Jesus as Temple

by Damien F. Mackey "And the Word became flesh and Tabernacled among us". John 1:14 Introduction Some non-Christians, such as the Moslem scholar Dr Ali Ataie (Christian Zionism: a Major Oxymoron), are emphasising that the Christian Zionists are going against the New Testament by hoping to hasten the end times and the Final Coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, by re-building the (third) Temple in Jerusalem. For, as these non-Christians rightly say, Jesus had claimed of the old Temple that “not one stone here will be left on another” (Mark 13:2), and that He himself was now the Temple. In this way, such non-Christians have read the New Testament far more accurately than have the Christian Zionists, who are succeeding only in emptying the Scriptures of their true meaning. A completely new age had been ushered in with the return of Jesus, as He said, to bring fiery Justice upon the evil and adulterous generation that had crucified Him (cf. Malachi 3:5: “I will come to you in judgment ....”). The land of Israel was ravaged and burned, its capital city of Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple was totally eradicated, and those thousands of Jews who were not killed were taken away into captivity. That physically severed forever the ancient Abrahamic connection between the Jews and the Holy Land. The far more important spiritual connection with Abraham, based on Faith, a pre-requisite for the possession of the Holy Land, had already been shattered. So much so that Jesus, when the Jews boasted of having Abraham for their father, insisted that the Devil, not Abraham, was the father of the prophet-slaying Jews. 'You belong to your father the Devil' (John 8:44). Saint Paul in Galatians makes it quite clear that the connection with Abraham is only through Jesus Christ, the “seed” of Abraham (3:29): “And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise”. The straw that broke the camel's back would be the rejection of, and murder of, the Prophet of Prophets himself, Jesus the Christ. It is sad and quite frustrating to see pious Jews now reverencing a large Roman wall situated well away from where the Jerusalem Temples had stood, and hopefully expecting the Messiah to arrive in Jerusalem in the not too distant future. Nor is it any good that Zionists - including the Christian version of these - a very powerful and wealthy lobby, have that same goal of re-building the stone Temple (in the wrong place, it must be said), to welcome the Messiah, or Jesus (depending on whether one is Jewish or Christian). Pope Pius X and Zionism Does Zionism have a place? Not according to the reaction of pope Saint Pius X, who replied to Theodor Herzl in a meeting in 1904: https://catholicism.org/the-zionist-and-the-saint.html …. The pope was Saint Pius X. According to Herzl’s diaries, when asked to support a Jewish settlement in Palestine, the saint “answered in a stern and categorical manner: ‘We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem — but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people.’ That is not to say that the popes are anti-semitic, a separate issue. Pope Pius XI would remind Catholics (via a group of Belgian pilgrims) back in 1938, in the face of tyrannical pressure being exerted upon the Jews, 'We are spiritually Semites'. And the Church favourably included the Jews (and Muslims) in the Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate. {I have difficulty with the restriction of the term, Semitic, to merely the culturally Jewish people. Plenty of others are of Semitic origins. Added to that, we no longer know, since c. 70 AD, who of those claiming to be Jews, and who are culturally Jewish, are actually ethnically Jewish}. ‘Destroy this Temple’ The pivotal biblical association of Jesus with the Temple was, of course, the incident of his cleansing of the sacred place from the money-changers. This led to his assertion: ‘Destroy this Temple and I will rebuild it in three days’ (John 2:19). And, though it had taken 46 years to build the last stone Temple (2:20), the Word is timeless. The Apostles realised that Jesus was speaking of the Temple of his very body (John 2:21-22). Jesus is the new Temple, a spiritual Temple that neither Gog and Magog, the Babylonians, the Romans, nor renegade Jewish zealots, would be able to quench. So, even if the modern Zionists do achieve their aim of building a temple complete with priests and animal sacrifices, again completely against the New Testament that has Jesus as the true High Priest (Hebrews 4:14) making the one and only sacrifice - and which temple will be situated in quite the wrong place anyway, and so not geographically legitimate - it will all be completely futile and irrelevant in the great cosmic scheme of things. And it will not succeed in luring the true Messiah. “Tabernacled Among Us” No wonder that Jesus was wont to go all the way back to Moses to explain himself (Luke 24:27). His human existence, moving amongst his people, had been foreshadowed back in the time of Moses, in the Pentateuch, by the moveable Tent of Meeting, or Tabernacle. Exodus 33:7-11: Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the “tent of meeting.” Anyone inquiring of the LORD would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the LORD spoke with Moses. Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to their tent. The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. Jesus, too, was often on the move among the people. Saint John picks this up in his Gospel by likening the Word's human existence, dwelling on earth, to being Tabernacled (ἐσκήνωσεν). That is the literal meaning of the text, and it is meant to recall the Tent of Meeting which contained the glorious Ark of the Covenant with its mercy seat, the Menorah, and the shew bread. Centuries before (cf. I Kings 6:1) King Solomon would successfully build the fixed Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, the Lord's dwelling amongst the people of Israel was to be, for centuries, this moveable Tent. “Glory of the Lord” “God was at the centre. Surrounding the Tent were the Levites. And around the Levites were the 12 tribes of Israel” (cf. Numbers 2:2). Wherever nomadic Israel was, encamped around the Tent to which were aligned the twelve tribes of Israel, there was to be seen the shining Pillar of Fire, the Kavod Yahweh, “Glory of the Lord”. The shining Cloud is popularly (but not biblically) known as the Shekinah. When King Solomon built the Temple of Yahweh, the Glory Cloud came and rested upon the Temple as a sign to Israel that this was where God dwelt upon earth (2 Chronicles 7:1-2): “When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the Temple. The priests could not enter the Temple of the LORD because the glory of the LORD filled it”. But, centuries later, after Israel had malevolently apostatised, and just prior to the first destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians, the prophet Ezekiel saw the Glory Cloud (the Lord) depart from the Temple (Ezekiel 10:18): "Then the Glory of the Lord departed from over the threshold of the Temple ...". Israel was now on its own. It appears that the Kavod Yahweh did not return even after the exiles from Babylon had rebuilt the second Temple, goaded on by Haggai and Zechariah. Those old enough to remember the former Temple wept (Ezra 3:12; cf. Tobit 14:5). But the prophet Haggai - who, as I need to point out for what will follow, was Tobias (= Job) the son of Tobit, Tobias having been given the Akkadian name, Habakkuk (shortened by the Jews to Haggai) - seemed confident that Kavod Yahweh would eventually return and that the Temple in Jerusalem would be even greater than before (Haggai 2:6-7). But this outlook has Messianic ramifications (cf. Malachi 3:1). The alignment of the twelve tribes of Israel to the ancient Tent of Meeting, and to the later Temple built by King Solomon, anticipated Jesus and his twelve Apostles, upon whom the New Jerusalem was to be built (Revelation 21:19). Nativity and the “Glory of the Lord” Biblical scholars wonder: Why does Luke refer to the Shepherds but not the Magi, and Matthew, to the Magi but not the Shepherds? Some have even tried to tie together all in one the Shepherds-as-the-Magi - a thesis that had really grabbed my interest for a while. The connecting link between Luke and Matthew here is the Kavod Yahweh. The Magi knew that what they had seen was His star because it was the Kavod Yahweh returning to Jerusalem, as their ancestors had foretold, with the birth of the King of the Jews. What the Magi saw was the same glorious manifestation of light that the Shepherds likewise had seen at the Nativity. The Magi possibly delayed their trip significantly to allow for the Christ Child to grow and so take his rightful place seated in Jerusalem. (They would well have known from Micah 5:2, however, that the Nativity was to occur in Bethlehem). That is why the Magi eventually headed for Jerusalem not led by the Star, which they saw again only after they had left King Herod. It led them to “the house”” (no longer the stable) (Matthew 2:9). So, just as the Kavod Yahweh would lead the Israelites through the wilderness, and would stop wherever they needed to halt, so did the same Kavod Yahweh now lead the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and stop. This can be no regular star because it stopped. It was a guiding Cloud of Light, the Glory of the Lord. One could say, it follows the Lamb wherever He goes. It was still associated with the infant Jesus when He appeared to Sister Lucia on a shining cloud at Pontevedra (Spain) in 1925, to request the Communion of Reparation (the Five First Saturdays), whose 100th anniversary we will be celebrating next year, 2025, the Jubilee Year of Hope. The Fatima seer, Sister Lucia, described the resplendent apparition which we need to heed now as a matter of great urgency: https://fatima.org/news-views/the-apparition-of-our-lady-and-the-child-jesus-at-pontevedra/ “On December 10, 1925, the Most Holy Virgin appeared to her [Lucia], and by Her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was the Child Jesus. The Most Holy Virgin rested Her hand on her shoulder, and as She did so, She showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which She was holding in Her other hand. At the same time, the Child said: “‘Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce It at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.’ “Then the Most Holy Virgin said: “‘Look, My daughter, at My Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console Me and announce in My name that I promise to assist at the moment of death, with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to Me.’” Blood and water flows from the Temple The Passover ritual that was occurring at the Temple while Jesus, the Lamb of God, was being crucified, facing the Temple, was being enacted in his very flesh. The slaughter of the sacrificial lambs, for instance. The rending of the huge curtain of the Holy of Holies. Even the priests sprinkling the floor with blood was imaged when Judas (was he a priest?) threw the blood money across the floor in front of the priests. (Dr. Ernest L. Martin, RIP, brillianty picked up this one). But, most significantly, the blood and water that gushed out from the side of the Temple when the priests opened a side door, at the same time that blood and water was flowing from the pierced side of Jesus on the Cross (as noted by Dr Ali Ataie, Christian Zionism: a Major Oxymoron).

Jezebel of Revelation 2 may have been Helena, the wife of Simon Magus

by Damien F. Mackey ‘Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel …’. Here we are told of a New Testament pseudo-prophetess who was either called Jezebel, or who had been given that epithet due to her similarities with the Old Testament’s Queen Jezebel. “The theory that Simon [Magus] was accustomed to borrow from paganism IS CORROBORATED by the assertion of the Fathers that he and Helena were worshipped by their sect with the attributes of ZEUS and ATHENE and received the cult-title ‘Lord’ and ‘Lady’ ….”. Ernest L. Martin There are those who think that the “Jezebel” referred to by St. John the Evangelist in Revelation 2:20-23 was likely the notorious Helena, wife of Simon Magus: ‘Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead’. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds’. Thus we read, for example, at: http://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getmagazine&InfoID=1389529982 Prostitute Prophetess First, we notice that John says this “Jezebel” called herself a “prophetess” (Rev. 2:20). There must have been a particular false prophetess which had caused God's servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. By looking on this “Jezebel” as having been contemporaneous with all the heresies of the other Churches — and that these heresies were in reality only ONE false system which originated with Simon Magus — we can then easily see that this “Jezebel” can be equated with the “Female Principle” which Simon introduced into his “Christianity”. None other than Simon's Helen — the reclaimed temple prostitute from Tyre. Helen WAS a prostitute — what better type of person is there who could so expertly “teach” and “seduce My servants to commit fornication," literally as well as spiritually? Simon Magus came in contact with a priestess of Tyre who had been a temple prostitute. The Samaritans worshiped SUCCOTH-BENOTH who was the goddess VENUS. Her devotees continually prostituted themselves. It was their religious duty to do so. This woman was overawed by Simon's demonistic power and was persuaded to follow him — to live with him — to become the female principle, the necessary counterpart to his claim as being a type of male deity. Relative to this, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 25, p. 126, quoting from Justin [Martyr] states: "And almost all the Samaritans and a few among the other nations, acknowledge and adore him as the first god. And one Helen, who went about with him at the time, who before had had her stand in a brothel, they say was the First Thought that was brought into being by him." This is interesting because Justin was himself a Samaritan — born and reared in the country. He certainly knew his people's native traditions and teachings. What he says agrees exactly with the New Testament revelation of how the Samaritans regarded Simon. They actually called him the "great power of God" (Acts 8:10). It is because of this that they believed him to have creative powers. He himself said he created Helen, his female companion whom he later elevated to a goddess. “Irenaenus, Theodoret, and Epiphanius agree in identifying Simon with the Supreme God and Helena with ennoia, the first conception of his mind and his agent in creation” (Dict. of Religion of Ethics, vol. 11, p. 517). What blasphemy!! But this is what he taught everywhere he went — and under the guise of Christianity. Typically Pagan There always had to be the Man and Woman divinities in paganism. Or, to make it plain, Nimrod and Semiramis. Now notice what the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says about this teaching of Simon which he took to Rome and they accepted: “The original of Simon's Helena is the moon-goddess of Syria and Babylonia. In the Clementine Recognitions Helena is always translated ‘Luna’. The theory that Simon was accustomed to borrow from paganism IS CORROBORATED by the assertion of the Fathers that he and Helena were worshipped by their sect with the attributes of ZEUS and ATHENE and received the cult-title ‘Lord’ and ‘Lady’ (i.e. our Lord and our Lady)” (ibid. p. 518). As stated before, it was Simon's plan to bring about a UNIVERSAL religion under the powerful name of Christianity. Remember that Simon NEVER gave up the Christian name. His followers were called Christians. In amalgamating the pagan Babylonian religious beliefs with Christianity, he placed himself at the head — the personification of the chief pagan gods of old, and Helena as his companion in creation, the personification of the female deities. The name Helena for his consort fit his plan exceptionally well. “There existed a wide-spread cult of the moon goddess in Syria and Egypt under the name Helene; she was identified with Aphrodite, Atargatis, and the Egyptian Isis, who was after represented with Horns to betoken her relation to the moon. One feature of the myth of Helen can be traced to the very ancient connection of the religion of Osiris with Syria. According to legend, Isis spent ten years at a brothel in Tyre during the course of her wanderings in search of the scattered limbs of her husband. The imprisonment of Helen (Simon's Helen) is then only a variant of the many myths relating the degradation of the Queen of Heaven” (ibid.). How important these observations are, for Osiris was clearly Nimrod and Isis was Semiramis. Thus, Simon Magus said that he had been the power that motivated Nimrod and that Helen was Semiramis — the Queen of Heaven. Now let us carefully note that Simon brought his "Female Principle" from the City of TYRE. And who was the original Jezebel — the woman who seduced Israel to worship BAAL? She was the daughter of the king of the Sidonians whose capital city was TYRE. (I Kings 16:31). The original Jezebel was also from TYRE. And not only that, Helen claimed herself to be the creation of Simon — that it was Simon who brought her into existence (Ency. Britannica, vol. 25, p. 126). She was, in a sense, the daughter of Simon. But, the original Jezebel WAS THE LITERAL DAUGHTER OF THE KING OF TYRE (I Kings 16:31). [End of quote] For more, see my article: Simon Magus was a Son of Perdition (3) Simon Magus was a Son of Perdition | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu “Jezebel” mirrors the scarlet “woman” “Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries”. Revelation 17:3-4 Having checked up on the chiastic structure of the Book of Revelation, I was not surprised to find that, at least according to the article, “A Double Chiasm in the Book of Revelation”, Chapter 2, which refers to “Jezebel”, parallels Chapter 17, in which appears the adulteress “woman”. Here is the proposed structure: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55a05678e4b0bb17f7ab8bc3/t/57ae1b7d9f745636e6381667/1471028094276/Revelation+Double+Chiasm.pdf An Overall Structure of Revelation Prologue (1:1-20) Seven Epistles (2:1-3:22) Seven Seals (4:1-8:1) 144,000 Saints and Seven Trumpets (7:1-111:19) The Two Witnesses (11:1-13) The Woman Clothed with the Sun (12:1) Dragon in Heaven (12:4) Women Flees into the Wilderness (12:6) Satan Cast Out (12:12) Woman Fells into the Wilderness (12:14) Dragon on Earth (12:15) Woman’s Seed Keeps God’s Commands (12:17) The Two Beasts (13:1-18) 144,000 Saints and Seven Angels (14:1-15:4) Seven Bowls (15:1, 5-16:21) Seven Angels: Whore of Babylon vs. New Jerusalem (17:1-22:5) Epilogue (22:6-21) Here is the full text of Chapter 17 (vv. 1-18): One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits by many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery, and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries’. Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. The name written on her forehead was a mystery: BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: ‘Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and yet will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come. This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction. The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers’. Then the angel said to me, ‘The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled. The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth’.

Apocalyptic Apoplexy

by Damien F. Mackey The term “Antichrist” does not occur anywhere in the Book of Apocalypse (Revelation). Saving the ‘Literal’ Level A friend has written, and sent to me the following brief review of a no-doubt fascinating book by Emmet O’Regan, entitled Unveiling the Apocalypse. The Final Passover of the Church (2011): Damien, This is my summary of the book Unveiling the Apocalypse by Emmet O'Regan O'Regan's basic thesis is that many of the events narrated in the Apocalypse have taken place in the 20th century but he also outlines what has not yet taken place and locates fairly exactly where he thinks we are currently positioned. In brief he holds that around 1900 following upon [pope] Leo's vision we had the "unbinding" of Satan after the millennium. On this point, he notes that Augustine had two interpretations of the millennium in The City of God the first of which became largely forgotten. The latter, more common interpretation is that the millennium represents an indeterminate amount of time following the binding of Satan at our Lord's Passion. The other interpretation he proposed is that the millennium stands for the Sabbath millennium i.e towards the end (but not exactly at the end) of six thousand years from creation the unbinding would happen. In his day the Septuagint genealogical interpretation was common which meant that the Sabbath millennium would be around 500AD. It was Bede who calculated 3992 years based on the Hebrew text - since adjusted slightly by others. O'Regan points out that an unbinding of Satan around the time of 1900 fits with the Sabbath millennium. Now O'Regan himself does not hold to a young age for man so he sees this as being of "prophetic" significance rather than literal but he really likes it (whereas I would take it more literally). Now, there has also been interesting new research done by Kevin Symonds in his new book on the St Michael prayer and Leo's vision (which I have already recently read). It turns out saying it happened on October 13th 1884 is one of those made up facts. In fact we don't know a lot for sure about the content of the vision, but Symonds concludes that we can say one took place. The earliest accounts that place a time frame for Satan's period of greater freedom are 50-60 years not the commonly cited 100. O'Regan has a fascinating take on this as one of the accounts of the vision (though we must be cautious) depicts God as saying to Satan that they would "talk later." So for the next sixty years Satan "gathered the nations for war" as it says in the Apocalypse and we had the worst wars humanity has ever seen. O'Regan speculates that around the mid century Satan probably re-bargained for another 50-60 years with a different strategy - a more direct attack on the Church. Hence from 1960 everything has gone up in flames within the Church and Pope Paul himself said the smoke of Satan had entered. This … parallels Job, a type of the Church, who was first attacked Satan by losing all his friends and property. Satan then bargained again and sent an outbreak of sores on Job himself. O'Regan argues that around the years 1999/ 2000 we had the casting down of Satan from heaven (which is the context of the discussion regarding the eclipse). It appears that prior to this final casting out Satan always had some access to the heavenly court in order to accuse humanity of its sins hence "the accuser of our brethren has been cast out". Now, as O'Regan says, the problem most people have is after the year 2000 the situation in the world hardly began to ameliorate itself. Hence such an idea comes across as self evidently incorrect to most (after all it was after that time that homosexual marriage became legalised everywhere etc not to mention the current situation in the Church). O'Regan points out this is what we should expect. For it says in the Apocalypse that upon the casting out of Satan the heavens should rejoice but "woe to the earth" for in his fury at being cast down he lets forth a flood upon the earth against the woman. O'Regan argues that is where we currently find ourselves - enduring this last outpouring of Satan's wrath. Now, if he is correct, this has helped me figure out another puzzle (though this is not discussed in his book). I have had trouble figuring out Sr Lucia's words that the battle against marriage and the family will be the devil's last battle. It seems clear to me after all that Antichrist is not yet here but supposedly we are in the midst of this last battle. However, I now see from O'Regan that after Satan is cast to earth his power is then transferred to Antichrist. So the devil's last battle and the last battle are not the same thing. So, what we are currently waiting for, according to this account, is the appearance of the two witnesses to restore the Church (which he says are the holy pope and emperor) and the preaching of the Gospel to all nations through them. Towards the end of this period the Antichrist will arise and fight against them and after Antichrist is defeated then the end will come. Damien Mackey’s response: Since the interpretations given here, and the associated timetable, are quite different from those that I personally favour (which does not necessarily mean that O’Regan is wrong), I should like to give my reasons for why I must disagree with O’Regan (as here summarised). Failure to recognise the “literal” level Whilst I myself have not read O’Regan’s book, and so am dependent upon my friend’s summary of it, I have read this type of book before, this same sort of approach to the intriguing Book of Apocalypse. That is: “O'Regan's basic thesis is that many of the events narrated in the Apocalypse have taken place in the 20th century …”. The most notable book of this type that springs to mind is Fr. Herman Kramer’s engrossing The Book of Destiny (Tan, 1975). Years ago my friends and I were completely hooked on it. What a fascinating read! I have referred to it briefly in, for instance, my article: John the Evangelist and Vincent Ferrer https://www.academia.edu/44521564/John_the_Evangelist_and_Vincent_Ferrer as follows: Fr. Herman B. Kramer … has brought some connections between St. John and St. Vincent Ferrer in his captivating study on the Apocalypse, The Book of Destiny (Tan, 1975). According to Fr. Kramer’s interpretation of the Apocalypse, each chapter [can] be linked literally to an important era of Christian history. For instance, Revelation chapters 8 and 9 Fr. Kramer aligned with, respectively, the Great Western Schism (C14th-15th AD) and the Protestant Reformation (C16th AD). Perhaps Fr. Kramer’s lynchpin for all this was his identifying of the Eagle, or angel of judgment, of Revelation 8:13, or 14:6, with St. Vincent Ferrer, OP. (ibid., pp. 208-9): By a wonderful co-incidence a great saint appears at this stage [the Western Schism] in the history of the Church. His eminence and influence procured for him the distinction of an eagle flying through mid-heaven. This was the Dominican priest, St. Vincent Ferrer. When in 1398 he lay at death’s door with fever, our Lord, St. Francis and St. Dominic appeared to him, miraculously cured him of his fever and commissioned him to preach penance and prepare men for the coming judgments. Preaching in the open space in San Esteban on October 3, 1408 he solemnly declared that he was the angel of the judgment spoken of by St. John in the Apocalypse. The body of a woman was just being carried to St. Paul’s church nearby for burial. St. Vincent ordered the bearers to bring the corpse before him. He adjured the dead to testify whether his claim was true or not. The dead woman came to life and in the hearing of all bore witness to the truth of the saint’s claim and then slept again in death (Fr. Stanislaus Hogan O.P.). [End of quotes] With all due respect to the supposed testimony of this briefly resuscitated woman, the entire Book of Apocalypse (consisting of 22 chapters) right up to approximately the early verses of chapter 20, at least, belongs to an era - Saint John’s own era - when the old Judaïc system was still in place. I explained this in my article, “Book of Revelation Theme: The Bride and the Reject”, now revised as: Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject (3) Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Here is a small part of what I have written on the subject: What has exacerbated the whole exegetical problem of properly interpreting Revelation on a literal level is, I believe, the conventional opinion that St. John wrote this Apocalypse in hoary old age, in c. 95 AD, about a quarter of a century after Jerusalem had been destroyed. Hence many commentators are loath to see any relevance for Revelation in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Protestant and Catholic writers alike accept the late 95 AD date of authorship (Protestant Thomas Foster sharing this view in common with Opus Dei and Fr. Kramer). However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, there has emerged a new scholarship of great expertise as typified by Fr. Jean Carmignac, showing that the books of the New Testament literature (esp. the Gospels), were composed much earlier than was originally thought. And the signs are that the entire New Testament, including Revelation, pre-dates 70 AD. I believe that there is abundant evidence in the Apocalypse to indicate that it was written early. In fact, the reason that prevented my writing this article initially was: Where to start? There is so much! My effort in the end had been greatly assisted by my finding Gentry’s preterist interpretation on the eve of commencing this article. The whole Book of Revelation is focussed upon the Holy Land and especially Jerusalem. The Temple; the golden altar; the 24 elders keeping watch at Beth Moked in the north from where an attack might come (and general Titus did in fact take Jerusalem from there, at the city’s weakest point); the sabbath restrictions; etc., etc. Apart from their late dating of St. John’s Revelation preventing commentators from recognising the obvious, that “Babylon” is Jerusalem, this path they have taken leads them into other awkward anomalies as well. It is commonly believed that St. Paul had already completed his missionary activity and had been martyred well before St. John the Evangelist wrote the Book of Revelation. Paul is given the credit for having established the seven churches to which John later wrote. This view forces commentators into making such strange observations as Fr. Kramer’s: “… St. John could not have interfered in the administration of the churches in the lifetime of St. Paul” (op. cit., pp. 7-8). Oh, no? Was St. Paul (who even refers to himself as a very late arrival on the scene, I Corinthians 15:8) greater than St. John, the Beloved Disciple of Our Lord? St. Paul himself would answer us an emphatic: ‘No’! Of his visit to Jerusalem after his 14 year absence, he tells us: “… James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me …. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor …” (Galatians 2:9, 10). St. John was by no means subservient to St. Paul; but apparently gave orders to the latter. All the Apostles had a hand in establishing the churches throughout Judaea and Samaria, as Jesus Christ had commanded them, and then “to the ends of the earth”, which St. Paul boasted had been achieved even in his day (Colossians 1:23). And Our Lord told the Apostles, “solemnly”, that they would not have completed “the rounds of the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matthew 10:23). [End of quotes] Biblical exegetes down through the centuries have noted various genuine levels of scriptural interpretation, the first (not necessarily the most important) of which being the literal (concrete) level. Now, this is the very level that many pious and, indeed, well-educated commentators, lacking a really solid grounding in the Scriptures and their era, can tend to skip over, leaving things quite vague and unreal. Like a Theology without an underpinning solid philosophy. I had this well in mind when I previously wrote, re Isaiah: …. The “figure” becomes far less “mysterious”, I would suggest, if he is to be grounded in some literal flesh and blood person of Isaiah’s day. Such Christians as those who tend to relate solely to the New Testament, having an extremely poor knowledge of - even sometimes seeming to be virtually allergic to - the Old Testament, will immediately identify Isaiah’s “Suffering Servant” as Jesus Christ the Messiah, without any consideration that the ancient prophet might have intended, directly and literally, some younger contemporary of his …. See e.g. my article: Prophet Jeremiah pre-figures the perfect ‘Suffering Servant’ (3) Prophet Jeremiah prefigures the perfect 'Suffering Servant' | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Now, whilst I could never accuse Pope Benedict XVI of discounting the Old Testament - he who in his book, Jesus of Nazareth (2011), is at pains show how the Old Testament prefigures and leads to the New Testament - and that Jesus Christ cannot be properly understood without the Old Testament - also writing along such lines as (p. 202): What is remarkable about these [Four Gospel] accounts [of Jesus’ crucifixion and Death] is the multitude of Old Testament allusions and quotations they contain: word of God and event are deeply interwoven. The facts are, so to speak, permeated with the word – with meaning; and the converse is also true: what previously had been merely word – often beyond our capacity to understand – now becomes reality, its meaning unlocked [,] - Benedict does, nevertheless, seem to bypass any possible ancient identification of Isaiah 53’s Suffering Servant in this next statement of his (I had previously quoted this): “In Isaiah, this figure remains mysterious: the Song of the Suffering Servant is like a gaze into the future in search of the one who is to come”. The “figure” becomes far less “mysterious”, I would suggest, if he is to be grounded in some literal flesh and blood person of Isaiah’s day: one who also points to “the one who is to come”, who perfectly fulfils Isaiah’s prophecy, but who also re-interprets it, thereby, in the words of Benedict, ‘unlocking its meaning’. Along somewhat similar lines, the prophet Job has remained “mysterious”, and “like a gaze”, without any known genealogy; or era; or country, unless he be “grounded” in his more historically-endowed alter ego, Tobias, son of Tobit. See e.g. my article: Job’s Life and Times (3) Job’s Life and Times | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And somewhat similar again is the common tendency to lift the Book of Apocalypse (Revelation) right out of its contemporary era, and interpret it almost wholly as a prophecy pertaining to our times, without realising that its “ground” is the C1st AD, though it also “gazes” prophetically into our day with which its shares some striking parallelisms. But by no means can Apocalypse’s literalness be applied to the modern age. The “Millennium” Why “an indeterminate amount of time” if Revelation 20:2 specifically says “for a thousand years”? A major theme throughout the Apocalypse, according to my “Bride and Reject” article - for which insight I am basically indebted to other commentators - is that the ‘harlot Babylon’, “the great prostitute”, is Jerusalem (Judaïsm and its stone Temple), the former beloved Bride, gone wrong, with the consequence that she is to suffer the fate of a harlot, death and destruction. This was accomplished by the Roman imperial armies around 70 AD. This great cosmic drama carries us right through to chapters 18-19 of the Book of Apocalypse, so that we, now nearing the very end of the book, are still historically only in the C1st AD. Revelation 19:1-4: After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting: ‘Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, for true and just are his judgments. He has condemned the great prostitute who corrupted the earth by her adulteries. He has avenged on her the blood of his servants’. And again they shouted: ‘Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever’. The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshipped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: ‘Amen, Hallelujah!’ That the Judaïc system is still in place at this stage may be indicated by mention here of the “twenty-four elders”. For: “There were twenty-four officers of the sanctuary representing the twenty-four courses of the Levitical priests (1 Chron. 24:4–5, 7–18), as well as twenty-four divisions of singers in the temple (1 Chron. 25). … http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/who-are-the-24-elders-in-revelation But, with the demise of the once-good-woman-turned-harlot, Judaïsm, the Divine Bridegroom may marry his new “Bride”, the Church, in “the wedding supper of the Lamb” (vv. 5-9): Then a voice came from the throne, saying: ‘Praise our God, all you his servants, you who fear him, both great and small!’ Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: ‘Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear’. Then the angel said to me, ‘Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ And he added, “These are the true words of God”.’ But, firstly, the Beast and his minions have to be destroyed (19:11-21), and the Devil chained (20:1-2): “And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years”. Notice it is at this point, with the chaining of Satan after the destruction of Jerusalem, that the “thousand years” is said to commence. Regarding this, the millennium, my friend (refer back to the beginning) had written: On this point, [Emmet O’Regan] notes that Augustine had two interpretations of the millennium in The City of God the first of which became largely forgotten. The latter, more common interpretation is that the millennium represents an indeterminate amount of time following the binding of Satan at our Lord's Passion. The other interpretation he proposed is that the millennium stands for the Sabbath millennium i.e towards the end (but not exactly at the end) of six thousand years from creation the unbinding would happen. …. Why “an indeterminate amount of time” if 20:2 specifically says “for a thousand years”? The vagueness associated with the Apocalyptical “millennium” may be due to chronological miscalculations and uncertainties. Though I would agree approximately with (as written above) the millennium’s ‘following the binding of Satan at our Lord’s Passion’. And I would even consider possible St. Augustine’s other view that, as according to the above, “the millennium stands for the Sabbath millennium i.e towards the end … of six thousand years from creation …”. All of this brings us to the need for, as I think, a massive re-consideration of AD chronology.

Simon Magus was a Son of Perdition

by Damien F. Mackey “Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, ‘This man is rightly called the Great Power of God’. They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery”. Acts 8:9-11 According to some, Simon the Magician was, all at once, Book of Revelation’s Beast and 666; the Antichrist; “the man of sin”; and “the son of perdition”. Jack Walton introduces Simon Magus as “… the most important person in history you never heard of”: https://www.henrymakow.com/simon_magus.html Simon Magus -- The lluminati’s Jesus? January 3, 2011 The full life of Simon Magus is mostly unknown …. …. He was the towering figure of his time, along with his wife, Helen, the Jezebel and whore of Babylon from Revelation. According to Bible Scholars Barbara Thiering and Hans Jonas, Simon Magus was the founder of the Gnostic church and was the direct competitor with Christianity for the hearts and minds of the Greco Roman world. Simon is the Beast, the original Antichrist, and the true identity of the number 666. He was so powerful in fact, that he is known by many different names in the Bible. Once all his "names" are learned, a very different picture of the Gospel emerges, one in which Jesus and Simon were creating two very different religions, for the reformation of Judaism, and the conversion of the Greco Roman/Pagan world to the Judaic god. The circles that Magus worked in were the Illuminati of his time. At the time this consisted of what we would consider both "white" and "black" magicians, including the apostles of Jesus [sic] and the sects they led, (the "good" guys) as well as the Herod family, and the higher echelons of Rome, and the gnostic magicians (the Saturnalian or "black" magicians). Thus, the "good guys" and the "bad guys had their start together at this time and later split up. Simon Magus was a Samaritan Jew, whose particular version of Judaism incorporated the sexual licentiousness of the ancient Babylonian religions. According to Clement, the early church father, Magus could, levitate items on command, speak with spirits, summon demons and place them into statues making the statues walk and talk, fly, and even raise the dead. These were all deceptions designed to indoctrinate his followers into believing he was a god. His religion, the Gnostic religion, was the sect that preceded Christianity in the Diaspora. The current Illuminati religion (freemasonry) is based on Gnosticism and the ancient Babylonian mysticism (Satanism?) that he incorporated into his version of Judaism that he was selling (quite literally) to the masses of the Greco-Roman world. He is the inspiration for Faust, and modern televangelist deceivers continue his tradition whether they realize it or not (i.e., religion based on deception.) Anytime there is a reference to someone selling their soul to the devil, it is a reference to Faust, who was inspired by Simon Magus. The medieval Rosicrucians who compiled the story of Faust understood all this (are they not Illuminati?) One of the great untold stories of Christianity is how Peter and Paul came behind Simon and converted his many followers to Christianity. In the beginning, Magus had been a follower of John the Baptist, and because of his genius and ability, was accepted by … the other Apostles. Simon's early role in Judaism before his diaspora career, would be seen today as like an intelligence operative. He was of course, cast out of their ranks when they learned who he was. One of the major things he did was attempt to organize a mass revolt against Pilate and the son of Herod, which was put down brutally. …. …. Because of his stature, and the complexity of his life … Simon's accomplishments were divided by the Christians, and attributed to multiple people, under multiple pseudonyms. In other words, he was so dangerous, that he was practically wiped from history, except for those "in the know." A great animosity existed between Simon and Peter. Simon's religion was based on deception, (Simon represented himself as a god), allowed for sexual licentiousness (the origins of "sex-magic", which included orgies and homosexuality by his followers. Peter taught abstinence in marriage, except for procreation, and this drew a lot of women to his flock. …. [End of quote] According to David L. Eastman, in “Simon the Anti-Christ? The Magos as Christos in Early Christian Literature”, Simon Magus was, for the early Christians, a “wicked, deceitful anti-Christ, the very embodiment of evil”: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2222582X.2016.1218953 None of the early Christian sources denies that Simon had power to do things that others could not do. He is consistently remembered and presented as a figure who could perform amazing deeds to astound the crowds, even if he did so through the despicable arts of sorcery. In his various, reimagined guises, Simon was formidable because he was powerful, even if that power came from demons, as Peter asserts in his prayers to strike down Simon. In the earliest Christian centuries, when there existed a perceived threat of alternative Christologies, Simon is presented as the champion of ‘heresies’ such as Modalism and Docetism. …. The authors of the later apocryphal texts, writing in a different cultural and ecclesiastical context, amend the earlier traditions and present a potent Simon in order to highlight the even greater power of the apostles. Peter and Paul confront and conquer this wicked, deceitful anti-Christ, the very embodiment of evil. …. [End of quote] The following description of “the man of sin”, “the son of perdition”, in Wayne Jackson’s article “Who Is Paul’s ‘Man of Sin’?”, seems to me to be perfectly applicable to Simon Magus (though this is by no means the conclusion that Wayne Jackson himself will reach): https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/677-who-is-pauls-man-of-sin Traits of the Man of Sin Once a student has thoroughly read 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, we believe that it is possible to isolate certain tell-tale qualities of this diabolical force, and work toward a solution as to the identity of the “man of sin.” Consider the following factors. The Man of Sin and The Apostasy The Man of Sin is the ultimate result of the falling away from the faith (v. 3). The expression “falling away” translates the Greek term apostasia. Our English word “apostasy” is an anglicized form of this original term. In the Bible, the word is used of a defection from the religion ordained by God. As a noun, it is employed of departure from the Mosaic system (Acts 21:21), and, in this present passage, of defection from Christianity. The verbal form of the term is similarly used in 1 Timothy 4:1 (cf. Heb. 3:12). Note also that the noun is qualified by a definite article (the apostasia). A definite movement is in the apostle’s prophetic vision — not merely a principle of defection. The Man of Sin Was Yet to Be Revealed This sinister force, from a first-century vantage point, was yet to be revealed (v. 3). This appears to suggest that the movement had not evolved to the point where it could be identified definitely by the primitive saints. It awaited future development. The Man of Sin and Son of Perdition This persecuting power was designated as the man of sin (v. 3), because sin was its “predominating quality” (Ellicott, p. 118). This character, referred to in both neuter and masculine genders (vv. 6-7), is the son of perdition (v. 3), because its end is to be perdition, i.e., destruction, by the Lord himself (v. 8). The Lawless One This opponent of God is called the lawless one (v. 8). This power has no regard for the law of God. One cannot but be reminded of that infamous “little horn” in Daniel’s vision: “[H]e shall think to change the times and the law” (7:25). Man of Sin: Opposes God, Exalts Himself, and Sits in the Temple of God The Man of Sin opposes God and exalts himself against all that is genuinely sacred (v. 4). He feigns religiosity, but his true character reveals that he is diabolic. His activity actually is according to the working of Satan (v. 9). In some sense, the Man of Sin will sit in the temple of God (v. 4). …. The implication of Paul’s warning is this. This unholy being is viewed as being a “church” character. The expression “sitteth” may hint of unparalleled arrogance (Ellicott, pp. 119-120). Mason notes that the language describes the Man of Sin as attempting to exact “divine homage” from people (p. 169). Moreover, this Son of Perdition sets himself forth as God. The present participle (“sets forth continually”) reveals that this presumptive posture is characteristic of the Man of Sin. This person represents himself as God, either: • by making claims that belong only to deity; • by receiving adoration reserved exclusively for God; or, • by usurping prerogatives which only God can accomplish. Clearly, the Man of Sin is an ecclesiastical character. Recall the description of John’s lamb-like beast in Revelation 13:11ff. The Man of Sin Deceives with Lying Miracles He deceives those who love not the truth, by virtue of the lying wonders he effects (vv. 9-10). Bloomfield calls these “pretended miracles” (p. 345). These “wonders” are not in the category of Christ’s miracles. Lenski has well commented: “So many are ready to attribute real miracles to Satan and to his agents; the Scriptures never do” (p. 426). …. Man of Sin Already at Work in Paul’s Day The early stages of this ecclesiastical apostasy were already at work in the early church (v. 7). The Greek term (energeitai, a present tense, middle voice form) suggests that this movement currently was working itself towards a greater goal. …. Restrained During Paul’s Day In Paul’s day there was some influence that restrained the budding Man of Sin. This was some sort of abstract force, as evidenced by the neuter form of katechon, “the restraining thing” (v. 6). And yet, this force was strongly associated with a person/persons as suggested by the masculine, “he who restrains” (v. 7). Likely the significance is that of a broad power, operating under individual rulers. Unlike the Man of Sin, whose identity was later to be revealed, the early saints knew personally of this restraining force. "You know (oidate — “to know from observation” — Vine, p. 444). This indicates that the restraining power was an entity contemporary with Paul, not a modern one. Restraining Force To Be Removed The restraining force eventually would *be taken out of the way", or, more correctly, “be gone.” And so, the Man of Sin, in “his own season,” would be revealed openly (vv. 6, 7). Ellicott says that it is a season “appointed and ordained by God” (p. 121). One recalls that the “little horn” of Daniel’s fourth beast only rose to prominence after three horns were plucked up to make room for it. Too, the earth-beast of John’s vision came into full power after the sea-beast had received a death-stroke, but was healed. And so here, the restraining power will give way to the horrible revelation of the Man of Sin. .... [End of quotes] Movement of apostasy, lawlessness, against all that is genuinely sacred, feignedly religious, diabolical, working according to power of Satan, a pseudo-Christian pretender, setting himself forth as a God, and so on. It reads just like the blasphemous profile of Simon Magus. Acts 8:18-23: When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, ‘Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit’. Peter answered: ‘May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin’.

Jewish Zealots like a wild beast grown mad … eating its own flesh

“But for the present sedition, one should not mistake if he called it a sedition begotten by another sedition: and to be like a wild beast grown mad, which, for want of food from abroad, fell now upon eating its own flesh.” Flavius Josephus Adam Maarschalk asked, in 2017: https://adammaarschalk.com/2017/04/09/who-was-the-beast-five-clues-long-island-conference-presentation/ Who Was the Beast? (Five Clues) – Long Island Conference Presentation On March 25th I had the privilege of speaking for the second year in a row at the Blue Point Bible Conference in Long Island, New York. The theme of this conference, which was hosted by Pastor Michael Miano, was “Revelation Revealed.” It was a great weekend of fellowship, learning, encouragement, and discussion. I was also very glad to be able to bring my wife, Jasmine, along with me this year. My presentation revolved around five clues from the book of Revelation about the identity of the beast. Here’s the video, along with my written notes: Introduction The topic that I’m discussing is one that appears in eight out of 22 chapters in the book of Revelation. More space is given to this topic than to the harlot, the two witnesses, New Jerusalem, etc. So this topic is a key part of what John wanted to communicate to his first century readers. This topic is “the beast.” In John’s day, the consequences for following the beast were very heavy, but the blessings for overcoming the beast were also very great. We see this contrast in Revelation 14 and 15, where one group received the full strength of God’s wrath and fiery torment, while the other group had the privilege of standing on the sea of glass and singing the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb: “Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. And he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name’” (Rev. 14:9-11). “I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: ‘Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints! Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, for Your judgments have been manifested’” (Rev. 15:2-4). So there’s no doubt that the beast was a great enemy to the church, but who was this enemy? Was this enemy Roman? Or was it Jewish? Whoever or whatever it was, there are details about the beast in Daniel 7, and Revelation 11, 13 – 17, and 19 – 20 which all need to be reconciled. These details include:  10 horns on the beast  a little horn coming up among the 10 horns  three horns that fell before the little horn  the little horn persecuting the saints for 3.5 years and changing time and law  a second beast that works very closely with the first beast  seven heads of the beast  a wounded head  the dragon, beast, and false prophet working together to gather people to a great battle  the beast and false prophet cast into the lake of fire This presentation won’t cover all these details, but see the “Glossary of Terms” at the end of this article for some more details. In my studies over the last six months or so, I’ve come to some very different conclusions than those I used to hold about the beast. Beginning in 2009, I believed that the beast was Rome (generally) and Nero (specifically). I did have unanswered questions, especially when it came to Daniel 7 and Revelation 19, but I kept those questions on the back burner. When I finally brought those questions to the forefront, I came to realize that Rome and Nero didn’t fit the visions that Daniel and John had about a beast that would oppose God’s people. Damien Mackey’s comment: On Nero, see e.g. my article: Nero and Herod, the Magi, and slaughter of innocents (5) Nero and Herod, the Magi, and slaughter of innocents | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Adam Maarschalk continues: I’ve been putting together a series on this subject in chronological order, moving from Daniel 2 into Daniel 7 and on to Revelation 11, Revelation 13, and to the other chapters which at least mention the beast. In this presentation, though, I’d like to highlight certain pieces of evidence which I believe show that the beast was Israel, and in particular the Zealot movement in Israel that captured the loyalty of so many Jews in the first century. I’ve come to believe that the beast of Revelation wasn’t about emperor worship and persecuting those who wouldn’t worship the emperor Nero. Instead it was about:  extreme nationalism  idolizing and worshiping the kingdom of Israel  the persecution and killing of those who wouldn’t follow the war agenda of the Zealots and the Sicarii  a strong rejection of Jesus’ message that His kingdom isn’t of this world  a strong rejection of the Prince of Peace and His call to be peacemakers  clinging to Mount Sinai, the Jerusalem below, and the kingdom that could be shaken instead of embracing Mount Zion, the Jerusalem above and the kingdom that couldn’t be shaken (Galatians 4:21-31 and Hebrews 12:18-29) Five Clues About the Beast’s Identity In this presentation we will analyze five passages in Revelation in an effort to understand the beast’s identity: 1. The fifth bowl was poured out on the beast (Revelation 16:10-11). 2. The beast was given to the burning flame (Daniel 7:11; Revelation 19:20). 3. Who was killed by the sword AND went into captivity (Revelation 13:10)? 4. Who destroyed and burned the harlot (Revelation 17:16)? 5. How did the two beasts relate to “those who dwell on the earth” (Revelation 13:3-15)? 1. The Fifth Bowl Poured Out on the Beast (Revelation 16:10-11) The first piece of evidence I’d like to discuss has to do with the fifth bowl judgment. Here’s how Revelation 16:10-11 describes the pouring out of the fifth bowl: “Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues because of the pain. And they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and did not repent of their deeds.” Notice that this bowl is poured out on the beast’s throne and kingdom. I want us to consider this fact in light of an observation that a number of preterist teachers and websites have rightfully made. That observation is that the seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls were opened, sounded, and poured out on 1st century Israel (Judea, Samaria, Galilee). For example, in the book, “Four Views on The Book of Revelation,” by Stanley Gundry and C. Marvin Pate, Kenneth Gentry represents the preterist view. He says this on page 72: “John turns his attention to further judgments on the land [of Israel] by means of the three woes (14:6-21) and the seven bowls (chaps. 15-16).” Kenneth Gentry, of course, is well-known for his books and DVDs which teach that the beast was Rome and Nero. I don’t mean any disrespect to him, but he contradicts himself here when he says that [1] all seven bowl judgments were for Israel and [2] Rome was the beast, and yet Revelation 16:10 says that the fifth bowl was to be poured out on the throne and kingdom of the beast. I used to be inconsistent on that point as well. There are several reasons why it’s valid to say that Israel was the target of the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls. I’ll list two of them:  Concerning the seven bowls, Revelation 16:1 shows that their target is “the earth,” otherwise translated as “the land,” that is, the land of Israel (I’ll discuss this translation pattern more when we look at Revelation 13). Here’s what verse 1 says: “Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, ‘Go and pour out the bowls of the wrath of God on the earth’” (or ‘on the land’). So there was a specific land that the seven bowls would be poured out upon, and that land was Israel.  In Leviticus 26:18-28 God repeatedly warned Israel that a time would come when they would be punished “seven times” for their sins, as God would execute the vengeance of His covenant (verse 25). It’s no coincidence that the covenant imagery of Mount Sinai (Exodus 19) appears in the opening of the seventh seal, the sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the pouring out of the seventh bowl (e.g. thunder, lightning, an earthquake, loud sounds, and smoke/fire). Those seven-fold judgments of Leviticus 26 were reserved for Israel alone. They weren’t for both Israel and Rome. So it follows that when the fifth bowl judgment was poured out “on the throne of the beast,” it was Israel, not Rome, which experienced that darkness and pain. It was Israel that represented the kingdom of the beast. If the fifth bowl was poured out on Rome, then the bowls were only a six-fold judgment on Israel and “a one-fold judgment” on Rome, but that’s not the case. Leviticus 26 was completely, not partially, fulfilled. Revelation 16:11 says that “pains” and “sores” would come upon the people who lived in the beast’s kingdom, and implies that further judgment would come upon this kingdom for refusing to repent. During the Jewish-Roman War did people throughout the Roman Empire experience “pains” and “sores,” or did this happen to the people of Israel? When we read Josephus’ descriptions of civil war, famine conditions, dead bodies lying unburied, etc., it’s easy enough to understand that Israel was plagued by “pains” and “sores” during that time, and this was especially true in Jerusalem. It was Israel that refused to repent, and it was upon Israel that more judgments were heaped. 2. The Beast Was Given to the Burning Flame (Daniel 7:11, Revelation 19:20) The second point I’d like to bring up is the language of Daniel 7:11 and Revelation 19:20. Here’s what these two verses say: “…I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame” (Daniel 7:11). “Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone” (Revelation 19:20). If the Roman Empire was the beast of Revelation, how was this empire captured, slain, destroyed, burned, and cast into the lake of fire? Rome actually came out of the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66 -73) stronger than ever. History tells us that Rome was stronger in the second century AD than it was in the first century AD. Someone might say that this applied to Nero, who is said to be the beast in a singular sense. Nero was indeed killed – with his own sword, but he was not captured and he was not burned. Nor did he go down at the same time as any false prophets who worked with him. Furthermore, Revelation 19:21 suggests that it was the followers of the beast and the false prophet whose flesh was consumed by the birds. This further confirms that it was Israel that was captured, slain, destroyed, and burned – as we can see in great detail in “Wars of the Jews” by Josephus. 3. Who Was Killed by the Sword AND Went Into Captivity (Revelation 13:10)? On a related note, in Revelation 13:10 we see a prophecy about the ultimate fate of the beast, and this prophecy was to be a comfort to the saints who were under persecution. John writes: “He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” Some Romans were certainly killed in the Jewish-Roman War, but the end result was victory for Rome. On the other hand, there were mass casualties for Israel, the Zealots, and the pilgrims who came to Jerusalem from many nations but got trapped in the city when the siege began in April AD 70. It’s important to take note of the first part of this verse: “He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity…” The Romans took people captive, but were they themselves taken captive? No, they weren’t. The Jewish Zealots also took people captive, especially their fellow Jews who wouldn’t go along with their war agenda. Were the Zealots themselves taken captive? Yes, they were. This prophecy was about them. To point out a couple examples, the Zealot leaders John Levi of Gischala and Simon Bar Giora were both taken captive by the Romans in August or September AD 70, and both were humiliated in a parade all the way to the city of Rome. John was sentenced to life in prison and Simon was executed as “the general” of the revolt. See Wars 6.9.4, Wars 7.2.2, Wars 7.5.3, Wars 7.5.6. 4. Who Destroyed and Burned the Harlot? (Revelation 17:16) Revelation 17:16 predicted what the 10 horns of the beast would do to the harlot: “And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire.” The harlot, of course, was the city of Jerusalem. As we see in Revelation 17:18 and elsewhere, the harlot was also called “the great city.” And when “the great city” was first mentioned in Revelation 11:8 it was said to be the place “where our Lord was crucified,” i.e. Jerusalem. 1. Who made Jerusalem desolate? 2. Who ate her flesh? 3. Who burned her with fire? Was it Rome, or was it Israel under the Jewish Zealots? Josephus addressed all three of these questions repeatedly. For example, in Wars 5.1.1, 5 Josephus said that when the Zealots attacked the people of Jerusalem in February/March AD 68, this was the beginning of the city’s destruction. He also said that the Zealots were “like a wild beast grown mad” that was “eating its own flesh” and tearing the city into pieces: “Now as to the attack the zealots made upon the people, and which I esteem the beginning of the city’s destruction, it hath been already explained after an accurate manner; as also whence it arose, and to how great a mischief it was increased. But for the present sedition, one should not mistake if he called it a sedition begotten by another sedition, and to be like a wild beast grown mad, which, for want of food from abroad, fell now upon eating its own flesh… And now, as the city was engaged in a war on all sides, from these treacherous crowds of wicked men, the people of the city, between them, were like a great body torn in pieces.” Josephus also said in Wars 5.6.1 that the Romans showed more kindness to Jerusalem than the Zealots did: “…for they never suffered any thing that was worse from the Romans than they made each other suffer; nor was there any misery endured by the city after these men’s actions that could be esteemed new. But it was most of all unhappy before it was overthrown, while those that took it [i.e. the Romans] did it a greater kindness for I venture to affirm that the sedition destroyed the city, and the Romans destroyed the sedition, which it was a much harder thing to do than to destroy the walls; so that we may justly ascribe our misfortunes to our own people, and the just vengeance taken on them to the Romans…” FIRE ….

Fatima revelations and the message of Divine Mercy

“Sr. Lucia and St. Faustina, who were contemporaries, were each given a mission to spread the same message, though different in aspect. While Our Lady of Fatima gave Sr. Lucia a warning of divine judgment and the need for penance, Our Lord came to St. Faustina to encourage souls to implore his mercy as a final recourse to be saved from this impending judgment”. Gretchen Filz The Connection Between St. Faustina and Fatima Jul 05, 2017 by Gretchen Filz https://www.catholiccompany.com/magazine/st-faustina-fatima-6087 What do the private revelations of St. Faustina Kowalska have in common with the events at Fatima? Visions of a destroying angel and of the Holy Trinity, the 13th day, a call to penance, and a fervent prayer for mercy. The Blessed Virgin Mary chose to appear at Fatima in 1917 on the 13th day of the month from May to October, for the purpose of warning the world of its need for penance, and the impending dangers it faced if it did not—the first of which was a second world war. In the years leading up to World War II, a related message was given to a young Polish nun named Sister Faustina Kowalska. On the 13th of September in 1935, St. Faustina received a vision in her convent cell. Similar to the earlier vision given to the three shepherd children at Fatima, Faustina's vision was of an angel, who was ready to execute God's wrath in punishment for the sins of mankind, and of the Holy Trinity. St. Faustina earnestly prayed for mercy as she beheld the destroying angel ready to unleash the impending judgment on the world. It was on this 13th day of the month that Our Lord revealed a prayer to St. Faustina known as the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. As written in the Diary of St. Faustina: "[The angel] was clothed in a dazzling robe, his face gloriously bright, a cloud beneath his feet. From the cloud, bolts of thunder and flashes of lightning were springing into his hands; and from his hand they were going forth, and only then were they striking the earth. When I saw this sign of divine wrath which was about to strike the earth, and in particular a certain place, which for good reasons I cannot name, I began to implore the angel to hold off for a few moments, and the world would do penance. But my plea was a mere nothing in the face of the divine anger. Just then I saw the Most Holy Trinity. The greatness of Its majesty pierced me deeply, and I did not dare to repeat my entreaties. At that very moment I felt in my soul the power of Jesus' grace, which dwells in my soul. When I became conscious of this grace, I was instantly snatched up before the Throne of God. Oh, how great is our Lord and God and how incomprehensible His holiness! I will make no attempt to describe this greatness, because before long we shall all see Him as He is. I found myself pleading with God for the world with words heard interiorly. As I was praying in this manner, I saw the Angel’s helplessness: he could not carry out the just punishment which was rightly due for sins. Never before had I prayed with such inner power as I did then. The words with which I entreated God are these: Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world; for the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us. The next morning, when I entered chapel, I heard these words interiorly: Every time you enter the chapel, immediately recite the prayer which I taught you yesterday.' When I had said the prayer, in my soul I heard these words: 'This prayer will serve to appease My wrath . . ." Sr. Lucia also had a vision of both a destroying angel ready to inflict God's punishment on the earth, and, years later, of the Holy Trinity. In her account of the apparition of Our Lady at Fatima on July 13, 1917, the message of which was part of the Third Secret, Lucia writes: "After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: 'Penance, Penance, Penance!'" On the 13th day of June in the year 1929, Sr. Lucia received this vision of the Holy Trinity as she was making a Holy Hour: "Suddenly the whole chapel was illumined by a supernatural light, and above the altar appeared a cross of light, reaching to the ceiling. In a brighter light on the upper part of the cross, could be seen the face of a man and his body as far as the waist, upon his breast was a dove also of light and nailed to the cross was the body of another man. A little below the waist, I could see a chalice and a large host suspended in the air, on to which drops of blood were falling from the face of Jesus Crucified and from the wound in His side. These drops ran down on to the host and fell into the chalice. Beneath the right arm of the cross was Our Lady and in her hand was her Immaculate Heart. (It was Our Lady of Fatima, with her Immaculate Heart in her left hand, without sword or roses, but with a crown of thorns and flames). Under the left arm of the cross, large letters, as if of crystal clear water which ran down upon the altar, formed these words: ‘Grace and Mercy.’ I understood that it was the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity which was shown to me, and I received lights about this mystery which I am not permitted to reveal . . ." During this vision of the Holy Trinity, Our Lady proceeded to make her request, as foretold in 1917, for the consecration of Russia in order to prevent the calamities that were ready to sweep over the world. In the vision recounted above, Sr. Lucia beheld both blood and water emanating from Christ, similar imagery to the Divine Mercy vision that was later revealed to St. Faustina. Was the light of this mystery, which Sr. Lucia was not permitted to reveal, the mystery of the Divine Mercy which was soon to be given to St. Faustina? Read next Everything You Need to Know about the Divine Mercy Devotion Sr. Lucia and St. Faustina, who were contemporaries, were each given a mission to spread the same message, though different in aspect. While Our Lady of Fatima gave Sr. Lucia a warning of divine judgment and the need for penance, Our Lord came to St. Faustina to encourage souls to implore his mercy as a final recourse to be saved from this impending judgment. Sr. Lucia made known that the message of Fatima, namely, the Third Secret, was connected to the frightful global judgments found in the Book of Revelation. Our Lord, in light of these future punishments for mankind's sin, said to St. Faustina, "Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy." The prayers taught interiorly to the two nuns were also similar. The prayer the Angel of Peace taught to the three children of Fatima prior to Our Lady's appearances: "Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I adore You profoundly, and I offer You the most precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges, and indifference with which He Himself is offended. And, through the infinite merits of His most Sacred Heart, and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of You for the conversion of poor sinners." And the Divine Mercy prayer given to St. Faustina: "Eternal Father, I offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly Beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world." Both nuns would also pray for God's mercy on the world while standing with arms extended out to their sides, in the same manner as Our Lord suffered on the cross. They also both prayed earnestly for the spiritual conversion of their home countries; Lucia for Portugal, and Faustina for Poland. May we let the example of Sr. Lucia and St. Faustina be a call to respond to the urgent need for prayer and penance during the evil times in which we are now living, namely for the temporal protection of our countries and the eternal salvation of souls. Do you want to learn more about the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima? Subscribe to our 30-day content series at GoodCatholic.com.

Matthew, in his Genealogy, may not have omitted any king of Judah

by Damien F. Mackey “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. Mitch Chase A typical assessment of Matthew the Evangelist’s list of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11) – and one with which I would fully have agreed some time ago – is clearly laid out in this short piece (2013) by Mitch Chase: https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-are-there-missing-kings-in-matthew-1/ Why Are There Missing Kings in Matthew 1? Matthew’s genealogy is edited, and by that I mean he has omitted certain kings in the second section (Matt 1:6b-11). Here are his fourteen generations represented by names: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, and Jechoniah. In 2 Kings, it is clear that between the reigns of Joram and Uzziah are three other kings: Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25-29), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:1-21), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1-22). Matthew condenses the genealogy by omitting these three rulers. This is not historical ignorance or oversight. Matthew explains in 1:17 that he has a numerical design to the genealogy of 1:2-16. And since he wants to show fourteen generations, some kings have to be left out. Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah were all evil kings, so we’re not missing anything edifying. They were a trinity to ignore! Then between Josiah and Jechoniah (aka Jehoiachin), Matthew omits Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1-2). Again the reason appears to be his literary design. The last reigning king in the Davidic line before the exile was not Jechoniah, however. It was Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle. Zedekiah, then, is another Matthean omission. Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67). In summary, what were the omissions Matthew made in the second section of his genealogy (Matt 1:6b-11)? (1) Ahaziah (2) Jehoash (3) Amaziah (4) Jehoahaz (5) Jehoiakim (6) Zedekiah Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17). [End of quote] I would no longer accept this method of appraisal. Firstly, I have by now written several articles identifying Mitch Chase’s (2) Jehoash, and (3) Amaziah, as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. For example: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (7) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mitch Chase’s (5) Jehoiakim, I have identified with Manasseh. For example: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward (7) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu As for Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah, (4) Jehoahaz, and (6) Zedekiah, I have until very recently given very little consideration to these names. But that has now changed, with a recent article of mine being about (4) Jehoahaz, appearing in Matthew’s list, so I suggest, under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. Thus: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (7) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I hope shortly to do a similar type of resuscitation with Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah. As for Mitch Chase’s (6) Zedekiah, only a few days ago I had written this about him: I am not interested, since Matthew appears to have deliberately omitted him. For, as Mitch Chase himself has rightly noted: “Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67)”. As in the cases of Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, I am now having serious second thoughts as well about Zedekiah - that he may, in fact, be a duplicate of Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). While I am well aware that any attempt to identify Zedekiah as Manasseh/Jehoiakim will encounter some awkward chronological difficulties, there initially do appear to be certain promising points of comparison. For instance: - Original name, Manasseh, Mattaniah (for Zedekiah) has phonetic (if not meaning) similarity; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah had Egypt as an ally; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah fully wicked; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah revolted against King Nebuchednezzar and went into captivity. So, rather than lean on the latter part of the quote above: “Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him”, I may now be more inclined to lean on its first part: “Why leave out the last king of Judah?” [Meaning Zedekiah – but who may not have been the last]. I am now disinclined, as well, to think that the number 14 was important to Matthew, as Mitch Chase thinks: “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. I now think that this may have been an artificial gloss later attached to the Genealogy. Whilst I am now inclined to believe that no Kings of Judah may have been omitted from Matthew’s genealogical list, I am of the opinion that there are some unwarranted duplications in the text as we now have it: (Tentatively) I think that Abijah was the same as Asa; (Confidently) I think that Hezekiah was Josiah; and that Amon (Haman) was Jehoiachin.