In just one generation, two dramatic developments have deeply affected and significantly shaped the short-term course and long-term fate of the world.
Each was a prophetic flashpoint to which all other last day’s events are linked.
They are: (1) the miraculous rebirth of the sovereign Jewish State of Israel in 1948. (2) Israeli victory in the stunning Six-Day War of 1967 in which Jerusalem was liberated and reclaimed as Israel’s eternal capital.
Consequently, there has been a remarkable resurgence in the study of end-times Biblical prophecy. The Middle East, especially Israel and Jerusalem, continues to dominate global headlines.
Hundreds of Biblical passages foretold the against-all-odds return of the Jews to their Promised Land and restoration of national Israel to the glory days of King David and King Solomon. Including powerful predictions of Israel’s final redemption—people and land. Which will be accomplished exclusively by and through the majestic reappearance of Messiah Jesus, this time as King of all kings.
But Christ won’t physically return to earth until the end of the greatest calamity ever experienced by mankind. With the immediate reason for his return that of rescuing Israel from destruction at the hands of Antichrist and his ten-nation coalition. This Great Tribulation will be triggered by an event that is discussed by believers in Jesus Christ as much or more than any other—The Rapture.
Though the term Rapture is not found in the Bible, its meaning is an apt representation of what will take place as breathtakingly depicted in I Thessalonians 4 & I Corinthians 15. See any number of Eye of Prophecy articles in the category of The Rapture for in-depth examinations of this spectacular occurrence that will shake the world. The prevailing presumption by most Bible prophecy enthusiasts is that those left behind on Planet Earth will soon find themselves (willingly or unwillingly) in the middle of a world that is a reproduction of an ancient empire.
The term ascribed to this empire is also not found in Scripture but one that is commonly used by many students of prophecy for decades: Revived Roman Empire.
Will there be such a thing?
Other than the Rapture, it is probably the most scrutinized prophetic subject of many Christians.
Regarding the tremendous transference of believers from earth to heaven, there most certainly is such an event that will take place … any day now.
It’s just that scholars down through the years elected to use the Latin term Rapture as a composite image depicted by the Greek word found in I Thessalonians Chapter 4, … harpazo. Which means catching up or snatching away. It is described in vivid detail not only by the Apostle Paul, but also by Jesus himself in Matthew 24 & 25. Please see two recent Eye of Prophecy articles: Will Believers Go Though the Great Tribulation? Part I & II (Posted 6-15 & 6-22-19).
Concerning a Revived Roman Empire, there’s neither the term nor the model itself delineated in Scripture. Certainly not a replication or duplication of the once mighty, yet long-gone Roman Empire. However, as first explained in my book Out of the Abyss, followed by several Eye of Prophecy articles, there will be a Revived Roman Emperor.
Many of those left behind at the Rapture will give him their allegiance to the point of worship but not because he’s the leader of a so-called Revived Roman Empire or because he will establish a One World Government. There won’t be such a thing during the Tribulation. Please see Eye of Prophecy article, One World Government? (Published 2-28-15).
The verses of Revelation 13:1-4 & 17:7-8 are crystal clear in explaining the one and only reason people will be amazed at the Antichrist: his reappearance 2,000 years after he died. I have written about this extensively in Out of the Abyss and several articles in the category of The Antichrist.
There are two primary passages from which most prophecy scholars derive the idea and nomenclature of a Revived Roman Empire. Incidentally, a few prophecy buffs in the past decade or so have dismissed the idea of a replicated Roman Empire during the Tribulation. In favor of an Islamic Caliphate, with the Antichrist purported to be some notable Muslim (possibly an Imam) from that regime. I’m convinced that theory is even more difficult to support with Biblical evidence than a revived Roman Empire; which, as we will see, has its own serious difficulties to defend.
First Passage: Daniel Chapter 7
Most believers who are even slightly interested in Biblical end-times prophecy are familiar with the 7th Chapter of Daniel. In that chapter we find a second prophetic vision of the four Gentile Kingdoms (symbolized by four different beasts) given to Daniel; the first was given to Babylon’s King Nebuchadnezzar as a dream in the image of a four-part statue (Daniel Chapter 2). Although the kingdoms are the same (Babylon, Persian, Greece, and Rome), there are different purposes for and, therefore, different features of these revelations. For example, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream did not include anything about the Antichrist; whereas Daniel’s vision provides the first disclosure of this evil man, described as a little horn and king.
Because the fourth beast was not in the form of an animal but, nevertheless, more terrifying than the previous three, Daniel wanted to know more about this fourth kingdom. Particularly about the little horn that suddenly appeared, different from the ten horns brandished by this beast.
(Fairly accurate depiction of the four beasts of Daniel Chapter 7)
*Note: It’s exceedingly important to know that this beast is the fourth and FINAL Gentile kingdom, which (several hundred years later) would prophetically be fulfilled in/by the Roman Empire. Neither in Daniel 2 nor Daniel 7, nor anywhere else in Scripture do we find more than these four kingdoms in terms of prophetic significance as they relate to God’s two major plans for humanity. (1) Israel as the Promised Land and the Jews as the chosen people from which; (2) Messiah would come to replace the Old Covenant of Law with the New Covenant of Grace (redemption for Jew and Gentile alike through Messiah’s once-for-all substitutionary sacrifice).
On the other hand, the beast of Revelation 13 & 17 is indisputably a man … the Antichrist himself—the little horn king of Daniel 7 who would rule over the ten horns (kings). And, the ten kings of Daniel 7 are the same ten kings of Revelation 13 & 17; who yield their authority (kingdoms) to the Antichrist during the Tribulation.
Read with me as the angel discloses more dynamic details to Daniel:
“…This fourth beast is the fourth world power that will rule the earth. It will be different from all the others. It will devour the whole world, trampling and crushing everything in its path. Its ten horns are ten kings who will rule that empire. Then another king will arise, different from the other ten, who will subdue three of them” (Daniel 7:23-24, italics for emphasis).
In just a moment, we’ll get back to that passage, particularly the italicized sentence. First, a brief interlude with an excerpt from Out of the Abyss to explain why the Antichrist is (so) different. In italics:
The expression different is both intriguing and forceful. Why or how is the Antichrist different than the ten kings who yield their allegiance? Especially as utilized in the context, the world itself is too strong to suggest an intrinsic variation, such as being a more polished, captivating, charismatic, or powerful leader. This difference is more fully developed in Revelation.
Different denotes different, in all the word means and implies. I think this is important enough to refer to Webster’s Dictionary. Different is: “partly or totally unlike in nature, form, or quality.” It is: “dissimilar (could hardly be more).” It is: “not the same as.” Other synonyms are: “distinct, unusual, special, diverse, divergent, and disparate.” It is: “unlike in kind or character.” The synonym diverse “implies marked contrast.”
That my friend is “different,” and it yields a comprehensive, composite explanation of the fundamental contrast between Antichrist and the ten kings. You might ask, “What specifically is that difference?” I’m glad you asked!
The one thing that makes Antichrist different from the other ten kings is that he is a living miracle, and they are not.
He has arisen from the underworld, and they have not. The ten kings have a birth certificate, but the Antichrist does not. Nor will anyone, including crime scene forensic investigators be able to prove that he had died a short time before he arose, as there will be no autopsy or death certificate; nor any fingerprint records or dental records, nor any evidence of a crime scene, nor a coroner’s report, nor a coffin or a grave.
We must remember the shocking fact announced by the angelic messenger: Antichrist died before John received the Revelation of Jesus Christ (the book of Revelation). Therefore, his sudden appearance to a Post-Raptured world will be from the dead, which makes him dramatically different than the ten kings. There’s no way the beast can or will be born during the generation that experiences the Day of the Lord… (Pages 185-186).
Also, please refer to Eye of Prophecy article, Sudden Appearance of Antichrist … Why So Different? (Posted 1-21-17).
Once again to emphasize: any semblance of a (so-called) Revived Roman Empire will be entirely predicated on, portrayed (characterized) by, and reflected in a Revived Roman Emperor.
Returning to the highlighted sentence of the above quoted passage: Its ten horns are ten kings who will rule that empire. This constitutes one of the conditions from which the notion of a Revived Roman Empire developed. As indicated in the About Page of Eye of Prophecy website, all quoted passages from the Bible are taken from the New Living Translation, unless noted otherwise. By and large, the NLT contains one of the most contemporary user-friendly translations of the Bible. However, in the case of the highlighted sentence of Daniel 7:24, the NLT ever so slightly modifies what is really being said here. In fact, this modification could have been influenced by the translator’s/commentator’s endorsement of the Revived Roman Empire hypothesis.
For example, in both the New American Standard Bible and the Complete Jewish Bible, we read: “…out of this kingdom ten kings will arise…” This is also the case with other translations.
Do you see the difference? The better translation is that these ten (tribulation) kings will arise from that kingdom. What kingdom? The kingdom represented by the fourth beast which was the Roman Empire. However, that kingdom is (now) ancient history.
(The Roman Coliseum is a shell of the original)
Therefore, the angel Gabriel is effectively telling Daniel that these ten kings will arise from (what are now modern-day) nations that are roughly in the geographical sphere of the ancient Roman Empire. Which constituted part of but not all contemporary Europe. Also, some of the Middle East and much of what is now North African countries.
But the more precise translations do not say that these kings will rule that empire.
What they will do is clarified even more by Revelation 17: “The ten horns of the beast are ten kings who have not yet risen to power. They will be appointed to their kingdoms for one brief moment to reign with the beast (Antichrist). They will all agree to give him their power and authority” (Revelation 17:12-13, parenthesis mine).
Once again, do you see the difference? Although the ten tribulation kings arise from (vestiges of) the Roman Empire, there is no (new or revived) empire as such in which they will rule. Instead, they will yield their authority and give their kingdoms (ten in all, not, for example, the 28 nations that now comprise the European Union) to the little horn of Daniel 7 and the beast of Revelation 17, who are one and the same, i.e. the Antichrist. Thus, we shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that there will be or must be a Revived Roman Empire. And certainly not a One World Government, as Antichrist and his coalition will have enemies—not the least of which are the massively populated nations of the Far East.
For sure, Antichrist’s realm will be powerful, but it will be only one of four major coalitions that coalesce after the Rapture. With the first confederacy that of Gog/Magog consisting of Russia, Iran, Turkey and other smaller nations.
See Eye of Prophecy article, “One Ring to Rule Them All…” (11-21-15).
Second Passage: Revelation 17
In order to support the supposition that there will be a Revived Roman Empire, prophecy teachers/students had to do two things with Revelation 17.
First, they substituted kingdoms for kings in the text. Or, giving them a little more benefit of the doubt (I, too, once subscribed to this premise), they extended the meaning of the word kings to kingdoms. Not only to try and prove the theory of a Revived Roman Empire but also because the seven heads of the beast didn’t track numerically with the number of 1st century Roman emperors, or so it seemed. But they can match up; because from our historical hindsight there’s more than one option to identify the sequence (number) of Roman Emperors.
Time/space doesn’t permit details in this week’s article. Instead, please refer to my book Out of the Abyss and/or Eye of Prophecy articles, Exposing Antichrist’s Identity … More Compelling Evidence Part I & II (3-18 & 3-25-17).
Second, they dismissed or at the very least discounted the personal pronouns of the passage that simply cannot be attributed to an object, in this case kingdoms.
Immediately after the angel announces to John the incredible fact—still overlooked by prophecy students—that the Antichrist had already lived and died before John saw him in the form of a beast (with this same man reappearing from the Abyss at the outset of the Tribulation), we read:
“This calls for a mind with understanding: The seven heads of the beast represent the seven hills where the woman rules. They also represent seven kings. Five kings have already fallen, the sixth now reigns, and the seventh is yet to come, but his reign will be brief. The scarlet beast that was, but is no longer (another statement to emphatically reinforce that the Antichrist beast had already lived and died before John’s 1st century visions), is the eighth king. He is like (Greek word is “ek” meaning one of, out of, from) the other seven…” (Revelation 17:9-10, italics for emphasis, parenthesis mine).
Before examining the Greek word for kings (and then kingdoms), we need to fully grasp another notable feature of the beast of Revelation. This beast has seven heads, which are not found in Daniel Chapter 7. In both Revelation 13 & 17, the beast is clearly a man, not a kingdom—as is the fourth beast of Daniel 7. However, both the kingdom beast (Roman Empire) of Daniel 7 and the king beast (man … Antichrist) of Revelation 13 & 17 have ten horns, which are the ten kings who will yield their authority (kingdoms) to the Antichrist during the seven-year Tribulation.
What is the significance of this? Answer: These ten kings yield their personal authority directly and their nations (indirectly) to the Antichrist, not to a Revived Roman Empire. In fact, Antichrist will subdue three of these nations by some measure of force (economic and/or military).
Daniel Chapter 7 provides the initial introduction to the Antichrist (little horn, king) but with an extraordinary emphasis on his sudden appearance among the ten kings whom he will control during the Tribulation. These ten kings will arise from that kingdom, not rule it nor revive it during the Tribulation. Because there will be no such kingdom, i.e. Revived Roman Empire.
There will be no Roman Legions marching on Israel during the Tribulation! That’s more than just a facetious comparison. It’s a representative image to reinforce the fact that it’s a Revived Roman Emperor who will be worshipped by many of those left behind, but there will be no resurgent replication of the once mighty Roman Empire.
The sole purpose for the Antichrist beast of Revelation 17 (first presented in Chapter 13) having seven heads is to give the 1st century believers (and all believers thereafter) a biographical and geopolitical profile in order to identify the (Antichrist) beast of Revelation … the same man as the little horn of Daniel 7. It was more conclusive proof in follow up to the first stunning clue regarding Antichrist’s identity, provided in Revelation 13—the number of the beast.
Putting it another way: The Antichrist has a (1st century) past tense existence as well as a (21st century) future tense reappearance at the outset of the Great Tribulation. When the angel revealed the stunning news to John that the Antichrist (scarlet beast) had already lived and died but would return from the Abyss, he didn’t stop there. He disclosed more extraordinary evidence. The beast is not only the Antichrist (eighth king), he is also one of (from, out of) the seven heads of this beast. These seven kings were obviously (who else could they have been) Roman Emperors of the 1st century. Five of whom had already died, including the beast himself; one who was currently reigning when John saw his second vision of the beast; and the next ruler (the seventh) whose reign would be brief.
First century believers knew immediately who six of the seven Roman emperors were and would soon know the seventh when the reign of the sixth emperor ended. Or the identity of all seven, if they hadn’t read Revelation until after the 7th Caesar’s (brief) rule was over. They could then reduce the choices to the five emperors who had already died, including the Antichrist.
Then by decoding the number of the beast—six hundred, sixty-six—with the use of Hebrew gematria (counting by use of the Hebrew alphabet translated from the Greek name of the Caesars), they could identify exactly which of these emperors was the beast. None other than Nero. Which is why both Christians and unbelievers believed (for different reasons) for some 400 years that Nero would return as Emperor. Known historically as the Nero Redivivus Legend.
(Modern Statue of Nero in Anzio, Italy–his place of birth)
See Eye of Prophecy articles: The Legendary Return of Nero (posted 4-4-15); Nero & The Remarkable Revival of His Name (4-1-17); Antichrist & Anzio … What Do They Have In Common? (4-29-17).
Returning to our emphasis in today’s article that there will be a Revived Roman Emperor rather than a Revived Roman Empire, let’s look at:
Kings Vs. Kingdoms
First and foremost, to underscore the obvious: The word used by the angel unveiling the mystery of the beast (his identity) is kings. The seven heads of the beast are kings. NOT kingdoms. This is of paramount importance to grasp, because in order to support the speculation of a Revived Roman Empire kings must become (substituted with) kingdoms. Thus, (erroneously) presuming that the seven kings are kingdoms and the 7th kingdom will be the Revived Roman Empire.
Regarding the English translation of the Greek word to kings, permit me to ask a rather rhetorical question: Is there a distinction between king(s) and kingdom(s) in the English language … or any language? We’re going to see that there is not only a discernable difference, but that substituting kings with kingdoms is grammatically, contextually, and Biblically incorrect.
I’m going to say it with a little more oomph: Under no circumstances should kingdoms replace kings in the Biblical text!
Let’s find out why.
The Greek word for kings found in Revelation 17 (and other passages) is basileus. Its meaning: leader of the people, prince, commander, lord of the land, king. Moreover, it is a masculine noun, which make sense, i.e. men are kings, women are queens. Every time we find the English word king or kings in Scripture (or any other literary source), it ALWAYS means just that: a person (man)!
The Greek word for kingdoms is basileia. With its meaning just as clear: a territory or dominion or base of royal power, subject to the rule of a king (or queen or prince or whatever). Moreover, the Greek (and other languages) noun basileia is feminine. Nearly all nations are referred to in the feminine … a small handful in the impersonal neutral (it). Which personal pronoun would you use in place of America? He or she? Easy answer: She is the land of the free and the home of the brave!
There are other reasons, but the gender quality of any noun is reason enough not to substitute it with the opposite gender, even if the nouns (words) closely resemble each other. Although kings and kingdoms (English) and basileus and basileia (Greek) are similar in spelling, they are also as distinctive as they can be, one from the other.
In fact, after John describes the current status/disposition of these seven 1st century kings (Roman emperors), he then switches (fast forwards) to the ten horns … kings of the Tribulation period. Read with me:
“The ten horns of the beast are ten kings who have not yet risen to power. They will be appointed to their kingdoms for one brief moment to reign with the beast” (Revelation 17:12 italics for emphasis to juxtapose and distinguish the kings from their kingdoms).
Regarding that verse, here is an excerpt from Out of the Abyss (in italics):
This verse makes an unambiguous grammatical distinction between the kingdom and the kings of those kingdoms.
I then compared verse 12 to verse nine where the angel first tells John that the seven heads of the beast are seven kings. Continuing with the excerpt:
Why then, would John remotely imply or suggest or leave room for doubt that the kings of verse nine are or could be kingdoms? Though it is somewhat logical that a kingdom must have a king, it isn’t and shouldn’t be an automatic assumption… Following the return of the Jewish exiles to their land, Israel (she) continued as a nation (kingdom) without a king. Conversely, not all kings necessarily have a kingdom. Using the same example as the Babylonian captivity, Israel’s last king, Zedekiah, no longer ruled in Judah….
Still, a king needing a kingdom is not the strongest argument for or against the correct application of the Greek word. By far the most dominate feature of Revelation 17:9 is that John does not use the Greek word for kingdoms that he uses in verse 12…. Although the same word for kings (used in verse 12) is employed for the seven heads in verse 9, they (those who subscribe to a Revived Roman Empire) substitute kings with kingdoms. At the very minimum, that seems to be inconsistent. At the maximum, it’s simply not grammatically accurate.
However strong the presumption that a king merits a kingdom or vice versa, the fact is that the Greek words used for king(s) and kingdom(s) are precise definitive words that delineate and distinguish between the two….
Both Greek words are utilized in the same revelation scene given to John; hence, it’s even more imperative that there is no confusion generated by liberally substituting the actual Greek word for kings with a kingdom interpretation. I believe this would be a violation of the textual and contextual language and meaning.
…To a great extent, one could make a strong case that the Greek words alone would decide the issue here. It is a case that probably would stand the test of any formal debate, in any etymological or linguistic court, as it were. But since there’s more evidence that the seven heads are, in fact, seven literal kings, we will continue (Pages 124-125).
I went on to explain the vital significance of the personal pronouns in Revelation Chapter 17 (which we’ll get to shortly) and of:
World Kingdoms in Scripture
In order to support the supposition that a Revived Roman Empire is the seventh head of Revelation 17, it’s necessary to substitute kings with kingdoms. We’ve already examined the linguistic reasons why that can’t and shouldn’t be done. Now for more Biblical evidence.
Although Daniel Chapters 2 & 7 plainly indicate that there are only four Gentile Kingdoms (Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome), Bible scholars have added three more kingdoms to that equation. With conjecture that, in addition to the 7th (future Revived Roman Empire), the first two were Egypt and Assyria. As already indicated, Scripture is overwhelmingly clear that there are only FOUR such kingdoms in the context of all prophetic events relating to their interaction with Israel, through which God’s plans for humanity will be accomplished. Not the least of which was Messiah’s first Advent and the beginning of the New Covenant during the era of the Roman Empire—the fourth and final kingdom.
Even if there were more than four kingdoms disclosed in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the four-part statue and Daniel’s vision of the four beasts (which there are not, plus once again emphasizing that the 7 kings are actual 1st century Caesars, not kingdoms), the following excerpt from my book Out of the Abyss further demonstrates why neither Egypt nor Assyria qualify.
…neither matches criteria of what makes a world empire, as depicted and deductively defined in the statue and beasts of Daniel.
Among other things, the four kingdoms of Babylon, Mede-Persia, Greece, and Rome were successive and were on the scene of history as empires for a known and sequential period of time. There was no overlap of these nations in terms of being concurrent empires that coexisted in their dominance. Also, these four kingdoms like no other nation on earth before or since, truly controlled most of the civilized world; or civilized much of the uncivilized world, albeit with ruthless force.
On the other hand, both Egypt and Assyria were powerhouses at more than one period of history.
*Note: I went on to identify those periods. Continuing with the excerpt:
But the most significant historical event to demonstrate simultaneous rule by Assyria and Egypt was the battle of Carchemish in 605 BC. In this battle Babylon soundly defeated the alliance of Assyrian and Egyptian armies. Assyria would seldom be heard from again, and Egypt began what would essentially be an irreversible decline…
Assyria and Egypt dominated sporadically over a long period of time; some 15 centuries and 20 centuries respectively… But the four empires of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 were different. Once they ended as a military world power that was it; no more empire, no resurgence to power, only a shell of their former glory.
If the inspirer of Scripture, the Holy Spirit, wanted us to know that there would be another kingdom before the first (Babylon) or after the fourth (Roman Empire), I believe the information would have been explicitly given to Daniel. Otherwise, there would be far too much confusion and conflict with the subsequent visions of John in Revelation, which is exactly what has transpired in our time, i.e. trying to add three kingdoms that are not found in the book of Daniel. But there is no confusion or contradiction at all if the seven heads of Revelation are seven kings, rather than seven kingdoms.
The fact of the matter is that no kingdom before Babylon or after Rome, including Assyria, Egypt, Napoleon’s France, Hitler’s Germany or even Genghis Khan exclusively dominated the world as did the four empire beasts of Daniel (Pages 132-133).
And now for the striking significance of:
Although Bible teachers/students (including me at one time) have missed or dismissed the astounding disclosure given to John (Revelation 17:7-8) that the Antichrist beast had already lived and died BEFORE John’s vision of him, they do concur that this is a man (not a kingdom).
Not only is it contextually clear that the beast of Revelation 17 (and Chapter 13) is a man—one of the seven kings as well as the eighth king … because of his reappearance from the Abyss—the use of personal pronouns convincingly compels us to not think otherwise. This same paradigm applies just as persuasively to the seven heads of the beast as kings, not kingdoms.
“This calls for a mind with understanding. The seven heads of the beast (the composite beast is the Antichrist, but also one of its seven heads) represent the seven hills where the woman rules (seven hills of Rome). They also represent seven kings” (Revelation 17:9, parenthesis mine).
We’ll stop here for a moment and jump ahead to verse 11, then back to verse 10.
“The scarlet beast that was, but is no longer, is the eighth king. He is like (Greek word “ek” means out of or one of) the other seven…” (Revelation 17:11, emphasis added, parenthesis mine).
(Greek word “Ek” as applied to the true church, the body of Christ–born again believers)
It doesn’t get any clearer than that. The Antichrist is referred to as “he” and he is one of the seven kings. Why on earth then, would the other (six) kings be kingdoms? It’s a rhetorical question because in the preceding verse we are, in no uncertain terms, told that these kings are just that … kings, not kingdoms. And this is by/through another (masculine) personal pronoun.
Verse 10: “Five kings have already fallen, the sixth now reigns, and the seventh is yet to come, but his reign will be brief” (much emphasis added!).
Here is another excerpt from Out of the Abyss to put the finishing touches on this unequivocal, undeniable fact that the seven heads of Revelation 17 are kings (Roman emperors) of the 1st century. Five of whom had already died, one of whom was ruling at the time of John’s visions, with the reign of the next king (the 7th) to be brief.
In terms of all the literary and grammatical rules of and applications to any given character of any given story (true or fictional), a personal pronoun refers exclusively to an individual, not to whatever or whoever that person might represent, lead, or otherwise influence. Thus, the seventh king can not be a kingdom, because, “his reign will be brief” …. By overwhelming contextual application and grammatical persuasion, the other kings of verse 10 must also be individual kings (men) (Page 127).
Things to Ponder
Whatever semblance the sphere of Antichrist’s ten-nation confederation bears to the ancient Roman Empire will be limited to, represented by, and in juxtaposition to a Revived Roman Emperor—Nero Caesar.
One final quote from Out of the Abyss:
In this respect, the Antichrist will exceed all tyrants before him, but in a different way. His influence will extend far beyond the somewhat fragile alliance that he runs. Billions of people from nations, tribes, ethnic groups, and languages will worship him; they will care less about his “kingdom.”
…Historically, dictators were unavoidably associated with the nation from which they ruled. And the nation was afforded as much, ore more fear than the tyrant himself. In fact, kings were there and then they were gone. Not so with the man of sin. His reappearance from the dead will stun the world. Thus, he will be elevated to a status as high as Christians have accorded to Jesus Christ. So high, that the world will believe the ultimate lie foisted on them by this man of sin and his accomplice, the false prophet, that he is God.
This is one of several ways that the Antichrist will successfully imitate the true Christ, who was not the head or ruler of a nation or country as such. Rather Jesus and his gospel reached people from all over the world. Our Messiah didn’t need a seat of government from which to teach, heal, perform miracles, die on a cross, and then rise from the dead….
The Antichrist will be given ten kingdoms (not one specific, easily identified kingdom) through which he will share and exert his authority (Pages 133-134).
However, at the height of Antichrist’s arrogant authority, the true Messiah will intervene (to rescue Israel from Nero’s conquest).
Along with other passages of Scripture, we read the spectacular result of Messiah’s victory:
“His government and its peace will never end. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity. The passionate commitment of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen!” (Isaiah 9:7).
Hallelujah to the Lamb of God!
Praise and honor and glory to the King of all kings!
I absolutely love that verse from Isaiah 9!