Two Princes shall come: One will be cut off, one will come to destroy
The prophet Daniel witnessed the transition from Babylon to Medo-Persia and learned that the Greek empire would rise next. At that time, Greece was already a significant power, so its future dominance was not unexpected. The Jewish people had interacted with Greeks for generations. Rome, however, was still an unknown and distant power. Yet, many prophecies focused on Rome, describing it as a coming prince.
Daniel 9 explains Christ’s first coming, the situation with His people, and why Jerusalem is ultimately destroyed. Daniel was crying over Babylon’s destruction of Jerusalem and worrying about whether they would be accepted again by God and able to rebuild the city and the temple. In answer to this prayer, God sends the angel Gabriel to explain the role of his people and Jerusalem going forward. He is told that Jerusalem would be rebuilt after a command would come “to restore and to build Jerusalem” (Dan. 9:25). This did not mean it would remain standing; the angel explains that “Messiah the Prince” would come, and even the year He would come. The angel explains that, after being rebuilt, Jerusalem would have a prolonged time to seek redemption: a full 70 prophetic weeks, which is 490 years, since one day equals one year in the prophetic timeline.

Daniel 9:24:  “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.”
The angel explains that after the word comes to restore the city, 69 prophetic weeks will pass, and then the Messiah will make Himself known.
Daniel 9:25:  “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks…”

This prophecy tells us that the Messiah would come exactly 483 years after the command to restore Jerusalem. The decree from Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 BC, when combined with the 483 years, brings us to 27 AD—the year Christ was baptized and began His ministry. According to the angel, this marked the start of the final week of seven years. In the middle of this period, the Messiah would be “cut off,” which occurred in 31 AD, the true date of Christ’s crucifixion.

Daniel 9:27:  “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease”
The midpoint of the seven years—3.5 years—marks the length of Christ’s public ministry, from His baptism to His crucifixion. This left another 3.5 years for Jerusalem and its people to “finish the transgression” before the end of the 70 weeks. In other words, God gave Jerusalem an additional 3.5 years after Christ’s death. During this time, the apostles received the Holy Spirit and began preaching and healing throughout Jerusalem, teaching its people. Like Christ, the apostles had 3.5 years to preach before they too faced  rejection. After persistent resistance, the conflict reached its peak with the stoning of Stephen, a servant in the first Christian assembly. This event triggered a great persecution against Christ’s followers, forcing many to flee Jerusalem: “And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.” (Acts 8:1) It’s important to note that this event sealed the fate of Jerusalem and its people, marking the end of the period given to them to “finish their transgressions.” Jesus was willing to forgive them because they did not fully grasp the seriousness of their crime at first. However, even when they did come to understand, they still refused to listen or repent. The 70 weeks are directly connected to the fall feasts, counted from the fall of 457 BC: Christ was baptized in the fall, Stephen was stoned in the fall, and the 70 weeks concluded in the fall. While God’s calendar normally begins in the spring, in the month of Abib (or Nisan), this prophetic timeline is measured from fall to fall because the seventh month is the designated month of decision in God’s law. On the Great Day of Atonement in that seventh month, the people were either judged for failing to repent and reform, or they celebrated with rejoicing and the announcement of the year of Jubilee. It was a day of mercy and forgiveness—or of rejection.
The fate of the people depended on the condition of their hearts. This was a time when God wanted captives freed, lands returned, and great rejoicing. Because the end of the 70 weeks represented either redemption or judgment, it was set in the seventh month. Instead of restoration, the people faced rejection. The 70-week prophecy is drawn from a longer timeline of 2,300 mornings and evenings, which also concludes on the Day of Atonement. This division marks a split in the church: some receive blessing, others judgment. The end of the 2,300-day period points to a judgment for Christ’s followers, while the first 70 weeks were for the Jewish people. Christians who refused to repent and accept God’s righteousness as revealed in His law were rejected at the end of those 2,300 days. Because the prophecy is centered on the feasts of the seventh month, God gave it in terms of mornings, evenings, and weeks, connecting it to the Sanctuary. In the sanctuary, daily sacrifices concluded on the Day of Atonement, when everyone’s standing was judged and the “sanctuary was cleansed.” Similarly, the 70 prophetic weeks make up exactly 10 jubilee cycles of 49 years each (7 x 7). Both prophecies focus on the seventh month, symbolizing a day of judgment and deliverance. While the 70 weeks applied to the earthly temple and its people, the 2,300 years relate to the heavenly sanctuary, which includes both.
Daniel 8:14: “unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”. 
Daniel 9:24:  “Seventy weeks are determined [châthak: cut off] upon thy people and upon thy holy city”.

By silencing the voice of truth in the temple and Jerusalem, and forbidding it to be spoken, the people brought about God’s rejection of Jerusalem. The city was no longer the city of truth, nor were its people priests of the Most High. Jerusalem was not “holy” anymore, and they were no longer a “holy nation.” They had been given 70 prophetic weeks to “anoint the most holy,” dedicate themselves to the New Covenant, and receive pardon, but they refused. As a result, they were judged in the seventh month and rejected, missing out on their jubilee of mercy and restoration. Stephen spoke about this in his address to the people of Jerusalem and as he was being stoned.

What would have happened if they had received Christ? The temple would have remained standing as a historical testimony and a memorial of the Old and New Covenants. It would have served as a witness instead of a place of ritual, becoming a place of learning. God could have ruled from an earthly temple, not only a heavenly one. Jerusalem would have been the city of truth, where people would learn God’s law, His ways, and His salvation. The Bible always presents two timelines: one fulfilled if the people are faithful (blessing) and one if they are unfaithful (curse). Jerusalem could have been God’s center forever:
“And many people [nations] shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem” (Isa.2:3)
And: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!” (Isa 52:7) 
But if unfaithful, they would be driven away:

“The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth” Deu 28:25  . 
…And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee. Deu 28:37
And: “The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far …And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down” (Deut.28:49&52)
As history shows us, and as Christ concluded, Jerusalem ceased to be the center of worship and was destroyed.
As prophesied, they rejected their Messiah despite God telling them even the year He would come almost 500 years before. Even though wise men of the east announced His birth, shepherds in the fields, and prophets in Jerusalem, they were still unprepared because they would not believe.
Through the temple priest and his miracle son, they had been forewarned of His coming, and John, as an adult, told them Christ was about to make Himself known. God gave them every chance to prepare, and they still rejected Christ.
Much of this rejection stemmed from the influence of popular first-century rabbis and the emergence of a new form of Judaism that diverged from the classical faith Christ taught. Jesus rejected the oral law, later recorded as the Talmud, and its interpretation of God and His commandments. The Jewish people were already moving in a different direction, towards a version of Judaism very different from what Abraham and Moses practiced. They lost their mission and calling as they focused on rituals and politics rather than true heart transformation. Jesus tried to rescue them from these teachings and from the superstitious misunderstandings of God and His law that dominated the new doctrines. Although they claimed to honor God’s law, they ridiculed Jesus—the Law made flesh—accusing Him of being Beelzebub. Jerusalem was headed for disaster regardless; Christ’s coming marked a crossroads. They could have chosen to follow Christ and understand the law and prophets through Him, or continue on their path toward a form of Judaism from which they could not recover. Sadly, they chose the latter.
Another reason Jerusalem and its people were given only 490 years to turn from their sins is that Christ’s coming introduced a new covenant and a new way of relating to God. The old system would no longer function as it had before. From that point on, their standing with God depended entirely on whether they followed Christ. If not, they would come to the end of their election and calling. There was no way to make reconciliation with God outside Christ. He was the New Priest.
The angel explained, “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate” (Dan 9:27). Jesus was the true King of Israel and Judah, and when He was rejected, they were left without a King, atonement, or priest. Naturally, this meant losing their status as God’s people and as “a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exo. 19:6). They could not be a holy nation after rejecting the only One who could sanctify and make them holy.


Rome in Daniel 9
The people of the prince that shall come—Rome—are the prophesied power mentioned in Daniel 2, 7, and 8. This power destroys the city; the “flood” refers to Rome’s ongoing, relentless destruction of all things belonging to God, a process that lasts until the end of time. The phrase “the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” is generally understood to mean Jerusalem and the temple. However, the word used for “temple” here is just “qôdesh.” In Daniel 5:2, the temple in Jerusalem is called “the temple [hêykal] which was in Jerusalem.” In Daniel’s prayer earlier in chapter 9, he uses “miqdâsh,” meaning a dedicated, holy house. The temple was sometimes called הֵיכָל (hekal) or בַּיִת (bayit, “house”) with “qôdesh” attached, but rarely “qôdesh” alone. The language in Daniel’s prophecy comes from the angel Gabriel, who explains that sacrifice and oblation cease when the Messiah is “cut off.” Jesus said of the temple, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt. 23:38). He then departed from Jerusalem via the Mount of Olives, just as He had left the first temple before the Babylonians destroyed it, symbolizing its abandonment once more.
Was the angel Gabriel saying that the temple in Jerusalem remained holy after Christ was rejected—even though every sacrifice performed there was now an act of rejecting Christ’s salvation? In Daniel, the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem is encompassed by the term “city.” The “sanctuary” here likely does not refer to the Jewish temple, but to what is truly holy to God, which Daniel 8 describes as being “trodden under foot.”
According to the testimony of Ron Wyatt, the holy sanctuary items were beneath the site of Christ’s crucifixion, and His blood ratified the new covenant there. This means Rome literally trampled on holy things and the holy covenant when they besieged Jerusalem. Later, they further profaned the covenant by establishing the Papacy. When Christ ratified the new covenant, a new holy place and a new holy covenant came into existence. Daniel 9 shows that Rome would not only destroy Jerusalem, but also attack what is holy in the New Covenant. Rome would trample on God’s sanctuary and holy covenant both literally and spiritually.

About this power, God said: “he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand” (Dan.8:25). The same wording is used on Christ’s second coming: “Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces” (Dan 2:34), saying Christ Himself will take this power no human has been able to stop the influence of. Likewise in Daniel 7, we see the little horn dealt with when Christ comes. All of this is important and identifies the power that destroyed Jerusalem as Rome, and that a leader in Rome will continue to provoke God and exhaust His people till Christ returns. It helps us see that Gabriel is speaking of the same power over and over. And consistently points to Rome.

The setting of the verse gives us more details:
Daniel 9:26  “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary [qôdesh]; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolation’s are determined”.
Re-examining this text, we therefore see identified the power which destroys the city as the same that in Daniel 8 is said to step on God’s truth and suppress God’s people, and in Daniel 7 to try to change times and laws and blaspheme: “to give both the sanctuary [qôdesh] and the host to be trodden under foot”. The “sanctuary” [qôdesh] would not be cleansed until after 2300 mornings and evenings, ruling out the Jewish temple as what Gabriel is speaking of.
In Daniel 9, the angel Gabriel refers back to the earlier vision Daniel received in chapter 8 and identifies who it is speaking of and when these prophecies begin to be fulfilled. By doing so, the Angel Gabriel identifies Rome by placing the events mentioned in Daniel 8 after Christ’s first coming and after Jerusalem is destroyed. This excludes the popular idea that Daniel 8 spoke of the Seleucid Empire and Antiochus Epiphanes. The angel Gabriel then continues to explain that it “shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolation are determined”. Again saying it will have influence till the end of time.
Therefore, the book of Daniel itself, through its time prophecies, identifies the beast and its horn, the horn in Daniel 8, and the associated crimes. This evidence is so clear that some, seeking to divert attention from Papal Rome, have proposed moving the last seven years of the prophecy to the end times as a future Antichrist, thus removing the focus from Rome. However, when we compare the visions that share the same timeline, such interpretations are exposed as unfounded.

Just as shown in Daniel’s vision, the Roman beast would have a horn that continued its attack against God and waged war against His people until the end. However, its period of trampling the “holy” would eventually be interrupted. The book of Revelation also describes these events and provides further details.

In summary, Daniel 9 teaches that after the Messiah, the “prince of princes”, “the prince of the covenant” is cut off, another “prince that shall come” comes to destroy.
Why it happened is evident at Christ’s crucifixion, when Pilate, the Roman governor, asked the Jews, “Shall I crucify your King?” and the chief priests replied, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). It was poetic justice: they chose the murderer Barabbas over Jesus, and when asked to choose their king, they pledged loyalty to Caesar. Later, when they rebelled, Rome sent soldiers who killed many inhabitants and expelled them from the city, just as Christ and His followers had been cast out. Rome even placed its supreme god where the temple once stood. Thus, as a result of the Messiah being “cut off,” a “prince shall come and destroy the city”—and also something holy. They chose the one who would destroy them instead of the One who would have saved them—the prince of destruction over the Prince of Peace. One prince is prophesied to be killed; the other is prophesied to both destroy and prosper.
The Bible provides a complete picture of the future when its passages and prophecies are understood together.

Daniel was especially curious about the meaning of the 2,300 mornings and evenings prophecy, but he was instructed to seal the vision rather than receive an explanation. We will therefore set this prophecy aside for now and address it later in our study.

In Daniel Chapter 8, the successive kingdoms are mentioned again, this time identifying “Media Persia” and “Greece” (Dan. 8:20-21). While the first power was identified already when Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar: “thou art this head of gold” (Dan.2:38)

That left only one power to be identified: the Iron kingdom with its divisions. Jesus himself identified it, as recorded in the gospels. There are several reasons why God may have waited to name Rome explicitly, unlike the earlier kingdoms. One reason is Rome’s rapid rise to power. When the angel identified Media, Persia and Greece, it was during the reign of Babylon’s last king, around 540 BC. At that time, Rome was still a minor city ruled by kings, embroiled in local conflicts. Naming Rome too early would not only have predicted the future but might also have interfered with it, as Rome was vulnerable then. If Nebuchadnezzar or Alexander the Great had known about Rome’s future, they could have easily destroyed it. This is similar to the idea of going back in time to stop a future dictator before his crimes. If we destroyed people for sins not yet committed, we would be playing God. When one power falls, another usually rises. God does not prevent bad rulers from being born; rather, He instructs His people on how to handle challenges and offers help. In this way, God judges openly, making His judgments clear and understandable. He also places the responsibility to do good on humanity. If we are never challenged or never make our own decisions, we are neither free nor able to grow. God also tests us to see if we will do what is right. God revealed the future to Daniel; He did not force it to happen. Our decisions are what shape the future.

The Greeks and the Medo-Persians were already powerful nations when they were mentioned. God does not punish a people for crimes they have not yet committed. Instead, He gave enough information so that, when the prophecy was fulfilled, it would be clear who the power in question was. This prophecy was meant to be fully understood as it unfolded, not in advance. Another beast God did not mention by name is the USA—the second beast in Revelation 13, the power that rises before Christ’s return. If God had named this power before it existed, it would not have been called by that name; Christians might not have sought refuge there, and the USA may never have become a model for separating church and state or for promoting freedom of expression and thought.

A power that ultimately does evil might even have a positive impact earlier on. For the Christians fleeing European intolerance, they needed this place to grow and prosper, and so they have. Preventing this by instantly painting the bad things the USA would one day do could have changed the world to an even quicker totalitarian system by other powers, and prevented further reformation among God’s people. When people are busy surviving, they are not thriving and not growing. So, in a way, the USA can be the “bad guy” and the one who slowed down God’s judgments at the same time.

In Daniel 7, Rome is described as a terrible beast unlike any other. Its rise changed the power dynamics of the Middle East and, at first, brought a measure of stability. The Seleucid leader Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BC) had a notorious reputation. He attacked Jerusalem, killed and enslaved many, plundered the temple, and stole its treasures. He banned Jewish religious practices—including circumcision, Sabbath observance, and sacrifices. He ordered the Torah destroyed and forced Jews to take part in pagan sacrifices and eat unclean meat. He further desecrated the temple with pagan cults, executing those who resisted.

When Rome first subdued the Jews, they were allowed to live in relative peace and freely practice their faith. They could circumcise, observe the Sabbath, read the Torah, and perform their temple rituals. Rome even excused them from participating in pagan cults. Initially, Rome was a more tolerant oppressor than others. If the Jews had not revolted, they might have continued to enjoy these freedoms. Rome’s oppression was not part of God’s original plan; it was a consequence of the people’s disobedience and their rejection of God as king. Without Rome, Judea’s downfall might have happened even sooner.

Judea desperately needed liberation from Seleucid oppression. From a broader perspective, only Rome was strong enough to break the Seleucid grip on Judea. Without Rome, there might not have been a Jewish nation or temple for Jesus to visit. The freedoms Jews experienced under Roman rule allowed Jesus to teach and minister. Rome would not have executed Jesus without the insistence of the Jewish leaders.

Because of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ actions, many Jews believed he was the power warned about in Daniel 8. The prophecy describes the Greek empire: “the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.” Then it says, “And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. …Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered” (Daniel 8:9, 11–12).

If this prophecy were only about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, it would mean the greatest threat was already past, and all that remained was the restoration of God’s kingdom. Even today, focusing on Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the main power in this prophecy leads many Christians to repeat past mistakes, seeking refuge in the very power the prophecy warns against.

Although Antiochus’s actions were terrible, Jewish kings had committed similar or even greater offenses. For example, King Manasseh desecrated the temple, introduced pagan gods there, killed God’s prophets, and altered God’s feasts and times. Antiochus was neither the first nor the last to commit such acts.

The confusion over the identity of the power in Daniel 8 centers on two points. First, the text suggests that this power arises from one of the goat’s horns. Second, it appears to say that this power would take away the daily sacrifice, as Antiochus did when he forbade temple rituals. However, this interpretation is a deliberate distraction, created by God’s enemies, to mislead His people into allying themselves with the very power they are warned against.

First, the word “sacrifice” does not actually appear in the original text—translators inserted it to support their interpretation. Second, the horn in question does not emerge from one of the horns of the goat.

“And for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.” The grammar indicates that the horn comes from one of the four winds, meaning a direction, not from one of the horns themselves.

By careful wording, God makes it possible for those seeking truth to see it clearly. The text describes a progression of increasing power: the ram (Medo-Persia) “became great,” the Greek goat “became very great,” and the horn from the winds “became exceedingly great.” The grammar shows a new power, greater than the former ones, is coming. This was not true for Antiochus—he never matched the power of Alexander the Great, and his kingdom was short-lived. He was just one of the many rulers in the Greek line, not the iron kingdom.

By focusing on the Seleucid Empire as the main enemy, the Jews ended up allying with Rome. Similarly, many Christians have focused on the Seleucid ruler in this prophecy and have, in turn, formed alliances with Papal Rome. Looking back, we see that Antiochus’s actions were short-lived and not unique—similar things had happened before. Rome, however, did not just desecrate the temple area; it destroyed the temple, scattered the people of Jerusalem, and remained a powerful force through history. Antiochus was not a new power but one of a little over twenty kings in the Greek-Syrian line. He was never the greatest, nor was he independent of his own kingsline. He was known to suffer defeat. His father sent him to Rome as a hostage for a pledge before he returned, and when Antiochus tried to expand his power in Egypt, the Romans drove him back, leading him to attack Jerusalem instead. Even then, his influence was brief and far less than other kings in his line.

Let’s look at the true meaning of the text. In harmony with the previous two visions, it becomes clear that the next power did not come from the Greek empires. Instead, it was a new power, a new beast with its own horns.

“And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land”

Rome began as a minor kingdom, concerned only with its immediate surroundings. Its expansion into the Middle East was both unexpected and powerful. Rome conquered Egypt to the south, the Seleucid territories to the east, and eventually Judea and Jerusalem. The horn grew greater as it stretched east and south, which fits Rome’s history.

But then the direction changes upward: “And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them” (Dan. 8:10).

What earthly power could defeat the stars of heaven? In Revelation, the leaders of God’s churches—or His messengers—are called stars in Christ’s hand. In Joseph’s dream, eleven stars represented his patriarch brothers, the sons of Israel, or Jacob (Gen. 37:9–10).

Even Jesus, in His role as leader, is called a star (Num. 24:17). In another chapter of Daniel, it says, “the wise [or righteous] shall shine… as the stars for ever and ever” (Dan. 12:3).

Finally, the symbolic woman who brings forth Jesus is described as having a crown of twelve stars, often associated with the twelve tribes of Israel or, by some, the twelve apostles. Not only in the Bible but also in other cultures, stars were symbols of leadership.

So, “and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them” does not refer to angels in heaven, over whom earthly powers have no authority. Rather, it refers to the leaders of God’s people. This is what happened when Rome subdued the Jewish rulers and brought Judea under Roman rule.

The next focus continues on its crime against God’s people and God Himself.

“Dan 8:11:  Yea, he magnified himself even to the e place of his sanctuary was cast down.

None other than Rome and the Jewish leaders exalted themselves against the Prince of the host. By standing face to face with Jesus Christ—the true King of the earth—mocking and crucifying Him after learning He was a true king, Rome fulfilled this prophecy. No other power before or after has done or could do such a thing. The title “Prince of the host” carries deep meaning. On earth, Jesus had not yet been crowned King; He gave up His divine nature by becoming human and was a Prince awaiting His kingdom. However, He was still the leader of the angels in heaven. “Lord of hosts” is a common biblical title for God’s authority. Jeremiah 10:16: “the LORD of hosts is his name.” Amos 4:13: “The LORD, the God of hosts, is his name.” The “Prince of hosts” likely refers to Jesus here on earth, the only time it was possible for a power to exalt itself over him.

The next part of the prophecy is often debated: “and by him the daily was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.” Many interpreters have inserted the word “sacrifice” here to make it seem as if this refers to the earthly sanctuary in Jerusalem. However, the real meaning is connected to Christ, who had already left the earthly sanctuary. Jesus said about the Jewish temple: “your house is left unto you desolate” (Matt.23:38). In Daniel 9:24 and 27, we learn that Christ brings an end to the daily sacrifices in the temple, since God did not intend them to continue in competition with the cross. Therefore, it was not this enemy power that brought about the end of the Jewish sanctuary service—it was God. Rome did, however, destroy the temple, which was the physical end of it. The enemy’s next attack targeted the followers of the Prince of Hosts, not the Jewish temple itself. In Revelation we see Christ continuing the sanctuary connected to His earthly temple, which is His people.

Christ identifies with His people, so Rome’s persecution of Christians was an attack against the Prince of Hosts Himself and fulfilled this prophecy.

Then, as this fails to overthrow God’s truth, Rome turns and destroys its own sanctuary to their own gods: “and by him the daily was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down”. Rome throws away its own sanctuary; it desecrates its own gods. The word translated “daily” simply means something that had been continuing for a long time. Paganism had been the religion of the world through all the powerful empires and leaders. Rome stopped this line and changed its appearance. This was fulfilled when Constantine converted to Christianity, Eusebius mentions temples at Aphaca and Heliopolis, for example. He confiscated treasures and statues from some temples. Theodosius I (AD 379–395) issued laws in AD 391–392 prohibiting sacrifices and other traditional pagan cult practices.

This is the “daily” or continuation that was replaced by a new practice the Bible calls “the abomination”. All other beasts before had been pagan; it had been the ever-existing threat against God’s people. Now they were placed in a new territory. The power that had persecuted them had become one of them, as their religious king. One bad thing had been replaced with an even more terrifying thing.

In Daniel 7, we are told that the Roman beast became different from the others. This is certainly one way it changed. Religiously, as pagans, Rome had largely echoed the Greek and Babylonian religious practices with their own variations. The conversion to Christianity was something entirely new and unexpected.

But what many Christians saw as glory, conquest, peace, and prosperity, or as the world’s conversion, is described differently by God. The Bible is clear throughout history that mingling truth and error for prosperity leads to the corruption of the soul. It always was, and is, a self-deception.

The Roman leadership did more than desecrate their own temples; they also abandoned Rome as the capital. Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople, where most emperors ruled thereafter. Rome itself was eventually handed over to the Roman-appointed Christian leaders: the popes.

This same transaction is brought to view in Revelation 13: 2, where it is said that the dragon, pagan Rome, gave to the beast, papal Rome, his seat, the city of Rome. By both changing his capital, and rejecting his own gods: the place of Rome’s sanctuary “was cast down” (Dan.8:11). 

Dan 8:12:  And an host was given him against the daily by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.

Again, the word “sacrifice” is often added here, though it does not appear in the original text. This addition makes it seem as if the verse refers to Jerusalem, but at this point, Jerusalem was a Roman city and God’s people were scattered across many lands. This is not about the temple in Jerusalem.

Here is described the next phase of Rome, not the new capital the Roman emperor had withdrawn to. We are talking about the continuation in Rome. The shift from paganism to Christianity was made possible by a large group of people who helped facilitate the transition. Without “a host,” Rome could not have successfully changed its religion. Usually, a leader would be overthrown if he rejected the people’s adored gods. But Rome had many people helping to change the order. But it was done by giving up and sacrificing truth. Here plays in Paul’s prophecy about these events:

2.Th 2:3-4: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God”.

The church’s decline led believers to seek a papal leader. But great iniquity was then done in the name of Christ. Paul explains that this all happened because people wanted Christ’s sacrifice, but not the conversion or the truth. They wanted the story and the name, not the transformation. They wanted to be saved in their sins, getting the best of both worlds without having to give up their desires:

2Th 2:9-12:  Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

And although God would want to convert the world to His Son, and not leave them pagans, it’s worse if they stay pagan and put Christ’s name on that. Suppose they try to control the minds and actions of God’s children by impersonating His messenger. Jesus states in Revelation that a church which chooses to be neither one thing nor the other—not fully with Him nor against Him—is rejected:
Rev 3:15-16:  “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 

It was because of the church’s falling away that they desired what a Papal king could give them. While it was Rome that gave it its governmental power and seat of authority,  it was the unfaithfulness, lukewarmness, and sinful church that gave the religious power to this beast. Christian lawlessness crowned the Papal head in the spiritual sense.

One is a greater abomination than the other if they can be measured. Paganism is bad, but what Rome did was blasphemy, for Rome was trying to steal God’s very throne among His people and abolish His kingship over God’s people to institute their own and abuse His name to advance their own agendas. Christ as head of the church, replaced with a human ruler claiming to mediate on God’s behalf. This is what makes Rome the ultimate enemy of God. The impersonator that Christ warned against when he said not to believe it if they say His kingdom has begun here on earth, through a human institution. This is why Christ warned against false “anointed” Christ-like figures. Anointed means to be instituted as High Priest or King. Christ means anointed, because He is the anointed one. A mediator does not need a mediator. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1Ti 2:5)

So when Christ says false Christs will come, He warns against others taking His position. No one is anointed to that position besides Himself. His glory and praise are not given to an earthly ruler. The Papacy is the thief Jesus warned against, who came to steal (John 10:10). And the Papal kingdom is also warned against in Daniel 2, which explicitly says that God’s coming kingdom was like a rock, not taken by human hands, that would strike the image of the other kingdoms, including the iron kingdom, Rome. It would not be a continuation of Rome or of Babylon. God’s kingdom would not be created through human warfare or conquest, not through political councils, not established by a union. “Not with hands”, and outside of the kings that would rule till Christ returned (Dan.2:34). Paul warned against the coming Papal power. And John, when he saw it, was stunned and amazed. For they were persecuted by Rome, but did not expect Rome to claim to be a continuation of the apostolic line.

But God had foretold it to Daniel.

“And it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.” This was the ultimate result of Rome’s rejection of its own gods and its handing over of the city of seven hills to the papacy. The truth was thrown down, and the deceiver prospered—fulfilling Satan’s plan. This “prospering” is the same prophecy given about the little horn on the Roman beast in Daniel 7: “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High…” and “they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”

Both passages speak of success in defeating, subduing, and suppressing God’s true church. But God explains that judgment would come.

Their crimes are described in similar terms in both Daniel 7 and 8, though each emphasizes different aspects. One focuses on the period of special suppression—1260 years. The other covers 2300 years, this time connected to God’s sanctuary. As Daniel 8:13 says: “Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?”

Here we learn that Papal Rome would not only suppress God’s people, but would also trample on God’s sanctuary for an even longer time. Again, the word “daily” is added in translation to make it appear to refer to the same as before. However, looking at the original text shows that God intended a distinction. The Roman sanctuary is called miqdâsh, which in the Bible can mean either God’s temple or a pagan temple—something consecrated. In the following verses, the sanctuary being trampled is called kodesh, meaning “holy.” By using different words, God separates the two: one is “his sanctuary,” and the other is the “holy sanctuary,” which also represents God’s truth. Rome both destroyed its own sanctuary and also harmed God’s sanctuary, and the two are related.

In one verse, it says the truth is cast down to the ground. In the next, the angels ask how long both the host (God’s people) and the sanctuary will be trampled. Here, the focus is not just on the physical suppression of God’s people, as in Daniel 7, but on how long the truth and God’s sanctuary are affected by the suppression of God’s people. Since God rejected the Jewish temple after Christ’s death, this refers to the sanctuary in heaven. Rome cannot desecrate a sanctuary in heaven physically, but by looking back at Daniel 7, we see how it’s done: “and think to change times and laws”—for whom? “the saints of the most High” (Dan. 7:25).

To understand how times and laws are connected to God’s sanctuary, we have to look at what God’s law teaches. First, God’s law is in His sanctuary. Both Hebrews and Revelation show that God’s law is in heaven, and even the Ark of the Covenant is there. In the Old Testament, God’s Ten Commandments were called “the testimony.” In Revelation, John says: “Rev 15:5  And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened.”

In God’s Most Holy Place is His law. God’s sanctuary is the sanctuary of the law. To enter God’s temple, you need atoning blood—and in the New Covenant and the heavenly sanctuary, that is Christ’s blood.

So here we see two things they are stepping on: God’s law and Christ’s blood. One is the entry to the sanctuary, which is the blood. The other is the goal, which is the law. To be justified and reconciled with the law broken is to be reconciled with God, who is the law. Then, inside the Holy Place in the sanctuary, were three items: a menorah, a table of showbread, and a golden altar of incense. These three items symbolize Christ’s ministry for His people. The menorah represents His people, whom Papal Rome suppressed. The table of showbread pointed to the priestly ministry of providing the word of God freshly every Sabbath, as the bread was brought in new and replaced on the Sabbath day (Leviticus 24:8). The incense represented the prayers of God’s people, which the papal church also intercepted by instructing Christians to pray for atonement through their institution, their priests, and their saints, whom they claimed were in heaven ministering for them. In this way, the Papal church intercepted the prayers meant for the heavenly temple and redirected them to itself. They also interfered with the weekly bread meant to be given on the Sabbath, encouraging Christians to desecrate that day, which was designed to connect them to the temple in heaven, and to come to their church on Sunday instead, to hear their own explanations of God’s word.

The oil in the lamp represented God’s Spirit, but the Papacy sought to act as that Spirit among the people. It judged, shaped consciences, and directed convictions, placing itself as a leader instead of letting the Spirit lead according to God’s law. The Spirit was to take “from God” and “guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself.” “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8, 13).
In the Most Holy Place of God’s temple was God’s law, which defined sin. The Papacy changed that law and presented a new one, permitting what God forbade and forbidding what God commanded. They called holy what God called unholy, and unholy what He called holy. In this way, they played God in God’s temple. Only God was to rule over His law. By desecrating the law, they placed themselves above God, redirecting people’s obedience to themselves. Finally, they claimed to be the only mediators of Christ’s blood and sacrifice.

But the prophecy says: times and law—with “times” in the plural. God’s word was renewed on the Sabbath, but there were other sacred times connected to the temple: Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the fall feasts. Three times a year, God’s people were to come before the sanctuary. God called these holy times His assemblies; they were meant to renew and strengthen His people and were essential for loyalty to God. The first feast was even said to be placed on the forehead and hand as a sign of respect for God’s law.

The feasts were meant to connect God’s people with the sanctuary. They were instructed to come for Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to fast in spirit while the High Priest entered the Most Holy Place. The people could not enter the temple themselves, but they could participate in faith from a distance—being present in heart and faith.

The Papacy changed all of God’s appointed times for the church, eliminating the times when God’s people were meant to assemble, with a focus on the sanctuary in heaven for a special connection with God and the work being done there.

By hijacking God’s assemblies, the Papacy created new ones: their own Easter, Christmas, and many other times for gathering—not connected to God’s sanctuary, but to their own earthly counterfeit temple. Instead of assembling in truth with God, Christians began gathering with the church, reinforcing traditional bonds built on error, which made it harder for them to leave.

The Papal sanctuary was designed to steal God’s people from the true one in heaven. And this is why “ speak great words against the most High” “think to change times and laws”, “wear out the saints of the most High” “ cast down the truth to the ground” “transgression of desolation” “the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot” and “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” are all speaking of the same power and the same offense.

In addition to all these offenses against God and His people, the Papal church mimics the Old Covenant system. They claim to be a new nation under God, an earthly kingship. Yet in the New Covenant, there is no earthly kingdom of Christ. The Popes and priests stand among the candlesticks, as Jesus is described in Revelation 1. They burn incense and present themselves as the givers of the bread. They imitate the symbols of God’s temple in their church practices, even claiming to sacrifice Christ again and again through the eucharist, though He is not truly present in their ceremonies.

The crimes of Rome were so devastating and long-lasting that even a saint, upon hearing this revelation given to Daniel, asks, “How long will this go on?” It was a sigh after witnessing Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and now this power from Rome continuing the oppression that began when Judah lost its independence. How long would the truth be kept under such pressure?

Dan 8:13  Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

This echoes the cry of Christian saints who have been suppressed and even killed by the counterfeit temple during the Roman era: “And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” (Rev. 6:10)

Victims represented throughout the image of the beasts are calling for justice, and God promises that justice will come. The angel refers to two phases of Rome: “the vision concerning the daily” and “the transgression of desolation.” One refers to Rome’s sins as Pagan Rome, and the other to its sins as Papal Rome. Rome would have to answer for both.

The behavior of Rome mimics Satan’s consistent attack on God’s people: if he cannot seduce them, he tries to force them, wear them out, or deceive them. Most Christians have chosen to follow the Papal temple instead of God’s true temple.

Today, 99.5% of all Christians follow either papal-instituted times, laws, or prophecies. Most do not believe they need to keep God’s original times or law; instead, they observe church laws and church times. They do not show up for God’s assembly connected to the heavenly temple. That is a staggering loss for God. But if God had not intervened, that number would have reached 100%.
In Daniel 7 it says: “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.  (Dan 7:26)

The saint answers the other saint:

“Dan 8:14  And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

This likely has a dual meaning. The sanctuary was cleansed on the Day of Atonement, which was a judgment day. On that day, as the High Priest entered the Most Holy Place where God’s throne and law rested, it was determined who had truly respected God’s order and repented authentically. It involved a separation of God’s people—the repentant on one side, and those who were still in rebellion against God’s law on the other. It prophesies a time when a remnant will turn back to God’s temple, Gods times, and laws, escaping the order of the papal temple. And a time for God to judge those who refuse to.

The prophecy shows that there will come a time when God’s temple in heaven will once again become the focus, and God’s people will assemble before it, respect its law, receive spiritual food on the Sabbath, receive the Spirit, and offer their prayers directly to the heavenly temple. By rejecting the false sanctuary on earth, the true sanctuary of God and His truth are restored in His people, leading to freedom from the oppression brought by the lies and abominations of Rome. Although not all will be freed, a way is prepared for those who wish to be. This remnant is described in Revelation, and they must also face a final attack from Satan especially directed at them: “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Rev. 12:17)  

Why Did God Wait So Long?

The question “how long?” expresses a feeling many share. If Rome’s crimes are so great, why did God allow them to continue for so long? Why did the Papacy sit with so much power for 1260 years, and still remain, with its alliances and influence, the largest of all churches today?

Why is she not punished for her crimes sooner?

It is all tied to God’s grace. He knows that many who have followed this counterfeit sanctuary on earth have done so unknowingly, thinking they were doing His will. The reason God did not destroy the Papacy sooner is its overwhelming ability to deceive. It holds the finest sermons, defends Christians, helps the poor, and upholds the name of Christ. At times, it has been almost impossible to distinguish truth from error, while at other times it is easier to see. Today, the Catholic Church is not military; it does not send out crusaders or make inquisitions, nor does it have kings and queens fighting for its cause and eliminating its enemies. It appears pious and good. Only Christians who love the truth and worship God in “spirit and truth” will see its crimes in the right light. Only by coming close to God and His temple can you discern the difference. Only when you see what God has truly prepared and is doing for His people will you realize that the Papacy. However, it eagerly quotes the Bible, is leading people away from the temple in heaven, and is in rebellion to the New Jerusalem.

By creating its own assemblies, times, and laws, it gives a “feeling” of truth. This is what makes it so deceptive, and also why God, in His love for humanity and for those truly seeking Him, has waited to bring judgment.

Abraham asked Jesus if He would spare Sodom if there were 50, 45, 40, 30, 20, or even 10 righteous people in the city, and Jesus promised He would. But when there were not even 10 righteous, God sent angels into the city to save and bring out the one righteous man and his family.

This is the situation in the end times. God will eventually judge this power for its great sins, for bringing confusion and souls lost, for its crimes. For a long time, God tried to reform and speak to people who were deceived by this power, so they would choose to follow him instead.

For the longest time, God is working hard to save them. But then a time comes when He cannot any longer. At that time, he calls out His people to separate from them, just like He separated Lot from Sodom before its destruction.

We can read about it in Revelation 18, citing the sins of the false churches and how the enlightenment of God’s true sanctuary, compared to the sins of the counterfeit sanctuaries on earth, will forever divide them into two groups. Those who understand their senses have been deceived, that they have been seduced to believe lies. That they have believed Satan when he quoted the bible and followed his lead, unlike Christ in the wilderness. Only by looking at the real sanctuary will the false sanctuary be exposed.

Rev 18:1-5:  “And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. …
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.“

The time has come. Now God expects you to embrace the enlightenment available through His word and through your unique access to history, as no generation before has had. Choose Him: His temple, His law, His assembly, and His atonement mediated through Christ. Leave behind the imitation, for it is about to be judged and its followers afflicted. Those who follow have empowered the beast by loving traditions and human spiritual leaders more than Christ.

God says, as He told Lot, to flee—to come out of this system and religion before judgment falls. If you are found within its walls, you will be destroyed with your deceivers. And if you flee but look back, you will become like Lot’s wife—a pillar of salt. Do not long for what is false or leave your heart behind, for it could cause you to turn back, and you will be lost as well.

The angels said to Lot: “Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed” (Gen.19:17)

Don’t look back. If you hesitate or speculate, you may never leave. Sitting on the fence and waiting to “see what happens” will not save you in the end times. Paul said that lies are overwhelmingly tied to desire, and anyone who lingers on temptation is more likely to give in. That’s why, when leaving false churches, we must not look back but run. If you have been deeply deceived, you are more easily deceived again. Those who have been misled can only be free if they run and never look back. Do not go back for anyone. Run for the hills. God’s spiritual kingdom is compared to a mountain, and that is where we must flee.

When Jesus compares the story of Lot’s escape from Sodom with the end times, it’s important to see what Christ says right before he mentions it. They ask Jesus when His kingdom is coming, and Jesus replies that any kingdom claimed to be His before His second coming is not of Him. And he says: “And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them”. He then compares it to Noah’s times, but also to Lot’s.

Making it a fit comparison to leaving “Babylon” and “the sins of Babylon” before its destruction.

“Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Rev.18:4)

What are her sins? She makes herself a queen and ruler (Rev. 18:7), fornicates with earthly governments to become wealthy and enforce her own laws (Rev. 18:9), and seeks her own interests above those of God and His people (Rev. 18:7). She has glorified herself, appearing holy, and while living in luxury, God’s people are denied the right to buy or sell (Rev. 13). She says in her heart, “I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow,” even as she is drunken with the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus. She holds a golden cup full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication, deceiving the whole world with her counterfeit sanctuary and her claim to a holy priesthood. “For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication,” causing many to follow her laws instead of God’s. 99.5% of the Christian world follows this beast, and only 0.5% has refused. Yet God has given humanity one last chance to join the remnant. These figures are based on the number of Christian denominations that place papal “times and laws” above God’s, compared with churches that claim to respect God’s original law. These are real numbers and a real reality.

Just as Sodom would have been spared with ten righteous in it, so have many gatherings escaped judgment because of the righteous in them. And so for 1260 years even Papal Rome escaped destruction because of the ignorant among them. But when the Bible was accessible to all, God expected more.

In the case of Lot, the Lord said to Him: “Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar” (Gen 19:22)
But in the end times, He cannot make this promise any longer. If God’s people stay in Babylon or do her sins, they will perish at the time of Judgment. He will not wait for them to turn; He has already waited for as long as He possibly can. He will not pull us out like He did Lot; instead, He pleads with us to leave ourselves. Jesus said without addressing it further in connection to the end times: “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luk.17:32). Three words with deep meaning. Don’t stay on the fence, don’t stand in the middle, for you will be stuck and then consumed forever. There is no middle way, no compromise, no a little of this and a little of that. It’s leave or be judged. There is no realm in between at the very end. When Judgment comes, no one can claim they did good by not choosing sides, by being neutral. Only those connected to the heavenly sanctuary and Christ as their High Priest will be saved.

Go out of her, my people. That is not just about the Papal church, but all Christian churches that follow her lead, her changed times and laws. That is a call to at least 99.5% of all Christians, if not more. To anyone who partakes in throwing the truth to the ground, stepping on Christ’s sanctuary in heaven. For being part of the confusion and encouraging others to remain in false religious settings where they will be lost.

Claiming that the power in Daniel 8 is Antiochus IV Epiphanes hides the sins of the churches and provides an excuse to ignore God’s warning and not act on it. It points the finger at a ruler who held little power in a collapsing empire, allowing the real culprit to go free. The desecration of God’s tabernacle in heaven and the suppression over such a long time of God’s people has had a devestating impact on billions of people before and now, numbers that cant be counted. They are the author of confusion and division in all churches. Therefore, she is said to be “THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” (Rev.17:5)

The call to leave her also means leaving these “daughters” who commit the same sins as her mother.

THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF PAUL

The Bible is the most widely read book in the world, and as a result, it is also the most misunderstood. While the Old Testament, the gospels, and the letters of the apostles are generally straightforward, it is Paul’s letters that remain at the center of Christian confusion.

This confusion is so significant that one Bible author actually predicted it: another biblical writer warned that Paul’s letters could be misunderstood—not just in an innocent way, but in a manner that could lead people to perdition. In other words, misunderstanding Paul is not simply a minor disagreement; it can have consequences for one’s salvation.
Peter, Christ’s apostle, praises Paul and calls him beloved, recognizing him as a fellow worker for the gospel. However, Peter also warns against reading Paul’s letters without proper understanding or knowledge (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Rather than blaming Paul, Peter holds his readers responsible for willfully or ignorantly twisting Paul’s words.

If the law and the prophets were the foundation Christ used to explain and guide His purpose and work, Paul’s words would not be misunderstood. Christ called this the “rock” on which the gospel stands. When this foundation was removed, Christian churches descended into confusion, division, and even suppression.
Perhaps the calling of Paul shows why Christ originally chose ordinary men—fishermen, tax collectors, and others—rather than the learned scribes and Pharisees to lay the foundation of the church. Education can sometimes lead people to speak in ways that are not easily understood by everyone, making simple topics seem complicated. Paul was highly educated, having studied under the leader of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:5, Acts 22:3). He was a Pharisee.
His letters are the hardest to understand because he was not a fisherman or a tax collector, but a scholar who communicated using the educated standards of his time, even employing argumentative methods.

Some say he used the Socratic method, which was common among learned men of his day.

The Socratic method, named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints. It involves asking and answering questions to encourage critical thinking and clarify ideas. Often, this method uses oppositional discussion to lead someone to see contradictions in their own arguments, thereby highlighting the main point.

Now imagine someone in a later time and culture reading something that was already hard to understand in the first century. It’s almost certain there will be confusion about the intent and meaning. While the Holy Spirit inspired Paul as he wrote, it’s important to remember that the Spirit works through people as they are, using their language and personality. God uses imperfect humans as his messengers, allowing each person’s unique experience and voice to reach different groups of people.

To the Corinthians, Paul wrote: “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews” (1 Corinthians 9:20). This may seem strange since Paul was already a practicing Jew, so why would he say he became as a Jew? Paul means that he adapted his words and actions depending on his audience. Not to deceive, but because everyone must consider who they are speaking to when making their case.
Paul’s letters to the churches are often raw and passionate, sometimes resembling an argumentative train of thought, while the book of Hebrews is more like a formal sermon. It’s said that Hebrews contains about 150 words not found elsewhere in the New Testament. The author of Hebrews exclusively quotes from the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), likely addressing diaspora Jews who used that version. The key point is that Paul adapts his message to his audience. Failing to consider the times, the people, and the conflicts of the first-century church can make Paul especially difficult to understand. If we ever feel compelled to set aside Christ’s direct words because of something in Paul’s letters, it’s a sign we need to reconsider our interpretation.

Even modern Christian writers are influenced by their education in how they express themselves and whom they address. Someone with a university degree speaks one way to a colleague but would use different language when talking to someone less experienced. Similarly, a mathematician who wants to be understood by a non-mathematician must find simpler ways to explain his points.

This is as it should be, because if we don’t speak in a way that is understood by people in our own time and culture, our message may not be heard or accepted.

We see Paul using traditional argumentative methods throughout his letters. For example, in Romans he appears to suggest that God’s law is the problem, or that trying to obey it leads to failure—only to conclude suddenly:

“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Rom 7:12)

This raises the question: If the law is just and good, why does Paul say it made him a sinner? Why does he sometimes present the law as if it contrasts with or even competes against faith? Paul often describes the struggle or the problem in one chapter, then explains the right approach or solution in the next. Many modern readers make the mistake of treating every verse as a direct command or absolute truth. Some even teach that trying to obey God displeases Him, which makes no sense. This confusion leads to endless debates about what Paul truly means.

In the same chapter, Paul writes: “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter” (Rom 7:6). This leads many to think Paul is saying the law is the problem, and that it is now abolished. Yet just a few verses later, he calls the law holy and still in force, meaning its requirements remain in effect. So what does Paul truly mean? The best way to avoid misunderstanding him is to look not only at his arguments, but also at his conclusions.

We see Paul’s argumentative style even more clearly in other passages, such as when he first says:

“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven” (1Co 11:5)

Only to proceed and say:

“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (1Co 11:15).

Here, Paul presents both sides of the argument before reaching his conclusion, but later readers are often left confused about his actual meaning. Does a woman need to wear a covering, or is her hair sufficient as a covering? As a result, some Christians wear head coverings while others do not. Treating every statement Paul makes as a command can lead to confusion.

This is similar to quoting from the book of Job, which is also part of holy scripture. In the end, God criticizes three of the speakers in Job: “ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath” (Job 42:7). This means we cannot treat everything in Job as definitive truth, even if God’s name is mentioned. The book’s conclusion reveals the truth. While the Bible is holy, the words of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are not necessarily so. These men show how God’s truth can be mingled with human error. God does not want us to adopt their religious practices or quote them as law without careful examination.
The same caution applies to Paul, who often argues both sides of an issue before giving his conclusion. If we are not careful, we might follow the beliefs of those he is arguing against, rather than Paul’s intended message. Sometimes, as in Romans, Paul clearly presents an opposing idea and then rejects it with “God forbid!”—showing the idea is someone else’s misunderstanding, not his own teaching.

Paul often uses a Hellenistic debating style, adopting the voice of a critic, posing questions on their behalf, and then refuting those points.

First-century writers also used persuasive techniques to win over skeptical audiences, often by establishing common ground before making a controversial claim. These methods evolved into specific structures and logical devices that remain foundational to persuasive writing and legal arguments today.

The Romans used dispositio—the sequential arrangement of a speech or essay. This blueprint required the speaker to present multiple layers of argument before concluding. It consisted of three main parts: confirmatio (presenting key arguments and evidence), refutatio (systematically dismantling counterarguments), and peroratio (stating the conclusion and emotional appeal).

The point is that Paul’s writing is uniquely different from all other books in the Bible, which is why he is misunderstood more than any other author. While the rest of the Bible uses structured narratives, formal poetry, and straightforward sermons, Paul writes with a raw urgency. In addition, his grammar often breaks mid-sentence as he pursues new theological ideas.

Some Bible readers who do not understand this may feel compelled to accept both the arguments Paul presents and his answers as equally God-given truth, leading to spiritual ambiguity. This confusion has contributed to the falling away seen in the churches. Satan does not need us to be ignorant of God’s word—just confused about it. In the Garden of Eden, Satan did not question God’s existence; he misquoted God and twisted His intentions to create confusion, then suggested disobedience as the solution. He used a similar strategy with Jesus in the wilderness, quoting Scripture but twisting its meaning to create uncertainty and tempt Jesus to break God’s law. But Jesus recognized the strategy and exposed it.

If we use God’s law as our foundation, we know that Paul cannot make new laws that define sin. God’s law forbids adding to or removing from His commandments. Only a law created by God, if broken, defines sin—“Sin is the breaking of the law” (1 John 3:4). The sin Christ redeemed us from was transgression against God’s law, not human laws. He redeemed us from our violations of God’s law so we could be restored to good standing with God. This is the core message that has been confused. Instead of removing His law, God took the penalty on Himself, upholding the law while saving the sinner. Yet, some teachers today use Paul’s letters to claim that Jesus died to remove the law that condemned us, creating a false gospel—that instead of carrying our sins to the cross, He carried God’s law, and that instead of being freed from sin, we are now freed from God’s law.

A serious problem arises when a Christian is willing to abandon the foundation laid by all other Bible writers to follow a new foundation based on something Paul might or might not have meant.

This idea also contradicts the message of the other Bible writers, who make it clear that only God can make or abolish religious laws and that God’s law remains unchanged. No human is given the right to create laws regarding worship or obedience to God, or to abolish God’s commandments. Even Christ said He would not do so. So whatever Paul is saying, it cannot be that. If Paul really claimed God’s law is no longer valid for Christians, then he would be the kind of preacher the Bible warns against:
“For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts” (Mal 2:7)

And from Christ’s own warning: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 5:18-19)

The apparent contradiction between the themes of the rest of the Bible and gospels on one side, and Paul on the other, is sometimes so striking that some claim only Paul’s words count—even above Christ’s own words. Others argue that Christ’s teachings were only for Jews, while Paul’s are for Christians.
Others deal with the controversy by claiming that Paul’s letters do not belong in Scripture. Both should be considered wrong. For as Peter said, Paul would be misunderstood; he also said his letters contained the gospel, written “according to the wisdom given unto him” (2 Pet. 3:15). Peter also says people tend to twist other scriptures, too.

So the question we should ask is: what is being misunderstood, and why can misunderstanding both Paul and the rest of Scripture lead to “their own destruction”? (2 Peter 3:16) The truth is that many who call themselves Christians will be lost. Even Jesus said that people who do many things in His name and proclaim His name will perish on judgment day if they have lived a Christian life without God’s law (Matt. 7:21-23).
If Paul never claimed that God’s law is abolished, what is it that he is trying to say that sounds like it is? For this is the core of the change in the Christian platform, which made way for Papal Rome.

Without wrestling with Paul’s writing, you don’t have a papal church, a new religious culture, holy days, or even a new Sabbath. Christianity as we know it today will fall apart, for it is built upon the understanding that Paul tells us God’s law is no longer binding for the church. It is largely built on the idea that God has rejected His own law and allowed men to set church laws in their place. And this drives evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and other Christian denominations like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. They cannot argue for their change of biblical culture to a new one without quoting Paul. They can not quote any other Bible writer to support their belief. His letters are their only defense for violating and changing God’s law.
The idea that God’s law has been replaced is what allows for many church traditions. To defend this belief, the only scriptural support comes from Paul’s writings. But if Paul is misunderstood on this point, and the original foundation still stands, then the majority of the Christian world is standing on a crumbling platform—a house built on sand that cannot endure the storm of God’s coming judgment.
God says that many of His own people are in Babylonian confusion, but He also warns that He cannot save them unless they “come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” (Rev. 18:4).

THE THREE CONFLICTS

When looking at all of Paul’s letters, three conflicts from his time still exist today. Paul addresses each of these, but over time, they have been blended to create the idea that God’s law is no longer binding.

1. Not if, but how. Why do so many apparently law-abiding Jews hate the law in flesh, Jesus? Why did Jesus call them lawbreakers when they had God’s law with them? What is the difference between legalistic religious practice and a spiritual approach to the law?

2. The Gentiles: Should they be circumcised and fully convert to Judaism with all its rituals before coming to Christ to be part of God’s congregation and Israel?

3. Does Jewish worship change? Should Jews continue sacrificing and performing temple rites after Christ has offered Himself and established a new temple? Do the shadow system and the fulfillment continue together, or can both save you?

All three topics are fairly clear if you have the right foundation for understanding the debate—one built on the law and the prophets. But if you mix these conflicts into a new truth and practice, you end up repeating the very mistakes Paul warned against, even creating a new religion and platform. This is exactly what both Catholics, Protestants, and evangelicals have done.

1. Not if, but how.

Does God expect you to keep the law? Is it even possible, or is Paul arguing about how it should be done? In this case, the law and the prophets, as well as Jesus and His apostles, all affirmed the need to respect God’s law. In fact, that is what everything is about.

Would God require obedience throughout the Bible if it were impossible for people to obey? God is not unreasonable; He is fair. Understanding this helps us see that Paul is taking the discussion to a higher level: How can we keep the law when our bodies struggle against our minds? When our desires overpower our will, is there a solution? Is God condemning us through the law for something we cannot do, or has He made a way for us to come into harmony with His principles?

Much of Paul’s argument is rooted in its context. He not only discusses how to keep the law, but also addresses religious hypocrisy and its dangers. He speaks about the failure that comes from seeking the law legalistically rather than spiritually—a topic Jesus addressed as well. Jesus claimed that the legalistic Pharisees were lawbreakers because they missed the law’s true purpose. While claiming to be righteous, they were planning His murder, not seeing their own double standard. They also added many human rules and regulations to God’s law, twisting His intent and making it seem like people were sinners for simply breaking their own traditions. Their strict interpretation of the Sabbath led them to see Jesus as a Sabbath breaker.
They imagined themselves righteous, yet were not in harmony with the law at all. Jesus taught that righteousness is not just about avoiding outward sins, but about true inner change. For example, He said: “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Jesus, who perfectly fulfilled God’s law, was the living example of what it looks like when the law is truly practiced—and they hated Him even as they claimed to love the law.

This remains a problem for many Christians today, making this topic very relevant. Do we seek God through rituals, church attendance, and good deeds, while ignoring the principles of the law? Many Christians do good deeds to excuse the wrong they do elsewhere. Paul and Jesus both argued that a true Jew is one inwardly (Rom. 2:29). True Christianity must come from the heart. Rituals cannot replace or conceal the heart’s true condition or intent.

Jesus said: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Mat 23:23). Their balance was off.
This conflict appears throughout the Bible, addressed in many books—especially Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel—but usually without Paul’s complex argumentative style. In those prophetic books, the issue was urgent because the double standard was so widespread.
This was at the heart of Christ’s teachings. He had to teach true religion in the midst of religious superstition, which put Him in conflict with the leaders and teachers of His own people. When Jesus taught the same principles Paul later emphasized, He could not be removed from the platform of the law. Jesus claimed to keep the law, encouraged others to keep it, and was the law made manifest. He was not contradicting Himself. We must recognize that Christ was not promoting spiritual lawlessness, but warning against practicing the law without understanding its spirit and purpose. Jesus was not saying the problem was with God or His law, but with how they were being practiced. Jesus said:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Mat 23:2-3).

The fight of who actually respected God’s law continued between the apostles and the Jewish leaders even after Jesus had ascended to heaven.

They: “set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law” (Acts 6:13)

While the apostles said about them: “Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it” (Acts 7:53)
They argued who actually respected the law of the two. Paul, having been among the leadership in Judah, taught all the rules of Phariseeism, was very well aware of the dangers of approaching God’s law the wrong way. He was an example of it. He persecuted his own people, thinking he was doing God’s service.

It’s always easier to instruct others than to examine and change yourself. Likewise, performing a ritual is simpler than truly changing your heart or habits.

Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus puts the conflict on display as Jesus says to him after telling him the importance of spiritual rebirth to be right with God: “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” (Joh.3:10)
If we don’t believe the heart can change and be “reborn,” then we will lose faith not only in ourselves but also in others. Preventing us from showing mercy and forgiving, and at the same time not admitting wrong.
Jesus questioned Nicodemus, being a teacher and a leader, yet was unable to understand how a transformation could take place. This exposed the religious climate in which Nicodemus lived. They condemned the sinners, but could not offer them rehabilitation and mercy. Rather than actually being righteous, they imagined themselves righteous. Jesus agreed their show worked; they appeared good to most: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” (Mat 23:27 -28)

He confronted them with washing their outside, which made them appear clean, but spiritual uncleanness came from the heart: “Whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.” (Mar 7:18-20)

If we keep the platform God established—that His law is holy—then we can understand Paul’s message in line with Jesus’. Paul, like Jesus, warns that hypocrisy and legalism are both dangerous and destructive.

But if the right platform is removed, Paul appears to permit “giving up,” or to suggest that God has changed his expectations and requirements. That God has repented of His law and has been born again, rather than us repenting for breaking it and being born again. Although it is not said that way, this is what it means when Christians hold on to such an interpretation. If Paul is misunderstood, then those who keep the law will appear to be the ones God is in conflict with, whilst those who do not are credited as good Christians. And if that were the case, it would conflict with everything God has ever said and done, both before Paul and after, to John. For God has always said those who kept His word were His Own, and those who violated His law were the ones in conflict and the ones who were causing all the problems both within his congregation as well as outside it. Never in the history of the Bible were those who kept God’s law faithfully said to be the problem.

Paul’s intent is seen in the conclusions he makes, trying to prevent the church from going in the footsteps of his own people, even himself, when it came to religious hypocrisy. He was not abolishing God’s law.

A Christian should be born again with a cleansed heart, not create new systems or religious practices that merely disguise a rebellious heart with rituals.

Because Paul is misunderstood on these matters, Christians have often followed the same legalistic path as the Jews. Instead of temple rituals and cleansing laws, they have created their own church rituals. Now, a Christian might seek salvation by attending Mass, going on pilgrimages, confessing to a priest, honoring church-appointed holy times, and performing rituals like giving alms, reciting prayers, or burning incense and candles. Yet none of these practices reveal the true condition of the heart. One can do all of these things and still have a greedy, lustful, boastful, or unmerciful heart.

The conflict remains.

God Himself instituted the temple ritual laws for their time, but the rituals alone did not save; it was the attitude and understanding with which they were practiced that mattered. In Christ’s time, the Jews misunderstood the purpose of these rituals. Later, Christian churches added practices that God never instituted, making it even more difficult to separate truth from error.

You can recite the Lord’s Prayer a hundred times a day without its words being true in your life.
People often prefer rituals to genuine conversion because it feels easier to earn salvation through acts—simple or complex—than actually to change.
This is why the Bible spends so much time explaining how God’s law should—and should not—be approached. Most religious teachers have their students receive God’s law through fear of punishment. This approach leads to rebellion, opposition, suppression, and hypocrisy.
Paul understood all this. The moral law cannot be kept through ritual alone. It must be approached with faith, trust in God, and love that comes from God’s love for us. It is meant to be naturally in our hearts, but because of sin and its effect on our character, we are too weak to keep its principles on our own.

This is where God’s Spirit enters—to make up for our weakness, to renew our hearts, and to give us the desire and strength to follow Christ’s example. When a person realizes God loves them, they open their heart, and through trust and admiration for God, a faithful heart is born. We conquer sin through the Spirit and our faith, not through a legalistic approach.

This was Paul’s point: “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone (Rom 9:31-32)

For example, reciting the Lord’s Prayer as a ritual has no meaning if it is not done with faith. But one heartfelt Lord’s Prayer, spoken with faith and love, unites the words with the heart and transforms the person praying.
God-given Christian rituals like baptism and the Lord’s Supper can be practiced without true conversion. The same was true in Christ’s time with the jews and the first converts, which Paul addressed. Attending church every week will not guarantee salvation. Even though these actions do not save us, God still wants us to be baptized, take the Lord’s Supper, and go to church. The problem is not with baptism itself, but with how we approach it and whether it leads to real change. The same principle applies to God’s law—the law was never the problem; the issue was always how people approached it.

Paul was a learned man, both in the world of his time and in Jewish doctrine. The teacher considered most conservative in his day is now seen as one of the most liberal among the Bible writers. Paul admitted he was once very strict: “Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee” (Acts 26:5).

This pattern is seen throughout history: people who are deeply committed to one side often focus on their own past mistakes and swing to the opposite extreme, hoping to help others avoid the same errors. This was true for Martin Luther, the great reformer. He mistreated himself in an effort to earn God’s favor, even as the average Catholic gave little thought to such matters. Luther’s intense efforts and focus on God’s vengeance led to a major change when he finally understood God’s mercy and the gift of salvation. This new understanding became his passion and set him on the right path. However, those who never experienced his struggle sometimes misused his teachings as an excuse not to make any effort at all—an abuse of Luther’s meaning.

Paul had been a strict Pharisee, so zealous that he was blinded to who God really was. After his conversion, he used the same passion to help others avoid his past mistakes. He wanted people to understand that true change comes through God’s love and mercy—not through religious fanaticism or bigotry.

Paul’s zeal and passion are an important influence in the Bible when rightly understood. His writings encourage sinners to form a genuine bond with God and avoid the hardening of their hearts. Paul’s message stands against religious fanaticism, which can lead people to become, as he once was, a self-righteous man persecuting Christians, thinking he was serving God. He believed he was right because he performed religious rituals. Yet, he misunderstood and failed to live out their true meaning—only to realize later that he had completely misunderstood and dishonored God.

The Levites carried the Ark of the Covenant and all the sanctuary items through the wilderness for forty years. They carried God’s name and law from place to place, yet it never entered their hearts. It is possible to outwardly profess faith and doctrinal beliefs while being at odds with them inwardly. This disconnect is what confuses believers.

Such has been the case with both Jews and Christians throughout history. In Christ’s time, those who thought themselves God’s chosen people killed their own Messiah—and not just Him, but also the prophets God sent. This is the ultimate confusion. That’s why swearing by doctrines does not make someone a follower of Christ, nor does performing rituals make you a good person. Repeating God’s name over and over does not change the darkness in your heart. Paul’s passion was to explain how God’s culture and Christ’s righteousness must become part of the heart, and he explained it as best he could.
In Revelation, when describing the final conflict that brings about Christ’s second coming, God’s people are described as “they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” (Rev.14:12)

Not just faith in Jesus—though that is important—but the faith of Jesus. This means keeping God’s law through the same spirit and faith that Christ had when He obeyed. That is the only way to respect God’s law truly.

Paul passionately debates these issues, though often in a less straightforward manner than other biblical writers.

2. The gentile-Jewish conflict.

The second major topic appears especially in letters written to communities made up of both Gentile converts and Jewish believers. The first-century church faced challenges never experienced before.

Before this, Gentiles who converted became Jews: they were circumcised and practiced Judaism according to both the Torah and traditional laws. From the first century onward, converts also had to accept the teachings of Jewish rabbis and oral law to be considered true converts. When they did, they became part of Jewish worship and religious life, often moving to live among the Jews. An example is Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, who was elected as a leader of the first Jewish-Christian assembly in Jerusalem, causing no conflict or distrust among the other Jews there because he was fully converted to Judaism and circumcised (Acts 6:5).

But following the spread of the gospel, it became different for three reasons:

1. The Jews did not want Christ-followers to convert to Judaism, nor did they want them among them.

2. The change of covenants now meant that believers were to follow Christ instead of the earthly temple and its services.

3. The converts remained living among their fellow Gentiles, scattered throughout many lands.

This made the conversion of Gentiles complicated and unique for its time, leading to great confusion. The Jews who rejected Christ refused to accept Gentile converts. Even Jews who had become Christians were wary and fearful of worshiping with converted Gentiles, seeing them as “unclean,” and some even as an abomination.
Even the Jewish apostles and followers of Jesus were rejected by their own people; they could not bring Gentile converts to the synagogue or temple without causing great conflict among the Jews. When Paul attempted this, it led to repeated disputes, as seen throughout the book of Acts. Although the apostles desired that Gentile converts be considered part of Israel, in practice Jewish believers continued to attend the synagogue, while Gentile converts often remained separate.

The Jews would only accept converts who embraced all Jewish rituals and were not converted because of Christ. Foremost among these rituals was circumcision, which Paul mentions 28 times in his letters.

Knowing that Gentile converts would not be accepted by the wider Jewish community, the apostles needed to find a way for them to embrace both the law and the gospel, even as they were excluded.

It was this very conflict that led to many of Paul’s statements about the law being misunderstood or misused—even at the first apostolic council in Jerusalem.

Some Jews insisted that pagans who followed Jesus were not allowed to keep the Sabbath—claiming it belonged only to the Jews—or to keep the feasts or even study the law and the prophets, unless they were circumcised. Many Jews who followed Jesus were also confused, considering Gentile believers unclean even after conversion. This led to a schism between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, which Paul argued was never God’s intention. They were meant to be one people, together forming God’s Israel.

By allowing and teaching separation, some were reverting to the old covenant system—something Paul argued against.

The Old Covenant system demanded separation because Israel was chosen to be the royal priesthood at Mount Sinai.

It’s a common misconception that God’s law was created at Sinai. In reality, it was Israel’s election as the representative of God’s law that was ratified as a covenant—not the law’s origin. God expected them to keep His law even before Sinai, showing that it was already in effect.
It was their selection as a people—set apart to represent God’s law—that was ratified at Sinai. We see this in God’s word, where He says: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” (Exodus 19:5–6) It was an agreement upon their relationship that was ratified. But God’s law existed long before.

This separation between Jew and Gentile was to be removed in the new covenant, as the focus shifted from genetics and the Sinai agreement to following Christ’s lead. Because Christ took over the priestly titles and temple service, the old temple system was no longer in effect. God did not abolish the system; He transferred it to Himself and a temple in heaven. The Jews would not accept this and insisted they were still God’s priests and that their temple was the only valid one. Even Christian Jews were confused about how to continue their traditions and the law in this new context. In the midst of this conflict were the Gentile converts. They were told either that they were unclean and unwelcome to participate in God’s culture, or that they had to be circumcised and perform cleansing rituals—essentially becoming full ritualistic Jews—to worship with other Jews. As a result, some Gentiles did just that, replacing the new covenant with the old covenant system. By turning to ritual Judaism for salvation, as Paul argued, they made Christ’s sacrifice of no effect. After all, if Christ’s sacrifice was not enough for God’s pardon, and one had to rely on the ritual system, what was the point of Christ’s sacrifice in the first place? If Christ’s blood could not cleanse, and only circumcision could, then what power did the cross really have? Wasn’t Christ’s sacrifice superior for cleansing? Insisting on circumcision for cleansing and worthiness was actually an act of unbelief in the power of the cross to justify. In this way, the circumcision God instituted as a symbol of faith became a symbol of unbelief, losing its purpose. Paul debated these things consistently. The conflict might be easier to understand with a modern example: if Christ were to come and baptize with the Holy Spirit and declare us clean, but other Christians insisted that only water baptism could save, then clearly one baptism is superior to the other—though God instituted both. One can be baptized by water and still be unconverted; the act itself does not make you clean. It is faith, connected to the act, that brings you into covenant with God. Baptism is not a magic ritual that makes you sinless, and anything Christ does—like baptizing with the Spirit or declaring you clean—is superior to the ritual. This was the conflict over circumcision among the first Christians. It arose as resistance to what God provided, turning a symbolic act into a rival to true purification. Paul was considered radical when he said to the Philippians: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. 
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh” (Php 3:2-3). Not only did he claim they were cleansed through a superior means, but he took the Jewish symbol and applied it to the Gentiles, asserting that they were justified—even to a greater extent than circumcised Jews who did not have Christ.

Paul also argued against the idea that one must serve both the rituals of the earthly tabernacle and accept Christ’s new temple—offering both animal sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice. Paul often exposed the illogical and destructive mindset of those who clung to the symbols for salvation out of fear and disbelief, rather than simply believing in the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. Paul was trying to explain the same truth as Christ had: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Mat 5:17).

When Christ said: “Think not,” it was because he knew many would not just think that, but accuse Him of doing that. Christ was not instead of the law; He was the law; He was the fulfillment of all the ritual laws. They all pointed to Him. In contrast, those who refused Him saw Him as someone who was destroying their customs, as they preferred to worship the symbols rather than what they symbolized. They accused Jesus of trying to destroy the temple, yet the temple was just a story written in imagery of His mission. The ritual law was not the problem; it was God-given. It was how they interpreted what God had given that became their stumbling block. It’s the same with pagan religions. God has gifted the earth the sun. But they worshiped the sun over its creator, crediting the sun with being the creator and lawmaker. God does not blame the sun’s existence; He blames those who worship it as a god.

Circumcision and the Sabbaths
Paul also argued that the Sabbaths and new moon days now belong to Christ. They prophesied of Him, and anyone condemning Gentile believers for partaking in the Lord’s feasts—deeming them unclean—was mistaken. To the Colossians, Paul explained that they were clean, circumcised in Christ by a superior circumcision, and that anything separating them from God’s congregation was nailed to the cross. Gentile believers were as clean as any Jew—cleaner, even, than a Jew who had not accepted Christ. There was no reason for them to be denied participation in God’s culture and law, whether because of their genetics or lack of circumcision. Paul explains:

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross…. (Col 2:11-14)

So arguing that they are fit through this Christ circumcision of the heart, he says:

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.  Col 2:16-17

Meaning, they were not to be excluded from the Lord’s assembly for being “unclean”. Those judgments were wrong, and they were not to let anyone judge them for being unclean or unfit, or for being wrong to dine at Christ’s table and feasts.

Today, however, Paul is often misunderstood as saying the opposite of what he meant, largely because people fail to grasp the first-century Jewish-Christian conflict. Some preachers claim these passages mean that, because of the cross, Christians are no longer obligated to follow God’s moral law or observe His appointed times. They teach that no one should judge them for breaking these commands, yet harshly judge Christians who do keep them. They also claim that these things belong only to Jews who rejected Christ, separating Christ’s own Sabbath and feasts from Him and giving them to those who reject Him. In doing so, they uphold the very separation Paul was trying to break down, thinking they are doing Jesus a favor.

Paul’s true message was to oppose the separation between Jews and Gentiles, declaring that all are now equal and belong to God’s culture through Christ. No one is cleaner or superior to another; salvation comes not through genetics or rituals, but through Christ.

The Jews had held similar beliefs in the past, which God addressed as well. Strangers who converted and wanted to worship God at the temple were denied access—denied the Passover, denied the Sabbath—under the claim that these belonged only to the Jews. In this conflict, God spoke through Isaiah:

“For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people” (Isa 56:4)  Although the Jews ideas were based of God’s law, they were a misunderstanding of both who and why and practiced it the wrong way (Deut.23:1-2)

It was not because they were clean and the others unclean by external things. 

It was never God’s intention that strangers or pagans who wished to follow Him should be dismissed or told to stay away from the Sabbath or the temple simply because of their genetics, if they had chosen to follow God with all their heart. It was those who demanded right without conversion that were to be excluded.

Jesus wanted to gather them all into one fold. But among the Jews, the belief in their own superiority led to the mistaken notion that what God had given them was for them alone.

What Paul fought against and warned about is now often used to support separation instead. The idea that Christians and Jews should find salvation through different means is false and based on “the commandments and doctrines of men” (Col. 2:22). The claims that there are separate Sabbaths, holy days, or laws for Jews and Christians are deceptions—not the gospel or the truth. Paul was not telling pagans they could remain pagan; he told them not to let anyone judge them for considering themselves part of God’s Israel. It wasn’t the pagans that demanded circumcision to be accepted; it was the Jews, and therefore we know it is this conflict Paul is addressing.

Paul wrote that Gentile believers are circumcised and purified through Christ. What once separated them from participation has now been removed. They are now to be welcomed into God’s culture, because everything belongs to Christ—and they, too, belong to Him.

The Passover was not merely a Jewish holiday; it was a prophecy and celebration of Christ. Therefore, Gentile believers were not to be judged for participating in it. The same applies to the Sabbath—they were now grafted into Israel and became part of Israel through Christ, called to share in its culture (Romans 11:17–24). The Feast of Tabernacles was not merely a Jewish feast; it foreshadows Christ’s second coming, just as Passover foreshadowed His first.

“But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ… For he is our peace, who hath made both one… Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” (Ephesians 2:11–19)

“There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:26–29

“That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” Ephesians 3:6

A sentiment also expressed by Peter: “Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God.” 1 Peter 2:9–10

And Jesus explaining that they were to be united to the Jewish-Christian fold, not remain a separate fold: “Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold… there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” John 10:16

Now everyone—Jews and Gentiles alike—were to be united as one, purified by Christ and participating together in Him. They were to represent the fullness of Israel as one people. Pagans were no longer strangers. For Israel to be saved, the fullness of the Gentiles had to come in, so Christ could gather them as one fold when He comes. This was a secret few Jews had understood before, as they pictured the separation lasting and themselves as the ruler of the pagans. That the pagans were to inherit together with them did not sit well with many, and is a notion rejected by Jews even up until our own time.

The Jews who refused Jesus rejected this doctrine and fought it with all their might. And they found an ally once again in Rome.

The Jews sold their conviction that their culture, sabbath and feasts, had nothing to do with Christ at all. And that it was even an abomination to mix the two. They felt jealous and angered that pagans should keep the traditions that God had said made them a special people. And so pagans who tried to take part with their Jewish believers were heavily judged and seen as disruptive all over the empire.

Even the pagan families were upset that their family members turning to Christ would change their culture: “These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our city. They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice.” (Acts 16:20–21) And so a pagan convert faced harsh judgment from Jews as well as their own people for changing customs, and it’s this pressure that would change Christianity later on, inducing them to create a new platform.

Jewish Christians often believed the way to make peace with their own people was to avoid being seen as removing this separation. They worried that offending their Jewish brethren would only harden their hearts. By showing themselves as strict observers of Jewish laws, they hoped to prove that following Jesus did not mean disrespecting the law. This led to hypocrisy among many Jewish Christians—an issue Paul addressed directly:

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Gal 2:11-14)

This passage is often misunderstood if we don’t grasp the prejudice Paul was addressing. As a Jew, Peter was not supposed to eat or worship with Gentiles, but he did so—except when other Jews were present, out of fear. Paul explains that the “ways of the Gentiles” he refers to are those of Christian Gentiles, who are saved through faith, not ritualism. When Jewish believers arrived, Peter reverted to strict ritualism, which Paul called not walking “uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” Peter practiced separation and ritualism with Jews, but unity of faith with Gentiles—adding to confusion. If Gentiles weren’t good enough unless they underwent Jewish rituals, why did Peter live with them when Jews weren’t around? What message did this send to both Gentile and Jewish believers? Was he suggesting Gentiles were still not good enough or were still unclean?

Because Jews strongly objected to Gentile Christians practicing Jewish traditions and moral laws without a proper Jewish conversion, they convinced Rome that Christians were a dangerous sect causing offense and provoking conflict. Christians were accused of not being culturally proper and, therefore, a social problem. This led to Roman persecution of Christians. Roman authorities wanted to appease both Jews and pagans, and considered it worthwhile to sacrifice the group causing the unrest for the sake of peace.

Jews fight hard still to this day to keep this separation by the introduction of Noahite laws, and saying that Christians are not allowed to keep the Sabbath or celebrate their feasts, which they claim do not belong to Jesus. But they can keep some laws that they have set for the gentiles which they call the Noahite laws. This idea is in sharp contrast to God’s and Christ’s own words of making Israel one body – under one law.

Some rabbis have even pronounced death sentences on any Gentile who keeps the Sabbath, God’s feasts, or studies the Torah. These are among the harshest judgments, yet they are based on the commandments of men, not of God.

Anger toward Christians remains, as does the condemnation and irritation over their adoption of the biblical God alongside Christ. Many Jews believe this union is improper and defiles their religion. They see Jesus as the antichrist or as Baal. And Christians practicing their customs as Jezebels amidst them, bringing upon them God’s judgments. Some even call a jew converted to Christ a dead Jew, or the worst kind of Jew: a traitor.

It is to this conflict that Paul speaks, telling the Gentiles not to be troubled or frightened. He assures them that all of the law belongs to Christ, and they should not let anyone judge them for seeking God’s word or being part of God’s Israel and congregation.

The promises and the culture of God belong to Gentile believers just as much as to natural-born Jews. Jesus disregards claims that the biblical feasts and Sabbath belong only to Jews who reject Him and not to His followers. He told His followers to pray their flight would not be on the Sabbath, showing it remained holy for them. Jesus died on the “Jewish” feast of Passover, rose on the feast of First Fruits, and poured out the Holy Spirit on the feast of Pentecost—because these were never just “Jewish” feasts, but Christ’s all along. Without Christ, they have no true meaning. These feasts and holy days are now rightly represented by Christ’s followers, not those who reject Him. If Gentile converts or even Jewish Christians agreed that these belonged only to the Jews, they would be giving away what rightfully belongs to Christ. Therefore, it was important not to be intimidated by either the Jews or the prophesied power that would “think to change times and laws.”

By misunderstanding the debate, Christians have gone in the opposite direction. They uphold the separation, establish their own culture, and even claim that those who follow God’s original culture are cursed. Many Christians now celebrate Jews as saved through heritage and tradition—the opposite of Paul’s teaching. That they who have the circumcision by flesh have the real circumcision, some claim Jews are still the chosen priesthood after Sinai, thereby nullifying Christ’s new priesthood. But you cannot have two tabernacles, two sanctuaries, or two high priests. You cannot have both the lamb and Christ; salvation is found only in the tabernacle raised at the cross. Yet the majority of Christians have given Christ’s holy days to the Jews alone.

Which brings us to the final conflict Paul addresses, a topic especially to the Jews.

3. Should Jews continue sacrificing and do the temple rites, after Christ sacrificed himself and set up a new temple?

This topic is addressed primarily in the letter to the Hebrews and in letters to mixed Jewish-Gentile congregations facing similar conflicts.

Paul is clear that Christ’s sanctuary replaces the old. The priesthood, the furniture, the sacrifice, and the mediator are all transferred to Christ. There is now a temple in heaven, which is the original (Heb. 8). This is why Christ said the time would come when people would not gather at a physical mountain, but instead worship in spirit and truth—the only way to access the heavenly temple while on earth.
The Sabbath, the feasts, and all the assemblies belong to Christ and are connected to the temple in heaven. In the book of Hebrews, Paul explains to the Jews that what they considered to be God’s temple was only a copy of the true temple in heaven. Even the priests were acting out a representation of Christ’s salvation. The entire sanctuary service was a prophecy of Christ’s mission to save humanity. Every item told a story of Christ’s relationship with His people and His plan to restore them.

The sacrifice showed how He would take our sins upon Himself and die for us. The law revealed our sin, and His blood would cover it, making peace between us and the law.

The feasts illustrated the stages and sequence of the plan of salvation, and the Sabbath revealed Christ’s true identity in relation to us.

By seeing Jesus as an enemy and clinging to shadowy symbols, they lost both salvation and an understanding of their own role in God’s plan.

Paul urged them to let go of the old system and look up to the sanctuary in heaven. The book of Hebrews was a daring and bold sermon, especially since the temple likely still stood in Jerusalem when it was written.

Could they truly let go of the physical lamb they were about to sacrifice and replace it with faith in Christ’s sacrifice?

For many, the rituals had become superstition; they believed disaster would befall them if they did not perform them. Now, they were being asked to replace these rituals with faith in Christ in a heavenly tabernacle they could not see. Many could not make that shift. Paul therefore explains that Abraham, to whom the promises were given, never worshiped at a temple, yet he received atonement and grace through faith. Paul argues that if the sanctuary, established over 400 years after Abraham, were the only way to salvation, then even Abraham and those before him would be excluded. He explains that they are saved through faith in Christ’s sacrifice, not through rituals—just as Abraham was.

In Acts, we see even Christian Jews persuading Paul to participate in a ritual sacrifice at the temple. Early Jewish Christians struggled to let go of the old system; they did not fully understand the change at first.

Many tried to be saved through both the earthly ritual system and the heavenly at the same time, not realizing that doing so minimized the power of Christ’s sacrifice and priestly service. Some even encouraged Gentiles to do likewise, which demanded they be circumcised and converted through rabbis. However, the two systems cancel each other out: if you seek salvation through the earthly rites, you act as if you do not need Christ’s ministry in heaven; if you trust in Christ as the sacrifice and priest in heaven, you do not need the earthly system for salvation.

The cross was sufficient. If both systems were needed for salvation, the meaning and power of the cross would be lost. Paul made it clear that ritual laws had no place once the true tabernacle was established. When the reality arrives, the symbol is no longer needed. It’s like sending someone to speak for you until you arrive; once you are there, the attention should shift to you. If people ignore you and continue focusing on your representative, it becomes disrespectful. In the same way, continuing with ritual symbols after Christ’s arrival was no longer appropriate.

In this way, something that once demonstrated obedience and respect can become rebellion if the circumstances change. This was true of the old tabernacle system: following it was obedience until Christ came, but after He came, it was rebellion.

The Bible shows us Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. John saw Him there, walking among the candlesticks, and saw the altar of incense, the Lamb of God, and the Ark of the Covenant in heaven. Sinful men served the earthly sanctuary, but the heavenly by the Son of God.

Paul was urging both Jews to let go of the shadowy symbols and Gentiles who were pressured to become ritualistic converts that this was not God’s will.

What was brought to an end at the cross?

Some Christians have twisted even this, claiming that Paul is speaking about God’s ten commandments and feasts. That it is God’s moral law and the times of gathering that compete with Christ’s sacrifice and must be done away with. But it was the sacrifice system that competed with the cross.

Another verse Rome has attempted to reinterpret tells us clearly what would end when Jesus died:

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” (Dan 9:27)

This refers to the ritual sacrifices. They were the only things the cross was meant to bring to an end—by fulfillment, through the ultimate sacrifice.

The prophecy also confirms that the Jewish tabernacle system would not go on beyond the “70 weeks,” which points to Christ’s first coming:
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy” (Dan 9:24)

To seal up meant to bring its final fulfillment. There was no continuation of salvation through these things after. It was the rituals of the earthly temple that ended at the cross. Once Christ’s blood reached the Mercy Seat, there was no need for animal blood to be taken there. The service ended because the blood brought was sufficient and would continue to leave an impact for as long as needed.

Thinking that the end of the ritual sacrifices meant the end of God’s moral law and culture has caused many Christians to lose their foundation.

God’s moral law defines sin and righteousness; the ritual laws are a prophecy of the atonement of sin. Therefore, the two have two completely different roles and purposes. One is made effective because of our transgression: the ritual law. Only the ritual laws came because of our sins. The law is not sin, and was not born from sin. Even God’s holy times and laws were set at creation, before sin, and were not given because of sin.
Therefore, when people mix the two and claim the moral law and God’s times came because of sin, they confuse the matter and make God’s law appear as a curse to plague them rather than the moral standard of a perfect world.

However, if you understand the law and the prophets, you will also understand what Paul is talking about and why it matters.

Christians today who continue to separate Jews and Christians, support the establishment of a Jewish state, or advocate for rebuilding a new temple are defying God’s intent. They are doing exactly what Paul warned against—upholding the separation within God’s true Israel. They promise salvation through things that cannot save, to both Jew and Gentile. To the Jew, this means encouraging trust in their own flesh and empty rituals, supporting the idea of rebuilding the temple and resuming sacrifices—an act that is counted as witchcraft and idolatry in heaven (1 Samuel 15:23).

To the Gentile, it means making them believe they have no part in what God gave at creation to all humanity and later to Israel, leading them to create their own foundation, law, and order.

In this way, many have used Paul’s writings to support exactly what he warned against—believing they are serving God.

The result of this great falling away.

The drift from God’s original platform—His culture, Sabbath, and law—resulted in sin. The churches began to drift spiritually, both in doctrine and practice. Jesus was no longer seen as the priest within the God-given Jewish system, but as a detached religious figure without a “temple” or “home.” This led to the falling away and created a need for a new spiritual leader, which was found in the Papacy. When Christ’s culture and words had to be dismissed as “Jewish”—even the “faith of Jesus” and “the commandments of God”—the church sought a new leader to establish their own culture and law. The Jews did not accept them as Jews, and the pagans did not accept them as part of their religion, so they tried to establish a new religion. No one can move forward without purpose and structure, and Papal Rome provided both.

The conflicts between Jews who resisted Gentile converts, Gentile persecution, and the position of Judean Christians in between led to the loss and replacement of the original Christian foundation. With both sides pulling in opposite directions, Christians felt compelled to form their own religion. Rather than remain a hated Jewish sect, they sought to become a powerful faith in their own right. To distance themselves from their Jewish roots, they gave up the foundation of their faith—even though Jesus Himself was a Jewish king.

When a platform is removed, something else must take its place. That is how Jesus became a Greek or Roman icon—a Latin figure with Latin practices and laws. The Jews took what was meant to be attached to Christ and turned it into a symbol of rejecting Him, while Romans and Greeks adopted Christ’s name and the story of redemption, but without its true meaning or its connection to God’s temple.

Christians began seeking salvation through their own rituals. And if God-given rituals could not save a Jew, the self-invented rituals of the church could not save Christians either.

Paul stands as an important voice against the very things he is now used to defend. Because of Paul’s writing style and the widespread misunderstanding of the first-century conflict between Jews and converts, his words were taken out of context and used to build a new platform that the Papacy could exploit—a foundation that Protestants and evangelicals later continued to build on. Had Paul been understood correctly, this shift could not have happened. The Bible as a whole speaks against changing God’s times and laws or offering one salvation for Jews and another for Gentiles—yet only Paul’s letters are used to justify these changes. Even to the Samaritan woman, Jesus was clear: there was not one salvation for Samaritans and another for Jews. He said: “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22).

Why did he not say salvation came from him? Why the Jews? Jesus is explaining to her that having the right foundation for being saved through Him is essential. She could not add Him to her Samaritan ideology and be saved through that. She had to understand His salvation through the Jewish system.

The same warning would apply to all who try to understand the cross and its meaning through a corrupted system. The Samaritans were not purely pagan; they saw themselves as Israel, believing in Moses and the prophets just as the Jews did. But they had, through interaction with Gentiles, been mixing in a wrong understanding. And so Jesus told her that the Jews had the right one, and that His salvation came through what they had been given.

Christians today have likewise blended truth and error, paganism and Christ, but only by restoring Christ’s salvation through the Jewish platform can they make sure they worship in “truth and spirit”.

Removing God’s law created a need for a human lawgiver. Without God’s law, the church became lawless, leading to destruction and confusion. Rejecting God’s law created a hunger for another authority, allowing Papal power to fill the void.
Keep in mind, the Catholic Church’s laws throughout history far exceed God’s laws in number.

The Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) is a separate book from the Catechism and contains exactly 1,752 distinct laws. For comparison, the Torah (books of Moses) has only 613 laws, most of them ritualistic and fulfilled through Christ’s ministry. Half of these laws can only be observed if there is an earthly temple. 55 to 65 of these laws require a sovereign state or government to perform, as they relate to judgment in a state institution.
This leaves us with very few laws: mainly moral laws (the Ten Commandments), God’s assembly feasts, and dietary instructions. Christ, as High Priest, is in charge of the rest, being the priest and kingly government. This means only Christ can perform the judgments as the higher government. So Christians are told not to execute judgment, and that Christ will do this when He comes.

Ironically, by dismissing God’s law, many Christians have ended up with far more laws imposed by their churches. In addition, societal and “jungle” laws, and to add to all that, all the laws of their government in whatever land they live in. The number of laws existing in a Christian’s life is greater than that of the Old Covenant in the era of Judges in the Bible.

While saying Christians are free to violate God’s feasts, the papacy demands celebration of their own feasts, even attendance at their Easter.

There is no such thing as a church or a Christian group living without law. In reality, it’s simply a matter of exchanging one set of laws for another.

While claiming that the Sabbath is legalism and has been abolished, they demand that Sunday be sacred by law. It was never truly about freedom from God’s law or the good news of its abolition; it was always about replacing God’s law with their own.

No one practices the idea of faith without law; it is used only to argue against obeying God’s law.

No one cites Paul to accuse others of legalism for attending church on Sunday or going to Mass at Easter. Paul’s words are only used this way when someone tries to follow God’s appointed times and laws—and then they are condemned for it.

Yet Paul’s words remain relevant: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days” (Col 2:16).

As recorded, as it continued to happen:

“And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them” (Acts 16:20-22)

To this day, the Roman Papal church forbids Christians from following customs rooted in God’s law, making the conflicts of the first-century church still relevant in our own time.

1. THE LAW: If you claim your law is given to you by the gods, the people defy the gods when defying your law.
2. THE LEADER: If your god trusts and has chosen your leader, you rebel against the god if you defy your leader.
3. YOU NEED THEM TO THRIVE: You are dependent upon your state to provide blessings and save you from war and conflict.
4. FEAR: This way they set people up against others. If the king or state is perceived as the manifestation of divine order, resistance represents chaos. And people will permit “enemies of the state” to be defeated.

Rome rises around the same time as the fall of Israel. In it lie the very warnings God gave them through Moses. The consequences of their infidelity would lead to suppression and scattering of the people. Rome would become the greatest suppressor of them all in more ways than one.

Genetically and historically, we can see that both the Etruscans and the early Latin people of Italy were part of Rome’s founding. But they are also closely genetically connected to the steppe people who moved westward, from whom most of Europe is now descended.

Did the rulers of Rome come from Troy?

Ancient Greek writers did not view the Roman capital as a Greek capital. And in the prophecy given to the prophet Daniel, we also do not see the Roman Beast as of the “same material” or “beast” as the Greeks, although it rose up near the territories of Greek expansion and trade. Mixing with the Greeks would be unavoidable. Although they intermingled with the Greeks, it was still not a Greek city. Surprisingly, despite the great Greek cities, Rome would become the most powerful city among the descendants of Japhet.
Some Greek historians regarded the Romans primarily as an Italian people who later mixed with newcomers. Writers such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century BC) argued that the Romans were a mixture of native Italians, Greeks, and Trojans. No matter, still the tribes of Japhet.

Most historians before the common era claim that the founders of Rome were fugitives and former citizens of ancient Troy who had wandered for some time before settling there.
The man who escaped from Troy and whose descendants established Rome was called Aeneas, the son of Aphrodite. The reason many historians reject the historical records of Greek and north-western historians, such as Snorri Sturluson, is the blending of human stories with those of the gods. However, in the ancient world, it was customary to link humans with gods, as tribal leaders and kings often claimed divine authority to legitimize their rule and consolidate power over their subjects. In fact, the Pharaohs did it, the Greek rulers did it, and later Roman rulers did it. No one questions that Alexander the Great was a real person, despite his claim to be the Son of Zeus-Ammon and a descendant of the semi-god Heracles.
So often, historical figures not confirmed by archaeology are rejected as historical figures because they blend with religious mythology. However, this was standard in those days.
Aeneas was a prince of the Trojan royal line and one of Troy’s greatest warriors. The gods repeatedly rescue him from death in battle, reflecting a destiny that extends beyond the fall of Troy and toward the future founding myths of Italy. According to Virgil’s Aeneid, Aeneas escaped the burning city, carrying his father, Anchises, and leading other Trojan survivors to the west. After years of wandering across the Mediterranean, he reached the Italian Peninsula, where he fulfilled a divine mission to establish a new homeland for his people. Aeneas was not considered the founder of Rome itself, but Roman tradition treated him as the ancestor of the line that eventually produced the twin brothers Romulus and Remus. His son, Ascanius, was said to found Alba Longa, from which Rome’s royal ancestry descended. The family of Julius Caesar and Augustus even claimed descent from Aeneas through this lineage. When later other western and northern European tribes claim to be descendants of Troy as well, some residing around the Black Sea region before heading north, this fits with the idea that they are all distant cousins. And although the legends in the rest of Europe are not as old, their connection to Rome, which has had these traditions from very early on, links the two.

The Position of Troy : Strait of Strife

Ancient Greek historians claim Troy lay in the Dardanelles, the narrow strait in northwestern Turkey that connects the Aegean Sea with the Sea of Marmara.

The name Dardanelles comes from Dardanus (Dardanos), the legendary ancestor of the Trojans. In antiquity, the strait was called the Hellespont by the Greeks, and an ancient town called Dardanus stood on its Asian shore. The modern name “Dardanelles” is derived from that town. It’s now called the Strait of Bosporus.
This narrow strait has been one of the world’s most strategically important waterways for trade, migration, and military campaigns since antiquity. This has caused a constant pull-and-push between the tribes of Japhet and the tribes of Shem throughout time. Even the city of Constantinople is north of this strait, which divides Europe and Asia. Being in the borderland, control shifted between the west and the east.

The strait was central to the history of the ancient Greek world and the Achaemenid Empire. According to tradition, Xerxes I built pontoon bridges across the Hellespont in 480 BCE to invade Greece, while Alexander the Great crossed it in 334 BCE as he began his campaign against Persia. Control of the waterway remained strategically important throughout the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires.

Writers such as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Strabo all describe the peoples around the Black Sea and the importance of the Hellespont as the gateway to that trade.

It was the waterway to the territory assigned to the Biblical Magog.

Although Troy is often described as just a city, it was actually a larger region.

Although the Romans claimed to have come from Troy or to have been chased from that region, they would not give up their claim to it. And took great pride in claiming the territories.  
Rome took control of that region in 133 BC, when the Kingdom of Pergamon was bequeathed to Rome by Attalus III. The Troad (area around Troy), including the site of Troy, then became part of the Roman province of Asia.
In the year 73 AD, Vespasian incorporated the northern strait of the Bosporus into a Roman province. Herodotus had referred to the city as Byzantion.
Emperor Constantine made this the new capital of Rome in AD 330, and the city was also called New Rome. Zosimus (early 6th century) says Constantine first went to the Troad and began laying out a city between Sigeum and ancient Ilion, but then abandoned the project after receiving a divine sign and instead chose Byzantium (New History II.30). Historical writers such as John Malalas (AD 490-570) present Roman history as beginning with the Trojans and continuing through Rome to Constantinople. Because Constantinople was the New Rome, they believed it inherited Rome’s Trojan ancestry.

This is all more relevant than meets the eye when we dive into the Bible’s prophecies and how God describes bringing Rome down step by step, as we will look at in another chapter.

Many modern wars are, interestingly, tied to the same strait, showing how its importance has never changed. During the Russo-Turkish wars (17th- 19th centuries), it was a recurring Russian objective to gain influence through this passage, and the conflict became known as “the Straits Question” in debates. During the first Crimean War, one of the central issues was preventing Russia from dominating the Black Sea and then seizing the straits (1853–1856). Britain and France feared Russia would control the Straits and expand toward the Mediterranean and therefore helped the Ottomans. Russia lost. The Treaty of Paris (1856) limited Russian power in the Black Sea and protected Ottoman territorial integrity.
Then, from friends to enemies in the conflict in 1915-1916. The Gallipoli campaign’s objective was to capture the Dardanelles, reach Constantinople, and knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war. This time the United Kingdom and France fought against the Ottoman Empire, siding with Russia because the Ottomans had allied with Germany. This ultimately led to the end of the Ottoman Empire.
After the Ottoman Empire collapsed, modern Turkey was founded in 1923. During the Cold War, Turkey feared Soviet/Russian pressure, especially over the Turkish Straits — the Bosporus and Dardanelles.

So Turkey joined NATO with Greece in 1952, becoming an ally of Britain, France, and the USA against the Soviet bloc. This would, from then on, place the strait at the center of the Cold War between the West and Russia.

What it was really about was who was in power in the Mediterranean, protecting the lands there, and controlling the trade routes. To this very day, Turkey, through its alliance and dependence on NATO, puts restraints on Russian movements.  If Turkey is at war, or believes it faces an imminent threat of war, it can restrict or close the straits to warships under the convention. As an example, after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Turkey invoked the Montreux Convention and closed the straits to the warships of the belligerent parties.

The strait was always both controlling trade and determining who could trade. In modern times, on the eve of World War I, historians estimate that about 90% of Russia’s grain exports passed through the Dardanelles. When the Ottoman Empire closed the straits in 1914, it cut off one of Russia’s principal export routes and made it much harder for Russia to receive supplies from its Allies. In newer times, it was a political concern in the EU that Russia could deliberately use cheap grain exports to destabilize European markets, especially after Russia flooded the world market with cheap grain, driving prices down in 2023–2024

Even today, Russia exports much of its grain through Black Sea ports, so access to the Turkish Straits remains economically important. Around 90% of Russia’s seaborne grain exports in recent years have departed from southern Black Sea ports, then passed through the Bosporus and Dardanelles.

Who controls the territory is also tied to having the upper hand in conflicts in the Mediterranean. Russia, being sometimes allied with countries NATO countries wish to subdue, especially in the Israel – Arab conflicts, plays a role.
To protect the modern state of Israel before its establishment and now. It is a recurring conflict.

This is all relevant, as we will see, that the powers who wish to have control of this strait are “the horns” of the Roman “beast”. The same nations that, together with Rome, claim to come from this strait. The Roman beast seized it, then the “horns of the beast” have battled for it. And everything will make more sense as we look more closely into the prophecies in Revelation.

Whoever the Trojans were, and even if the story of the war in Greek poetry is said to have initially been about a stolen woman, which Hollywood keeps romanticizing, there might have been a larger conflict at play that is still ongoing to this very day.

The Trojans had placed themselves strategically at a crossroads, securing their own position while also controlling the Greeks’ access. After the fall of Troy, it is said that the inhabitants spread towards western Europe and Ukraine. And of course, the legend of the prince himself, whose descendants, according to legend, laid the foundation of the city of Rome.

The Legendary Founder: On the blood of his brother

Rome is said to have been founded as a kingdom on April 21, 753 BC, by Romulus, a descendant of the Trojan prince. According to the traditional Roman legend, Romulus and his twin brother were said to have been orphaned and nurtured by a beast. Romulus and his brother Remus quarreled over where to found a new city and how to interpret divine omens. After Remus mocked or crossed the newly built city wall, Romulus killed him, declaring that the same fate would befall anyone who violated the walls of what became Rome. It is not certain, though, whether the story of the city’s founding is a legend or the truth.

The founding date was calculated by the Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro in the 1st century BC, very long after the claimed beginning. The ancient writer Fabius Pictor, writing in the 3rd century BC, claimed Rome was founded in 748 BC.
Lucius Cincius Alimentus, an early Roman statesman, historian, and annalist active during the late 3rd century BCE, claimed it was founded in 729/728 BC. But Rome ultimately adopted Varro’s calculation, which was based on kings’ lists, genealogies, and chronological calculations.

Archaeologically, settlements on the hills of Rome date back to around the 8th century BC, which aligns fairly closely with the traditional date. Its then-young city also explains why the Bible never mentions Rome when listing the great trading cities of its time. Rome was fairly new and not yet a major trading hub. To be that, it had to be a city in a very populous area, which Rome for a long time wasn’t.

The Scattering and Gathering

Greek historian Eratosthenes dated the fall of Troy to the 12th or 13th century BC, which corresponds to the Judges era (1400–1350 B.C. to 1045 B.C) and roughly before the Great Bronze Age collapse. But with history written so long after, it may very well be around the same time. If Greek, Roman, and Biblical history are considered together, we should note that the founders of Rome were first dispersed from the Near East when Israel entered Canaan. God promised to drive out any enemies Israel had and give them peace. God might have done more than drive people out of Canaan.

Again, the timesetting is important because it was during this era that God was helping Israel establish itself in Canaan.
About the future Northern Israel kingdom, God said: “  

“His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth” Deuteronomy 33:17

The meaning here shows how the northern kingdoms’ presence, led by the tribes of Joseph, would push people further into their lands. “The ends of the earth” in ancient times was commonly used to refer to the cardinal directions, not because they believed the earth was flat and had an actual end.
The people of the east were pushed eastward, the people of the north pushed north and westward, the people of the south pushed southward.

Other scriptures say:

“Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you… There shall no man be able to stand before you.” (Deuteronomy 11:23–25)

And to Solomon: “Behold, a son shall be born to thee… I will give him rest from all his enemies round about… and his name shall be Solomon.” (1 Chronicles 22:9)

Uprooting people that were a threat to Israel would also mean future threats as well as current threats. God would ensure his people were not threatened, as long as they remained faithful. It cannot be said completely for sure that the Trojans and the Indo-European tribes in Anatolia would have been a threat to Israel, but it’s striking when they dispersed, but also when they re-enter the scene.
They scattered when Israel was faithful. And they came back when they were not.
The Strait of Bosporus was the waterway of the northern territory, and if not under control, would bring the hordes of the north towards the promised land by ships. God permitted the Greeks to have control of these areas, but others were pushed out. If the strait was for a while controlled by the tribes of Magog in the north, God would protect Israel by blocking their way to the Mediterranean by a strong Greek presence. For a long time, other tribes also controlled the land route through the Caucasus. And if the story of Troy is true, they even seized it with the help of the tribe of Dan. Pushing these tribes north of the strait, north-west in Europe where they belonged, and some to the Italian peninsula.

In many ways, Rome was the superpower that was never supposed to exist as an imperium had Israel remained faithful. The Roman beast rising and the fall of God’s people are closely connected.

The 7 kings.

The first system of rule in the still-small, growing city of Rome was seven kings ruling over seven hills.

They were Romulus (753–716 BC), Numa Pompilius (715–673 BC), Tullus Hostilius (673–642 BC), Ancus Marcius (642–617 BC), Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (616–579 BC), Servius Tullius (578–535 BC), Lucius Tarquinius Superbus (535–509 BC)

Rome was founded as a city upon and in between seven hills:

• Palatine Hill – The traditional site where Romulus founded Rome.
• Capitoline Hill – The political and religious center, home to the Temple of Jupiter.
• Aventine Hill – Traditionally associated with the plebeians.
• Caelian Hill – Primarily a residential area in ancient Rome.
• Esquiline Hill – The largest of the seven hills.
• Viminal Hill – The smallest of the seven hills.
• Quirinal Hill – Associated with the ancient Sabines before becoming part of Rome.

Not only was it said to have begun with seven kings ruling from the city of seven hills, but Rome would later experiment with seven forms of government: Kings, Consuls, Decemvirs, Dictators, Triumvirs, Emperors, and Popes. In addition, it did what no other empire had done before: change religion.

And we will look at all the subtle and obvious ways God reveals the Roman Beast in Prophecy when we go into the prophecies in detail. And especially the way this beast is so dangerous to God’s people.

The Jerusalem – Rome connection:

For a long time, the Bible is not focused on the descendants of Japhet or viewing them as a threat. Their enemies are rather their surrounding nations in the Near East. But as Israel falls, God again brings up the names of Japhet’s sons, beginning with Javan (Greeks). It’s clear that, at the time of Israel’s scattering, they became relevant to Israel, although not before. Knowing they were sold as slaves to these nations around the Mediterranean makes them, of course, relevant, but God also states that the children of Japhet will threaten Jerusalem in the future. To the prophet Daniel, God says that when told of the future, he should look to the west and the kingdoms coming from there. Making the final great enemies of God’s people the children of Japhet, whereas first it was the children of Ham (Egypt, Canaan, Sidon, Kush), then the children of Shem (Midianites, Arameans, Assyrians, Caldeans) before finally being the children of Japhet. In the Bible’s storytelling, we see God place His people as the center of the descendants of Noah physically, but also spiritually in spiritual warfare and how it plays out after each group attacks God’s people in different ways at different places till the end of all earthly kingdoms.
The Old Testament is largely devoted to conflicts between Israel and the tribes of Ham and Shem. It only gives forewarnings of the conflicts with the tribes of Japhet, as they did not occur in Old Testament times. This is why most of what concerns the conflict with Japhet is written in prophecy.
In the New Testament, we are taken to the time of the prophesied conflict and how it develops from then on. The book of Revelation explains how the conflict will continue to play out from John’s time to the end.

The mention of the Japhate tribes begins at the close of Israel’s era of kings. The Northern Kingdom of Israel fell in 722 BCE. Recorded in 2 Kings 17, while the southern kingdom of Judah fell with Jerusalem in 586 BCE.
But before that, Sennacherib, the King of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, in 701 BC “came up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.” (2 Kings 18:13) According to Sennacherib’s own inscription (the Taylor Prism), he captured 46 fortified cities of Judah along with many smaller towns and villages.
While most of the captives taken to Babylon later were from Jerusalem, many from the Judean cities that were taken by the Assyrians were sold on the slave market. 200,150 people, according to the Assyrian stele, were taken from their homes, and Assyria often redistributed captives. Although the Assyrian inscriptions do not say what they did with them, the Bible does. They were sold to the Greeks through Tyre and Sidon.

 We also know that a Greek colony called Magna Graecia was founded in southern Italy between the 8th and 6th centuries BC. The most notable founding dates include 706 BC for Taras (Modern Taranto) and 734 BC for Cumae. This means that a lot of the Greek slaves were likely brought to these territories, which the Bible records were when the children of Judea were sold to the Greeks and by Greeks in these regions.

No doubt the timing, the genetics, and the records in the Bible show that slaves from Israel and Judah helped build Rome and many Greek and Latin settlements in the region. Over millennia, they would now number in the millions among these nations. Both tribes of Israel, slaves from Judah, immigrants, and Christian-Jewish fugitives have for a long time been intermingled with the tribes of Japhet.

All the major empires shown to Daniel- Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome- had slaves or captives from Judah and Israel among them. This is relevant because God focuses on empires that are connected to his people in ways that are suppressive or even deceptive. It is therefore very relevant that slaves were taken to the western European coastland.

As Rome became a great republic and especially during the Empire, large numbers of slaves were used to build roads, aqueducts, temples, villas, mines, and public buildings.
The curse on Israel if they disconnected with God showed a potentially hard life:
“The LORD shall scatter thee among all people… And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest…” (Deuteronomy 28:64–67)

Among the curses given by Moses to Israel, several might relate to Rome, while one is certain to be about Rome. However, when God gave these curses, Rome did not yet exist, which complicated how God could warn them.

Firstly, the following curse about Israel’s fate does not exclude Rome: “and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth” (Deu.28:25)

Secondly, they were told to become idol worshippers.
“The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone” (Deut.28:36)
Although this verse fits very well what happened to King Manasseh, King Jeroboam, and the captives of Judah taken there, one part of the verse does not fit as perfectly.

“Which neither thou nor thy fathers have known.” Babylon was, according to the Bible, the Chaldeans. These people were Abraham’s homeland before going to Canaan. Their forefather. Genesis 11:28 says Abraham traveled from the “Ur of the Chaldees (Chaldeans).
Abraham said:

“The LORD God of heaven, which took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my kindred…” (Genesis 24:7). This tells us that the Chaldeans were descendants of the same people as Abraham. And Babylon was among the most well-known nations at the time. But at the time of Israel’s captivity to Babylon, it was ruled by the Chaldeans, who were also a Semitic-speaking people, though with a different language subgroup than Hebrew.

The curse in Deuteronomy 28:36 can fit the Babylonian captivity and probably speak of it; it may also apply to the Roman destruction. Their last remaining kings were taken down by Rome, as well as the people scattered, killed, or made slaves. The story repeated itself twice, and therefore this curse fits what happened with Rome as well. Herod’s son Archelaus was exiled to Vienne in Gaul by Rome. His other son Herod Antipas was also exiled to Gaul by Emperor Caligula.

Another verse that is the most likely speaking of Rome says:

“The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young: And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed …And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down” (Deu 28:49-51 & 52)

From the end of the Earth: A nation from far, from the end of the earth, points elsewhere than Babylon, which was in the center of the then-known world. Rome long existed outside the known territories of Israel, and its people extended to the western end, which was considered the end of a cardinal direction. The Roman Empire recruited soldiers from the Gauls, Britons, and many other peoples in western Europe. After 25 years of service, non-citizen troopers usually received Roman citizenship. (1)

Strange language: When Babylon took the land, God said the land would rest, enjoy its sabbath, and then be rebuilt. When Rome took the land, they destroyed it so it would not be rebuilt as a Jewish state again. God gave no promise of restoration after Rome’s destruction. The bible curse indicates a different language family from the Semitic one.

Fierce nation: “A nation of fierce countenance” also fits very well with the fourth beast Daniel saw, which is described as “dreadful and terrible”.

Eagle: Finally, the symbolic use of the eagle when describing them, knowing that the eagle was the sacred military standard of a Roman legion. It was one of the most important symbols of Roman power. Every armed legion carried the eagle standard, called the Aquila.

The first connection with Rome in the Bible is that they began to rise when Israel fell. And they would exist till the very end. And God’s earthly kingdom would never be restored during the curse of their and their ten tribe’s exsistance as ruling kingdoms. Once Rome took over, the gathering of Israel would only take place at the coming of Christ’s Kingdom. And they would be gathered to a heavenly city.

Rome began to rise to prominence at the very same time as the selling of Judean and Israeli slaves on the Greek slave-market is no coincidence. Many were also Israeli refugees seeking shelter in the newly established cities. Many chose to travel as far away from their then enemies as possible.

The Bible is clear throughout, and it can not be mistaken: The origin of Rome in relation to God’s people is at least a curse, but more accurately described as “the”great curse.

The Trojan horse

According to Greek tradition, after years of failing to capture Troy, the Danaoi and Greeks pretended to sail away, leaving behind a giant wooden horse as an offering. Believing they had won the war, the Trojans brought the horse into their city, unaware that enemy soldiers were hidden inside. During the night, the soldiers emerged, opened the city gates for the returning Greek army, and Troy was destroyed.

Thus were the claimed ancestors of Rome’s leaders defeated. But as we go through the prophecy and history of Rome’s connection with God’s people, we will also see a similar approach by Rome directed at the Christian church. After first trying to destroy the followers of Christ through open persecution, imprisonment, and killings, without succeeding in bringing the church down; rather, it prospered at every attack they made. They would then create their own Trojan horse and bring it inside the church, where they would destroy it from the inside.

(1). Suetonius, writing about Julius Caesar: "Encouraged by this, he added to the legions which he had received from the state others at his own cost, one actually composed of men of Transalpine Gaul and bearing a Gallic name too (for it was called Alauda), which he trained in the Roman tactics and equipped with Roman arms; and later on he gave every man of it citizenship."

PART FOUR:

Rome’s genetics

The tribes of Japhet’s relation with Israel

Trading cities

Israel disrupts the Middle East trading network.

Israel disrupts the Middle East trading network.

How big was the trade collapse ?

The tribe of Dan and the Greeks

As a calamity was unfolding in the Middle East, Japhet strengthened his independence in his own lands. The first Israeli tribe to interact extensively with the western territories around the Mediterranean was Dan. The Israeli tribe that left God first and strayed for the longest. Not even mentioned among the saved 144,000 in the book of Revelation, when all the other tribes of Israel are mentioned. The portion that fell to Dan had a great port at Jaffa during Israel’s time. It is also where Tel Aviv is today, the first capital of the modern state of Israel. It’s also where the prophet Jonah boarded a ship bound for Tarshish to flee God and his calling. Hence the boat going from their city to Tarshish, a Javanite city.
The Israeli tribe of Dan became a great sea people who often mingled with the children of Javan and Japhet. We know this interaction was already taking place during the era of the Judges during the Bronze Age collapse. Early on, after Israel’s invasion, the Bible records: “and why did Dan remain in ships?” (Judg.5:17). A great sigh from the prophetess Deborah, who was busy defending God’s territory and people, while implying the tribe of Dan was occupied with maritime or trading activities instead of coming to fight. They only cared for their own affairs.

Another great, proud legend of the Greeks is Heracles (Hercules), whose story is similar to that of the Biblical Samson. Samson came from the tribe of Dan and also lived there. The two cultures were intertwined, and it is not unnatural that an ally with superpowers would have become a great mythological hero in their mixed communities and eventually just seen as a Greek myth. Both characters had supernatural strength, both killed a lion with their bare hands, and both used improvised weapons, and both had relationships with women that brought them great suffering. Both died a tragic death. ‘Heracles’ stories, however, are full of fairy tales, although claimed to have been a real person. This was usually how ancient gods came to be. A real important figure and generations of myths added to it. The ancient Greeks would have seen someone like Samson, with super strength, as a semi-god because they would have rejected the Biblical narrative of the source and purpose of his powers.
Heracles is said to have been the first to attack Troy over a promise not kept regarding the King’s daughter. Then the next generation is said to be the great Trojan war, with the Danaoi as part of the alliance to take down the city.
Samson was a judge in Dan when Dan was in close contact with the early Greeks, and while the Danaoi had territory among the Greeks. For a seafaring people, it was important to have hold on ports along a trading route. All the great seafaring cultures of the day settled in coastal cities along their main trading routes or areas to protect those routes. Only in Dan’s case, they began populating southern Japhaite territories. In genetic research, a vast paternal haplogroup originating in the Middle East, J-M304, is found in southern Europe and is overwhelmingly common in Greek territories; its earliest entry in Europe is likely tied to the tribe of Dan.  One of their main ports was in Argos. Later Greek writers stopped using the term Danaoi, and it became a poetic or archaic name for the Greeks, erasing their true origin and merging them into a single group of ancient Greeks.
However, the Danaoi were said to have fled from Egypt, while the real Greeks came from Hellen. His father was said to have survived a flood. His descendants are the Greek tribes: Dorians, Ionians, Achaeans, and Aeolians. The land called Greece in English today is still called after Hellen, and in Greek it is still called Ellas, the land of the Hellenes. In ancient Greek literature, the name originally referred only to the small region in Thessaly, but later came to mean the entire Greek world. This is significant, as the region around Thessaly, especially to the north, is Macedon, the homeland of Alexander the Great, who united vast territories into the Greek Empire. So both descendants of the tribe of Dan and Javan make up the Greeks of today.

Only a part of Dan remained in northern Israel and was later displaced by the Assyrians.

In the Judges era. Samson was called to free Israel from their enemies close to their border, the Philistines, which the Bible explains were from Caphtor (Krete). But Samson’s quest against them is disrupted by his love for their women, which eventually strips him of his powers and brings him down.

Often, the expansion of the Israelite tribes is simply called Phoenician expansion. This is because historians who do not take the Bible seriously often group time and culture together without considering that it involves different groups living in the same way. Over time, these groups became practically indistinguishable. Many historians, puzzled by the Phoenicians’ genetics, have found so much paternal DNA similar to that of ancient Israel that they have concluded Israel was never a distinct people who conquered the land, but rather the Canaanites themselves.

The Collapse of the Israeli and Judean Kingdoms

Babel

The Babel-Flood connection

God creates tribes

Choosing a nation

PART 2 (COMING):

The sons of Japhet