Tag Archives: the apostle John

Exposing Antichrist’s Identity … More Compelling Evidence (Part I)

18 Saturday Mar 2017

Posted by in The Antichrist

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Which John is the Author of Revelation?

From where does the contemporary idea of a Revived Roman Empire come? Why do the vast majority of Bible scholars substitute kingdoms for kings in Revelation Chapter 17? Why is it that most teachers and students of Scripture adamantly maintain that only the Apostle John could have written the book of Revelation? How could so many students of Bible prophecy (including me at one time) miss the stunning evidence clearly conveyed in Revelation?

“The beast you saw was once alive but isn’t now…” (Revelation 17:7).

My second book (Out of the Abyss … can the number of the beast be solved? 666, published in 2011) originated directly from the dramatic discernment given to me in November, 2008 regarding the staggering implications of this passage. Subsequently, several Eye of Prophecy articles have expounded on the above quoted verse and several other Biblical passages to affirm the identity of Antichrist—none other than the Roman Emperor, Nero.

But not to reinforce the misguided view of the Preterists who also point to Nero as the Antichrist. Because the Preterist maintain that the Great Tribulation occurred in the first century; which any number of Bible scholars have robustly refuted with clear Scriptural and historical documentation. As I’ve stated before, with abundant reasons given, the simple fact remains that the Great Tribulation is yet to come, preceded immediately by the Rapture, which unequivocally undermines the unscriptural and illogical premise advanced by the Preterists.

Yes, Nero was the Antichrist of the first century. But what the Preterists missed entirely is the astonishing disclosure in Revelation 17: the Antichrist had already lived and died BEFORE John saw this man in the form of a beast … as just quoted in the above verse. The few who believe that Nero was the Antichrist, do so primarily because the number of the beast through gematria (six hundred, sixty-six) corresponds to the name of Nero. Which it does, but that’s only one of many prophetic passages in Scripture that match Nero to Antichrist; some coming to pass in the first century, but most to be fulfilled during the Great Tribulation soon to come when Nero reappears from the Abyss.

Just as clearly and convincingly in this same passage, the angel who is revealing the mystery of the beast to John goes on to say that the Antichrist beast (who had already lived and died) would then, “…come up out of the bottomless pit…” And that the world (those left behind at the Rapture), “…will be amazed at the reappearance of this beast who had died” (Revelation 17:8).

This mind boggling fact was completely missed by the Preterists. But the same Bible scholars who astutely disproved the inaccurate claim by the Preterist that the Tribulation took place in the first century have also thrown out the baby with the bath water. Although I don’t like the analogy of comparing Nero to a baby, nearly all (if not all) students of prophecy have dismissed Nero as the Antichrist because the Tribulation has not yet taken place. Thereby, missing the extraordinary evidence in Revelation 17 that the Antichrist beast (Nero) will have reappeared from the Abyss when he arrives on the Tribulation scene.

(The Greater Majority of Evangelical Students of Prophecy Subscribe to Futurism Application of Revelation. I Would Add a Fifth Option: Partial Fulfillment in 1st Century–Nero Revealed, Complete Fulfillment in 21st Century)

Reasons Why Bible Scholars Changed Kings to Kingdoms in Revelation 17

A few previous Eye of Prophecy articles (see category of Antichrist) covered in part what was dealt with as a whole in Out of the Abyss. Such things as Antichrist (Nero):

Lived and died before John saw him (the beast) arise from the Sea (Abyss), thus the Antichrist could not be a modern-day born man (Revelation 13 & 17); the ruler who would arise shortly after Messiah was killed, whose armies would destroy the Temple (Daniel 9:26, 27); Nero was the man of lawlessness and the restrainer was the Roman Government and Claudius Caesar, not the Holy Spirit (II Thessalonians 2); suddenly (not gradually as would a modern-day born man) reappearing to the post-Rapture world (Daniel 7, Revelation 13 & 17); one of, out of, and from the seven kings who are seven Roman Emperors of the 1st century and not kingdoms as proposed by most Bible scholars (Revelation 17); and other passages.

In next week’s article we’ll see more compelling evidence to demonstrate that the beast/king of Revelation (Antichrist) was certainly known by the first century and subsequent century Christians to be a Roman Emperor … Nero Caesar. That there were seven Roman emperors who matched the seven kings of Revelation 17.

But first, in this week’s article, we need to examine evidence as to which John wrote the book of Revelation, as this issue is a formidable obstacle to correctly understanding that there were, in fact, seven kings (Roman Emperors) and not ten or more. Returning to the questions that opened today’s article, answers will be given this week and next regarding the two reasons why students of prophecy replaced seven kings with seven kingdoms. With the 7th kingdom purported to be a Revived Roman Empire instead of the clear textual reference to and meaning of all seven kings as men—by the use of personal pronouns and the Greek word for kings, not kingdoms as found in Revelation Chapter 17.

Reason #1: The prevailing view that the book of Revelation was written by the Apostle John in the mid-90s AD, not another John.

Reason #2: For reason number one, students of prophecy contend that there would be ten or more kings, not seven; thus, the only alternative for them was to (erroneously) replace the Greek word for king with kingdom.

“This calls for a mind with understanding: The seven heads of the beast … 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” (Revelation 17:9-10).

If you haven’t read Out of the Abyss, what you’re about to discover is that no matter which John (the Apostle or who some call John the Revelator) wrote Revelation, first century history perfectly matches what the angel is telling John in the above quoted verses. We’ll see how that works in next week’s article. Therefore, there’s no reason to change seven kings to kingdoms just because there are ten or more Roman emperors up to the time that John the Apostle may have written Revelation (if he did), which is thought to be around 95 AD.

Why can I say that? Because, when we peer into the first century with historical hindsight (20/20 vision), we’ll plainly see that there’s more than one way (retroactively) to positively match what actually happened in the 1st century to what Scripture is telling us.

Please understand: The first part of Revelation 17:8, then all of verse 9 and most of verse 10 are not future tense (prophecies). They are, in fact, past and present tense (what had happened and was happening in the Roman Empire at the time), with only a slight future tense reference to the 7th king (Roman Caesar) who hadn’t yet begun his reign when the revelations were given to John.

If you’re confused or at least puzzled, that’s not all bad! Because you’re more likely to continue reading both this week’s article (Part I) and next week’s (Part II).

There’s nothing like solving a Whodunit mystery!

Let’s set the stage with an excerpt from Out of the Abyss (in italics):

The main reason that Bible scholars have discounted the seven heads as seven kings stems from the difficulty of sequentially selecting these emperors in the context of when John wrote Revelation. Why? The prevailing view ascribes authorship to the apostle John during the reign of Domitian (81 to 96 AD).

I will give you both sides to this issue, including compelling evidence to make the following assertion: No matter who wrote Revelation or when it was written, as applied to the five fallen kings, the 6th now reigning, and the 7th to follow with a short reign, Revelation 17 allows both views to fit! (Page 140).

(This Accurately Depicts the Four World Kingdoms of Daniel 2 & 7. But There Were Only Four, Not Seven. Which Is Another Reason That the Seven Kings of Revelation Are Kings, Not Kingdoms)

In Out of the Abyss I present the reasons that most Bible scholars and teachers insist that John the Apostle wrote Revelation; however, time/space in today’s article doesn’t permit elaboration on those explanations.

Nonetheless, I will quote another excerpt from Out of the Abyss:

Unfortunately, however, we cannot stake our theological lives on an unequivocal decree that John the Apostle authored the book of Revelation. I wish I could, as I have always been taught that, and always accepted it without reservation. By far, John (the Apostle) is my favorite choice (page 141).

Instead, we’ll look at reasons why the Apostle John may not have been the author; it very well could have been another Christian believer named John to whom Messiah Jesus and angels disclosed the awesome revelations as recorded in the Book of Revelation.

Reasons Why a Handful of Bible Scholars Believe That John the Apostle Did Not Write Revelation

John Identified Himself in Revelation

John the Apostle is correctly credited with authorship of the Gospel of John and the Epistles I, II, & III John. Although the Apostle John does not identify himself by (the author’s) name, I am in full agreement with all of the evidence to convincingly conclude that he did author these four books of the New Testament. Yet one of the reasons to question the Apostle John’s authorship of Revelation is the very fact that he doesn’t name himself in the above listed books.

Whereas, in the book of Revelation, the writer identifies himself no less than four times! Beginning with, “This letter is from John to the seven churches in the province of Asia…” (Revelation 1:4).

When you think about it, the author of Revelation naming himself not just once, but four times, is a substantial departure from the Apostle John not identifying himself in his Gospel and Epistles. It is also baffling because the Apostle John would have even less reason to identify himself as the author of Revelation. Why? If he did write Revelation during the reign of Domitian, he was already well-known in Christian circles. Likewise, if the Apostle John wrote Revelation, it would be more logical and consistent to refer to himself as a disciple or as an elder as he did in the Gospel of John and II & III John, respectively.

Differences in Writing Style & Semantics

Some scholars cite the substantial differences between the near flawless Greek of John’s Gospel with the more unpolished style and unrefined syntax of the book of Revelation. Their conclusion: these books were not authored by the same man. *Note: this observation must be given serious consideration. Nearly all authors, if not all, maintain the same basic style of writing, even if their works are both fiction and non-fiction. And especially if they are of one genre (non-fiction as is the case with all books of the Bible). Although the Holy Spirit inspired all authors of Scripture, he nevertheless utilized the individual literary talents, traits, and tendencies of each writer.

Persecution of Christians in the First Century

Another primary reason in contending that the Apostle John wrote Revelation (around 95 AD) is the presumption that Christians were more heavily persecuted during the reign of Emperor Diocletian than under any other Caesar. Hence, John the Apostle’s exile to the isle of Patmos. The view that Revelation was written by the apostle John during the 90s AD is still prevalent and predominate despite the indisputable historical evidence that Christians suffered and died much more extensively under Nero (including the execution of the Apostles Paul and Peter during Nero’s reign).

(Strong Church Tradition Indicates the Apostle Peter Was Crucified Upside Down At His Request … As He Didn’t Consider Himself Worthy of Dying Like Messiah Jesus)

Reasons/Evidence from My Own Study of Revelation

My fairly extensive research and preparation for writing Out of the Abyss involved a thorough study of first century history and all Biblical passages on the Antichrist, not the least of which was the book of Revelation. Because authorship of Revelation is one of the main reasons Bible scholars cannot reconcile the number of kings (seven) with the historical number of 1st century Roman Emperors to the time they believe Revelation was written (95 AD), I conducted my own scrutiny of Revelation’s authorship mostly from the text itself.

First, as indicated earlier, to emphasize that we really don’t know with concrete certainty who wrote Revelation. Which doesn’t detract in the least from the fact that this book (like the unknown composition of Hebrews or Esther or many of the Psalms) was/is just as powerful and true as any other book of the Bible, whose author is known.

Let’s look at seven more reasons why another John may have written Revelation, as developed during my examination of Revelation’s authorship.

(1) The Name of John

From the first century down to our 21st century, John has been a common name. As recently as 1923, it was the most common name given to newborn boys. Although slowly declining in popularity (what with the growing number of very unusual names all over the world), in 2015 the name John still ranked 26th in popularity. Hence, the distinct possibility that John of Patmos was other than the Apostle John. Also it’s entirely feasible that both had been exiled to Patmos, perhaps at different times.

(2) The Term Antichrist

I’ve asked the following question is a previous Eye of Prophecy article or two:

Where in the New Testament do we find the appellation of Antichrist? I would venture to say that nearly all unbelievers (those who know some of the names of the books of the Bible) but even a great many believers would answer: The term Antichrist is found in the book of Revelation.

Is that your answer … Revelation?

No, not in Revelation. Antichrist is found in only one book, I John, written by John the Apostle.

Yet, most of the Biblical passages about Antichrist are found in Revelation, however, by employing the terms beast and king. The other books of the Bible that refer to this evil man use the designations of little horn, ruler (prince), king in Daniel; man of lawlessness (II Thessalonians 2); worthless (foolish) shepherd (Zachariah 11).

(Please see Eye of Prophecy trilogy, A Beast by Any Other Name … Is Still a Beast, posted 3-14, 3-21, & 3-28-15).

If John the Apostle wrote Revelation to include two entire chapters (13 & 17) and parts of other chapters on the Antichrist, then why wouldn’t he have used the same term Antichrist that (only) John himself used in his first epistle? That is a question that cannot be brushed aside trivially or glossed over dismissively. You would expect the Apostle John (if he authored Revelation) to utilize the label of Antichrist at least once. But he doesn’t. Whereas, if Revelation was written by another John (who, for example, had not yet read I John or more likely because I John had not yet been written), he would and did refer to the man—called Antichrist by the Apostle—as a beast and a king, which are the descriptions of this tyrant in Revelation.

(3) John’s Exile to Patmos

“I, John, am your brother and your partner in suffering and in God’s Kingdom and in the patient endurance to which Jesus calls us. I was exiled to Patmos for preaching the word of God and for my testimony about Jesus” (Revelation 1:9).

(Depiction of John and an Angel on Patmos)

If not all, then at least the greater majority of 1st century believers—especially while the Apostle John was still alive—would have known beyond any doubt that this beloved apostle was their brother (in Christ) and why he would be suffering (for preaching the Gospel). If the Apostle John wrote Revelation, I suppose it’s possible that he would have cited these reasons perhaps for emphasis; although it was the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter who talked much more about suffering for the sake of Messiah Jesus. However, the Apostle John says virtually nothing about suffering for Christ in his epistles and very little in his Gospel. Whereas, another (less well-known or not known at all) John of Revelation would want and need to emphasize to the churches that he was a fellow believer in Messiah. And that’s why he had been exiled to Patmos and why he was being persecuted … because he, too, was a brother and partner in suffering.

(4) John’s Intriguing Description of Messiah Jesus

“When I turned to see who was speaking to me, I saw seven gold lampstands. And standing in the middle of the lampstands was someone like the Son of Man…” (Revelation 1:12-13).

Two things caught my attention in this passage: (A) it’s clear that John did not recognize Jesus or didn’t know for certain if the man was the Lord. It’s also evident that John was amazed at the appearance of the man standing before him. Among other descriptions of what he saw: “…And his face was like the sun in all its brilliance” (Revelation 1:16). If John the Apostle wrote Revelation, his amazement at the man’s appearance wouldn’t preclude him from recognizing the man as his risen Savior, Messiah Jesus.

(B) Nor would John the Apostle (if he wrote Revelation) have described the person he saw as, “…someone like the Son of Man?” He simply would have said, The Son of Man. I draw that conclusion because the Apostle John knew Jesus as the Son of Man, a term that Jesus used himself to emphasize that he was the Messiah. Whereas, the Apostle John’s definitive emphasis is that Jesus is the Son of God.

The prophet Daniel also saw Messiah Jesus, in one of Jesus’s pre-Incarnate appearances.

Here’s what Daniel wrote: “As my vision continued that night, I saw someone like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven…” (Daniel 7:13).

Daniel’s description of Messiah is strikingly similar to that of John’s account. Both were amazed, but neither Daniel (before Jesus first came to earth) nor John of Patmos (after Jesus returned to heaven in his glorified body) knew for sure that they were looking at Messiah. So they both said someone “like the (a) Son of Man.”

Here is my conclusion as stated in the following excerpt from Out of the Abyss:

The disciple John would certainly have recognized Yeshua, even in his risen and glorified body and despite the glorious description of this man who stood before John. Not only had the apostle John been a constant companion to Jesus for well over three years; he was one of three disciples afforded the wonderful privilege of watching the awesome pre-crucifixion, pre-ascension transfiguration of Jesus (Page 144).

In the first chapter of his Gospel, John writes: “So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son” (John 1:14).

The Apostle Peter also wrote about this exceptional experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.

“…We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes when he received honor and glory from God the Father…” (II Peter 1:16-17).

Who are the “we” referred to by Peter? You know the answer: Peter, James, and John!

Had not John the Apostle seen Jesus in his glorified essence (even before the Resurrection), it would make more sense for him to not know for sure if Messiah Jesus was standing in front of him on Patmos. On the other hand, it makes a great deal of sense that another John was looking at Christ Jesus for the very first time in his life. The best description he could muster was based on what Daniel had said (I’m confident that John of Revelation was a Messianic Jew who knew his Old Testament quite well) when Daniel saw “someone like the Son of Man.”

(5) Messiah Jesus … The First and the Last

Immediately after the author of Revelation, John, saw the dazzling appearance of “someone like the Son of Man” the man (Jesus) spoke to him:

“…Don’t be afraid! I am the First and the Last. I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave” (Revelation 1:17-18).

As already alluded, the Apostle John had been an eyewitness to Messiah’s life, transfiguration, death, burial, resurrection, and return to heaven. If the Apostle had learned nothing else, he knew that Jesus was the Son of God, born as the Son of Man—from everlasting to everlasting. In fact, John begins his wonderful Gospel with this magnificent statement in which, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he refers to Jesus as the (living) Word:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, NASB).

Jesus would know that John the Apostle needed no reminder or assurance that he (Christ) had died, was now alive, and would live forever.

To the contrary, it would be completely plausible for Jesus to triumphantly declare, reinforce, reestablish, and otherwise bolster this tremendous truth to a man who had trusted Christ as Savior, but had never seen Christ before. It’s much like the touching scene (a small pun intended), in which Jesus invites the apostle Thomas to touch the nail imprints in his hands and feet, and the spear print in his side. Jesus effectively told Thomas: You followed me, you believed in me, but to eliminate all doubt, touch the wounds. How did Thomas respond? By proclaiming, “My Lord and my God!” And where is this passage in the Bible found! It is recorded in the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John! The apostle John witnessed this poignant scene, one that I’m sure he would never forget.

It’s entirely sensible that we have another John, a believer, like many believers who have never seen Jesus, needed these words from Messiah to reinforce the undeniable, everlasting truth that Jesus is alive. He has risen! He has risen, indeed! (Out of the Abyss, page 146).

Let’s look at another incident, which actually occurred twice during the astonishing revelations given to John. If just these incidents were the only passages, they alone would provide persuasive evidence to suggest that another John (not the Apostle) was selected by Jesus to write the book of Revelation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But when combined with the reasons already given … well, you decide.

(6) John Fell Down and Worshipped the Angel

There are three sources of the revelations given to John: (A) Jesus, himself; (B) viewing what is taking place as a bystander; (C) from angels.

Most of the revelations are from angels, including the dramatic disclosure in Revelation 17 of the woman (city of Rome, which later morphed into the Holy Roman Empire … now headquartered in the Vatican) and the geopolitical and biographical origin of the beast (Antichrist).

The first incident in which John falls to the ground in awe (of the angel) was toward the end of his visions after all twenty-one seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments are finished. Upon seeing some spectacular sights of the heavenly host and hearing magnificent words of praise to God and the Lamb, John wrote:

“Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said, ‘No, don’t worship me. I am a servant of God, just like you and your brothers and sisters who testify about their faith in Jesus. Worship only God. For the essence of prophecy is to give a clear witness for Jesus’” (Revelation 19:10).

Just as the Apostle John would have recognized Jesus in the opening scene on Patmos and just as the Apostle (he if was the John of Revelation) would not need to be told—either for the first time or even as a reminder—that Jesus had died and rose again, I’m firmly convinced that the Apostle John would not have fallen at the feet of the angel, let alone worshipped the angel. In fact, as amazing as the scene John had just witnessed in heaven and as splendid as God’s angels are in appearance and power (given to them by their Creator), he more than all of the apostles would have known better than to worship an angel. He would have clearly comprehended that you don’t worship the angelic messenger; you worship the King who sent the emissary.

Alas, so many of us are slow to learn! A short time later we see John of Revelation again bowing before the angel, this time at the very end of the revelations given to him as recorded in the last chapter of the book of Revelation. Then, for the fourth and final time, the author identifies himself as John. Read with me his words:

“I, John, am the one who heard and saw all these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me. But he said, ‘No, don’t worship me. I am a servant of God, just like you and your brothers the prophets, as well as all who obey what is written in this book. Worship only God!’” (Revelation 22:8-9).

Permit me to quote again from Out of the Abyss (in italics):

Even if the apostle John had been caught up in the splendor of the moment the first time he fell at the angel’s feet, would he have made the same mistake twice? Anything’s possible, but my guess is that the consensus answer would be a resounding, “No way” (page 147).

This conclusion is even stronger considering that the Apostle John would have been much older and more mature during the time Revelation was written than he had been as a young man (disciple) when Jesus was on earth. He wouldn’t have fallen at the angel’s feet even once, let alone twice; as he might have done as an impetuous young man who (along with his brother, the Apostle James) persuaded his mother to ask Jesus permission for them to sit on either side of Jesus in the Kingdom of God!

Before we look at one last reason in this study of the authorship of Revelation, I need to reemphasize that next week’s article will provide captivating confirmation to show that no matter whether the Apostle John or another John wrote Revelation and when it was written, the succession of seven Roman emperors still fits. This fit will, in turn, prove that the Antichrist (who had already lived and died before John wrote Revelation) was one of the seven kings of Revelation 17. Consequently, there was no need for Bible scholars to substitute seven kings with seven kingdoms because they couldn’t reconcile the number of Roman emperors. Or to maintain this hypothesis because of their contention that Revelation was written by John the Apostle around 95 AD.

(7) Was John of Revelation an (the) Apostle or a Prophet?

Included in the angel’s admonition (I believe it was a gentle reprimand!) to John’s second mistake of worshiping the angel was, “I am a servant of God, just like you and your brothers the prophets.”

By the sheer number of prophetic revelations given to John (of Revelation), it’s obvious that he was a Prophet. Though the majority of prophets in Scripture lived in Old Testament times, there were some believers in the first century who had been called by God to be prophets. Even though both Paul and Peter had been given a couple of prophetic revelations, their commission and function was that of an apostle. Likewise with the Apostle John and all the apostles.

For example, Paul goes to great length to explain that each believer is bestowed a specific gift to serve the Lord (Romans 12). Also, God had given the Church specific administrative positions to serve the body of Christ. Those are listed in I Corinthians 12:28 beginning with:

“…First are apostles, second are prophets, third are teachers…” And so forth … there are eight specific roles listed, but Paul said these eight are only, “some of the parts God has appointed for the church.”

Then Paul asks a rhetorical question: “Are we all apostles? Are we all prophets? Are we all teachers? … Of course not!” (Verses 29-30).

As such, none of the apostles were prophets, in the sense of being called and designated by the Lord to do the work of a prophet as demonstrated by the Biblical concept, definition, and performance of what a prophet does.

With Scriptural understanding of these specific roles, I believe we can safely and surely state the following: If John of Revelation was the Apostle John, then the angel would not have referred to him as “you and your brothers the prophets.” Instead the angel would have said something to the effect, “I am a servant of God, just like you and the other apostles.”

Things to Ponder

In closing, I’ll cite an excerpt from Out of the Abyss that also summarized that particular chapter concerning Revelation’s authorship.

I trust that you have accepted this textual exegesis for what it is: a possible alternative to the apostle John as the author of Revelation. One that is not intended to absolutely declare that another John was the author; or to patently prove that John the Apostle did not write Revelation (page 148).

To also express my love for my brothers and sisters in Christ and gratitude to the students of prophecy who have correctly put together much of the prophetic puzzle … but not all of it. That was part of my purpose in writing Out of the Abyss as well as many of the Eye of Prophecy articles to date.

That purpose is: clarification and correlation. But also correction … to accurately refit some pieces of the prophetic puzzle. In this case to demonstrate that the Antichrist was revealed in the 1st century as the man of lawlessness, and will reappear (return) as the beast of the (21st century) Tribulation. That he is one of the seven kings, specifically one of the five who had died before John wrote Revelation, and that ALL Biblical passages dealing with the Antichrist fit together in amazing fashion. To such an extent, when aligned with first century secular and church history, they show convincingly that Nero matches each and every passage.

Some of the passages in Daniel (the little horn, ruler, king), in II Thessalonians 2 (man of lawlessness), and in Revelation 13 & 17 (the beast who had already lived and died) were fulfilled in the 1st century when Nero unlawfully ascended (usurped) the Roman throne as Caesar. Then later the Roman Legions, personally dispatched by Nero, destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple (Daniel 9:27).

The remaining prophecies in these same books of the Bible will be completely fulfilled when Nero reappears (returns) as the beast/king of Revelation, called by the Apostle John as the Antichrist in I John.

“Why are you so amazed? the angel asked. I will tell you the mystery of this woman and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns on which she sits. The beast you saw was once alive but isn’t now. And yet he will soon (suddenly at any time) come up out of the bottomless pit and go to eternal destruction. And the people who belong to this world … will be amazed at the reappearance of this beast who had died” (Revelation 17:7-8, parenthesis mine).

The ultimate goal of Out of the Abyss and some Eye of Prophecy articles is to prepare people now and especially after the Rapture, so they will not be so “amazed” at the reappearance of the beast … Antichrist Nero.

Instead, they will be amazed at the accuracy of Scripture and the everlasting truth that Jesus is the Messiah. To then embrace him as Lord and Savior!

“But everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved…” (Joel 2:32).

The Seal of Approval

15 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in The Antichrist

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Seal of Approval … Identity of Antichrist

It’s time to once again declassify and decode the identity of Antichrist. To once again lift the veil of secrecy and mystery that modern-day students of prophecy have imposed on this infamous figure; called a ruler and king by the prophet Daniel, the man of lawlessness by the apostle Paul, Antichrist by the apostle John, and a beast by John, the author of Revelation.

Although volumes have been written about this notorious tyrant, the prevailing premise is that the identity of the man who would dare be anti-Christ cannot be known until after the Rapture, at the outset of the seven-year Great Tribulation. As I have quoted in past Eye of Prophecy articles, some scholars have dismissed and even ridiculed the notion that the Antichrist’s identity was meant to be known before the Rapture with the statement: “If anyone thinks they know the identity of Antichrist, then they have missed the Rapture!”

But we can know … we should know! Why can I make such a bold assertion? It’s really quite simple: Because Scripture not only encourages such a discovery, it actually challenges us to figure out who the prophets and apostles are referring to. That he was not just a future tense despot to the prophet Daniel, but a present tense ruler during the Apostle Paul’s lifetime and a past tense Monarch shortly before the book of Revelation was penned.

This week’s article will revisit in summary fashion my book, Out of the Abyss … can the number of the beast be solved, 666? As well as past Eye of Prophecy articles entitled: Modern Day Antichrist; Antichrist … Is He Alive Today; Reappearance of the Beast; The Number of the Beast; The Beast and His Name … published consecutively between 9-7-13 and 10-5-13. If you’re really interested, if you truly want to dig into the Biblical and secular references to this man of sin, then I would encourage you to get a copy of the book and read the Eye of Prophecy articles. Out of the Abyss is available on-line through Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Let’s begin with a remarkable well-known verse sometimes quoted in my past writings on the beast of Revelation, but one that bears repeating: “Wisdom is needed here. Let the one with understanding solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. His number is 666” (Revelation 13:18). In ancient Greek manuscripts the number 666 is actually written out … six hundred, sixty-six.

What does this verse say and mean to you? Are there any restrictions identified or conditions imposed on the reader, whether a Christian reading it in the first century or in this current generation, that directly state or remotely imply that the calculation (through wisdom and understanding) of the meaning of the number applies only to those alive after the Rapture? The verse unambiguously challenges the reader of that time to, “solve the meaning of the number of the beast.” And when that is unscrambled, the identity of the beast will be revealed; because, “It’s the number of a man.”

As further evidence and incentive that the identity of Antichrist was meant to be known (solved) by first century believers and all believers thereafter, an extraordinary command was given by one of the angels at the very end of the phenomenal series of visions witnessed by John, as recorded in the very last chapter of Revelation. Says John, “Then he instructed me, ‘Do not seal up the prophetic words in this book, for the time is near’” (Revelation 22:10).

Hold that thought, as we will return to this captivating but puzzling command. First we need to examine identical instructions found in the Old Testament, but in reverse of the one give to John in Revelation.

The Angel to Daniel: “Seal up the book…..”

Just one other place in the Bible do we find similar language of sealing prophecies … those given to Daniel. Only the directive is in reverse of what the angel told John. “But you, Daniel, keep this prophecy a secret; seal up the book until the time of the end….” (Daniel 12:4).

Since end-times prophecy made its resurgence primarily in the 1960’s, Bible scholars have frequently and accurately explained that the instruction to Daniel (seal up the book) was necessary because fulfillment of the vast majority of Daniel’s visions wouldn’t take place until the, time of the end. Several, but not all, students of prophecy correctly place the beginning of the time of the end as the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Messiah Jesus, i.e. the New Covenant that birthed the Church. Which will culminate in the Rapture, then the beginning of the Day of the Lord—Tribulation, Second Coming of Christ at the end of the Tribulation, followed by the Millennium.

The first part of Daniel’s visions (the four beasts from the sea … a similar vision to the statue dream given to Nebuchadnezzar), actually began to unfold during his lifetime—referring to the Medes/Persian (2nd beast) conquest of Babylon (1st beast). Yet, it would be hundreds of years before the third and fourth beasts emerged as world powers … Alexander’s Greece and the Roman Empire. After Alexander’s empire was split into four parts, then before and during the rise of Rome, some (partially or fully) of Daniel’s prophecies came to pass … those found in chapters 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11. But the most important, the most prominent, and the most spectacular prophecy came to pass when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and was hailed as the Messiah. (Daniel 9:24-25). Daniel’s prophecy of this event came to pass on the very day predicted by the Word of God.

Then shortly after Messiah’s crucifixion and resurrection, the ruler of Daniel 7 & 9, the one whose armies would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple (Daniel 9:26-27), arrived on the scene of history. As carefully detailed in Out of the Abyss, this ruler was the Man of Lawlessness depicted by Paul, and would be the beast of Revelation who would reappear from the Abyss during the Great Tribulation.

For more dramatic effect in my book Out of the Abyss, and as progressively developed in the Eye of Prophecy articles on Antichrist, I intentionally delayed naming the Antichrist to build both a historical case and contemporary suspense as to his identity. But now, as a reinforcement to those who have read the book or articles and to any reader of this article who has not, I will plainly state his identity.

The Ruler of Daniel, the Man of Lawlessness, and the Beast of Revelation most often referred to as the Antichrist is the Roman Emperor, NERO.

Intrigued? Puzzled? Surprised? Amazed? Dumbfounded? So was I when I first realized that the Antichrist had already lived and died before John saw the spectacular visions of Revelation. That, however, the beast-king would reappear from the Abyss at the outset of the Tribulation.

Why Seal Daniel’s Visions

The reason that Daniel was told to “seal” his book was because nearly all of the prophecies weren’t germane to his generation, nor to many generations after Daniel. Obviously, the sealing of Daniel’s book wasn’t meant to be a literal fastening commonly used in those days, especially by kings and officials who wanted their documents to be tightly guarded for both privacy and safety until they were to be opened (unsealed) and read. For one thing, much of Daniel’s book was a journalistic record of past and present events that occurred during Daniel’s decade’s long sojourn in Babylon.

Rather, the sealing of Daniel’s visions was a metaphorically practical way of saying that it would do Daniel and those keenly interested in his prophecies no good to try to figure them out until the majority of the prophecies had been fulfilled. And did you know: Nearly all of Daniel’s prophecies were fulfilled by the end of the first century. In fact, the only ones not yet fulfilled were those pertaining to the ruler (little horn) and the ten horns/kings of the tribulation period, which are presented in remarkably similar fashion in Revelation 17. Once the majority of the prophecies came to pass, then the remaining (Tribulation) predictions would be much easier to grasp, particularly when expanded upon later by Paul and by John of Revelation.

Thus, after the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and certainly following the book of Revelation, Daniel’s prophecies were effectively unsealed.

Yes, the sealing of Daniel’s book has been an oft-quoted and elucidated passage by modern Bible scholars. But not so the similar, yet opposite instructions to John in Revelation. The command to, “not seal up the prophetic words in this book…” has seldom been mentioned or explained by Bible teachers (including me at one time). Yet, it has as much, if not more, significance than the directive for Daniel to seal his book.

The Angel to John: “Do not seal up the prophetic words in this book.”

Paraphrasing, Daniel was told to place his writings in storage. John was instructed to do just the opposite. Why would the angel even mention such a thing, i.e. advising John not to seal up the prophetic words of this book (Revelation)? There had to be a reason for such a command. First century believers, especially Jewish believers who were well-versed in the writings of the Old Testament prophets, would have immediately made the connection of the angel’s admonition to John as a striking contrast to the instructions given to Daniel.

To identify the association between Daniel’s sealing and John’s no-sealing is to fully grasp the meaning of and reason for the angel’s warning to John. And what is that meaning?

The astounding significance of and for the need not to seal (withhold, keep to himself, temporarily set aside, or postpone for a later time) ANY PART of the book of Revelation is that all of the revelations given to John were immediately appropriate to the believers of that day. In fact, we can with a great deal of assurance and authority carry this a step further and state: The revelations and understanding of the visions were applicable first and foremost to the Christians of the first century. Because if Jesus could/would imminently come for his bride (the Church) at any time, then all of the end-time Biblical prophecies would begin to unfold immediately. Therefore, ALL of the revelations given to John were applicable to all Christians of that time and should be openly read, taught, and disseminated throughout the Roman Empire.

With, however, the need to codify references to the Antichrist to protect Christians from further persecution and death; hence, the encoding of the beast’s identity through the Hebrew method of counting and numbering with their alphabet (Gematria) in Revelation 13. Also to partially obscure the identity of the beast (Nero) in Revelation 17, by what effectively was a puzzle or riddle of the seven kings … five fallen, one reigning, one soon to reign, but briefly, then an eighth king (the beast himself) who was one of the seven.

That is why the angel told John not to seal up the prophecies of Revelation; because they were to be understood by and applied to those believers alive at that time. Unlike the prophecies of Daniel which were some 90% for the mostly distant future—the centuries leading to and including the first advent of Messiah Jesus—the disclosures to John of Patmos were undeniably relevant to his readers because Jesus could rapture his Church at any moment.

That this beast had already lived and died before John was given the visions of the beast in Revelation, but that this same beast king would reappear from the Abyss. That coupled with the wording of Daniel 9:26-27, resulted in a phenomenal conclusion that the Antichrist beast would also return to the earth (in duplication of Messiah’s 2nd coming), but not until the Tribulation began very shortly after the Rapture.

Because the Rapture and subsequent return of Christ could (and in the eyes of first century believers) probably would take place in their lifetime, the Antichrist had to already have been a first century man to instigate and commence his Tribulation reign of terror that would begin very soon after the Rapture.

(Please read the above paragraph again). We need to wrap our minds around this fact and let it sink in. Rephrased: Christ could have chosen to Rapture the believers at any moment. If he had done so, then the remainder of Daniel’s and Jesus’s and Paul’s and John’s prophecies including, but not limited to the Antichrist, would have begun to unfold soon thereafter … within days or weeks. Thus, the Antichrist MUST HAVE ALREADY BEEN ON THE SCENE.

Which is exactly what the angel told John in Revelation 17.

A Stunning Disclosure … The Antichrist Will Not Be a Modern-Day Man

Said the angel to John: “Why are you so amazed?… I will tell you the mystery of this woman and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns on which she sits. The beast you saw was once alive but isn’t now. And yet he will soon come up out of the bottomless pit and go to eternal destruction. And the people who belong to this world … will be amazed at the reappearance of the beast who had died” (Revelation 17:8, italics for emphasis). The Greek word for soon means momentarily, but more so it means abruptly or suddenly.

In November, 2008 (almost to the day of today’s article), this passage absolutely stunned me; even though I had read the verse along with the rest of Revelation many times. All of John’s visions, including this one, took place in the present (time). After seeing the beast for this second time, the angel revealed the “mystery” of the beast to John. It was another extraordinary disclosure of the beast’s identity to go along with his number (six hundred, sixty-six) presented earlier in Revelation Chapter 13.

The incredible fact was/is: The Antichrist-beast had lived before John saw this vision of him. But at the time of the vision on a specific Sunday (Revelation 1) on a specific day in John’s life, the beast was no longer alive. But he would return from the Abyss (bottomless pit) and this return (reappearance) would utterly amaze the world’s inhabitants. This and other passages regarding the Antichrist was thoroughly explained in Out of the Abyss, along with historical first-century church and secular records.

All of the pieces of the prophetic puzzle fit perfectly, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the Antichrist was none other than the Roman Emperor Nero!

Returning to the (un)sealing of the Book of Revelation, the breathtaking relevance of this command to John was that ALL of the mysteries of Revelation could be understood by believers of that time, including the identity of the Antichrist. It was not necessary to wait until future generations to understand these mysteries including the number of the beast and his biographical history up to that time.

The identity of the beast could, would, and should be known by the (any) generation alive when the Rapture occurred followed by the immediate appearance (reappearance) of the beast. Consequently, would you (also) agree that the Christians of the first century could have been that very generation? If so, then they and all generations to follow had the Biblical tools to solve the clues and ascertain the identity of Antichrist BEFORE the Rapture, not afterward.

Once again: Nowhere in Revelation does John state or even imply that the identity of the beast could only be decoded or known until after the beast actually appeared on the scene. Moreover, Chapter 21 in Out of the Abyss meticulously explains II Thessalonians Chapter 2; that the “revealing” of the Man of Lawlessness took place when Nero unlawfully usurped the title of Roman Emperor and began a rebellion against God and Christianity during his lifetime. Additionally, the often overlooked verse eight of this chapter was clarified. That Jesus actually kills the Man of Lawlessness (Antichrist, beast) and then destroys him. That killing and destroying are not the same thing. That the death (killing) of Nero took place in 68 AD, but his final destruction in the Lake of Fire will not take place until the end of the Tribulation, after he returns from the Abyss. I also spend a great deal of space in the book on the Abyss, itself.

All of which leads to the crystal clear conclusion: The Antichrist cannot be a modern-day man born and raised in today’s world nor any generation to follow. The words of Revelation 17 are unmistakable: the beast had already lived and died BEFORE John saw it/him in his vision. “The beast you saw was once alive but isn’t now.”

Daniels’ prophecies could not be comprehended by his generation, which is why the angel instructed him to seal them … meaning set them aside until the actual events took place. Not so with John’s visions as recorded in Revelation. They were to be (with wisdom and understanding) grasped right then and there. The Lord through John wanted the believers of the seven churches and all Christians of that day to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Nero was the beast of Revelation; the revealed Man of Lawlessness presented by Paul; the ruler whose armies destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple of Daniel in Chapter 9; the little horn of Daniel Chapter 7 who would “suddenly appear” on the scene and take over the ten horns (kings), the same ten kings of Revelation 17. All this, and more is carefully documented through Scripture and history in Out of the Abyss and to a lesser extent in the prior Eye of Prophecy articles.

Which is why Jesus told John at the spectacular beginning of Revelation when John saw the risen Christ before he saw any visions at all: “Write down what you have seen—both the things that are now happening and the things that will happen” (Revelation 1:19). Revelation contained more than just things that would come; which, as already alluded, Christians in that day believed would come shortly. It included visions pertaining to things already taking place … which by default would include recent past events that dovetailed with current events of that time.

Summary

Because it has been 3 ½ years since Out of the Abyss was published and over a year since the Eye of Prophecy articles on Antichrist, I felt compelled to reintroduce and re-emphasize the remarkable disclosures that help refit the pieces of the prophetic puzzle regarding the identity of the Antichrist. Starting with the amazing FACT (according to Revelation 17) that the Antichrist beast had already been born and died before John received the revelations of this evil man. That he would reappear from the Abyss; that by default logic he couldn’t ascend from the Abyss until he had first been placed there (by Christ).

But mostly in this article to expand on these short, simple, but amazingly profound verses in the first and last chapters of Revelation.

First Chapter: Jesus told John, “… to write down what you have seen, both the things that are now happening and the things that will happen.” Why wouldn’t the Lord have just said, write down what he had seen, and leave it at that? There was a reason Jesus added the following words. Reason: Because he wanted John and all first century believers and Christians thereafter to understand explicitly that Revelation was not confined just to future events … events that could begin any hour or day after John’s visions were over. Other than the first three chapters of Revelation including the letters to the seven churches, most Christians and even Bible scholars think in terms of the remainder of Revelation applying exclusively to future events. NOT SO.

There are several past tense occurrences in Revelation, such as the five kings who had fallen, and most amazing—the beast who had already lived and died, who—as I demonstrate in past writings—was one of those five kings who had died … Nero.

Last Chapter: That’s why the angel instructed John not to withhold or postpone or delay the announcement and distribution of the book of Revelation (all part of “sealing” a book). Because, in fact, ALL of Revelation was applicable immediately to all believers and nothing in the book was hidden from meaning and none of the mysteries were left unrevealed. This all was relevant to and part of the equally valid truth that Jesus could return any day.

The fact in the first century was: THE BEAST HAD ALREADY BEEN REVEALED. Now it was just a matter of when the Rapture would take place, which would initiate and shift into high gear all of the ensuing prophecies of the beast’s reappearance and all of the Tribulation events depicted in Revelation.

Conversely, with the prophet Daniel and his visions, he was repeatedly told that the visions were for a future time … nothing whatsoever imminent about these prophecies. Such as, “…you must understand that the events you have seen in your vision relate to the time of the end” (Daniel 8:17). But with the New Testament Saints everything was imminent, beginning with the Rapture and continuing (immediately) with the return of the beast who had died and all prophesied events thereafter.

Do you see the difference between Daniel’s time and John’s time? Does this help explain the divine rationale between instructing Daniel to seal his prophecies, but for John to unseal what had been revealed to him (don’t seal the words)? And why those specific instructions were even given to Daniel and John.

Things to Ponder

The specific purpose of this article is to know beyond any doubt that we are meant to know the identity of the beast of Revelation, just as the first century (and a few centuries after that) Christians knew. It is recorded both in secular and church history that many early Christians believed that Nero would, in fact, return as the Antichrist beast of Revelation. This amazing belief was prevalent for the better part of four hundred years after the Lord’s ascension to heaven.

All I’m doing is refitting the prophetic puzzle that had correctly been assembled in the years of the early Church. I’m not reinventing the wheel. Rather I’m using the same wheel of prophecy used by the early believers in their journey through the annals of Biblical events pertaining to the last days. And these last days began with the birth of Jesus. We are currently in the last of the last days.

“Indeed, the Sovereign Lord never does anything until he reveals his plans to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

Revelation’s prophet is John of Patmos. The early Christians understood John’s prophecies were meant for them. They weren’t even thinking about future generations no more than we would if we fully expected something to happen in our lifetime. They understood that Nero was the beast, but not until he had died; because Revelation wasn’t written until after Nero’s death, nor was the apostle John’s term of Antichrist used. Nor could they match up the ruler (Antichrist) of Daniel until Nero died and his armies vanquished Jerusalem and the Temple.

But they could (and did) match Nero with the Man of Lawlessness that Paul introduced to them. Once Nero died and Revelation was written, they knew for sure who Nero was. Because Paul said that Jesus would kill the man of lawlessness (II Thessalonians 2:8). Then John told them that the beast would return from the abyss. Later, they understood that Daniel’s prophecy applied to Nero, because in 70 AD the very generals personally selected/appointed by Nero to crush Israel destroyed the Temple … a campaign begun by Vespasian and completed by his son, Titus. (See Daniel 9:26-27).

The early Christians knew, and so can we.