Christian Essay - Tumblr Posts

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).

Realized Eschatology versus Future Eschatology

By Author Eli of Kittim

Realized eschatology is a term in Christian theology used to describe the belief that the end times (or latter days) have already happened during the ministry of Jesus. According to this position, all end-time events have already been “realized” (i.e., fulfilled ), including the resurrection of the dead, and the second coming of Jesus.

This view is the culmination of poor methodological considerations, misapplication of proper exegetical methods (i.e. literary context /detailed exegesis), and a confusion of terms and context. The under-mentioned examples typify this confusion:

Example A) “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18).

Example B) “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

Here, without a proper understanding of context, we are led to believe that John is referring to the “last days” as occurring in or around the 1st century CE. These types of verses have misled many to follow Preterism, a doctrine which holds that biblical prophecies represent incidents that have already been fulfilled at the close of the first century. Unfortunately, the same type of misappropriation of scripture has given birth to “realized eschatology.”

Notice that in Example A, John states that “it is the last hour.” The context implies that there are two possibilities within which this phrase can make scriptural sense. Either John is literally referring to the 1st century as being the last or final hour of mankind (which would include the coming of the Antichrist, since John mentions him), or the overall context of this and other texts is, strictly speaking, an eschatological one in which all these events take place in the future, and not during John’s lifetime.

As I have shown in earlier works, scriptural tenses that are set in the past, present and future do not necessarily correspond to past, present or future history respectively. What is more, logic tells us that “the final point of time” represents the end of the world. Yet there are future events that are clearly described in the past tense. For example, “He [Christ] … was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1:20, NJB, emphasis added). In a passage that deals exclusively with the great tribulation of the end times, we find another future event that is described in the past tense; it reads: “From the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand had been sealed” (Rev. 7:5, emphasis added). Isaiah 53 is a perfect example because we can demonstrate that Isaiah was composing a prophecy, at the time he penned this text, which was saturated with past tenses.

In Example B, we face a similar dilemma. The author of Hebrews combines the idiomatic phrase “last days” with the present tense “these,” which implies several things:

1) The phrase “in these last days” gives us the impression that the “last days” may have started or occurred during the author’s lifetime.

2) It implies that Jesus not only appeared, but he appeared specifically “in these last days.”

3) The phrase “in these last days” might simply be an allusion to the days just mentioned. It’s like saying, concerning the days in question, or with regard to the days that we are describing, rather than a reference to the present time.

So, at first sight, there seems to be some basis (biblical support) for a realized-eschatology interpretation. However, upon further scrutiny, we find many outright logical fallacies (a logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning) that cannot possibly be true. For example, how can the last days of the world occur in the 1st century CE if nineteen plus centuries have since come and gone? It would be a contradiction in terms!

Moreover, these positions flatly contradict not only the broad scriptural context of the term “last days” and its cognates (i.e., “the time of the end” Dan. 12:4), but also certain definite future events, such as the “great tribulation” (Matt. 24:21; cf. Daniel 12:1-2) and the coming of the “lawless one” (2 Thess. 2:3-4; cf. Rev. 13), which clearly have yet to occur. Therefore, the so-called “realized” eschatological interpretations involve logical fallacies, blatant misappropriation of future events, methodological errors, misapplication of proper exegetical methods, and misinterpretation of tenses with regard to proper eschatological context.

Contradiction notwithstanding, many have endorsed these false teachings. Daniel 12 and Matthew 24 are two examples that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that “the time of the end” is radically different than what these interpreters make it out to be, namely, a first-century occurrence. These views (regarding the last days as eschatological events that occurred in the 1st century CE) display, for lack of a better term, an eccentric doctrine. They are patently ridiculous!

The same holds true in the gospel of John. Jesus says:

“Truly, Truly, I say to you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the son of God; and those who hear will live” (John 5:25).

The phrase “and now is” implies that this particular time period is happening now. However, notice a clear distinction between the hour that is here and “the hour that is coming” when the dead will rise again (in the under mentioned verse). These two time periods are clearly not identical because the events to which the latter prophecy points have yet to happen:

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in their graves will hear his voice, and come forth, … those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).

The context of John 5:25 ff. is ultimately based on future history (i.e., history written in advance), but the author reinterprets it through a theology. On what basis am I making these claims? Since I concluded that “realized eschatology” is seemingly erroneous, we now have to consider its opposite, namely, the view that the last days are really referring to literal future events, and not to the time of Antiquity.

One illustration of this view is in the context in which Jesus’ earthly appearance is contemporaneous with Judgment Day. Jesus uses the present tense “now” to indicate that his manifestation on earth is for the purpose of Judgment, and the overthrow of Satan:

“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out” (John 12:31).

Jesus’ use of the word “now,” in connection with the removal of Satan and Judgment, would indicate that his earthly appearance (as described in the gospels) is a reference to a future event, one that could not have possibly happened in Antiquity.

Another example shows that Christ’s generation (as described in the gospels) is the last generation on earth. During his eschatological discourse, Christ uses the words “this generation” to refer to his audience. He says,

“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34).

In the following verse, Jesus uses the words “some who are standing here” to signify his audience. Interestingly enough, Jesus implies that his audience (or generation) is the one related to the end times. The idea that Jesus’ audience (as described in the gospels) represents the last generation on earth that would see Jesus coming in the clouds is furnished in the gospel of Matthew:

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28).

The notion that some of Jesus’ followers would not die before they saw him coming in glory cannot be attributed to the 1st century CE. It can only be ascribed to a future event, since Jesus has yet to come in his glory! These verses would strongly suggest that the account of Jesus (as described in the gospels) is really in the context of a future event rather than one that occurred in the 1st century of the Common Era.

In conclusion, scriptural tenses that are set in the past, present and future do not necessarily correspond to past, present or future history respectively. What is more, both scripture and logic tell us that “the final point of time” represents the end of the world, and therefore this “end time” period could not have possibly happened during the 1st century CE.

There are also gospel materials, which indicate not only that Jesus’ audience represents the last generation on earth, but that Jesus’ manifestation on earth signifies the immediate removal of Satan and the commencement of Judgment. Add to this material the original Greek texts—with multiple references to Jesus appearing “once at the consummation of the ages” (Heb. 9:26; cf. Luke 17:30; Heb. 1:1-2; 1 Pet. 1:5, 20; Rev. 12:1-5) or at the end of human history—and the eschatological context of the “last days” finally comes into view as a future reference!