|
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, Let there be light; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:1-5 This first passage of the Bible establishes God as the creator of the universe. It also establishes the fact that he did it in terms of days, not billions of years. The passage clearly ends with terminology defining a day in terms of the traditional cycle of morning and evening, not some abstract length of time that can be stretched to accommodate billions of years of creation. And yet so many Christians want to force such an accommodation into the text (or in more extreme cases, abandon the text altogether) to fall in line with the secular world view of evolution. One such attempt is known of as the “Gap Theory” whereby they insert billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. They claim the first verse represents an original creation that was corrupted by Satan and the Fallen Angels and therefore God destroyed it and started over again in verse 2. They say that this destruction gave us all the fossil records and the rock layering and took place over a sufficient amount of time to fall in line with the secular world view of evolution. The main problem with this view is that it places an entirely unsupported first creation/first Fall narrative into Christian doctrine. To be blunt – it is making stuff up. The Bible does speak of the fall of Lucifer and a third of the angels, but there is nothing to indicate that this Fall took place as part of some first creation earth that was then destroyed and recreated. We must be careful about taking such liberties with the scriptures, because there could be no end to the assumptions or distortions that could be carried out to conform to secular notions, leaving us with a doctrine that is built on the spirit of the age instead of the unchanging word of God. An alternative to the Gap Theory is a belief that the days of creation do not represent literal days, but instead entire ages of earth’s history. This allows them to draw out creation to fit a timeline that matches up with that of the secular view of the age of the earth. But in doing so they are denying the literal reading of the Bible. Each description of the day refers to it in terms of an evening and a morning. You really have to strain against the words clearly spelled out in the text to accommodate any kind of indefinite and lengthy time period. Once again, I direct you to the warning about bending scriptures to fit a worldview. Does a 6-day creation sound unbelievable? It most certainly does. But no more than raising someone from the dead. You have to ask yourself – do you believe in the power of God or don’t you? If you cannot bring yourself to believe in the literal 6-day creation that he clearly describes, how can you believe in his plan for salvation? If you are going to start to twist the Bible and deny it right from the very start, you might as well just put it down and find something else to believe in. It is ok to have doubts and questions. But you must have faith as well. We Christians have been put in a false trap of having to defend creation as merely faith while evolutionists claim absolute truth. The fact is, they are operating from a position of faith too. They are engaging in theoretical science, not observational science. Theoretical science requires faith in a series of assumptions and conclusions you draw based on extrapolations from observations. Darwin saw variations in species while visiting the Galapagos Islands and extrapolated those observation to create a theory that humans evolved from simple organisms. Not a single scientist was alive to observe the creation of the universe or the rise of the first living creature. Everything they offer in the realm of creation is a theory and we are learning more and more that there are flaws in their theories. Christians must understand what they are dealing with when it comes to evolution. It is not an honest form of science. There are certainly honest scientists trying to chase down and prove aspects of the theories related to evolution. But Christians need to understand the underpinning of the evolution movement before we give any more ground and make any more changes to our doctrine to comply with its assumptions. The late 1700’s and early 1800’s was a time of revolution against monarchies. Many revolutionaries viewed the Bible as supporting monarchies, so they sought to discredit it. They used observable occurrences like erosion to extrapolate the age of the Earth back millions of years instead of the commonly held Biblical view of roughly 6,000 years. Out of respect for “science” Christians did not push back against this view and instead tried to incorporate it into Genesis by creating the “Gap Theory” described earlier. This re-dating of the age of the Earth opened the door for Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, as it allowed what he claimed to be the necessary time for the gradual process of evolution to take place. While there are still many flaws and mathematical improbabilities concerning the scope and complexity of evolution even at a current alleged age in the billions of years, the Theory of Evolution absolutely could not stand if the Earth were only 6,000 years old. Therefore, it was and remains essential for evolutionists to prop up an age theory of billions of years. This is what I mean when I say that evolution is not an honest form of science. It started out with an agenda to discredit the Bible. It should be noted that Christianity was not anti-science at that time, nor is it now. Virtually all the prestigious institutions of higher learning were founded by Christians. But the spirit of revolution made the Bible a target and scholars who owed their education to Christianity began to turn against it. Darwin had just finished seminary studies and had plans to be a minister before he came across Charles Lyell’s “Principles of Geology”, a book that advocated for an earth that was millions of years old. This watered seeds of doubt that had already been planted via other exposures he had to ancient earth theories during his studies. So you see how the failure of Christians to stand for the Biblical 6-day creation when challenges first emerged snowballed into Darwin’s divergent path which led to science being put at odds with the claim that humans were made in God’s image. I will devote a separate post to the flaws in the theory of evolution. Right now I want to frame the nature of the debate. You need to understand the gravity of standing for a 6-day creation. Satan is a master of sowing seeds of doubt. He did it with Eve in the Garden of Eden. He first got her to question what God said: “Has God indeed said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Genesis 3:1 Compare that to secular scientists coercing Christians to question whether God really meant 6 days when he said 6 days. Next Satan convinced Eve of an outright contradiction to God’s word: “And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die. Then the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die.” Genesis 3:2-4 Compare that to secular scientists convincing Christians that the entire creation story as described in the Bible is wrong and their Big Bang Theory and Theory of Evolution are the truth. Lastly Satan convinced Eve that she would be like God, determining for herself that which was good and evil. “For God knows that in that day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:5 Science’s attack on Biblical creation did not rise up in the face of compelling scientific proof. It was based on a desire to seize the godlike power to define good and evil. Monarchies claimed rule by divine right. In America, revolutionaries found a path to reconcile Christianity with revolt against a king by pointing out his abuse of authority and appealing to the rights God bestows to all humans. In places like France, revolutionaries took a different path and turned against both the Monarchy and the religion that helped to prop it up. Science became weaponized against religion, first in the name of bringing political freedom to the people, but over time it became a perceived vehicle to bring freedom from the moral judgements contained in the Bible. If you disprove the veracity of the first chapter, what value has anything that follows it? If you think you are entering a scientific debate, you are wrong. We are fighting a theological worldview. It is a viewpoint that does not just dismiss the idea of God because they feel the evidence is against him, but rather it is a viewpoint that hold the concept of God in contempt, because it calls into question their moral judgments, or more precisely, their choice to be their own God. You will see in future posts how the deck has been stacked against creationism and how much of what you thought were facts are either outright lies or one-sided presentations that ignore a more plausible creationist explanation. Eve had the choice between trusting in the words of God and trusting in the words of the serpent. She chose poorly. Let us not repeat her mistake.
0 Comments
The other day I saw a clip of a popular evangelist with a very large following of young people giving a message that Christians should completely disavow the Old Testament and focus only on the Gospel of Christ. His justification was that there are elements of the Old Testament that are too difficult for Christians to defend or reconcile with modern science, so rather than expend any further effort, they should just abandon the majority of the Bible. His logic is that by freeing Christians from doctrines that are at odds with the secular world, they will have more credibility when attempting to share the Gospel. He could not be more wrong.
For starters, how many aspects of the Gospel can be reconciled with the secular world’s perception of modern science? Are we to abandon Genesis because we find it difficult to defend a 6-day creation and yet cling to a story of a man rising from the dead? Are we to ignore the Great Flood and Noah’s deliverance because we find it hard to explain how all those animals fit in the ark and yet effectively articulate a tale of a man who turned water into wine, walked on water, and feed the masses with two fish and five loaves of bread? Or will this wise teacher next tell us to abandon the outlandish miracles of Jesus and just focus on his parables and the wisdom of his teaching? I don’t mean to single this individual out, and it is for that reason that I am not naming him, for I am sure he is well-intentioned in his desire to spread the Gospel. But his message is dangerously misguided, and he is not the only one spreading it. It is true that Christianity represents a New Covenant with God that replaces the Levitical doctrine of the Old Testament. Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice to wash away the sins of the world, replacing the old order of animal sacrifice, that at best could only cover sin, not take it away completely. It is correct for Christians to focus on the message of salvation through Jesus. But that message begins in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament. The coming of Jesus was prophesized repeatedly in the Old Testament. It is the knowledge of these prophesies that allowed him to gain a following. The people were looking for a savior because the Old Testament scriptures told them to expect one. There would have been no forum for Jesus’s ministry without the set-up that took place in the Old Testament scriptures. Indeed, Jesus referred to the words of the prophet Isaiah when the followers of John the Baptist asked if he was the Messiah: “Jesus answered and said to them, Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” Matthew 11:4-5 Jesus is referring to the following prophecy from Isaiah: “In that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness.” Isaiah 29:18 Do you think the Old Testament laws are too restrictive and need to be amended for our modern world to accept things like homosexuality, transgenderism, or sex outside of marriage? Do you think Old Testament prophesies are just a bunch of nonsense not worth trying to understand or explain? Consider what Jesus said: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus repeatedly refers to people, laws, and events from the Old Testament. Does that mean we should edit the New Testament to remove those references for fear of getting drawn into uncomfortable debates with non-believers? Without the laws of the Old Testament there is no need for salvation and therefore, the entire Gospel would be meaningless. The life events and teachings of Jesus are profound, but they are ultimately meaningless in a world that denies the Old Testament. Without Old Testament prophesies, he is just another child born in Bethlehem. Without Old Testament prophesies, he is just another wise teacher speaking clever parables. Without Old Testament prophesies, he is just another rebel crucified by the Romans (if he even gains enough of a following to rise to that level). The problem when you start twisting scripture or blocking it out to fit modern “norms” is that everything then becomes up for grabs. In the end, you will never win through such compromise. Your faith will keep getting chipped away, little by little, until you are clinging to a belief that is entirely hollow and unrecognizable. The answer in the face of scriptures that are difficult to understand and explain is to first trust in their truth and then dig in and do the hard work of understanding them so that you can properly defend them when challenged. Up until recently I was guilty of denying the literal 6-day creation and trying to reconcile scientific claims of an earth that is billions of years old with the Genesis account of creation. But the more research you do, the more doubt is cast on the accuracy of scientific methods for setting dates. I would encourage you to check out Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis on YouTube to gain a sound Biblical understanding of creation. In my next post I will begin a series focusing on some of the aspects of scripture that are difficult to explain. The First Amendment freedoms of this country are responsible for every significant cultural and political movement (good or bad) that has occurred since our founding. How much longer would slavery have endured if not for the right of the Abolitionist Movement to freely express their opposition to that inhuman institution? How much longer would the treatment of African Americans as second-class citizens have persisted if voices like those of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had never been allowed an audience? How much longer would women have had to wait for the right to vote if the Suffragettes had been silenced?
Change in this country has occurred because vocal minorities have been allowed to speak freely, worship freely, assemble freely, petition the government without fear of reprisal, and have their point of view reported on by a free press. This hasn’t always been carried out as perfectly as the Founders envisioned, but overall these freedoms have allowed meaningful change to take place in our country. Change that may not have occurred or would have been much longer in coming, had the majority been able to silence voices of opposition. The Progressive Movement has had as its purpose enacting change. Interestingly enough, racial equality was not always one of those changes, as early Progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger were intensely racist. But other changes, from abortion rights, to gay marriage, to the expanded role of government in every aspect of our lives have been made possible through Progressive activists using First Amendment rights to persuade the majority to accept what had previously been minority viewpoints. But now that Progressives have achieved or are within the grasp of achieving every significant cultural and political victory they sought to achieve, they are actively working to shutdown freedom of expression. They won over culture through provocative books, movies, and TV shows that challenged the values held by the majority in this country. Now Amazon is banning books that defy certain aspects of the new culture. Movies and TV shows all tow the new cultural line and any stars, writers or directors who dare to voice an opposing view run the risk of being blacklisted. Universities that once used to be forums for debate and bastions of free expression when run by Conservatives, now have become no-go zones for anything that challenges the orthodoxy of the Progressives who have taken them over. The Free Press has devolved into nothing more than propaganda arms for the political parties, where objective truth has been replaced with spin and commentary. Try being a scientist with a differing view on climate change. Try being a psychologist who believes that transgenderism is a mental disorder that should be treated with therapy instead of surgery. Try being a doctor or a nurse that is opposed to performing abortions. Trying being a comedian who tells jokes that target anyone beyond Trump and his basket of deplorables. If the various cultural and political revolutions the Progressives carried out had faced the same stifling censorship there would be no mainstreaming of homosexuality, no acceptance of a growing Muslim influence, no tolerance for any viewpoint that contracted the Judeo-Christian majority. For all the criticism that Christians get for being bigoted and uptight, we have shown ourselves to be far more accepting and open-minded (perhaps to a fault) than the Progressives who have taken over our culture. And this brings me to the current debate over Social Media. The Big Tech companies have made themselves part of our daily lives. Through free offerings and engaging platforms, they have accumulated a massive following of users that transcends cultural and political lines. Need an answer to a question? Google it. Have a hot take about last night’s debate? Tweet it. Want your friends and family to see the new car you just bought? Post it on Facebook or Instagram. Are you an up-and-coming performer? Upload a video to YouTube. Want something delivered next day or want to read a book right now? Find it on Amazon. So many of these tech platforms drew us in because they were free, fun, and easy to use. But they weren’t really free. They have cost us our identities. These companies have been compiling every piece of data they possibly can on us, from the demographic information we willingly turn over when we register, to our search habits, our viewing habits and anything else they can glean from our various posts and interactions. This information is a marketing professional’s dream and it is a valuable commodity, so much so that all these companies are among the wealthiest in our nation without charging a dime for use of their service. But like so much else, they are run by Progressives. And like everything else, once the Progressives achieve power, they begin to use that power to shut down any opposition to them. Anyone who has watched the uniformity of ideology on college campuses or in the media, should not be surprised by the growing elimination of diverse opinions on Social Media platforms. The debate has now become whether Social Media should be regulated as a utility. Others suggest that they should have to declare whether they are platforms or publishers and lose any legal protections if they show themselves to be publishers making editorial decisions regarding what is allowed on their platforms. Regulation will not stop the silencing of opposition, as Progressive ideology is interwoven in Federal Bureaucracy. The platform vs. publisher argument will just force them to admit what they are and then force the hands of everyday Americans to decide if they want to continue to participate in a forum that is hostile to their beliefs. In the end, many will probably continue to use such platforms. Others will look for alternatives that may arise. But in the end we will continue to become an even more divided nation – adding politically segregated Social Media platforms to our already politically segregated print and video mediums. And that is the true legacy of Progressivism. In the name of trying to make America a better place, it is making us worse. Not because all the causes they have championed have been bad (though many have), it is what they have done once they have gained power. They are seeking to close and lock the door behind them. They arrogantly believe that their plans are the final and best solutions for the current problems facing the country. And they blindly believe that they will have the appropriate answers for any future problems that will arise. The refuse to tolerate any point of view that calls their point of view into question. In doing so they deny Americans access to a full spectrum of ideas and they limit opportunities to find common ground and restore a sense of unity. What they fail to understand in their hubris is that there will always be dissent – even to the most wisely conceived ideas. If dissent is not allowed a reasonable outlet, then it turns into something festering and ugly. Something that must either be dealt with through re-education camps or pogroms. Or something that grows into a violent revolution. That is why reasonable people of every political, cultural, and religious background must stand for our First Amendment freedoms and accept no encroachment upon them. Banning hate speech may seem like a fine idea until social norms shift and suddenly the things in which you believe are deemed hateful. It is better to be offended than to face the prospect of being silenced. And for those who think that silencing is a good idea, ask yourself how far are you willing to go and what ramifications are you willing to unleash? If you don’t think your ideas are capable of standing up against a challenge, then you should ask yourself if they are worth supporting in the first place. “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling, the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.
“I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.” Daniel 7:7-8 “He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.” Daniel 7:35 “Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. “And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him? “And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. “It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:1-8 These visions by Daniel and John describe the future leader that is commonly called The Antichrist. Daniel sees him as a tiny horn rising up in the final ten-nation world empire. John sees him as the ten-horned beast in its entirety, the culmination of the pagan world empires into one final Satanic empire led by an individual possessing supernaturally evil powers. These visions tell us some key things about The Antichrist. He will come from the final ten-nation empire. Previous passages lead us to believe that this empire is some kind of revived Roman Empire. We are also told that this leader will blaspheme the name of God. We already know that the ten-nation empire will have a pagan religious system. However, I think that it will quickly evolve into a unified Messianic religion centered on the prophetic teachings of Judaism, Islam, and what I believe will be an apostate Catholic Church. This will also draw in New Age believers so that the entire world, having been rocked by the bizarre mass disappearance of the Rapture and the unfolding disasters of the Tribulation, will be seeking a single supernatural leader to usher in an age of peace. The Antichrist will be that leader. He will become famous by brokering a peace treaty with Israel and its enemies as Daniel describes: “Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.” Daniel 9:27 One week in prophetic terms is 7 years. It refers to the final 7 years of the prophetic timeline for Israel that God had revealed to Daniel. A change occurs in the leader who brokers this seven-year treaty at exactly the mid-point of the treaty. In an act of blasphemy, he desecrates the Jewish temple and declares himself to be God. It is at this point that he turns not only against the Jews, but on any others who refuse to worship him. “Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. “He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived. He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. “He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.” Revelation 13:11-18 As I described in a previous post, I believe this second beast, or false prophet, will be an apostate Pope. He will declare The Antichrist to be the Messianic leader all the religions have been waiting for and as such he will declare him to be God. Satan will give this false prophet supernatural abilities to perform miracles in the name of The Antichrist. What you see is Satan setting up his own unholy trinity with himself as the Father, The Antichrist as the Son who comes to reign on earth, and the false prophet who takes on a role similar to the Holy Spirit. We can already see the technological developments that are in place to create the oppressive world that John describes. A lifelike robot or deep fake AI image could become the image of the beast. A switch to total electronic banking could make it so only those with an approved computer chip or “mark” can buy or sell. Much has been made about trying to decipher The Antichrist’s identity using the code 666. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew letters have numeric values tied to them. Over the years many have tried to come up with combinations that would reveal the name of The Antichrist. Among the most popular is using the Hebrew conversion to come up with Nero Caesar. The infamous Roman Emperor was indeed evil and a great persecutor of Christians. It is possible that The Antichrist claims to be a reincarnation of Nero, hence the reference to the deadly wound that was healed. However, it is probably more likely that The Antichrist will have his own unique name whose numeric values will add up to 666 in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew. I don’t think our time as Christians is best served trying to chase down various alpha-numeric calculations to try to prove that The Antichrist is some contemporary figure of whom we are suspicious for whatever reason. Nothing we can do will stop his rise to power, as it has been ordained by God to fulfill his purposes. Indeed, both Daniel and John reveal that he will be allowed to reign in a state of blasphemy for three and half years. Daniel describes it two ways. First as the saints be given over to his hand for “a time, and times, and half a time” with time meaning one year – so one year, plus two years, plus half a year equaling three and a half years. He also describes The Antichrist launching his campaign of abomination at the exact midpoint of the seven-year covenant, which would leave three and a half years in his reign. John says that the beast will reign forty-two months, which equals three and a half years. I don’t expect any current Christians will actually see the emergence of The Antichrist. I do believe he is alive and working his way into a position of power even now due to the convergence of other prophetic events. However, I don’t think he will reach the point of definitive identification until after the Rapture. So rather than get caught up in trying to figure out the identity of The Antichrist or deciphering which ten nations will comprise the final world empire, let us focus on the remarkable convergence of prophetic events that is taking place. 1. Israel has been reborn and the generation that saw this rebirth will not die off until Jesus returns. In biblical terms, that generation has at most 9 years left. 2. The Gospel has been spread throughout the entire world. 3. The remnants of the Roman Empire exist today in the modern EU, although some kind of reorganization must take place to create a ten-nation kingdom. 4. There has been a world-wide focus on creating a peace deal between Israel and her neighboring countries. I expect such a deal to be signed no later than 2021, since it must be for seven years and the generational prophecy related to Israel runs out in 2028. The Anti-Christ will be the one brokering this deal and he will be from the ten-nation final world kingdom. 5. The conditions that existed in the days of Noah are very much part of our current world. We have lost focus on God. Most of us are willfully blind to the convergence of prophetic events leading to the coming wrath of God. Our wickedness is great – from the evil of abortion to our embrace of all manner of sexual perversion. And we are playing God by redefining marriage and gender and manipulating the genetic code. Jesus said that no person would know the day or hour of his arrival, but we would know the signs that his coming is drawing near. We are now seeing such signs. It is important that we Christians spend whatever time we have left spreading the Gospel to the lost, so that they too may share our hope and rejoice at the return of the King of Kings. “You, O king, were watching and behold, a great image! This great image, whose splendor was excellent, stood before you; and its form was awesome. This image’s head was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron, and partly clay.
“You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. “This is the dream, Now we will tell the interpretation of it before the king. You, O king, are a king of kings. For the God of heaven has given you a kingdom, power, strength, and glory; and wherever the children of men dwell, or the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven, He has given them into your hand, and has made you ruler over them all – you are this head of gold. “But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. “Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. “And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” Daniel 2:31-44 The above verses are the details Daniel revealed to the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar regarding a dream the king had. Much like the beasts described in Daniel’s other prophetic vision, the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream describes the world empires in terms of parts of a statue of a king. As Daniel describes, the gold head is the Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar. The silver chest and arms are the Persian Empire that defeated Babylon. The bronze belly and thighs are the Grecian Empire of Alexander the Great that conquered Persia. The legs of iron are the Roman Empire. The stone that strikes the feet and collapses the entire statue is Jesus. It is interesting to note that just as the statue had two legs of iron, Rome reached a point of division into a Western and Eastern Empire, with the Western Empire being based in Rome and the Eastern Empire based in Constantinople (modern Turkey). A division also occurred in the religion of the empire (after it converted to Christianity) with the West following the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the East establishing the Orthodox Christian Church. Both cultures claimed to carry on the mantle of Rome. The German title Kaiser means Caesar, as does the Russian title Czar. In the year 800 Pope Leo III bestowed upon Charlemagne the title Emperor of Rome and crowned him with the Iron Crown of Lombardy. This crown was used to crown several of the Holy Roman Emperors. Napoleon Bonaparte received the Iron Crown in 1804 when he was consecrated by Pope Pius VII and became Emperor of France. Napoleon founded the Imperial Order of the Iron Crown in 1805. Emperor Franz I of Austria re-established the Imperial Order of the Iron Crown after it had collapsed following the defeat of Napoleon. The Austrian Empire endured until World War I ended it in 1918. Hitler attempted to revive the notion of a Roman Empire. The term “Third Reich” represents Hitler’s belief that his Nazi regime was a continuation of the Holy Roman Empire. The assertion being that the original Holy Roman Empire was the First Reich and the unified German Empire that emerged under Otto Von Bismark was the Second Reich. The German Empire and Nazi Germany both used the Iron Cross as a symbol and medal of honor. As far as the East goes, the claim of Russia as successor to the Eastern Roman Empire was asserted when Ivan III, Grand Duke of Moscow, married Sophia Paleologue, the niece of Constantine XI, the last Eastern Roman Emperor. The coat of arms of the last imperial dynasty of the Eastern Roman Empire with its double-headed eagle is also very similar to the coat of arms of the Russian Empire. This same symbol was adopted as the coat of arms of the Russian Federation in 1993 following the fall of the Soviet Union. The coat of arms of the Holy Roman Empire and the German Confederation also incorporate a double-headed eagle. The reality of a Western and Eastern division persisted throughout the history of Europe and continues to our current time. Indeed, the aftermath of World War II gave rise to the Iron Curtain, separating Western Europe from Communist Eastern Europe. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, there still persists a Russian sphere of influence over the East while the West is united in the form of the European Union and NATO (though the West has extended its influence further east). So what we see is a divided Roman Empire that never really ended, but just transitioned into different states of being over the centuries. Throughout it all you have references to “iron”. And it continues into our present time. In 1950 the groundwork for the European Union was laid with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community. This was just two years after Israel officially became a nation. Both events were made possible by World War II. In 1957 The Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community. This paved the way for greater political integration, which eventually led to the modern European Union. I would also note that some of the symbology of the EU, both on some of its currency and in sculptures, depicts the consort of Zeus, Europa riding a bull (the form Zeus took when he first encountered Europa, according to mythology). This serves as a not so subtle link to the imagery of John’s vision of a woman riding a beast. There are two points to make in regard to the EU, however. First, it currently has 25 member nations, which greatly exceeds the ten described by John and Daniel. Second, its capitol is in Brussels, not Rome. I believe we will see a restructuring of the EU in the very near future. We already have the Brexit movement underway in which Great Britain is trying to leave the EU. Once this is accomplished, other nations could follow. However, I think the key event that will drive a reorganization of the EU will be the Rapture. I think the chaos that follows that event will be a game-changer. I think when all is said and done, the strongest ten nations will unite and form the final empire described by John and Daniel. They will also move their capitol to Rome. One must also take into account the clay that is mixed with iron in the feet and toes of the statue Daniel described. I believe this is a reference to the growing Muslim population in Europe. Just as iron does not mix with clay, so to are we seeing conflict between the native populations of Europe and the increasing Muslim population. After the rapture, the population of Europe will be a mix of atheist/pagan native Europeans and Muslims. I believe any remaining Jews will flee to Israel. I also think that there will be enough of an apostate Catholic leadership remaining to form the basis of a new pagan religion that will rise to power alongside this ten-nation kingdom. I am not saying that all Catholics are apostates. I am saying there are most likely Cardinals who care more about power than Christ who have lost their way and will be left behind after the Rapture. Pope Francis himself has issued some worrisome statements that make one question his belief in the exclusivity of Christ as the means for salvation. Why do I think the Catholic Church will serve as the basis for the final pagan religion? Throughout its history the Catholic Church has shown itself to be more concerned with political maneuvering than Christian doctrine. It also has bestowed a level of deification on the Virgin Mary that is very much in-line with the goddess worship of pagan religions. Indeed the Roman Catholic Church borrowed from several pagan traditions in order to quickly transition the Roman Empire from paganism to Christianity. But most of all there is this from the vision of John: “Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.” Revelation 13:11-12 The description of two horns like a lamb creates the impression that the religion is Christian in appearance, but the doctrine is Satanic. I believe the Catholic Church is the best candidate to carry forward the trappings of Christianity after the Rapture, while transforming into something Satanic in the name of political expediency. Based on the imagery that John describes, it sounds like what happens is that a ten-nation confederation comprised of elements from the ancient Roman Empire will rise to power. In doing so, they will embrace a pagan religion that will be in constant conflict with the growing influence of the Muslim religion in Europe. Not long after their rise to power, a strong leader will take over their confederation. He will at first work to bring peace among the competing groups, but he will ultimately proclaim himself to be god and he will be affirmed by the false prophet (the Second Beast described by John). This false prophet will most likely be an apostate Pope. At this point, the ten-nation kingdom will renounce the pagan religion and wipe out all those who practice it so as to have no competing claims to the godhood of the Antichrist. This is what John describes in the vision of the Harlot being made desolate. I will describe the rise of the Antichrist in greater detail in the next post. |
Joseph Blaikieis a Christian writer whose books include "Why You Don't Believe in God and Why You Should" and "You are Never Too Far Gone for God". To learn more about Joseph Blaikie visit: Amazon.com: Joseph J. Blaikie: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle 
Archives
April 2024
|
RSS Feed