Tag Archives: The Abyss

The Final Treaty of Rome … Part I

14 Saturday May 2016

Posted by in The Antichrist

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The Final Treaty of Rome

“Like never before, the eyes of the world are on Israel. It is absolutely amazing that so much attention is directed to this tiny nation.”

This is a quote from the closing portion of last week’s Eye of Prophecy article entitled, An Islamic United Nations. Incessant focus on Israel and the Jewish people is a remarkable fulfillment of Scripture, which began with the miraculous rebirth of Israel in 1948. Such concentration on Israel, especially Jerusalem, will continue with chain-reaction intensity right up to the point when global attention will (temporarily) shift from Jerusalem to Rome.

Who or what will cause this world-wide transferal of interest from Jerusalem to Rome and why?

In answer to the question of who: It is the Antichrist, the Roman Emperor Nero. In answer to what: It is Nero’s (what will be perceived as miraculous) return from the grave, which is actually the Abyss (Revelation 17:8). International scrutiny will be shifted to Rome; that is where Nero will reestablish his reign of power and then terror, and will orchestrate the most highly improbable treaty of all time.

It will be the Final Treaty of Rome. Israel will be one party to the agreement and the Muslim nations on the other side of this stunning covenant. With the entire world approving to one degree or another, it could also be labeled the Treaty from Rome.

We read about it in the book of Daniel: “The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings…” (Daniel 9:27).

Why do I call it the Final Treaty of Rome? Because there was another Treaty of Rome which took place in 1957. Let’s take a look at the amazing results of that momentous event.

The Treaty of Rome

Have you heard of this treaty? Do you know what it’s about?

For some reason or another, I hadn’t paid much attention to the Treaty of Rome. Truth be known, I don’t even recall reading about it until recently. (Shame on me!) Why, I don’t know, as I’ve studied a good deal of history, both Biblical and secular, both ancient and modern down through the years—particularly in the past twenty years in preparation and during the writing of two books and what is now 147 Eye of Prophecy articles. I’ll give myself the benefit of the doubt, in that I took more notice of the subsequent developments instead of the treaty itself … as, I’m sure many others have done.

Treaty_of_Rome

(Photo of the Treaty of Rome Conference, 1957)

Technically, there were two treaties signed on March 25, 1957 in Rome. Yet, both were related and are most commonly referred to in the singular … The Treaty of Rome. The treaties gave rise to the European Economic Community with, as stated in its preamble, the signatory nations, “determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.”

Is that a pretty strong hint? Dare to venture a guess what the EEC led to? No, it wasn’t the United Nations, which came into existence in 1945.

Let’s continue.

Countries that sponsored this “treaty” and their representatives who signed the agreement were: France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Austria, West Germany, and Italy. It’s evident that the reason it was called a treaty related to the general goal of reducing, even eliminating, disputes between the nations of Europe; and to facilitate free circulation of goods, freedom of movement from one nation to another, and freedom from monopolies.

The EEC subsequently became known as The Common Market.

There you are! If you didn’t already, now you know the significance of the Treaty of Rome.

At least in my generation, nearly everyone has heard of The Common Market … originally consisted of ten European countries that many students of the Bible (at the time and for years later) pointed to as the ten nations or kingdoms of Daniel Chapter 7 and Revelation Chapter 17. Only to be embarrassed when the ten nations eventually expanded to the current 28 countries belonging to the European Union. Yes, the EU is also a direct outcome of the Treaty of Rome!

Although the initial design of the Common Market was to facilitate agricultural and trade agreements and cooperation between its European partners, the main objective was to ultimately establish a political union … which has been done. Which is, however, the reason that England refused to join the EEC (Common Market) until 1973. With the British objection based primarily on their apprehension that such a Union would force member states to relinquish national sovereignty to a centralized government with European (intra national) control. Which is also the main reason that England is now considering withdrawal from the European Union, a movement known as Brexit (Britain’s exit).

The most recent poll in advance of the pending vote shows the British are split 50/50 for or against what will be a monumental milestone in Europe’s history. Some experts are predicting serious global economic repercussions if England does, in fact, exit the European Union.

After England joined the Common Market in 1973, Denmark and Ireland followed suit; thus, the Common Market became a ten-nation union that has since morphed into 28 countries.

EU_Stages_of_Development

The latest country seeking membership in the EU is none other than Turkey; whose leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, just recently uttered this audacious statement that reveals his true intentions:

“What is the conquest? The conquest is Hijrah (expansion of Islam through emigration, following the example of Muhammad, the founder of Islam and his followers from Mecca to Medina). The conquest is Al-Andalu (Muslim Spain) … The conquest is Salah al-Din al-Ayubbi (Saladin). It is to hoist the flag of Islam in Jerusalem again … The conquest is to have the courage, tenacity and sagacity to defy the entire world even at the hardest times.” (Taken from a Gatestone Institute Article by Uzay Bulut, posted on May 11, 2016).

*Note: In case you missed it, Muslim leaders no longer veil their “hidden agenda” which can pretty much be reduced to two main objectives: Destruction of Israel and world domination. The primary reason they can make such belligerent boasts with virtual impunity is because any adverse reaction to practically anything said by Muslims is considered to be Islamophobia. Which, of course, causes all liberals and even a few conservatives to cower in fear that their religious-like support of diversity and political correctness might be compromised.

I stray from today’s topic, but only a little. As Nero will, in pretense, “…worship the god of fortresses—a god his ancestors never knew…” (Daniel 11:38). This god of fortresses will most certainly be Islam’s god, Allah.

The first elections to the European Parliament were held in 1979. Since then, a common currency, The Euro, has been adopted; however, England still uses the pound as its currency.

The fact that the formation of the Common Market which became the European Union took place in Rome is of no small importance when it comes to Biblical prophecy, especially relating to the significance of Rome, Roman Emperors, the Holy Roman Empire (Roman Catholic Church), and the Antichrist himself.

1000px-member_states_of_the_european_union_polar_stereographic_projection_en-svg

(Current Members of The European Union)

*Note: For potential identification of the Antichrist’s ten-nation coalition, the Gog-Magog alliance, the league of Eastern kings, and an Arab confederacy, I would encourage you to read Eye of Prophecy article, One Ring to Rule Them All. Posted 11-21-15.

As much as I loathe writing about or even mentioning his name, it’s essential to examine and expose the enemy. Thus, it’s time to do a little refresher on the Antichrist—his identity and, especially for this article, his biggest claim to fame.

Why the Antichrist Beast of Revelation is the Roman Emperor Nero

Substantial evidence has been presented in several Eye of Prophecy articles (Category of Antichrist), but mostly in my book, Out of the Abyss … can the number of the beast be solved? 666, to demonstrate that Nero is the Antichrist. The term Antichrist is only mentioned by the Apostle John in his epistle, I John. Other titles given to this man: little horn, ruler, king, man of lawlessness, and beast (of Revelation). In this article, we’ll only do a brief review to establish that the historical Nero fits with all of the names and passages of the Bible referencing the Antichrist. For example:

Daniel Chapter 9 (The Ruler): In the verse preceding the earlier quoted passage (Daniel 9:27), we read, “…a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple…” (Verse 26, italics for emphasis). No other ruler in history qualifies other than Nero, as he is the Caesar who personally ordered his Generals Vespasian and Titus and their legions to crush Israel’s rebellion against the Roman Empire beginning in 66 A.D. Nero died two years later, thus it was his “armies” as precisely predicted by Scripture (beginning with Vespasian and completed by his son, Titus) that conquered Jerusalem (“the city”) and destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D.

II Thessalonians Chapter 2 (Man of Lawlessness): Likewise, much documentation is provided to show that Nero was the man of lawlessness referred to by the Apostle Paul. Not the least of which was the unlawful usurping of the Roman Emperor Claudius’s throne by being complicit with his mother Agrippina in murdering her husband Claudius. What held back the man of lawlessness (II Thessalonians 2:6) was NOT the Holy Spirit—who allegedly will be removed from the earth at the Rapture as speculated by many scholars—because the Holy Spirit is always referred to by the personal pronouns he or him in Scripture, not the impersonal pronoun, what or it, as used in II Thessalonians. What held back Nero was Claudius himself (and to some degree the Roman Senate and rule of law), until Agrippina and Nero took the law in their own hands; thereby, accelerating Nero’s ascension to the throne of Caesar. (See Chapter 21, Man of Lawlessness in Out of the Abyss). Nero ascended to the throne just 2-3 years after Paul wrote II Thessalonians. That is far beyond mere coincidence.

Revelation Chapter 17 (Scarlet Beast & King): Documented is the fact that the seven heads of the beast in this biographical chapter on Antichrist were seven Roman Emperors beginning with the first Caesar, Augustus (not Julius). That Nero was one of the five who had “fallen” (died); thereby, matching the amazing unveiling of the mystery of the scarlet beast (and woman sitting on the beast) by the angel to John with the stunning words, “The beast you saw was once alive but isn’t now … yet he will soon come up out of the bottomless pit … And the people who belong to this world … will be amazed at the reappearance of the beast who had died” (Verse 8).

The astonishing implication of this often overlooked passage is that the Antichrist will NOT be a modern-day born man. In regard to all the other evidence presented in my book and in several Eye of Prophecy articles, believe it’s worth quoting an excerpt from Out of the Abyss, page 271) written near the end of the book to emphasize the startling disclosure of the “mystery … of the beast” (Revelation 17:7-11).

There is no question; the meaning of the verse is as irrefutable as anything can be. The beast had already died before John received this revelation. How else can this passage be understood? Is there any other way to see or read this verse? If some can’t let go of a contemporary Antichrist, then what will they do with this verse … and all the other passages that help refit the prophetic puzzle?

John didn’t see the vision in the future; he saw it in the present—that hour of that day. The beast is past tense … no longer alive when John saw the vision. The beast isn’t born and doesn’t die in the future; he’s already dead. When will the beast become future tense? Correct: When he reappears from the Abyss. At the beginning of the Tribulation, the world will be amazed at the reappearance of the beast that had died. Will the beast die during the Tribulation? No, he died even before John saw him from Patmos.

Nero’s Greatest Claim to Fame (Other than his infamous brutal torture and murder of Christians, colleagues, step-brother, wives, and even his mother).

NERN_Y~1

(Statues of Nero and His Mother, Agrippina)

Let’s take a brief look at one of Nero’s (very few) positive accomplishments during his fourteen year reign as the fifth Emperor in Rome’s history. Again, believe the best way to do this is by referring to Out of the Abyss (pages 178-180). As follows in italics:

He was not considered to be a great orator, though he fancied himself as an actor, a composer, and a musician. In Nero’s early years, Seneca did much of Nero’s talking to the public and Senate. In short, he was not a prototype of the Antichrist portrayed in many eschatological books, sermons, and television programs. But is the contemporary image of Antichrist accurate?

Contrary to modern imagery of the Antichrist, Scripture does not tell us that the man of lawlessness will necessarily be a great orator, a consummate politician, a charismatic leader, or exhibit other appealing characteristics commonly assigned to a world leader. Nor does the Bible tell us that the tribulation world will follow him because he exercises these persuasive traits and people buy into him for that reason.

What Scripture elucidates above all else, as the reason why people the world over will immediately give him complete allegiance to the point of worship, is that he reappears from the dead. The contemporary notion that yields a portrait of the Antichrist as a cunning political orator is a deduction derived almost exclusively from an achievement at the outset of the tribulation—the successful negotiation of a seven-year treaty with Israel. Many suggest that only a dynamic, magnetic leader could capture the loyalty of so many people during the tribulation. Yet history shows that megalomaniac rulers have come in all shapes, sizes, types, and levels of persuasive influence, not the least of which were the Roman Emperors.

Throughout history, there have been all kinds of treaties, orchestrated by all types of people, ratified through many different situations and settings.

I then use the example that it wasn’t Adolph Hitler’s oratory skills; rather it was the fear of Hitler and the growing German military monster that prompted Neville Chamberlain to negotiate a treaty with Hitler. It was the infamous “peace in our time” that almost immediately led to a global conflict … World War II.

Continuing with Out of the Abyss:

…For most of his reign he achieved that popularity, especially with the common Roman citizen, but not because Nero was a brilliant speaker or a charismatic leader.

Of all things, it was a treaty that Nero engineered between Rome and Parthia that helped endear him to the Roman Senate, the Roman Legions, and the Roman citizens … Suffice to say that this peace deal was a substantial victory for Nero, both politically and socially. His popularity increased dramatically … Moreover, this accomplishment was not a result of any extraordinary talents or gifts that Nero possessed.

In fact, when examining history, the single most influential factor in negotiating a treaty relates to the state-of-affairs conditions and circumstances that gave rise to an agreement between peoples or nations.

At this point in Out of the Abyss, I jump forward to Nero’s reappearance.

After the Rapture, Nero won’t have much of a problem in negotiating a treaty with Israel. Remember, there will be no Christians left immediately after the Rapture. But there will be chaos, confusion, and disorder … Nero will capitalize on this pandemonium by orchestrating a treaty, one that will allow the Jewish Temple to be built alongside the Muslim Dome of the Rock, or even in place of the Dome of the Rock. I use the word orchestrating, because one of Nero’s talents was that of arranging and synchronizing things, such as a group of people with dissident views or like a musical play, of which he wrote and performed several—in Greek.

And who in the world is going to argue with a man who returns to the earth after a two thousand year absence? With regard to the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD, all Nero need say is that the Roman Generals went way too far. He will probably remind tribulation Jews that he died in 68 AD, two years before the Roman Legions destroyed the Temple. That he had not intended for the Jews to be exiled from Judea or for the Temple to be destroyed. After a fashion, he might even apologize to the Jews. His way of making up for the ancient Roman mistreatment of the Jews will be to offer than a new Temple.

He will remind the Jews and the Arabs that his hostility as a Roman Emperor was rightfully and justifiably directed against the Christians—those narrow minded, bigoted, self-righteous hypocrites who disappearance has done mankind a favor by cleansing the earth of religious intolerance.

If you like, you could come up with any number of lies that a resurrected Nero will fabricate and foist on Israel and the nations. But the bottom line is that untold millions will follow him for the same reason that many have followed Jesus Christ. RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD.

Then on page 182, this Biblically based clarification of the actual reason why many in the Tribulation period will listen to and follow Nero, I write:

The Antichrist is not afforded blind worship because he is a superman in terms of being an accomplished statesman, orator, or leader. The False Prophet does that for him. The superhuman qualities accorded him will literally lie in his mystical return from death.

From Where Does Nero Return To the Earth?

In other sections of Out of the Abyss and in some Eye of Prophecy articles, additional explanation is provided that Nero doesn’t actually rise from the grave in exact duplication of the miraculous resurrection of Messiah Jesus. Rather, he has been confined, then at the outset of the Tribulation will be released from the Abyss … a completely different place than hell (the grave). Supported by the sensible logic that in order for the beast to “reappear from the Abyss” (Revelation 17:8), he first must be placed there.

bottomless-pit-2-1

Let’s look at a few more paragraphs from Out of the Abyss that best explain why the entire world at the beginning of the Great Tribulation, “…marveled at this miracle and gave allegiance to the beast. They worshipped the dragon (Satan) for giving the beast such power, and they also worshipped the beast. ‘Who is as great as the beast?’ they exclaimed. ‘Who is able to fight against him?’” (Revelation 13:3-4).

This unashamed, unabashed, unequivocal loyalty to and worship of Nero is due entirely to his sudden reappearance from the dead (mortal wounds inflicted 2000 years ago).

First, however, a reminder that the Abyss or Bottomless Pit in Scripture is a special place of confinement for exceptionally wicked angels, as opposed to most fallen angels (demons) who still, along with Satan, have God-granted permission to roam the heavens and the earth.

Genesis Chapter 6 tells us about these fallen angels, as does II Peter 2. Also, here is what Jude says about them: “And I remind you of the angels who did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged. God has kept them securely chained in prisons of darkness, waiting for the great day of judgment” (Jude 6).

This gruesome group of depraved demons attempted to accomplish Satan’s plan to dilute and pervert the human race, which is one of the main reasons for the Great Flood … God’s first global judgment of the earth.

Which is also why the demons that Jesus cast out of the man in the region of Gerasenes, “…kept begging Jesus not to send them into the bottomless pit.” (Luke 8:31). Jesus granted that request by granting another request of the demons, to let them enter into a herd of nearby pigs!

From this passage and others we learn two things: (1) Many demons are allowed to roam the earth and parts of the heavenly places, but some have been imprisoned in the Abyss. (2) Fallen angels dread the thought of banishment to the Abyss. That’s why the demons of Gerasenes wanted no part of the Abyss; going to the extreme of begging Jesus not to send them to this inescapable prison of darkness which completely takes away the (temporary) freedom they have been allowed by God to serve Satan.

nephilim

(Artist Rendition of the Nephilim … See Genesis Chapter 6)

Getting back to the fact that the reappearance of Antichrist Nero to the earth will be directly from the Abyss (Revelation 17:8), here are some additional excerpts from Out of the Abyss (pages 232, 233):

In all of Scripture, there is only one reference to a human being coming from, therefore, having been placed into the Abyss. That man is the man of lawlessness, who is the Antichrist, who is the beast of Revelation. Such an honor!

Soon after Nero died, his body was literally removed from the grave and transported directly to the Abyss. I believe there is a twofold reason that God expelled this man of lawlessness to the Abyss:

  • To make it clear to believers that Nero would not replicate the actual resurrection of Jesus Christ. I firmly believe that God would not extend this resurrection power to Satan, anymore that he would allow Satan to be God or be like God. There are some things that God will simply not grant. For one thing God would not permit anyone, let alone Satan, to share his glory, in which God’s very essence and attributes are expressed…
  • On the flip side, to allow Satan to mimic the resurrection without actually performing this miracle. To be sure, Nero will flaunt this counterfeit “resurrection” by seizing the opportunity to demonstrate that he has arisen from the dead. The unsaved world won’t know the difference between a return from the grave and reappearance from the Abyss. Only the tribulation saints will know the difference, just as we know the difference now. The world will be amazed that a man who had been dead for some two thousand years could return with the same body and the same scars caused by the fatal wound. In fact, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if Nero said something to the effect, “Now tell me who the true God is. I died two thousand years ago and I’ve come back … That presumptuous Nazarene was dead for only three days, so he says. Even if he was dead for three days, who is the greater of the two? Whose miracle is the greatest? Where is this imposter now?”

Summary

Several “Roadmaps of Peace” in the Middle East have failed over the years, including the Oslo Accord of 1993 mediated by United States President Bill Clinton between Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin. Since then the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip have rejected generous land for peace offers from two Israeli Prime Ministers, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. The PA consistently refuses to come to the table with current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unless pre-negotiated demands are met, i.e. right of return of so-called Arab refugees, Israel’s withdrawal to pre-1967 territorial lines, and most audacious of all—east Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian State.

These three issues are, by far, the most difficult to resolve; however the Palestinians won’t agree to negotiate unless these demands are met. In other words, they won’t even agree to disagree, which must first be a condition before negotiations are remotely possible.

Powerful nations of the EU, especially France, and now the United States are growing tired of these (their own) failures. Moreover, they are, with a great deal of inaccuracy and inequity, putting much more of the blame on Israel than the Palestinians and other Muslim nations whose real agenda is elimination of the State of Israel altogether. Which is why the Palestinians have rejected more than generous offers from the Israelis, and why they have no incentive to resume negotiations for either peace or a Palestinian State. Why should the Arabs cooperate when the prominent nations of the world are now willing to unilaterally declare the existence of a Palestinian State, undoubtedly with the borders to be those of pre-1967 Armistice Lines … boundaries that would jeopardize Israel’s national security in the north, east, and south regions of Israel. Worse than that: to arbitrarily divide Jerusalem and declare this 3000 year-old capital of Israel as an “East Jerusalem” Palestinian capital.

Jerusalem-capital-of-Israel2

According to Scripture, it will not be the leaders of any of these nations, i.e. US, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, Italy, or the Arab Confederation that will bring peace to the Middle East. For one thing there is too much disagreement between these governments as to just what this Roadmap of Peace will encompass. Or, if and how the borders of a Palestinian state will be enforced or its capital recognized if either Israel or the Palestinians themselves reject such a “treaty.” The likelihood of any such pre-Rapture agreement actually taking place is remote. Even if some sort of treaty (defined by Webster as an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation) is reached, it will be virtually impossible to implement and/or administrate.

But the time is coming soon when one (depraved) man will successfully set aside all differences, remove all obstacles, and unify all dissenters. He will do this because Europeans, North Americans, South Americans, Australians, Muslims, and Jews alike will agree that he alone is qualified. He alone possesses the god-like capability to orchestrate, implement, and enforce such a treaty. Will this megalomaniac succeed because of statesmanship skills, or oratorical persuasion, or charismatic attributes?

No, it’s because of one astounding accomplishment: Nero’s return from the grave!

This miracle—in the eyes of those who “belong to the world” left behind after the Rapture—will be the catalyst instilling a mixture of adoration and fear, that will lead to the Final Treaty of Rome.

An ancient Roman Emperor will achieve what contemporary national leaders and global governments for decades have attempted but failed: A “Treaty of Peace” between Jews and Muslims, with many nations of the world lending their full support.

And so the world will believe the Lie (Nero himself is the Lie), just as Scripture tells us. The lying spirit of Antichrist claims that Jesus is not the Christ, and that God is not the Father. Nero will boast that he alone is God or Messiah, for no one could possibly return from the dead in the manner in which he did.

“This man will come to do the work of Satan with counterfeit power and signs and miracles. He will use every kind of deception to fool those on their way to destruction, because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them. So God will cause them to be greatly deceived, and they will believe these lies. Then they will be condemned for enjoying evil rather than believing the truth” (II Thessalonians 2:9-12).

Stay tuned for next week’s Part II article on the Final Treaty of Rome.

Things to Ponder

For a brief time, Satan will get his diabolical wish … to be worshipped as the Most High God. Likewise, Nero will achieve his warped goal … to be revered as divine, to reestablish his glory—this time on a global scale. To convince millions upon millions that he alone bears the credentials to be the world’s savior. Right out of the gates he will demonstrate his negotiation skills through a position of strength conferred to him by virtue of his miraculous return from the dead.

Thus, he will begin the Great Tribulation with a treaty to end all treaties: The Final Treaty of Rome.

Few will resist his right to receive and exercise authority that will not only rescue the world from disaster, but lead it to Utopia … the great Pax Romana peace that Nero failed to achieve the first time. But this time he will boast of success. Why can he make that boast? Why will so many believe him?

“…but the fatal wound was healed! The whole world marveled at this miracle and gave allegiance to the beast. They worshipped the dragon for giving the beast such power, and they also worshipped the beast. ‘Who is as great as the beast?’ they exclaimed. ‘Who is able to fight against him?” (Revelation 13:3-4).

Not to worry: There is One who can and will fight against the beast. One who is far greater than Satan or his man of sin. One who can and will bring real, everlasting peace to the earth. For he is the Prince of Peace.

Listen to the powerful prophetic promise of what will take place at the end of the Great Tribulation:

“During the reign of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed or conquered. It will crush all these kingdoms into nothingness, and it will stand forever” (Daniel 2:44).

And who will reign over this kingdom? None other than the Son of God, Messiah Jesus.

“…The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Almighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 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 9:6-7).

992b3a3a270c8d84af53ce5a09ad3de9

A Beast by Any Other Name … Part II

21 Saturday Mar 2015

Posted by in The Antichrist

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

A Beast by Any Other Name … Is Still a Beast

Good and evil; war and peace; light and darkness; pride and humility; right and wrong; unjust and just; truth and lies. Words of reverse meaning (antonyms) often provide more insight and impact than do words with similar meanings (synonyms). There’s nothing like comparison through stark contrast to grab our attention and heighten our understanding and appreciation for concepts at the extreme ends of a physical, moral, or spiritual spectrum. Even oxymoronic phrases such as, “Until hell freezes over,” serve a purpose, I suppose. In this instance to amplify the idea that some things just don’t go together … never have and never will.

Unlike hot and cold, there are many words that don’t have an antonym; but that’s no problem. So if you’re against something like abortion (good for you), then how do you express your disagreement with just a one-word opposite?

Likewise, names of people in virtually every language carry with them a linguistic meaning (for example, my first and last name mean spear and flower, respectively); but ordinarily we don’t pair off names or groups of contrary names in order to compare or contrast the meaning of those names. With one universal exception:

Christ … Antichrist.

As we all know, anti means against and/or in place of. In the English language there are hundreds of words that allow the prefix, anti, in order to convey the exact opposite. Such as anti-abortion.

What better way for the Bible to accentuate the ultra-antithesis of the true Christ (Messiah) than to tag his evil counterpart—who was born in the first century a few years after Jesus ascended to heaven—with the name (that says it all) of Antichrist. For that is exactly what he was and will be again upon his return as the beast from the Abyss.

Yet, before the Apostle John coined the term Antichrist in the first century, both the Prophet Daniel and the Apostle Paul described this infamous man with other titles. When we understand the reason for Scripture’s different names of Antichrist and the context of those passages, then we will better comprehend that the future Antichrist is also the (past) historical ruler, king, and man of lawlessness.

In last week’s article, we examined Daniel’s appellations of little horn and king … then continuation of king as found in Revelation Chapters 13 & 17. This week we will scrutinize another descriptive term by Daniel in his prophecy of a coming Ruler, whose armies would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple; this same ruler would then orchestrate a seven-year treaty with Israel that is a catalyst to the Great Tribulation. Equally significant: To recognize that there is an extraordinary (what is now a lengthy) interlude announced by Daniel between the destruction of the Temple and the seven-year treaty. But it’s still the same ruler involved in these two events, already separated by nearly 2000 years! Then Paul’s phenomenal present tense exposure of this wicked ruler called by Paul, The Man of Lawlessness.

Third Title: Ruler

“After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, the Anointed One will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end. The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him” (Daniel 9:26-27).

Bible scholars have astutely and accurately identified the Anointed One as Jesus who, to the very day when he rode into Jerusalem and was hailed as Messiah, fulfilled precisely the 483 year prophetic time-clock of Messiah’s appearance as predicted in verses 24 and 25 of this chapter. Then Daniel tells us that after Messiah is killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, a ruler would arise….

The Hebrew word translated ruler in the New Living Translation just quoted, and rendered prince in, for example, the New American Standard Bible is: Nagiyd. (Pronounced, naw-gheed). The English translations of prince, overseer, or ruler (in various capacities) correctly reflect the original Hebrew word. Clearly conveyed, however, is that the term prince or ruler is a generic designation, in contrast to a more position-specific title such as King. Although several languages use the positional title Prince to identify a particular historical ruler, the term prince is more frequently employed to simply label someone in authority in any number of administrative or nobility positions. And, of course, ruler is an all-purpose term that can refer to just about any person of prestige or power.

Daniel’s first vision of the Antichrist was that of a Little Horn in Daniel Chapter Seven; also a general description as the primary emphasis was that of his proud boasting against God from a platform of authority recognized and accepted by the world at large (as subsequently confirmed by Revelation Chapter 13). But then switched to a king who would suddenly appear in a specific sphere of influence; that he would rule over ten already established kings/nations during the Tribulation.

Yet in Daniel’s portrayal of the Antichrist as recorded in Chapter 9, he wouldn’t have known, nor did the Angel Gabriel disclose to him the exact title of what would later be a Roman ruler or even more definitive, a Roman Caesar. Thus, the angel utilizes the term of ruler which is a title anyone in Daniel’s time (or any time of history) would easily grasp.

Sometimes a prophecy given by God to one of his prophets will be spectacularly specific, such as naming Cyrus some 150 years before he was even born to be the Persian King, who would allow the Jews to return to Israel. Most often, however, Scripture provides just enough information to get the attention of those alive when the prophecy is given, then dramatically captures the focus of those alive when the prophecy is fulfilled.

Between the former and the latter, anyone who possesses any degree of anticipation, expectation, or intrigue is soon full of enthusiasm when the prophesied person appears or the event unfolds. Its like: WOW, this is actually happening in our lifetime. Which is exactly the positive response of many when Messiah Jesus was born in Bethlehem of a Virgin, then thousands more when Christ miraculously arose from the dead; and the equally negative reaction of Christians during Nero’s reprehensible reign as Caesar.

I believe God does this on purpose for our benefit. He wants us to take the time and effort to carefully observe and match the historical event to a long-ago Biblical prophecy; to better appreciate the intricacies of both the prediction and its accomplishment. But also to validate Scripture’s claim that the God of the Bible is the ONLY true and living God … through the miracle of fulfilled prophecy.

The Ruler is Nero

That this ruler is none other than Nero is extensively documented in my book, Out of the Abyss, by, as alluded to in last week’s article, dissecting and then correlating first century history to all Biblical references of Antichrist, none more so than this passage in Daniel Chapter 9.

nero (2)

In order to maintain the hypothesis of a revived Roman Empire proposed by many students of prophecy (which is based on the improper substitution of the English word kingdoms for the Greek word for kings in Revelation 17 and disregarding the personal pronouns used for these kings and the 8th king who is one of the seven kings … five who were already dead, one reigning, and the seventh to come, whose reign would be very brief), the Roman Legions (armies of Daniel 9) are linked to this ruler, who is perceived as a modern-day born man, even though doing so stretches this linkage to the breaking point. In other words, the ruler and his armies (Roman legions) are most assuredly coupled, but this connective association actually took place in the first century.

As we shall see, this prince would arise shortly after Messiah Jesus was crucified, as opposed to what would now be a totally impractical and illogical time-lapse of nearly 2000 years. It’s essential that we grasp the grammar and syntax of exactly what Daniel is relaying to us in Chapter 9.

Once again we read, “…The Anointed One (Messiah) will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple…” (Daniel 9:26a, italics for emphasis). Two things jump from the pages of this startling prediction:

(1) The possessive pronoun “whose” (armies) grammatically and prophetically bind the ruler to the actual armies that would destroy Jerusalem and the Second Temple. This fateful prophecy was agonizingly realized in 70 AD when the Roman Legions utterly demolished the Temple and destroyed much of Jerusalem, killing hundreds of thousands of Jews. The indisputable historical evidence clearly shows that this cruel campaign to crush the Jews had been ordered by Nero in 66-67 AD; moreover, he hand-picked the two Roman Generals who carried out his orders—Vespasian and Titus.

(2) The sequential syntax of the passage yields the unambiguous conclusion that the ruler would arise (shortly) after Christ (the Anointed One) was killed (on the Cross); as opposed to what is now a 2000-year gap between the Roman Legions that demolished the Temple and what is supposed to be a modern-day man (Antichrist) who would have absolutely no connection whatsoever to those legions. The text stipulates that the ruler would arise during the time when Messiah’s death appeared to have accomplished nothing. From my book, Out of the Abyss:

If the ruler is a modern-day man, then this verse doesn’t fit. Worse, the first part of the verse is simply inaccurate. What am I saying? I am saying that … we can look back some 2000 years and clearly see the monumentally astounding accomplishments of Christianity. Yet Daniel 9:26 effectively tells us that the ruler will sequentially rise to power during the time that Messiah’s death “appears” to have accomplished nothing. In other words, the ruler would arise fairly soon after Messiah is killed.

Nero was born just three to four years after Christ died, and he ruled as Emperor just two-three decades (later) … Christianity was still in its infancy. To the populace of Israel, the Roman Empire and world at large, the tragic death of Jesus of Nazareth seemed to have accomplished very little. To Jewish Zealots, Jesus’s death accomplished absolutely nothing … It took several centuries for Christians and the secular world to comprehend the increasing influence that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ had exerted on the world. (Pages 256-257).

Rev%20Part%2010.1%20-%20Emperors

Concerning the real-time 1st century correlation between the prince/ruler and the people or armies that destroyed the Temple, I explained in Out of the Abyss:

The Hebrew word for people … means people(s) people of a nation, members of one’s people, kinsman, or compatriots … invariably when relating people to a nation, king, ruler, or to God, the word is employed in the logical and sensible Scriptural context of possessive, immediate, or generational relationship….

I go on to say that the people of the prince or ruler that Daniel foretells, … includes all of the prince’s country-men; but more exactly it was the armies (Roman Legions) of this people that fulfilled the prophecy…. But whose armies are they? Whose people are they? If you study the text carefully, there is a clear possessive correlation between the ruler and the armies or the people…. Whose is possessive, meaning those armies or people specifically belonging to that particular ruler…. The people directly affiliated, associated, or united with the prince destroyed the Temple.

Then a few paragraphs later: Where have you ever read or seen or thought that a ruler of any era would be connected to armies or people hundreds or thousands of years earlier. All monarchs, both in Biblical and secular history, are linked directly with the armies of that particular time of the ruler’s life.

And, as indicated, whenever the Hebrew word “am” (meaning people) is used throughout the Old Testament in conjunction with a ruler and a people, it is used to specify an immediate, real-time connection between the leader/nation and the people belonging to that leader… Why, then, should Gabriel and Daniel mean a far-off, time-warped differential between the Roman Legions and a prince that wouldn’t arrive on the scene for what is now a nearly two-thousand year gap? (Pages 254-256).

Legion1

Roman Legion

Daniel goes on to explain that the same ruler whose armies would destroy the Temple would then make a treaty with Israel, which is the Biblical passage specifying that the Tribulation is for a period of seven years. But before Daniel announces this seven-year treaty and the ruler’s violation of the treaty half way through, we have one remarkable interval between the end of verse 26 and the beginning of verse 27 that many Bible scholars have overlooked, missed, or dismissed (in terms of its chronological impact). There’s no doubt in the syntax structure of verses 26 & 27, that the decisive events described are sequential. I repeat: no doubt whatsoever; if for no other reason that the connecting words and the logical progression of occurrences are given in a specific order.

Here’s what the text says: “…whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end. The ruler will make a treaty with the people…” (Daniel 9:26b, 27a, italics for emphasis). I’ve italicized the crucial interim period of time that clearly separates the (now) historical sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD from the yet-to-come seven-year Tribulation treaty engineered by the SAME ruler whose armies destroyed the city and the Temple.

The end will come … war its miseries from that time to the very end is expressive apocalyptic language to describe the Great Tribulation.

This is absolutely astonishing, and can only be truly apprehended and appreciated by realizing that the ruler (Nero) whose armies destroyed the Temple will also be the same ruler who will mesmerize the entire world by his astounding return from the Abyss; which will enable him to strike a treaty with Israel at the outset of the Tribulation, then break this treaty in 3 ½ years followed by an all-out onslaught against Israel and the tribulation saints for another 3 ½ years.

Thus, even without Revelation 17 which clearly and emphatically tells us that the 8th king (the Antichrist scarlet beast) is from the seven and had lived and died before John even saw this beast-king; history itself validates Daniel’s incredible prophecy that the armies of, controlled by, and subsequently ordered to crush the Jewish rebellion belonged to none other than the Roman Emperor, Nero. Combining Revelation 17 with Daniel 9 (and also Daniel 7), we have not one, but two historical and irrefutable proofs that the future tense ruler of Daniel’s prophecies became the first century PAST TENSE king-beast ruler known as Nero.

6984

Depicts Destruction of Jerusalem & Temple in 70 AD

Fourth Title: Man of Lawlessness

But there’s more! Not just future tense and past tense, but a PRESENT TENSE (right then and there as it was happening) expose of the fifth Roman Emperor by the Apostle Paul, who labeled him the man of lawlessness. Once again for sake of time/space in these three articles on the names of Antichrist, we must summarize in crash course fashion another chapter from Out of the Abyss (Refer to Chapter 21 for many more facts and details). Beginning with the riveting passage:

“…For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed—the one who brings destruction … He will even sit in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God. Don’t you remember that I told you about all this when I was with you? And you know what is holding him back, for he can be revealed only when his time comes. For this lawlessness is already at work secretly, and it will remain secret until the one who is holding it back steps out-of-the-way. Then the man of lawlessness will be revealed, but the Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by the splendor of his coming” (II Thessalonians 2:3-8).

In this abbreviated review of the man later called Antichrist and the beast (of Revelation), we need to concentrate on the present tense grammar and the obvious implications thereof; to both the man of lawlessness and the secrecy of the lawlessness (that he was part of) that was being restrained or held back at the very time that Paul wrote this letter to the Church at Thessalonica.

First, a brief historical context: Paul wrote II Thessalonians in 51-52 AD, and the Temple of Jerusalem was very much intact. Believers expected that the desecration that Daniel, Jesus, and Paul spoke of would take place in none other than Herod’s Temple, in their very near future. In fact, it’s abundantly clear throughout the entire New Testament, especially from the Apostle Paul, that the Christians at that time fully expected Jesus to return any hour of any day. The “imminent return of Christ” was more alive and real in the first century that it has been ever since, with the possible exception of today’s passionate hope that his return is very near.

It’s just that the Holy Spirit had not revealed to Paul that the desecration of the Temple would take place in a 3rd rebuilt Temple, to replace Herod’s Temple that would be destroyed less than twenty years after Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians.

But I’m convinced that the Holy Spirit had disclosed to Paul the identity of this man of lawlessness, even though Paul could not and would not refer to the man by name … upon penalty of death and intense persecution of Christians, which would have begun as soon as Nero unlawfully ascended the throne, if not before. In fact, later in Nero’s reign, tens of thousands of Christians were murdered and both Paul and Peter were executed. Nero was subsequently “revealed” as the man of lawlessness, but not yet as the Beast-king. Nero’s future (resumed) fulfillment of his anti-Christ agenda would not fully materialize until the Day of the Lord had begun … precipitated first by the Rapture, then shortly followed by his (the beast-king’s) return from the Abyss.

How can we know with absolute certainty that Paul was referring to this man of lawlessness (who we know is one and the same as the little horn, ruler, king, and would be (later) called Antichrist and the Beast) as one who was already alive on planet Earth; as opposed to some far-off unborn ruler who would initiate a great rebellion against God?

Before answering that question, let’s also be reminded that Nero did exactly that. Not before Nero instigated and personally supervised a savage vendetta against Christians at the hands of an entire empire or until Nero resumes the rebellion during the Great Tribulation, has there ever been such brutality on this scale. Against the Jews as a race and nation, yes; but not against people from all races, nations, and languages, so identified because of their belief in the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as their Messiah. Ironically, Nero’s direct participation in this first century persecution of Christians lasted about 3 ½ years, the same period of time that his diabolical revolt against God, and torture and death of Christians and Jews will last during the Great Tribulation.

The following is how we can irrefutably conclude that Paul was telling us exactly who the man of lawlessness was and would be, without actually stating his name. Once again let’s read the words, this time from the New American Standard Bible: “And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed … only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way” (II Thessalonians 2:6-7, italics for emphasis).

Who or What Holds Back the Man of Lawlessness & the Secrecy of the Lawlessness?

These active present tense verbs and modifiers clearly convey and confirm the premise that all this was taking place before and when Paul wrote this letter to the Thessalonians. Here is another excerpt from Out of the Abyss to reinforce this premise:

According to Paul, the restrainer “is” (at that time) holding the lawless one back. This present tense application is augmented by the fact that what restrains is holding “him now.” Not later, not in some distant future, but right then and there while Paul informed the believers. Paul obviously is not referring to a man who hadn’t even been born yet. Nor does the text state or imply that the man of lawlessness is currently restrained from being born; in fact that would make no sense whatsoever.

Think about it. How could or why would the man be restrained if he wasn’t already alive? If Paul was referring to this man in the future tense (not what the man would do … that was still future), he would have said, “and you know what will hold him back.” The present tense grammar of the text yields a convincing conclusion; this man of lawlessness was already being held in check.

Newsflash: Nero became emperor in 54 AD, but Claudius Caesar and his wife, Agrippina (Nero’s mother), were already touting Nero as successor when Paul wrote I and II Thessalonians. Furthermore, all of Rome knew that Nero would not be a lawful successor to the crown. Romans had already prided themselves and their empire as the first and greatest law and order society in history. And, as we saw earlier: Paul wrote II Thessalonians in 51-52 AD. That’s a bit more than coincidental, don’t you think? (Page 191).

antichrist

Today’s contemporary application of these verses is that the Holy Spirit is the restrainer and that he restrains evil, but that is not what the passage is telling us. For one thing, the Greek word for lawlessness is different from the Greek words used for evil or wickedness in the New Testament. The Greek word for lawlessness is anomia, which means contempt for or violation of law—Biblical laws, moral laws, and civil laws. Found only fifteen times in the New Testament, the word conveys a more exclusive, or specific expression of evil, the very kind that Paul said was taking place. In fact, Paul said, “this lawlessness is already at work secretly, and it will remain secret until the one who is holding it back steps out of the way.”

Before that, Paul referred to the restrainer as “what is holding him back.” The him of this verse is the man of lawlessness and the what (as clearly explained in Out of the Abyss) was the Roman government including the Senate that represented the people, and to a lesser extent the Roman legions. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is NEVER referred to by a neutral or impersonal pronoun anywhere in Scripture; rather, the Holy Spirit is always referred to by the personal pronoun, he or him. Why then would Paul even remotely imply that the pronoun what of this passage is the Holy Spirit? Yet, that is the (mistaken) association by many scholars, i.e. that this impersonal pronoun substitution (what) is the Holy Spirit, himself.

Furthermore, why would Paul be reluctant to identify or enunciate the name of the Holy Spirit in this context; when non-believing Romans or Greeks would have been oblivious to something or someone called the Holy Spirit? When, in fact, Paul often mentioned the Holy Spirit throughout his epistles, and even references the Holy Spirit in verse thirteen of this same chapter in II Thessalonians. It’s completely logical why Paul withheld the name of Nero, Claudius, or Agrippina, all of whom were part of the lawless scheme to make Nero the next Emperor. But no reason at all for Paul to evasively disguise the Holy Spirit as the impersonal (force) that was holding the man of lawlessness in check until the secrecy of this lawlessness was fully exposed (later in 54 AD).

The lawlessness Paul cited in this passage was the Machiavellian-style political intrigue and covert maneuvers underway through what would later become a (successful) conspiracy by Nero’s mother Agrippina to assassinate her husband, the Roman Emperor Claudius—which would pave the way for Nero to become Caesar.

Please, read the passage again: The lawlessness itself was not being held back; instead it was the secrecy of that lawlessness … known only by a select few including Paul, to whom it had been revealed. Thus it was the Roman system of law and government (what) that was holding Nero (temporarily) in check; which enabled Claudius Caesar (as long as he was on the throne) to hold back or (inadvertently) suppress the secrecy of what was unlawfully being planned by his wife and step-son Nero. But when the one who “now restrains” was taken out of the way, the clandestine, hush-hush, anarchistic plot would no longer be concealed. This lawlessness would and did rear its ugly head when Agrippina poisoned Claudius, and Nero succeeded him as Emperor.

As summarized in Out of the Abyss:

Obviously Claudius wanted Nero to succeed him, but certainly not as a result of Claudius being toppled from power by anyone, let alone his wife, Agrippina. Thus, Claudius was part of the scheme that would bypass his natural son’s right to the throne in favor of his step-son Nero. Little did Claudius realize that this plot would thicken with Agrippina’s lawless sub-plot to prematurely take him out of the picture, to remove him from power by revealing her true intention—that of Nero’s immediate unlawful ascension to the throne. (Page 201).

Things to Ponder

Next weeks’ article, the final part of this trilogy, will elaborate on the remaining two names: Antichrist and The Beast. To further expand on how these two designations (alongside the man of lawlessness) comprehensively represent the composite Antichrist, i.e. body, soul, and spirit of this depraved human being.

For all those who really want to accurately determine the identity of Antichrist, I am completely convinced that God wants us to know just as the early Christians knew, especially through the 5th century AD. That Nero was this man of lawlessness, the ruler, and the king (Roman Caesar) who had died; but would one day return from the Abyss as the (little horn) beast to continue his Antichrist reign of terror … but on a truly global scale.

We need to know these things before the Rapture takes place, so that many left behind will not be so amazed at a False Messiah … Nero’s returns from the underworld.

We need to know, before we go!