Friday, February 27, 2015

Critical Update - For Immediate Release - ENP 3.0: The Beast Rises

So, I got myself into trouble....

I got myself into trouble about three days ago.

You know what I did?

....I prayed to God for wisdom.

....And I think I may have even prayed for wisdom about prophecy. And many of you know how much trouble you can get yourself into if you pray for wisdom about prophecy. God often shows big signs.

I didn't get much sleep Tuesday night , because I was so energized by what I realized, the day after I prayed for wisdom and it was hard to sleep.

I am going to speak rather boldly in this post, though not against anyone, but strongly in favor of something. I may be highly controversial. Nonetheless, please understand that I really want to hear honest feedback in the comments section or on the forum. Such honest feedback will help me see if I am chasing a fantasy, or if there is something going on here.

This post is really long. But I am really anxious to see what everyone else thinks. So I beg you to bear with me.

Necessary Background 

This post requires a level of background knowledge about the ENP Theory. The intended audience for this post anyone interested (not just followers of the theory). But this post will make a lot more sense if you have background knowledge of the theory, through the INFOGRAPHIC or the SLIDESHOW, or both. Other bloggers follow this theory as well (see the right hand column), and may or may not have slightly differing interpretations. Nonetheless, it is a theory with a "family grouping" of ideas. I am going to call the view presented in all the materials above (and other bloggers) as "ENP Theory 2.0."

So if you don't know what ENP Theory is go ahead and read about it now.....

.....Don't worry, I'll still be here when you get back.

Done reading? Ok good:

Why do I call that theory above "ENP Theory 2.0?" That implies there was an ENP Theory version 1.0. It also implies that it got "upgraded" to 2.0. But as we know, many "upgrades" aren't upgrades at all, and people actually prefer the prior version, but have to make do with the later version. The ENP Theory you just read about was modified from its original version. Here is that original version:

ENP Theory 1.0  (2007-2010)

1) The EU is the revived Roman Empire

2) The Western European Union is (not was!)  the ten nation alliance predicted in the Bible

3) The Secretary General of the WEU and High Representative Javier Solana became leader of the ten nations, after they added their tenth and final member.

4) Javier Solana's position, the High Representative, was appointed using EU Commission article 666. Furthermore, the WEU recommended emergency powers to him using Recommendation 666.

5) Javier Solana came into conflict with the EU3 or EU "Big Three" in foreign policy matters. These were 3 of the original 10 WEU countries.

6) Javier Solana "confirmed a covenant with many nations and Israel for seven years." For the period of 2007-2013 (7 years, including 2013) the EU has a financial relationship with Israel with the goal of improving democracy, human rights and rule of law.

So here, we got a pretty solid theory about who the Antichrist is and when he will be revealed. Considering the evidence, if ENP Theory 1.0 was correct, we know that the Antichrist will reveal himself at the abomination that causes desolation, halfway through the seven year treaty with Israel.

For as many of you know:
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[a] In the middle of the ‘seven’[b] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[c] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[d]”[e] (Daniel 9:27; emphasis added)
And the words of the Lord Jesus Christ about the signs of his second coming:
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 
Jesus goes on to describe that in this time, it will be the worst distress the world has ever seen. But immediately after the distress of those days, Jesus returns on the clouds.

As far as I know, the European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument was the first seven year treaty with Israel in the history of the world. Furthermore, it supposedly wasn't created by just anyone. It was created by a person who rose to power among a group of a ten nation military alliance. He came into conflict with three of those leaders. And then he "confirmed a covenant for seven years." The original discoverer of ENP theory, the late Herb Peters, had his own great summary of ENP Theory 1.0.

So we waited eagerly for mid 2010, for the abomination of desolation, and after that, on an unknown date, the return of Jesus Christ on the clouds.

The Late Herbert L. Peters: 
ENP Theory 1.0

ENP Theory 2.0 (2011-Present) 

Obviously, much to our great disappointment and frustration, this didn't pan out. It was almost as if God's word had failed us (though we all know, that is impossible).

Many other bloggers even prayed for wisdom on this subject, and had some pretty interesting things happen to them. One saw the price of gold in the markets become exactly $666.00 dollars on Javier Solana's birthday. Another (perhaps Herb) prayed for wisdom, and then he saw Javier Solana at the top of Google news on 06/06/06, negotiating a deal with Iran, after overcoming the big three in negotiations. Interestingly, Javier is never in the news, especially American news.

   Gold $666 the Entirety of Solana's Birthday

So if all of this was happening, then why on earth would God give us a 7 year covenant with Israel, and have it not be the real one?!?!? Why would he allow us to be deceived by a "sign" which was really no sign at all? 

After a while, we started to pick up the pieces, and based on that, put together a "good" theory. But even as though we were afraid to admit, we were still nostalgic about ENP Theory 1.0. It left a mark on us all, that we will never forget. So even though ENP Theory 1.0 was a great theory, we had to settle for an "alright" or "good" theory. We all secretly pine for the days when we had certainty under version 1.0. After all, if a "great" theory proves wrong, who wants to replace it with a theory that's less great than one that failed?!

And again, what's with all the 7 year covenants with Israel? God said the ruler who will come will confirm a covenant with many for one seven. But now, we got at least 2 or 3 covenants with Israel, that are consecutive and seven years in length. How exhausting! Furthermore, Javier Solana was succeeded by two women. Women can be very capable and competent politicians, but they can't be the Antichrist, thus adding to the confusion.

Don't get me wrong. I actually think ENP Theory 2.0 is a lot better than any other prophecy theory out there. It's just fraught with the frustrations and concerns I have elaborated on above.

So...where am I going with this?

History of the ENP 

Here, I am going to get into the meat of my primary contention. I will make two primary contentions, one negative, and one positive. One will negate a previously held view. The other will affirm a new view.

In 2003, Chris Patten, EU External Relations Commissioner, and Javier Solana, High Representative for the CFSP, published a paper called "Wider Europe." This paper recommended the creation of a new "Neighbourhood Policy" or "Neighbourhood Agreement" to help develop better ties with the EU's neighbors, particularly in the East.

Also in 2003, Javier Solana was tasked with developing a new security strategy for Europe. This paper, called European Security Strategy, was important in the development of the EU's common foreign and security policy. In this paper, Solana called for the EU to be a security actor in the neighboring countries, to make a safer and more secure Europe.

As a result of this, the European Commission issued it's strategy paper on the neighborhood policy in 2004. Therein, they cited and reiterated the Wider Europe proposal, and built on it, adding some more ideas to the proposal. They also stated:
In October 2003, the Council "invited the Commission with the contribution, where appropriate, of the High Representative to present in the light of the conclusions of June detailed proposals for the relevant action plans early in 2004 in order to take this matter forward by June 2004."
Javier Solana played a big role in developing the European Neighborhood Policy. He and the Commission worked closely to develop it. After all, he was the one who was credited with the diplomatic achievement of the failed Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (Barcelona Process) back in 1995. But, according to this analyst, the ENP was largely the Commissions baby.

Contention #1: Solana & the ENPI

Did Solana confirm a covenant with many for one seven?

EU Law comes into effect when the Commission proposes the legislation, and then the Council and Parliament ratify it into law. The "regulations" are binding legislative acts. Here is a link to the proposal from the Commission for the seven year ENPI. Linked here is the regulation that the Council and Parliament ratified, establishing a European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument.  See illustration below:

Click to Enlarge

Solana did play a very important role in the ENP's inception. He came up with the idea of establishing the Barcelona Process (1995), which eventually became the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. He also was co-author of the 2003 "Wider Europe" paper that inspired the Commission to do the ENP. He also wrote European Security Strategy in 2003, emphasizing the need for the EU to have a secure neighborhood. Furthermore, he assisted the Commission in the creation of the ENP.

But here's the problem. The Bible doesn't say "he will confirm a covenant with many nations to enhance their bilateral ties." No. It says he will confirm a covenant with many for one seven.

For One Seven?

Back in 2007, the High Representative wasn't as powerful as it was today, especially from a legal standpoint. The HR wasn't a member of the Commission like they are today. Furthermore, Solana had nothing to do with the European Parliament. So as far as the seven year covenant is concerned, he had only one formal connection to the ENPI: through the Council.

Dr. Solana was indeed the Secretary-General of the Council. Indeed, it was the Council who lobbied for Solana to have more influence over the ENP, to increase their own influence over it, since Solana was the Council's man.

While the Secretary General did have some influence, I highly doubt it had any voting rights at all and he didn't even preside over the Council. The rotating President chaired its meetings, not the Secretary General. Remember, Recommendation 666 suggests that the Secretary General be able to convene the Council in an emergency. After the Lisbon Treaty (2009), the new HR actually can chair one configuration of the Council. But not back then. The fact that they recommended he be able to convene the Council, but only in an emergency, implies he wasn't already doing so.

Solana had no legislative authority at all in any of the bodies above. None of the documents I linked even mention him, the high representative, nor even the Common Foreign and Security Policy. They don't even mention the Council Secretary General. This might not be too unusual, considering they don't mention the President of the Commission. But they do both specifically mention the President of the European Parliament and the President of the Council (who wasn't Solana).

If you go ahead and Google "Solana + ENPI" the entire front page is prophecy sites. There is not a single EU page on the front page of Google if you type in those two words.

But why is this, if Solana is so closely tied to the ENPI!?! There is an important distinction to be made here. Solana had a very important role establishing the European Neighborhood Policy. But it seems he had very little involvement in confirming it for seven years, with the ENPITherein lies the problem.

Javier Solana in 2007 (Wiki user א (Aleph))

This fails at an absolutely critical point. The Bible says nothing about an ENP. Only a ruler who confirms a covenant for seven years. And on that very point.....our evidence seems weakest. He simply had no legal authority to actually confirm it for seven years. He was totally absent in the actual legislative process.

NIV uses the word "confirm" to talk about what the Antichrist does to the covenant. More literal translations, such as ESV and NASB, talk about him making a "strong" or "firm" covenant. It seems even if we interpret it using the more literal translations, the case becomes even weaker still. Though the High Representative provided inspiration and guidance for the ENP, the Commission & Council handled the ENPI, the part that was actually 7 years. It seems, objectively, the Commission is the main actor in the ENPI.

Furthermore, Daniel 9:26 speaks of a prince or a ruler that will come. We learn in verse 27 that he confirms a covenant for seven years. Now, its awful tough to defend an idea about a "ruler" or "prince" who confirms a covenant for seven years, without actually having any legislative authority to make the covenant come into existence! The Council certainly confirmed the ENPI, by ratifying the regulation. But Solana can't vote on the Council and he wasn't even it's President!

It is clear that Jose Manuel Barosso, the President of the European Commission was a "ruler" more heavily involved in this than Solana was. Same goes for the President of the Council and the European Parliament. And we never thought they are the Antichrist, because their job positions didn't have the same prophetic connections the High Representative did.

Notice, back when we would link to all of those documents about the ENPI, they were always European Commission websites. But now, they all redirect to the EEAS website....more on that shortly...

Hindsight Bias

They say hindsight is 20/20. This is a popular reference to the phenomenon known as hindsight bias. Many of us have experienced this phenomenon when struggling between two answers on a test. When the teacher finally reveals the correct answer after handing the test back, we yell "Aww shoot! I knew it!" This is hindsight bias. You really didn't know it all along. You just think you did.

So that is one of the biases we have to guard against in the study of prophecy, or in the study of anything really.

Should we have known that Solana wasn't the one, from the very beginning?

Hard to say. Of the main features of the theory, he had the weakest direct legal connection to the ENP. This was evident by the fact there weren't any legal documents linking Solana and the ENPI.

But what were we supposed to think at the time? Solana came up among a ten nation alliance, and had a position that steadily rose to influence and came in conflict with three of those original ten nations. Furthermore, he had all sorts of 666 connections attached to him. So when the EU makes a a treaty with Israel that he is partially involved with, and the Commission confirms it for seven years, of course we are going to think its Solana!

To guard against hindsight bias, we aren't allowed to say "I knew it!" or "I should've known!" But there is something we are allowed to say. We are allowed to say "I know it now." But in our case, we have the test results back. Though we can't say we knew it all along, we are allowed to say we finally know the answer. We now know, that Solana did not confirm a covenant with many for one seven. He helped make the ENP. But the ENP was still mainly a Commission thing. And the seven years part was certainly a Commission thing. Not a High Representative thing.

....But has this changed at all? 

Contention #2: The New High Representative & the ENPI

European Union - EEAS (European External Action Service)  About CSDP - Overview_2014-09-05_17-50-22.jpg

Is the High Representative in charge of the seven year portion of the covenant today?

This takes me to the second, but most critical point of my argument. This second point has the most evidence going for it. Even if you disagree with my Contention #1, Contention #2 proves most of what I am trying to prove. Because even if Contention #1, is even possibly true, it greatly enhances the evidence of Contention #2.

Let's look again at the legislation that creates the ENPI and the new ENI (2014-2020). As we noted before, the regulation establishing the ENPI (2007-2013) doesn't mention the High Representative or the Common Foreign and Security Policy anywhere. If we just look at the legislation, we would have had no idea Solana even took part in any of the 7-year aspect.

Now, lets look at the new seven year covenant, the European Neighborhood Instrument (2014-2020).

This program is part of the ENP and makes some new changes. But notice, Article 18. It says:

Article 18
European external action service 
This Regulation shall apply in accordance with Decision 2010/427/EU.
Hmmm. I wonder what  Decision 2010/427/EU is? Let's have a look.

This is the decision that establishes the creation of a European External Action Service. The EEAS is the EU's "diplomatic service" which basically manages all of the EU's foreign delegations (basically: EU embassies) in other countries. It also handles the EU's "foreign policy" to the extent that it has one. The EEAS is new in 2010 and  reports directly to the High Representative. 
The purpose of this Decision is to establish the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (‘EEAS’), a functionally autonomous body of the Union under the authority of the High Representative,
On an EU org chart, the EEAS is kind of off to the side, and doesn't report to anyone else except the HR. It's "functionally autonomous" and is under the authority of the HR themselves.

That is interesting in and of itself. But let's look deeper:
2. The High Representative shall ensure overall political coordination of the Union’s external action, ensuring the unity, consistency and effectiveness of the Union’s external action, in particular through the following external assistance instruments: 
the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (4), 

Wow! Look at that! This Council decision places the ENPI, specifically seven-year portion of the ENP, under the authority of the High Representative!

Remember, we couldn't find any legal connection between Solana and the ENPI. But now, with this new EEAS places the 7 year ENPI right under the High Representative.

And this is why the Council Regulation establishing a European Neighborhood Instrument (2014-2020) says, in Article 18, that the ENI instrument is in accordance with this council decision setting up an EEAS. It is acknowledging the High Representative's role in the new ENI, just like she had with the old ENPI. This clause was not in the original ENPI (2007-2013)! But it's here now.

Ironically, this happened on July 26, 2010, a mere five days after we were all reeling from disappointment at the "failed" ENP theory.

The evidence for this view vastly surpasses simple legal documents. It is the actual reality on the ground.

Timeline: The Great ENPI Merger

As we saw, Javier Solana inspired, guided, and assisted the European Commission in the development of the European Neighborhood Policy. The ENP helps the EU have a stable region, by offering financial incentives to the neighboring countries, in exchange for those countries meeting the EU's goals for them in areas of democracy, human rights, and rule of law.

As we saw above, Solana/High Representative is not really legally connected to the 7 year covenant specifically. But this is the crucial point, as far as Scripture is concerned. In 2007, the European Commission started making 7 year treaties with Israel and its neighbors.

Treaty of Lisbon goes into force, making new High Representative more powerful. She is now a Vice President of the Commission. Furthermore, the Commissioner for External Relations is merged with the old High Representative position, making the position more powerful. A new person holds the office of High Representative: Catherine Ashton (F).

Treaty of Lisbon calls for the creation of an External Action Service that reports directly to to the High Representative. The Council Decision implementing this specifically places the High Representative and the EEAS in charge of coordinating the ENPI. This is specifically the seven year portion of the ENP. Furthermore, the Commission Directorate General employees who worked on the ENP regions are now automatically hired into the EEAS, under the authority of the High Representative. Furthermore, the ENP Commissioner starts working more and more closely with the HR.

Regulation establishing the ENI (2014-2020) comes into force. It is a strengthened ENPI, also under the EEAS and the High Representative. Catherine Ashton, works closely with the ENP Commissioner on ENP topics, working out of the EEAS building. 

Late 2014
New High Representative Federica Mogherini (F), moves her office to the European Commission. The new Commission President has a new organizational arrangement, in which all 28 clusters are grouped by topic. The new Commission President places the ENP commissioner and 5 other external relations commissioners underneath the High Representative, increasing her power over the ENP, and in general.

Even just last week, HR Federica Mogherini said
"As a vice president I am responsible for coordinating all elements of the EU’s external relations."
The article continues and elaborates that:
 she chairs monthly meetings of all commissioners with an external portfolio, such as "trade, development, humanitarian aid, neighbourhood policy but also energy and climate, migration, to ensure the coherence of the EU as a global actor".  
In addition to being one of the main VP's of the Commission, Mogherini is also a "cluster vice president." Juncker has made an additional layer of management under himself, and these are the cluster VP's. Go to this website and click on the High Representative, and you will see what I mean.

A Radical Implication: ENP Theory 3.0?

In the images above, we see the High Representative perform a gradual takeover of the ENP, and the seven year portion as well. 

Contention #1: Javier Solana did not confirm a covenant with many for seven years
Contention #2: The High Representative now has been granted authority over the 7 year covenant, and the whole ENP program.

Oh but wait....there's a problem. When the 7 year covenant was given to the High Representative, a woman held the office at the time. And.... oh but wait...another woman holds the office now as well.

Women may be perfectly competent politicians, but they cannot be the Antichrist. Being a woman is a pretty good firewall against being accused of being the Antichrist.

However, these two women are turning out to be more important than I thought. Leading us to a radical implication. Have you noticed it yet?

Radical Implication: We have NOT yet had a man who was High Representative confirm a covenant with Israel for seven years!

So whenever a man takes the office, he will truly be a "first" as far as prophecy is concerned. Furthermore, he will have a much more intimate and deeper connection to the seven year covenant than Solana ever had. So even if you disagree with Contention #1, this still makes ENP Theory 3.0 a better theory than the original theory. If this is actually true, its mind boggling.

Click to Enlarge

It's A Boy!

When the most recent person was selected to be the High Representative, we watched anxiously, knowing that they might select a man. We know the High Representative position was important, but I don't think we realized how important....

You see,  if they selected a man, we would immediately indict that person as the Antichrist. However, the truth still goes even deeper than that. The first man that is High Representative at the start of one of these 7 year cycles will be the very first to fulfill the prophecy about the 7 year covenant and simultaneously be connected with all the prophecy stuff surrounding the High Representative. 

Analysis of Events

Remember, as we said before, the Commission was the main actor in the ENP, even though Solana was a major assistant. Furthermore, it was the Commission, not Solana, who did the ENPI. So the below analysis of historical events is not correct:

So the below analysis of historical events is correct:

The Office of The Antichrist

Herbert L. Peters, in his book recommendation 666, seemed to explicitly state that the High Representative position might represent the office of the Antichrist. This could be Solana or someone else, but he took a keen interest in Solana. Nevertheless, even back in 2004, he didn't feel tied down to a specific person (i.e. Solana), because he believed the High Representative could be the office of the Antichrist. 

 This would make him – or someone who is to hold his office in the future – a good candidate for the Antichrist. -Herb Peters 2003 (Recommendation 666 p. 62)

Under ENP Theory 1.0, we were tied down to Solana because we thought he also confirmed a covenant for seven years. As I have illustrated in this post, Solana was actually not legally connected to the passing of the regulation establishing the 7 year ENPI. Thus, we don't have to be tied down to a specific person.

This isn't special pleading, because Herb thought the HR could represent an office, long before the theory "failed.". Since we haven't had our "first" seven year covenant yet with the High Representative, we aren't tied down to a specific person. Therefore, the fact that a few women have held the post is thoroughly inconsequential.

I always wondered if God was trying to tell us something by having women in that office....

ENP Theory 3.0?

For sake of simplicity, I will call this new interpretation of events ENP Theory 3.0. This is the part where I defend my contention. But of course, I would really really love it if you commented (agree or disagree) in the comments section. I want to see if this update stands up to scrutiny or not.

This new ENP Theory 3.0, as I am calling it, is actually better than ENP Theory 1.0 in a lot of ways.

1) A future male High Representative is more strongly connected to the 7 year treaty than Solana ever a really big way.

2) ENP Theory 1.0 didn't have the 10 kings completely integrate into the EU. Now, we can add this fact to the list. (We already knew this in ENP Theory 2.0, but its still an additional fact in the arsenal).

3) ENP Theory 1.0 had Solana increase in power over time, but the increases in the power to the High Representative under the Treaty of Lisbon show that the little horn is gradually getting bigger and bigger with each passing term. (We already knew this in ENP Theory 2.0, but its still an additional fact in the arsenal).

Is This Theory Simple Enough to Explain?

The next High Representative could very well be a man. And if it is, I would strongly suspect him to be the Antichrist. The next term of office starts in late 2019, just a year ahead of the ENP (2021-2028) rotation. And he will be the first to actually fulfill prophecy!

This ENP Theory 3.0 resolves the problem of "multiple seven year covenants." I certainly can't speak for God, but I have a hunch that God might be putting women into office until the Antichrist comes, so we don't get the wrong idea. Because the first man that comes...will fulfill prophecy in a larger way than Solana ever did, even if ENP Theory 1.0 was correct!

Even though it took me a huge blogpost to explain it, this makes ENP Theory is a relatively simple idea. (All things being equal, simpler theories are better). Newcomers to the theory won't have the same built-in assumptions we had back when we believed ENP Theory 1.0. So they won't see any "failed" theory, and won't see any reason for Solana to be the Antichrist.

All we have to do to explain this update to the theory is explain how the High Representative fulfills prophecy. Then we just say that the Commission started making 7 year covenants with Israel, and handed that authority to the High Representative. So the next man that does it, is probably the Antichrist.

Their narrative will have both 1) more facts and 2) more robust facts.

1) EU = Revived Roman Empire

2) WEU 10 nation alliance

3) High Representative/Secretary General comes up among the 10 nation WEU

4) Article 666 and Recommendation 666 both about the High Representative

5) High Representative steadily grows in power and comes into direct conflict with a group of three WEU nations for power (3 nations that still blockade EU foreign policy to this day!)

6) EU commission starts creating seven year covenants with its neighbors. In 2010, they transfer the 7 year covenant to the High Representative.

7) In 2010, the WEU alliance integrates into the EU beast, because they have a common purpose, and transfer their authority to the beast at the Treaty of Lisbon. (We already knew this, but it just goes to show that the theory gets better as time passes, not worse).

8) In 2010, the High Representative receives a very significant increase in power.

9) 2021? Male High Representative confirms a covenant with many for seven years.


In this blogpost, I have made two contentions:

Contention #1: Javier Solana did not confirm a covenant with many for seven years

a) Despite helping create the ENP, Javier Solana is not legally connected to the 7 year ENPI..

b) If you Google "Solana ENPI" only prophecy sites come up on the first page.

Contention #2: The High Representative now has been granted authority over the 7 year covenant, and the whole ENP program.

a) The series of diagrams shows how the HR is becoming increasingly in charge of the 7 year ENP, as well as the ENP in general.

b) The legal documentation shows how the HR is now responsible for the ENPI.

Radical Implication: We have NOT yet had a man who was High Representative confirm a covenant with Israel for seven years!

So thats my thoughts. I have spoken quite audaciously, even being so bold to recommend an "update" to ENP Theory. I have spoken boldly to get my point across. But now, I get to hear from all of you, to see if I am totally off the rocker.

What are your thoughts? I have been anxiously waiting until I got this post done, to hear the thoughts of others.

Am I reading too much into things? Or are we onto something here?

Has God answered my prayer for wisdom? Or am I grasping at straws?

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Part 2: Consolidating Power & the EU's 7-Year Treaty

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” Daniel 9:27 NIV
In the previous post, I analyzed the meaning of Daniel 9:27. There is theological support for two ideas. First, there is support for the idea that the 7 year covenant the Antichrist confirms with Israel is a security covenant in some way, designed to provide protection. We cannot be dogmatic about this claim, but it certainly has support. Secondly, there is support that the Antichrist doesn't necessarily create a brand new covenant, but confirms or causes an existing one to prevail.

The Upcoming European Neighborhood Policy Review

In this post, I would like to analyze some of the ominous developments within the European Union.

As I said in the previous post, the EU's 7 year framework with its neighbors, the European Neighborhood Policy is up for review. These translations/interpretations of Daniel 9:27 are quite interesting, especially in light of the fact that the EU has a recurring 7 year foreign policy framework with many countries. Israel is one of the several countries in the European Neighborhood Policy. This policy rewards countries with financial benefits in exchange for meeting the reforms and goals outlined in the country's action plan. It is funded on seven year framework.The first program like this was called the European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument, effective January 1, 2007 - December 31, 2013. The second program, the European Neighborhood Instrument, is effective January 1, 2014- December 31, 2020.

ENP Commissioner Johannes Hahn (1)

European leaders have admitted that this program is not having the desired effect, since the EU's "neighborhood" is a "ring of fire" with all the crises and political catastrophes. The ENP is not having the desired effect of bribing them into respect for democracy, human rights, and rule of law. Therefore, the ENP is up for review by the end of 2015. Efforts in the past to enhance or strenghen the program have not been terribly effective. Hence the ENP Commissioner has been charged with presenting a comprehensive review of the program.

On his Twitter page and in his confirmation hearing, the new ENP commissioner, Johannes Hahn, emphasizes that the European Neighborhood Policy is important for European security. Admittedly, this could be a vague pronouncement typical of European leaders. After all, there is a paper as far back as 2005 that talks about the "The Security Dimension of the European Neighborhood Policy."

However, could it possibly mean something more this time around?

Federica Mogherini: The New High Representative (2)

Switching Gears: The New High Representative

Before addressing those questions, I will switch gears to another topic that could shed some light on the matter.

The new High Representative, Federica Mogherini, has made some interesting pronouncements that continue to support the notion that the High Representative position itself is significant to prophecy. (To see why the HR position may have prophetic significance, see the overview and INFOGRAPHIC HERE.)

Due to new arrangements prior to her appointment, the High Representative oversees the ENP Commissioner, among others. In her own confirmation hearing, she had something very interesting to say about the European Neighborhood.
The EU is increasingly interested and expected to be a security provider in its neighbourhood and beyond. It therefore needs to continue improving its ability to anticipate events and to respond to crises, not only through civilian and military crisis management, but also by employing its broad array of instruments strategically and coherently to enhance overall effectiveness and sustainability. -Federica Mogherini (emphasis mine)


But is this just her opinion? Is this vague eurospeak spouted to get the HR job? On the contrary, the November Foreign Affairs Council issued a resolution that states:

The Council furthermore reiterates the urgent need of enabling the EU and its Member States to assume increased responsibilities to act as a security provider, at the international level and in particular in the neighbourhood, thereby also enhancing their own security and their global strategic role by responding to these challenges together. 
The Council reaffirms its commitment to strengthen CSDP, in line with the Conclusions from the European Council of December 2013 and its own Conclusions of November 2013.  
From the high representative's standpoint, she doesn't seem to think these are vague pronouncements. Recently, she gave a speech on the common foreign and security policy to the European Parliament. Here she advocated many very interesting things that seem to relate to the above quotes. She proposed that the EU both is and should become a "superpower" in the areas of security and defence. Some additional quotes from that speech:

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."

What do these quotes mean? Again we shouldn't let the bureaucratic eurospeak get the best of us.  Recall what she said in her hearing and what the Council said in the November Foreign Affairs Council. These phrases make it sound like she wants to project force in the neighborhood and on the international scene. According to her, the EU's actions are, in some sense, borderless. Presumably, the EU wants to act in the same way to outside crises as it would internal crises. This language is interesting, because the EU already does civilian and military missions in neighboring missions. (Granted, most of the military missions are training missions, but I digress). However, the content of her speech make it sound like she wants to bring this external intervention to a whole new level.

Ongoing EU Missions (4)

The EU is like a slowly boiling frog. Just a little hotter...just a little hotter....and the frog doesn't realize it's boiling to death. Same with the EU. This is a gradual logical step after all they've said so far. But rather shocking and audacious words in comparison to 15 years ago. Indeed, a benign European trade community now has unelected leaders with aspirations to become a global military superpower. But ironically, it sometimes struggles to hold itself together (see: Eurozone crisis). Both weak and the same time. Sounds like Bible prophecy to me. 

All of this is especially interesting in light of new EU Neighbourhood Barometer Poll results for the neighborhood. Their results are unsurprising but significant:
Citizens of the Eastern Partnership countries are more satisfied with their lives, but pessimistic about the economy; they also have a more positive image of the EU, and would like it to play a greater role in security and defence. These are some of the key findings of the sixth wave (Autumn 2014) of the EU Neighbourhood Barometer just released.

So the supposition found in the previous blog post, that the Antichrist's 7 year treaty will be a security covenant, dovetails nicely with the recent words and actions of EU politicians. The EU increasingly wants to be a "security provider" to the 7-year covenant members and intervene internationally to solve crises. It's not at all strange to suggest that a future, reinforced European Neighborhood Policy based on a 7-year framework, could be the means by which the EU becomes a "security provider" in the neighboring countries.

What Ever Happened to Recommendation 666?

I recently had a comment conversation with someone many of you readers know, underneath my infographic. However, out of respect for them, I will not disclose their identity (unless they wish I do so). Nevertheless, their discussion prompted me to research additional facts about the High Representative. 

Recall WEU Recommendation 666, which many of of us have considered significant in the rise of the High Representative:
Support proposals for the WEU Secretary-General and CFSP High Representative to preside over the PSC and civilian crisis-management machinery and give him powers to convene the Council of the European Union in the event of an emergency;
The WEU Secretary General and CFSP High Representative were the same person. The WEU Secretary General job title was eventually dissolved after the Lisbon Treaty and the CFSP High Representative continued to exist, although it's authority was expanded. 

Did the WEU Recommendation 666, made so many years ago, actually ever take effect? Indeed, it appears it has:

The Council and the Commission have powers, each within their own areas of competence and in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Treaties, to take legally binding decisions. However, under Article 38 of the TEU, the Council may authorise the PSC, for the duration of a crisis management operation, to take the relevant decisions concerning the political control and strategic direction of the operation. 
In the event of a military response, the PSC exercises political control and strategic direction. On the basis of the opinions and recommendations of the EUMC, the PSC evaluates strategic military options, the operation concept and the operation plan to be submitted to the Council. With a view to launching an operation, the PSC sends the Council a recommendation based on the opinions of the EUMC. On that basis the Council decides to launch the operation within the Decision on the action to be taken, determining in particular the role of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in the implementation of the measures. During the operation, the High Representative, who may chair the PSC, reports to the Council. On the basis of the proceedings of the PSC, the High Representative directs the activities of the Situation Centre, which supports the PSC and provides it with intelligence on crisis management.

Political and Security Committee (5)

So we see here, that the new High Representative position is able to chair the PSC (Political and Security Committee) in the event of an armed attack or crisis management operation. This would presumably constitute an "emergency" described in Recommendation 666 back in 2001. Apparently, the Council is able to determine what authority to delegate to the HR, depending on what route they wish to take. Though indeed, as chair of the PSC, the High Representative would be chairing the body that makes all of the decisions "on the ground." 

In addition, WEU Recommendation 666 proposes that the High Representative have the power to convene the Council of the European Union in the event of an emergency. This apparently has already taken place as well. All of the Council "configurations" have a rotating chairperson. But the Foreign Affairs Council is the only configuration that has a permanent chairperson. And that guessed the High Representative. 

Power Consolidation and Crisis Management

In the new High Representative's Parliament confirmation hearing, she outlined some other objectives she has for the External Action Service (basically: the EU's Foreign Service). In fact, these quotes are found in the same paragraph that discuss how the EU should be a security provider in the neighborhood: 
The streamlining of the EEAS decision-making structures will be one of my first priorities. This has to be done in parallel with the equally necessary streamlining of Commission and Council decision making processes: the gears of the different "machines" must be brought to a better match and synergy.


Here she states that the EEAS decision making structures must be streamlined. She also states that the other two main EU bodies must streamline their decision making as well, so that everything works together better. 

A few sentences later, she continues: 
The EU is increasingly interested and expected to be a security provider in its neighbourhood and beyond. It therefore needs to continue improving its ability to anticipate events and to respond to crises, not only through civilian and military crisis management, but also by employing its broad array of instruments strategically and coherently to enhance overall effectiveness and sustainability. In structural terms, and as highlighted in the EEAS review, there is still work ahead towards improving the integration of the crisis management structures into the EEAS. I intend to streamline the internal delineation of work, to avoid overlaps and enhance civil/military synergies. I will closely look into how to establish an effective link between those structures and the HR, taking into account their specificities. 
To be honest, I don't think Federica Mogherini has dictatorial ambitious or a passionate lust to take over the world. But I'm somewhat convinced that one of her successors will try this very thing (CLICK HERE, to see the infographic on why I think this). But her wording in her confirmation hearing is very curious to us Bible prophecy watchers, especially since we think her position (the High Representative) is the office of the Antichrist. 

She talks about the "integration" of the crisis management structures into the EEAS. She talks about how she needs to "streamline" the work and decision making process, making it simpler to "avoid overlaps" and "enhance civil/military synergies." She also wants to make an "effective link" between those structures and the HR itself. 

All these words sound somewhat ominous, especially if we were worried about power consolidation with respect to military control in the EU. Indeed, even from a purely secular point of view, there seems to be "tail risk" of military dictatorship here, especially since the HR is not an elected official. Though the HR's military powers are quite mild and tame compared to those of a U.S. President, the lack of democracy in choosing this person is a rather exacerbating factor. 

It is interesting that the opportunity for all of this military power opens up precisely when the EU needs to provide a "military response," perhaps to an armed attack. And according to the book of Daniel, it seems that the Antichrist starts wreaking havoc...right after an armed attack. The passage below immediately following a passage that describes a king who exalts himself above all gods: 
40 “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. 41 He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand.
(Click here to learn more about the military activities of the Antichrist.)

Increasingly Central Role for the High Representative at the Commission

The above information is not the only reason the High Representative position is gaining power. Before proceeding, an organizational chart of EU structures is in order. I took this org chart from the BBC news website:


So on the left, all by itself, is the EEAS body, which the High Representative leads. In the middle is the European Commission, which is the law making/proposing body within the EU. Previously, the former HR, Catherine Ashton, had her office in the EEAS building. But now, the new HR has struck a deal with the new President of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, in which her office will be no longer at the EEAS, but in the commission building instead. 

The reason this arrangement is possible is because the High Representative is also one of the Vice President's of the European Commission. Furthermore, Juncker is redesigning the commission into clusters. Formerly, all 28 commissioners (see chart above) reported directly to the President. Now, these commissioners are organized into groups or "clusters" based on similar jobs, making more layers to the management structure. Not surprisingly, the new High Rep will be in charge of a few commissioners who have portfolios related to external relations. Juncker has even charged the ENP commissioner with making a new Neighborhood Policy by the end of the year. According to some, Juncker is the "foreign policy president."

Commission President Juncker (8)

So now, Mogherini, the high rep, has more power over the external relations commissioners. But she has "less," in that she will have a harder time dispelling the notion that she actually reports to Juncker.
Who sits where is profoundly symbolic in Brussels. The External Action Service will feel orphaned and marginalised by this move. Mogherini will have to work all the harder to convince the member states that this is about her getting a grip on the commission rather than the commission capturing herEuropean Foreign Policy: the Berlaymont Strikes Back
The High Representative position, which has been enlarged by the treaty of Lisbon, continues to move in a direction where it is the center of all the action. With this recent deal between Mogherini and Juncker, it is hard to say who has the upper hand. But it increasingly consolidates the role of the High Representative, paving the way for the future Antichrist. 


In the previous blogpost, I demonstrated that there is decent support for the idea that the Antichrist's 7 year covenant might be an arrangement designed to guarantee Israel's security, though this cannot be said with certainty. Furthermore, I explored the possible meaning of what it means for him to "confirm" a covenant for 7 years, and the Hebrew word behind that. Indeed, there is support for the idea that the word can mean the confirmation or enforcement of an existing covenant, and not necessarily the creation of a brand new one. 

All of this is very interesting, especially considering the EU already has a recurring 7 year treaty with Israel. The European Neighborhood Policy is considered weak and ineffective, thus prompting the need for a comprehensive review by the end of 2015. It is easy to see how the future Antichrist could confirm or cause to prevail the existing European Neighborhood Policy (which is based on a seven year framework) in order to make it more effective. Furthermore, based on the statements made by the new High Representative, the EU is increasingly interested in acting as a "security provider" in the neighborhood. It is not at all a stretch to see how a future reinforced ENP could be a security covenant for its neighbors, organized around a 7-year framework.

European Neighborhood Policy Members (Dark Green) (9)

Furthermore, we have seen the suggestions of WEU Recommendation 666 back in 2001 come full circle in the High Representative position under the Treaty of Lisbon. Almost all of the recommendations put forth in that document have been implemented in the new High Representative position. The powers the new HR has in the event of a military attack on the EU are rather ominous and concerning. This is exacerbated by the fact that the new HR talks as if she wants to "streamline" decision making structures and connect the crisis management powers to the High Representative itself. The fact that an unelected official either has or wants to acrue these powers to themselves is concerning indeed. 

According to New Testament scholar and Christian apologist Michael Licona, one characteristic of a good theory is "illumination." Meaning the theory helps us understand everything else. I believe, even 5 years after its apparent failure, that ENP theory is alive and well and continues to make sense of the last 20 years of European history. Furthermore, it continues to shed light on the world we live in today, continuing to have a powerful relevance.

Photo credits:



All other citations are linked internally above. 

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Part 1: Q&A about Antichrist's 7 Year Treaty

This is a preparatory post for the next blog post (UPDATE: next blogpost is now available). This first post is detailed enough that it needs a standalone blog post, and can kind of be its own topic. This post is more theological in nature, while the subsequent post will be more current events oriented. Nevertheless, in order to make the claims in the subsequent post, I need this post as a basis. I give a hint as to the next blog post at the end of this. 

Daniel 9:27 NIV
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’[a] In the middle of the ‘seven’[b] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple[c] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.[d][e]

Is the Covenant of Daniel 9:27 a Security Covenant?

The Bible predicts that a future Roman ruler, the Antichrist, will confirm a seven year treaty with Israel. Halfway through that treaty, he will set up the abomination of desolation. 

The Daniel 9 never explicitly states the terms of this covenant, only its duration of 7 years. Theologians generally assume that Israel is one of the contracting parties, because the entire 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 pertains to the Jews and Jerusalem. 

Though it never explicitly states the terms of the covenant, we can see a variety of passages that support the view that it is some kind of arrangement that guarantees Israel's security. While it is unwise to be dogmatic on this point, the cross references to Daniel 9:27 certainly lend support to the idea that it is some kind of security arrangement, though we cannot be certain of the exact terms.

1) Zechariah 11 and the Worthless Shepherd

Zechariah 11 talks about a Good Shepherd (Jesus) of Israel, and a "worthless shepherd" who "deserts the flock." This worthless shepherd is also wounded by the sword in the eye and the arm. (This reminds us of the mortal wound the beast receives from the sword). Many theologians believe that the worthless shepherd is the Antichrist. Furthermore, it says he deserts the flock. This shows theme that the Antichrist was supposed to protect Israel, but he abandons them. 

2) Isaiah 28 and the Covenant with Death

Isaiah 28 talks about a "covenant with death" that Israel makes. The passage seems to imply that Israel depends on this covenant for protection from an "overwhelming scourge." This seems to be a reference to armies. It also uses water and flood language, which is often used of end time armies. (Revelation 12; Daniel 9:26-Daniel 9:27) Here too, the theme of protection is found. Because of this treaty, they think they will be safe. But it turns out to be a worthless covenant. 

3) Ezekiel 38/39: Israel Living in Safety 

Furthermore, Ezekiel 38/39 talks about a time when Israel is very unsuspecting and dwelling in safety, prior to a major invasion. This temporary safety could be the result of the Antichrist's treaty.

All of these implies that Israel relies on the Antichrist for security, or military protection, in some way. But instead, the Antichrist seems to go back on that covenant. 

Is the Covenant of Daniel 9:27 Created or Enforced?

In Daniel 9:27, the word that is used for making/confirming the covenant is not the typical word used for making a covenant. Most words use a word along the lines of to cut/make. The word used is the hiphil tense of the word "gabar," rendered "we higbir." Here, at Blue Letter Bible states the definition of "gabar" in the hiphil tense.

I did some Internet research on "wehigbir" and found some interesting results. The first interesting observation I found was that many preterist authors and theologians use the meaning of this word as evidence against the pre-millenial/futurist point of view. They say that this word does not refer to the creation of a new covenant, but the confirmation of one that already exists. To them, this is proof that it is not a future agreement with the Antichrist, but the Messiah confirming a covenant with Israel through the death on the cross.

Furthermore, some other books about Bible prophecy (who take a futurist viewpoint) say that this means that the Antichrist will confirm some existing agreement, such as an existing peace process framework. (Though this view is in no way universal).

Daniel 9:27 Interlinear

Strongs #1396 - Gabar

Besides other insurmountable issues with the preterist interpretation, the view that "wehigbir" could refer to the confirmation or strengthening of an existing covenant in no way proves preterism. Indeed, the Antichrist could easily confirm an existing covenant. 

Here are five translations of Daniel 9:27 side by side. Notice the footnote in the Holman Bible (far right). 

Evidently the hiphil tense is "causative" in some cases. In addition, the only instance of "gabar" in the "hiphil" perfect tense is found in Daniel 9:27. The other time gabar is used in the hiphil tense in the imperfect tense is found in Psalm 12:4. 

Notice, the overwhelming use of the word "prevail." 

I went to a Hebrew language forum, and perused a thread about this very topic. The people there seemed to know what they were talking about, as in might actually know Biblical Hebrew. I found some interesting ways in which they would have preferred to translate that part of Daniel 9:27.

However, it doesn’t mean “he shall confirm”, rather “he’ll cause … to overpower” where the future is from the context, not the conjugation. -user kwrandolph
I would translate it as, And he will cause a covenant to prevail to the many. -user Steve Miller

So it seems it is quite a viable option to read it as the strengthening or prevailing of a covenant. Which illustrates the tension found in the comparison of Daniel 9:27 translations. Most of the literal translations say "strong" or "firm." But NIV, says "confirm" and Holman Bible footnotes it and indicates it can mean enforce.

Implications for the European Neighborhood Policy?

These translations/interpretations are quite interesting, especially in light of the fact that the EU has a recurring 7 year foreign policy framework for seven years. Israel is one of the several countries in the European Neighborhood Policy. This policy rewards countries with financial benefits in exchange for meeting the reforms and goals outlined in the countries action plan. It is funded on seven year framework, called the European Neighborhood Instrument. The first program like this was called the European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument, effective January 1, 2007 - December 31, 2013. The second program is effective January 1, 2014- December 31, 2020.

European leaders have admitted that this program is not having the desired effect, since the EU's "neighborhood" is a "ring of fire" with all the crises and political catastrophes. The ENP is not having the desired effect of bribing them into respect for "democracy, human rights, and rule of law." Therefore, the ENP is up for review by the end of 2015. Efforts in the past to enhance or "strenghen" the program have not been terribly effective. Hence the ENP Commissioner has been charged with presenting a comprehensive review of the program.

Which leads me to my next blog post. Do we have any ideas on how the EU wants to change its relationship to the neighborhood? What are their foreign policy objectives? Though we don't have much information, do we have any hints of what the EU's future relationship to the neighborhood will look like?

This concludes part 1.

CLICK HERE for Part 2: Consolidating Power & the EU's 7 Year Treaty


(many of these link to a page in Google books where "higbir" is highlighted.)

Where did you come from where are you going?

Integrative Theology

Monergism Website

Book: The Case for Amillenialism

Website: Who will be left behind and when?

Gender Challenge of Hebrew

Popular Bible Prophecy Commentary

Some links of interest:

Hebrew4Dummies - for more information on the tenses

The Hiphil Stem 

Image credits:


(My posting of these links is more for citation and reference purposes for your perusal. It should not at all be construed as endorsement of the theological content of these books.)