Gnaeus Pompey Magnus and the Transformation of the Iron Kingdom Into Feet of Iron and Clay (Revised)

Atavist Bible Prophecy Basic: The Romans Enter Jewish redemptive history at a point when the Fourth Kingdom of Prophecy was Already Seventy-eight Years Old

Introductory Remarks

No history from any political power in mankind's past is more abundantly attested by chroniclers than that of the Romans, their republic and their empire. Therefore, under no circumstances should Christians or truth-seekers allow unfounded conjectures to replace or triumph over what can be easily documented.

Now, the important question that faces us comes from the need to understand exactly which kingdom is the fourth kingdom of Bible prophecy? We realize that, by and large, people from a wide spectrum of Christian traditions will instantly answer that the fourth one was certainly the Roman Empire. The Jews believed this; Josephus believed this; early Christians believed this and almost all modern Christians believe this in one way or another. If you Google "Fourth Kingdom" you will see articles and charts which all name Rome as the capitol of a kingdom which either was or will be destroyed by a stone hewn out of a mountain.

 

This belief is so strong and so pervasive that it can truly be called "ubiquitous." All Christians everywhere take this notion for granted—so much so that there appears to be little need to look into it to determine its accuracy. Is it accurate? We believe that a cursory examination of the entrance and exercise of Roman power over God's Old Testament people happens no earlier than the intervention and conquest of Jerusalem by the Roman general Gnaeus Pompey Magnus in the spring of 63 B.C. But if it is true that Roman intervention into Jewish affairs happened more than seven decades after the Jews seized sovereignty from the Greeks, then, No, the belief that the Romans are the fourth kingdom is neither true or accurate.

Now, in previous articles we have described how the Jews obtained independence from Seleucid dominion in the year 141 B.C. The Bible books of First and Second Maccabees explain (in great detail) the circumstances and the occasion when the Jews succeeded in their drive for political independence; so does Josephus.[1] But, the loss of political independence and the annexation of the Jewish State into Roman Republican hegemony (for as yet there was no Roman Empire), is also explained in great detail in numerous annals of Roman history. This information is widely available. Do your research.[2]

We want to encourage those who are interested in this discussion to strive to be able to explain what it means that the Romans took control when they did. Does it make the Romans a fifth kingdom of Bible prophecy? If it does, that idea transgresses beyond anything foretold in either Daniel 2 or 7. The only change we know about should be the change of the fourth kingdom shins of iron to feet of iron and clay.[3] It appears to us that the coming of Pompey to help decide the civil war of the Jews in 63 B.C. was the historic moment when the Jew's fourth kingdom literally and metaphorically changed in size and shape and underwent serious alterations in its elemental integrity.[4]

Twenty-six years after Pompey took control, Herod the Great was put in charge of the Jews (effectively taking the power from the Hasmonean Levites and giving it to Esau's descendants, the nation of Edom). This tragic reversal (we believe) corresponds more closely and more accurately to what prophecy expected concerning the course of Jewish salvation history as it barreled toward the coming of the Son of God and the arrival of Christianity, the promised kingdom of God.

It must be made clear that if the Romans are the agents who transformed the fourth kingdom into a different shape (feet of iron and clay) and ARE NOT A FOURTH KINGDOM, then additional details about what would happen to those feet (the destruction by a stone hewn out of a mountain) must and should be expected to come into view (as the New Testament envisions the end of the fourth kingdom as an impending catastrophic apocalypse under a variety of prophecies and metaphors).

So then, the fall of the fourth kingdom makes sense in New Testament terms, how? In terms of the wicked and adulterous generation, in terms of the Destruction of the Second Temple and in terms of the downfall of the seditious Jewish armies.[5] Only in this way do the events of A.D.66-70 make any sense (when the Romans and their empire became only greater as a result of their hard-won Roman victories). But, under no circumstances whatsoever does a destruction of a Roman pair of feet make any historical sense in any first or second century setting.[6] Such a dubious and questionable and unsupportable claims, therefore, directly endanger and imperils the integrity and truth of New Testament advocacy of a speedy end of the age and imminent Second Coming, judgment and kingdom of God.

Further reading on Pompey is recommended. See: http://www.livius.org/articles/concept/roman-jewish-wars/

Notes

[1] See Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 7 for the account of the Pompey's Passover Siege.

[2] On the precise circumstances of expansion and integrity of
Hasmonean power see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean_dynasty. And see Brodsky on the imperial nature of Hasmonean territorial power-https://www.kirkusreviews.com/…/alyn-brod…/the-kings-depart/

[3] Daniel 2:42

[4] See: https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Hyrcanus-II

[5] Matthew 3:7; 12:38-42; Matthew 24:1-2; Revelation 11:1-2; Revelation 19:11-21. Also, patiently review Daniel 7:7-27 and determine (by comparison with early Roman history) that absolutely NONE of those events ever transpired against the Roman Empire in either the first or second century of our Common Era.

[6] The advantages of this paradigm are many. Among them is this: We do not have to wonder or guess as to who was responsible or at what time these important prophetic transactions were carried out; history is not silent.

Caption: Roman general Gnaeus Pompey Magnus, Born, 106 B.C., died, 48 B.C. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/