By Phil Mayo
This post has been a work in progress since I first published it on the 12th June. So it’s worth re-reading to check the edits I’ve made.
Those familiar with the book of Revelation will no doubt have pondered the various ideas put forward by eschatologists regarding the correct interpretation of Revelation 17:10
“And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.”
Most of those I’ve seen interpret this to refer to seven kingdoms that have influence over the Jewish people, dating backward from the prophesied final Antichrist kingdom to Egypt.
But there’s a major problem with that. And it’s not about interpretation, which we can argue over and never reach agreement.
It’s about translation.
The original Greek language of Revelation has a word for ‘king’ – βασιλεύς, έως, ὁ. It’s a masculine noun. (Greek has masculine and feminine, like French) It’s pronounced bas-il-yooce.
Greek also has a word for ‘kingdom’ – βασιλεία, ας, ἡ. It’s a feminine noun, pronounced bas-il-i’-ah.
In Revelation 17:10 the masculine noun (βασιλεύς, έως) is used.
And do you know what? Our God, who gave the Revelation to John, is an expert on Greek grammar.
So I’m sure you will agree that there wouldn’t be any misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying on John’s part. And that Jesus wouldn’t say βασιλεύς, έως, ὁ if He meant βασιλεία, ας, ἡ. Therefore we must accept the fact that kings, not kingdoms are intended.
By the way, the definition is generally king or ruler. But in some passages, and I believe definitely in the case of Rev 17:10, it is ’emperor‘.
Some will argue that verse 17:9 says the seven heads represent seven mountains. And mountains are sometimes allegorical representations of kingdoms in the Old Testament.
That is true. But where else do we see the Lord using a double layered allegory: heads means mountains means kingdoms?
We don’t. This is an invented interpretive rule, that has no biblical precedent or justification. The Greek word is ὄρος, ους, τό (oros). Which means mountains/hills, nothing else!
And the Greek word translated ‘head’ is κεφαλή, ς, (kephalé). Which according to Strong’s Concordance, means (a) the head, (b) met: a corner stone, uniting two walls; head, ruler, lord. So we see there is really no justification for interpreting the seven heads to mean anything more than mountains/hills and kings.
The references to mountains/hills and kings is more likely intended to have the secondary effect of reminding us of the city of Rome, that sits on seven hills, and its legendary seven kings.
There is another point that should be considered. Rev 4:1 records John being told “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place hereafter”. That statement means Rev 17’s beast is depicting something that must happen some time future to John’s situation on the Isle of Patmos. So it can’t be speaking of past or present kingdoms.
So now we have the correct translation and interpretation, we can look at how to apply them.
Who are these kings/emperors?
They are emperors’ of the Holy Roman Empire, and the Beast Empire, currently being formed through the EU.
The following is an extract from my book – Daniel’s Seal Broken:
Revelation 17:10 tells us five of the kings are fallen. Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was the one spoken of here as the fifth fallen king. His significance, apart from his name, is that he was the last king to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor by a Pope. He also ruled over an empire that actually was worldwide (though not the whole earth).
Subsequent emperors were not crowned by a Pope. Charles V reign from 1519 to 1556AD also coincided with the Protestant Reformation and the Sack of Rome in 1527AD. A major blow to the Church of Rome and the Holy Roman Empire. And another reason why the prophecy begins with a reference to him.
The previous four kings were:
Charles IV (H.R.E) 1346/1349 – 1355AD. (Elected twice)
Charles III (The Fat) 881 – 888AD.
Charles II (The Bald) 875 – 877AD.
Charles I (Charlemagne) 800 – 814AD.
I believe it was the Reformation, which split the Roman Catholic Church and the empire/beast on which it rides that is the mortal wound to one of the beast’s seven heads. This split resulted in numerous wars.
In 1534 the English Parliament passed The Act of Supremacy that separated England from the Catholic Church and Papal authority. It declared King Henry VIII to be the supreme head on earth of the Church of England. And that the English Crown shall enjoy “all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity.”
What we see in that Act, is the king and his successors assuming the roll of high priest. A thing that God forbade kings to do.
That wound was (metaphorically speaking) to the head of Charles VI. (“one is”) He was the first from that bloodline to ascend the throne of the Holy Roman Empire whom the Church of Rome did not crown. He reigned during a time when the Reformation wound was killing the beast.
His reign also coincided with the beginning of Britain’s rise as a world empire. These were the significant issues during his reign that caused the writer of Revelation to focus on him as the king at the point in time when the vision begins.
Charles VII: (“the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must remain a short time.”) Reigned from 1742 to only 1745AD, and for most of those years he lived in exile, his territories having been invaded by the Austrians. He managed to win back Munich in October 1744AD, but died three months later. He was the last king with the name Charles to reign as emperor.
You may ask why do I choose only those emperors of the Holy Roman Empire with the name Charles?
“This requires wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, because the number is that of a man, and his number is six hundred and sixty-six”. [Revelation 13:18]
Onomastics (also known as onomatology) is the study of names and their origins. According to this science, the name Charles means man. In fact Charles and man are interchangeable. It can also refer to attributes of the man, like stout. Recall Daniel’s description of the horn in Dan 7:20 whose look was more stout or imposing than his fellows.
So Revelation 13:18 could be interpreted as saying: This requires wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, because the number is that of a Charles, and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.
An expanded meaning of the name Charles is free man. This could be what is referred to in Revelation 13:1 as “the name of blasphemy“. And in II Thessalonians 2:3 as “The man of lawlessness“. These kings declaring by their name to be under no higher authority than themselves.
That explanation fits well with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream image of Daniel chapter two. That depicted a decline in ruling power, from Nebuchadnezzar’s absolute dictatorship. To subsequent empires in which the king’s power was subject to the law. Like Nebuchadnezzar, the Antichrist man will not be governed by the law of the empire he rules over.
Don’t be misguided by the popular interpretation of that dream image as showing a decline in wealth and power of the kingdoms that followed Babylon. The Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires were bigger, wealthier, and more powerful then Babylon ever was. Daniel’s interpretation in the original language is speaking of the difference between Nebuchadnezzar’s royal power, and the kings of the empires that follow him.
The eighth king with that first name, will have a full name that equates to the number 666.
We still await Emperor Charles VIII.
But if you want to know who I think he will be. And if you are interested in reading my interpretation of a lot of other prophecies I believe have been misinterpreted in the past. Please click Buy Now on the top bar and get my book.
by Andrew Sparrow
The European Union needs its own army to help address the problem that it is not “taken entirely seriously” as an international force, the president of the European commission has said.
Jean-Claude Juncker said such a move would help the EU to persuade Russia that it was serious about defending its values in the face of the threat posed by Moscow.
However, his proposal was immediately rejected by the British government, which said that there was “no prospect” of the UK agreeing to the creation of an EU army.
“You would not create a European army to use it immediately,” Juncker told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper in Germany in an interview published on Sunday.
“But a common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union.”
Juncker, who has been a longstanding advocate of an EU army, said getting member states to combine militarily would make spending more efficient and would encourage further European integration.
“Such an army would help us design a common foreign and security policy,” the former prime minister of Luxembourg said.
“Europe’s image has suffered dramatically and also in terms of foreign policy, we don’t seem to be taken entirely seriously.”
Juncker also said he did not want a new force to challenge the role of Nato. In Germany some political figures expressed support for Juncker’s idea, but in Britain the government insisted that the idea was unacceptable.
A UK government spokesman said: “Our position is crystal clear that defence is a national – not an EU – responsibility and that there is no prospect of that position changing and no prospect of a European army.”
In the past David Cameron, the British prime minister, has blocked moves to create EU-controlled military forces saying that, although defence cooperation between member states is desirable, “it isn’t right for the European Union to have capabilities, armies, air forces and all the rest of it”.
Geoffrey Van Orden, a Conservative MEP and a party spokesman on defence and security, said: “This relentless drive towards a European army must stop. For Eurocrats every crisis is seen as an opportunity to further the EU’s centralising objectives.
“However the EU’s defence ambitions are detrimental to our national interest, to Nato, and to the close alliances that Britain has with many countries outside the EU – not least the United States, Gulf allies, and many Commonwealth countries.”
Van Orden also accused Juncker of living in a “fantasy world”. “If our nations faced a serious security threat, who would we want to rely on – Nato or the EU? The question answers itself,” he said.
Labour said that it did not support a standing European army, navy or air force and that Nato was and should remain the cornerstone of Europe’s collective defence.
A Lib Dem spokesman said: “Having an EU army is not our position. We have never called for one.”
Mike Hookem, a defence spokesman for Ukip, said Juncker’s comments vindicated warnings that his party had been giving about the direction of EU policy for years. He pointed out that when Ukip’s leader, Nigel Farage, warned about the EU wanting its own army in his debate with Nick Clegg last year, the Lib Dem deputy prime minister dismissed this as a “dangerous fantasy”.
Hookem went on: “Ukip [has] been ridiculed for years and branded scaremongers for suggesting that the UK’s traditional parties were slowly relinquishing control of our defence and moving toward a European army. However, yet again, Ukip’s predictions have been proved correct.”
“A European army would be a tragedy for the UK. We have all seen the utter mess the EU has made of the eurozone economy, so how can we even think of trusting them with this island’s defence.”
He also claimed that having British soldiers serve as part of an EU army would leave Britain unable to defend Gibraltar from the Spanish or the Falkland Islands from the Argentinians. And it could see British troops dragged into military action in eastern Ukraine, he claimed.
Hookem said that Ukip, unlike the other parties, was firmly committed to spending 2% of GDP on defence and returning the armed forces to the size they were before the 2010 defence cuts.
But in Germany, Ursula von der Leyen, the defence minister, said in a statement that “our future as Europeans will one day be a European army”, although she added “not in the short term”. She said such a move would “strengthen Europe’s security” and “strengthen a European pillar in the transatlantic alliance”.
Norbert Röttgen, head of the German parliament’s foreign policy committee, said having an EU army was “a European vision whose time has come”.
A report by the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), published on Monday, has warned that thousands more soldiers, sailors and airmen will face the axe in the next parliament regardless of which party wins the general election.
Rusi said it was inevitable that Britain’s defence spending would drop below the Nato target of 2% of GDP in the face of continuing austerity cuts and warned that up to 30,000 service personnel could go – with the army likely to bear the heaviest cuts – leaving the armed forces with a combined strength of just 115,000 by the end of the decade.
Even if defence spending is given the same level of protection being promised to health and schools, it said the forces are still likely to shed 15,000 personnel during the next parliament.
The Rise Of The East & The New World Order
by Tom Olago
U.S. and European elites have reportedly been calling for a centralization of economic power under the control of the International Monetary Fund, as well as a new global currency. Prison Planet.com recently published an article stating that perceived globalists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger (both members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission proponents) are working towards influencing the most powerful heads of state, including Obama and Putin, towards the desired outcomes stated.
To this end, Brzezinski is quoted to have expressed favor towards the gradually yielding of national sovereignty and “greater American sacrifices”. Kissinger, on the other hand is said to favor the creation of “an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world” or “shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures”, with his ideal outcome being “a new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement”.
Brandon Smith, in his article ‘The New World Order and the Rise of the East’ states that both Kissinger and Brzezinski refer to this harmonized global economic and political structure as the “New World Order.” According to Smith, the fact that the political leaders of Russia and the United States are clearly being directed by such men should not be taken lightly, and suggests that the rise of the East and the crippling of Western elements is actually advantageous to global bankers in the long term.
Smith cites the historic 30-year Russia/China gas deal, the exclusion by both countries of the dollar as the reserve currency in their mutual transactions, and China’s build-up of gold reserves, as some examples of Eastern governments swiftly establishing alliances decoupling from U.S. influence. Smith’s assertion is that in the bigger picture, the New World Order players have positioned the East and West for a scenario that would “cut the legs out from under the dollar completely”.
This would then pave the way for the Bank of International Settlements and the IMF to prepare the financial world for a new global monetary system, brought into existence by a second Bretton Woods conference. Smith argues: “…the debasement of the dollar and the rise of the East are NOT obstacles to this plan. Rather, they are required factors. There can be no truly global economic system without “harmonization”, the demise of the dollar’s world reserve status, and the end of sovereign economic governance”.
In support of this argument, Smith cites Paul Volcker, “the same man who was directly involved in the destruction of the first Bretton Woods agreement and the final death rattle of the gold standard”. Volcker is now reportedly promoting a new Bretton Woods-style agreement in which currencies are pegged to a controlled market system — in essence, a centralized international monetary system, in the name of overall fiscal health.
Smith in conclusion suggests that the rivalries between East and West are but smokescreens, hiding the fact that “both sides are merely puppet pieces in a grand game of global chess, and any conflict will ultimately benefit the small group of men standing over the board. They include the international financiers who have influenced the very policy fabric of each government toward a climactic crisis which they hope will finally give them the “New World Order” they have always dreamed of”.
So is this just age-old conspiracy theory or is there recent evidence that points to the active establishment of a new world order? Recent news seems to suggest that, at the very least, new world order talk is still in vogue. On May 29th, Breitbart.com reported: “both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden referred to a coming new world order with regard to the United States and its role abroad. Wednesday while giving the commencement speech at the Air Force Academy, Biden told the cadets: I believe we, and particularly you — your class — has an incredible window of opportunity to lead and shaping a new world order for the 21st century in a way consistent with American interests and a common interest.
Similarly, on Thursday President Barack Obama made a similar pitch. In an interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, Obama warned of a changing world order, stating that: “…we have a world order that is changing very rapidly and that can generate diffuse threats, all of which we have to deal with.”
Comments about the “new world order” have been bandied about by Presidents and economic leaders for years, usually in brief comments and within vague contexts. They are mostly not expounded much on, leaving details wide open to research, interpretation and speculation. The recent comments by Obama and Biden also seem to fall into this category.
Among other reportedly globalist groups, the CFR, Bilderberger and Trilateral Commission spokespersons and proponents ( such as Brzezinski and Kissinger) seem to be much clearer and elaborate: they would like to see a one world government, global currency and a unified socio-economic order. Obviously led and controlled by the globalist elite, with the rest of humanity at their mercy.
Will this “new world order” dream ever become reality? The answer is yes: the Bible does prophecy that there will in fact be two “new world orders” – the first will be engineered by Satan in his quest to get the whole world to worship him by taking a mark on their right hand or forehead, without which no man would be able to buy or sell (Revelation 13: 13-18).
After a dystopian period of great suffering and turbulence on the earth (referred to in the Bible as the Great Tribulation) presided over by Satan’s rule and God’s judgments , Jesus Christ will return to earth to destroy Satan’s reign and establish a new heaven and a new earth. This will be the ultimate “new world order”: a utopian one world government built by God and founded on righteousness, which will never end (Isaiah 9:6-7).
Any talk or action towards a new world order can currently be viewed as working towards the prophetic fulfillment of the first phase, which will be Satan’s new world order. This is being rapidly set up in a multi-faceted approach centered on biometric identification and surveillance technologies, unifying cashless financial systems, and global political re-alignments. It will be interesting to see how the pieces of the puzzle continue to rapidly fall into place in these last days, based on the ancient prophecies from God through His prophets.
In chapter seven of my book I demonstrate how Bible commentators in the past have made mistakes in labeling Daniel’s first three beast/empires to come on the world scene [Dan 7] because they had incorrectly applied a present tense interpretation to Dan 7:17 (“these beasts are four kings that shall arise…“) The phrase “shall arise” being future tense.
Please click on A Breakthrough In Eschatology on the top bar for a fuller explanation.
A similar mistake has been made with the interpretation of the beast described in Revelation 17:8-14. In this case the most commonly agreed upon, has it that the seven heads represent seven kingdoms, beginning with modern-day Rome (the European Union) and counting back to Egypt.
6. Ancient Rome
But once again, the commentators have missed the fact that John is told in Rev 4:1 that he was about to be shown “things which must be hereafter.” That word “hereafter” is future tense. That means everything he is shown takes place some time future to his experience on the Isle of Patmos. They are also mistranslating the original Greek to read ‘kingdoms’ when it should be translated ‘kings’.
Another point missed, is Rev 17:17 tells us the ten horns will “give their kingdom to the beast…” That is “kingdom” singular, not seven kingdoms.
The kingdom in focus was The Holy Roman Empire, which is reviving in the form of the European Union/Union for the Mediterranean, and which will produce the 8th king – The Antichrist.
In my Book: Daniel’s Seal Broken. Antichrist’s Nephilim Origin Revealed I make my case, and I reveal who I believe will fulfill the roll of that 8th king.
Click BUY NOW on the top bar to get the e-book.