Eli Of Kittim

🎥 Eli of Kittim

Rumble Channel 🎥

🕎 Eli Kittim On Bible Prophecy ✝️

————————————-

🎓📚 Award-Winning Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 📚🎓

————————————-

🌏🪐🌓🌍🌖🌎🪐

Kittim’s Eschatology:

The Kittim Method

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Kittim’s eschatology is a view in biblical studies that interprets the story of Jesus in exclusively eschatological terms. This unique approach was developed by Eli of Kittim, especially in his 2013 work, The Little Book of Revelation. Kittim doesn’t consider Jesus' life as something that happened in history but rather as something that will occur in the last days as a fulfillment of bible prophecy. It involves a new paradigm shift! Kittim holds to an exclusive futuristic eschatology in which the story of Jesus (his birth, death, and resurrection) takes place once and for all (hapax) in the end-times. Kittim’s eschatology provides a solution to the historical problems associated with the historical Jesus.

Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels

Kittim views God's inscripturated revelation of Jesus in the New Testament gospel literature as a proleptic account. That is to say, the New Testament gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently existing or accomplished. According to The Free Dictionary, an online encyclopedia, the term “prolepsis” refers to “the anachronistic representation of something as existing before its proper or historical time.”

According to Eli Kittim, the gospels are therefore written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. By contrast, Kittim’s work demonstrates that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek New Testament Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation!

In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1:20; cf. Heb. 9:26b) are clearly set in the future. It appears, then, that the theological (or apocalyptic) purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though New Testament history is written in advance. It is therefore thought advisable, according to Kittim, to consider the collection of New Testament writings as strikingly futurist books.

The Epistolary View of Christ

The Epistles seemingly contradict the Gospels regarding the timeline of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The Epistolary authors deviate from the Gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:18-19). Consequently, the Epistolary literature of the New Testament sets Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection in a different light, while apparently contradicting some of the Gospel material. Only the Epistles give us the real Jesus. Thus, in order to have a high view of scripture, one doesn’t have to accept the historicity of the Bible, or of Christianity for that matter!

Kittim’s Eschatology: The Kittim Method

Ephesians 2:4-7 alludes to a redemption established “in faith” prior to the coming of Jesus. This implies that believers in Christ can receive the Holy Spirit retroactively “through faith” (1 Pet. 1:3-5) based on the merits of the prophetic message revealed by God in the New Testament! Similarly, Titus 1:2-3 talks about a salvation which was promised a long time ago “but at the proper time revealed” (cf. Isa. 46:10). This is not unlike Hebrews 1:1-2 which states that Jesus speaks to humankind not in Antiquity but in the “last days” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν). First Peter 1:10-11 also suggests an eschatological soteriology, given that the holy spirit “predicted the sufferings of Christ.”

What is more, Second Peter 1:16-19 demonstrates that the so-called “eyewitness accounts” were actually based on visions (i.e. prophetic words) that were then written down as if they had already happened (proleptically). Similarly, Acts 3:19-21, in speaking about “the regeneration,” implies that the Messiah will not be sent to earth “until the time of universal restoration” (cf. Mt. 19:28). Put differently, the legend of Jesus precedes his arrival.

The same anachronistic (or proleptic) interpretation is brought to bear on the issue of the Messiah’s future incarnation in Revelation 12:5. Despite the fact that the reference to Christ’s birth in Revelation 12:5 is clearly set in the future, Christian theology has, nevertheless, always maintained that it already happened. Thus, the notion of a historical Jesus does not square well with the context and content of these prophecies. In fact, according to Luke 17:30, the Son of Man has not yet been revealed (cf. 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:4; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:13; 1 Jn. 2:28). That’s precisely why the New Testament accounts of Jesus are essentially prophetic. For example, according to Revelation 19:10d, “the testimony to Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”!

Christ is born in the Fullness of Time

Interestingly enough, Ephesians 1:9-10 defines “the fullness of time” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, which we also find in Galatians 4:4) as the consummation of the ages. Thus, according to Galatians 4:4, Christ will be born in the end-times! That’s why 1 Peter 1:20 (NJB) informs us that although Christ was foreknown through visions and revelations by the agency of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless he will make his one and only appearance “at the final point of time.” What is more, Hebrews 9:26b (KJV) states quite explicitly that Jesus will die for the sins of the world “in the end of the world,” or “at the end of the age” (NRSV). A word study of the phrase ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων demonstrates that it refers to “the end of the world” (cf. Mt. 13:39-40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Dan. 12:4 LXX; see also G.W.H. Lampe [ed.], A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Oxford U, 1961], p. 1340)!

Christ’s Death and Resurrection at the End of the Age

In the Greek New Testament, Romans 5:6 intimates with hardly any ambiguity that Christ “died” (ἀπέθανεν) at some unspecified time of human history by using the phrase κατὰ καιρὸν, which means “at the right time” (cf. 1 Tim. 2:6), or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. Similarly, Isaiah 2:19 offers us a markedly different interpretation concerning the timing of the LORD’s resurrection, namely, as an event that takes place in the end time. Isaiah does not simply say that “the LORD” rises, only to quickly evanesce, but that he “rises to terrify the earth.” In other words, there’s no two thousand year gap between the LORD’s resurrection and judgment day. What is often overlooked in Isaiah 2:19 when doing exegetical work is the significance of the Hebrew term קוּם (qum), which is rendered in English as “rises,” and is often used in the Bible to mean “resurrection” (see e.g. Job 14:12; Isa. 26:19; Mk 5:41). Astoundingly, the Septuagint (LXX) translates it as ἀναστῇ (i.e. resurrection). The word ἀναστῇ (e.g. Mk 9:9; Lk. 16:31) is a derivative of ἀνίστημι, which is the root word of ἀνάστασις and means to “raise up” or to “raise from the dead.”

There is biblical support for this conclusion in Daniel 12:1-2. For instance, the end-time death and resurrection of “the great prince” in Daniel 12:1 (παρελεύσεται Dan OG 12:1 LXX; ἀναστήσεται Dan Th 12:1 LXX) occur just prior to the general resurrection of the dead (Dan. 12:2). Similarly, “Christ the first fruits” is said to be the first to rise from the dead during the future general resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:23. This is confirmed in Zephaniah 1:7 in which the Lord’s sacrificial-death takes place during “the day of the Lord”!

Conclusion

Exegetes must interpret the implicit by the explicit and the narrative by the didactic. In practical terms, the New Testament Epistles and other more explicit and didactic portions of Scripture must clarify the implicit meaning and significance of the Gospel literature. Accordingly, this paper argues that the Epistles are the primary keys to unlocking the future timeline of Christ’s only visitation. Kittim’s method is therefore revolutionizing the field of historical Jesus Studies.

——-

Who or What is the Ark of the Covenant?

Eli Kittim

The Ark of the Covenant was a gold-plated wooden chest that housed the two tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4). Jewish folklore holds that the ark of the covenant disappeared sometime around 586 B.C. when the Babylonian empire destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. Throughout the centuries, many writers, novelists, ufologists, and religious authors have invented two kinds of wild and adventurous stories about the ark of the covenant. They either talk about fearless treasure-hunters, archaeologists, and paleographers who went hunting for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, or about ancient alien civilizations that made contact with humans in prehistoric times. This has led some authors to the startling conclusion that the ark of the covenant may have been part of a highly advanced ancient-alien technology. But the Biblical data do not support such outrageous and outlandish conclusions.

From a Biblical standpoint, both the “ark of the covenant” and “Noah’s Ark” are symbols that represent salvation in the death of the Messiah. Isaiah 53:5 reads thusly:

he was pierced for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;


upon him was the chastisement that

brought us peace, and with his wounds we

are healed.

We can also call it the covenant of salvation based on the atoning death of Christ (Heb. 9:17). If you pay close attention to the biblical symbols and details, you’ll notice that both Noah’s ark and the ark of the covenant represent some type of casket, which signifies the atoning death of the Messiah (that saves humanity). Christ’s covenant is based on his death. Without Christ’s death there is no salvation. That’s what ultimately redeems humanity from death and hell, and allows for resurrection and glorification to occur. Christ, then, is the ark of the covenant, also represented by Noah’s ark (which saves a few faithful humans who believe in God). The caskets are of different sizes. The smaller casket (the ark of the covenant) could only carry one person (the Messiah), whereas the larger one (Noah’s Ark) can accommodate all of humanity (symbolizing those who are baptized into Christ’s death). According to the Book “After the Flood,” by Bill Cooper, “The Hebrew word for ark, tebah, may be related to the Egyptian word db't, = ‘coffin.’ “ Romans 6:3 declares:

Do you not know that all of us who have

been baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into his death?

In other words, it’s not Christ’s incarnation but rather his death that saves humanity. All those who follow him and are baptized into his death are saved!

How is Christ the “ark of the covenant”? Christ is the Word of God (Jn 1:1), the Logos, or the Law of God (the Torah)! That’s why the ark of the covenant doesn’t dwell on earth but in heaven. Rev 11:19 reads:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened,

and the ark of his covenant was seen within

his temple. There were flashes of lightning,

rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake,

and heavy hail.

Who dwells within God’s throne-room, within God’s temple, and is represented by the ark of the covenant? Answer: Jesus Christ! A similar scenario takes place in Revelation 21:2-3:

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,

coming down out of heaven from God,

prepared as a bride adorned for her

husband. And I heard a loud voice from the

throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of

God is with man. He will dwell with them,

and they will be his people, and God himself

will be with them as their God.’

Notice that the terms “God” and “the dwelling place of God” are used interchangeably. In other words, the metaphors of the dwelling place, the tent of meeting (ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ; i.e. the tabernacle), the temple and its sacrificial system, as well as the ark of the covenant, all represent God and signify the blood of the covenant or the blood of the lamb (1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 7:14; 12:11)! Christ is not only the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), but also the high priest who offers up his own life for the salvation of humanity (Heb. 7:17). According to Acts 4:12, there is “no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”: not Moses, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius, or Allah, or Yahweh. According to Philippians 2:10-11:

at the name of Jesus every knee should

bow, in heaven and on earth and under the

earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus

Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the

Father.

Therefore, he who is within the throne-room of God, and “among the people,” is none other than the Second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, who “will dwell with them” forevermore (Rev. 21:3). It’s a throwback to Leviticus, which prophesied the incarnation of God, but which the Jews misunderstood and misinterpreted. Leviticus 26:12:

I will be ever present in your midst: I will be

your God, and you shall be My people.

Compare Revelation 21.3:

He will dwell with them, and they will be his

people, and God himself will be with them

as their God.

How Should We Translate John 1.1: “the Word was God,” or “God was the Word”?

By (native Greek speaker) Eli Kittim 🎓

John 1.1:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

John 1.1 is often broken down into 3 phrases:

Phrase 1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

Phrase 2: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

Phrase 3: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

From the outset, before they even consider the process of biblical interpretation and exegesis, textual critics and Greek scholars set out to produce a faithful *translation* of the original Greek New Testament. Bear in mind that the processes of translation and interpretation are not the same. We expect the translation committees to translate (not to interpret) the text!

Therefore, a literal and accurate translation of the Greek language should correctly translate the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the word.” In other words, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) should be translated exactly as it was written in the original Greek (for emphasis), not rearranged and reassembled (in the target language) as we would wish it would be. In the original Greek, the text doesn’t actually say that “the Word was God,” as most modern translations maintain:

That’s an interpretation!

Rather, the original Greek New Testament says that “God was the Word”! So, the *interpretative* rearrangement is forcing the critical reader to read it backwards, which neglects the emphasis of the word order in the original Greek. It’s as if we were told to read Hebrew backwards, from left to right. What is more, the third phrase of John 1.1 doesn’t actually say ὁ λόγος ἦν (the word was). It says θεὸς ἦν (God was). If the text wanted to emphasize that “the word was God,” the phrase would have been: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς. It would have been written as follows:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς

τὸν θεόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς.

But that’s not what it says! To try to manipulate what the original Greek New Testament is actually emphasizing——by rearranging or *reinterpreting* it during the translation process——is equivalent to editing and, therefore, corrupting the “inspired” text.

Admittedly, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is somewhat of a Gestalt configuration in which different *meanings* can arise depending on the angle from which it is viewed. One could make the *interpretative* argument that the original phrase “God was the Word” might be equivalent to or interchangeable with “the Word was God.” In other words, on an *exegetical* level, one could make the case that the phrase “the Word was God” might be the converse of “God was the Word.” I don’t deny that possibility on grammatical grounds. That is certainly worthy of exegetical consideration. But when we’re initially *translating* the text, we shouldn’t be interested in theories of exegesis. Rather, we should be entirely focused on producing a faithful translation, which precedes interpretation and subsequent theological ramifications.

In *interpreting* the third phrase of Jn 1.1, many textual scholars typically reverse the word-order of the original Greek phrase (via a grammatical rule) so that we’re forced to read the words backwards. According to this rule, we can determine the *subject* of a phrase if a noun falls into one of the following categories: a) if it’s a proper name; b) if it’s preceded by an article; or c) if it’s a personal pronoun. However, in contradistinction to this grammatical rule, θεὸς can actually be the subject that precedes the verb ἦν (here, a form of "to be"), while λόγος can be the predicate nominative. On the other hand, in order to identify θεὸς as the predicate nominative and λόγος as the subject, one has to invoke what is known as the “Subset Proposition" rule, or the "Convertible Proposition" rule. In other words, this alteration involves a complex set of esoteric grammatical assumptions and decisions which essentially turn the text upside down.

By contrast, the straightforward way of reading the text seems to be the smoothest and the most natural. Not to mention that the phrase “God was the Word” is actually a faithful translation, whereas the phrase “the Word was God” is merely an *interpretation.* I’m not arguing that the phrase “the Word was God” is a wrong interpretation. I’m arguing that it’s a wrong translation! In the critical edition, we must always let the reader know what the text ACTUALLY says, not our INTERPRETATION of what we think it might mean. That can go in the commentary section. In translating a text——if the word-order of the original Greek doesn’t make any sense——translators are allowed to rearrange the words in order for it to make sense. But this exception to the rule doesn’t apply here because the original Greek makes perfect sense! Therefore, our decision to abandon our fidelity to the lexical details and grammatical structures of the Greek New Testament makes us no better than the scribes who corrupted it.

Moreover, the decision to change the *meaning* of the text (or to *reinterpret* it) is done for obvious theological reasons. Christian translators have a theological axe to grind. In order to validate and uphold the Trinity, they want to maintain the *distinction* between God the Father (the first person of the Trinity) and the Word of God (the second person of the Trinity). Hence why they deliberately *translate* the last part of Jn 1.1 backwards. Because if they were to translate it as the author intended it, namely, that “God was the word,” it might give the wrong impression that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. However, the third phrase of Jn 1.1 is not necessarily making a *modalistic* theological claim that there’s no distinction between the Father and the Word. Rather, since the second phrase (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν) clearly distinguished the two persons of the Trinity, the third phrase establishes their *ontological* unity by affirming that God was not simply separate from the Word, but that God himself was, in fact, the Word per se! After all, the first and second persons of the Trinity share one homoousion (essence): “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10.30)!

At any rate, this *interpretation* has become so wide spread, to such an extent that it has become a dogmatic and systematic standard, not only overriding or supplanting the original *translation* but also prompting modern translations to follow suit. It’s a case of special pleading where an *interpretation* has supplanted a *translation*!

However, there are many credible Bible translations that *translate* the last phrase of Jn 1.1 as “God was the Word”:

Coverdale Bible of 1535

In the begynnynge was the worde, and the

worde was with God, and God was ye

worde.

Smith's Literal Translation

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Literal Emphasis Translation

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Catholic Public Domain Version

In the beginning was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and God was the Word.

Lamsa Bible

THE Word was in the beginning, and that

very Word was with God, and God was that

Word.

Aramaic New Covenant: In the beginning

the Word having been and the Word having

been unto God and God having been the

Word.

Concordant Literal New Testament: In the

beginning was the word, and the word was

toward God, and God was the word.

Coptic Version of the New Testament: In

(the) beginning was the Word, and the Word

was with God, and God was the Word.

Great Bible (Cranmer 1539): In the

begynnynge was the worde, and the worde

was wyth God: and God was the worde.

New English Bible: When all things began,

the Word already was. The Word dwelt with

God, and what God was, the Word was.

Revised English Bible: In the beginning the

Word already was. The Word was in God’s

presence, and what God was, the Word

was.

Today’s English New Testament: In the

beginning was the Logos. And the Logos

was with God. And God was the Logos.

The Wyclif Translation (by John Wycliffe): In

the bigynnynge was the word and the word

was at god, and god was the word.

Latin Vulgate: in principio erat Verbum et

Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat

Verbum.

Vulgate translation: in the beginning was

the Word and the Word was with God and

God was the Word.

See also:

Was the Word “God” or “a god” in John 1.1?

https://at.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/was-the-word-god-or-a-god-in-john-11/0e69dfesk5oj

Who Wrote the Gospels? Are They Giving us History? Is Luke 1:1-4 a Case Study?

Eli Kittim

I think we need to seriously reevaluate our traditional view of the New Testament. Almost everything we believe about it is wrong. Christianity is not a historical religion, and it doesn’t need to be defended through archaeology or historical apologetics (e.g. listing eyewitnesses, or proving the resurrection), as is often done. Similarly, the gospels are not historical documents that correspond to real historical events. One would be hard put to reconstruct the so-called “historical Jesus” through fictional/theological stories that are largely based on the Old Testament.

For example, if Luke wrote his gospel based on other people’s opinions (Lk 1:1-4), we are in big trouble! Here’s what probably happened. There was no oral Aramaic tradition.

As scholars are now saying, the New Testament was probably written by the Greco-Roman literati (i.e. the educated upper class/intelligentsia). That’s precisely why the New Testament was composed, for the most part, in Greece and Rome. And that also explains why it was written in Greek by highly literate authors who didn’t understand the finer points of Jewish life in first century Palestine.

The New Testament authors must have been members of the Greco-Roman upper crust and very well-known, and that’s probably why they didn’t add their names to the texts. Some of the potential candidates who may have had a hand in writing the New Testament are Philo, Plutarch, and Josephus. And that’s probably why Luke seems to be familiar with Josephus’ works (Steve Mason). At any rate, it was obviously more than one writer, and all the authors, without exception, must have had transcendent experiences of God. There were no interviews and no “memories” involved, as Luke suggests. Every word they put on paper was coming directly from God. The New Testament is basically written in the form of prophetical writing (i.e. the genre called “apocalyptic literature”) because it’s based exclusively on visions and revelations (see Gal. 1:11-12; 1 Pet. 1:10-11)!

But we have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted these books. The problem is not with the New Testament; it’s with us. If you carefully analyze the New Testament, you’ll find that the epistles give us the “real” Jesus (meaning the actual *timing* of the parousia), whereas the gospels only give us a literary, fictional/theological rendering based on Old Testament material (intertextuality). That’s what’s going on!

Here’s the problem with our traditional interpretation of the preface to Luke’s Gospel. If Luke 1:1-4 is taken as prima facie evidence, then we’re no longer reading the word of God, but a case study. It’s as if Luke is saying: I interviewed someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew one of the apostles. In other words, Luke is basing his gospel on the memories (or false memories) of some individuals. Is this the inspired word of God that we must now accept as eyewitness testimony? I think not!

There are many problems with that view.

First, if Luke is giving us reports from interviews, then his gospel would certainly not be considered as the inspired word of God, but rather a case study which contains the questionable memories of second generation Christians, who may or may not know much, or who may not remember things accurately.

Second, the composite work of Luke-Acts is a fictional composition. The Book of Acts, especially, creates a head-on collision with the authentic Pauline corpus, particularly with Galatians. Not to mention that many of the details in the story are seemingly fabricated (e.g. Pharisees working for Sadducees, the Sanhedrin had no jurisdiction in Syria, Paul’s journeys are contradicted, etc.), and even the term “Christian” was not used until the beginning of the 2nd century. That’s why scholars like EP Sanders and Paula Fredriksen view Acts as a work of historical fiction. In fact, Dr. Fredriksen seriously doubts whether the author of Luke-Acts was Paul's companion. According to her, Luke doesn’t seem to know Paul very well. Bottom line, if you want to understand the actual TIMING of the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, read the epistles, not the gospels!

How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?

tumblr.com

How Did God Inspire the Biblical Authors?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim ——- Our Teacher Should Be the Holy Spirit Before I venture out to expound on how Biblical “inspiration” oc

The Antichrist is Russian: Not Assyrian, Muslim, Or Jewish

By Independent Researcher 🎓 Eli Kittim

The Connection Between Daniel’s 4 empires & Russia

Daniel chapters 2 & 7 show 4 super empires, the last of which will last until the end of the world. According to history, we know that the first was Babylon (gold), the second was Medo-Persia (silver), the third was Greece (bronze), and the fourth was Rome (iron), which had 2 legs (representing East & West). Then, Daniel says that the 10 toes represent the final phase of that same empire (i.e. a revived Roman Empire), which the endtimes Christ will smash to pieces. We also know that the 2 legs of the Roman Empire were Rome and Constantinople. Rome (West) was sacked and conquered in the 5th century AD and ceased to be an empire. There was no western Roman Empire in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries. According to Voltaire, “The Holy Roman Empire [of the 9th century] was neither Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire.” In fact, according to Wiki, “The exact term ‘Holy Roman Empire’ was not used until the 13th century.” So, the only remaining and legitimate Roman empire was the one at Constantinople, namely, the Eastern Roman Empire, aka Byzantium (East). So far, we are still talking about the 2 iron legs of Daniel’s composite statue. Then, in 1453, the Turks sacked Constantinople, and most of the Byzantine elites fled north to Moscow, where Moscow became the third Rome.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Moscow, third Rome - Wikipedia

Moscow, third Rome - Wikipedia

Chuck Missler pointed out that most commentators think that the Antichrist will come from the west (Rome), that is Europe, but they neglect the Eastern leg of the Roman Empire, namely Constantinople. And he was right. The Antichrist comes from the eastern part of the Roman Empire that moved to Moscow! 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.). Ivan even called himself Tsar, which means “Caesar.” And he inherited all the symbols of Byzantium, including the Greek Orthodox Church. Russia is therefore the continuation of Daniel’s empires, or the revived Roman Empire after the 2 proverbial iron legs collapsed.

Mind you, Daniel only mentions a revived Roman Empire out of which the little horn will come. He doesn’t mention any Muslim or Assyrian nations. He doesn’t mention anything about a Jewish antichrist. For proper exegesis, we have to stick to the text of Daniel, not to what people are currently adding to it. And Daniel only alludes to a revived Roman Empire. So the notion of an Assyrian, Muslim, or Jewish antichrist is foreign to the text and completely bogus and misinformed.

Moreover, we know that the book of Daniel is referring to the endtimes——and that this revived Roman Empire will appear in the last days——because Daniel 12.4 talks explicitly about the endtimes, while Daniel 12.1 mentions the great tribulation which will be the worst event that has ever occurred on planet earth, and one that has not yet happened. We also know that the 10 final leaders will fight Jesus Christ (Rev. 17.14) and that the Antichrist will be annihilated by Christ himself at his coming (see 2 Thess. 2.8). So the little horn of Daniel is definitely a future antichrist!

The 7 empires of Revelation 17

Just to recap, Revelation 17.9-13 says that there will be 7 empires until the end of time. There will also be an 8th, but because it’s part of the seven, it’s not counted as an 8th. So let’s enumerate them. It’s not Assyria or Egypt, as some unskilled interpreters suggest. Daniel doesn’t mention them at all. Historically, the 7 empires are as follows: 1) Babylon, 2) Medo-Persia, 3) Greece, 4) Rome, 5) Constantinople, 6) Moscow, 7) Soviet Union (USSR), 8) Russian Federation, which is part of the 7, and is therefore still part of the 7th empire. And all this takes place in the endtimes because Rev. 17.14 says:

“These will wage war against the Lamb, and

the Lamb will overcome them.”

Remember that John “was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10), not physically in the body. And he heard and saw visions pertaining to the day of the Lord. So when he says——there “are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while,” (Rev. 17.10)——the one that exists (or the “one [that] is”) during this prophetic time period that John sees is not Rome (which was the 4th empire), but rather the 6th (Moscow)! Why Russia? Because John is “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10). He is showing us where the Antichrist comes from. He is giving us a prophetic clue. That’s exactly why the 7th empire “has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while.” That would be the USSR, which remained a little while, approximately only 70 years. Here’s the passage in Rev. 17: 9-14:

“Here is the mind which has wisdom. The

seven heads are seven mountains upon

which the woman sits, and they are seven

kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has

not yet come; and when he comes, he must

remain a little while. The beast which was,

and is not, is himself also an eighth and is

one of the seven, and he goes to

destruction. 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. These have one

purpose, and they give their power and

authority to the beast. These will wage war

against the Lamb, and the Lamb will

overcome them because He is Lord of lords

and King of kings.”

The 10 toes at the bottom of Daniel’s statue represent the 10 leaders that will emerge out of this revived Roman Empire. And the 7th great superpower that emerged out of Russia was the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, 3 more figures emerged, totalling 10 leaders, plus an 11th (Putin), exactly as foretold in Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 7.19-22). The “three of the previous horns [that] were plucked out” (Dan. 7.8) represent the 3 leaders of the Russian Federation which came out of Soviet Russia.

The 10 Kings of Daniel 7.20 & Revelation 17.12

From its inception in 1917 until 1991, the Soviet Union had 8 leaders:

1) Vladimir Lenin

2) Joseph Stalin

3) Georgy Malenkov

4) Nikita Khrushchev

5) Leonid Brezhnev

6) Yuri Andropov

7) Konstantin Chernenko

8) Mikhail Gorbachev

The succeeding Russian Federation has only had 3 leaders since its formation on December 25, 1991 (cf. Daniel 7.8):

9) Boris Yeltsin

10) Dmitry Medvedev

11) Vladimir Putin

There you have it. Putin is the 11th horn (the 11th king) of Daniel 7.20, “to make room for which three [kings] . . . fell out” (emphasizing the last 3 leaders of the new federal republic that arose out of the former USSR)!

Ezekiel 38: The War of Gog & Magog

We have much more evidence that Ezekiel 38 is referring to Russia not only because of historical studies but also because of the language that is used in the Septuagint, not to mention the evidence from Josephus and other historians linking the inhabitants of Magog to the Scythians. The evidence pointing to Russia is overwhelming. For further evidence, see the following article:

What’s more, Ezekiel 38 talks about Russia invading countries in the last days, the so-called Gog/Magog war. That’s why the Septuagint (LXX) of Ezekiel 38.2 has the words Ρώς and Μοσόχ that stand for Ρωσία and Μόσχα in Greek, which are translated as Russia and Moscow respectively! Thus, it’s the Eastern rather than the Western leg of the Roman Empire that is considered to be Daniel’s Revived Roman Empire of Bible Prophecy, which was supplanted by Russia after the fall of Byzantium in 1453. And, as I have shown, Russia is also the final empire of Revelation 17, the one with the aforementioned ten kings!

This is the most accurate exegetical explanation of the 10 horns (which also includes the 11th horn, the Antichrist) and the only one that fits with all the details in the prophecies of Daniel 2 & 7, Ezekiel 38, Luke 21, and Revelation 12 & 17. That’s why the final empire is depicted as a red 7-headed dragon with 10 horns in Revelation 12. It’s the exact same Red Empire of the USSR that has morphed and continues to the present day. See the second seal of revelation, the red horse, which represents the Russian empire that will take peace away from the earth by starting world war 3!

Besides the fact that this position solves the biblical puzzle completely, one can also see that the current events fit perfectly as well. Russia is allied with Turkey, Iran, and many Muslim nations, just as prophesied in Ezekiel 38, and Putin has begun his military invasion of the west and is repeatedly threatening **nuclear war.** in fact, in New York City, ads about what to do in case of a nuclear explosion have begun to be seen on television. You have to be literally asleep not to notice that Putin is the person who has begun to invade countries and threaten **nuclear war,** and that a Russian Antichrist has already been foretold in the Bible! Daniel 8.23 calls the Antichrist “a master of intrigue,” while Daniel 8.25 refers to him as “a master of deception,” obviously implying that he’s trained in secret plans, underhand plots and schemes. In short, a spy! So, you can, in effect, hold the Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other, and they match!

Not to notice either the Bible prophecies or the current geopolitical situation of the world, and the constant threat of nuclear war, is equal to being completely ignorant and misinformed! Now let’s look at some faulty and erroneous interpretations that are not based on Daniel or Revelation, or on the canonical context. I will not even bother refuting the Seventh-Day Adventist position——that the Antichrist is the Pope and that the Mark of the Beast is Sunday-observance of the Sabbath——since it is too ridiculous for any one to take seriously, and also because it falls of its own accord.

The Assyrian vs. the Russian Antichrist

The Bible never links the Antichrist to a Muslim country. All lines of evidence link him to a revived Roman Empire. In Isaiah 10.5, for example, the text uses the term Asshur (Assyria)——which once invaded the northern kingdom of Israel——as a type, or symbol, of the final Antichrist who will invade Israel in the latter years (see Ezek. 38). The Bible uses a typology to indicate that an Assyrian-like figure will invade the land. Not that he is literally Assyrian. This is demonstrated in the Book of Isaiah, which shows that the title Assyrian does not refer to a person from the land of Assyria. In this particular verse, the so-called Assyrian is actually an Egyptian Pharaoh who is said to have oppressed the Hebrews while they were in Egypt. Isaiah 52.4 reads: “My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.” You can’t just take a literal historical figure in the Bible and claim they are the Antichrist. That is not a credible exegesis. If that were so, then we can equally say that Cyrus was the messiah, and not Jesus Christ. Cyrus is called God’s anointed in Isaiah 45.1. Besides, the name Asshur or Assyrian may be a cryptic *anagram* for Russia, or for the word Russian. The word Asshur can also be used as a semordnilap, a word that has a different meaning when read in reverse (or backwards). For example, Asshur in reverse is Ruhssa (i.e. Russia)! Today, the idea that Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Turkey will become superpowers and take over the world is not taken seriously. They don’t fit the bill. They’re neither Roman, nor do they have the necessary qualifications (11 kings). Yet Revelation 13 says that the Antichrist will conquer, subjugate, and control the entire world. Only a superpower like Russia, allied with many powers, such as China, can achieve these aims. Moreover, the Biblical evidence always points to Russia, as I have already demonstrated! There are many hermeneutical mistakes in the Assyrian interpretation. For example, Daniel never mentions any other kingdom in connection to the little horn besides the Roman Empire (see Daniel 7.23-25). Still others argue that the antichrist comes from the 3rd kingdom (the Hellenistic empire). But the Hellenistic connection in Daniel 8 simply points back to Byzantium because *tiny Thrace* (the symbol of the little horn with its ruler General Lysimachus) later became the seat of the Byzantine Romans, namely, Constantinople. So we’re back to Daniel 7 again. These interpreters confuse the details with the big picture, as well as Daniel’s chronological sequence of succeeding empires. Daniel chapter 8 is simply *zooming in* to give us some specific details. But Daniel chapters 2 & 7 give us *the big picture* and cannot be ignored because they clearly indicate a 4th kingdom that will arise AFTER Greece, out of which the little horn will come (Dan. 7.24)!

And modern day Iran is not Assyria. Both names (Assyria & Persia) are clearly distinguished in the Old Testament as 2 separate and distinct nations. Assyria (not Persia) is the nation that attacked the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC (2 Kings 17:3–6), while Iran is called Persia, not Assyria, in Ezek. 38.5! Today, both Syria and Iraq (which were once part of ancient Assyria) are in ruins. Neither one of them is a superpower that can take over the world (Rev 13). Many interpreters are deliberately ignoring the Book of Daniel, which speaks of the little horn coming out of one of the 2 legs of the Roman Empire. Daniel doesn’t imply anything other than the Roman empire. To add extra-Biblical material about “Muslims” (which are not in the text) is not a proper methodology. And these misleading interpreters don’t know history either, how, for instance, after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD, Moscow became the Third Rome. Moscow adopted the Byzantine customs, rituals & religion, as well as the doubleheaded eagle as their insignia, & the Russian leaders called themselves czars, which means “Caesar.” In fact, the double-headed eagle, which has Byzantine antecedents, is still in the coat of arms of Russia!

That’s why the Septuagint (LXX) of Ezekiel 38.2 has the words Ρώς and Μοσόχ in Greek that stand for Ρωσία and Μόσχα, which are translated as Russia and Moscow respectively! This is the nation that will invade Israel and conquer it “in the last days” (Ezek. 38.16). So, the interpreters who advance the theory of an Assyrian Antichrist are obviously ignorant of the historical studies that link this great end-times Ezekiel 38 invasion to Russia!

There are many other prophecies that support Ezek. 38, and link Russia to the 7-headed dragon with 10 horns (cf. Rev. 12), just as the sequence of Daniel’s empires leads to a seventh and final empire in Rev. 17. Starting from Babylon in Daniel 2, the USSR was the 7th empire, and there have been 10 leaders since Lenin, with Putin being the 11th, the so-called little horn. Hence why these “ten kings receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour [one century]” (Rev. 17.12)! That’s the last days seven-headed empire with 10 horns. Which other nation can fit the bill? None! Once you have the pieces of the exegetical puzzle together, you can zero in on the Antichrist!

The 10 Horns Are 10 Human Kings (not 10 Spirits)

Then there are some who have proposed that the 10 kings are not Humans but Spirits. However, both Dan. 7.9 & 7.11 do not refer to a spirit but rather to a human being that is represented by a “horn” (in this case, the little horn). In fact, in Daniel 7.24, in the Old Testament, Daniel asks the angel what the 10 horns are. Here’s the angel’s reply:

“As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten

kings shall arise, and another shall arise

after them.”

Notice that they don’t come out of different kingdoms but out of the same kingdom. Moreover, the 10 horns represent 10 actual kings, not 10 spirits. This is multiply attested in the New Testament as well. In Rev 17.12-14, the angel provides an interpretation in which the 10 kings are not only human but they will also go to war against Christ:

“And the ten horns that you saw are ten

kings who have not yet received a kingdom,

but they are to receive authority as kings for

one hour, together with the beast. These

are united in yielding their power and

authority to the beast; they will make war

on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer

them, for he is Lord of lords and King of

kings.”

Moreover, in referring to the figure that we call the Antichrist, Daniel 7.20 describes an actual human being, not a spirit, who will control the earth for 3 and a half years (cf. Rev. 11.2; 13.5). What is more, Daniel 7.25 is rather explicit that it’s a male figure (not a spirit) who will blaspheme God and who will persecute the faithful:

“He shall speak words against the Most

High, shall wear out the holy ones of the

Most High, and shall attempt to change the

sacred seasons and the law; and they shall

be given into his power for a time, two

times, and half a time.”

Further evidence can be found in Revelation 13.18, which tells us that 666 is the number of a human being. It says that 666 is the number of ἀνθρώπου (a human being/ not a spirit, which would have been “pneuma” in Koine Greek if that were the case). And it also refers to him as a male figure (αὐτοῦ), which is a personal/possessive pronoun, genitive masculine 3rd person singular (him/his).

So we’re talking about a man, not a spirit. Second Thessalonians 2.3 calls him the “lawless one” who will be revealed on the world stage, and verse 2.4 goes on to say “that he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.” These are actual events that will take place by a real ipso facto human being (the so-called “Antichrist”; 1 Jn 2.18).

Conclusion

The 7 heads are seven empires, the last of which is Russia, which, according to Ezekiel 38, will invade Israel with a large coalition. Watch this short video:

This invasion is also prophesied in Zechariah 14 and Luke 21 as well. Astonishingly, the incumbent president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, came to power at the turn of the century, in 1999 [666], which also marks the end of a thousand-year period. This important timeframe coincides with a Biblical prophecy in which the Antichrist will not appear “until the thousand years . . . [have] ended” (Rev. 20.3, 7-8)!

So when you see references to the red 7-headed dragon with 10 horns, for example, in Revelation 12, it is a reference to Russia as the final superpower that will dominate the world and create a New World Order (Rev 13)!