The Mount of Olives Crucifixion model

I became aware of this model last month, and I'm becoming increasingly convinced of it, but still holding some reservations.  I don't want to rehash how others make the argument, I'll provide some links for that.  But a warning, such links may allude to other views of their authors I don't agree with.

http://www.leaderu.com/theology/stunning.html

https://www.vision.org/visionmedia/Bible.history/Golgotha.where.is.it/31293.aspx

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-84-christ-in-the-holy-of-holies-the-meaning-of-the-mount-of-olives/

It appears a key innovator in this theory was Dr. Ernest L. Martin's 280-page book entitled Secrets of Golgotha. It can be found on Amazon, but not currently for a reasonable price. 

Bob Cornuke wants to argue for it as if it specifically proves or is dependent on his model for The Temple's location.  It's not, the issue of the traditional sites being north rather then East of the Temple is the same with all four proposed locations for The Temple.  And the Mount of Olives is actually far enough north to arguably fit a Temple Mount location better then Cornuke's.  I still favor the Al-Kas Fountain view.

John 19:21 tells us the place where Jesus was buried was right by the place He was Crucified.  We also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself.  Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible.  Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea.  Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel.  Why would he have a Tomb near Jerusalem?  Well let's get into that.

Zechariah 14:4-5 has lead many Jews to conclude that The Resurrection of The Dead will begin at the Mount of Olives.  I'm not sure why that is, I don't see the Resurrection in that verse.  But because of this many Jews have wanted to be buried on the Mount of Olives.  (Mount of Olives description, from www.goisrael.com, retrieved January 4, 2012.)  And it seems this tendency dates back to before the Time of Christ.  So that makes the Mount of Olives the most likely place for someone like Joseph of Arimathea to have a Tomb built.

I've also been exploring on this blog the idea that most of Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled from 30-70 AD.  What if the Earthquake caused by The Messiah standing on the Mont of Olives is either the Earthquake associated with the Death of Jesus, or the one that rolled the Stone away at His Resurrection?

That would mean the Resurrection did begin there, first with Jesus but then also as Matthew 27:51-53 says many others who's tombs were split open by that Earthquake soon after.  Which I feel ties into Daniel 12, the only other passage on the Resurrection that says "many" rather then all.

The Biblical designation "Mount of Corruption", or in Hebrew Har HaMashchit (I Kings 11:7–8), derives from the idol worship there, begun by King Solomon building altars to the gods of his Moabite and Ammonite wives on the southern peak, "on the mountain which is before (east of) Jerusalem" (1 Kings 11:7), just outside the limits of the holy city. This site was known for idol worship throughout the First Temple period, until king of Judah, Josiah, finally destroyed "the high places that were before Jerusalem, to the right of Har HaMashchit..."(II Kings 23:13)

Ezekiel 11:23 says "And the glory of Yahuah went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.".  That would be the Mount of Olives.

Zechariah compares this Earthquake to the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah.  That Earthquake according to Josephus Antiquities IX 10:4 ( about 2 Chronicles 26) also involved the Temple being rent. Meanwhile, there is archeological evidence Uzziah's body might have wound up among those buried on the Mount of Olives, the Uzziah Tablet.

In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.

And if you think Uzziah's action sounds like a good type of the Antichrist or the False Prophet.  Well Daniel 12 implies this Resurrection will include some who wind up in the Lake of Fire also.

Update October 22nd 2017:  I may abandon this.

Mark 15:37-39 is the key to the Mount of Olives view.  I get why it seems to many to say the Centurion (who's probably not the same soldier who pierced him in John 19) must have seen the Veil being torn, putting them to the East of The Temple.  However verse 39 is pretty specific that Jesus crying out and giving up the Ghost is what the Centurion saw to cause this reaction.  The fact that he died at that exact moment by his own will is what impressed this Roman Solider, who was probably raised to value controlling one's own death.  He wouldn't have cared about a decoration in the Jewish Temple.

And with that smoking gun weakened, and my dependence on extra-Biblical sources here.  And that the NT does clearly refer to the Mount of Olives in other places when something happens there.  Has caused me to come to doubt this view now.

As far as Hebrews 13:11-12 and it's comparison to Jesus Crucifixion as where the "Without the camp" reference.  They are forgetting Exodus 33:7 says the Tabernacle as without the Camp.  I don't think the intent of this verse is to be a clue to the geography of Jesus Crucifixion.

Update: March 16th 2018: Red Heifer

I've been looking into the Red Heifer issue lately.  I had went past me before that Number 19 which Hebrews 13:12-13 is assumed to be quoting is the Red Heifer passage.  I still don't think Hebrews says enough to make us certain that's what's referring to.  But we do now know archeologically that the Mount of Olives is where the Red Heifer sacrifice was performed during the Second Temple period.

My theory that Jesus was Crucified where Solomon's Temple was, is perhaps weakened by my observation that the New Testament never particularly approves of Solomon.  But not entirely.  I"m still uncertain about much of this.

Actually I can now argue that Hebrews 13:11-13 being a clue to the location of the Crucifixion can fit other models.  Because regardless of where the Second Temple traditions said to do it.  The "Without the Camp" of Numbers 19 isn't that far without, because it also says to sprinkle blood at the entrance to the Tabernacle.

Plus no matter what Jesus was outside what the city limits of Jerusalem were at the time.

So I've still come to reject this theory.

Further Update March 19th 2018: Bethany

BTW, Bethany is on the Mount of Olives (Luke 19:29), so Lazarus Resurrection could be said to fulfill an expectation that the Resurrection begins there.

But that reminds me that my post trying to argue that maybe Jesus was crucified much further from Jerusalem then often assumed discussed how "nigh to Jerusalem" is used of both the Crucifixion location and Bethany.  So that becomes an interesting connection.

Actually my reasoning for the Crucifixion where Solmon's Temple was theory is deteriorating.

Update December 2018:  Even though this sin't my main post on the Mt of Olives model anymore, I want to copy/paste this here which I decided to remove from the Bethlehem is Zion post.

Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however.  Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general.  But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah.  And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David.  So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.

Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20.  2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash.  Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16.  So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.

Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem.  Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.

The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah.  This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to the Uzziah Tablet.

In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.

Being buried on the Mount of Olives, is pretty interesting.

Was Rabbinic Judaism founded by Apostate Christians?

That is a shocking suggestion isn't it?

First of all this is another post where I need to remind people up front that I'm ultimately a Futurist because of how I view Matthew 24, Revelation, the Thessalonian Epistles and 2 Peter 3.  But yet I'm open to Preterist interpretations of many Prophecies most Futurists aren't because I think God has his hand in all eras of Human History.

For this I am returning to the subject of Zechariah 12-14.  In the last post where I brought that up, I mentioned how Preterists have argued Zechariah 13:7-9 including the two thirds being killed detail can apply to the Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 AD.  I disagree with them wanting to make Matthew 24 part of that, but much of Luke 21 can apply.

The only problem with that, which I suspect most Preterists ignore, is that part of what Zachariah 13:7-9 says is that all or most of those who survive will be right with God when it's all over.  And from a Christian perspective that would mean becoming Christians.

Well it is interesting that the sects of Judaism that were most hostile to Early Christians, the Sadducees, Zelots, and Shammai Pharisees, were the ones mostly wiped out by that war.  (there is a theory that some Sadducees went to Arabia and became the Himyar kingdom.)  Rabbinic Judaism basically grew out of the post 70 AD evolution of the Pharisees who followed Hillel.  There are plenty of Christians out there seeking to argue that basically Jesus was a Hillel Pharisee.

Chuck Missler likes to say if you study Acts closely it seems like eventually all the Pharisees became Christians.  Well after 70 AD the Pharisees are all that were left.

Karaite Jews reject the Rabbinic traditions, but they as a community are not an independent descent, they are people who left Rabbinic Judaism in the 10th and 11th Centuries, like how Protastants left The Catholic Church.  Inder the leader ship of an Exilarch who descended from the Rabbinic Exilarchs.

Today a lot of Karaite Jews get along well with Torah Observant Christians.  Yet I once years ago read a rant from a Karaite on a message board basically blaming the Talmud and the Mishna for why so many Jews are becoming Messianic Jews now days.  He pointed out how much of what's said in those traditions imply The Messiah already came and was rejected, and even that this happened around 1-100 AD.

I already talked about the Menahem traditions including the Sefer Zerubabel, which has come to define the Eschatology of Rabbinic Judaism.  How they seem to teach that Messiah Ben-David had already come and is waiting to return, and even imply he'll descend from David's son Nathan.  And the strange emphasis on the Mother of the Messiah.  And I've also had my thoughts on how the Messiah Ben-Joseph tradition could be related to the White Horseman of Revelation 6 and/or The Two Witnesses.

Gamaliel the grandson of Hillel the Elder is mentioned in the New Testament twice.  He appears early in Acts encouraging tolerance of Christians.  And then Saul aka Paul a fellow Benjamite claims to have been mentored by Gamaliel.  There are extra Biblical traditions that say eventually Gamaliel converted to Christianity, these are dismissed by mainstream scholars since the Jewish traditions know no hint of it.  But it's interesting to recall that he and his family were the intellectual leaders of Rabbinic Judaism until the Sanhedrin was dissolved around 600 AD.  And much later Rashi descended from the house of Hillel.

The traditional succession of the Exilarchs (descendants of Zerubabel who were leaders of the Jewish Community in Babylonia) skips right from those mentioned in The Hebrew Bible to a contemporary of Trajan.  Is it possible that large gap could be partly filled by The New Testament?  Both Matthew and Luke's Genealogies trace the family of Joseph and Mary to Zerubabel.  I did a post on the Half Brothers of Jesus, and another on Adiabene, which seem to make it plausible that the Exilarchs that popped up in the Second Century could have descended from the Half Brothers of Jesus.

The Epistles of The New Testament seem to foretell a coming Apostacey, not just in II Thessalonians 2.  Apostacey means leaving the faith, not bad doctrine.  Maybe that isn't limited to the End Times, maybe it foretells many Jewish Christians of the East backsliding back into Rabbinism in the late first and early second centuries?  I see today a major problem of many Hebraic Themed Christian leaders calling themselves Rabbis and acting like Rabbinic interpretations are valid, even though Jesus said "Call no man Rabbi" in the same place he said "Call no man Father" which we love to use against the Catholic Church.  Being Torah observant is good, but over valuing the Rabbis, even though they got a few things right, is dangerous.

But I'm not necessarily saying the majority of these Jewish Believers fell away.   Maybe many who spread The Gospel to Gentile nations simply in time become absorbed into their populations?  Edessa for example was a city with a major Jewish population in the days of Trajan (when Christians were still seen as a sect of Jews by the Romans) and later became a major center of Syraic Christianity later.  Also there are apparently families in Antioch that claim descend from Simon Peter.

Update May 2nd 2017:  Leaders of the Sanhedrin.

I mentioned Gamaliel I up above.  He is traditionally the Nasi of the Sanhedrin till about 50 AD.  Then his son Simeon or Shimon II is from 50-70, some have already theorized he could be Simon the Pharisee of Luke 7.

After 70 AD things get more clouded.  Sometimes no one is listed between Simon II and Gamaliel II.  But often Gamaliel II (the son of Simon II) isn't said to have become Nasi till 80 AD.

Gamaliel II (80-118) is noted for disputing with early Christians.  In fact he seems to be the earliest known example of someone misusing Matthew 5:17 to support legalism.  Perhaps it is under him this Apostacey began?

Update March 27 2018: After reading more on Johanan ben Zakai I'm not longer comfortable with theorizing he's a Biblical John.

When The Bible records what day a Prophecy is given, is that a clue to what day it'll be fulfilled?

This is something I've been thinking about, especially as sometimes even in the same book from the same Prophet there is no consistency to if we're told what day the Prophecy was given.  So I think when a date is given, it must be given for a reason.

I've already talked about this in regards to Haggai 2.  How I think the first part of that chapter places the Seventh Bowl of God's Wrath on the 21st of Tishri aka the 7th day of Tabernacles.  And that the second part is relevant to Hanukkah, and perhaps also to the ultimate Eschatological destiny of Hanukkah.

But Haggai is consistent, he dates all of them, and both dates given in Chapter 1 are about the Sixth Month, Elul.  And in this context I wonder if they might tell us about events that will lead up to the Midway point drama.

Ezekiel dates some but not all, 16 isn't dated.  But 26 is, 27 and 28 seem to be more given on that same day.

I've already in key posts of my Egypt tag paid close attention to chapters 29-32 and how they might be the key to unlocking the mystery of the Beast out of the Sea.  Those are all dated.

Ezekiel 40:1 dates that massive vision of the Messianic Kingdom to the 10th of Nisan.  Which I think argues against the common notion of thinking End Times prophecy will involve Tishri years.

Zechariah also dates some of his Prophecies.  Like Chapter 7, which is dated to the 4th day of the Ninth month (Kislev) in the fourth year of Darius.  It seems it is estimated this fall on December 4th 518 BC.   Which makes that a year in which he 25th of Kislev fell on the 25th of December.

The 390 years and 40 years of Ezekiel.

 Ezekiel 4:4-6.

 Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.  For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.  And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

I've talked on another blog about how I feel these time-periods make most sense as ending with the Captivity of Judah, rather then beginning with a Captivity.  And I've mentioned on this blog before how this does NOT support the Historicist Day=Year theory logic because a period of Days did still happen.

Still, it remains popular for variations of both Zionism and British Israelism & Two House theology to insist the 390 years points to some relatively modern event.  This is done by misusing Leviticus 26.  Problem is Leviticus 26 is about the Jubilee, and it uses Times as a synonym for Years like Daniel and Revelation do for certain prophecies.  If Leviticus 26 has any eschatological significance, it is in terms of expanding the "Tribulation period" from the usual expected seven years to a full Jubilee.  Or perhaps a Jubilee separating the end of the Millennium and descent of New Jerusalem.  And that is something I may talk about more in the future.

But for now, I want to talk about how these time periods were fulfilled if they indeed began rather then ended with their captivities.  Perhaps as a second fulfillment.

The Babylonian captivity is commonly refereed to as 70 years.  Chuck Missler has talked about how there were really two overlapping periods of 70 years, 608-538 BC and 588-518 BC.  The Captivity and the Desolation of Jerusalem.  From that however, I notice it becomes possible also to say that there were 40 years from the final Captivity of Judah, to the initial decree to rebuild it issued by Cyrus and return from Captivity under Zerubabel and Jeshua.  So Ezekiel's 40 years for Judah was fulfilled without needing to multiply anything by 70.

 [Update January 23rd 2017:  Well my generally solid math skills totally betrayed when I made this and allowed me to think 588-538 BC was 40 rather then 50 years.  That puts a hole in this premise. But given that later then the Temple's destruction many Judeans fled to Egypt as Jeremiah records.   And Ezekiel also talks about a 40 year Captivity of Egypt.  Maybe that's how the 40 years for Judah can fit?]

722 BC being the usual date for the final fall of Samaria, makes 390 years later the year 332 BC.

That is the year Alexander The Great first came to the land of Israel and Judah.  Early in that year he finished besieging Tyre, and by the end he'd entered Egypt.  So anything he is recorded as doing in the lands of the 12 Tribes before going to Egypt would have happened in 332 BC.

Much is made about Josephus account of Alexander's activities in this year in Antiquities of The Jews Book 11 Chapter 8.  Many say Josephus made it all up, but I believe the account is true.  And I certainly believe Josephus over The Talmud which gets the High Priest wrong.  Alexander was shown Daniel's Prophecies of him like how Cyrus was shown Isaiah 44 and 45.  And he honored Yahuah in The Temple in Jerusalem.

Less talked about however is what Josephus tells us about Alexander and the Samaritans, chiefly in section 6.  Josephus does so from a perspective of hostility towards the Samaritans.  It was a bit more complicated then his relationship with The Jews.  But most importantly the building of the Samaritan Temple was sanctioned by Alexander, that happened earlier in Section 4.

Jesus of course agreed with the account in 2 Kings 17 that the Samaritans descended from Gentiles, when he called them not Israelites.  But some remnants of Ephraim and Manasseh may have intermingled with them.

Could Macedon have been another nation descended form the Lost Tribes?  Dan is linked to Greece in Ezekiel 27, and I've argued that possibly is backed up by Daniel 8.  I've also argued for linking Asher, Western Manesseh, and Zebulun & Isshacar to Celtic tribes, and Macedon had a Celtic element.  The Slavic elements of modern Macedonia come from Slavs migrating south during medieval times and later.

Joel 3 also refereed to Judeans being sold into slavery to Greeks.  And God says that from there God shall raise them up to bring Judgment to Tyre and Sidon and Philista.  Alexander besieged Tye and Gaza, and totally destroyed the latter.

Most historians and archeologists think the earliest Macedonian King likely to be historical was Perdiccas I.  Dates for him vary but he seems to emerge around 700 BC.  After the fall of the Northern Kingdom.

Whether the ancient Macedonians counted as fellow Greeks was a mater of controversy, it seems most Greeks didn't want to claim them till after Alexander became so important to Greek History.  Yet The Bible agrees with calling them Greeks at least in the context of Daniel 8.

Zechariah 9-11 is like 12-14, three Chapters that are all one Prophesy.  It's perhaps even more confusing to interpret, many isolated verses are important and well known, but how they all fit together is difficult.

Zechariah 9 also alluded to The Resurrection in verses 11 and 12.  And I have argued Alexander was among those Resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53, without mentioning Zechariah 9. 

Chuck Missler has argued much of Zechariah 9 could be about Alexander The Great, Greece is mentioned.  But Ephraim is mentioned as well, and others have seen this Prophecy as being important to figuring out how Joseph and Judah will finally be reunited.  Britam sees the later part as a double fulfillment Prophecy about both the Maccabean revolt and a future Messiah Ben Joseph.

Zechariah 9:13

 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

Could this be poetically linking Greece to Ephraim similarly to how Zion is to Judah?

John R. Salverda has attempted to argue legends about Sisphus in Greek mythology are partly inspired by Joseph of Genesis.  He and Britam in general make lots of Arguments I would not support.  But his argument that Ephyra, the name of a couple of ancient Greek cities, could be linked to Ephraim is interesting, given how Ephraim is technically a plural or dual form, the singular would be close to Ephyra or Ephrya.  Ephrath was the feminine plural.  One Ephyra was a city of Epirus, the homeland of Alexander's mother Olympias.

Salverda's arguments also bring up the possible Salmoneus and Solomon connection, which I mentioned in my last Song of Solomon post.

But just as Cyrus decree was only the beginning of Judah's return from Captivity, so 332 BC was only the beginning of Ephraim's.

Does The Bible talk about the End Times more then the Life of Jesus?

Chuck Missler likes to say it does, calling it.

"a period of time about which the Bible says more than it does about any other period in human history- including the time when Jesus walked the shores of the Sea of Galilee or climbed the mountains of Judea. "

And my being uncomfortable with that implication is perhaps a factor in why, even though I am ultimately a Futurist based on my view of Matthew 24 and Revelation, and Paul's Thessalonian Epistles, and 2 Peter 3.  I'm increasingly becoming sympathetic to Preterist interpretations of many passages where my fellow Futurists aren't fond of Preterist interpretations.  Because I do believe the Death and Resurrection of Jesus is the time period around which The Bible revolves

Not all Preterism is so focused on 70 AD, some say much was fulfilled by within Seven Years of Jesus Crucifixion.  And that is where I am in terms of the 70th Week of Daniel, I don't think it refers to 66-73 AD.  I think it was 30-37 AD or maybe 29-36 AD.  And that Jesus was Crucified at it's beginning or end but NOT the Middle.

Still 70 AD can be viewed as in some senses "close enough" to the time of Jesus, plenty of people lived through both time periods.  And I think Jesus did especially in Luke foretell the events of 70 AD often.

I already made one post on Zechariah 12-14, and how I'm unsure what to think of it but am growing more and more open to it being about 30-70 AD.  And I recently became aware of a new argument for that.

Zechariah 13:7 is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27 as being fulfilled by His arrest.

 Then saith Jesus unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, "I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad"."

The following verses of Zechariah 13 are the basis for saying in the End Times two thirds of all Jews will be massacred, probably by The Antichrist.  Preterists have argued this was filled by by how many Jews were killed in the 66-73 AD Jewish-Roman War.  I will object to any claims that 70 AD fulfilled Matthew 24, but as far as Zechariah 12-14 (and much of Luke 21) go, it fits.

And on Daniel 12 I have strong reasons for believing that can apply to the First Century AD also.  As The Book of Revelation defines it's existence as the unsealing of Daniel.  And the Resurrection alluded to is the same one alluded to in Matthew 27:52-43, as those are the only two Resurrection verses that say "many" rather then All.  And I've shown that Daniel 36-45 is about Augustus Caesar.

And my thoughts on Isaiah 19 are also complicated.

I also think some passages usually assumed to be about before The Millennium are actually about after The Millennium.  Like the Gog and Magog invasion.

Zechariah 12-14, I think may need some serious re-evaluation

First thing's first, all three of these chapters are one big Prophecy.  The modern chapter divisions weren't in the original texts, chapter 12 begins with the terminology that indicates a new Prophecy is starting and that's the last time such terminology appears in Zechariah

I'm a Futurist in my overall view of Bible Prophecy because I'm Pre-Millennial, I reject the Day=Year theory, and view the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls of Revelation as affiliated with a seven year period of time the proceeds the start of the Millennium.

However there are certain prophecies I'm willing to entertain a Preterist or Post-Millennial interpretation of over the traditional Futurist ones.  But Matthew 24 and the Thessalonian Epistles are not among those.

The Pastor who I do not like to name did a sermon on Zechariah 12 where even though he too is a Futurist over all, he argued that Zechariah 12 is about the time of Christ.  The allusions to Jerusalem being attacked he said are only hypothetical and that the mourning is of Jesus, because The Gospels do record many people mourning him.

I do not want to link to this sermon or promote him because of the hateful rhetoric he preaches elsewhere, but over all his argument was fairly convincing.  But he didn't mention how 13 and 14 are still the same prophecy, the beginning of 14 is in no way hypothetical in it's talk about Jerusalem being under siege.

He didn't mention in that Sermon what I've read about recently of how Hadad-Rimmon is thought to allude to a myth about Baal Hadad dying and being mourned, like the myth recorded in the Ugarit Baal cycle.  Generally Christians reject this view, but I think it's possible that God could have been talking about the mourning for Jesus and comparing it to a pagan custom of mourning a dying god in a way that is derogatory to the pagan deity.

Or maybe one could argue the actual Hebrew meaning of Hadad or Adad and Rimmon (Pomegranate) could work as a title of Christ.

Many Jews believe it is the mourning of Josiah this future mourning is being compared to.  Since Kings often had more then one name, that's possible.

Many including myself in the past have overlooked the detail of the beginning of Zechariah 14 that the Siege of Jerusalem recorded there does result in a captivity, it's not thwarted.  And since Zechariah wrote this down after the Babylonian captivity, I feel the opening of Zechariah 14 makes the most sense to view as being about 70 AD.

Now critics might insist that "All Nations" gathered against Jerusalem is not literally fulfilled in 70 AD.  In certain contexts what I mean when I say I take The Bible literally would not exclude hyperbolic or exaggerative language.  Rome did have help from many allied and client kingdoms.  Including a controversial claim that the Nubian Queen at the time sent troops to help Rome put down this revolt.

The thing I've come to accept that many of my fellows Futurists do not. Is that the part of Revelation about before the Millennium starts, chapters 6-19, feature no siege of Jerusalem, either a successful or a failed one.  Not unless you think Babylon is Jerusalem, but I refute that in my Great City post and my initial Mystery Babylon post.  The gathering at Armageddon is to march on Jesus at his return, not a City, and I don't think Jerusalem is where he will be till after Chapter 19 is over.

The only Siege of Jerusalem in Revelation is the Gog and Magog invasion after The Millennium.  But that is entirely thwarted, there will be no captivity there.

Being Trodden under Foot of the Gentiles in Chapter 11 (that I feel we need Luke 21 and Romans 9-11 to full understand) could imply a siege happens before the seven years starts, but that's speculative.  It can be viewed as still Trodden Under Foot from the 70 AD siege, due to the Muslim presence there.

It is possible that Zechariah jumps from 70 AD to the End Times between 14:2 and 14:3.  But it sounds immediate, either way verses 3 and up is the most difficult part for a Preterist interpretation of this Prophecy.

I'm not sure entirely what to think yet.  But I think many assumptions we tend to make about this Prophecy are wrong and more research needs to be done into it.

What is the Mystery of Babylon?

I've noticed some people feel that the whole point of Babylon being called a "Mystery" (Mysterion in the Greek) proves it can't be as simple as being just Babylon of Mesopotamia.

First of all some mysteries are good because they're so simple.  The original Scream was a great mystery film because the killer does wind up being the first person anyone had suspected, the twist was simply that he had a partner.  Now I'm not going to argue there are two Babylons (though I have argued there are two cities called the "Great City").  

But I do feel a great deal of Eschatological confusion comes from people assuming Babylon is the Beast's capital.  Chris White tying his Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon into his Antichrist as a Jewish False Messiah theory is dependent on that assumption.  Same with the Pope as the Antichrist and/or False Prophet views.

Mystery Babylon wields power over the Beast, hence riding it, but the Beast later turns on her.  I actually feel that makes little sense if that city is his political capital.  I in fact feel there is no guarantee the Beast or False Prophet will ever set foot in Babylon personally, though they certainly could.  The events of the Sixth and Seventh Bowls imply to me that the Beast is West of the Euphrates while Babylon is East of it.

This is also a good time for me to remind people that while I feel based on the importance of the Euphrates in Revelation as well as Zechariah 5, that Revelation's Babylon must be in Mesopotamia.  I do not feel it needs to be the Babylon of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar.  Because I've already argued Eridu was the Babel of Genesis 10 and 11.  And I find it interesting how H. G. Wells chose Basra for his Things To Come.  Other cities that have rivaled Babylon as the regional capital include Nineveh (Nahum uses Whore of Babylon like terminology), Seleucia and Baghdad.

Ultimately though, the reason it's a "Mystery" is because while it is a very Specific City in Shinar it is also more then that, it is a Religious and Socio-Economic System.  That has ties to other cities, but Zechariah 5 makes clear for the end She will return home.  She is in a sense all False Religion.

I have responded before to Chris White's View.  I agreed with White's point about how the Mountains are clearly linked to the Heads/Kings, and are not a separate symbol.  But disagreed with how he used that as an excuse to render the Mountains irrelevant.  I didn't know how to answer the Mountains issue then, but I do now since I have come to my finale conclusion on the Seven Heads and how they connect to Daniel 7.  It could be we are dealing with not Seven Mountains physically near each other, but 7 Sacred Mountains or Hills for each of the relevant 7 Kingdoms, or all 7 of their spiritual capitals.  Babylon, Persepolis, Alexandria, Antioch, Byzantium/Constantinople, Ctesiphon and Rome.

So Rome can indeed be relevant to understanding the full story of the Mystery.  But she both begins and ends in Shinar.

The idea of removing Literal Babylon altogether and making Babylon a code for something else begins with Rome, other such views have been possible only because of long held attachment to doing it with Rome made the idea seem acceptable.  But none other then Rome started being seriously suggested till within the last two hundred years, three hundred tops.  While the Early Church Fathers were often Anti-Semtic and held Jewish Antichrist views, you won't see among them a single example of a Jerusalem as Babylon view being suggested.

I myself have even flirted with allegorical Babylon ideas, mainly here.  The main points of that post I still stand by.  But any past confusion I had on Babylon has been cleared up.

The origin of viewing Babylon as code for Rome lies entirely in Catholics wanting to use it to make 1 Peter support their Peter was in Rome nonsense.  The claim that Peter came to Rome I view as false, but it has ancient roots going back even to the second century.  And Catholics are Ok with seeing Babylon in Revelation as Rome, they just insist it's Pagan Rome not Papal Rome (they will sometimes point out Vatican Hill is not one of the original 7 hills meant when Rome is called a City on 7 hills).

So that's why Protestants using a Babylon as Rome view against the Vatican is so annoying to me, they are actually using a Catholic lie as the foundation of their anti-Catholic Eschatology.  If you can find a single example of a Catholic apologist disagreeing with Revelation's Babylon being Rome, I will be genuinely shocked, but one or two isolated examples would not undermine my point here.  I was raised Catholic and the Family Catholic Bible has Babylon being Rome all over it's footnotes for Revelation.

And then we have Historicists saying that denying Babylon is Rome is a Jesuit deception (along with Futurism in general).  Because Peter being in Rome is needed for the very foundation of Cahotlicism, the Catholics NEED Babylon to mean Rome at least once in The Bible, far more then they ever cared about Protestants calling the Pope the Antichrist.

So if you really want to hurt the Vatican, just accept that Babylon is Babylon.

The Great City, can there be only one?

In my study where I refuted Chris White's Mystery Babylon theory, I didn't go in depth on the fact that Jerusalem and Babylon are both called the "Great City".  I just repeated what Chuck Missler likes to say about "The Bible being a tale of two cities" and left it at that.

That is the main weakness of that study, that the main direct technical argument I just sort of brushed off.  So today I want to get into that more.  Then I will go back and edit that older post to include a link to this one.

In the Greek this term is "Megale Polis".  This phrase isn't used in any other books of The Bible, only Revelation.  But it's general Greek usage does not at all suggest it is a term that can apply to only one single city.  In fact in Greece there were 40 places called "Megale Polis".  The only time it's used in a sense of being unique to only one city was the city that was actually named that, (Megalopolis, founded in 371 BC) rather then it being only a title of a city.  And I don't think anyone thinks Revelation is talking about Megalopolis.

In Chapter 11 the term is used of current terrestrial Jerusalem, and in 21 is used for New Jerusalem.  In Chapters 14, 17 and 18 it is indisputably used of Babylon.

Proof that the book intends to apply that term to more then one city is in chapter 16 starting in verse 17, when the Seventh Bowl of God's Wrath is poured out.

And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.  And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.

 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.  

 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.  And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

The middle Paragraph above is verse 19.  It makes little grammatical and no narrative sense for the Great City and Babylon to be the same city in that context.  The Great City was just judged, and now after that is done God is turning his attention to Babylon, setting the stage for the next two chapters.

People who play fast and lose with the Chronology of Revelation may try to argue that chapters 17 and 18 are merely describing in more detail what happened in 16:19.  Besides that simply not fitting the grammar of what the text says, Revelation 18 foretells Babylon ceasing to be a City at all, that land to never be inhabited again.  Not at all the same thing as being divided into three parts, but rather mutually exclusive.

I think the Great City being divided into three parts is Jerusalem, it fits Jerusalem's history perfectly.

I'd bet that there are Historicists saying this was fulfilled already by modern Jerusalem's division into "Quarters" because calling them "quarters" is silly when the Armenian quarter is so small and the Armenians are Christians.  What it was was a dividing of Jerusalem between the 3 major Religions that consider it sacred.  But that would not be a truly literal fulfillment of the prophecy, Revelation is talking about a physical division, not man made borders.

The Seventh Bowl Earthquake is ultimately a World Wide event, but it's relevance to Jerusalem I think corresponds to Zechariah 14:4.  As that Earthquake like this one follows the reference to Armageddon.

The River that will flow from Ezekiel's Temple will at some point split into two rivers, one emptying into the Mediterranean and the other into the Dead Sea.  It could be the same cracks in the Earth that divide Jerusalem in three are also what causes the River to become two rivers.

Thus Revelation 16:19 is proof that Mystery Babylon is NOT Jerusalem. More evidence against Babylon being anything but a City in Mesopotamia can be found Here and Here.

The Millennium and Tabernacles

I've talked before about how I think many passages people assume are The Millennium are really the New Heaven and New Earth.  Mainly Isaiah 65, Ezekiel 40-48 and Psalm 48.

I have decided one Old Testament passage I think is definitely The Millennium.  The end of Zachariah 14.

And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.   And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.  And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.  In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.  Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

This theme of punishing Nations I don't see happening in the New Creation.  This fits my suspicion that The Millennium is not going to be as Utopic as everyone assumes.   The passages I disagree with seeing as The Millennium are about the Gentile Nations enthusiastically worshiping Yahweh.

That only Tabernacles is mentioned here I find interesting.  I doubt it'll be the only of the Feast Days kept at this time, but it may be the only one that God will require the Gentiles to come to.  Ezekiel 45 has Passover/Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles still being kept, but not First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah or Yom Kippur.

You may be thinking, "having a required pilgrimage for the Jews is one thing, but do you really think the whole world's population is gonna fit in Jerusalem?"  Well what Zechariah 14 says is focused on the Nations, not on individuals.  It may be each nation will send representatives there, or that the leaders are supposed to go there.

It is my view that the Fulfillment of Tabernacles is after the Millennium and the Gog and Magog war.  While Yom Teruah is fulfilled at The Rapture.

The Lost Tribes and Bible Prophecy

I know all the arguments out there against thinking The Lost Tribes are a thing.  I've heard it from Chuck Missler and Chris White.

I know that the Levites moved South when Jeroboam fell into idolatry.  And Chuck insists we can infer everyone not Ok with the idolatry did the same.  Even though it's repeatedly demonstrated that The North had a believing remnant.  God never tells his people that as a rule they must leave a country if it's sinful, we should be trying to make our countries better.  The Levites had a special purpose linked to The Temple.

I know that they claim Assyrian Records show the deportation to be not just incomplete but even it seems only a very small portion from select regions.  I prefer to believe Biblical Records over Secular ones, which say people remained but not a whole lot.  Most of those that did intermarried with Gentiles to become the Samaritans, who Jesus considered not Children of Israel.

See the problem with the point about the Assyrian Records is the Deportation happened in phases.  Just as the Southern Kingdom's did.  And those records cited deal with only one of what were at least 3 deportations.  The records of the 722 BC (724 BC in Usser) deportation is what people focus on.  But 1 Chronicles 5 alludes to earlier deportation of specifically the Trans-Jordan tribes, and additional deportations likely happened during Sennacherib's campaign against Hezekiah, or when they deported King Manasseh, the latter probably explains when Simeon was deported.

I know Josiah and Hezikiah and Asa had their special Second Passover where they invited northern Kingdom Survivors to come South and join them.  There were far from complete, but Anna the Prophetess I think descends from those Asherites.

I know the return from captivity records people from every Tribe but Dan returning. That Return wasn't complete even for the Southern Tribes. After even the last major return in the days of Nehemiah a significant population remained behind.

I know that after the captivity The Bible often treats Judah and Israel as synonymous.  But that is poetic in nature.

Even if all those points were as completely valid as they make them seem.  The Fact remains that Bible Prophecy speaks of a reunification of Judah and Joseph/Ephraim as Eschatological/End Times.

Chuck Missler in his commentary on Ezekiel 37 actually goes on about all those points as if Ezekiel 37 proved his point, Judah and Joseph are one.  The entire point of that reference is it's foretelling their reunification as part of that Prophecy.  And I also disagree with Chuck's desire to remove the literal Bodily Resurrection from this passage.  Yes it is about Israel's restoration as a Nation.  But it's not 1948, it's them being restored in belief, during The Millennium, after the First Resurrection is finished.  The references to the Resurrected David being there should leave that beyond dispute.

Now the thing neglected by people who tend to want to see this reunification as all flowers and roses is some of the Prophecies on this theme seem to predict more conflict between Judah and Ephraim, like they often had before.  Isaiah 9-11 may or may not have an End Times second application, but Isaiah 28 is indisputably End Times.  Zachariah 9-11 may also be of interest.  But on Isaiah 9-11, those that see the End Times there usually think The Assyrian is The Antichrist.  But in Ezekiel, The Assyrian is the Terrible of The Nations, who kills The Antichrist.  Isaiah 11 seems to me to allude to both The Antichrist and The False Prophet when speaking of Ephraim.  Jeremiah 4 and Micah 1 are also worth considering.

Jeremiah and Ezekiel when foretelling the Southern Kingdom's coming fall to Babylon compared it to the earlier fall of the Northern Kingdom.  God is saying you fell into the same error so I'll do unto you as I did unto them.  Well it's interesting that the captivity of Judah happened twice, it had a second fulfillment under The Romans.

Lots of Christians see an eschatological significance to much of Hosea.  But they insist the End Times application must manifest in Israel as a whole, even though the book is about Ephraim.

Chris White makes a solid argument that The Antichrist might claim to be the non Biblical Messiah Ben-Joseph.  I've talked on that before and how he leaves out the whole Northern Kingdom aspect of that. I also discus some of my thoughts on British Israelism there.

I also have a post where I respond to his view on Daniel 7.

Hosea 13:7-8 "Therefore I will be unto them as a lion: as a leopard by the way will I observe them:I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them. "

I don't think it's a coincidence that this uses the same three animals used of the first three Beasts in Daniel 7.  Yes God uses them of himself coming upon Israel, but he often Judges Israel by foreign nations fighting wars with them. But if that's the case where is the fourth beast?  I'm speculating it could be viewed as Ephraim, in the sense that Ephraim represents the Northern Kingdom in general.

Deuteronomy 33:17 "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."

Jeremiah 31:18 " I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God."

And remember the Idols Jeroboam set up were Bulls, modeled after The Golden Calf.  Bulls are horned animals, they don't have 10 but that's irreverent, they're a horned animal.  The number being 10 could mean 10 nations that are claiming to be the Ten Lost Tribes.

I think the 4th World Empire is a hydride Empire, Edom/Rome (the Iron in both) and Ephraim/Dan.  I think in the Statue of Daniel 2 Ephraim would be the Miry Clay.  Many have interpreted the Miry Clay to represent the "Barbarian" tribes mingling with Rome as the Western Empire fell apart.  Those are the same tribes often identified as being entirely or at least partly descended from The Lost Tribes in British Israelism/Franco Israelism/Britam.  Usually those two Biblical connections for them aren't made by the same commentator however, (Example: Britam sees the Miry Clay as Ishmaelites).

Chris White continues to be skeptical of seeing the European Union as the Fourth Beast because it has more then 10 nations. I've posted one response to his objections before.  But I now have a better one.  The Ten Horns are not the entire confederation, only part of it as they'ree only part of The Beast.

I think the Ten Horns are the nine European nations Britam claims are Israelite nations plus Germany (who Britam wants to see Edom but they're really more like the other supposedly Israelite nations then the Edomite ones).  The iron teeth are Edom/Rome and hence Italy, Spain, Portugal and Western Mediterranean Islands like Malta and Corsica.  And the nails/claws of brass/bronze going back to Daniel 2 would be Modern Greece, and perhaps to a lesser extent Turkey/Cyprus.  I know people like to list all kinds of reasons Turkey will never become part of the EU, but militarily speaking it effectively already is via it's involvement in both the WEU and NATO.

That even those don't cover the entire EU (mostly it's eastern Europe that is left out) isn't a big deal because they're still not the entire body of The Beast clearly, but they're the key clues emphasized.

In the closing verses of Obadiah, the prophecy of the finale Destruction of Edom seems to allude to some Judgment coming on Ephraim/Samaria at the same time.

I made a post arguing against the Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon view.  What I have considered since then is that maybe Mystery Babylon could be Samaria, looking at passages like Micah 1.  Or maybe a different Northern Kingdom Capital within the land allotted to Ephraim and/or Manasseh.

In Hosea God says he shall avenge the Blood of Jezreel against the House of Jehu.  Jehu I've argued could be a type of The Antichrist.

Chris White has argued that Armageddon in Revelation might refers to Hadadrimmon rather then Megiddo.  Zechariah 12:11 refers to both, and both like Jezreel are in or by the Valley of Jezreel.

In Revelation 16 Armageddon is the gathering place, not where the battle itself is.  I think maybe The Beast gathers his armies after the 6th Bowl and then marches south.  Attacks whatever city Mystery Babylon is in the Mountains of Samaria (could that be why it's on 7 hills?) because we're told The beast will turn on The Harlot.  Then he marches on Jerusalem, but Jerusalem he won't destroy because Jesus comes back to defend Jerusalem.

Follow Up Post

The True Identity of The False Prophet

I've discussed The False Prophet's possible ties to other Bible Prophecy, and the nature of his Signs and Wonders, as well as who he might claim to be.  Now I shall speculate on who he really is.

The term "Son of Perdition" is used only twice, the 2 Thessalonians 2 passage that's been important to this study is the second.  You'll recall I argued that the "Son of Perdition" could be the second Beast rather then the first.

The first was John 17:12 where it refers to Judas Iscariot. Because of that many have taught that Judas is the Antichrist. This ties in with the statement about Judas being sent to "his own place" after he died, possibly meaning the Abyss.

But to me Judas being The First Beast isn't possible because Judas was not a King in a succession of Seven Kings.  (I also partly feel it's important that both the death and resurrection of The Beast is witnessed by the 70th week World.)  But since I've already argued Paul's "Son of Perdition" might actually be the Second Beast rather then The First.  I notice that those issues are not a problem with Judas being The False Prophet.

There are two Old Testament prophecies cited in the New Testament as referring to Judas, yet when read in their entire context seem much grander then just Judas as we normally think of him, (and have been interpreted as referring to The Antichrist independently of noting their Judas connection). Psalm 109 (in Acts 1:20), and Zechariah 11 (in Matthew 27:9).  The latter has also already been relevant to this study.

Zechariah 11:17 calls him "the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock", sounds like it could connect to the same terminology as the verse where Jesus calls Judas the Son of Perdition. "I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.". This is a strong verse on Eternal Security, but Judas is sort of the exception that proves the rule, and his being lost is a fulfillment of prophecy.

Psalm 109 actually has three evil personages in mind, the subject of the Psalm (Who we are told is Judas) and verse 6 says "Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand." Could it be another picture of the counterfeit Trinity?

In John 6:70 Jesus refers to Judas as "a Devil" (after saying He Chose him). In the Greek this is Diabolos, any time you see references to people being possessed by "a devil" "devils", or any references to plural "devils" the Greek is Daimon or Daimonian. This is the only time Diabolos refers to anyone other then Satan himself, but in reference to Satan it's always "the Devil" not "a Devil" so this is very unique.

Revelation 13 says of the Beast out of The Earth "he spake as a dragon", the dragon in mind here is almost certainly The Dragon. Judas is the only person who is known to have been indwelt by Satan himself, (Luke 22:3 and John 13:27). So he could easily speak with his voice.

Judas had the ability to perform miracles, just like the False Prophet will do. In Matthew 10:1-8 the Disciples (all of the Twelve are listed, including Judas) are given the power to perform miracles. Even tough Judas wasn't really saved he could perform divine miracles, including healing and raising the dead.   In this period they'll be Satanic miracles rather then divine as in Matthew 10, but the point is Judas has experience in doing this.

In Revelation 13:13 he can make "fire come down from heaven on the earth". Satan had this ability in Job:12. But Luke 9:51-56 implies this was also in the arsenal of the Twelve, though Jesus rebuked John and James then for desiring to use it in that way.  Chris White considers that miracle the key clue to who the False Prophet claims to be, why not consider it also a clue to who he really is?  Judas as one of the 12 is the only unsaved Human outside Revelation ever even remotely attributed this power.

The Second Beast isn't just the religious leader, he's also in charge of the new economy. In Revelation 13:16-17 we're told he makes everyone get The Mark and requires them to need it to buy or sell. John 12:6 tells us Judas was in charge of the moneybag during Jesus' ministry, he was their treasurer.

Judas "hanged himself" the same day Jesus was crucified. Different means of execution (the Greek term here is precise, it refers to hanging with a rope to cause strangulation), that can both fit the description of "hanged on a tree" (Deuteronomy 21:23). The First Resurrection began with Jesus, so perhaps likewise the Second Resurrection will begin with Judas.

 It's popular today to view Judas sympathetically, as someone doomed by fate, and as someone probably forgiven for what he did. The Bible definitely paints him as a Villain however.

I'm not saying it's evil to sympathize with him at all, he was human and I wouldn't want movies to make him a 1 dimensional mustache twirling villain.  But remember that he was motivated by Greed.  He was not a disillusioned revolutionary like many movies have chosen to paint him.

Jesus Christ Superstar was a popular Musical, the writer of which said once his agenda was to show Jesus as "just a a messed up dude like Judas", meaning to show Jesus as human but not divine. That is the Antichrist Hersey on it's own, but on an esoteric level I noticed something.  It does not carry the story to Jesus Resurrection, but it does have Judas sing a song after he hung himself (the title track).  In the first movie version of it, this sequence began with Judas clothed in white descending from heaven hanging onto a star.

The only Biblical basis to try and claim Judas was redeemed is Matthew 27:3 "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself". First Repentance is not synonymous with Salvation, even those who erroneously think it's required for Salvation view it as only a first step. But also this word in the Greek is similar to but different from the usual word(s) for repentance which mean a change of mind. Metamellomai (met-am-el'-lom-ahee), simply means he was regretful.

Why he regretted it is not necessarily because he felt guilty. All the immediate text tells us is that "he saw that he was condemned", which could mean a number things, not liking how others view him, or it could simply refer to the outcome of what he did not being what he expected. But even so, feeling guilty isn't enough, what saves you is placing your Faith in Jesus.

Some of the Judas is the Antichrist theorists have suggested that what happened at Gethsemane was not what he planned, that he did not expect Jesus to simply willingly hand himself over. After all Satan's previous attempts to kill Him Jesus had averted somehow. It's been suggested that Satan didn't know yet there would be two Advents.

Now, "that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet" is not a contradiction, first off there is a connection to Jeremiah 32:6-9.  Second, chapters 9-14 of Zachariah unlike the earlier chapters do not begin with Zachariah identifying himself, it's possible he was recording additional prophecies of Jeremiah that he gave after his own Book was finished, and that weren't scribed by Baruch accounting for a different literary style.

Now as for the supposed contradiction in how Judas died. I'm not entirely sure what I do think, but viewing them as somehow irreconcilable is absurd given the lack of detail both verses have.

Matthew 27:5 simply says "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." It actually does not say he died here at all, lots of attempted self hangings fail, it's kind of the easiest form of suicide to botch.

But all Luke says in Acts 1:18 is "this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." This could mean the rope broke and he fell. It's possible Luke intended here a Poetic connection to a parable he recorded Jesus saying in Luke 5:36-39.

 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.  And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.  But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.  No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

What's Interesting is that Acts 1:18 implies Judas himself bought the field, while Matthew 27 says the Priests did. But that's not a big deal, the money was still legally Judas's, that's the point of what the Priests did with it.

Zachariah 11 is a very cryptic Prophecy. And without the help of the New Testament it's not necessarily clear who will throw the money, and it's possible many Rabbis did indeed assume it was the Good Shepard. So the theory of some is that when Judas threw the money he expected the Priests to interpret it as fulfilling that prophecy. And that now Satan had figured out that the Messiah had to be "hung on a tree" and that Judas was intentionally making a last minute ploy to set himself up as a False Messiah.

If as I suggested in part 3 of this study, The False Prophet claims to be Jesus.  Judas would have an advantage in pulling that illusion off, he too was a first century AD Judean male of probably about the same age.  He also interacted with the man he'd be seeking to imitate.  But it wouldn't be impossible for such an individual to pass as Elijah either, fitting Chris White's theory.

Another purely conjectural note.  What if the False Prophet as a fake Jesus chooses to incorporate a claim that certain heresies have made about Jesus having children who became ancestral to various Royal Houses is true?  Easy enough claim to make, but what if he offers to prove it via a DNA test?  Remembering that Psalm 109 is about Judas, it also tells us he had a wife and children.  Maybe he helped sire the bloodline(s) claimed to be from Jesus?

I no longer view the Islamic Antichrist theory as being likely to be how things play out.  But I do still hold that the Mahdi is among many false Prophecies Satan inspired for the purpose of being possible avenues for The Antichrist.

Part of that theory is seeing Isa as the False Prophet.  It is also well known how the Koran is interpreted at one point as claiming Jesus wasn't on the Cross but was switched with someone.  Well the apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas (not to be confused with his also falsely attributed Epistle) seems to, in the form of it we have, be a pseudo Proto-Islamic text, claiming to foretell Mohamed by name, and agreeing with many Islamic ideas like Ishmael over Issac.  In this Gospel of Barnabas the person who was on the cross instead of Jesus was Judas, which is potentially interesting.

Who will The False Prophet claim to be?

This is a continuation of my False Prophet Study.

I believe during the first  half of and/or before The 70th Week that the Antichrist will be claiming to be, or be claimed to be, Messiah Ben-Joseph.  This agrees in part with Chris White's view.  But I also have a lot of problems with White's view.

Part of that theory as White presents it has The False Prophet be a counterfeit Elijah.  The main clue pointing to that being the one miracle directly linked to him being also linked to Elijah, calling fire down form Heaven.  Which is also usually cited as one of the reasons we know one of the Two Witnesses in chapter 11 is Elijah, because they do something similar.

That could be correct, but I have another theory I think is more likely.  I'm not dogmatic about it however.

First off I talk about what goes on with the Signs and Wonders of Revelation 13 here.  Also fire from heaven isn't unique to Elijah, we know it's one of the abilities Jesus gave the 12 the Authority to perform from Luke 9:54.  And technically Moses and Aaron also did it as one of the 10 Plagues inflicted on Egypt.

White also makes it sound like Rabbinic Jews expect Elijah to resurrect Messiah Ben-Joseph.   There is only one very obscure Rabbinic reference giving credence to that, and it's based on identifying Messiah Ben Joseph with the individual Elijah already resurrected during his first ministry.  That's not compatible with how The Antichrist deception will play out in my or White's understanding of the Mid-70th Week drama.  The far vaster and more universal expectation is that Messiah Ben-David resurrects Ben-Joseph.

If you're convinced by all the other arguments for him trying to convince Jews he's the Jewish Messiah, then of course an Elijah claimant must play some role.  But there are three other ways that could fit in.

1. The horns affiliated with the first beast we know represent 10 other distinct individuals linked to The Beast.  But generally no one considers that the two "lamb like horns" of the second beast could be the same.  I think it's possible they could be two proto-False Prophets counterfeiting the Two Witness.  Maybe these are among the False Prophets of Matthew 24:11, and it's not till verses 23 and 24 that the Two Beasts show up and are added to the list.

2. Yair Davidy of Britam is among those Rabbinic Jews who actually believe ideas similar to British Israelism.  And he ties Messiah Ben-Joseph into that.  I've actually had a few brief email exchanges with him, I asked if anyone has considered that Elijah and Messiah Ben-Jospeh could be the same, since Elijah probably was tribally of either Manasseh or Ephraim.  And he said yes, that is a possibility some Rabbis have considered.

And among those Christians who have accepted the Messiah Ben-Joseph concept, they usually read him into Revelation as one of The Witnesses.  Because of the parallel of Ben-Joseph laying dead in the streets of Jerusalem for a period of time before being resurrected.

Meanwhile some commentators on Revelation have suggested both Beasts are the Evil Counterparts of the Two Witnesses.

So, especially looking at my thoughts on how the miracles might play out, maybe before he outright deifies himself The Antichrist claims to be Elijah?  Most likely in the same sense John The Baptist is viewed as Elijah?

3.  In my Four Horsemen study, I suggest that the person who becomes The Beast might not even be evil at first.  Some Old Testament figures who become types of The Antichrist were indeed anointed by true Prophets of God, one specific example, Jehu, has an indirect connection to Elijah in his anointing.  So maybe we shouldn't rule out that The White Horseman will be supported by The Two Witnesses at first?

So those are the alternative ways Elijah could be accounted for in the coming deception.  Now as for my personal view on who The False Prophet claims to be.

Having "two horns like a lamb" is thought to support the idea of him claiming to be Jesus.

The word translated "lamb" here is used over 25 times in Revelation, this is the only time it's not in direct reference to Jesus. But it's not actually a lamb, it's "like a lamb". similar or resembling is what the Greek word here means. So some scholars (even without the intent of connection to any extra Biblical ideas I'll mention latter) have theorized that it's the second beast not the first who claims to be Jesus himself. This word occurs outside Revelation only once in John 21:15, and there it's in a different form, being the only time it's plural. It is not provable to be a perfect synonym of any other term Biblically.

Chris White feels two of the key miracles linked to Elijah being calling down fire and raising the dead is significant.  But both of those are linked to Jesus as well.

It's interesting that the only other place in The New Testament a specific individual is described with the term False Prophet, is Acts 13. And the name of this person is Bar-Jesus. Yeshua (transliterated Iesous into Greek and then Jesus in English via Latin) was a very common name in First century Judea. But the New Testament generally avoids referring to any other individuals with the same name as it's central character. This isn't the only exception (translations sometimes obscure that Barabas was forenamed Jesus), but it's an interesting thematic coincidence.

Some have cited Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." As proving the False Prophets and false Messiahs are distinct.

First of all claiming to be Jesus doesn't necessarily mean claiming to be The Messiah, it could be the point is claiming the Antichrist and not Jesus is The Messiah.

 But also Hebrew expression often lists synonyms next to each other like that. All True Prophets are Anointed of God and thus Messiahs. And Jesus is the "Prophet like unto Moses" which even some modern Rabbinic Jews claim to be Messianic.

 When False Prophets are paired with False Teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 there is more blatant justification for viewing them as different groups grammatically. Yet they're clearly not meant to be viewed as mutually exclusive. If you want to argue that they are, I'd just remind you of the Isaiah verse I quoted early on "prophet that teacheth lies".

 Why Two Horns? Lambs have horns, but they're very small and barely noticeable. No where outside Revelation does The Bible emphasize horns in a symbolic or literal description of lambs or sheep, or even acknowledge the possibly of them having horns. So when you see commentators say "two horns because that's the number a Lamb normally has".  That's true biologically, but doesn't have much Biblical precedent.

The only other Biblical reference to Lamb horns is in Revelation 5:6 "stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth." So these false Lamb horns could equate to demonic spirits (and so could connect to my theory elsewhere about them being proto false prophets, speaking by the power of those spirits). John as I'll mention later equates the "Spirit of Antichrist" with two linked yet technically different key heresies.

Some see a connection to Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."  Firstly the word for Sheep is not the same word as Lamb, in the Greek or in English.  Some use this against The False Prophet claiming to be Jesus, because here it means sheep as in how Christians are sheep, not Jesus himself. But he said wearing Sheep's clothing, that imagery is meant to make us think of a Shepherd.  Zachariah 11 and Ezekiel 34 speak of Jesus as the Good Shepherd. Ezekiel speaks of multiple bad Shepherds, but Zachariah 11:16-17, says

"For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."

The key to me however is that IF one of the two beasts claims to be Jesus, it can only be the second. It is debatable on if Jesus saying "shall come in my name" means The Antichrist will claim he's Jesus, that could be a different study.  But why you ask do I think only the second beast can be claiming to be Jesus?

John's epistles define Antichrists and the Spirit of Antichrist as denying Jesus is God made Flesh, and denying the relationship of The Father and The Son.  NOT as denying Jesus existed, or denying he was good, or denying he was a wise teacher, or denying he was a Prophet, or The Messiah, or denying he performed miracles, or was born of a Virgin, or that he died and rose again, or denying he was without sin. It's defined as denying Jesus was the Son of God, or was God made Flesh.

We know from Revelation 13 the first beast is the one deified, the second is promoting him. So it can't fit the definition of Antichrist if the First is claiming also to be Jesus.  It'd still be heresy, but not the Antichrist heresy.

However it would in fact be the perfect manifestation of The Antichrist heresy, if THE Antichrist is actually Two Individuals.  One claiming to be Jesus and not God, and the other to be God and not Jesus.

Chris White's objection to The False Prophet claiming to be Jesus begins with the strawman that ONLY people focused on an Islamic Antichrist (Mahdi and Isa) theory make that argument.  I used to flirt with the Islamic theory, but I've since abandoned it.  But I like to remain open to all possibilities, since we will NOT know for certain who he is until The Abomination happens.

Just doing some casual searching on the subject, I know I found one site making this argument for a Vatican centered theory.  Another who said of the second beast description "this sounds like the gentle Jesus of liberal denominations", clearly he wasn't thinking of the Islamic Isa.

And one that didn't allude to what they felt the nature of the first beast was, or what false religion he'd be, but just arguing for The False Prophet as claiming to be Jesus to help arguing that The False Prophet really is who I will argue he is in the 4th part of this study.  But certain aspects of his argument differed from mine.

The Islamic theory isn't the only theory it works with.  It could lend itself well to a variation of White's own theory, because as I said Messiah Ben-David is who Rabbinic Jews expect to resurrect Messiah Ben-Joseph.  And a fake Jesus can very easily be claimed to be Messiah Ben-David, since that's one of the many things the Real Jesus is.

In fact I think the Islamic eschatological tradition was mostly plagiarizing the Mahdi from Ben-Joseph, simply changing which disinherited branch of the family of Abraham to prop up, and then gave the Ben-David role to Isa.  The extra-Biblical Christian concept of the Last Roman Emperor I feel also has that origin.

Mormonism btw is also guilty of The Antichrist heresy.  They can say they consider Jesus God, but they don't believe in the true Trinity, and their God the Father isn't even a truly monotheistic God, or the ultimate highest god of their cosmology.  None the less they do believe Jesus will return, and will Resurrect The Dead when he does.  And then they have their own Rider on a White Horse prophecy.  They've also hijacked the Rabbinic Messiah Ben-Joseph concept in their own weird way.

Another heresy being promoted today by Stephen Huller (a Frankist) is laid out in his book The Real Messiah, and it's promotional blog.  In it he argues Jesus wasn't The Messiah (at least not of Daniel 9) but the forerunner.  And the real Messiah of Daniel 9 (he believes the details of Daniel 9 commonly linked to The Antichrist are in fact The Messiah also, and that there is no Antichrist) was King Herod Agrippa (he believes there was only one Agrippa and Josephus artificially divided them).  His timing of the 70 weeks agrees with Chris White's wrong view, that they point to 70 AD rather then 30.

His theory is very convoluted, and much of it easily debunk-able.  The most credible part of his argument is that there does seem to be over looked references to a Herod Agrippa being viewed as The Messiah.  Which is interesting in light of my view that the first Agrippa is a type of The Antichrist in Acts 12.

So the False Elijah theory could be true, but I think the False Jesus theory is more likely.  It's also not impossible he'd claim to be both in some fashion, a number of ways could be thought of to make that work.

Arguing for the Divinity of The Messiah

The thought has occasionally entered my mind, of a Jewish person possibly hypothetically saying the following during a debate with a Christian.

"Maybe, hypothetically, a Christian could convince me (but it wouldn't be easy) of the idea of The Messiah, having two advents where he doesn't do any of the Kingly stuff until the second coming. Or him suffering and dying as an offering for Sin and then being Resurrected, and maybe even Born of a Virgin. And that maybe Jesus/Yeshua was that. But what I could never accept is the idea of The Messiah being the Son of God, or God manifesting as a Human. It's inherently not Monotheistic, it's Pagan like the demigods of Greek mythology or the Avatars of Vishnu in Hinduism."

Now I haven't encountered a Jewish person willing to say that, or heard of one. But I think it's an important aspect to look at. I think it's a good idea here to set aside all the other disagreements in how Christians (Jew and Gentile) and Non-Christian Jews interpret Messianic Prophecy and look chiefly at what was most offensive to the Scribes and Pharisees of Yeshua's own day. The idea of God being made Flesh.

So I've felt moved by The Holy Spirit to try and help prepare fellow believers for such a discussion. Below I'll be speaking as if talking to Jews directly, so feel free to Copy/Paste my arguments, I don't Copyright any of these dissertations.

I'll be basing all of this on only the Masoretic Hebrew Text, no Septuagint or Hellenistic apocryphal writings. And nothing from Christian translations Jews would object to. I'll be using this linked below Translation made by Jews. Rather then my usual KJV defaulting.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

The objection clearly isn't that it's something God can't do. Besides simply saying God can do anything, even Jewish interpretations of Scripture agree that "The Angel of The LORD" or "The Angel of God" is God taking a physical tangible Human looking form. The Word (Dabar in Hebrew) could be viewed that way also, like in Genesis 15 where the Dabar performs the Covenant ritual all on his own. The Angel who announces the conception of Samson is an example, and the Captain of The Host who appears to Joshua before The Battle of Jericho. Anytime an Angel accepts Worship and yet isn't evil or fallen that's clearly not an ordinary Angel but God Himself.

The very name of Israel comes from when Jacob wrestled with God. And in Genesis 18 everyone agrees the leader of the three Angels there is God himself talking with Abraham. And He actually eats food with Abraham and Sarah. That's a pretty physical tangible Human like form, I'd argue incarnating as a Human isn't that much greater a leap.

But again, it's not about what God can do but what he's willing to. Is actually becoming a Human simply to far beneath him? Remember God made Adam in his own Image, Genesis 1:26. So really why assume incarnating as a Human is something he'd never do when Adam was modeled after himself to begin with?

Then there is the Hebrew word Go'el. That word is variously translated Kinsman, Redeemer, and Avenger/Revenger. The word means all of those things. It maybe does not necessarily literally have to mean a biological relative every time it's used, but the Kinsman aspect is important to it's function in the Mosaic Law. And is vital to understanding the Book of Ruth, where Boaz is the Kinsman Redeemer, being a near male relative of Naomi and Ruth's late husband.

The word is used of God in Isaiah 41:14 and 43:14 "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I help thee, saith the LORD, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." Also in 44:6 and 24. And 47:4, 48:17, 49:7 and 26 and 54:5. And other Isaiah examples, also Jeremiah 50:34

Job said in 19:25 "But as for me, I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He will witness at the last upon the dust". Also Psalms 19:14 and 78:35.

What about the Preexistence of The Messiah?

Micah 5 "out of thee shall one come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from ancient days." and Isaiah 9:5 "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us". Both verses even in Jewish translations imply a Preexistence.

Rapheal Patai is a Jewish scholar who agrees to the Preexistence of The Messiah "The concept of the preexistence of The Messiah accords with the general Talmudic view which holds that "The Holy One, blessed be He, prepares the remedy before the wound"", (The Messiah Texts pp. 16-17). Preexistence alone doesn't prove Divinity, but it makes him very special. Because while some cults believe we all had a preexistence like the Mormons, that view is entirely UnBiblical, from Genesis 2 "Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." The Soul and Spirit are created at the same time The Body is.

The Messiah is David's Son/Descendant. Yet David calls him lord in Psalm 110 "The LORD saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'" Psalm 2 is also interesting. The Messiah appears to be relating how "the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession."

Psalm 45 is considered a Messianic Psalm, it explicitly refers to the King as God in verse 8, and says in verse 11 to Worship him.

The clincher however I believe is to look at Ezekiel 40-48's description of the coming Messianic Kingdom. How come this in depth description mentions no Palace where The Messiah Ben-David rules from? A great deal of the point of the Messianic Age is to fulfill the Davidic promise from II Samuel 7, that a Son of David would sit on David's Throne forever. And this promise is inherently linked to Jerusalem.

And yet Ezekiel in his in-depth description of The Messianic future geography and architecture of Israel, Jerusalem and The Temple mentions no dwelling place for The Messiah. The only Throne mentioned is in Ezekiel 43:7 in the Holy of Holies, no longer separated from The Holy Place by the Veil. Where The LORD tells Ezekiel "this is the place of My throne, and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever; and the house of Israel shall no more defile My holy name".

 Here the LORD is saying he himself will rule. How can this be reconciled with the Davidic Promise? Clearly the Throne of David and the Throne of God have become the same Throne. And therefor God must incarnate as The Son of David, Son of Abraham, Son of Adam.

Ezekiel 40-48 does have references to a "Prince" (Nasi in the Hebrew). If the word for Prince here had been Sar or Nagyid then it could make sense to say he's The Messiah, but Nasi isn't a royal term, and could more accurately be translated President.  Ezekiel 34:23&24 and 37:24:25 explain that the Nasi is David himself Resurrected, not his Son who's The Messiah.

The LORD also enters through the Eastern Gate, just as The Messiah is supposed to do.

Add on top of that some interesting material from Zechariah 12-14. In 12:17 "In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that stumbleth among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as a godlike being, as the angel of the LORD before them."

 That verse is definitely translated differently in Christian translations, but even the way it's translated here is still pretty compelling. Also 14:9 "And the LORD shall be King over all the earth; in that day shall the LORD be One, and His name one." And in verse 16 "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations that came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles."

Genesis 3:15's Seed of the Woman is viewed by Jews as being Humanity, and unlike many Christians I'm not going to object to that. It's relevance here is this crushing the head of the Serpent theme does come up again in the Hebrew Bible.  Psalms 74:12-14, 89:10, 91:13, Isaiah 27 and Isaiah 51:9.  And in those passages it is The LORD that crushes the heads of serpents.

In Genesis 3:20 Adam names the Woman Eve because she is " the mother of all living".  Deuteronomy 5:26 calls YHWH the "Living God".  Mean Eve through one of her many daughter has to become the Mother of God.

Now as far as the comparison to Polytheistic Pagan concepts go. The demigods of Greek mythology were half-man/half-god. Christians view Yeshua as All-Man and All-God. And he was born of a Virgin, no weird Zeus turning into an animal or a golden shower to seduce and/or rape a girl.

The Avatars of Vishnu comparison is, I'll admit, a more valid one. Though I'd like to point out it's unclear how long people in India even understood the concept as they do now, even the Mahabharata is much younger then many casual references say it is, being post Alexander. Modern Hinduism is mostly the result of British Colonialism.

Many Scholars are probably more qualified to explain all the distinctions then I am. The key one I feel however is the Uniqueness. God only did this once, Yeshua will have a Second Coming, but it'll be the same Body he had before, still carrying the Wounds he received on The Cross. I know some bizarre cults and theorists out there try to argue for a Rebirth by abusing Revelation 12, but all serious scholars of Revelation know that that is a symbolic recap of History. So there are no repeated incarnations every age like what Vishu does.

I hope the above discussion has been revealing and insightful.