Russia: The Origin Of The Biblical Antichrist

Russia: The Origin of the Biblical Antichrist

By Author Eli Kittim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jesus Story: History or Prophecy?

By Author Eli of Kittim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“How Jesus Became God” by Bart Ehrman.

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

By Author Eli Kittim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elsewhere, John the Revelator has a vision:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The White Horse: Christ or Antichrist?

By Biblical Researcher Eli of Kittim

The current view holds that the first horseman of the Apocalypse represents the Antichrist (the assumption is as follows: if Christ already came, then the white horse must be referring to the Antichrist). Here's why the mainstream view is wrong:

(1) There are no counterfeit signs found anywhere in the Bible.

So why should this be a precedent? That is, why would a white horse (a symbol of purity and righteousness) represent something as black as hell? Is the Deity deceiving us? Is it possible that white is really black or that good is really evil in the Bible? The mainstream view would have to reservedly admit that it's possible, only because that is the logical conclusion of a counterfeit sign found in scripture. I vehemently disagree. The white symbol of purity is consistent throughout the Bible. There are no counterfeit signs in scripture. Hence the white horse does not represent the antichrist: it symbolizes Christ!

Here is an excerpt from my book, The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days:

//"Immediately I saw a white horse appear, and its rider was holding a bow; he was given a victor’s crown and he went away, to go from victory to victory" (Rev. 6:2, NJB).

The biblical term victory is intimately associated with Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead, which ultimately results in the conquering of death itself (1 Cor. 15:54, 57), while the metaphor of the bow represents God’s covenant with the human race (see the Septuagint’s translation of Gen. 9.13, which uses the exact same Greek word for “rainbow” that’s used in Rev. 6.2, namely, “toxon”)! The background to the latter symbol can be found in the writings of the Old Testament. In the wake of the great flood, the deity declares to Noah, the apparent savior of the human species:

‘I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth’ (Gen. 9:13).

The New King James version of the Bible translates the word bow as "rainbow" (Gen. 9:13). The image of the rainbow is closely associated with the biblical story of Joseph, a savior type figure who wore “a coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3; cf. 49:22-24, KJ). For all intents and purposes, all these stories of God’s covenant with the world share many common traits and culminate in the apocalyptic Messiah who is crowned with a rainbow (bow) upon his head:

"And I saw another strong angel coming down out of heaven, clothed with a cloud; and the rainbow was upon his head, and his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire; and he had in his hand a little book which was open" (Rev. 10:1-2).

Therefore, the first horseman of the Apocalypse (6:2), who is in possession of a bow (the covenant), is evidently none other than Christ himself (cf. Rev. 14:14). Irenaeus, a second century theologian, held the same view, namely, that the first rider of the white horse who is depicted as a peacemaker represents Jesus Christ (Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], p. 141). Here is another passage that introduces the prelude to this same event; it represents a deeply unsettling episode in world history:

"And I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war. … And He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and His name is called The Word of God" (Rev. 19:11-13).

The above phrase – “and behold, a white horse” – is identical to the one used in the book of Revelation chapter 6 and verse 2 concerning the first horseman of the Apocalypse. Just as the latter horseman conquered death, the former horseman (from Rev. 19:11-13) is “dipped in blood,” as both scenarios imply that he has been slain. Essentially, Revelation 6:2 and Revelation 19:11 appear to be two sides of the same coin. The composite biblical message indicates that Christ will be the first person to be revealed in the final days of the coming apocalypse. In point of fact, Revelation 19:11 provides more in-depth details into the specifics of Revelation 6:2.//

(2) Note that the white horseman is WITHOUT arrows (signifying peace, not war).

(3) Revelation 6:8—in discussing the upcoming, end times wars and famines—MAKES NO MENTION of the white horse at all, but begins with the second horse, the Red Horse:

"And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth." (Rev. 6:8, ESV).

Notice that the white horse is never mentioned. The war commences with the second horse (The Red Horse, which I believe represents the Antichrist):

"And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword [2nd horse/red horse: 'and a great sword was given to him' Rev. 6:4] and with famine [3rd horse/black horse] and with pestilence [4th horse/ashen horse] and by wild beasts of the earth."

This would strongly suggest that the white horse is NOT the Antichrist, but Jesus Christ, especially in view of Revelation 12:1-5 as well as a multitude of different verses and passages thus presented! This constitutes further proof that Jesus is the first person to be revealed in the last days, who commences the sequence of end time events...

Jesus is a Gentile: The Evidence from the Gospels

By Award-Winning Author Eli of Kittim

In the New Testament, there are various ways in which Jesus is portrayed as a non-Jew. One of those depictions can be found in the Gospel of Matthew, which tells us right up front that Jesus does not come from the Kingdom of Judah (from the Jews) but rather from the region of Galilee (from the Gentiles; cf. Luke 1:26):

“Galilee of the Gentiles– THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING IN DARKNESS SAW A GREAT LIGHT, AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED.” (Matthew 4:15-16).

The Biblical scholar G.A. Williamson (translator of Eusebius’ The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine) states that Jews formed only a minute portion of the Galilean population, and they were seldom seen in the province. Williamson also says that “the region was entirely Hellenistic in Sympathy.” He goes on to say that all of these facts are well-known to Christian scholars, yet they insist that “Christ was a Jew”.

According to 1 Kings chapter 9, King Solomon rewarded a Phoenician ally (King Hiram I) with twenty cities in the region of Galilee. So ever since the 10th century BCE, the land of Galilee was settled by foreigners and pagans. Galilee was once part of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. This kingdom fell into obscurity not only because much of its population was deported after the Assyrian invasion of 722 BCE, but also due to eight centuries of acculturation. Accordingly, in New Testament times, it had become the land of the Greco-Roman world (i.e. the land of the Gentiles)! That’s why it was known as “Galilee of the nations” (Isaiah 9:1)! This conclusion is archaeologically supportable. Jonathan L. Reed—professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, and a leading authority on first-century Palestine archeology—writes, “In fact, not a single synagogue from the first century or earlier has been found in Galilee” (Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. “Excavating Jesus.” San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001, p. 25). Since then, only a few synagogues have been excavated in Galilee, with some possibly having been built after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, discoveries which in and of themselves hardly prove the existence of large Jewish communities in Galilee during the first half of the first century CE. Conversely,  all but two tribes remained in the southern kingdom of Judah—-namely, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Ezra 1:5)—-which alone, strictly speaking,  represent the term “Jews.” The term “Jew” (an abbreviation of the term “Judah”) was a geographical term which referred to those who came from the kingdom of Judah. In the New Testament story, however, Jesus is not called Jesus-of-Judah but rather “Jesus of Galilee” (Matthew 26:69)! As we will see, this is an extremely important piece of information!

Throughout the gospels, Christ is constantly at odds with the Jews, and even with Judaism itself—whether it be the Law of Moses, Jewish messianic prophecies, Jewish tradition, custom, culture, beliefs, and the like—that it is not difficult to see that he is not one of them. For example, the under mentioned verse exemplifies that Jesus was certainly not a Jew who studied under rabbis, as tradition holds. In the gospel story, he urges the disciples to completely disassociate themselves from the teachings of the Jews:

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.“ (Matthew 16:11).

The Jews were of the opinion that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, and from the Jews, as we continue to believe today. But they were in for a shock and were quite horrified to learn this was not the case. That’s the reason why John inserts this profound exclamation that comes from one of his characters:

“Nazareth!” exclaimed Nathanael. “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” (John 1:46).

The rift between Jesus and the Jews is once again evoked when Christ forbids the disciples from being called “Rabbi,” the traditional title of a Jewish scholar or teacher, especially one who studies or teaches Jewish law. Instead, he commands them to call him “teacher” (didaskalos)—a Hellenistic title—and not “rabbi”:

“Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher.” (Matthew 23:8).

What is worthy of notice is the fact that the gospels often do not present Jesus as a Jew, but rather as a Galilean—(“Jesus of Galilee” Matthew 26:69)—and a Samaritan (John 8:48) at that. In other words, Jesus is portrayed as a Gentile.

In his exhaustive book, “The Birth of the Messiah,” scholar Raymond E. Brown points out that biblical genealogies are important because the ancestors of a family line exemplify character traits or attributes that foreshadow something characteristic or stereotypical about a later figure. A genealogy, after all, is meant to show that someone has the right family credentials and is descended from a unique lineage. Yet, Raymond Brown is not exactly sure why four *foreign women* are mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy, and what their significance is in Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus. The answer is obvious. The 4 *foreign ancestors* of Christ exemplify that he, too, is a foreigner! Moreover, Professor Bart Ehrman asserts that both Matthew and Luke are recording the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph. Accordingly, the epiphany in the gospels that Jesus is not really Joseph’s son drives home the notion that his genealogy is not derived from the Jews (see the analogy between Jesus and Melchizedek in Heb. 7.2-6 in which the former is likened to the latter, “who does not belong to their [Jewish] ancestry,” implying that “the Son of God” is therefore not descended from the Jews either). This allusion becomes evident in another passage in which Jesus refutes the notion that he is the son or the descendent of David (the King of the Jews):

“Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” They replied, “He is the son of David.” Jesus responded, “Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, call the Messiah ‘my Lord’? For David said, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’ Since David called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?” No one could answer him. And after that, no one dared to ask him any more questions.” (Matthew 22:41-46).

John’s gospel, in particular, shows that Christ’s teaching is not derived from the Jews, and that his origin or identity even defies the biblical expectations of a Jewish Messiah. For instance, Christ breaks the Law (John 5:16), and consequently the Jews want to kill him. That is why Jesus completely dissociates himself from the Jews by teaching and performing miracles exclusively in Galilee of the Gentiles (John 7:1). In fact, through the dialogues, the gospel suggests the unthinkable. Remember that there are no unnecessary words in the gospels. Every word is important. So, why does the gospel repeatedly emphasize the conflict between Jewish messianic expectations and the fact that Jesus does not meet them? Not only that, but John tells us explicitly that Jesus will not be found among the Jews, but among the Greeks! Jesus tells the Jews,

“’You will search for me but not find me. And you cannot go where I am going.’ The Jews said to one another, ‘Where does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?’” (John 7:34-35).

This dilemma between a Jewish and a Gentile Messiah is ever-present in John’s gospel. Jesus does not appear to come from the Jews and thus seems to defy scriptural expectations:

“Others said, ‘He is the Messiah.’ Still others asked, ‘How can the Messiah come from Galilee?’ ‘For the Scriptures clearly state that the Messiah will be born of the royal line of David [from Jews], in Bethlehem, the village where King David was born.’ So the crowd was divided about him. Some even wanted him arrested, but no one laid a hand on him.” (John 7:41-44).

In the following verse, we are told that none of the rabbis of Judaism can accept Jesus’ teaching—for his teaching is definitely not Judaic and even appears to contradict scripture. The Jews further imply that Christ’s followers are Gentiles, for they clearly do not know the Law of Moses:

“’No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?’ ‘But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed.” (John 7:48-49).

A few verses later, the Jews go on to say,

“Search the Scriptures and see for yourself–no prophet ever comes from Galilee!“ (John 7:52).

These inclusions in the text by the gospel writer John clearly give us a different perspective on Jesus the Messiah, as far as his origin or identity is concerned. If he were Jewish, the Jews would certainly have accepted him, celebrated him, and honored him as one of their own. We therefore come to realize why they dislike him so intensely and why he offends them throughout the gospel stories. Because he is a Gentile!

Similarly, in Luke 4:23-29 the Jews became enraged because Jesus said that Elijah was sent to the Gentiles, not to the Jews–implying that he himself turns from Jews to Gentiles. John Dominic Crossan writes, “In that case, Jesus’ turn from Jews to Gentiles is cause rather than effect of eventual rejection and lethal attack” (Excavating Jesus,  p. 28).

This theme reminds us of the stories of Joseph and Moses (two messianic stand-ins who are also rejected by their “brothers,” the Jews)—and who are portrayed in the Bible as living and reigning in Egypt (the land of the Gentiles). By analogy, Matthew has Christ supposedly going to Egypt in order to make this connection and to show us that he’s the new Moses:

“OUT OF EGYPT DID I CALL MY SON.” (Matthew 2:15).

Thus, all these messianic figures, including Jesus, are essentially depicted as Gentiles! That’s precisely why Cyrus, a gentile, is called God’s Messiah in Isaiah 45.1! Not to mention that King David himself was not a Jew; he was a Moabite! Similarly, in Isaiah 46:11, God says: I have chosen “a man for My purpose from a far-off land” (cf. Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:24-25). This motif is also seen in Matthew 21:4-5 and John 12:14-15, which portray Jesus as a Gentile in fulfillment of Zechariah’s (9:9) prophecy. That’s because in Biblical nomenclature, the ox represents Israel, while the ass represents the Gentiles. Thus, the symbolism of the Messiah entering the holy city and riding on a donkey represents Jesus' Gentile ancestry! Paul’s emphasis of this point—which constitutes “the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people” (Colossians 1:26)—about Christ’s identity bears repeating:

“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.” Again, it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.” And again, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples.” And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.” (Romans 15:9-12).

The gospel of John makes clear that Jesus’ teaching is a serious threat to the Jews because it completely nullifies Judaism, as well as the Jewish temple—so much so that the Sanhedrin fears that this Gentile (non-Jewish) teaching will cause the entire nation to fall:

“So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (John 11:47-48).

Of further interest is the dichotomy between Jesus and his Jewish audience, one in which there is a clear “I versus you” mentality running throughout the text. Jesus separates himself from the Jews by addressing them as if they were not his own people—“Your” nation, “Your” ancestors, “Your” fathers, “Your” prophets, “Your” Law, etc.—making it abundantly clear that there is a clear distinction between Jesus and the Jews:

1) “Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in YOUR Law…?’” (John 10:34, emphasis added).

2) “YOUR own law says that…” (John 8:17, emphasis added)

3) “I know YOU are descendants of Abraham, but you are trying to kill Me because My word is not welcome among you.” (John 8:37, emphasis added).

4) “YOU are doing the works of your own father.“ (John 8:41, emphasis added).

Also notice that while arguing with the Jews—who seek to kill him because they claim he is a Gentile—Jesus does not refute that he is a Gentile, he only refutes the idea that he has a demon:

“The Jews answered him, ‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan [Gentile] and have a demon?’ Jesus answered, ‘I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.’” (John 8:48-49).

So, in John’s gospel, Jesus is called a ‘Samaritan’—a Greek—and he does not appear to deny it. Further evidence that Jesus is not a Jew can be ascertained from the fact that, in the gospel story, he is not tried in a Jewish court but rather in a Roman—one which was reserved exclusively for Gentiles; that is, for Roman and Greek citizens! Neither was he killed by stoning, which was the traditional custom for killing a Jew. Moreover, some church fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria) have claimed that the name “Ιησους” (i.e. Jesus) has a Greek origin, not a Hebrew one. All these clues purvey insights and teachings about a Gentile Messiah who does not conform to our rather facile biblical expectations. In fact, both Jesus and all of his disciples come from Galilee. Ironically, only one of his disciples is a Jew who comes from Judah: the one who betrays him!

Furthermore, the New Testament could not have been written by devout Jews because devout Jews would not have written in Greek. It was forbidden for them to do so. Nor could they have written such articulate, refined Greek. From the earliest times, devout Jews could only read Hebrew. During the Babylonian exile, the Jews wrote in Aramaic. During Hellenistic times, even though the official language was Greek, devout Jews continued to write in Aramaic and could not have written in Greek for fear of being dejected from their sect or congregation! Besides, ever since the overthrow of the Syrian-Greek Empire in the land of Israel, the Jews hated anything to do with the Greeks.

So, who else is left who could have written the New Testament in Greek? Answer: Greeks! And there are more epistles written to Greeks than to any other race. In fact, most of the New Testament books were written in Greece: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Titus, the book of Revelation, and possibly others as well! None of the books of the New Testament were ever written in Palestine. Not even the Letter of James. According to scholars, the cultivated Greek language of the Epistle of James could not have possibly been written by a Jerusalem Jew!

It is also important to note that when the NT authors quote from the OT, they often quote from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and not from the original Hebrew scriptures per se. This may indicate that the NT authors were not familiar with the Hebrew language. For example, when they quote Jeremiah or refer to Joshua (Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8) in the NT, they use the Septuagint (the Greek text) as their source (scholarly consensus). This lends plausibility to the argument that the NT authors were not Hebrews but Greeks! And scholars now tell us that these NT authors were writing from different parts of the world, not from Palestine.

And why didn’t the New Testament writers finish God’s story in Hebrew? What better way to persuade Jews that Jesus is the messianic fulfillment of Jewish Scripture than to write it in the Hebrew language, which Jews could both read and understand? But they didn’t! The reason for this is Jesus. Apparently, he is not Jewish; he is Greek! So, the story must be written in Greek to reflect its main character, the God man, Jesus the Christ. Furthermore, if he were Jewish, he would have said I am the Aleph and the Tav. Instead, he uses Greek letters to define the divine “I AM”:

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God.” (Revelation 1:8).

The following verse shows that we are on the right track. John the Revelator is not in Greece by accident. He is there BECAUSE (for the reason that) it has everything to do with the SPECIFIC ACCOUNT of Jesus, which is revealed to him by the word of God:

“I, John … was on the island called Patmos [in Greece] BECAUSE of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 1:9, emphasis added).

If we sum up our findings, we could say with confidence that the mystery of Jesus’ non-Jewish identity is revealed even in the gospels. And the gospel mystery of Christ’s identity is supported by no less an authority than Paul:

“This message was kept secret for centuries and generations past, but now it has been revealed to God’s people.” (Colossians 1:26).

In his in-depth-Bible-study video called “Breaking the Sound of Silence,” distinguished scholar Brant Pitre agrees that “the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations” (Rom. 16.25b-26a) is exclusively referring to a *revelation* of Jesus’ *identity* that was previously unknown! That’s why “the mystery which was kept secret for long ages” needed to be revealed. Because we could not have possibly known this truth from any available sources (biblical or otherwise) except by way of divine revelation! There is much more proof in the Bible that Jesus is Greek (and not Jewish). But this evidence cannot be reproduced here, given the limited scope of this article.

.