First Seal rider......Jesus or AC?

[RonJohnSilver]

I've long believed that the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6:2 was the AC. Others have made the comment that the rider has a bow but no arrows and that the second seal, war, followed him so it's a logical conclusion. But, this is what I read in the notes from the Henry Morris Study Bible (KJV)...

"Many futurist commentators take the rider on the white horse to be the Antichrist, who they say is imitating Christ, who is certainly the conquering Rider on the white horse in Revelation 19. This interpretation seems inappropriate. The coming Antichrist is not a "false Christ" pretending to be Christ, but is the ultimate AC openly opposing Christ and seeking to destroy all Christian believers and everything for which Christ stands. The Antichrist, or beast, will receive his power and authority from Satan, not from Christ. The proper interpretation is to view Christ as the rider; remember also that each judgment of the seven seals is sent forth by Christ, not Satan. Furthermore, it is eminently fitting the the conquering Christ should be seen as riding forth both at the beginning of His cleansing judgments on the earth and then again at their climactic completion. Throughout the events of Rev. 6-19, as the successive seal judgments are sent forth. He is gradually "conquering" and is destined finally "to conquer" completely."

I'm still leaning toward the rider being the AC but I'd like the thoughts of others. Thanks, RJS

 

[LightOfMyLife]

I've long believed that the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6:2 was the AC. Others have made the comment that the rider has a bow but no arrows and that the second seal, war, followed him so it's a logical conclusion. But, this is what I read in the notes from the Henry Morris Study Bible (KJV)...

"Many futurist commentators take the rider on the white horse to be the Antichrist, who they say is imitating Christ, who is certainly the conquering Rider on the white horse in Revelation 19. This interpretation seems inappropriate. The coming Antichrist is not a "false Christ" pretending to be Christ, but is the ultimate AC openly opposing Christ and seeking to destroy all Christian believers and everything for which Christ stands. The Antichrist, or beast, will receive his power and authority from Satan, not from Christ. The proper interpretation is to view Christ as the rider; remember also that each judgment of the seven seals is sent forth by Christ, not Satan. Furthermore, it is eminently fitting the the conquering Christ should be seen as riding forth both at the beginning of His cleansing judgments on the earth and then again at their climactic completion. Throughout the events of Rev. 6-19, as the successive seal judgments are sent forth. He is gradually "conquering" and is destined finally "to conquer" completely."

I'm still leaning toward the rider being the AC but I'd like the thoughts of others. Thanks, RJS

You are correct is the AC. Jesus is the rider in Revelation 19:11-16

 

[TCC]

Hi brother Ron. Thanks for your post. During the majority of my Christian life, I had no interest in eschatology. It was only since 2017 officially, I started to research on purpose. In 2016, I did get a heads-up of sorts in seeing the Gotthard Tunnel grand opening celebration. That performance was so troubling, it did move the needle in my heart that some signal of "the age we are in" seems to be radically shifting. Whether that means decades, years, or months (I thought at the time) I was not aware. But it did seem to mark an overt atttitude in culture change that to me was very different.

When I decided to further look into how YouTube was structure in 2017, I saw Mandella Effect, and Nibiru warnings all over the place. As for Mandella Effect, it appears to be a localized phenomenon to America. So not too sure where to go with that one...lol. But Nibiru struck a deeper chord, as it would have seemed to be some potential type of "wormwood" like falling to earth mediorite cluster. My thought was that if we had an idea of when that might hit earth as the trumpet judgements, we could back track a little as to when a tribulation period might occur. Back then, the earth was ending everyday. And I got tired of all the drama.

. . . . .

When I decided finally to study the book of Revelation for the first time in 25 years, I noticed too many commentaries had so many different perspectives. And how to approach that book, for me, could not be done with them. So I just studied it over and over creating a very general outline. After a few months the book does seem to start rising to the surface like a pop-up book. And I think that exercise was very helpful to get a general sense of book in how it (in general) flowed. So, in eschatological terms, compare to many others, I am some what late to the game.

<Mod Edit>

So I looked into it, and I have recently found some minor cluster of exegesis for that position. But before I share that, I think it is important to note that the Bible has no view of a white horse being deceptive (outside of our Rev 6:2 focus). There is no such thing. Nor is there any view of a white horse in any culture at any time in history where it was thought to be deceptive. Where the Bible makes other uses of white horse outside of Revelation, its' positive. Such as Zechariah 1 and 6. Some see those chapters as mirroring Revelation. But if so, it has varying views of how that works. Personally the chariots in Zech 6, to me suggest a timeframe approaching the 1,000 year riegn of Christ. But that is for another time. In Zech 1, it seems to infer the white horse there to Israel's victory through Cyrus.

<Mod Edit>

Because what they believe is that the coming of the building of the temple comingles with the AC. So in their mind, the rebuilding of the temple would be in relation to the coming of AC making a covenant with the many. A bit stronger exegesis than just the covenant with the many as a stand alone. But I would have still some doubts about how that works. The biggest one is I am of the view that the AC only rules for the last half of the tribulation. Not all 7 years. Most have false peace assigned to the AC. I don't believe that is an accurate rendering...but today seems to be taken as gospel truth. In contrast I would see the peace and safety associated with the condition of Israel at the time of Ez 38.

<Mod Edit>

. . . .

My view--I look at this in some ways similar to your senses. You see the 1st seal flower into the White Horse Christ rides in on at the end. Like bookends. I see a similar thing, primarily without it being constant. But, yes, a bookend. I see that. Because we have no false white horse to anchor onto in anything else on earth during our history on earth. But it is understandable why some would see an opposite of Christ reflected in the 1st seal. Whereas, you and I would see a mirror or a book end more or less. I believe the white horse is emblematic of a king riding into a village on a white horse not offering war. But peace to that village. That is an historical relationship to the white horse. I would also see it as a leading horse of a kings prosession into a village offering peace. But the peace beachhead of a parading train of tribulation behind it for those who did not receive it as peace. Or receive Christ or the gospel of peace.

<Mod Edit>

However I also have a similar running theory too. Where the peace and safety of Israel and Ez 38 are not seals. But occur just before the seals. There is one major problem with that perspective though. In that view we have the cataclysmic Ez 38 war. Peace. Then peace taken from the earth. War/Peace/Peace taken from the earth. It would just seem that peace taken from the earth would not be as "biblical" if it had also been taken away from the earth 5 minutes prior. It just is not as resounding in that sense. But either way, I believe what we might see is Israel gets peace and safety and much more strength in the Middle East via America being made Great Again. I believe the Trump administration in empowering America is from our perspective (for the gentile world) God allowing the gentile world creation of His God's use of government to providentially conquer evil and NWO. And from the Israeli standpoint, a nation that had her back for 70 years, becoming the most robust in world history to provide Israel super peace and safety in the middle east through normalization and the Abraham Accords. I do believe this to be the 1st seal. But am open to it just being an act of God on behalf of Israel's point of Ez 38 decision.

Either way, I believe Israel will get their peace and safety. And the church likely see it. As it would make the most sense of the character of God to offer Israel 1 last chance to not go through the tribulation. We know most won't take the way out of the tribulation and humiliating around the corner destruction of Israel--Ez 38). And then again, God is not beholen to how our view of His character should go. So even though those are ways I would perceive, there is always a chance of a rapture prior to Israel's peace and safety too. I hope this is somewhat of a helfpulf affirming of your sentiments. But the way I would see seals though brother are things we cannot miss. Like I would understand them to be so huge and grandiose are these kinds of judgements, that I don't believe we would have to scratch our heads wondering..."Hey, was that just the first seal?" Like in contrast, from what I have seen of some who see seals over long periods of time, it would tend today, with some, to try and see (as some who see the seals over centuries) might see a seal in this or that event historically. But I tried that, and world history does not neatly follow the seal sequence. I am not of the view that the seals continue throughout the tribulation--although I have seen that view too. But rather, in what I am able to gather, that each judgement set has its own judgement authority for its period. And that trumpets are the 7th seal. And bowls are the 7th trumpet -- implying sequentality.

. . . .

<Mod Edit>

There are two other interesting aspects to this that I came across a while back that you might find interesting (not that these are accurate necessarily---but there is something compelling about seeing things in this way):

1. Rev 12 Emblems
In Revelation 12 we are given 2 celestial signs. In Rev 15 another. We are told in Rev 15 that the 7 angels in the celestial is a sign for bowls. An emblem. I believe so with the woman/child and the red dragon. The red dragon sweeps away a 3rd of the stars. The trumpet judgements are "all in 3rds" except for 5, which is the name of the demon that falls to earth. So to me this is poetically emlbmatic. I believe the world will see something in the sky prior to trumpets and bowls. I believe seals already has.

Also with this view is that the woman and child (although she wails in labor) is primarily a domestic emblem different than the other two (red dragon and angels prouing judgement). Of those 3, only one seems benign. When we look at the judgement cycles we see all 20 (of 21) judgements as nothing that could be benign. However the 1st seal does not have to be evil. We can see it as that. But it does not tell us that out right. There is no way to look at the other 20 judgements (or the other of the 3 signs) as teddy bears. Where the cycle judgements and seal emblem of woman/child (as I see it) match up is where I believe the child that goes to heaven is the church rapture. An x marks the rapture zone spot. Delivered by poetic modular narrative style genre literary device. This may not be accurate. But it would seem to make sense from a literary standpoint.


<Mod Edit>

 

[Margery]

Jesus is the one opening the first seal, and then the rider comes out, so that says to me anyway that Jesus is NOT the rider of the first seal.

Chuck Missler had a joke I loved, talking about this very point. He said if Jesus is the rider on the first seal, He's in BAAAAD company!

 

[TCC]

Ron I just wanted to respond here in this shorter version...lol. Sorry. You hit on a topic that I am very interested in. But what I like totally about your observation Ron is how you see the AC not coming as Christ, but as something other than. This is a very solid point. Today we see a lot of concern of false Christ's, false church's, false gospel. We are in no shortage of that sort of stuff today. I tend to place all that under the rubric of a Laodicean age church (if there is such a thing...we would be that age I believe). But in Daniel 11:37 we have the following:


Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.

So the AC is going to say he is the Christ? While he is not honoring any of that? That is a great question no one in this is age has answered (great great great great point...did I say "great?"). We just say, "Yeah anti-means it will be the AC." Where's anti more likely means "in place of." Like Marxisism in place of godly government in tact. Or drag queen story hour for kids at the library in place of godly role models. No doubt according to Matt 24 there will be false messiahs during the tribulation age. But from how it seems to word 24:11 and 24, these will be aside from the antichrist himself. Which is an awesome point you bring up. Because I believe our era has blended these so much together it is impossible to see outside of how we might have. Not that we could not. Just that we are more certain the one who does not honor religion in any sense comes as religious...which is antithetical to scripture. Great catch.
<Mod edit>

THIS IS A MIC DROP MOMENT

 

[Hol]

This view makes sense to me and amplifies Margery’s point:

“This white horse is the first of four horses of different colors, similar to the horses seen by Zechariah (Zec. 1:8; 6:2-6).10 See Zechariah’s Horses for a discussion of the relationship between Zechariah’s visions and the horsemen shown John. Within the context of the book of Revelation, white represents righteousness. “The white horse . . . emerges as an emblem of righteousness, though there is no guarantee that the righteousness is more than apparent.”

The similarities between this rider and Christ are striking:

1. Riding a White Horse - Both ride upon a white horse indicating victory (Rev. 6:2+; Rev 19:11+).
2. Wearing a Crown - Both wear a crown (Rev. 6:2+; Rev 19:12+). (But Christ wears multiple crowns.)
3. Overcome - Both are “overcomers”—victorious in their pursuits (Rev. 6:2+; John 16:33; 1Jn. 4:4; Rev. 3:21+; Rev 17:14+).

Even so, this is not the white horse which carries He who is Faithful and True in Revelation 19:11+. For it is the Lamb who has just loosed the first seal sending this horseman out. It violates all logic for the same person to be opening the seal and sending himself forth.12 “Moreover, it would be inappropriate to have an angelic being call forth Christ or his servants.”13 If Christ rides forth here, who is it that remains in heaven to open the remaining seals?14 This rider carries a bow whereas Christ’s weapon is a sword (Rev. 2:12+; Rev 19:15+). This rider is alone whereas Christ is followed by the armies in heaven also riding on white horses (Rev. 19:14+). Finally, this rider sets forth at the beginning of the Tribulation whereas Christ rides forth at its end. In light of related passages, it seems best to understand this rider as representing a movement which ultimately culminates in the one whom Jesus described:15 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive” (John 5:43+). To an unsuspecting world he looks like Messiah, the political savior of mankind, yet he is a deceiver, the anti- or pseudo-Christ. Here is documented the initial appearance of the figure of the Antichrist upon the stage of world history. Although there will be numerous false messiahs down through history, none as convincing and successful as this final figure.16 The Restrainer has been taken out of the way so that the Antichrist, the son of perdition, might be revealed in his own time (2Th. 2:6-7+). He is the one who will be destroyed with the breath of the mouth of the Lamb (2Th. 2:8+; Rev. 19:20+). The church has already been taken up for she watches for Christ, not Antichrist. See Rapture, Imminency.”

Revelation 6 Commentary | Precept Austin

www.preceptaustin.org

 

[mattfivefour]

I've long believed that the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6:2 was the AC. Others have made the comment that the rider has a bow but no arrows and that the second seal, war, followed him so it's a logical conclusion. But, this is what I read in the notes from the Henry Morris Study Bible (KJV)...

"Many futurist commentators take the rider on the white horse to be the Antichrist, who they say is imitating Christ, who is certainly the conquering Rider on the white horse in Revelation 19. This interpretation seems inappropriate. The coming Antichrist is not a "false Christ" pretending to be Christ, but is the ultimate AC openly opposing Christ and seeking to destroy all Christian believers and everything for which Christ stands. The Antichrist, or beast, will receive his power and authority from Satan, not from Christ. The proper interpretation is to view Christ as the rider; remember also that each judgment of the seven seals is sent forth by Christ, not Satan. Furthermore, it is eminently fitting the the conquering Christ should be seen as riding forth both at the beginning of His cleansing judgments on the earth and then again at their climactic completion. Throughout the events of Rev. 6-19, as the successive seal judgments are sent forth. He is gradually "conquering" and is destined finally "to conquer" completely."

I'm still leaning toward the rider being the AC but I'd like the thoughts of others. Thanks, RJS

I am afraid I must totally disagree with the highly respected Dr Morris on this matter. His reasoning makes little sense to me. I believe that the first horseman is clearly the ultimate false Christ: that is to say the Antichrist. If you recall from the chronology of Revelation, the Antichrist first brings peace and then war follows. Which perfectly fits the pattern of the first and second horsemen. So, Ron, I'm with you.

 

[Kaatje]

I'm still leaning toward the rider being the AC but I'd like the thoughts of others. Thanks, RJS

The difference is simple, and hinges on only one thing: Whether one believes in the Rapture or not.

If a person believes the Rapture to take place before the seals of God's wrath are opened, the rider on the white horse can only be the A/C. Because the Church by then is caught up.

But when a person does not believe in the Rapture, then it makes sense to see the rider as Christ Himself, proclaiming the Gospel, before God's wrath descents on both Church and unbelievers alike.

Btw, I made a study on the "bow without arrows" which isn't a conondrum at all, as it turns out.
You can read about it here if you like:

Thread 'With or without arrows'
https://christiancommunityforum.com/threads/with-or-without-arrows.8103/

 

[Tall Timbers]

I believe that the first horseman is clearly the ultimate false Christ: that is to say the Antichrist.

That's the way I see it. It's not a point I need to ponder because it is quite clear from Scripture.

 

[Hol]

I tend to see the 1st seal as something the church is here for. And seal 2 as Ez 38. Which would mean that many unbelievers in Israel have a chance to recognize God's peace towards them (along with animation of Ez 38--from their own ancient literature) to provide Israel with a chance to rapture with the church. And that the white horse Rev 6:2 is not only not the AC, but likely the rapture bang zone window. And perfectly aligned baton pass point from the age of the gentile church to the age of the tribulation (where Israel receives that ministry later on with the 144k). Although I would see the church here for the 1st seal. I would not see it here for seal 2, as I would see as Ezekiel 38. I am pretrib rapture.

There’s a lot of optimism in your perspective TCC and I have a warm spot in my heart for that.

@TCC, I’d like to encourage you to reconsider your view and become more skeptical to the notion that the Church and Israel will usher in peace, but I’m with you in liking the idea. The fact that Israel will have unwalled villages prior to Ez. war is a sense of security and worldly peace—not the peace Christ will establish. During the pandemic those with lots of security were puppet masters who coerced with fear and defined ‘peace’ and false security through lies. I experienced a church that was frozen in fear, much like Israel.

 

[TCC]

That's the way I see it. It's not a point I need to ponder because it is quite clear from Scripture.

I'll just say i understand how that looks. We believe AC will govern over Israel and at the midpoint show his true colors. Up to that point it seems to have been a far gone conclusion that he is a false Christ. A lot of how we view things today hold to that. It makes sense on some levels to see that. I remember thinking "how can all these false Christs start emerging all over the place in Matt 24:24?" This seems placed after the AC reveals himself. Like who can compete with that? But it makes sense if the AC is calling himself God. Not messiah...that there might be every garden variety of false Christs along side that...for those who don't worship the beast. In a way, perhaps it is kind of a tell that these late day false Christ's come as such. For they would surely play off the contrast to the beast to scoop up people who don't trust the beast but may have a sense of a need for a supernatural savior.

I understand long held traditions in commentary and evangelicalism regarding the AC does hold an esteemable place in Christian history. And it does sound foreign to our ears to hear a scholar say the AC is not a false messiah. Its almost like saying the earth is flat...lol (which i don't believe by the way). Even though i have a bit different eschatology, it sounds strange even to my ears. for sure.

If it's any concession Timbers, the church theme concerning Steve Lawson--how it has been dealt with all the way around has me dumbfounded. Even though I had great difficulty with the American reformed camp, I still want to always see the best in them. Even though. But knowing what i do (of 20 years in intimate association with them), this latest episode has me on massive tilt. Like if i were an unstable person, and not a believer, it would probably make me mad (crazy) literally. However that might translate, yeah just saying. I know you are saying your fine in your convictions and don't see the need to go outside that. Amen. There is a certain amount of respectability in that place. Because from what i can tell, whatever is going on ouside, we're not in Kansas anymore. That's for sure. lol. In such ridiculous weather, staying inside is probably wiser. Blessings dear brother.

 

[Margery]

I'll just say i understand how that looks. We believe AC will govern over Israel and at the midpoint show his true colors. Up to that point it seems to have been a far gone conclusion that he is a false Christ. A lot of how we view things today hold to that. It makes sense on some levels to see that. I remember thinking "how can all these false Christs start emerging all over the place in Matt 24:24?" This seems placed after the AC reveals himself. Like who can compete with that? But it makes sense if the AC is calling himself God. Not messiah...that there might be every garden variety of false Christs along side that...for those who don't worship the beast. In a way, perhaps it is kind of a tell that these late day false Christ's come as such. For they would surely play off the contrast to the beast to scoop up people who don't trust the beast but may have a sense of a need for a supernatural savior.

There is an interesting point in Judaism from the ultra religious and conservative rabbis who say that when their Messiah appears, the way they will know him as Messiah will be the fact that he enables them to build the 3rd Temple. The mystical Hasidim and others have been saying this for many years.

We have to remember their idea of Messiah doesn't mean God in human flesh, it means someone God inspired like King David or Joshua or Moses. They see 2 Messiahs not one. Ben David- the son of David, conquering king - who will lead Israel to throw off her oppressors. But there is a puzzling second Messiah they struggle with, and it's the Ben Joseph - the son of Joseph who suffers for them. The Jews 2000 years ago were hoping for a Messiah to throw off Rome. Not a crucified, resurrected Lord and Saviour who was both 100 % God and 100% man, yet a sinless sacrifice. Some got it, they became the church.

When the AC appears, if the hint in Daniel is correctly understood that this AC, false Messiah will allow them to rebuild their Temple, it's almost a done deal he will be accepted as Messiah by the ultra religious Hasidic rabbis and many of the prophetically minded conservatives. The Sanhedrin, the Temple faithful. It's the Messiah they've been expecting.

The hint I refer to in Daniel is this: Daniel 9: 26 & 27

26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.



V 26 refers to Jesus on the cross. It jumps forward to 70AD and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple. In between 26 and 27 is a gap around 2000 years. God's prophetic time clock of the 70 "sevens" is interrupted after 7 sets of 7, then 62 more sevens ending at the cross. With 1 more "seven" to finish the 70.

The fact of the gap is obvious, because the Angel speaking to Daniel gives the end of Jerusalem and the 2cd Temple which occurred long after the Cross in 70 AD. An even bigger gap happens - we've seen almost 2000 years go by since.

We live in a gap. Ever since the Cross. The church age.

It's interesting that the angel speaking to Daniel refers to this event in 70AD - some 40 plus years after the Cross, the Resurrection and Ascension, then Pentecost after that. 40 years into the Church Age, well into this gap is this 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The angel points to this gap. The time clock stops ticking at the cross and resumes at the start of the final set of 7.

V 27 starts up with a "he" who will confirm a covenant with many (some translation say "the many" which is a way of saying the leaders plural of Israel- something Isaiah points out in his prediction of the covenant with death and Hades). It's an idiomatic expression that implies the leaders multiple (ie a govt) of Israel at the time.

Since we know that the thing that starts the Tribulation is this very covenant, this means we identify the "he" of v 27 as the AC.

The hint is this. This mention of the covenant in v 27 after a mention of the destruction of the Temple, and before another mention of the Temple forms an X, a chiastic structure. It's all thru the Bible, so this one goes like this: ... will destroy the city and the sanctuary.....will confirm a covenant..... put an end to the sacrifice and offering.

This forms a chiasm, a sandwich. The mention of the sanctuary, then the covenant, and mention of the rebuilt sanctuary ties the covenant to the rebuilt sanctuary. Think of the sanctuary (Temple) as bread, and the covenant as the filling in between, tying the two eras together.

That final 7 begins with a covenant that has the Temple on either side. The second Temple period (the first set of 7 sevens, then 62 sevens making 69 sets of seven in all with one set of seven remaining) The covenant stands in between, and marks the beginning of the last set of 7. The Tribulation period.

It's a very slight hint, but it's there.

 

[mattfivefour]

Excellent post, Margery. From my own studies, your chronology is absolutely correct, based on scripture. And I think you've done an excellent job explaining it.

 

[Kaatje]

There is an interesting point in Judaism from the ultra religious and conservative rabbis who say that when their Messiah appears, the way they will know him as Messiah will be the fact that he enables them to build the 3rd Temple. The mystical Hasidim and others have been saying this for many years.

We have to remember their idea of Messiah doesn't mean God in human flesh, it means someone God inspired like King David or Joshua or Moses.

THIS!

It is so easy to lay our interpretation of "the Messiah" on the Jews, but they regard him much different.
More like "A Messiah".

Just like they wanted Jesus to chuck out the Romans. They would have crowned Him for it.
But when he didn't, they were done with Him.

Now, they are waiting for the one that helps them deal with Hamas, Hezbollah and their ilk.
They will revere the one that brings them peace and security, and lets them rebuild their Temple.

People, that person may be right around the corner!

 

[TCC]

There is an interesting point in Judaism from the ultra religious and conservative rabbis who say that when their Messiah appears, the way they will know him as Messiah will be the fact that he enables them to build the 3rd Temple. The mystical Hasidim and others have been saying this for many years.

We have to remember their idea of Messiah doesn't mean God in human flesh, it means someone God inspired like King David or Joshua or Moses. They see 2 Messiahs not one. Ben David- the son of David, conquering king - who will lead Israel to throw off her oppressors. But there is a puzzling second Messiah they struggle with, and it's the Ben Joseph - the son of Joseph who suffers for them. The Jews 2000 years ago were hoping for a Messiah to throw off Rome. Not a crucified, resurrected Lord and Saviour who was both 100 % God and 100% man, yet a sinless sacrifice. Some got it, they became the church.

When the AC appears, if the hint in Daniel is correctly understood that this AC, false Messiah will allow them to rebuild their Temple, it's almost a done deal he will be accepted as Messiah by the ultra religious Hasidic rabbis and many of the prophetically minded conservatives. The Sanhedrin, the Temple faithful. It's the Messiah they've been expecting.

The hint I refer to in Daniel is this: Daniel 9: 26 & 27

26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.



V 26 refers to Jesus on the cross. It jumps forward to 70AD and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple. In between 26 and 27 is a gap around 2000 years. God's prophetic time clock of the 70 "sevens" is interrupted after 7 sets of 7, then 62 more sevens ending at the cross. With 1 more "seven" to finish the 70.

The fact of the gap is obvious, because the Angel speaking to Daniel gives the end of Jerusalem and the 2cd Temple which occurred long after the Cross in 70 AD. An even bigger gap happens - we've seen almost 2000 years go by since.

We live in a gap. Ever since the Cross. The church age.

It's interesting that the angel speaking to Daniel refers to this event in 70AD - some 40 plus years after the Cross, the Resurrection and Ascension, then Pentecost after that. 40 years into the Church Age, well into this gap is this 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The angel points to this gap. The time clock stops ticking at the cross and resumes at the start of the final set of 7.

V 27 starts up with a "he" who will confirm a covenant with many (some translation say "the many" which is a way of saying the leaders plural of Israel- something Isaiah points out in his prediction of the covenant with death and Hades). It's an idiomatic expression that implies the leaders multiple (ie a govt) of Israel at the time.

Since we know that the thing that starts the Tribulation is this very covenant, this means we identify the "he" of v 27 as the AC.

The hint is this. This mention of the covenant in v 27 after a mention of the destruction of the Temple, and before another mention of the Temple forms an X, a chiastic structure. It's all thru the Bible, so this one goes like this: ... will destroy the city and the sanctuary.....will confirm a covenant..... put an end to the sacrifice and offering.

This forms a chiasm, a sandwich. The mention of the sanctuary, then the covenant, and mention of the rebuilt sanctuary ties the covenant to the rebuilt sanctuary. Think of the sanctuary (Temple) as bread, and the covenant as the filling in between, tying the two eras together.

That final 7 begins with a covenant that has the Temple on either side. The second Temple period (the first set of 7 sevens, then 62 sevens making 69 sets of seven in all with one set of seven remaining) The covenant stands in between, and marks the beginning of the last set of 7. The Tribulation period.

It's a very slight hint, but it's there.

Thanks Margery. I appreciate you detailed overview on that, because it is important to see more clearly why we believe what we might. Amen. And tt would make sense in how Israel having diverse parties currently might need to all agree. I understand your saying that the far right will see AC as Messiah. There are Americans who, during Trump's 1st term, thought him to be some Messiah. So yeah, people will be people. And it may be a faction of Israel believe the AC as some form of a Messiah. And it is possible in some lying sense, the AC might identify with an extremely fleshy version of what they hoped for in the temporal with Jesus. And wanted Rome defeated. I can see that. But when we consider Daniel 11:37:

37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

...there is no indication AC will regard himself even in any sense of lineage regarding the Messiah for Israel. Is that your understanding? Because this is a marker of what to see about the coming AC. But the way it seems evengelicalism sees this is by placing over our eyes the sense of perhaps what the extreme right (only) in Israel will see. Because it jives with a thesis / anti-thesis. In which we would understand the AC in contrast.

When we view Rev 13, what we notice there is that the AC had been running battles for quite a while. And at the point where it seems he is killed (not before), it would seem there the false prophetic arises. Testifying to the AC, something. More likely that he is a (g)of or the God. But this does not follow the pattern of Christ. John the Baptist came in his pubic ministry before Jesus was ever known. In Rev 13 the AC is known enough to see his appearance of come back noteworthy. So in the Rev 13 sequence, the false prophet comes after the AC. Not before, like John the Baptists. In this, we tend to see the AC just a copy cat -- which has merit. But the AC does not seem to overlay a copy of messiah in that the false prophet comes second...not before the AC. So I would just see in that a loud suggestion (taken with Daniel 11) that whatever overtures of the AC mirror the Messiah might be more coincidental than prophetic. Perhaps?

The reason I bring this up is because if we today are trying to see themes approaching that assing to the AC too much a way we understand it might be, can tend to blur what otherwise is really going on. Well, I just mean that in a general sense. Like in general, how prophecy pans out might be more in line with an AC not so attached to a Messiah theme as we might assign him. And thinking too forwardly in that he must come as a Messiah could be setting ourselves up (this side of the age of grace) to impose our own understanding on events today. If that makes sense?

 

[TCC]

THIS!

It is so easy to lay our interpretation of "the Messiah" on the Jews, but they regard him much different.
More like "A Messiah".

Just like they wanted Jesus to chuck out the Romans. They would have crowned Him for it.
But when he didn't, they were done with Him.

Now, they are waiting for the one that helps them deal with Hamas, Hezbollah and their ilk.
They will revere the one that brings them peace and security, and lets them rebuild their Temple.

People, that person may be right around the corner!

Yes Kaatje, I can see Israel's definition of Messiah to mean a strong ruler that grants them temporal success. This is what they wanted in the 1st century, yes. And as far as that goes, it would seem the AC to assume those shoes in deception. That makes sense. I think he can do that with regard to their religion. In which ironically Israel will likely in their unbelief be ok with...lol. Which sounds odd.

But you bring up an interesting hinge point that we will of course have to see how it goes. Where we are use to thinking of the AC with peace and safety for Isreal. No doubt in some fashion to make a contract for 7 years would of necessity assure a people are safe. Otherwise, what good is it? But Israel's peace and safety at this point is kind of exactly why I would have interest in this type of discussion. Not to poo poo how the AC may not fit some aspects of Israel's idea of Messiah. I have not really doubted that potential in my thinking.

<Mod Edit>

The peace and safety commonly associated with AC is Dan 8:25:

He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

For example, there is no scripture I am aware of that links AC's covenant with the many to the focus of peace and safety. Yet it would seem evangelicalism will affirm this to the grave. In 2 Thes they could argue that. But again, like Andy Woods might use "the apostasy comes first" as the rapture. And that is creative. And may have some poetic value to wink at a rapture, amen. But I believe the most sound and stable over the target observation on 2 Thes is that "the apostasy" (as great as we see church fallout today) seems to be likely near the midpoint. So that the Thes church would know that the day of the Lord (in the Armegeddon reaper angel sense) won't come unless there is a massive religious fallout first. If we think of the Thes context, they might have assumed this is their timeframe. For the entirety of Judiasm was collapsing all around them. A grand theater than never before had occurred like that. So in one sense, the first century was witnessessing a grand apostasy (holding on to the old testament). But however big that was, and however big we see apostasy today...it will likely pale in significance to when things near the midpoint. A primed and prepped way for the world to meet the grand deceiver as (g)of. In that time, the fallout in humanity concerning apostasy will make all other historical periods pale significantly in comparison is how it likely reads to me.

. . . . .


<Mod Edit>

Am I saying the pretrib rapture is not accurate? No. Not at all. After almost 20 hours of video debates, I came to realize that even if we dismiss questional use of verses for pretrib, it is still 100 times stronger a reality in scripture, form all things considered, than any other view. In this way, I am not too concerned with seeing some cherished views on pretrib suggest other imports. Because the way I understand pretrib is not necessarily predicated on certain verses to show pretrib. I would say the biggest one is Rev 4 and 5. Although John being called up by a voice of a trumpet does seem to be rapture-esque...it does not have to be. Nor do the 24 elders have to be the resurrected church for me to see pretrib is solid. For in my understanding it is solid with out those takes. I admit Rev 4 looks very much like what the pretrib rapture community would hold it to be. But I don't need to defend pretrib rapture with Rev 4 or 5 at all. So I am just sharing this as an example.

<Mod Edit>

What tends to seem to happen, in my take, is that there are monstrous stories told about evil in the world. And deception etc. And even though we will have a sense of those, to see that mostly, and miss the majesty of God in contrast at our very ripe moment of missing it...would be a trajedy I believe. So its more, for me, a way to mitigate against imported theatrics that lean toward the majesty of the prince to come focus so that we can enjoy Him in His movie. And I know in what you are saying you see it through His majesty the most. Amen. But there are a lot of focuses out there making much of the NWO, deception, the AC, etc...that at a time the heart of God is on display...to me...would be like watching the trailers and going home never seeing the movie we came to watch for 2 hours. For it will only last but a short season. So I guess my interest is more so in making that opportunity most available for my own sanity I reckon and enjoyment in Him, as well as hopefully for others. And although I know we can see His majesty even in the darkness of theater, I don't believe (as children of the light), that is our movie. I guess i am more like a nuerotic artists who insists we use blue instead of red here or there. And I can laugh at myself about too in that. But really, my main reason for voicing themes is because we are obviously going to be off all over the place (each of us). But that there is a core movie going on that is so precious, I believe, in what is seeable, notable, relatable etc. And although it may not work this way for most. For me, it helps me have a more sincere place to share Him with others from. I realize others may not be as damaged as I. And for that I do apologize. But I am jealous for His most pure work in me to come from that place. I don't mean it to be selfish. I just have a lot of issues...lol. So seeing Him most clearly (coming from the camps I had been in) is like this: All throughout life there seemed to a presence always demanding some directors cut over a simple relationship with Christ. And it severed to horrific effect. So on our way out, if I have a chance to see Him for Him better, even as many of the themes I had over the years (and seem to continue and flower into still other more radical version what might seem for me to be potentially quests for a directors cut over His simple beauty), that is a reason to get up in the morning. To better see the God that sees Hagar. It pretty simply, for me, kind of boils down to that. In any event, I hope that is helpful general detail as to where I am kind of coming from. You are very prescious in Him dear sister. Blessings.

PS -- I will try and keep these short...lol. Wrokin on it

 

[Margery]

Thanks Margery. I appreciate you detailed overview on that, because it is important to see more clearly why we believe what we might. Amen. And tt would make sense in how Israel having diverse parties currently might need to all agree. I understand your saying that the far right will see AC as Messiah. There are Americans who, during Trump's 1st term, thought him to be some Messiah. So yeah, people will be people. And it may be a faction of Israel believe the AC as some form of a Messiah. And it is possible in some lying sense, the AC might identify with an extremely fleshy version of what they hoped for in the temporal with Jesus. And wanted Rome defeated. I can see that. But when we consider Daniel 11:37:

37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

...there is no indication AC will regard himself even in any sense of lineage regarding the Messiah for Israel. Is that your understanding? Because this is a marker of what to see about the coming AC. But the way it seems evengelicalism sees this is by placing over our eyes the sense of perhaps what the extreme right (only) in Israel will see. Because it jives with a thesis / anti-thesis. In which we would understand the AC in contrast.

When we view Rev 13, what we notice there is that the AC had been running battles for quite a while. And at the point where it seems he is killed (not before), it would seem there the false prophetic arises. Testifying to the AC, something. More likely that he is a (g)of or the God. But this does not follow the pattern of Christ. John the Baptist came in his pubic ministry before Jesus was ever known. In Rev 13 the AC is known enough to see his appearance of come back noteworthy. So in the Rev 13 sequence, the false prophet comes after the AC. Not before, like John the Baptists. In this, we tend to see the AC just a copy cat -- which has merit. But the AC does not seem to overlay a copy of messiah in that the false prophet comes second...not before the AC. So I would just see in that a loud suggestion (taken with Daniel 11) that whatever overtures of the AC mirror the Messiah might be more coincidental than prophetic. Perhaps?

The reason I bring this up is because if we today are trying to see themes approaching that assing to the AC too much a way we understand it might be, can tend to blur what otherwise is really going on. Well, I just mean that in a general sense. Like in general, how prophecy pans out might be more in line with an AC not so attached to a Messiah theme as we might assign him. And thinking too forwardly in that he must come as a Messiah could be setting ourselves up (this side of the age of grace) to impose our own understanding on events today. If that makes sense?

Good points, I do think it's something to be aware of- that we might be reading expectations into the text rather than drawing out of the text, what is there.

But I think there is plenty of backing for seeing the AC as an imitation of Christ, a substitute. It helps to look at the contrasts between the types of Christ and the types of the leaders who oppose God and oppress Israel.

From Genesis where we see the earliest picture of an AC wannabe in Nimrod, and his globalist dream, drawing all the people together to build that tower- and that tower had several purposes judging from the archaeological evidence of early writings- towers were used as portals to connect with fallen angels. There is somewhere- perhaps Josephus, I'm drawing a blank that the tower of Babel was also built to avoid another flood.

The Bible points out that it was done to prevent being scattered over the earth as God had commanded, and it was to create a name for themselves which might be considered a memorial.

So in Genesis 11 we see a picture of a future AC- a type of the AC and we see God call Abraham- who would later act out the part of God the Father when Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, his only son (referencing the God ordained child Isaac, setting aside Ishmael as The Son of promise).

Pharoah is a type of the AC- he oppresses Israel, the plagues look a lot like the disasters in Revelation and God's people are brought forth out of Tribulation

David is a king after God's own heart- setting up a picture of Christ ruling on David's throne in the Millennium. Who is the AC type in this? Perhaps Saul- who comes before the reign of the true king. He's the one the people wanted, rejecting God as their king.

Many years later Nebuchadnezzar arrives on the scene and oppresses the Jews, taking them into captivity while CYRUS named by Isaiah centuries before his birth acts to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple.

Centuries later the greatest "type" of the AC arrives in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes predicted by Daniel. Jesus refers to Daniel's prophecies in the Olivet discourse. This AC desecrates the Temple (the Second Temple, later improved on by Herod)

Jesus arrives on the scene at the time of the Herods (another group type of the AC- oppressing the Jews - murdering the infants for example, murdering John the Baptist - different Herods, same Satanic impulse) and offers the kingdom to the Jews at that time. Jesus is put to death on the Cross and proves Himself by resurrection.

Jesus points to Daniel in his Olivet discourse, this is absolutely important to see Daniel's prophecy as taught by Jesus. Matthew 24:15 refers directly to Daniel 9:27, Daniel 11:31 and at the end of chapter 11 the prophecies move from the time of the Maccabees- revolting against the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus to the time of the end in v 35 of chapter 11.

So we have one of those time gaps, a jump forward into the future for the rest of Daniel 11 and 12. Daniel 12 answers the question how long will this Tribulation last once the Daily Sacrifice is stopped and the Abomination of Desolation happens. These events occur at the same time. The Daily Sacrifice is stopped when the AOD happens.

Then a further day count of 1290 is given till that time of trouble is done. This corresponds with the end of the Tribulation. Got Questions here explains the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days Why do Daniel and Revelation give varying counts of 1,260, 1,290, and 1,335 days for the tribulation? | GotQuestions.org

There are intriguing clues that 1335 may point to the Day of Pentecost but that is another rabbit trail.

All these types and pictures point to prophecy which in Jewish thinking follows patterns. The pattern of the AC thru the Bible points to the final version of him.

 

[TCC]

Good points, I do think it's something to be aware of- that we might be reading expectations into the text rather than drawing out of the text, what is there.

But I think there is plenty of backing for seeing the AC as an imitation of Christ, a substitute. It helps to look at the contrasts between the types of Christ and the types of the leaders who oppose God and oppress Israel.

From Genesis where we see the earliest picture of an AC wannabe in Nimrod, and his globalist dream, drawing all the people together to build that tower- and that tower had several purposes judging from the archaeological evidence of early writings- towers were used as portals to connect with fallen angels. There is somewhere- perhaps Josephus, I'm drawing a blank that the tower of Babel was also built to avoid another flood.

The Bible points out that it was done to prevent being scattered over the earth as God had commanded, and it was to create a name for themselves which might be considered a memorial.

So in Genesis 11 we see a picture of a future AC- a type of the AC and we see God call Abraham- who would later act out the part of God the Father when Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, his only son (referencing the God ordained child Isaac, setting aside Ishmael as The Son of promise).

Pharoah is a type of the AC- he oppresses Israel, the plagues look a lot like the disasters in Revelation and God's people are brought forth out of Tribulation

David is a king after God's own heart- setting up a picture of Christ ruling on David's throne in the Millennium. Who is the AC type in this? Perhaps Saul- who comes before the reign of the true king. He's the one the people wanted, rejecting God as their king.

Many years later Nebuchadnezzar arrives on the scene and oppresses the Jews, taking them into captivity while CYRUS named by Isaiah centuries before his birth acts to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple.

Centuries later the greatest "type" of the AC arrives in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes predicted by Daniel. Jesus refers to Daniel's prophecies in the Olivet discourse. This AC desecrates the Temple (the Second Temple, later improved on by Herod)

Jesus arrives on the scene at the time of the Herods (another group type of the AC- oppressing the Jews - murdering the infants for example, murdering John the Baptist - different Herods, same Satanic impulse) and offers the kingdom to the Jews at that time. Jesus is put to death on the Cross and proves Himself by resurrection.

Jesus points to Daniel in his Olivet discourse, this is absolutely important to see Daniel's prophecy as taught by Jesus. Matthew 24:15 refers directly to Daniel 9:27, Daniel 11:31 and at the end of chapter 11 the prophecies move from the time of the Maccabees- revolting against the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus to the time of the end in v 35 of chapter 11.

So we have one of those time gaps, a jump forward into the future for the rest of Daniel 11 and 12. Daniel 12 answers the question how long will this Tribulation last once the Daily Sacrifice is stopped and the Abomination of Desolation happens. These events occur at the same time. The Daily Sacrifice is stopped when the AOD happens.

Then a further day count of 1290 is given till that time of trouble is done. This corresponds with the end of the Tribulation. Got Questions here explains the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days Why do Daniel and Revelation give varying counts of 1,260, 1,290, and 1,335 days for the tribulation? | GotQuestions.org

There are intriguing clues that 1335 may point to the Day of Pentecost but that is another rabbit trail.

All these types and pictures point to prophecy which in Jewish thinking follows patterns. The pattern of the AC thru the Bible points to the final version of him.

Amen. But dear sister you aware of those types of AC do not mimic Christ. Or if so, which one? They seem extremely different than Christ. Right?

Also, does it not seem that Christ affirms Himself the AC will be different than a copy of Him? John 5:43:

43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not [a]receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.

Perhaps here it is thought that AC will be a Messiah in his own name. Or perhaps in line with Dan 11 that the AC does not align himself with Israeli history (God of their fathers)?

Does it not seem the AC is highlighted throughout history to not look like a messiah mimic though?

 

[Everlasting Life]

TCC I believe you've noticed something important with the AC and his connection as a false messiah. As I read Revelation what seems to be happening is that satan is creating his own counterfeits in answer to the truth of who God is and what God's done. So, there's the counterfeit trinity in the dragon (satan), the first Beast (world empire) and the second Beast (false prophet). Manning the helm of power in the first beast is the man of lawlessness who is fully possessed by satan.

Just as Jesus had a deadly wound in His crucifixion and was raised up by God's power, satan will use deception to seemingly bring back to life the first beast from a deadly wound. So, there's the false resurrection.

Where Israel has rejected Jesus Christ, they will instead embrace the AC as the false messiah...satan, very deceptively provides his own version and the leadership of Israel fall for the deception as Jesus foresaw they would:

I have come in My Father’s name and with His power, and you do not receive Me [because your minds are closed]; but if another comes in his own name and with no authority or power except his own, you will receive him and give your approval to an imposter.
John 5:43 AMP

However, Israel will figure out in about 3 &1/2 years that the AC is not all that he's cracked up to be. Which is why Jesus said, "And now, look, your house is abandoned. And you will never see me again until you say, ‘Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’”
Luke 13:35

Israel will then realize who their Messiah really is, Jesus Christ. Zechariah shares how they react to finally realizing this:

For on that day I will begin to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

“Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died. The sorrow and mourning in Jerusalem on that day will be like the great mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo.


In the meantime, God, in His sovereignty, permits this to happen so as to allow those who refused to love the truth (Jesus Christ and placing faith in Him) will be trapped in a deceptive delusion.

The coming of the [Antichrist, the lawless] one is through the activity of Satan, [attended] with great power [all kinds of counterfeit miracles] and [deceptive] signs and false wonders [all of them lies], and by unlimited seduction to evil and with all the deception of wickedness for those who are perishing, because they did not welcome the love of the truth [of the gospel] so as to be saved [they were spiritually blind, and rejected the truth that would have saved them]. Because of this God will send upon them a misleading influence, [an activity of error and deception] so they will believe the lie, in order that all may be judged and condemned who did not believe the truth [about their sin, and the need for salvation through Christ], but instead took pleasure in unrighteousness.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 AMP

 

[Margery]

Amen. But dear sister you aware of those types of AC do not mimic Christ. Or if so, which one? They seem extremely different than Christ. Right?

Also, does it not seem that Christ affirms Himself the AC will be different than a copy of Him? John 5:43:

43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not [a]receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.

Perhaps here it is thought that AC will be a Messiah in his own name. Or perhaps in line with Dan 11 that the AC does not align himself with Israeli history (God of their fathers)?

Does it not seem the AC is highlighted throughout history to not look like a messiah mimic though?

How do they mimic Christ? Good question.

Each of them provides a glimpse of the character and nature of the AC in the very places they try to replace Christ. Usually in the authority of Christ as King. Some attempt to be worshipped as a god (Nebuchadnezzer for example- that is the point of the fiery furnace- which provides a picture of the Tribulation which I can outline at some other time)

Starting with Nimrod- He attempts to rule the world (something Christ will do in the Millennium) and unite the world (something Christ will do in the Millennium). Those 2 attempts describe the AC during the Trib- attempting to unite the world (various prophets explain the fracture zones in his quest for world domination) and rule it.

Pharoah again tries to be the ruler of the Jews, ends up being their oppressor, but in his role as ruler he and Nebuchadnezzer attempt to own God's people. Jesus is the rightful king. So again, the quest for kingship, to be that ruler in place of the One who is destined to rule.

Saul is interesting. He comes before the royal David king. He hates David and tries to wipe him out on many occasions. When he explains himself to Jonathan, he is mad at Jonathan telling him not to help David or Jonathan will never be king. So Saul has an awareness of being king in David's place. He knows the divine ordinance placing David as anointed king but he attempts to sidestep God's plans by killing off the rightful heir.

Jesus speaks of this murderous desire in the parable of the owner of the Vineyard.

All thru history there is this struggle by the usurpers to take the place that belongs to God's own Son.

Antiochus Epiphanes - his name means "God Manifest" and he felt he was the living version of Zeus- which is why he sacrificed a pig on the altar- that animal being sacred to Zeus.

Just from his name and claim to be God Manifest in human flesh shows his imitation of Christ, but to then sacrifice the animal sacred to Zeus and absolute defilement to the Jews shows how he felt the Temple belonged to him as Zeus in human flesh.

As Jesus points out in Matt 24:15 the Jews were to look for the Abomination that causes Desolation in the future (his audience knew that this had occurred in the past already under Antiochus) so Jesus is drawing the connection between that Antiochus and the future AC.

That is EXTREMELY important because to the Jews listening to Jesus pattern IS prophecy. Jesus is pointing to a pattern that prophetically will be in future (and even during the destruction of 70 AD did NOT happen)

Jesus also points out that the Jews who reject Him, would fall for one who comes in his own name.

John 5:43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.