Perhaps all of the events linked to The Rapture happen over a Period of Days

I've discussed elsewhere how only The Trumpet and the Resurrection happens In the Twinkling of an eye.

I notice that the first part of Revelation 14 sees the 144,000 in their Resurrected states but still standing on The Earth on Mt.Zion. (correction, I now view this as being the Heavenly Zion, the Rapture was in Chapter 12).

I see many reasons to place the Seventh Trumpet sounding on the First of Tishri.  Among the things that happens after the 7th Trumpet is sounded is The Temple being opened in heaven and the Ark being seen.  Yom Kippur on the 10th of Tishri was the only day the High Priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies and see the Ark.

The concept of Yom Kuppor is first introduced in Leviticus 16.

In Verse 2.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

Cloud imagery, interesting in light of Revelation 14, and other Parusia passages.

I also think about how Pre-Tribbers and Pre-Wrathers think wearing White Robes in Revelation 7 means the Multitude is already Resurrected.  But I think Revelation 14 has more indisputable Resurrection terminology.

Leviticus 16 also tells us how Aaron had to put on a special purified Linen Robe before entering The Holy Place on Yom Kippur in verse 4.  But down in verse 23 "And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:"

I think the White Robe represent temporary garments worn only while unresurrected.  But they'll be left behind before the High Priest leaves The Temple.  Like the cloth Jesus was buried in.

The Desire of Women

Daniel 11:37, is nearly universally agreed by Pre-Millennial Futurists to be about The Antichrist.

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

What is meant by "the desire of women" here is perhaps the most cryptic mystery of this verse.  No identical phrase seems to appear anywhere else in Scripture.

There are two very popular wrong views about this phrase, which derive from a similar bad reading.  That it means he's a Homosexual, or that it means he's a Misogynist.

The latter is usually only argued for by those focused on a Mahdi theory, but even back when I was leaning towards the Madhi view I never considered that argument plausible.  The former happens to fit in with the other great Boogeyman modern Evangelical Christians are afraid of, western liberals.  There are of course LGBT individuals and supporters who are politically "Conservative" in other areas, like Log Cabin Republicans, and Libertarians.

Even if the phrase implied a lack of sexual desire for Women, that doesn't leave Homosexuality as the only option, it could also mean Asexual.  But that's not what the phrase means.  If it was meant to say that it would have said he doesn't desire women.

The grammar is about something women desire, which equally invalidates both those false conclusions.

I agree with both Chuck Missler and Chris White that "The Desire of Women" is a Messianic Title.  And with White that "the God of His Fathers" is The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.  I agree with White's Antichrist Theory in terms of the first half of the 70th Week, but not the second half and his related Pre-Wrath suppositions.  The Willful King will disregard the True Messiah by claiming the title for himself.

The word "Desire" being used in a title for The Messiah has a precedent in Haggai 2:7 "And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts."

The beginning of Messianic Prophecy, in fact all Prophecy, is Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The promise of The Seed of The Woman. 

Later we have Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Luke 1:41-45

 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.  And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?  For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.  And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord."

And at the center of this theme is Revelation 12, where The Woman gives birth to The Man Child.

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.  And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 

So "The Desire of Women" is clearly Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

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.

The False Prophet outside Revelation

This shall be the first part of an ongoing study I shall do on the subject of The False Prophet.  The post I intend to be part 2 I actually posted a while go, with no long term plans for this subject in mind then.  I'll link to it at the end of this post.

The False Prophet is a key figure in The Book of Revelation, it's number three villain. "And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet." Forming a sort of counterfeit Trinity. He's first clearly introduced as the "beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." After Chapter 13 this figure is called The False Prophet.

The only reference to either of the Beasts prior to chapter 13 is chapter 11:7 "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. " Chapter 17:8 makes the beast who " shall ascend out of the bottomless pit" synonymous with the Beast who has 7 heads and 10 horns, and thus the first Beast of chapter 13. But the symbolism of the Beast is complicated, the 7 headed 10 horned Beast represents the individual of the Antichrist but also his Empire, his political system. Which is the Roman Empire, the Fourth Beast of Daniel 7, which is now being rebuilt via the European Union but also via Western policy in the Middle East. The False Prophet as his both religious and economic overseer is part of that system, so you could argue during any section that seems to only have one of them The Beast could be seen as both together.

I also believe the "ascendeth out of the bottomless pit", to be a characteristic of his resurrection.  And based on both The beast and the False Prophet being cast into the Lake of Fire without dying first, I think it's possible that both individuals are early partakers of the Second Resurrection.

We commonly discuss a lot of verses outside Revelation that are presumed to be about The Antichrist. But I don't see any other verses commonly taken to refer to The False Prophet. False Prophets, plural, appear often as do False Christs. "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."-Matthew 24:24.

Many characters who serve as foreshadowings or prototypes of The Antichrist do have a False Prophet figure with them. Adonijah had Abiathar the Priest, Ahab had the unnamed False Prophet who had that dramatic scene with Micaiah. Also if you study the history of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees, there is Menelaus, the Benjamite Apostate High Priest who presided over the worship of the Abomination of Desolation.  As Lionel Luthor said in season 2 episode 22 of Smallville "Every Author has his Merlin".

However, actual specific Prophecies of this figure outside Revelation are not well known. I have seen it suggested that maybe many Prophecies assumed to be about The Antichrist really refer to the False Prophet, or even that some refer to both together in some way. But those suggesting this usually don't  elaborate on it.

This apparent lack of reference outside Revelation was a problem for me.  I firmly believe Revelation does not really introduce anything entirely new, it unlocks the mysteries of what came before.

Then I noticed this little detail of Isaiah 9, in verses 14&15. "Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail." The word translated "ancient" really means "elder". So we have a political leader being paired with a lying prophet.

Small little reference, but once I had noticed this I started getting all kinds of ideas.

 Some interpret "out of the Earth" as meaning Jewish, while "out of the sea" for the first Beast means Gentile, based on Daniel 7:3. And bring that into how they interpret passages outside Revelation. Passages that seem to make him Jewish (chiefly John 5:43, to me this is hypothetical in context and thud not good to build doctrine on,) they assume to be the second beast.  And those that seem to make him gentile they assume the first.  I think that doctrinal assumption is hard to prove however.

I saw one study recently suggest the "He" of Daniel 9:27 is The False Prophet, not the first beast.  "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate".  They argued that Revelation 13 makes clear it's the second beast who actually sets up the Image and enforces it's worship.  My view on this verse has changed lately.

Key I think is II Thessalonians 2:3. No words are mistranslated here, but it's one of those occasions where the translators felt the need to change the order of the words for the sake of English grammar. Which is often needed, but here I would render it this way.

 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and the unveiling of the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition.

 It appears we have two titles of the Antichrist listed side by side. He had many titles, often more then one used in the same chapter or even same verse, but simply listed in succession is unusual.

What if it's really referring to the unveiling of two people? The following verses are clearly talking about a single individual man deifying himself in the Temple. But maybe that person is the first mentioned, and the second is his supporter facilitating him in this act? If the Son of Perdition is the False Prophet rather then The Antichrist as assumed, that could be interesting.

The term can also be argued to apply to both Beasts equally, along with the phrase "goeth into Perdition" in Revelation 17. They're the two individuals who are sent into "The Lake of Fire" first in Revelation 19, before the Millennium rather then after it like everyone else destined to go there.

In verse 9 of II Thessalonians 2, it talks about his coming being "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,". We know from Revelation 13 that the miracles are performed by the False Prophet. One could argue this reference to miracles is tied to how the Man of Sin is unveiled. I argue in the first post of this blog that the restrainer being removed refers to the unlocking of the Abyss is in Revelation 9, where Apollyon and many other entities are being restrained by chains.

That belief does not require identifying either beast with any personage in Revelation 9.  The point is nothing (save Jesus himself when he went there) can ascend out of the abyss before then. Which is a problem for Pre-Wrath.

Chris White objects to viewing Apollyon as a villain, or among those restrained in the Abyss.  He sees him as a good angel that God simply put in charge of overseeing this.  He compares him to the Angel that carried out the killing of the first born on Passover, or the plague that occurred after David's census.  He misses that for the first of those examples the LORD himself did it, Exodus 12:29.  And I would point out the Angel of Death himself inevitably goes into the Lake of Fire.

The word translated Perdition is Apoleia. Apollyon from Revelation 9:11 is a related word, derived from the same roots. Apoleia means destruction (perdition is a King James English synonym for Destruction) and Apollyon means Destroyer. It would be accurate poetically to call Apollyon the Son of Apoleia.

 The other name for Apollyon is Abaddon, his Hebrew name. Most people don't know that this name does appear in the Hebrew Scriptures, it's Strongs number is 11. The KJV always translates it "destruction" but it's not the only word for destruction, so it's important to differentiate. The verses it appears in are Job 26:6, Job 28:22, Job 31:12, Psalm 88:11, Proverbs 15:11, and Proverbs 27:20.

It's used as the name of a place, not a individual. Being frequently linked with Sheol (Hell/Hades) I take it to be an Old Testament name of the place the New Testament calls the Abyss/Bottomless Pit and Tartaros (Translated Hell in 2 Peter 4). So the ruler of the place could've become named after it, or visa-verse.

That Apollyon/Abaddon is called "the angel of the bottomless pit" causes a lot of confusion. We're used to using "Angel" as a technical  term for immortal created beings who are certainly not Human.  But it's really just a noun that means messenger, as is the Hebrew equivalent Malak. The KJV translators were rarely willing to translate it rather then transliterate it in the New Testament. But three passages where there was no denying that it refers to a human being rather then an Angel are Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2 and Luke 7:27 which all quote Malachi 3:1 in reference to John the Baptist. The word is indeed also affiliated with Prophets who are also messengers of God, and False Prophets who are messengers of false gods. Revelation 9:11 uses it in the same form (there are many different forms of Angelos used in the NT texts) as those passages.  I also believe the Angels of the Seven Church were humans in those congregations that had the gift of Prophecy (not monarchical "Pastors" as some have argued).

Outside The Bible Apollyon was a Homeric name for Apollo, which many have read significance into.  Like in Aeschylus's play Agamemnon, where Cassandra says repeatedly.

"Apollo, thou destroyer, O Apollo, Lord of fair streets, Apollyon to me."

To me that identification fits Apollyon being the False Prophet rather then Antichrist.  Because Apollo in Greek mythology was never affiliated with Kingship but he was very much the god of Prophecy.

I think the difference between the resurrection of the false prophet and the resurrection of The First Beast is The World won't witness the latter.  I think The False Prophet died in the distant past and will after the opening of the Abyss be allowed to resurrect.  Perhaps one layer of meaning to the second Beast rising "out of the Earth" refers to the Earth his body decomposed into.

But both lives of The Antichrist are end times, one ends in the 70th week, the second plays out entirely within it.

Part 2 of the Study.

In The Twinkling of An Eye

The Secret Rapture is a key concept related to the Pre-Trib view.  Not necessarily required I guess but every Pre-Tirbber I know believes it.

The concept is that when The Rapture happens, all the World will see (if they notice anything at all) is a bunch of people disappearing.  The Pre-Tirb Rapture based fiction usually never has them even being able to put the pieces together that they all followed the same Faith.

The basis comes from only one of the classic Rapture passages. 1 Corinthians 15:52.

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The idiom is of speed not visibility.   But the point is that the phrase essentially means "blink and you'll miss it".

This passage lacks most aspects of what happens at The Rapture.  Including what the word "Rapture" itself refers to, us being Caught Up/Gathered.  Nor does it have the Parusia, Jesus coming on The Clouds.

It's only about three things.  1. The Last Trump, 2. The Resurrection of believers, 3, The still living Saved being change/perfected into our Resurrected states without dieing first.

That is all that is happening at that speed.  Once that happens, then Jesus comes to Gather us, and elsewhere The Bible is always clear The World sees that.  In Matthew 24, I Thessalonians 4, and Revelation 14.

Chuck Missler and Mark Easton have done a lot of material about Dimensions and the Science of The Resurrection.  About how Jesus in the Resurrection was in more then just our four dimensions. And I recommenced their work on that even though I'm more strictly Young Earth Creationist then they are.

But Missler makes a statement that I'm sure he has this Secret Rapture idea in mind with.  Where he says Jesus was only "Seen by loving eyes and touched by loving hands".  By which I'm sure he means only Saved individuals.

My problem with that is this flies in the face of the efforts of all these other Christians seeking to show how Historically proven the Resurrection is.  If 100% of the eye witnesses were people who already supported Jesus.  Paul spoke in his Epistles of there being many, many witnesses to the Resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.  After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Besides simply the large number, I notice the inclusion of The Lord's half-brother James.   His siblings were not believers yet at any time they appear during his ministry.  The typical conclusion from this verse is that James became a believer after seeing the Risen Jesus.  And we certainly know Paul wasn't saved yet when he saw him.

Playing Devil's Advocate on the Seventieth Week

This is a follow up to my earlier post proving 7 years from Revelation.

In terms of those Futurists who view the 70th Week as past, I decided I want to give a fair open minded look at their view.  Problem is, they don't even view the first 69 Weeks the same as I do (from the ones I've encountered).  Now I am open minded to being proven wrong on that too, if you feel you have a sufficient fatal flaw to my argument feel free to leave one as a comment.

But for now, if you want to convince me of a Preterist view of the 70th Week, it's gonna need to be a view that has the 70th Week being from Nisan of 30 AD to Nisan of 37 AD.  And the Crucifixion in that Nisan of 30 AD.  Moving The Cross to the middle of The Week simply doesn't work.

I decided to look for myself at this Seven year period, to see if playing Devil's Advocate I could make that argument myself.  But also with the thought as someone who believers in types and near fulfillments, that the 7 years following the end of the 69th Week could be a minor prefiguring of the true final 70th Week.

My view on The Sixth Seal actually lends itself to that.  Based on the Sixth Seal parallels to Joel 2:28-32 and how Peter uses that same Joel passage in Acts 2.  I argue that the Earthquake and Darkening of The Sun that happened as Jesus was on The Cross was a prefiguring of the Terrestrial and Cosmic Signs of the Sixth Seal.  And with that I think the Sixth Seal will be opened on the 14th day of the Nisan that starts the 70th Week.  And that the Sealing of the 144,000 will be on the following Pentecost, it'll be another great outpouring of The Holy Spirit.

So in a sense it may be as if the initiation of the 70th Week is also God sort of resetting his Clock back to 30 AD.  But I would not build doctrine or date setting on anything I'm gonna suggest below.  This is just fun conjecture.

With a connection made to the beginning, I decided to look at the end.  It's not agreed universally which spring full moon correlated to Passover in 37 AD, it could've been March or April.  But the one in March was around the 21st-23rd and the Seventeenth fell on a Sunday again like it did in 30, this time it was March 25th.

The 16th of March that year was the day Tiberius died, awfully close.  And that Passover season close to Tiberius's death plays a key role in Josephus's account (Book 18 Chapter 4) of when Pilate was removed from his governorship.

Pilate is usually assumed to have been removed way back in the late summer or fall of 36.  But I can't help but feel reading Josephus like it was closer to when Tiberius actually died.  And others have as well, but the main such source I read does so arguing for a 37 AD Crucifixion, and then tying that into all kinds of other heresies.

It's not just Pilate and Tiberius.  It seems 36 and 37 AD saw the either deaths or removal from power of all the figures Luke 3:1-2 states were in power at that time.  Perhaps it prefigures how when the 70th Week begins, only one week is left for the current World Order.

But on the subject of Pilate's Removal.  The Josephus account includes a sort of False Messiah or False Prophet figure of the Samaritans who helped get them riled up, and who remains unnamed. 

"The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there"

Acts 8:9-11 says of Simon Magus.  " But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.  And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries."

 The Samaritan chronicler Abul Fath mentions a sect headed by a R. Zadok which was tied to the heretic who claimed to be the “booth” or “booths” of the new Tabernacle. He speaks of “five brothers who from [the Samaritan holy mountain Gerizim] who were called [the Sons of Zadoq] and also another man called Zadoq the Elder from Bayt Far who deviated from “booths” and his companions, saying that Mount Gerizim is as holy as if the Samaritan temple were [still] standing upon it and that while one was obligated to do what was written [in the Law of Moses] he need not do what was not possible for him.” His community apparently “invoked him by the name mentioned [in the report of Booths] above, i.e. the Mediator, and agreed with [Booths] about abolishing … the rule of “Moses commanded for us a Law” [Deut 33:4]

I think, maybe these were the same individuals.  There are other reasons to view Acts 6-11 as being about 37 AD.  Wikipedia speculates that the martyrdom of Stephen must've been during the brief administration of Marcellus.  And Paul synchronizes the time of his Conversion to when Aretas controlled Damascus (2 Corinthians 11:32).  Which he didn't before Caligula became Emperor.

So that's the end of The Week, what about it's middle?  Tishri of 33 AD?

33 AD is a complicated year to study, web searches for it will have to shift through those referencing it thinking the Crucifixion was that year.  Nothing is known to be exactly dated to that year that resembles The Abomination of Desolation.  But the main thing that causes people to argue for the Crucifixion being that year, is itself interesting to look at.

That being a desire starting from some Early Church Fathers to identify an Eclipse and Earthquake mentioned by Thallus placed as occurring in Bythia and Asia Minor in 33 AD as the one that happen when Jesus was on the Cross.  He's quoted by Julius Africanus without much context.  Apologetic circles want to think Thallus himself was connecting this to Jesus, and Africanus accusing him of trying to naturalize the darkness as an eclipse.  But it seems more likely to me that Africanus simply assumed based on this being during the reign of Tiberius it was the same Darkness and Earthquake.  Problem is, it occurred in parts of Asia Minor, effecting some of the same cities that had the Churches of Revelation 2-3, not in Judea.

Revelation does also link Earthquakes to the Middle of the Seventieth Week, both the Rapture of The Witnesses and the Seventh Trumpet.

The Annals of Tacitus was year by year, so it's interesting to look at, but he was recording Roman History not Jewish.  Sadly nothing in Josephus seems to be linked to this year.  The events our copies of Jospehus place between the Testemonim Flavinium and the drama that removed Pilate, are events Tacitus places before Pilate became Prefect of Judea.

33 AD is the year of the consulship of Servius Galba and Lucius Sulla (the whole year is named for them even though they didn't serve the entire year.  Their consulship began at it's start).  This Galba it may interest you to know is the same one who latter overthrew Nero and began the year of the Four Caesars.  Tacitus recounts a probably urban legend that Tiberius said something which foretold him being Emperor some day during this Consulship.  Which Tiberius supposedly knew because of Thrasyllus.

I find it interesting that the first thing we're told of this year by Tacitus is that the same two men who were the Consuls for 30 AD, Tiberius decided that year to marry to the two still unmarried daughters of Germanicus, Julia Livilla and Drusilla.  Later these same two men are who Tiberius sent to help Asia Minor after the Earthquake mentioned above.  Vinicius married Livilla and Longinus married Drusilla.  A cousin of Longinus who was Consul later in 30 AD also married a descendant of Julia the Younger about this time.

A Financial Crisis happened in Rome this year, perhaps not unlike the one that will ravage the world when the Black Horseman rides.  Agrippina the Elder and her son Drusus died this year as well.  Also Nerva, a close friend of Tiberius.

I'm afraid Tacitus doesn't say much helping determine when in the year each event happened.

Another thing that makes people support a 32 or 33 AD Passover for the Death of Jesus is the Blood Moon Theory.  A Tetrad of Lunar Eclipses happened on the 15ths of Nisan and Tishri of both 32 and 33 A.D.

Problems with this are many.  The Blood Moon theory is bunk, I recommend Chris White's debunking of it.  And the one on Passover of 33 AD wasn't total or very visible in Jerusalem.  And at any-rate most of the events Blitz links to his Blood Moons happened a year or two before each Tetrad started, so even then they fit a 30 AD Crucifixion better.  Joel and Revelation's Blood Moons are simultaneous with Darkened Suns, they're not Eclipses.  They're either totally supernatural, or caused by volcanic eruptions.

What I will note just for the sake of reference is, this Tetrad ended with one on Tabernacles of 33 AD, which is estimated to have fallen on September 27th.  In light of my feeling that Revelation 12 could be describing when the Moon is under Virgo's feet on or soon after Rosh Hoshanah as the middle of The 70th Week roughly.  I decided to look at when this occurred about half a month before that Lunar Eclipse.  And Saturn was very close to Regulus in Leo, not quite a full conjunction, but very close.  I think that is interesting.

Now if I'm going to be serious about this, let's break down the last two verses of Daniel 9.

Daniel 9:26-27.  From the KJV

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:"
This is where we all agree, Jesus died in Nisan 30 AD.

"And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary".
This is why we tend to see 70 AD as during the Gap, or many Preterist models as when the 70 Weeks ends.  But the Hebrew word translated "destroy" here also means corrupt, ruin or decay.  It is used and translated corrupt in Daniel 11:17 "and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him."  It's Aramaic form is in Daniel 2:9 "ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me".  If the "Prince that shall Come" is in fact the same Prince from earlier in Daniel 9, then the People of the Prince refers to the Jewish people.

So Maybe the reason for the Cleansing of The Temple is what's in mind here.

"And the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
There were Wars going on at this time.  Directly relevant to Israel were a few revolts Pilate had to deal with.  And Herod Antipas had war with Aretas of Petra.

It could also be consistent with seeing the 70th week as 30-37 AD to also see here a somewhat preemptive statement about the wars that went on past then to 70 AD.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".
The common Preterist view is this refers not to the literal taking away of Sacrifice, but them being rendered null and void after The Crucifixion.  And the Covenant here the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31.

This Preterist view is why people often want to make the Crucifixion the middle of The Week, not it's end.  But the word translated "Midst" is also translated "Half" sometimes.  Maybe it could be meant to read "for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".

What remains is simply what's taken as an allusion to The Abomination of Desolation, but it's not the exact phrase.

"and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
Note, the occurrence of "he" after Abomination isn't in the Hebrew text, so there is no guarantee the same person is behind it..

The Preterist view of 70 AD can't work with what Jesus specifically said (probably in reference to the Daniel 12 use of the term) of it being In The Holy Place.

But the Terminology in Daniel 9:27 is much less specific about where, and it does seem to imply more then one Idol being set up.  And the word that is in some translations rendered "wing" can mean Wing, Corner, edge extremity, ect.  So Preterists make a strong argument that this can refer to Titus setting the "Imago" of his Father and other Roman Idols like the standards with the Imperial Eagle on them, or the Fasces, by the Gate of The Temple in 70 AD.

Same with the Last verse of Daniel 11, the word for "tabernacles" simply means tent, and so they argue it refers to the Tents the Roman legions Camped in.  Also as a supporter of the Southern Conjecture, I think the "Appeden" (Translated Palace) could be the Antonia Fortress which was where the Dome of The Rock currently is.

However, what most people haven't noticed is all those factors that could make those two things apply to Titus, can also apply to Pontius Pilate.  Go back and read when Josephus first introduces his readers to Pilate in Antiquities of The Jews Book 18 Chapter 3.

"BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea."

All the same factors are there.  The Roman garrisons, the plural Idols to Caesar.  And Josephus specifies Pilate was the First Roman to do this.   And his "Judgment Seat" probably the same seat he Tried Jesus from, was part of the Antonia Fortress.

So, a good argument can be made for a Preterist view of the 70 Weeks.  The problem is, if the Covenant is the real New Covenant, how is it confirmed for only one week and not forever?  Maybe the entire Church Age should be viewed as the 70th Week repeatably playing out in cycles until the true final fulfillment comes and we're Raptured in the Middle?

Or it could be notable that the parts of Acts I estimate to be seven years after The Cross corresponds to when The Gospel began to spread beyond just Jews and Judea.  So likewise with my view on the 144,000 and the Sixth Seal when the true 70th Week begins The Gospel is again focused on Israel and Israelites.

Also, it could be interesting to read Acts 3 and 4 under a premise that Peter and John there are serving as types of The Two Witnesses.