Revelation 8:1, 7th Seal, Silence In Heaven About 1 Half Hour? 29.6 Minutes = About 1 Half Hour. 29.6

Revelation 8:1, 7th seal, silence in heaven about 1 half hour? 29.6 minutes = about 1 half hour. 29.6 minutes = 1776 seconds. STRONG's Concordance H1776 is is a Hebrew word meaning "silence." Ben Franklin pen name, Silence Dogood

Perhaps this quote may shed some light: “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings, who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour [1 century]” (Rev. 17:9-12). If one hour equals a century, as in the aforementioned quote (for details, refer to my book), then one-half hour must refer to a half-century. The “half an hour” reference in Rev. 8:1 actually has a double meaning. On the one hand, it signifies the seven weeks of Daniel’s prophecy (fifty-year Jubilee/Ch. 9) that marks the appearance of Messiah. In others words, the Messiah is “silent” for “half an hour,” or for seven weeks until his appearance. But the “half an hour” idiom also refers to the middle of the tribulation period when Christ will be revealed to wage war on the Antichrist. And, in this case, the reference is not to thirty literal minutes but rather to the three-and-a-half year interim (or 42 months) that is constantly repeated throughout the text. That is, the Great Tribulation commences, and it appears as though God is silent for a very short period of time until he finally rescues his people. This time period is also known as "a time, times, and half a time," and it is equal to three and a half years. Here's an excerpt from my book, "The Little Book of Revelation""Likewise, the Bible warns us that the little horn’s [or Antichrist's] allied forces ‘will destroy many while they are at ease’ (Dan. 8:25); that is to say, in a time of peace. Then, all exertions cease. Only the eerie silence remains (Rev. 8:1) as the heavens prepare a punitive response. From the Bible to Nostradamus, the unifying theme that runs across the litany of these texts – like Ariadne’s thread guiding us out of a labyrinth of obscurity – is the ubiquitous prophecy of the Messiah who will deliver us from worldwide disaster at the end of time (Matt. 24:21-22)!" 

Who Are the Twenty-Four Elders of Revelation Chapter 4?

By Author Eli Kittim

“Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.” —Revelation 4:4

The book of Revelation does not disclose the identity of the twenty-four elders. However, based on the descriptions given, and the relationship of this passage to other parts of the Bible, we can make certain valid inferences. The illustrations depicting them as sitting on thrones signify that they are reigning with Christ. John MacArthur, a noted theologian and author, writes:

“Nowhere in Scripture do angels sit on thrones, nor are they pictured ruling or reigning. Their role is to serve as ‘ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation’ (Heb. 1:14; cf. Mat. 18:10).”—John MacArthur, Revelation 1-11: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999).

Moreover, The Greek word for “elders” is “Presviterous,” from where we get the English word “Presbyters,” meaning elders or ministers of the Church. Interestingly enough, the same word used in Revelation 4:4 for elder is also used in connection with the visible church on earth (otherwise known as the “body of Christ”) in 1 Peter 5:1. In this regard, Paul writes, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” (1 Cor. 6:2). According to the gospel of Luke, it is human beings that will rule and reign with Christ (22:30).

Furthermore, the twenty-four elders are clothed in white raiment. Their white garments would also be more consistent with heavenly saints who were once men—and who were saved and cleansed by the blood of the Lamb—than with angelic beings. The color white always signifies the holiness and purity of God (and that’s why I also maintain that the white horse of Revelation 6:2 can only signify Christ; more on that later). For instance, Revelation 6:11 describes the tribulation saints in this way:

“And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.”

Similarly, Revelation 3:18 says, “I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness.”

It is of immense importance to understand the types of crowns these twenty-four elders wear because this theme will ultimately help us uncover important clues about the mysterious identity of the white horse in Revelation 6:2 (the so-called first horseman of the Apocalypse)! In the original Greek text, the twenty-four elders are said to wear golden “stephanous” crowns (Rev. 4:10). A “stephanos” crown is associated with the glory of God, and “stephanos” is the Greek word used for crown in 1 Thessalonians:

“For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes?” (1 Thess. 2:19).

In fact, a “stephanos” crown is explicitly defined as representing “Righteousness,” since that is the Greek word used for crown in 2 Timothy 4:8:

“Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”

In 1 Peter 5:4 the Greek word for crown—namely, “stephanon,”—represents “the unfading crown of glory”: “And when the Chief Shepherd appears [Christ], you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” What is more, the Greek term “stephanos” is used to represent a kingly or royal crown in connection with Christ’s passion: “And they clothed him [Christ] with purple, and platted a crown [“stephanon”] of thorns, and put it about his head” (Mark 15:17; cf. John 19:2). So, Christ is given a royal “stephanon” crown (which he also wears in Rev. 14:14) that will become a metaphor for his passion, death, and resurrection! The term “stephanos” means crown or crowned in Greek. More precisely, it is “a victor’s wreath.” In other words, the word “stephanos” signifies a victor’s crown, and is intimately associated with the Greek word “niki” (meaning “victory”), which is the Greek word used in connection with Christ’s victory over death in 1 Corinthians 15:54, 57.

The reason this study is so important is that the same Greek terms used in the New Testament to define the crowns of God’s righteousness, God’s glory, and Christ’s victory over death are the exact same terms used in describing the first horseman of the Apocalypse, the white horse! By comparison, the white horseman of Revelation 6:2 also wears a “stephanos” crown: “he was given a victor’s crown and he went away, to go from victory to victory.” In Greek it reads:

“Kai edothi auto stephanos kai exilthen nikon kai ina nikisi.”

The words “nikon” and “nikisi” are action verbs of the noun “niki,” which means “victory.” Some Bible versions mistranslate the words “nikon” and “nikisi” with the words “conquering and to conquer.”

However, the Greek word for conquest is “κατάκτηση,” and it means “the subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force,” whereas “victory” means defeating an opponent, or winning a game, race, or other competition. Though they may appear to be similar, the words conquest and victory have completely different meanings. By transcribing the Greek “Nikon” and “Nikisi” (which mean “Victory”) with the English words “Conquering” and “Conquer” (which mean to subjugate people via military force) some scholars seem to insinuate a malevolent figure because they are essentially mistranslating the Victorious Christ into the Conquering Antichrist (which explains why many scholars identify this figure as the Antichrist).

However, there are also accurate translations of Revelation 6:2 that portray this white horseman as victorious rather than one who is bent on conquest. For instance, The New Jerusalem Bible reads: “and he went away, to go from victory to victory” (suggesting from glory to glory; cf. Common English Bible). The New International Reader’s Version says “He rode out like a hero on his way to victory.” Similarly, the Jubilee Bible 2000 says that “he went forth victorious, that he might overcome,” terms that are intimately associated with the righteous, and especially with Jesus Christ. Similarly, Irenaeus, an early church father, held that the first rider of the white horse who is depicted as a peacemaker represents Jesus Christ. And, let us not forget that Revelation 19:11 uses the same exact terminology and symbolic imagery as in Rev. 6:2 to tell us that this is in fact Jesus.

Let us now return to the twenty-four elders. The problem of identifying these figures has to do with how the book of Revelation is composed, which is to say, whether the events it alludes to are written in chronological order or not. There is ample evidence that the end time events are mentioned in detail chronologically, reaching a crescendo towards the end of the book, but there are also overlapping themes that serve the purpose of giving the reader the big picture, as it were, and this seems to be a source of great confusion. Some commentators claim that the twenty-four elders cannot represent the raptured church because they are mentioned prior to the great tribulation, and also because they are depicted as anticipating these coming events. This is partly true. Apparently, the twenty-four elders are mentioned chronologically before the chapters that allude to the rapture, and the death and ascension of Christ (Ch. 5), and prior to Ch. 6 that references the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.

However, Chapters 2 and 3 give us the overall picture (big picture) concerning the church’s tribulation, and beginning with chapter 6 we get more specific details from start to finish. The same holds true for the Antichrist in Revelation 19 and 20. The Satanic figure that is loosed in Revelation chapter 20 is the same Antichrist that died in the previous chapter; but, here, the story is described in more detail. So, although there appears to be a chronological order of events in the book of Revelation, there are also overlapping themes that are played out. Thus, we have the big picture, on the one hand, and details on the other. So then, since Chapters 2 and 3 reference the great tribulation (2:9), and since authority and rule (2:26-27) and white garments (3:4-5) are promised therein to those who overcome, it is more than likely that the twenty-four elders represent the tribulation saints (cf. Luke 22:30). In fact, Jesus says emphatically:

“He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne” —Rev. 3:21

Elsewhere, John the Revelator has a vision:

“Then I saw thrones, and sitting on them were those to whom authority to act as judges and to pass sentence was entrusted” (Rev. 20:4).

In the gospels, Jesus said the apostles would judge the twelve tribes “in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory” (Mat. 19:28). Another clue comes from an “elder” who explains to John the identity of those coming out of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 7:13-14). Therefore, these elders seemingly represent the overcomers of Revelation 2 and 3.

In many ways, Revelation 4 is a throwback to Daniel 7. According to his vision of the end times, Daniel reports that “thrones were set up,” and that “the Ancient of Days took His seat” (Dan. 7:9) in order to pass judgment “in favor of the saints” when “the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom” (Dan. 7:22). The (tribulation) saints will be given into the hands of the beast (Antichrist) for “a time and times and half a time” (Dan. 7:25), but the court will convene and remove “his dominion … forever” (Dan. 7:26).

Why Are There Twenty-Four Elders in Revelation Chapter 4?

The number 24 per se may contain a secret code and perhaps allude to a cryptic date or season when the Great Tribulation will commence, but anything more than that is pure conjecture. Biblically speaking, the figure 24 may have been taken from 1 Chr. 24:3-6, in which David divided the Tribe of Levi into 24 courses (twenty-four courses of Levitical priests rotating to minister in the Tabernacle). Since the tribulation saints represent a priestly kingdom, it would mean that they are probably represented by the twenty-four elders. This last point offers yet another clue to the fact that the twenty-four elders represent men and not angels.

Another view holds that the number of the elders represent the twelve tribes of Israel—as written on the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12)—and “the twelve apostles of the Lamb”—as written on the twelve foundations of the New City (Rev. 21:14). Since we’re discussing tribulation saints, it seems like a proleptic interpretation to suggest that twelve of the elders represent Old Testament saints, and the other twelve New Testament saints. A more realistic interpretation is to ascribe these values to Jews and Gentiles alike. Thus, twelve of the elders could represent tribulation saints from the 12 tribes of Israel (believers in Christ), and the other twelve the remainder of the tribulation saints. In other words, the twenty-four elders may be composed of all the tribulation saints, which would include both “Israel” and the “church.” Therefore, the twenty-four elders of Revelation Chapter 4 seemingly represent a remnant of both Jews and Gentiles (the redeemed tribulation saints) who meet in council before the throne of God in preparation for the coming judgment of the world!

The Jesus Story: History or Prophecy?

By Author Eli of Kittim

There is no good evidence to support that Jesus is a real historical figure. The mainstream view concerning the New Testament account of Jesus is fatally flawed. It is inconsistent, and in order for it to work, it must either ignore or gloss over many critical passages. For instance, it contradicts many explicit passages from both the Old and New Testaments regarding an earthly, end-times Messiah (cf. Zeph. 1:7, 15-18; Isa. 2:2, 19; Dan. 12:1-2; Zech. 12:9-10; Heb. 1:1-2; Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:1-3, 7-8; Rev. 12:1-5), and uses bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology in order to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous. The existing schema simply does not fit in with the context and content of these passages, nor does it fit into any of the Old or New Testament prophecies either.

What is more, this historical interpretation of Jesus is in error because it confuses theology with history, and tradition with scripture! Let us not forget that much of what we know about this subject is based on tradition, not scripture. And the prevailing view is largely based on a superficial, surface reading of the gospels. In retrospect, it appears that the gospels are giving us a theological outline of Christ’s life, not a purely historical one. For example, scholars now dispute that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And even if we suppose that it were true, then why doesn’t Paul mention that? Let us not forget that some of Paul’s writings predate the gospels. The idea that Jesus is born in Bethlehem is a theological statement intended to connect Jesus with the Old Testament and to assure us that he is indeed the prophesied Messiah of Hebrew Scripture. Anything more than that would be reading too much into the text. Similarly, Jesus is called the King of the Jews in order to show that he is the new David, the Messianic fulfillment of Hebrew Scripture. Just as he supposedly goes to Egypt in order to show that he is the new Moses. These passages are not meant to be taken literally. They are theological statements.

But, in contrast to Christian Mythicism, I firmly believe that the Bible is verbally inspired by God. Hence I accept the authority of Scripture. However, I am convinced that, according to the Bible, Jesus neither existed, nor was he meant to exist during the time of Antiquity. Therefore, I still believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Lord (God-incarnate), who will appear on earth (for the first time) at the end of the world!

Furthermore, I believe there were eyewitness reports coming from the earliest Christian prophets, but these contained visions of Jesus, not physical encounters. The eyewitnesses saw Jesus just as Paul had seen him. And everyone knows that Paul saw visions of Christ. But Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh! There are many scriptural references to that effect. For example, 1 Peter 1:11 states that the account of Jesus was prophesied by the Holy Spirit, “As he [the Holy Spirit] predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.” Revelation 19:10 further reveals that the New Testament account of Jesus is not historical: “For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.“ And Hebrews 9:26 confirms this view by issuing the following statement concerning the precise chronological timing of Christ’s appearance and sacrifice: “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels because they allude to Christ’s manifestation as occurring in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question. Thus, according to my research, both the Old and New Testaments agree that the Messiah will come once at the end of time!

There is no mention of Jesus in any secular writings until about 100 AD

(The following is an excerpt from The Washington Post, “Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.” Raphael Lataster, Ph.D. Religious scholar)

“The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Paul’s Epistles, written earlier than the Gospels, give us no reason to dogmatically declare Jesus must have existed. Avoiding Jesus’ earthly events and teachings, even when the latter could have bolstered his own claims, Paul only describes his ‘Heavenly Jesus.’ Even when discussing what appear to be the resurrection and the last supper, his only stated sources are his direct revelations from the Lord, and his indirect revelations from the Old Testament. In fact, Paul actually rules out human sources (see Galatians 1:11-12). Also important are the sources we don’t have. There are no existing eyewitnesses or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of who are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.”

(The following is an excerpt from Valerie Tarico’s article, “Five Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed,” published in ExChristian.net)

“How Jesus Became God” by Bart Ehrman.

No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Jesus. In the words of Bart Ehrman (who himself thinks the Jesus stories were built on a historical kernel):

“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

“The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts. Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the ‘Silence of Paul’ on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded. 'Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.’

Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts. We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began. For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are 'signed' by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine. But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, 'I was there.' Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who … .”

Conclusion

These are Biblical Scholars who are giving us all of the critical, historical, and textual data to date. They are experts in the field (academics) who are informing us of the facts of scholarship. Even if we disagree with them, there are still certain facts that most scholars agree on that are indisputable, which give us a very clear picture of early Christianity and of Jesus. This cannot be denied.

However, this does not mean that the biblical story of Jesus is “fraudulent” or “manufactured,” as some writers have suggested. These writers got stuck on the Gospels without consulting the rest of the New Testament, namely, the Epistles and the book of Revelation, which tell us categorically and unequivocally that the biblical story of Jesus is a matter of prophecy, not history. In the final analysis, the Gospels are non-historical stories that foretell the prophecy of Christ’s coming!

What the Gospels Are, and What they are Not

By Author Eli of Kittim

Some of my readers have not fully understood my position regarding the gospels because they have not read my book, and therefore do not know the extent of these teachings. As a result, they have voiced their disagreement with my position. But in order to conclusively reject my view on the grounds that it fails to be supported by scripture, certain criteria must be met. However, based on some of my debates, their initial grounds for dismissal are often based on erroneous premises, such as tradition or dogma, conjecture and hearsay. At any rate, whatever it is that they think of my view is patently wrong because they haven’t yet grasped the gist of it. For example, I never said or implied that the gospels are made up stories, or that they were invented or manufactured by the writers themselves. Never was I so bold as to say that the gospels are superstitious myths, or the work of pure fiction with no basis in reality. If this is what some of my readers think, they couldn’t be further from the truth.

So, in my defense, let me explain what the gospels are, and what they are not.

1) I believe that the Gospels were verbally inspired by God (known as “Verbal Plenary Inspiration”). This means that every word of the gospels is God-given (“Plenary” means that the gospels are therefore fully authoritative). A side note: This means that it's not just the gospels, but scripture as a whole is authoritative over tradition or dogma. It means that all church tradition must be subordinated to the authority of Scripture. One of those dogmas that we inherited from the church was that the story of Christ happened in history (presumably from their literal interpretation of the gospels). But unless we check it against scripture, we will never know the validity of this dogma.

2) I also believe that in order to form valid conclusions, we must cross-reference between the gospels and the epistles to make sure that the account of Jesus is the same in all these texts and does not vary or present any major problems, especially with regard to chronology (i.e. the timing of his coming). A side note: When we engage in this type of study, certain things become immediately evident:

a) the authors of the Epistles do not mention a lot of the gospel material. For instance, they never once mention the birth narrative of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Flight into Egypt, the Star of Bethlehem, the magi, or even the city of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birth place. Now, that should raise some red flags.

b) In some cases, the authors of the Epistles seemingly contradict the gospels (I say “seemingly” because they don’t really contradict them, it only appears as such from our particular viewpoint) because they allude to Christ’s revelation as occurring “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb.9:26), or in the “last days” (Heb. 1:1-2), so that the correct timing of Christ’s coming suddenly becomes an open question!

3) Even within the gospel texts themselves, we find language that seems more consistent with the epistles than with the church’s dogma (remember that in all of this, our dispute is not with the gospels per se, but rather with the “interpretation” of the gospels as put forth by church tradition). In the gospel of Luke, there is some indication that the suffering and rejection of Christ is ascribed not to the present, but to a future generation:

“Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He [Jesus] answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; … The days shall come [centuries will pass] when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man and you will not see it. … For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. BUT FIRST HE MUST SUFFER MANY THINGS AND BE REJECTED BY THIS [implied, future] GENERATION. And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, … until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all’” (17:20-27, emphasis added).

During his discourse on the end of days, Jesus promulgates a prophecy which most scholars attribute to his second coming: “For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day” (Luke 17:24). What is surprising, however, is that this prophecy is then expanded by a most intriguing appendage to the previous verse: “But first He must suffer many things” (17:25). In other words, while “the literary Jesus” is predicting his supposed second coming, according to the common view, this terse statement shockingly reveals that his incarnation must necessarily precede his coming from the sky! And since the entire prophecy is set in the future, the sentence pertaining to Christ’s suffering and rejection “by this [chronologically implied] generation” cannot possibly be understood in any other context except as a reference to a future event. Otherwise we would be dislocating this sentence from the end times setting of the prophecy, thus creating a bizarre anachronism. After all, Jesus prophesies that a long time will pass before we behold “the Son of Man” (Luke 17:22), an idiomatic phrase that is deeply tied to his incarnation (Ps. 8:4; Matt. 9:6; 17:9; 24:44; Gal. 4:4). In fact, Luke goes on to say that Jesus will be initially revealed ("ἀποκαλύπτεται" in Greek) in the last days:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. ... It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed" (Luke 17:26-30).

Now, let’s compare that passage with one from the epistles. Notice that 1 Peter 1:7 exhorts us to have faith so that we are ready “at the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which is “revealed in the last days” (1 Peter 1:5), and then Peter declares categorically and unequivocally that “the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories” that would follow are really prophecies or “predictions”:

“Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he PREDICTED the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:10-11, emphasis added, ESV).

4) To shed some light to this apparent controversy, we must also consult the Old Testament. But wherever we look there, we find one prophecy after another that seems to support the epistolary view of Jesus rather than the historical view of the gospels. Zephaniah 1:7, Daniel 12:1-2, Zechariah 12:9-10, and Isaiah 2:19 all place the death and resurrection of the Messiah at “the end of time” (Dan. 12:4). It is not a coincidence that Rabbinical scholars, steeped in Hebrew Scripture, also conclude that, according to their writings, the Messiah will appear once in the last days!

5) There are also literary and historical considerations. We now know that the gospels were written approximately 40-70 years after the purported events, which would indicate that they do not contain eyewitness reports, something the early church was not privy to during the formation of their dogma. Therefore, most of the evidence seems to confirm the epistolary view of Jesus, and the only thing standing in its way from being unanimous is the church’s dogma, which is a thorn in its side because it also creates all of the apparent biblical confusion that is expressed through various diametrically opposed views, such as Preterism versus Futurism, and the like.

Conclusion

Therefore, based on these findings, we must rightly conclude that although the gospels are the word of God, nevertheless, their purpose and function within the New Testament cannot be to give us a literal interpretation of history. After all, the Bible is not a book on science or history, but a book of faith! And if the gospels are the word of God—giving us an outline of the life of Christ within the context of the entire history of mankind, not just past history—then they must be theological documents that give us a glimpse of Jesus’ future history through theological language that imparts instruction into the meanings of salvation, the Messiah, and the nature of God. In other words, the gospels are a mixed bag of theology, history (history written in advance; cf. Isa. 46:10), and prophecy!

Russia: The Origin of the Biblical Antichrist

By Author Eli Kittim

This paper is an excerpt from Eli Kittim’s book, The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days.

Daniel has a follow-up vision of a mighty ram, followed by a male goat that attacks and overwhelms it (8:3-7). In time, the goat’s horn [power] was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns (8:8). Daniel recounts the oracle:

'And out of one of them came forth a rather small horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land [Israel]. And it grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. It even magnified itself to be equal with the Commander of the host [God]; and it removed the regular sacrifice [Holy Communion] from Him, and the place of His sanctuary [Church] was thrown down' (8:9-11).

The angelic messenger named Gabriel appears once again and interprets the vision to Daniel (8:16). Gabriel says: ‘Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end’ (Dan. 8:17). The celestial being now begins to expound the oracle:

‘Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation [God’s wrath], for it pertains to the appointed time of the end. The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. And the shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king [Alexander the Great]. And the broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation [Hellenistic Empire], although not with his power. And in the latter period [in the last days] of their rule, when the transgressors [the succeeding empires] have run their course, a king will arise insolent and skilled in intrigue. And his power will be mighty, but not by his own power, and he will destroy to an extraordinary degree and prosper and perform his will’ (Dan. 8:19-24).

In chapter 11, Daniel receives additional information concerning the previous vision:

‘But as soon as he [Alexander the Great] has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass, though not to his own descendants, nor according to his authority which he wielded; for his sovereignty will be uprooted and given to others besides them [the Greeks]’ (11:4).

In Daniel chapter 2 (the statue vision), the Antichrist, who mingles ‘in the seed of men’ (2:43), comes from the part of the Roman Empire which is represented by the symbol of iron (2:40-43), namely, the Byzantines. But in Daniel chapter eight, he arises out of one of the four successors of Alexander the Great. As you will see, both lines of succession are correct and coalesce so as to give us a more precise understanding of where the Antichrist comes from.

Following Alexander’s death, the heirs to the Hellenistic Empire were called the Diadochi, which means ‘successors’ in Greek. The four Generals alluded to by scripture appear to be Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander and Lysimachus, all of whom had ruled over different Hellenistic Kingdoms after the partition of the Empire (Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. The Footsteps of the Messiah: A study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events. [Tustin: Ariel, 1990], p. 20). The book of Daniel clearly indicates that the smallest territory in land size, held by one of these four generals, denotes the symbolic ‘small horn’ (the Antichrist) of the end times (8:8-9). Interestingly, the text also states that this small territory cannot possibly come from Alexander’s ‘own descendants,’ namely, the Greeks (11:4). Historically, Greece was conquered by the Romans in the 2nd century B.C., and so their empire came to an abrupt end.

On that account, in order to locate the actual place that represents the little horn, we must search elsewhere. By implication, Cassander, who controlled Macedonia and most of Greece, must be ruled out of the equation. On the other hand, Lysimachus’s terrain, which originally consisted of the tiny area called Thrace, is the only one to qualify as the smallest amount of land size in comparison with the other Hellenistic Kingdoms. If you recall, Daniel mentioned that the little horn ‘grew exceedingly great toward the south’ and ‘toward the east’ (8:9). Evidently, after the major Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C., Lysimachus gained vast amounts of land to the south and to the east, as he was awarded Anatolia for his decisive allied victory. By that time, General Lysimachus had become a very wealthy and powerful man, as he presided over all aspects of life, political and otherwise, within the geographic region we now call Asia Minor. He also founded his capital at Pergamum, in modern-day western Turkey, where all his wealth was kept.

Anatolia then becomes the seat of the Ottoman Empire, which destroyed the last remaining vestige of the Roman Empire in 1453 of the Common Era. By the late 19th century, the Turks were in turn defeated by Imperial Russia through various wars, but especially after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 A.D. If we trace the succession of empires that supplant one another in the region denoted by the symbol of the little horn – namely, Thrace and Asia Minor – we will notice a sequence that begins with General Lysimachus and continues on with the Byzantine Romans, whose capital (Constantinople) was actually situated within the former’s domain. Next, the Ottoman Turks come forth from this same territory and are subsequently defeated by the Great Russian Empire. Since Lysimachus represents the little horn, we can trace the roots of the Antichrist from this foregoing General all the way up to Russia, the so-called Third Rome. It is for this reason, no doubt, that the book of Revelation features ‘Pergamum’ as the place ‘where Satan’s throne is’ (Rev. 2:12-13) located, indicating not only the origin of the little horn, but also the succession of empires that lead to his proverbial doorstep. In this respect, the small horn, the kingdom of Lysimachus, becomes a key piece of the puzzle that decidedly affirms the link that leads to the Antichrist (Dan. 8:9-12). That is to say, the Lysimachaean province gave rise to the Byzantine and Turkish empires, and in the process of usurping the latter, the modern Russian Empire was born.

Ezekiel, a dominant force in Jewish apocalyptic literature, prophesies that ‘in the latter years’ a mysterious ‘prince of Rosh’ and ‘Meshech’ will come ‘from the remote parts of the north,’ from ‘the land of Magog,’ to invade Israel, ‘whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations’ (Ezek. 38:2, 8). It is customary for scholars to identify the abovementioned locations with modern day Russia, which will be in league with many nations during its latter-day military campaigns. Historical investigations reveal that the term ‘Rosh’ is derived from the tribe of the ‘Rus’ who migrated from Scandinavia and founded Russia (Kievan Rus) roughly around the 10th century of the Common Era. By the same token, the term ‘Meshech’ originates with the clan whom the Greeks called ‘moshoi,’ and whence the name Moscow is traced.

The Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the term ‘Rosh’ (Ezek. 38:2) with the Greek word ρως, which stands for Ρωσία (the Greek word for Russia). The earlier Ezekiel quotation referred to ‘the land of Magog.’ In ancient times, it comprised the lands where the Scythians once lived, and thus represents contemporary Russia. In his sobering book, the biblical scholar Arnold Fruchtenbaum provides a supplementary elaboration of Ezekiel 38:

‘The identification of Magog, Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal is to be determined from the fact that these tribes of the ancient world occupied the areas of modern day Russia. Magog, Meshech and Tubal were between the Black and Caspian Seas which today is southern Russia. The tribes of Meshech and Tubal later gave names to cities that today bear the names of Moscow, the capital, and Tobolsk, a major city in the Urals in Siberia. Rosh was in what is now northern Russia. The name Rosh is the basis for the modern name Russia. These names, then, cover the modern territories of northern and southern Russia in Europe and Siberia to the east in Asia’ (Footsteps of the Messiah 70).

In addition, Ivan the Great adopted the official emblem of the Byzantine Monarchy: the double-headed eagle. He then went on to marry Sophia Paleologue, the niece of the final Byzantine ruler Constantine XI. In the aftermath of the Ottoman Turks’ conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire and in an effort to salvage the last vestiges of Christianity, Ivan designated Moscow as the Third Rome in 1497 A.D. In effect, Moscow became the offspring of the Roman Empire; heirs to the legacy. Russia, then, becomes the link of the little horn (Antichrist) to the Roman Empire (cf. Daniel 7:7-8 f.).

The celebrated seer Nostradamus confirms this conclusion and gives us an insightful clue in this regard:

‘The great Empire of the Antichrist will begin where once was Attila’s empire and the new Xerxes will descend with great and countless numbers’ (The Prophecies, Epistle to Henry II).

Maps that show the extent of Attila’s empire reveal that it comprised areas of the former Soviet Union and modern-day Russia. Moreover, Nostradamus calls the Antichrist the new Xerxes. The differences between Russia and Persia (modern-day Iran) are worlds apart! Nevertheless, Nostradamus pierces through the opaque veil of prophecy to glimpse an intimate alliance built for conquest: ‘Arabs will be allied with the Poles’ (The Prophecies, Century 5, Quatrain 73). The term Poles refers to those who dwell in ‘the remote parts of the north’ (Ezek. 38:6, 15). Here, following, is a prophecy that might lend support to the idea that a military buildup in Asia could ignite the end of the world:

‘When those of the arctic pole are united together, Great terror and fear in the East’ (The Prophecies, Century 6, Quatrain 21).