a descendant of that Pontius. So that is interesting, Roman history can perhaps link a Genesis 36 King of Rome to the Roman Prefect who authorized Jesus Crucifixion.
In between those two Pontius, was Lucius Pontius Aquila. He was one of the killer of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March of 44 BC. It's also interesting that Aquila is the Latin word for Eagle. He also owned land near modern Naples, which was arguable within traditional Samnite territory.
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.
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.
There are some fellow Futurists who question the traditional
identification of The Beast Empire with being a Restored Roman Empire.
Chris White's commentaries on the subject are what I'm directly
responding to here, but there are others.
On the first part briefly. I don't know why Chuck
Missler and so many other people keep insisting Nebuchadnezzar was lying when
he said he didn't remember the Dream (Daniel 2:5 The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, "The thing is gone from me"). Have they never had a dream they
didn't remember? because I do all the time, the memory usually fades
within minutes of waking up.
They're confused I think by what he says latter about him knowing
the magicians would be real if they told him the Dream. I think he was
pretty sure the memory would come back if it was described to him,
which it did. This was a test to show that Daniel was more valid then
the other interpreters, but the test came from God. At any rate that's not what this study is about.
Here Chris White agrees completely with the usual view of the four Kingdoms being
Assyria-Babylon, Medo-Pesia, Macedon-Greece and Edom-Rome (well he
doesn't mention Edom).
I agree with his refutation of how some
people want to read the Nephilim issue into this Prophecy. Or at least I
agree that's not the main initial intent. I do still think that being
also relevant as a second fulfillment is very possible, but it is not
something I will be dogmatic on.
"The first [problem] is that you have an unambiguous fulfillment of this
passage in the history of the fall of Rome. We know that Rome was
divided into several parts, eventually settling into just two parts,
that is the east and west empires. We will see that the other elements
of the feet and toes prophecy fit like a glove to the events of that
period as well."
I agree with his view that the events surrounding the Western Empire's
fall around 470-490 A.D. Are foretold here. But that's only the
beginning of this divided and weak state Rome is in, and they were trying to
regain their former glory by conquest and political marriages. This continues repeatedly over the
following centuries, with Clovis, and Justinian and Charlemagne, and the
Byzantine Empire, and the Crusades and Venice, and the Holy Roman
Empire, and Napoleon, and Mazzini, and Louise-Napoleon, and
Mussolini/Hitler, and now the European Union and modern Globalism.
"And the second major problem here for the RRE view is that forcing this
prophecy to the end times means that you have to hold the view that the
Antichrist has a divided weak kingdom in the end times. "
I believe he will be the last attempt to restore unity and strength to
this divided and weak empire. The Antichrist as an individual is not in
Daniel 2, that is indeed true, I believe Daniel 7 provides new
information which we'll discus latter.
Also I think many of our assumption about The Antichrist in other passages are wrong. Including White's desire to define him first and foremost based on Daniel 11.
The biggest issue I have
with this commentary is his teaching that the Kingdom represented by the
Stone here is The Church, not the Messianic Kingdom. That view lends
itself dangerously to Amillennialism as well as a Catholic understanding of what The Church is.. He's not Amillennial or Catholic, but that
particular view of this passage is foundational to such
arguments. This interpretation can also lend itself to Dominionism.
I
think in addition to comparing Daniel 7 to Daniel 2, we should also
compare it to 8. 7 is Aramaic Daniel and 8 Hebrew Daniel, so for that
reason their view points are a little different. But it's also
interesting that no where else are two chapters from the different
language portions of Daniel so similar, both drawing on beast imagery
and also a "Little Horn". I think that's why these two chapters are the
transition from Daniel's narratives about The World to Daniel's vision
about Israel.
"In what sense can Neo-Babylonia or Medo-Persia be spoken of as living
on after the anti-christ is destroyed. Traditional scholars give no
compelling explanations for their presence and prolonging of their life
at this point."
Nebuchadnezzar's Empire which 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. Assyria is mentioned in many Messianic Age passages like Isaiah 19 (after verse 18). Chis White also argues for the Post-Millennial view of Gog and Magog, and is in fact the one mainly responsible for convincing
me of that view. So we both agree that Persia is in the Millennium also. Javan (Greece) is in at least one Messianic Era prophesy as well, Isaiah
66:19.
None of the core Nations of those Empires ceased to exist
as national identities. They may have been subject to other nations at
different times, and their cultures and forms of Government changed over
time, but they still exist.
The Malbim, a Rabbinic Jewish source says .
Malbim: Daniel 7;2: <<The Four Kingdoms always exist only that
at a specific moment one of the Kingdoms (dominating one of the four
major directions of the world) gains supremacy over the other kingdoms
and quarters of the world and encompasses them. The world is seen
through the image of a great ocean since the storming winds are more
recognizable at sea and the beasts of the sea are greater than those of
the land>>.
Cyrus and the latter Persian
Kings, as well as Alexander and his Successors made a point NOT to
destroy the cultures and institutions of the nations they conquered, but
to rule them as they were used to being ruled. "It must not be said of
Alexander "He left only chared ruins in his wake."" From the Richard
Burton film Alexander The Great.
As for Rome, of the three
prior Empires, it was only Greece's homeland Ancient Rome ever conquered long term. Yet Greek Culture, and Language and Philosophy and Religion
not only still existed under Rome but they thrived. Remember it was in
Roman times that The New Testament was written in Greek.
Both
Epicurean and Stoic Philosophy thrived, and Neo-Plaotnic and Gnostic
philosophy were born deriving from Platonic ideas. Caligula, Nero and
Julian the Apostate were Roman Emperors who were Hellenophiles.
In fact it thrived so much that when Rome permanently split between East and West the Eastern part effectively became a Greek Empire.
On the First Beast
"The traditional view has this beast being Babylon, and specifically,
Nebuchadnezzar. For example they say that wings being plucked off, and
its being made to stand on two feet, and given a heart of a man is
referring to the humbling experience that God gave to Nebuchadnezzar in
Chapter 4 where Nebuchadnezzar was forced to act like an OX for several
years until he recognized the sovrenty of God and then was restored to
his right mind."
"This part of the interpretation has many
problems, the first being that Nebuchadnezzar was dead at the time of
this vision based on verse 1, and it seems strange therefore, that
Daniel would see Nebuchadnezzar coming out of the sea, and providing
more details about his life or kingdom."
A symbolic prophetic vision can still include a few past events at it's
beginning, as long as it's scope is Future. We see this in the traditional view of Revelation
12, where the Birth and Ascension of Jesus Christ are both included in
that Prophetic Vision given to John over a generation after they
happened. Or Revelation 17 including 5 past Kings in it's vision.
"The picture the traditional view paints is that the lion represents
Nebuchanezzar when he was forced to act like a beast and then the
plucking of the lions wings, making it stand on two feet, and giving it a
man’s heart is symbolic of God restoring Nebuchadnezzar to his right
mind at the end of Daniel 4. This would suggest that the reason for
these four beings being described as “beasts” is because of similar
situations like that of Nebuchadnezzars. Are we to understand then that
the king of Medo-Persia or Greece or Rome are also described as beasts
because they too were forced to act like beasts by God?"
No, the plucking out of the Wings I view as representing the
humbling of Nebuchadnezzar. Being given a New Heart is an idiom of
Salvation also used of Saul, as well as in Ezekiel 36.
"The lion was not restored to its natural state by the plucking of its
wings and making it stand on two feet. It was permanently transformed"
Which IS the same as Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar became Saved, he was NOT restored to the same as he was before.
I
would agree that secular usages of Lion and Eagle imagery is not
good to build doctrine on, but it can be interesting to back it up. A
Lion with Eagle's Wings was an Assyrian symbol as well as Babylonian.
"People trying to make this winged lion in verse 4 be Babylon are often
thinking of the so called Lamassu . A Lamassu is a representation of a
protective deity, not from Babylon but rather thousands of years before
this in the Akkadian and then Assyrian kingdoms."
My view of the First Empire is that Nebuchadnezzar was the culmination,
and that it includes all Mesopotamian civilizations going back to Nimrod
and Babel. So distinguishing between Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian,
Chaldean and any others is completely missing the point as far as the
Biblical view is concerned. Chris White is very correct to point out how Ancient Aliens plays fast and lose with such terms, cause what their claiming isn't mystical in nature. But Bible Prophecy on the subject of Shinar and Babylon is a different thing, God views all those civilizations as the same Beast. There were also originally many distinct nations in the home regions of Greece, Persia and Rome/Italy too.
"There is a similar problem with the next point which is brought up by
proponents of the traditional view. Which is that Nebuchadnezzar is
called both a lion and an eagle in scripture, this is the best of the
point that the traditional view has to offer in favor of their view for
any of the four beasts, but even so it should be considered that
scripture also calls Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, a lion and an
eagle too in Hosea 8:1 and Jeremiah 50:17."
This only backs up my point that the Neo-Babylonian is still the
Assyrian Empire.
On the Second beast
"The three ribs in its mouth according to the traditional view represent
three notable conquests of the Medo-Persian Empire. But because there
are more than three notable conquests of the Medo-Persian empire there
is much argument among those holding to this view as to which three
should be considered the most important."
Let's use Scripture to interpret scripture here and look at how Daniel 8:4 describes Persia's conquests. "I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him".
So that's three basic directions, which I think fits the point. If I wanted to choose three specific conquests
I'd look chiefly to Babylon, Lydia and Egypt.
And they said thus to it: ‘Arise, devour much flesh!’
"I
think that this phrase is very important as it helps to weaken the case
that this beast represents Medo-Persia, because after the conquests of
Cyrus the great and his son Cambyses II, which occurred relatively
quickly and very early in the medio Persian history, there would be 200
years of no conquering at all until the empire was defeated by Alexander
the Great."
I think that verse refers to the three invasions of Greece, under
Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes. The invasions failed and so did not add
new ribs to the bear's mouth. But they were still very violent and
bloody wars in which much flesh was devoured.
On the Third Beast
"I would agree with them however that the four wings on the leopard probably represent a very fast moving empire."
"One
of the biggest problems with this view is the four heads of this beast,
the traditional proponents say that these heads represent the four
generals who Alexander the Great gave his Empire to after he died."
"Even
a casual student of history knows that the Greek Empire did nothing but
diminish and diminish greatly after Alexander the Great died."
This is NOT the way symbolic visions ought to be interpreted. The four
heads merely represent that it is the Kingdom's destiny to be divided in
four, it does not contradict that it was the first individual King who
conquered everything. Alexander does not need to be a head, the Beast
itself refers to both the individual most significant King as well as
the Nation as whole, just as with the prior two.
Regardless, the
generals who founded those dynasties were alive during Alexander's
conquests, and most, especially Ptolemy, were with Alexander on his
campaigns, and were all married to Persian wives at Susa. The same number is used as when clearly talking about Greece in Daniel 8. That's not a coincidence.
Also since the Hebrew word for Greece is Yavan/Javan. It's interesting that Genesis 10 names Javan as having 4 sons.
It's a personal pet peeve of mine when people describe
the post Alexander period as diminishing and weak. It's true the
Hellenistic empires' borders did not expand by conquest (the wars were
between the successors mainly). But the Hellenistic Age was a very
prosperous time, a time when for the first time ever God's Word was
translated into a foreign language, Greek. To me the Third Century BC is the real Golden Age of antiquity. And the Dark Ages were caused by the rise of Rome, not its fall.
The Fourth Beast
The Fourth Beast I feel like pointing out is even affiliated with the
same Metal the fourth Kingdom of Daniel 2 is, with it's Iron Teeth.
"There are major differences in the fourth empire described here and the
last empire described in the statue vision back in Daniel 2, For
instance in this verse the strength of the empire is clearly the main
focus, not a hint of weakness is detected, contrast that with the last
empire of Daniel 2 in which the bible spends verse after verse
describing the divided nature and inherent weakness of that kingdom. I
would call that a very big difference, the one in Daniel 2 is divided
and weak and the one in Daniel 7 is described as invincible."
Different standards or definitions of weakness and strength could well
be in mind here. Remember, even though both visions are from God, one
was given to Nebuchadnezzar and the other to Daniel. And visions given as
Dreams are definitely influenced by the thought processes and world
view of the dreamer. To begin with this is why one is a beautiful Statue made of precious metals and the other ravenous beasts. Nebuchadnezzar wanted to view himself as superior and the following ones each getting worse.
Certainly Chris White would not argue there is no basis
for describing Rome as a Strong Empire?
Either way, the intent of a new vision is to give us new information. The Little Horn is that new info left out of the prior vision.
"The main thing that people see as the clincher here in the reference to
the 10 horns which they say corresponds to the ten toes in Daniel 2.
But I beg the reader to realize that there is no mention of 10 toes in
Daniel 2. That idea has been read back into the text by people who
assume these two chapters are the same."
Or it's something God expected us to know because everyone knows how many Toes a person normally has. But I feel the Iron Teeth is equally as much of a clincher.
"That being said I do have some agreement with the traditional view at
this point, in that I think that the kingdom that the Antichrist comes
from will have 10 kings because of this passage in Daniel 7, and because
of its interpretation by the angel which we will get to later."
"Perhaps
it might even like representatives of the European Union or a similar
organization, and he will subdue three of them before ultimately talking
over the whole organization, I think that this organization will be
associated with the west in some way as does Charles Cooper, but it is
not required to be the Revived Roman Empire. And I hope that if someone
has the time they will see my study on Daniel 2 to find out why I say
that."
The European Union defines itself as a Revived Roman Empire. They don't
always advertise that fact, but that is why the European Constitution
was supposed to be ratified in Rome.
He goes on again to his
insistence that being the successive Empires of Daniel 2 contradicts
them also being contemporaneous. I view all four as existing right now.
Rome is Western Europe, Greece is Greece (already joined the E.U.), Turkey (military speaking it's already part of the E.U. no matter how
many experts want to insist it'll never join because of their wrong views of Ezekiel 38-39). And then Syria and Egypt. And Assyria-Babylon
is Iraq and Medo-Persia is Iran.
See I agree with the premise
that Daniel 11:40-45 tells us at least part of the story of how The
Fourth Beast conquerors the prior three beasts. It already has most of
what was Greece, so the Kings of the South and North being Egypt and
Syria fits perfectly. And then the further troubles out of the North and
East I think involves Iraq and Iran, and perhaps also Turkey and/or Russia. But I have come to view that Prophecy as initially being not The Antichrist but Augustus Caesar.
In
my Genealogy of The Antichrist study I say in the first
post why I believe The Little Horn in Daniel 8 refers to the Seleucid
Bloodline, not just random individuals within it. So at least part of
what's meant by the Little Horn emerging among the Ten Horns (not out of
one of them) is set up by how the Seleucid dynasty became intermingled
with Roman aristocracy. I further documented all that in the Genealogy
study.
This makes The Little Horn distinct from "King of The North" which refers to the Geography of the Seleucid Empire, mainly
Syria, but perhaps also Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Iran on a modern map,
and parts of Turkey.
I've also considered the possibility, that
when looking at the Little Horn's role in Daniel 7, that it could also
refer to an 11th Kingdom/Nation, not just the individual who is The Willful
King. Back when I learned toward the Mahdi theory I considered the possibility of that
being Jordan and/or a Palestinian state.
Another possibility I now consider more likely then I used to is The United States of America.
The Founding Fathers very much drew on Roman ideas of Government.
Obama I still think is unlikely even if The Antichrist does turn out to
be an American President.
Chris
White now fixates on the view that The Antichrist is a Jewish Messiah claimant, who Israel will actually accept as such, even after the
Abomination of Desolation. I think his theory could be part right, mainly in terms of how he views the First Half of the 70th Week.
The connection to Rome need
not contradict a possible Islamic origin for The Antichrist, (though I'm no longer as sold on that as I once was). Egypt,
Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and very briefly Iraq in the reigns of
Trajan and Hadrian were all under Ancient Roman control.
Chris White
agrees that the Beast out of The Sea from Revelation 13 is the same as
the Fourth beast of Daniel 7 (after conquering and/or absorbing the
prior three). That makes it even more indisputably Rome.
Every
lie has some truth to it, and the main truth that gives credibility to
how Preterists and Bible Skeptics interpret Revelation is that
Revelation clearly uses imagery that would indisputably point readers of
the time to identify The Beast as Rome.
In his Mystery Babylon study
Chris White also talks about translation issues with Revelation 17:9-10.
That it should read (and he's still using the Textus Recpetus with
this) that the Seven Heads are the Seven Mountains and the Seven
mountains are the Seven Kings. This way of looking at is just fine, except
his objective is to insist that the Mountains then tell us nothing about
the Geography of the City. Problem is he doesn't explain what the point
of adding these mountains to the symbolic imagery is then, why not just
cut them out all together?
I believe Rome was where Mystery
Babylon was in John's Time, but I do think she returns to Shinar in the
end via Zechariah 5. I elaborate on my Mystery Babylon views elsewhere.
If the Seven Mountains can in some way be descriptive of her end
times location too, that would be great. But to readers in John's day,
that this detail, however it's worded, pointed to Rome was blatantly
obvious. Indeed so obvious that I reject the skeptics claim that it's
supposed to be coded in way people unfamiliar with Old Testament
imagery wouldn't recognize. The significance of the Seven Hills and
Seven Kings are identifying details of Rome from their own History/Mythology no where found in Hebrew Scriptures.
