Question: Shall the UK be One of the Ten Horns?
An eTPL29 Analysis: Q & A
I have another inquiry on how to understand your views
You stated in response to my earlier Q9 - "Is the UK part of Europe? Ten horns?" [you wrote] ...
"I don’t know, but I don’t believe so with the information that is given."
"I do think that the hullabaloo over “Brexit” is thoroughly overblown. Whether Britain does indeed divorce itself from the European Union is probably not relevant to prophetic fulfillment.
"Why would I make that assumption? It is well known that the identity of the 'Church of England' is really just Roman Catholicism warmed-over. It holds all the cardinal doctrines of Catholicism except acknowledgment of the headship of the pope. So how can it sensibly be separated from Great Babylon? I cannot see how it can be done...”
I am left with confusion, especially when I read on your website where you connect Britain with the 10 horns of the beast, where you wrote: “Next comes into view the existence of the ten horns on the beast (Rev. 13: 1; Rev. 17). John was told that those ten horns represented ten kings or powers who had no kingdom as yet. In other words, they belonged to the future, even to our day.
"Can we find those ten kings in our midst today? The answer is, 'Yes, we can.' There exists in our view today an organization in possession of all of Europe. Our attention should be upon them. But, someone may object that there are at present 27 member nations of United Europe, not ten. We invite any reader of this article to go to his computer and type in 'Western European Union.' One will watch as the computer calls up a list of links that will direct the reader to a number of articles on the subject. At present, the 9th link mentioned is very important. It reads in the first paragraph:
"Western European Union (WEU), an association of 10 countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and The United Kingdom) that operates as a forum for the coordination of matters of European security and defense. It continued until the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and worked in cooperation with that organization. The WEU became the primary defense institution of the European Union in the 1990s, though it gave up that role in 2001."
"Let us not be deceived or confused by the fact that WEU gave up its role as the committee overseeing European military affairs in 2001. Rev. 17: 13 foretold that the association was going to turn that position over to the beast, that is, to the entire European authority, when it told us:
"These have one mind and shall give their power and strength unto the beast." Therefore we should have known in advance that the power and strength of that association was going to be turned over to "Europe," that is, to the Empire itself with all 27 nations of United Europe calling the shots. Revelation 17: 14 tells the whole story...”
So I am left with the impression that you hold Britain as essential to the power of the beast? If I have misrepresented your views please let me know?
March 23, 2019
My eTPL reply to the above...
Dear Bro. _________,
Methinks you are squeezing me into a ‘corner’ with this demand to make a concretely firm statement about the question stated.
It is a fact of history that Great Britain was originally one of the ten nations of the WEU as I have noted on my web site.
That fact cannot be changed. Britain was one of the ten specified nations charged with the defense of the Common Market Phase of what is now known as the European Community.
But as I noted in my commentary, these ten nations officially turned their power over to the greater Beast (which is how I view the EC) by written agreement in 2001. Revelation 17: 12, 13 foretell this momentous event, which was fulfilled in a formal ceremony in 2001. The initial power of these ten member nations was officially ceded to the greater Beast in that year. Now it is the Beast which is to fulfill the next verse – to make war with the Lamb and be overcome of Him!!!
Now, a further development is in the works – Britain is supposed to be leaving the EC in the much-celebrated “Brexit.” It has not done so yet, but this move is said to be imminent. If it does so, then it would seem that Britain cannot be named with the nations which make up the Ten Toes of the image – just my opinion, but compatible with every scriptural reference with which I am familiar.
We must realize that Bible prophecy is a dynamic entity (our understanding of it is).
There are certain events of which we may be absolutely certain – e.g., that Christ will return and judge the household, and then set up His Kingdom. But we don’t know when that will happen.
There are other portions of prophecy which are really not that decisive or well-defined for us in advance. This one seems relatively undefined, in my mind.
Another thing: I really am unclear as to why this point is so important in the minds of some. Who cares what the secular nation of Britain will do in the future? It can have NO effect upon the nation of Israel in a future time – either as an ally or as an enemy.
Of course, that doesn’t mean it won’t try to have an effect.
Britain lost its Empire due, in my opinion, to its shabby treatment of the Jews who were destined by YHVH to return to their homeland for the first time in 2000 years – in fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah 5: 3: “then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.”
Every serious Bible student knows that this specific time was from 1917 onward, because before that time nearly all immigration of Jews to “Palestine” was forbidden by the Ottomans and all earlier hegemons over “Palestine.”
Sometimes what we thought to be a valid interpretation three years ago may shift, either in importance or in principle as events come to pass in historic time.
And that is the reason behind my later (recent) remarks at the top of this letter, which I insert again here...
“Q9. Is the UK part of Europe? Ten horns?
I don’t know, but I don’t believe so with the information that is given.
I do think that the hullabaloo over “Brexit” is thoroughly overblown. Whether Britain does indeed divorce itself from the European Union is probably not relevant to prophetic fulfillment.
Why would I make that assumption? It is well known that the identity of the “Church of England” is really just Roman Catholicism warmed-over. It holds all the cardinal doctrines of Catholicism except acknowledgment of the headship of the pope. So how can it sensibly be separated from Great Babylon? I cannot see how it can be done...”
If Britain actually does leave the EC, then it seems evident that it will not be a part of the Ten Toe powers of the Image. If it remains IN the EC, then it presumably will be a part of the Ten Toes of the Image.
It doesn’t matter what you or I think or conjecture. We will not be able to be sure until one thing or the other happens. We have to allow events to “play out” as historical fact. We have no prerogative to place limits on just what Britain will do.
I realize that Anglophiles of Bible prophecy desperately want Britain to be present and accounted for when Israel comes under assault by Gog – it’s a traditional viewpoint since John Thomas’ time; indeed, it was his view.
I just don’t happen to see events in that light from scriptural testimony.
We know from Isaiah 63 that Messiah shall appear in Edom for bloody combat with these vile enemies of Israel (PLO, Hamas, etc.) and that “of the people there was none with me.”
That means, to my simple logic, that He (including the immortalized Saints) are the force that ALONE utterly destroys Esau/Edom/Idumea/Mt.Seir/the Islamic inhabitants of ancient Edom, along with the other concomitant military actions described in Obadiah, in Psalm 83, in Isaiah 11, in Ezekiel 34 - 37; in Isaiah 59 and 6o, Psalm 102: 13-16, and about fifty other specific references to these “Phase One” battles of the One Man and Israel against the proximal Islamic nations round about them.
At that time Israel shall have no assistance from any earthly power – not Sheba or Dedan or the “merchants of Tarshish ... and all the young lions” referenced by Ezekiel.
These entities are mentioned only because they are breathlessly inquiring of the Gogian leaders whether their lands and possessions are in danger of the Gogian invasion which is at that time so evident against Israel to their north. The statement at best is only an unanswered interrogatory.
These ask a frantic question as to Gog’s intentions but no reply to that question is even recorded by the prophet – or by anyone else.
To infer otherwise is to refute the prophetic word of YHVH.
To repeat, in my mind, I don’t see why it is such a huge matter of interest; because the conflict in Europe (Armageddon) occurs AFTER the Gogian affair against Christ and His Kingdom, and is the first time and only time that the word “Armageddon” is noted. Therefore it is not scripturally consistent that the earlier wars are so designated.
In my thinking, the previous conflicts of Israel and Christ (Phases One (the nations between the Rivers) and Phase Two (the Gogian host) shall have concluded well before the “everlasting gospel” goes forth to the world and is summarily rejected by the powers represented by The image which “stands on its feet” at that time (and not before that time!).
I believe Britain has lost its currency in these matters (and that that was foreseen by the Spirit eons before today) because of several betrayals of the Jews’ return to the Land...
Even after its fortuitous beginning to favor God's people via means of the Balfour Declaration, Britain betrayed the Jews almost immediately after Allenby’s victory in 1917, and strove to prevent as many of the Jews from returning to the land as possible.
At San Remo, it gave away 78% of the Palestine Mandate to “King” Abdullah of Mecca and named it Trans-Jordan in 1922.
After that time, it consistently sank the ships of the Jewish immigrants trying to make their way to the Mandatory up until 1948, and those that were not sunk were captured and their human cargoes sent to internment camps in Cyprus for an indefinite term.
When Britain left “Palestine” of the day it turned over all its military bases and much of its military materiel and equipment to the Arab powers (primarily Jordan) free of charge while confiscating the weapons of any Jewish “settlers” that they could find.
While administering its Mandate, it hunted down and captured every Jewish leader which resisted Britain and imprisoned them.
I suspect that the enormous interest in Great Britain is rooted in the passage in Ezekiel which famously mentions Tarshish and its young lions ...
Ezekiel 38:13 Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?
The supposition of many has long been that that reference points with unusual certainty to Great Britain and the polities which have sprung from her (Canada, Australia, USA, etc).
There are two major problems (and one or more minor problems) with that thesis, which are: “Tarshish” and “young lions.”
1. The term “young lions” is applied to many secular powers in scripture: an incomplete list is ...
Israel: Isaiah 19 – the entire chapter.
Egypt: Ezekiel 32: 2.
Babylon: Jeremiah 51: 38.
Nineveh: Nahum 2: 11, 13.
Lebanon: Zechariah 11: 3.
My point is that we cannot be certain that the prophet is nominating Great Britain specifically, or its possessions by the use of this terminology. The phrase can mean “villages of an area,” or the indigent population. These have a reason for anxiety; Britain does not have such.
2. The identity of “Tarshish” is not certain to be ONLY Britain; it is often used as a synonym for trading nations in general. Indeed, Isaiah 23: 1 records that ships called at Tyre from “Tarshish.” These were possibly ships from Britain as well as other nations – but these were trading vessels rather than vessels of national identity, in my opinion. Many of these seem to have been Tyrian trading vessels owned by merchants in Tyre, which were known generically as “Tarshish ships.”
II Chronicles 20: 36 details that Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah constructed huge trading ships which were built at Eziongeber – a location near Eilat on the Red Sea. And Solomon did the same: II Chronicles 8: 17, 18.
Were these ships intended to trade with Britain of the day? I hardly think that they were because such would have been preposterous because of the extreme distance required to get to Britain from the Red Sea. Also, they brought back apes and peacocks, the former of which is not native to Britain.
Additionally, it would have been foolish to build ships here to trade with the Tin Isles (Britain) as they should have had to travel southward around the Cape of Africa on their voyage to Britain (or even Cadiz, in Spain, which also seems to be implicated); they were simply huge cargo ships, seaworthy vessels built for heavy seas and trading over vast distances. These vessels of Eziongeber seem to have been destined to trade with civilizations further east, such as India. Was India known as “Tarshish?” I believe not.
So it is possible that “Tarshish ... and the young lions” is in this instance representative not of a specific location but of the trading nations of the earth. Ancient Sheba and Dedan is the location today of most of the crude oil production of Saudi Arabia (near the Persian Gulf) and feature the call-ports of the great oil tankers and container ships of the trading nations of the world. This gives credence to the use of “Tarshish” as synonymous of world trade.
That fits. Britain doesn’t, in my studied opinion.
Another reason it doesn’t fit is that Britain is now a third-rate power among the nations. Do you recall the Falklands War? It required three weeks for Britain to make any concerted resistance to the weak-kneed Argentineans because of the great distance involved. Three weeks!
By the time Britain could respond to the Gogian conflict it will have been concluded for perhaps a week or so in my estimation. Remember, please, that the Lord Jesus Christ is not a warrior in the sense of your average worldly commander. He requires absolutely no preparation for war and no lapse of time to prepare for conflict. The sword of His mouth is always ready!
His conflict with the nearby enemies of Israel I believe will be concluded perhaps within hours - in the entire area between the (Rivers) Nile and the Euphrates – and the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf (the Seas). Even the victory over the Beast, the False Prophet and the Harlot is said to be in “one day,” a term that is likely a literal 24-hour period.
We believe that the conflict with Gog as being carried out by the King of Israel in a very short timeframe as well ... probably in one day. The rapidity of the victory will sear into the consciousness of the other nations just how powerful is the Lord Jesus and His Soldiers!
In conclusion, I hope that you can see that both opinions as expressed in my writings can be considered as valid. The earlier view (that Britain probably would be part of the Ten Toe kingdoms – because that’s the way it looked at the outset) – and my later view that it might not be (probably would not be) in my last comments to your set of questions. The context has changed markedly in the interim.
But to reiterate: in my studied opinion, it really makes no difference whatever. Britain is not a “holy nation.” Its “Church” is exactly similar in cardinal doctrines and practices to the Roman Catholic System without fealty to the pope.
Today The British majority opinion is decidedly with Israel’s enemies; the number of incidents of anti-Semitism in Britain is among the highest in Europe. What would motivate Britain to leap into action against Russia and it cohort at that future time to “protect Israel?”
I hope this perhaps “fluid” reply answers your question. Have a peaceful weekend.
Yours in our Common Faith...
<HEL> Discussion of a Question sent by a Reader.
Q&A: The Nature of End-time Events
A reader wrote an email in which he quoted a passage from one of our published articles. Then he asked whether those quoted wards were mine or from a news article I had cited...
It's me ... my considered opinion ... that extensive passage that you quoted in your email. It is my scripturally-based (?) opinion of the implications of what we are seeing in these end-times.
Repeating the relevant portions of your comment noted here:
“So, in Luke chapter one, when Zacharias said "That we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all that hate us," to whom was he referring, the Vatican, the Russians, a European confederacy, or possibly, and I know it is far fetched to think so, but is it possible that he was alluding to historical "enemies" who were left to "prove" Israel (Jud 2:21, 3:1,4), namely the peoples of Gaza, Lebanon, Golan, and parts of Jerusalem, all of which are specifically named in the Old Testament as being purposely left after Joshua's death?”
In my understanding, Zacharias is speaking of the immediate enemies of "Israel" (the nations) at such a future time when He intends to “save them.” Jesus' day was not that day. That supposition fits only these latter days and the "nations round about" Israel (the polity) today, the state-opposing Islamic enemies between the Rivers and the Seas.
Having said that, methinks the statement ultimately applies to all the above as events progress because all these "hate," first of all YHVH Himself (Micah 5: 1-3), but also His People, and will resist to the death the expansion of the kingdom of "antiChrist" (their supposed identity of Jesus at the time).
No...I don't see any possible way that it could relate to historical enemies left over from the failed Caananitish conquest by Joshua and Israel of old time. In Jesus' day, there was no "Israel," and no power of the People to resist anyone. At that time they were not at hazard from the nations round about; today they definitely are.
As I have expressed previously, I can visualize a day in which the enemies round about Israel today become so numerous and so self-confident and frustrated that they, in desperation, simply flood across the borders in human waves of hundreds of thousands of "fighters" and appear to Israel to be impossible to combat (cf. latter portions of Isaiah 59).
In such a scenario Israel will REQUIRE Jesus' personal intervention. At the onset of it, Israel will surely realize that it cannot possibly stifle this human-wave advance of bloodthirsty enemies and are at a loss of even the ability to employ their nuclear arsenal (the Samson Option) against such a scattered invading force, mixed (as it shall still then be) among their own population.
It will be a desperate position that Israel will occupy at that point and when Jesus (and the Saints, in my humble opinion (IMHO) come to their rescue and begin to decimate those enemies to the last man, their gratitude surfaces to the emotional levels pictured in Zechariah 12 and 13, in which the level of the Israelis' remorse for their past deed of slaying their Savior will overtake every last man and woman of the nation and bring about the global remorse and contrition of Israelis pictured there - salvational levels of remorse and contrition.
And indeed, the claims of some of our critics are true in this sense: the abject repentance of Israel will be required (and will be given) ONLY when He reveals His identity to them. But that repentance will not be achieved (offered) outside of the actual appearance of Messiah to them, and His demonstration of unstoppable power and force as He destroys the enemies they have faced for over seventy years...probably in one day!!!! We believe that is the scriptural scenario given in every instance of its discussion.
Those are the enemies that initially are threatening "Israel" and from which Israel will require "outside help." They can no longer provide their own security (not that they ever have, for I firmly believe it is YHVH's miracles in great numbers that have given the People the survival that they have enjoyed to this day; they have not "done it themselves"). Those are the crucial enemies described by Zacharias as "our enemies, and ... (those) that hate us" in Luke 1:71, 74. They are enemies who exist at a time when there is a well-populated nation known as "Israel" in existence as an organized, discrete society which may be threatened as a body by enemies who are in turn capable of "hurting" that society under this special case of human waves of combatants.
I recall that during the Nazi invasion of Russia, the severe winter weather of northern Russia was a deterrent to Hitler's armies, but William L. Shirer and others attest that it was really was the relentless waves of endless soldiers of the Soviet Union which kept coming in wave after wave of human beings against the Nazis that ultimately defeated them. Many of these were unarmed because there were not enough rifles to furnish one to every soldier. This seems to be the kind of attack that Isaiah and Zacharias are visualizing....??? In addition, at the present time at least, it seems the only alternative that the Islamicists "round about" possess ... raw, physical manpower. And they are fully brain-washed to the extent that they will attempt such a foolish attack!
Now... to your second point: you wrote...
“I just don't understand how it is that so many brethren still hold to the J. Thomas concept that the "nations round about" are a Papal European confederacy that comes upon Israel and are nations that "surround" Israel in the last days and are therefore the "nations round about." I'm not joking, Harold, but isn't this the same scenario you are promoting in your Revelation series? So which is it, Catholics, or Moslems? And, from which does Messiah "save"?’
I have repudiated many of the J. T. concepts for thirty years and counting, as to this encounter. The nations of Europe have nothing to do with this coming initial conflict. The forces of the E. U. (whoever they turn out to be) will not be involved directly with Christ's Kingdom until "the everlasting gospel" goes forth to them, and they are challenged to "fear God (in the person of Christ) and give glory to Him," as in Revelation 14: 6,7, and they refuse to do so on the basis of their conviction that He is "the anti-Christ" of their philosophy.
A Bible-search of "nations round about" reveals no possibility that those are defined as the nations that gather "round about" Israel in "Armageddon" as they erroneously label this initial conflict. The concept is vastly misconstrued by many, it is true. Such a search reveals that the overwhelming majority of all such phrases are clearly nominating the hostile nations RESIDING in the territories surrounding "Israel," the nation of today ... nations which to a man (and woman) are fierce enemies of the People and their country.
So, NO. This is NOT the scenario that I am promoting in our notes on the Revelation. As such, the entirety of the Apocalypse treats of the interface and eventual conquest of Christ's ecclesial brethren with the Roman Harlot and other enemies of the same stripe. The uprising of Islam is noted and covered by the Revelation, it is true, but in the context of historical information only. There is no mention, as far as I can discern, of any aggression of Islam against the State of Israel found in Revelation, or even any prediction of their personal animosity against God's regathered People. That is not the general thrust of the Apocalypse. We must consult Daniel and other prophets such as Zechariah and Isaiah to understand those details.
So, to address your final question above (“Which is it, Catholics, or Moslems? And from which does Messiah ‘save?’" - I clarify my opinion...
Jesus' initial appearance to the world and to Israel, His People, comes after the Judgment Bema is concluded after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is concluded, and after His immortal army of Saints is equipped with white robes, swords of Spirit, and mounted upon white steeds, and He is manifested first in a visible form among the nations as pictured in Isaiah 63, as this "One Who comes from Edom...."
In this episode He literally saves His people from their physical enemies "round about."
This drastic victory brings about the "peace and security" that is absolutely required as one of two designated prerequisites for the Gogian invasion of Ezekiel's prophecy, the other being that Israel at that future time possesses "great spoil," which IMHO is the booty, the spoils, the "wealth of the Gentiles" which Christ and the Saints assemble from the detritus of the conquered Islamic nations (cf., Zechariah 14: 14) of the lands between the Rivers and the Seas (the "promised" land, and the "first dominion" of the Kingdom of Christ). Of course, it includes the inherent wealth of Israel as today constituted as well.
One other point needs to be made, and it is somewhat complex, but here goes...
It is well known, this saying of Jesus: "Luke 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that Stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever It shall fall, It will grind him to powder." The capitalized nouns are indicative of a Person - the returned LORD Jesus Christ.
Note carefully the verbiage here ... and especially the last phrases of that verse.
In my opinion, that statement is an "undesigned coincidence" attesting to the fact that some of the enemies (whosoever shall FALL UPON that Stone) are first, the Islamic enemies.
The Stone does not go forth from its place and "fall upon THEM," but He is fallen upon by them. He is there in the Land with His People when those nations situated "round-about" attack Israel.
In this sense, they actively "fall upon" the Stone ("strike the Judge of Israel on the cheek" as Micah 5), striving to crush it and disperse its authority and sovereignty. They fail out of hand, of course.
The same applies to the Gogian host. That great oppressor comes from the borders beyond the First Dominion of the Kingdom, and "falls upon" the Stone power which at the time is basking in peace and safety from its former Islamic enemies.
These two conflicts fulfill only the first condition of Jesus' prophecy.
But there is a second condition which will yet be fulfilled - IMHO it is the striking of the Image on its feet by the Stone Himself... defined by the going forth of the powerful King of the Jews to the nations of the world with the everlasting gospel nominated in Revelation 14. The Image of Daniel two (clearly the revivified Roman Empire - the European Union, no other) stands in resistance to Him. He then "falls upon" that entity and crushes it to oblivion. It is clearly an action entirely the opposite of the first two and seems to exhaust the words of Jesus adequately.
I believe it is in such eloquent subtleties as this that the concepts of the end-times may be unraveled. What think you?
I hope I have at least begun to address your concerns and to explain my convictions as to the teaching of scripture in this matter of the Second Coming and its immediate consequences.
Respectfully, your fellow inquisitor, H. Edward
<HEL> Published August, 2019