The Epic of Gog of Magog

What circumstance is Ezekiel 38 & 39 referring to and when will it happen? This article takes a bite out of that question.

Let's identify the players involved before getting into anything else. Scholars debate the identity of Gog and the location of Magog, but the description provided in the text says enough--"the far north”-- to leave little doubt, at least in my mind. The word far, as in "far north," is translated from a word meaning extremity (Hebrew: yerekah). If the longitude of Jerusalem is taken northwards towards its farthest extent, ultimately, it leads to Russia, falling just a short distance to the west of Moscow. That line does pass through Turkey, which is interesting of itself, and Ukraine, but the farthest extent is in Russia, so Gog is the ruler of Russia, which is Magog.

The rest of the cast are easily identifiable, for the most part. Persia is modern Iran and Put is modern Libya, little debate there. Cush is often misidentified as Ethiopia but it really refers to modern Sudan, the area of ancient Nubia. Gomer is best identified, it seems to me, by ancient references from Assyria as the Cimmerians, which places them around or just beyond the Caucasus, most likely in southern Russia. Beth Togarmah is hard to place today with any definiteness. Beth means “house,” so this is a tribal or clannish designation, often it's placed in Anatolia, but it's probably refers to the Caucasus as well, so Georgia, Azerbaijan, or perhaps Armenia.

In modern terms then: Russia, Sudan, Libya, Iran, and some representation from Georgia, Azerbaijan, and perhaps Armenia make up the alliance of Ezekiel 38 & 39.

When will all this happen? The text says after many days, in the latter years, when the land (Israel) has been restored from war and the people of that land (Jews) have been gathered from many peoples upon the mountains of Israel, which had been a waste, but upon which they now dwell securely. That would be... now! In the aftermath of WW2, Jews began returning to the historic land of Israel (aliyah) in numbers, became an independent nation in 1948, and after several wars with her neighbors now dwells securely in this location. The land is restored and productive, so all that remains in this readied space is for the sudden surge, storm-like, of the Gog alliance attacking and invading Israel.

Why will they do such a thing?  Ezekiel says to loot. Israel is wealthy in our day, especially in comparison to its closest neighbors. It is productive agriculturally, has a strong economy and it is well-stocked with armaments-- certainly a trove worth plundering. Israel's wealth is a recent phenomenon, however, the nation has been considered wealthy by western standards only recently-- like in the last twenty years or so. From the perspective of the alliance I am sure looting is what they think their motivation is, but from God's perspective this is an action he's instigating and it occurs for his purposes.

God will put a hook in Gog's jaw and pull him back and into Israel for judgment, to express his fiery wrath, and to demonstrate his sovereignty over the whole world. In our day, Russia has had troops in Syria since 2015, some within 25 miles of Israeli-occupied Golan. Russians have supposedly been withdrawing from the neighborhood since 2016, but conditions in Ukraine have given added impetus to moving Russian troops and materiel out of Syria since May of 2022. As bad as Russia may need to get out of Syria to deal with issues elsewhere, Ezekiel 38 leads me to believe that God is likely to pull them back in, not stopping in Syria on the rebound but progressing all the way into Israel.

How will God judge the invaders? In several ways, but generally, it seems to me, some sort of volcanic cataclysm is the heart of the matter. Will it synchronize with the sixth seal, which I also see chiefly in volcanic terms? Perhaps, but not necessarily. There is that cryptic half-hour to deal within the Seventh Seal which seems to imply a short break between the Sixth Seal/Rapture and the start of the 70th Week/First Trumpet. Regardless, I do think Ezekiel 39 ends with the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel, as we shall see.

As far as the identifying the judgment as a volcanic cataclysm, all we have to do is consider the description to arrive at that conclusion. There is a great earthquake, landslides, rain, hail, fire and sulfur-- all marks of a volcanic eruption. There is, fortuitously, a volcanic system near enough to propound the possibility: the Levant Volcanic Province. It covers the Hula Valley in northern Israel, sweeps over the Golan Heights with its many cinder cones, and extends down into Jordan. Although considered extinct (e.g. Mts. Avital and Bental are said by geologists to have last erupted 10 kya.) I entertain the notion that what has happened there before could happen again.

Cinder Cones in the Golan

In the chaos and confusion of the described events, presumably, the soldiers of Gog's alliance kill one another. Those not killed by another soldier die from sickness (pestilence), which I assume will be the effect of air fouled by volcanic gases and ash rather than some sort of contagion. This volcanism will occur on a scale large enough to affect the coastlands, likely in Lebanon, which would make this a larger phreatomagmatic eruption than what is witnessed in the geologic evidence in the area.

The end result of all this for the alliance is death. Their weapons end up providing Israel with fuel to burn for seven years (there's a span that rings a bell). Their bodies, exposed to the elements, carrion fowl and critters become the focus of a major effort to bury the bones over the next seven months. A burial site for the dead troops is made east of the sea-- whether that means the Mediterranean or Dead is hard to tell, but it makes sense to me that it would be east of the Dead Sea. The odd skeletal remain will be found occasionally long after the slaughter ends. 

What is the end of all this for Israel, which is, after all, the focus of all end-times prophecy? A spiritual awakening is the obvious answer, but not just a period of revival. To catch the whole impact of this renewal we have to touch base with Daniel 9 and Romans 11.

In the present age after the cutting off of the Messiah at the end of the 69th week of Daniel, Israel was dispersed among the nations. A partial hardening had come upon the Jews from God because of (the implication is) their rejection of Christ and their unwillingness to depend on faith in God's mercy in Christ rather than their status as Jews and their religious works. The history of this age might give the observer the idea that God was done with the Jews, having cast them aside, but this age of partial hardening will only last until God is done with the Gentiles. Once his redemptive objectives have been accomplished with them, God will turn his redemptive attentions back to the Jews and all Israel will be saved.

The word translated “until” in Romans 11:25 always means “up to that time” in the NT. Therefore, this hardening in part that has come upon the Jews will only remain in place up to the time that the fullness (completion, Koine: pleroma) of Gentiles has come in. Then, the partial hardening which has let the Jews stew in their unbelief, allowing only a trickle of Jews to come to Christ, will no longer be in effect. What can that something be that turns the tide and turns hardening into openness? There’s only one thing that convicts people of sin, righteousness and judgment and woos them to faith in Christ, and that’s the Holy Spirit!

If you, like me, have wondered how anyone could be saved during the Great Tribulation if the Holy Spirit (if understood as "he who now restrains") is taken out of the way. The scriptural record is clear that people will reject the Antichrist, his mark and put faith in Christ during the Tribulation, how can they if the Holy Spirit is gone? Now, in my view, it is not the Holy Spirit who is taken out of the way, but the Holy Spirit in and with the Church extant at the time (Rapture), but that doesn't make the situation less impossible.  Who can be saved if the Holy Spirit isn't poured out on the flesh getting saved? 

No one can, but Ezekiel tells us that after the Battle of the Gog Alliance the Holy Spirit IS poured out on Israel. When Daniel was told of the 70 weeks of work that God had left to do with the Jews and Jerusalem before everything was complete, Gentiles were not included, they weren't mentioned, they weren't in view. The 70 weeks are about Jews and God's work with them, not about God's work with Gentiles. 69 of those weeks passed until the cutting off of Messiah, at which point, God cut off (at least partially) the Jews. That means one week remains, one seven year period in which God will finish his work with the Jews and then all Israel will be saved.

So Ezekiel 38 and 39, The Epic of Gog of Magog, is actually the story about what touches off Daniel's 70th week.

The Olivet Discourse: Abomination of Desolation Part II

Primarily, there are two things occurring in regard to the Abomination of Daniel referenced by Christ in the Olivet Discourse: suppression and replacement. The normal activities in the Temple have to be stopped, and other ones, unclean ones, have to take their place. Antiochus models that, but doesn't fulfill it, the Romans did one but not the other. What does fit the bill, for both Daniel and the Olivet Discourse, is described in Revelation 13:14-15, even though its location is merely implied by Revelation 13:5-6 (see Daniel 9:27) rather than specified.

Since Jesus did command the reader of Daniel's prophecy to understand, particularly as it relates to the end Jesus is prophesying, the Abomination of Desolation at the end of the age spoken of by Daniel was clearly meant to be understood. Oh, it may take some consideration, some thought (which is the burden of the Koine "noeito" which is translated "understand"), but it was certainly meant to be understood. I think that principle of perspicuity holds for all end-time prophesy. Without a doubt, such prophecy becomes clearer the closer we get to its fulfillment (Daniel 12:9-10).

The elephant in the room in all this unpacking is that the Abomination of Desolation presumes a place that can be abominably desolated. I think I have well established that the destruction of that location in 70 CE was not part of its ultimate desolation as envisioned by Daniel and Jesus and which still awaits. That can only mean that at sometime, the holy place must be rebuilt according to biblical standards and prepared for the offering of holy sacrifices once again. Make no mistake about it, the Temple will be rebuilt, it must be in order to fulfill that spoken by the prophet and by the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

At some point after the Temple is in place, the Abomination will be stood up, and those in Judea at that time are told to hit the pike; however, they are not directed to a location in the Olivet Discourse, or in Revelation 12, or anywhere in Daniel. Though Petra is often offered as a possibility by commentators, that is sheer speculation without so much as a shred of definitive biblical proof. At best, we can say that the refugees will probably run into the desert more than a Sabbath Day’s journey (~ ¾ of a mile) to a place where God will take care of them for 1260 days (3 ½ years). What is certain is that they are in hiding after their flight and are not to let anything (like purported sightings of the Messiah, even if evidenced by great miracles) draw them out.

That these refugees are believing Jews is easy enough to deduce: they are in Judea; they are sabbath keepers; they are actively looking for the Messiah. Furthermore, they must be those that would be mindful of the words of Jesus or this section of the discourse, which counsels them, would be fruitless. God's word never goes out void, so it seems to me, that some of those Jews, maybe a lot of those Jews, maybe even all of those Jews would be Messianic. It is easy enough to put together the pieces and see that the Abomination of Desolation will occur after Jews have rebuilt the Temple, and that many of them have turned to Jesus as Messiah.

The Olivet Discourse: Abomination of Desolation Part I

There is a difference between the Synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse concerning the sign of desolation. Matthew and Mark are similar in specifically citing Daniel’s Abomination of Desolation, whereas Luke merely mentions a desolation which comes on the heels of armies surrounding Jerusalem. By the hermeneutic cited elsewhere, the Lucan description cannot be taken to undercut the specification made in Matthew and Mark. So, whereas the Lucan description could be made to serve a preterist interpretation, Matthew, Mark and the actual passage referenced from Daniel strictly forbid it, so it cannot be valid.

Jesus understood Daniel's prophesy as being unfulfilled in his day. Though he would have been well-familiar with Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees, he treated Daniel’s words as not yet having been fulfilled. Therefore, the abomination Daniel was speaking about was not accomplished (at least with any finality) by Antiochus placing an idol of Zeus in the Temple and sacrificing a pig on the Jewish altar. It certainly seems to be a picture of things to come, but it wasn’t the intended, ultimate fulfillment.

Furthermore, Daniel specifically says that the abomination comes midway through a covenantal arrangement with, presumably, the pompous little horn. There was no such instrument with Antiochus Epiphanes, nor was there any with the Romans in the 60's. So Daniel was not referring to Antiochus when prophesying this, and Jesus did not envision Titus (Emperor Vespasian/General Titus) when citing it. What Daniel spoke of is not an incursion and destruction (as in the case of the Romans), but a cessation of proper sacrifice and a substitution of detestable (unclean) things.

“Wing” (Hebrew: kanaph=wing, covering), as is translated in some English versions, in this part of Daniel is nonsensical, though wing is often a perfectly good translation when this word is used. Its range of meaning extends from edge or corner to covering, and it is the latter that makes sense in this context. Besides, for “wing” to be intended, translators (e.g. NIV following the LXX and Theodotion) must add the phrase “of the Temple” which is not in the Hebrew at all—not even a hint! The Abomination does cover or overspread the Temple, figuratively, which makes perfect sense in light of Revelation 13:15.

Jesus said that the abomination will stand in the holy space. In Rome’s destruction (really, obliteration) of Jerusalem nothing stood--literally, the Romans threw everything down and stood up nothing. That kind of destruction was actually prophesied by Daniel (9:26) as having already occurred when the Abomination takes place, really, as something parenthetical to the cutting off of the Messiah. So Rome's destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is prophesied by Daniel, just not as part of the Abomination of Desolation.

The Olivet Discourse: Dispensationalism

There is, in my view, an unmistakable dispensational quality in what the scriptures say about the last days (see this, this, and this). Gentiles are on one schedule for redemption, whereas Jews are on another. Don't take that to mean that I see a way to God other than Jesus Christ, I do not! Everyone who is ultimately saved will be so because he or she recognized Jesus as the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose from the dead, and therefore put all his or her hope in him.

God merely has one agenda for bringing that salvation in Christ to the Gentiles, and another for bringing that same salvation to the Jews.

In the Olivet Discourse, this reality can be seen in what Jesus prophesied concerning the Abomination of Desolation. Notice how the context changes at the introduction of that sign in Matthew (it is more subtle in Mark and Luke but still discernible). Earlier in the discourse the emphasis was on the nations (Gentiles), but once the subject of the Abomination is broached, the emphasis shifts to the Jews. That change, it seems to me, is clear enough to be obvious and yet its import can be easily missed.

Notice, specifically, how instructions given to those who see the Abomination are given to those in Judea and to sabbath observers. The Jewishness of such a designation can scarcely be overlooked. Furthermore, tribulation is curtailed and relief provided for the elect, but that action is marked by the sign of the Son of Man which causes the tribes (phulai) of earth to mourn. That distinction contrasts the Jewishness of the sufferers against the "Gentileness" of the mourners.

If we consider the original context in Daniel for this sign, it becomes very clear that the Abomination of Desolation (and thus the Tribulation signified by it) is part of God's redemptive plan for the Jews. Nothing is offered to the Gentiles by it but mourning due to their unbelief. As for all those Gentiles who did believe in the gospel, they are not addressed, nor even mentioned. The inference, therefore, is that they're not around until they are gathered from one end of heaven to the other when Christ returns!

The Tribulation, redemptively, is for the Jews and Jerusalem. It brings nothing but wrath and the portent of ultimate judgment to the Gentiles who experience it. Believing Gentiles will be off the scene at that time and not return until after it is over. There is one redemptive track in history for the Gentiles, and another for the Jews.

The Olivet Discourse: The End

The synoptic accounts introduce the actual ending sign in the Olivet Discourse differently from one another. Matthew gives us a detail that Mark and Luke do not mention. Mark and Luke merely mention enduring to the end to be saved (as does Matthew just before its unique statement), whereas Matthew further states that the Great Commission will be completed, "and then the end will come." A break that can only be inferred in Mark and Luke is thereby clearly delineated in Matthew.

So, let's review the schema of the Olivet Discourse as I've interpreted it.

The Discourse is Jesus' answer to the question, "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” In the early segments of his answer, Jesus reveals two general signs which lead up to the end:

1) Birth pangs of false Christs, wars, famines, earthquakes, persecutions, falling away, false prophets and lawlessness occurring throughout the age. Like birth pangs they will increase in frequency and intensity through the age. My interpretation of the seals of the Revelation being mostly historical fits in quite well with this description--once a seal has been broken, it's effects continue throughout the age; and

2) The Gospel being preached to the entirety of the world. This effort began at the Day of Pentecost and has moved forward throughout the age (note my interpretation of the First Seal). Regardless of whether progress is assessed by every ethnic group being reached or by every habitable place having a witness, the sign that we are not at the end yet is the continuing effort to complete the Great Commission. Once it has been accomplished, the end is here!

The break between the signs leading up the end and the end itself is communicated by the phrase: "then [tote, again] the end will come." The end, in this case, is not a hard stop like a period in punctuation, but is more like a period in history. The end is actually a finite span over which the very last things will occur. What the breaks tells us is that final period will not begin until the Gospel has been preached everywhere.

What occurs during that final period which is the end? Daniel's 70th Week is what is indicated by the reference to Daniel's Abomination. Therefore, what is actually outlined in the Olivet Discourse is a Labor Period followed by a Delivery Period which culminates in the Return of Christ. The Labor Period is long and drawn out, and has been going for almost 2000 years. The Delivery Period has not begun yet (since the Great Commission has not been accomplished yet), but once it does it will last only seven years, and finish with Christ in Jerusalem ruling and reigning here on earth.

The Olivet Discourse: When Is the Answer

I have stated that the question which Jesus was actually responding to in the Olivet Discourse was: "What would be the sign of his coming and the end of the age?" The entire address is taken up with his response to that and the question about the destruction of Temple was entirely ignored. That may seem hard to swallow, but as I will demonstrate, it does produce a coherent, consistent interpretation of the whole discourse. Regardless, however one may interpret this passage, to be on the mark, that interpretation must end up with Jesus back here in a new age--anything else misses the point.

Although it seems out of place in the setting, Jesus was not speaking only to those who were with him, but also to all of us who would come later in time and hear his answer through the transmission of its witnesses. This is revealed by the breadth of his answer. John was the only one of that bunch that lived more than another 50 years (at least according to tradition), and the scope of Jesus' answer is actually much longer than that when it’s carefully examined. In fact, it is so broad that we are encompassed within its detail today, and in a very real sense, those that were hearing him were stand-ins for all of us.

Jesus described that scope (v. 4-8) as encompassing wars, famines, earthquakes and false Messiahs (all in the plural). However, Jesus stated that such, even in the plural, would not be a reason for any eschatological alarms to be sounded. The end was not yet, even after a multiplication of such things. In his account, Luke adds pestilence, terrors and signs in the heavens to the mix, all in the plural as well. We have been seeing these things throughout history, and are still seeing those things today, yet they still should not be alarming because they're not the telling sign of the end of the age.

Furthermore, the occurrences of these signs are represented as akin to the progression of labor, but just the beginning of it (v. 8). Labor starts slowly and builds in a cyclical pattern of increasing intensity, and culminates in a grand conclusion. The process can be quite lengthy, a few hours if one is lucky, over a day if not. A proper reading of these signs must incorporate a lengthy process (i.e, labor) of repetitively building events (wars, famines, earthquakes, false messiahs) that themselves take a lengthy time to develop, and that's just the start. Clearly, Jesus envisioned a very a long time in his answer.

He also spoke of false prophets arising and leading many astray (v. 11). History has seen its share of those, although it seems to me, the most significant (e.g., Muhammed, Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell) arose long after the Temple was destroyed. If the termination of the prophesy is the end of the age and Jesus' return, these false prophets, as well as historical false messiahs, such as Bar Kochba, Menachem Schneerson, and even Sun Myung Moon would have been in view by Jesus as he spoke about such, such a long time ago.

In these issues alone, I have already demonstrated the difficulty of compressing all of these signs into the short span of time before 70 CE, but let us remember that the terminus of the prophetic answer was the end of age and Jesus' return. This is certainly reinforced by Jesus tying the fulfillment of the Great Commission (v.14) to his answer. Even now, we're only just reaching the point where this sign is even remotely fulfilled and the end will not come before it is accomplished. Preterism, it seems clear to me, is a non-starter in interpreting Matthew 24.

Jesus also referenced the desolation mentioned by Daniel (v. 15) as a sign. At the time Jesus spoke this, Antiochus and the Maccabees were a well-known and understood aspect of history, and yet Jesus spoke of Daniel's desolation as happening in the future. As Jesus would have used the term, it referred to an idol being placed in the Temple and the altar being desecrated. Jesus was saying that Antiochus' actions were not the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, but that it would be fulfilled as the most salient sign of the imminent end of the age.

History tells us that Rome's actions at the Temple in 70 CE were not the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy either, because they do not fit the bill. Whereas the Romans burned the place, killed its defenders on its grounds and dismantled it, they did not set up Daniel’s desolation. Hadrian's efforts in 130 CE to put a Roman face on a formerly Jewish city weren't even close to fulfilling Jesus' reference to Daniel, and nothing has occurred throughout the rest of history that is even remotely similar to Daniel's description. That means that the Abomination of Desolation, as cited by Christ, is something yet to happen.

It is common among naysayers, and preterists too, to say that Jesus and his first followers anticipated the end occurring quickly, within their lifetimes at most. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, and they see that event as the scope of the Olivet Discourse. Preterists see it as fulfilled, the unbelieving see it as reportage after the fact, but either way, the events of 70 CE don’t line up with the facts as Jesus stated them. Neither viewpoint can be true!

What is true is that the Gospel has not yet to be proclaimed to all nations, the desolation spoken of by Daniel has not yet occurred, and Jesus has not yet appeared. So the age has not ended and this prophetic discourse, therefore, is still in force.

The Antichrist: A Muslim in a Muslim World

The Rise and Fall of the Antichrist: Part II

Since the Antichrist's kingdom is typified by the King of the North (the Seleucid Kingdom) and his empire is bounded by the area controlled by both Alexander and the Romans, we can make some fairly certain statements about what will and what will not be part of the Ten Horns. Western Europe is out, entirely-- not England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany... you get the picture. The ten horns will be in the Levant, the Balkans and Africa and nowhere else.

The specificity of a revived Kingdom of the North ensures that Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon will absolutely be included. Jordan and Saudi Arabia (Ammon, Moab and Edom) are specifically excluded in the biblical text, whereas Egypt, Libya and the Sudan (Cush) are specifically included. That leaves three others which would have to come from the Balkans (i.e. Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, or Albania) or Azerbaijan. Israel is not one of the ten, it merely signs a covenant with their leader, the Antichrist.

Daniel's prophecy has to be taken as locating this covenant in time with the ultimate abominator as opposed to the type of the abominator (Antiochus) or with the Romans. Additionally, the destruction of the city and the temple can only refer to the events of 70 AD and not with anything done by Antiochus. Furthermore, Jesus mentioned the abomination in question as yet to come, not as fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes, despite having been fully aware of that history. Because the events of 70 AD do not even remotely resemble what Daniel prophesied concerning this covenant, the actual fulfillment of it has to be reserved to a time after 70 AD by the actual Antichrist.

We have not considered the potential of Palestine being one of the ten nor the producer of the Antichrist, because Palestine is not a biblically legitimate entity. Even though the area had a large Gentile population in the days of Antiochus, and though there are efforts afoot to incorporate an Arab state in the Beautiful Land today, Canaan is Israel's, given once and for all time to her by God. The land of Israel is being restored to the people of Israel in these last days along with Jerusalem their eternal capital.

The notion of Palestine is a wisp of fancy from unredeemed minds that God will never allow to stand now that he's brought the Jews back to their promised land.

The Antichrist will worship a god unknown in Daniel's day. That is the implication of the descriptive phrases used by Daniel-- not the god of his fathers, not the one desired of women, a militaristic god unknown to his fathers, a foreign god. Whenever something is described prophetically that will only exist in the far future, it tends be a bit weird, hence the cryptic language. It is an important, identifying characteristic, nonetheless, or it would not have been mentioned from so many angles.

Let me ask you, "What new god has arisen since the days of Daniel, that is totally outside the bounds of previously existing pagan pantheons and is militaristic? A god of fortresses (literally, strongholds), who assists his followers in overcoming the mightiest of citadels? In my mind, this is a perfect description of the jihadist god of Islam, Allah, and really, nothing else. So, the Antichrist will be a Muslim, at least when he reaches power. Considering his locale and his international ambitions (one third of the current world population is Muslim).

Of course, he could only at best be a nominal one, because as his true heart is revealed, he ends up repudiating all gods and claiming himself alone as one.

Index to the Entire Series
I, II, III

The Antichrist: His Rise to Power

The Rise and Fall of the Antichrist Part I

We return to the subject of eschatology with this series of posts by looking at the career of the Antichrist. I'll set out the narrative of his rise and fall and connect it to the key bits of information the Bible gives us about him. I can't name names or give dates and times (no one can at this moment, honestly), but what we can understand I will do my best to communicate clearly.

At some point in the days to come, a figure will arise to dominate the world. We commonly refer to him as the Antichrist. He will be a willful, even maniacally manipulative, ruthless, politician, a nominal Muslim, and will hale from Turkiye. It is possible that he will originate in the Balkans, in Syria, in Lebanon, or in Iraq, but my money's on the Turkish Republic. His first move to power will likely occur in his country of origin, and he will face a challenge which puts his rule in question in the early half of his reign. 

According to Daniel 7, what separates the actual from other contenders (or pretenders) for the title is his bold power-grab. The Antichrist rises to power at the expense of three of the ten kingdoms that end up constituting his empire. Furthermore, the Apocalypse locates the throne of Satan, the sponsor and inspiration of the Antichrist, in Pergamum (now Bergama, Turkiye). So Turkiye will be the nation of origin for the Antichrist. If history is the key to the future, that would make Syria and Iraq (possibly Lebanon or Azerbaijan) the prime candidates for the other two ripped out horns.

The Antichrist will be ceded imperial power by an alliance of ten nations, which include the ones he personally reigns over plus seven more. In totality then, the Ten Horns are Turkiye, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, and three of Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria and Azerbaijan. Some of the ten are identified quite clearly in scripture, some are the fruit of my conjecture, but none are in western Europe, and none have anything at all to do with Rome.

Minimally, his empire will be roughly bounded by that area that was ruled by both Alexander (Daniel 8) and the Romans (Daniel 7) in the Levant, the Balkans and Africa. 

The Antichrist is typified by the prophetic figure called the "little (מִצְּעִירָ֑ה: littleness) horn" in Daniel 8. That figure is Greek and arises to power within (upon) the conquests of the "shaggy goat" (Alexander) in the Medo/Persian Empire (the ram). Given the division of Alexander's empire after his death, and the description of the little horn's growth toward the south, toward the east, and toward (yes, in the Hebrew, the "toward" is mentioned thrice) the glorious land (Israel), the little horn could only arise within the Seleucid Empire. 

The "little horn" prophecy was most immediately fulfilled in the Seleucid ruler named Antiochus Epiphanes. However, through the instrumentality of secondary fulfillment, this prophecy looks through him, past him, to the ultimate Antichrist yet to come. The domains of Antiochus included large portions of Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Turkiye, and Iraq, which is indicative of where the Antichrist will rule as well. The type/antitype relationship between Antiochus and the Antichrist is also demonstrated in Daniel 11-12. Daniel 11:21-35 prophetically points to the type (Antiochus); Daniel 11:36-12:4 points to the antitype (Antichrist).

The type of the Antichrist, Antiochus, not only demonstrates the evil persona of the Beast, but also indicates the general location his domain will cover in that kingdom, the Apocalypse styles, "...that was, now is not, and will be again."

In Daniel 11, the prophetic description of Antiochus' rule seamlessly morphs into that of the Antichrist at verse 36. That, in turn, is carried on through to the end of Daniel 12. So in understanding the rise and fall of the Antichrist, it is the type-- the King of the North (the Seleucid Emperor)-- that is most descriptive of the domain and action of the antitype, the Antichrist. Yet, the Antichrist's kingdom is Roman as well (as is determined by Daniel 7), so the domain of the Antichrist will be roughly bounded by that area controlled by both Alexander and the Romans, but arising after the Roman Empire as is necessitated by Revelation 17:8.

The Roman Empire could not possibly be described as "once was, now is not and yet will be" at any of the times the Apocalypse was supposedly written.

Daniel 7:8 uses a different word (זְעֵירָה֙: small, insignificant) than does 8:9 to describe the little horn, but the concept is the same. That makes sense because they're not quite the same: one is the type, the other the antitype. In 7:8, the little horn arises from ten other horns on the fourth beast of the vision. The four beasts represented Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome in succession. In the Apocalypse, those same ten horns are said to arise in the day of the Antichrist for the sole purpose of turning power over to him. Yet, they were not in existence at the time of John (Revelation 17:8) despite coming out of the fourth beast in Daniel 7.

That description, by itself, rules out interpreting the Ten Horns as a revival of the Roman Empire. That empire was in existence at the time John received the Revelation, so it was, in fact, "now," quite the opposite of "now is not." Since the ten-horned empire of the Antichrist represents a resurrection of a empire that was dead in the Apostle John's day, and it has to been seen as within the Roman Empire because of Daniel 7, and also within one of the Alexandrian daughter empires because of Daniel 8; therefore, that revived empire must be the realm of the King of North, the Seleucid Empire which expired in 63 BC.

In view of all the prerequisites and the facts of history, interpreting the Ten Horns and the "little horn" (the Antichrist) as arising in western Europe is unscriptural and just wrongheaded.

At some point after the Ten Horns have ceded imperial power to the beast, he will sign a 7 year pact with Israel. The treaty will give Israel control over the Temple mount and the right to rebuild that structure. Whether or not this is the reason that the King of the South (Egypt) rebels, I am not sure, but Egypt most certainly does rebel as signified by the apparently fatal head wound of the Beast. Since the ten heads represent kingdoms, the wound is not to the person of the Antichrist but to his control over one of those kingdoms. The Antichrist reacts so forcefully and utterly to this challenge that the rest of the world loses all desire to withstand him.

I'll talk more about the horns, and the Antichrist with my next post.

Index to the Entire Series
I, II, III

Identifying the Seals of the Apocalypse

The Seals of the Apocalypse

In Revelation 5 we have that grand scene in the throne room of God, where no one but the Lamb was found worthy to take the scroll. He had successfully redeemed mankind by his own blood, and thereby proved his worthiness to be the heir to power, wealth, wisdom, strength, honor, glory and praise. The scroll represented the consummation of all redemptive history, God's master plan to save the lost human race. Each seal broken was a witness to the Lamb's legitimacy to rule and reign in that ultimate place.

We know that Jesus ascended to heaven shortly after his resurrection, only to return shortly thereafter to reveal himself to his disciples and ready them for the task ahead of them. It seems to me, the prophetic scenario in Revelation 5 would have to represent the moments immediately after Christ's resurrection when he ascended to his Father, entered the throne room, and, having completed his mission as the Redeemer of Mankind, received the scroll. His return to the disciples, though not included in the prophetic scene of that chapter, becomes the perfect segue into the First Seal, since the Great Commission is what that is all about (as we shall see).

#1 - The White Horse

Where in the Bible, and especially in the Apocalypse, was the color white ever used symbolically for anything other than good? The answer: never! The white horse does not represent anything evil, such as the Antichrist, the idea itself is ridiculous if one gives it any thought at all. No, this seal represents the church being turned loose on the Great Commission (ca. 33 AD). Its breakage initiates the Church Age, really, the Age of the Gentiles.

#2 - The Red Horse

The color invokes the thought of blood. Fittingly, the rider is tasked with taking peace away from the earth. To understand this image, we cannot overlook the "world" in which John and the early church existed. It was a Roman world, ruled by the strong-armed, yet prospering comfortably within the steadying hands of the Pax Romana. Into that "tranquility" dropped the Emperor Commodus, after which everything began swirling down the commode. The red horse represents the loss of the Pax Romana (ca. 192 AD).

#3 - The Black Horse

Grain was effected by the famine unleashed by this rider, but not oil and wine. Why? The crops that produce oil and wine were grown in more southerly climes than was grain. The implication is that this broken seal effected northerly climes more than southerly ones. Factor in the color, which speaks of the loss of sunlight and warmth, and out pops the Little Ice Age as the proximate cause of the shortage. The black horse itself represents the Great Famine, ca. 1315 AD.

#4 - The Pale Horse

Even though this rider has the power to kill by sword and famine, like the two before it, its unique claim to fame is the decimation of one fourth of earth's population by the added means of pestilence and wild beasts. The combination of details could not describe better in condensed, artistic language the outcome of the bubonic plague. It was world-wide, borne by rats, and caused enough chaos in its wake to produce war, anarchy and famine. Most importantly, it killed a fourth of the population of the entire earth. The jaundiced horse represents the Black Death (ca. 1347 AD).

#5 - The Martyrs

Often, the assumption is that martyrdom was a phenomenon of the early church, but point in fact, the numbers of martyrs were not large then. That changed with the advent of Protestantism in the sixteenth century, when a sudden uptick in the numbers of martyrs rose precipitously to become a flood of multiplied thousands. The rate is still escalating today-- it must be getting downright crowded under that altar! Why doesn't God step in and put an end to it? It's a full number thing again. Suffice it to say, this seal represents the increase in martyrdom that began with the Reformation (ca. 1520 AD).

These five seals are historical to us. Their initial breaking unleashed something that still reverberates in the warp and woof of current events. For instance, the church is still actively engaged, and more successfully than ever, in winning the world to Christ; the world, particularly the Mediterranean world, has never been as peaceful again as it was before the unleashing of the red horse; severe grain famines have occurred over and over again since the black horse went riding; frightful pandemics seem to cycle through regularly since the pale horse first clip-clopped over planet Earth; and martyrs are being killed today at record pace though that "seal was broken" 500 years ago.

Let's get on wtih the rest of the seals which remain prophetic.

#6 - The Volcanic Cataclysm
The text does not mention a volcano, it just seems to describe one to me. From pyroclastic material falling from the skies (stars), to pyroclastic flows (rolling clouds), to ash choked skies (blackened sun, red moon), to moving mountains and islands, the description seems to fit. This, of course, is not your grandmother's volcano (like Krakatoa), this is something more akin to Toba or perhaps Yellowstone. People survive the cataclysm with the anticipation of the immediacy of God's wrath. If the Antichrist needs a story to cover the disappearance of the Church, this would fit the bill!

The Rapture
This is more akin to an inset, or an interlude, within the narrative of the sixth seal. The four angels holding back the winds refers to the events of verses 6:13-14, and makes the inset a snapshot taken as those events began. In the moment of earthly time that it takes the events of the inset to occur, the marking angels complete their task (v. 7:3). Then, time and space (the winds) are no longer held at bay and destruction continues. Both aspects (A and B below) of the inset are set off by the phrase, "after this" and reveal those who are ready (ie. truly believing in Christ) as the 70th week begins:

A) 144,000 Jews are sealed on earth, and remain there, and

B) Gentile saints are translated out from the Tribulation to the throne room of God.

#7 - The 70th Week of Daniel

This seal, when broken, hands off the flow of end time events to the Seven Trumpets and the Seven Vials. It points to the same period as the 70th Week of Daniel, which is also divided into two. So, the Trumpets represent the first half, the Vials the second half of the 70th week, which is often referred to as the Great Tribulation.

That's my take on the Seven Seals. I think it makes sense. When it comes to the Revelation, my firm belief is that it should make sense, to any of God's servants. It should make sense to you. I hope this helps.

The 70th Week: Lost in Delusion

As I interpret biblical prophecy, during Daniel's 70th Week, often styled The Tribulation, absolutely no Gentiles will be coming to Christ. In fact, none will even hold on to him. After the full number of Gentiles has come in, the 70th week which follows exists redemptively for the Jews and Jerusalem alone. Gentiles will not be "left behind" and get saved, not even one. You may be wondering about how such such a thing could be so, I think Paul explains it quite well in 2 Thessalonians 2, so let's explore.

This passage makes a few things clear:

1) Even now, during the Age of the Gentiles, there is a generally imperceptible effort being made to produce lawlessness in people (i.e. an unwillingness to accept restraint). 

2) That effort is being held down (hindered, restrained) by someone Paul assumed that the average Christian in Thessaloniki would understand the identity of from his prior talks with them. 

3) At some point in time, that restraining influence would be moved out from the midst of the people it was operating among, which would in turn loose (send) that which would produce the effect of wandering (i.e. delusion).

4) The delusion would culminate in ALL the affected in the world believing THE lie.  

5) That lie is that the man of lawlessness (the Antichrist) is god.

The Devil is at work as I type and as you read this article. His work can be summed up succinctly as murder, marauding, and mayhem. His tools are fear and deception. He seeks to alienate and destroy what God has made for his own pleasure. His efforts are opposed by the active work of the Holy Spirit, the servants of Christ and the finitude of his own limits.

Ultimately, he seeks to personally replace God as the rightful object of mankind's worship through a carefully prepared human shill called the Antichrist.

If the Holy Spirit was no longer poured out on all flesh, and God's servants (the church with its angels) were moved out from the midst of people and gathered together unto Christ in the air, how would anyone get saved? They could not. The Jews are the outlier in the scenario, God specifically pours the Spirit out on them. So how long would it take the Devil to succeed in his plot to compel THE lie?

Just about three and a half years is the biblical answer.

The Devil's efforts from the beginning of time have been directed at getting people to cast off the restraint of God over us. In such lawlessness we are estranged from God and easy pawns for the Devil's wiles. Lawlessness (iniquity) will increase amongst mankind as we near the end of time, but Christians must not let that disillusion us. There is coming a day when we will be gathered unto Christ in glory, while the world that refused to believe the gospel will, instead, be lost in delusion.

The 70th Week: The Temple Is the Issue

According to my understanding of end-times, there are two streams of redemptive history, dealing with two distinct groups of people, flowing toward a common end. In saying this, let me be clear: there is only one way to be saved, and only one name given under heaven by which men must be saved. Whether Jew or Gentile, apart from Christ, there is no hope-- not yesterday, not today, not forever. Yet, God is dealing with each of these groups distinctively in time. How? 

When the Jews rejected their own Messiah, Paul tells us that God shifted his redemptive focus from them to the Gentiles. Granted, there have been quite a number of Jews who have put faith in Jesus Christ through the ages since he was rejected by the bulk of them, but by and large, they are hardened to even the consideration of him. The banner over them as a people has been Ichabod: the glory has departed.

Does that mean that God has washed his hands of them? No, God never fails to keep a promise and he won't fail to keep those made to Abraham and Daniel. So, there are seven years of redemptive work yet to unfold in which will bring God's work with the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to a glorious end. Ever true to his word, God will not forget them nor stop short of his promise to them.

So when will the redemptive shift from Gentile stream to Jewish stream take place?

It will be marked by the full number of the Gentiles coming in (the Rapture) and will start Daniel's 70th week, but according to the scriptures, no one knows, and no one could ever know! There are no dependable, precise, biblically given signs that will clearly specify when this moment is about to occur, and so his return will always remain unexpected until it's upon us. We can gather that we are getting closer, but we will never be able to pinpoint it.

Now Christians have thought that the end was at the door since Jesus ascended to heaven, yet here we still are. The bridegroom has stretched the concept of delay long past what anyone could have envisioned. It will occur when it occurs-- all the faithful can do is be ready at any moment. Trusting Jesus, obeying him, longing for his appearing is sufficient to accomplish that. 

There is one thing, however, that does mark the beginning of 70th week itself.

In putting forth the prophecy of the 70 weeks, the issuing of a decree to rebuild Jerusalem (ostensibly, to protect the Temple) started the clock. The Temple was front and center throughout the first 69 weeks, it will be central during the 70th week. This, despite its complete destruction in 70 AD. Since the Temple features so prominently in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, it seems to me, that in shifting God's redemptive focus from the Gentiles back to the Jews, the Temple in Jerusalem become the central issue again. 

So, when the Antichrist signs the covenant that marks start of the 70th week, it will have a provision which allows the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem.