Sunday, January 18, 2015

New ENP Theory Infographic

Please wait while it loads.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

EU High Rep Wants EU to become Military "Superpower"

The new EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, gave a few talks in front of the European Parliament yesterday. One of those talks was on common foreign and security policy.

During her candidacy as high rep, Mogherini (41) was perceived by some as young, idealistic, and perhaps soft on Russia. She was chosen for the post of EU foreign policy chief, as a compromise candidate that no one felt strongly enough to veto.


But alas, yesterday, she gave a somewhat surprising speech on "the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP and CSDP." The main thrust of the speech was the EU needs more coordinated action in terms of foreign policy, security, and defense. During the 15 minute speech, she said that the recent terrorist attack in France was the reason that the EU should work together and have a more "united" and "coherent" approach on these issues.

She referred to the EU as a "humble" superpower. She said the EU's humility was a good thing. But she said that the EU must go on to become a "the major superpower for action for peace." She said this immediately prior to announcing the need for a "new security strategy." All in all, she said a lot of things in the speech. But in context of the whole speech, which discussed foreign policy, security and defence, she advocated that the EU become a "major superpower."

Other Notable Quotes from the Speech

Some other notable quotes from the speech:
"We are a superpower." 
The EU must become "the major superpower for action for peace. Peace is not only the absence of war, peace is also respect and promotion of human rights, security, and equality."  
There is "no real border between internal and external events. And so, there must be no real border between our external and internal action."

In a speech specifically about foreign policy, security, and defense coordination, she is advocating that the EU become a major superpower. This is the equivalent of desiring to become a military superpower. Furthermore, her other quote on internal and external action shows that she wishes the EU to project this military force in the struggling regions around it.

She then goes on to propose a "new security strategy." From an EU standpoint, this is rather monumental. The last time the EU made a security strategy was when Javier Solana drafted "European Security Strategy: A Secure Europe in a Better World" in 2003. It seems she wants to make a new security strategy.

Javier Solana: Former EU High Rep (2)

Politically Bold in a Risky Environment

Furthermore, what is disconcerting is how bold these pronouncements are getting. Recall, the UK has a raging debate about EU membership. Their leadership has even repeatedly promised them a national vote on the subject. And it does seem the EU wants to keep all its members, even though they are annoyed at what some of them do. One of the biggest accusations from the British is that the EU is aspiring to become a "superstate" or one giant country, a United States of Europe. The main party opposed to EU membership is called the United Kingdom Independence Party.

This is why it is odd and politically risky behavior for EU politicians to be forthright come out in favor of federalism, or things that sound like it. After all, becoming a military superpower is not something that mere alliances do. This is why most EU heads don't come out and use the "f" word on a regular basis. But they are increasingly bold. Recall in 2012, the EU commission president came out in favor of becoming a "federation of nation states."

And just yesterday, that peace loving "pro-Russian" dove said that the EU should become a military "superpower" and implied it should project its influence in the areas around it, to make peace.

As far as I know, Mogherini is a decent human being as far as human beings are concerned. She may want to save the world. But her efforts to have a more coherent security strategy will prepare the way for a man far worse than the world has ever imagined.

If this is what the weak "dove" says, I'd hate to hear what someone in the EU who isn't a "dove" has to say about becoming a military superpower....


Even More Disconcerting...

What is even more disconcerting, is that an unelected EU official, who is in charge of foreign policy, propose they become a military superpower. There is no EU "military" as of the present. But if there was one, the EU high representative certainly commands it. Insofar as there is a single "head," she is leader over all the military, foreign affairs, and security institutions in the EU. (European Defence Agency, Foreign Affairs Council, EU External Action Service, Political and Security Committee, etc. etc. )

She may want to save the world and help suffering humanity around the globe. But the Antichrist who comes after her will certainly will not be!

A Literal Miracle of God

In the Bible, it says that all the nations worship the beast. They exclaim “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?” Revelation 13: 4b ESV Different translations say "him" or "it" depending on the translation. This is not strange, since the beast represents the Antichrist and/or his kingdom.

Also, the regions to the "east" and "south" (cf. see end time foreshadowing in Daniel 8) seem to be the places where Mogherini would like to influence. It is interesting that many of the regions that the EU considers to be "trouble spots" are areas in which the Antichrist will go to war in the end times. 

We may think it inconsequential that the EU wants to be a military superpower. But this is literally the beginnings of a miracle by God. War-torn and severely divided Europe, unites in the end times...because of God's will. Furthermore, they unite on a military purpose: the destruction of end times Babylon. 

 For God has put it in their hearts to execute His [i]purpose [j]by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. (Revelation 17:17 NASB)


All those prophecy teachers, who wrote before us, John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, etc etc. as well as perhaps hundreds of commentaries. Many of these books in my own house which my father owns,  in their eschatology section, talk about the reunification of the Roman empire on a ten nation confederacy. And as we know the Antichrist will be a wicked warlord. 

And now, what they anticipated in an academic sense is becoming reality in our lifetime. The EU is such a divided place. Only a miracle of God could bring about a voluntary, military unification of Europe. But alas, their European dream will soon become a global nightmare.

I must confess a sin. It is easy to become dangerously awestruck at the unification of Europe, because of prophecy. After all, their utopian pronouncements and propaganda don't help. But it is God's final kingdom that will be the true utopia. 

"The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." Proverbs 21: 1 ESV

Same with the leaders of the beast. They may seem powerful now. But to God, their power is a mere poor attempt a humor, their arrogance a pathetic bad joke.

Come Lord Jesus!

To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. 1 Timothy 1:17 ESV

Photo credits:


Thursday, January 8, 2015

Little Horn: The High Representative?

This is my third blog post this week. A forth one shall be forthcoming. Upon reflection, these posts are somewhat related.

Here are the other posts:

1) 2015: New Revised ENP -This is about the restructuring of the current 7 year framework between the EU and Israel

2) EU's "Big Three" Alive and Well - This is about the former 10 nation Western European Union and three countries who were in it.

Artistic Representation of Ram & Goat Vision (1)

Horns in Daniel: Offices or Persons?

A Thought Experiment (Bear With Me)

Allow me a thought experiment. Imagine if all these prophecies we have been following, that we took the liberty to interpret them "corporately" instead of individually. (Bear with me for a bit, I'm not saying we should do that completely. But bear with me).

There was a ten nation alliance that did military missions from time to time. Then, another weaker politician (who wasn't one of the ten) rose up among them and had to compete with three of them for influence. Over time, the high representative became more powerful, and ultimately made a seven year agreement with Israel, that recurred every seven years. Then later on, the ten kings ceded some of their sovereignty to a larger empire (the EU) in the treaty of Lisbon, giving away some of their royal power and authority. Because this same treaty had a mutual assistance clause, they dissolved the ten nation alliance because it had achieved its historical purpose. With this same treaty of Lisbon, the high representative accrued even more power.

 But alas, the seven year covenant was weak. The EU government explored options to strengthen the weak seven year treaty. And those three nations still fought the high representative for influence. 

This ENP theory doesn't sound so awful after all, if we look at it "corporately," focusing on the offices and positions, and shying away from looking at the "individual players." The "story" I tell above seems that it could easily have an ending that fits prophecy. 

Offices or Persons?: Precedent in Daniel 8

Ram with Four Horns (2)

There is only one other prophecy like Daniel 7 and the ten horns. It is in Daniel 8. Instead of a beast with ten horns, its a goat with 4 horns. This goat starts off with one big horn (Alexander the Great) but this is suddenly broken off, replaced by four horns. This is because Alexander's four generals replaced him after his death. The Bible states that the four horns represent four kingdoms that come after the first king. This is also why Daniel 7 portrays the 3rd empire (Greek Empire) as having four heads. 

One of the four horns has a "little horn" that comes up off of one of the four original horns. This horn ends up being very powerful, but being defeated without human agency. Historians seem to agree that Daniel 8 and the little horn is mostly about Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He did the first abomination of desolation, putting an idol of Zeus on the altar. He terrorized and brutally murdered the Jews after a war with Egypt (very similar to what the Antichrist will do). He also thought he was "God manifest." Furthermore, when Daniel 11 talks about Antiochus, it suddenly transitions to the Antichrist and end times, it talks almost as if they are the same person.There are a great many similarities between the two. Antiochus IV Epiphanes certainly foreshadows the end time Antichrist. 

Four Kingdoms After Alexander (3)

Some Interesting Things to Note

In Daniel, horns almost always denote kings. This is the case with the ram with two horns (kings of Media and Persia), the huge horn on the goat (Alexander the Great), as well as the ten horns of the beast in Daniel 7. Furthermore, the "little horn" in both Daniel 8 and Daniel 7 both represent two different kings. 

The only time the horns are not explicitly called kings is in Daniel 8, with the four horns that replace the big horn that gets broken off (Alexander). These four horns correspond to four kingdoms that didn't have the same power as the first horn. Historically, Alexander's empire was divided up to his four generals, because of his untimely death. Each of the four kingdoms remained, some of which had dynasties and several kings each. 

19 He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath,because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.[c] 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king.22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power. (Daniel 8:19-21; NIV)

But the little horn comes off of one of the bigger four horns. This is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Historically, there were many kings that preceded Antiochus IV, and technically he was part of one of the four horns. But he murdered his brother and took the throne instead.  (Bible Knowledge Commentary, Zuck/Walvoord) Perhaps this is why he is a little horn that is an offshoot of the bigger horns. He was from the same "dynasty," but not quite, since he killed his brother who was the original heir.

The Four Horns and the Little Horn (4)

Horns: A Dynamic Class?

If we accept WEU/ENP theory, then the ten kings aren't really ten individual politicians. They are more appropriately "offices" (i.e. President of France, Prime minister of Britain, etc.) The WEU was in its 10 nation configuration for over 15 years. Each country has had many different leaders during that time. Off the top of my head, the UK has had Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron. France has had Nicholas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande, just to name a couple. And so have them all, because I can't imagine any of them served a fifteen year term. 

Furthermore, if we read Daniel 8, the four horns (which interestingly, represent "kingdoms" not kings, according to the angel), definitely represented more than one king each. In fact, the Seleucids (one of the horns) and Ptolemies (one of the horns) had long dynasties. But alas, this sets a precedent that horns can be an "office." Even so, the ram has two horns that the Bible says represent the "kings of Media and Persia." One was taller than the other, because one side of the kingdom was more powerful than the other. But if we look up the history of it, we see that the Medo-Persian empire definitely had more than two kings. So this supports the "office" view. (11)

Little Horn with Eyes of a Man (5)

Hesitation I Have about This Theory

I admit that the most powerful piece of evidence for the "office" view seems lacking. The four horns of the goat, if they had been called "kings" would be decisive evidence that the horns can appropriately be viewed as "offices" as opposed to specific individuals. But alas, at this point my theory faulters, as the text refers to them as "kingdoms." This justifies the long dynasties we see. But historically, Alexander (the big horn) was replaced by his four generals, who split it up into separate kingdoms. The ten horns are different, in that they are all part of the same kingdom (at least in its final form). But alas, every king has a kingdom. So its not unfair to say that the kings themselves have kingdoms. 

But even Antiochus did not come immediately out of the fourth horn. It was a long time before he rose up and took the throne. Many kings preceded him. So perhaps the Daniel 7 little horn has also has a line of kings that could potentially lead up to the "final" one (i.e. the Antichrist).

WEU Flag (6)

Where am I Going With This?

If the ten kings are "offices" then perhaps the "little horn" could be an office too...or at least start out that way. There is evidence, that the little horn IS a person, in contrast to the others. The text specifically says this horn has eyes of a man and a mouth that speaks boastfully. The other horns are not personified in such a manner. So the Antichrist is not just "whoever the high representative is that day." The Antichrist is a specific person.

But is it unfair to say that the "little horn" is an office too? Just like the other ten kings? Could it be that, just like the other ten horns, a series of people occupied that office? Of course, the last person to hold that office would be the Antichrist. But is it fair to say that just like the other ten, the little horn is an "office" that refers to the "High Representative?"

Thoughts? Does this idea stretch the Scripture? Part of me feels it does. Part of me feels its theologically justifiable. (Feel free to comment).



A lot of research for this came from the sources below:
Bible Knowledge Commentary: Ed. Zuck/Walvoord; Dallas Theological Seminary

Photo Credits:

7) ( ( (

The fact that I pulled an image from a website does not at all imply that I endorse the contents of said website. 

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

EU's "Big Three" - Alive and Well

EU "Big Three": Germany, UK, and France

The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time. (Daniel 7:24-25 ESV; emphasis added)

Biblical Summary

The Bible indicates that the Antichrist will rise to power after a confederacy of ten kings. Apparently, he will have a power struggle with three of the ten kings, and emerge as dictator over the "fourth kingdom" described in Daniel chapter 7. Nonetheless, his dictatorship is short lived, when the Messiah comes to destroy the fourth kingdom and set up an eternal empire. In the sequence of kingdoms describes in Daniel 7, four world empires rise up, one after another, in sequence. 

This succession of the rise and fall of four great world empires is documented in both Daniel 7 and Daniel 2. From these passages, we know that the first empire is the Babylonian empire. The imagery of the second and third empires correspond well to what we know of history. The fourth kingdom in the sequence was the Roman Empire. However, God destroys the fourth kingdom to set up an eternal kingdom, where all rulers obey him. Since the Roman Empire was the fourth kingdom, many theologians believe that the Roman Empire is required to come back into existence in the end times in order for prophecy to be fulfilled. (To learn more about the end times Roman Empire, CLICK RIGHT HERE). 

Roman Empire At It's Greatest Extent

Since ten kings come from this end times Roman Empire, many Bible teachers and theologians believe that the end times kingdom will be composed of a ten nation alliance in the geographic area of the old Roman Empire. The Antichrist rises to power among this confederacy of ten. Apparently (according to the Scripture quoted above) he has a power struggle with three of the ten kings.  (CLICK RIGHT HERE to learn more about this).

The Western European Union (Full Members In Red)

Ten Kings: The Western European Union 

The Western European Union was a military alliance of 10 member states. It was not part of the European Union, but worked closely with it. It formed the basis of today's "common foreign and security policy." Gradually, the functions of the WEU were transferred to the European Union. Finally, in 2011 the treaty was terminated and replaced by defensive pact within the Lisbon Treaty. 

This alliance of ten nations in the historical area of the Roman Empire formed the historical framework for the EU's common security and defence policy. If you click on THIS CHART, you can see the gradual merger of the WEU into the EU, under the common foreign and security policy. The WEU alliance, after serving valuable functions for 15 years, became obsolete in 2011, due to the Treaty of Lisbon mutual assistance clause. 

A History of the EU Big Three

However, analysts and journalists are well aware the the EU does not have a genuine "common policy" on defense or foreign policy matters. The member nations are too wrapped up in their own national interests. Many analysts and bloggers bemoan the EU's lack of "one voice" on the world stage. 

One big reason for this is the influence of the "big three" countries: France, Britain and Germany. They have sometimes worked together as three in order to influence EU policy. They have even been accused of a "power grab" in the past. 

One particular issue where they wanted to maintain control of foreign policy was in the area of negotiations with Iran over it's nuclear program. Javier Solana, the then EU Foreign policy chief, had to struggle with these for influence. They did not want to turn these negotiations over to the EU, but wanted to control them. All in all, Javier Solana ultimately replaced them in negotiations with Iran in this small foreign policy battle. 

The late Herbert L. Peters was the man who originally discovered the basis for the prophecy theory advocated on this blog (and other blogs). He did a lot of research into Javier Solana, the EU Big Three and it's significance. 

EU Big Three with Javier Solana

The EU Three: Alive and Well

Nevertheless, that was almost 8 years ago. I hadn't heard much of the EU Big Three, so I assumed their influence or prophetic significance had waned. But alas I was wrong. Analysts and journalists continue to think they are a very influential group, and have in some ways blocked the creation of a genuine common foreign policy. 

1) In 2012, Carnegie Institute writer Stefan Lehne came out with a very large research article called "The Big Three in EU Foreign Policy."

2) Furthermore, in September 2014, Carnegie Institute writer Marc Pierini stated that the EU Three "hijacked" the EU foreign policy during the five years Ashton was high representative (2009-2014):
The Juncker methodology unveiled on September 10 has a further meaning. It seems to reflect the dissatisfaction of a majority of EU governments over the way in which the “big three” member states of France, Germany, and Britain hijacked EU foreign policy during the Ashton years. (Return of the European Commission to Foreign Policy Making?) (emphasis added)

3) Apparently, it's not just the Carnegie think tank that believes this. In October 2014, Dr. Niklas Helwig & Dr. Carolin Ruger, wrote an article in Euractiv where they mention the EU "Big Three's" interference with EU foreign policy:

The leadership role expected from the EU foreign policy chief is constrained by member states’ national reflexes. The strategic debate on the future course of the EU as a global actor – a tricky subject – was not only avoided by Ashton, but also by Britain, France and Germany, and thus by the only ones that are able to give momentum to Europe’s foreign policy. In Ashton’s defence, member states – not least due to the sovereign debt crisis – had little interest in foreign policy matters in recent years, let alone were eager to start a wider strategic reflection process. 

Ten Kings: A Common Purpose

The Daniel passage isn't the only one about the ten kings:

12 The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. 13 These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast.14 These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.” 15 And he *said to me, “The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. 17 For God has put it in their hearts to execute His [i]purpose [j]by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. 18 The woman whom you saw is the great city, which [k]reigns over the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 17:12-18; NASB)

Did you catch that? It talks about the ten kings having a "common purpose" and giving their royal power to the beast. This is in context of the destruction of the end times city of Babylon. So it seems they have some kind of common purpose on military matters.

The identity of the end times Babylon is irrelevant for purposes of the discussion here. Whatever city it is, the ten kings unite in a "common purpose" to destroy her. They do this by giving their kingdom to the beast until God's words are fulfilled. And remember, the ten horned beast in Daniel represents the Antichrist's kingdom. In Revelation, the ten horned beast represents the Antichrist or his kingdom, interchangeably.

Common Security and Defense Policy

Where else have we seen a phrase like "common purpose?" Oh yeah that's right...... It's one of the EU's favorite phrases. Especially in military matters.... 

The EU aspires to have many "common policies." The most prominent of these relate to foreign policy or defense:

"Common Security and Defence Policy" 
"Common Foreign and Security Policy"
"Common Agricultural Policy"
"Common Fisheries Policy"

The 10 nation Western European Union, according to the EEAS website, was the historical framework for the "common security and defence policy."

WEU Merger into CFSP: Click to Enlarge

But Wait.....

You're probably thinking. "But wait! You just got done telling us that the EU doesn't have a genuine "common policy" on defense. After all, the analysts bemoan the lack of unity in this area. Defense is the EU's absolute weakest area!"

And that's exactly it. They are taking baby steps to a "common purpose." First through the history of the WEU, where it gradually merged into the EU (after formerly taking responsibility for EU defense matters). Then, a political position (the high representative) that gradually gains influence over the ten in foreign policy matters. Then, a dissolution of the ten into the larger EU "beast." In 2011, the alliance deemed themselves unnecessary and redundant, claiming to have accomplished their historical role.

The EU does not have one voice. But which three stand in their way, even ten years later?

The "Big Three" according to analysts, are the one's who pose the obstacle to a common EU foreign policy. It's no coincidence that they struggle against the EU in military matters. 

The Big Three....are alive and well.

Come Lord Jesus!

Friday, January 2, 2015

2015: The New Revised ENP

Johannes Hahn: ENP & Enlargement Commissioner

The EU and Prophecy

Many of us have been watching the EU and it's recurring, 7 year treaties with Israel for the possible fulfillment of prophecy. We were disappointed when the first 7 year cycle did not pan out as the covenant of Daniel 9:27, and neither did the second one. But this theory is just too interesting to give up for many reasons. (If you aren't familiar with this theory, you might want to check out the slideshow RIGHT HERE, before proceeding. This will hopefully alleviate some confusion). 

A New Revised ENP

Interestingly enough, it appears the ENP is up for review in 2015, with the new European Neighborhood Policy commissioner tasked with making a revised ENP. 

For a while now, think tanks, bloggers, and journalists have written about the failures of the 7-year European Neighborhood policy, and how it needs significantly reformed. Stefan Lehne of the Carnegie think tank suggesting that the ENP get reset in 2015. Many have written of the weaknesses and lack of unity in European foreign policy. This caused many of them to advocate for a strong leader in the foreign policy arena, to unite Europe into one voice.

Stefan Lehne

Evidently, these bloggers and journalists have had their voice heard. The EU has appointed a new college of commissioners, and likewise, a new ENP and enlargement commissioner. The new Commission President, Jean Claude Juncker, has announced that there will be no more EU members in the next five years. He has tasked the new ENP and enlargement commissioner, Johannes Hahn, with reviewing the ENP and creating a new ENP by late 2015. Mr. Hahn has a passion for neighborhood policy, and has even said that it is "close to my heart."

Many articles have mentioned this new review:

Kyiv Post:
The European Union plans to review its Neighborhood Policy in relation to 16 countries participating in partnership programs with the EU in the autumn of 2015, EU Commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations Johannes Hahn has said. (Kyiv Post)

European Voice
EU officials now talk of  an ‘arc of fire’. It has burnt up the EU’s old neighbourhood policy; the new European commissioner for neighbourhood policy, Johannes Hahn, has been tasked with devising a new policy during 2015, but the principal responsibility really lies, surely, with Mogherini. In the face of those huge and historic changes in the south and east, expect the new neighbourhood policy to look modest and – very probably – to be described as modest. (European Voice) (emphasis mine)

Radio Free Europe 
Hahn: There is, but you are right [that] we have to make a review of the European neighborhood policy as a whole. It not only concerns the eastern partners but also those in the south. That is why I have been asked by President Juncker to present within a year a revised version of our European neighborhood policy. We have already started to work on it. One of the key elements will be certainly to have tailor-made solutions, rather flexible ones, responding to events, new initiatives. (Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty interview with Johannes Hahn) (emphasis mine)

Carnegie Institute 
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has now asked the new commissioner for the neighborhood, Johannes Hahn, to make recommendations for improving the ENP. This reform should not just tweak the policy here and there—as did the last review in 2011—but actually address the core issues. (Stefan Lehne, Relaunching the European Neighborhood Policy) 

During his hearing in the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament, Mr Hahn explained that the neighbourhood policy would no longer be aimed only at building a zone of democracy and prosperity in the long-run, but to maintaining the European security, values and interests. (Johannes Hahn: The European Neighborhood Policy is a Security Policy) (emphasis mine)
The new neighbourhood policy should be ready within a year. Johannes Hahn promised that he will regularly consult the European Parliament during the process of drafting. He also plans to change the approach in the current policy, based on the principle "more for more". This means that those countries that do well with EU's requirements should get more incentives, mainly in the form of funding for joint or local projects. Entirely in the spirit of the need for internal consolidation, Johannes Hahn plans to pursue precisely the opposite principle - less for less. If countries offer less, they should get less or nothing instead of being imposed sanctions.  (Johannes Hahn: The European Neighborhood Policy is a Security Policy) (emphasis mine)

Will Anything Come of It?

Friends, I have no idea if anything will come of this new review. I also highly doubt that the EU will change it's 7 year budget time frame to accommodate this new ENP review so that the 7 years will start sooner. But it will be interesting to see what comes of it, especially since the EU has tried to offer Israel and the PA very strongly upgraded ties if they make a peace agreement. While the next ENP cycle is a ways away (6 years), it will be interesting to see what this new revised ENP will look like. 

I still believe something major will come of one of these 7 year cycles. 

I think I even found an old discussion thread where the late Herbert L. Peters, who founded this original theory, believed that the first ENP cycle was significant because the subsequent cycles were supposed to be five years. But alas, they turned out to be seven. So I still think we are on the right track with his theory. Though it is agonizing to wait so long. (Click Here to See the Slideshow on the Background to This Theory).

#1 - What the Bible Seems to Say

Let us not forget that this is one of the best prophecy theories that anyone has ever come accross.

According to many professional theologians and Bible scholars, the Bible teaches that an end times "Roman" ruler will make a treaty with Israel for 7 years immediately prior to the Second Coming of Christ. Many suggest this will be a security agreement or peace treaty with Israel, though this is not required from the Biblical text.

Furthermore, Daniel 7 describes four empires that rise to power, one after another. The "fourth kingdom" in this series of empires is destroyed by God to set up an eternal kingdom, where all rulers obey him. However, the fourth major empire after Babylonian empire is the Roman Empire. Which is why many theologians believe the Roman Empire must come back into existence prior to the second coming of Christ.

According to the Bible, this empire will be composed of 10 kings. This has lead many theologians to believe that there will be a confederation of 10 nations in the area of the Old Roman Empire. The end times ruler who makes the 7 year treaty with Israel becomes dictator of the end times Roman empire after an apparent power struggle with three of the ten kings. Interestingly, Daniel 2 also describes the 4th empire as marred by division and a lack of unity. Read more about end times theology RIGHT HERE.

#2 - What's Happening Now

Many students of end time prophecy already believe the Roman Empire has made it's return. The European union is one of the largest economies in the world and is under a single currency. It is steadily moving towards federalization, so much so that nearly a majority of UK citizens want to regain independence by exiting the union. The EU consists of many appointed (read: unelected) officials who make half of the laws in each member state in the EU.

This EU has established its relationship with Israel by having recurring 7 year treaties with Israel and many other nation states, through the European Neighborhood Policy. It sets goals and priorities for each of these states to meet, in order to gain the financial incentives associated with the program. Furthermore, the EU external action website states that an alliance of 10 European nations formed the basis of it's common defence policy today. The area covered by the 7 year treaty looks strikingly similar to the Roman Empire.

The EU has major struggles with division and lack of unity. This is why many bloggers and think tanks have been writing articles with recommendations on how to revamp and relaunch the European Neighborhood policy. Furthermore, many journalists have written about how the EU is weak and needs a single voice in foreign policy. The European Neighborhood Policy program has widely been considered a failure. So people are looking to a strong leader to fix it.


The wait is frustrating. But I do think this theory is going somewhere. The framework was there and the long term trends are there. We just accidentally overestimated how far we had progressed in the prophetic narrative. Only time will tell. Come Lord Jesus!