- Christogenea Internet Radio
Christogenea Internet Radio, Friday December 18th 2015.
Tonight we are going to present and discuss Bertrand Comparet's sermon, Daniel's Fifth Kingdom. We are doing this for several reasons. First, I have chosen to devote more time than usual concentrating on certain other tasks, mainly technical, and therefore I will not begin another in-depth Bible Study until early January, when we shall commence with our presentations of the epistles of Paul, picking up with his epistle to the Philippians. Secondly, last week we began addressing both futurism and preterism, which are methods of Biblical interpretation that more or less refuse to see, or even deny, the unfolding of the revelation of God throughout our actual history. Nowhere in the Old Testament prophets is a long-term unfolding of the revelation of God clearer than in the Book of Daniel.
Daniel has his critics, but of course they are nearly all Jews. Bertrand Comparet did another sermon which was a pretty good general address of some of those criticisms, entitled Daniel Freed From the Critic's Den, but because he only gave sermons they are not always well documented. So we hope one day to expound on that sermon also, and to add documentation. Ultimately, Daniel is proven to be true, and every Jew a liar. The Jews despise and reject Daniel not only because of his precise foretelling of the time of the advent of the Christ, but also because Daniel, along with the Revelation, prove conclusively that the Word of God is what we today would consider to be Euro-centric: that the White Christian nations of Europe are indeed the seed of Abraham and they are the nations which were promised to spring from his loins. That is also what Paul of Tarsus had taught throughout his epistles, and the truth of those assertions can be discovered in the classical histories and in archaeology.
In our program last Friday evening, we discussed preterism at length in the light of Paul's statement in Ephesians chapter 6 concerning “all things being accomplished”. Preterism is the term used to refer to the mistaken belief that somehow all Biblical prophecy was fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. There are other versions of preterism which make the same mistaken assumption, but move the date up to the time of the fall of Rome. Examining the prophecies of Daniel, and seeing their clear fulfillment in history, we can see that the Biblical prophecy continues to unfold well beyond either of those events, and reaches to our present day.
We also began a couple of months ago to critique and expand on certain of Bertrand Comparet's sermons, and we plan to continue that as an ongoing project whenever we have occasion. So because of the conflux which this sermon has with our ongoing address of futurism and preterism, we have chosen to make this presentation.
DANIEL’S FIFTH KINGDOM by Bertrand L. Comparet
This version of Comparet's sermon was prepared by Clifton A. Emahiser several years ago, and Clifton made some critical notes which we shall also include here at the end of our presentation. Now to commence with Comparet:
It is universally recognized that many of the Bible’s greatest prophesies are found in the Book of Daniel. Many of these are phrased in such obscure language that they were hard to understand until their fulfillment made their meaning clear. This is exactly what Yahweh intended for He had the angel tell Daniel, recorded in Daniel 12:4, 9-10, “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even to the time of the end, for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. Many shall be purified and made white and tried, but the wicked shall do wickedly and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.” However, actual events which have followed through the centuries have fulfilled these prophesies so unmistakably that their meaning is now clear.
We could not say that the magnitude of Daniel's prophecies are “universally recognized”, and do not know why Comparet said so. Rather, they are usually only recognized among pious Christians. But the enemies of Christ go to great lengths to deny Daniel's status as a prophet, and the book is even demoted by some to the status of “historical fiction”. However Comparet's opening evaluation of Daniel is correct in all other respects. He continues:
One of these prophesies is accepted by all churches that I know of and they have agreed upon its meaning for the first 4/5ths of it. Yet, this prophesy so clearly sets forth the Anglo-Saxon Israel doctrines that it is hard to see how the preachers of these churches can be blind to it. This is an especial challenge to all preachers who deny the truth of the Anglo-Saxon Israel doctrines. Follow this with me in your Bibles and then let me hear you deny it.
It must be remembered, as we discussed it in our earlier criticisms of Comparet, that in some sermons he refers only to “Anglo-Saxons”, and in some to “Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian” nations, and then in others he adds “Germanic” to the equation. So where Comparet says “Anglo-Saxon”, we must imagine that he is speaking of the Germanic peoples in general. This becomes especially evident where the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Daniel's Fifth Kingdom is revealed to be not only with the Angles and Saxons, but also in the Goths, Huns, Franks, Alans, Vandals and other great tribes of the Germanic race.
Back to Comparet:
I refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream which Daniel explained as a prophecy sent by Yahweh, this is all in Daniel chapter 2. You will remember that in Babylon, King Nebuchadnezzar had a dream of such obvious importance that it greatly troubled him. Then upon awakening, he forgot his dream so he could not tell it to his wise men to ask their interpretation. Being a typical oriental monarch [Comparet refers to the characteristic harshness of the Assyrian kings], he found a quick solution to this puzzle. We read in Daniel 2:1-5, “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled and his sleep broke from him. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, the astrologers, the sorcerers and the Chaldeans for to show the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. The king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream and my spirit was troubled to know the dream. The thing is gone from me. If ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces and your houses shall be made a dunghill.”
This was surely a startlingly unreasonable demand to make. These were sorcerers, old hands at the game of thinking up impressive but vague answers. Vague and equivocal enough to let them fit their words into what ever might happen, an art they shared with some of the famous Greek oracles. But to be required to give an answer when you didn’t yet know what the question was, this was too much to expect! They replied, “There is not a man upon the earth that can know the king’s dream. There is no king, nor ruler, that has asked such things of any magician, astrologer or Chaldean. It is a rare thing that the king requires and there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” This did not pacify the king who commanded that all the magicians, astrologers and Chaldeans be killed, because their inability to explain his dream exposed them as frauds. Only Daniel and his Hebrew companions escaped this purge because Yahweh gave Daniel the power to recount the dream itself as he was able to explain it. In Daniel’s own words, this was the dream recorded in Daniel 2:31-43.
Perhaps it was wishful thinking, but here Comparet made a rather irresponsible statement, where he said that “only Daniel and his Hebrew companions escaped this purge”. Irresponsible because there is no evidence in the account that the purge was executed, and because the Book of Daniel itself indicates that even if the purge had already begun, it was certainly halted. But Comparet skips the pertinent passages, where we read (from Daniel chapter 2): “24 Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation. 25 Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation. 26 The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? 27 Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king; 28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these; 29 As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass. 30 But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart.” So Daniel asked Arioch, the captain of the king, to cease from the purge. Then in Daniel 2:48 we see that the purge must have been halted, because we read that Daniel was made “chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.” So we see that there were wise men remaining, and therefore the purge was not completed even if it had actually begun. Returning to Comparet, where he commences with Daniel 2:31:
“Thou O king sawest and beheld a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee and the form thereof was terrible. The image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron and his feet part of iron and part of clay.” Then Daniel went on to explain to King Nebuchadnezzar the meaning of this image. “Thou O king art a king of kings for the God of heaven has given thee a kingdom, power, strength and glory. Wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of heaven has he given unto thine hand and has made thee ruler over them all. Thou are this head of gold. After thee shall rise another kingdom inferior to thee and another kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
Note the language here, that the kingdoms beginning from Nebuchadnezzar are described by Daniel as ruling “wheresoever the children of men dwell” and “shall bear rule over all the earth.” Now all of these kingdoms, which history shows to have been first the Babylonian, and then the Medo-Persian and the Greek, held rule only over a majority of the White nations of their time. Therefore where we see the phrases “children of men” and “all the earth”, we must know that they describe things limited to that very context: White men and the parts of the earth which White men inhabit. None of these empires ruled over sub-Saharan Negroes, Chinamen or Australian or American aboriginals. Therefore these alien peoples cannot be imagined to be a part of the “children of men” or “all the earth”. The Book of Daniel can thereby be said to be Euro-centric, even if at an early time the lands of the White race also included those portions of Asia and Africa in proximity to Europe.
Here we must make a short digression and discuss some of the criticisms of Daniel. We can read on the Wikipedia page for Daniel the prophet that “Most scholars see the book as a cryptic allusion to the reign of the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE), and the broad consensus is that Daniel never existed.” Now of course, Daniel is true, “most scholars” are frauds, and the Wikipedia article itself is a Jewish fable. However even if Daniel did not write until 164 BC, he knew things about ancient Babylon which none of the Greeks had ever known, and when we compare modern archaeological discoveries to what the ancient Greeks such as Herodotus, Strabo and Diodorus Siculus said about Babylon, and then compare them to what Daniel said about Babylon, Daniel is proven to have had great knowledge about ancient Babylon which the Greeks never had. So Daniel must have written at an early time, having had first-hand knowledge of Babylon. Later on, the Greeks received their information from second-hand sources during the Persian period, and much of it was inaccurate.
But aside from that, if Daniel had not written until 164 BC, then he could only have had any knowledge of the world empires up to this point, which encompasses the first three parts of the beast in Nebuchadnezzar's vision. At this time, Rome had not yet eliminated the Carthaginians from Africa. That happened in 146 BC and the end of the Third Punic War. At this time, neither did Rome have control over the Greeks. At this time Rome was frequently at war with the Greeks, and especially with the Macedonians. But their hegemony over Greece and Macedonia was not assured until the final Macedonian War and the last of the wars with the Achaean League, which took place from 150 to 146 BC. After that time, it would take Rome over a hundred years longer to control the balance of Greek holdings in the Middle East and as far as the Euphrates, as well as in the west through Gaul and Iberia. So even if Daniel wrote around 164 BC, he nevertheless prophesied the coming of the Roman empire long before it ever happened. In fact, there is little real reason to think that Daniel had written at so late a time, and every reason to believe that Daniel had written when he said he did: from the time of Nebuchadnezzar and down to the time of Cyrus the Persian. Returning to Comparet where he is citing Daniel 2:40:
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron forasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things and as iron breaks from all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
This must describe the Roman empire, as the Roman empire had subdued the whole world up to the Euphrates, and points further west than any of the first three empires. The dominion of each of the four kingdoms of Daniel shifted progressively to the West. Continuing with Comparet and Daniel 2:41:
Whereas thou sawest the feet and toes part of potter’s clay and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided: but there shall be on it the strength of iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. As the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken. Whereas thou sawest iron mingled with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.”
And here we have a clear picture of the fall of Rome, as well as the reason for its fall. This puts the preterists in a quandary, those who believe all prophecy was fulfilled by 70 AD, because Rome was not ever divided completely until the time of Theodosius I, the last emperor to rule both East and West, who died in 395 AD. Even then, Rome in the West did not disintegrate completely as Daniel described it until the end of the 5th century. Daniel destroys preterism, and with this the preterists must also imagine that there are other prophecies as well, which were not fulfilled before 70 AD, or even before the end of the 5th century AD. But we must see them acknowledge this first, before we can explain to them anything beyond this. Returning to Comparet's comments on this passage:
As I said, the churches are all in agreement that this image represents the Babylonian succession of empires. The head was Babylon itself under Nebuchadnezzar, who brought it to its pinnacle of power and wealth. In its day, it was the most important empire in the then known world, western Asia and the lands fronting the Mediterranean Sea. It ruled the entire fertile crescent, from the Persian Gulf even to Egypt. The next succeeding empire of comparable power was that of the Medes and Persians, who conquered Babylon about 536 BC. [Or 539 BC.] The kingdom of Media was absorbed in the rising power of Persia even before the conquest of Babylon. This Persian empire extended from northwest India and Afghanistan across the fertile crescent over most of Asia Minor (which constitutes modern Turkey), down through Syria and Palestine and even including Egypt.
Actually, according to Greek sources it seems that the Medes were autonomous and joined to the Persians by marriage among their ruling families for a period before becoming subject to Babylon. Cyrus was said to have had a Persian nobleman for a father, and a Median princess for a mother. Back to Comparet, speaking about the Medo-Persian empire:
This was the empire represented by the breast and arms of silver in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. It was conquered and absorbed in the empire of Alexander the Great of Macedonia between the years 334 BC. and 331 BC. Alexander became king of Macedonia in 336 BC, by 332 BC, he had conquered Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt. He conquered the Tigris and Euphrates valleys in 331 BC, swept over Persia, Bactria (largely the same as modern Afghanistan) and into northern India. In 10 years he had built up an empire covering all the then known civilized world from Greece eastward to northern India. In 323 BC, Alexander died in a drunken debauchery in Babylon. His huge, but short lived empire, was the belly and the thighs of brass in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.
We do not really know that Alexander died in drunken debauchery, so Comparet may certainly be repeating another fable. While Alexander kept his own personal historian, all of the contemporary writing disappeared soon after his death, and that alone is a sign of a more sinister cause for his death. The earliest accounts now extant were not written for a hundred years after Alexander died, or, perhaps, after he was killed. Now Comparet comments on the fourth beast of Daniel's vision:
Fourth and last came the great empire of Rome, represented by the legs of iron. The city of Rome was founded in 753 BC [or perhaps 752 BC]. and the Roman republic, which began its greatness, was established about 55 BC. Its empire began with the conquest of Macedonia and Egypt in 168 BC. Eventually, the Roman empire expanded so they ruled Italy, Spain, Gaul (modern France), Macedonia, Greece, North Africa, Egypt, western Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine. Its frontiers were the Atlantic Ocean, Irish Sea, the southern border of Scotland, North Sea, Rhine River, Black Sea, Caucasus mountains, Armenia, to the middle of ancient Babylonia, the Arabian desert, Red Sea, Nubia, the Sahara desert and the Moroccan mountains.
While this is a sermon, and therefore perhaps Comparet can be forgiven for some of the more trivial inaccuracies, he seems to be very confused on the matter of the Roman Republic. Rome was a kingdom until the end of the 6th century BC, about the time that the second temple was being constructed in Jerusalem. The Republican system of government then put in place was only interrupted in times of war, where a dictator would be appointed temporarily and then restored power to the senate. That system lasted for nearly 500 years, during which time dozens of men given dictatorial powers over the Roman state had voluntarily surrendered them back to the people in due time.
Then in 49 BC Julius Caesar had been appointed dictator, and had a new appointment every year until in 44 BC he was appointed dictator in perpetuity. That led to his assassination, ostensibly because he was trying to subvert the Republican system which had endured so successfully for so long. Caesar's assassins were actually the true Roman patriots. In the civil wars which ensued, Caesar's nephew and adopted son Octavian eventually prevailed, and became the emperor in 27 BC, ending the Roman Republic forever. Technically, Rome had already been an empire, but now it would have an emperor. Continuing with Comparet:
Its outstanding characteristic was its harsh and cruel treatment of its subject people. As Daniel said, “And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and subdues all things and as iron that breaks all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.” Remember there were two legs of iron, as the Roman empire split into the western and the eastern empire, often called Byzantine. Likewise, each of these two was an enforced mixture of different people, having nothing in common except that they were ruled by the Roman army and when the military force failed, they broke up into their original fragments.
As Daniel said, “As the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” Up to this point, all the churches are with me 100%. Their preachers all agree that these are the empires which Daniel’s prophesy foretold, because they fulfill that prophesy so perfectly. Now we come to the place where most of the churches don’t want to recognize Daniel as a prophet. Let’s continue with what Daniel said. After concluding his description of the dream and its interpretation as these four successive empires, the very next verse of Daniel 2:44 tells us, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand forever.”
Let’s analyze this, first of all let’s note this kingdom, spoken of by Daniel, is not like the first four. They were the creations of pagan men but, this fifth kingdom shall be set up by Yahweh. When shall it come into existence? In the days of these kings, this is at some time during the existence of the four empires of the Babylonian order. So let’s refresh our memory as to their dates.
Let us note here that Babylon became an empire shortly after Nebuchadnezzar came to the throne, around 605 BC. Nineveh and the Assyrian empire fell for good in 612 BC. But Assyria had been in decline for several decades, and many of the formerly subject nations gained their autonomy before then.
Babylon and its empire came to an end in 536 BC, when it was conquered by the Medo-Persian empire. The Medo-Persian empire came to an end when it was overrun and conquered by the armies of Alexander the Great in 331 BC. After his death, Alexander’s empire fell into four parts, as another prophesy of Daniel’s had foretold [Daniel 11:4]. Alexander died in 323 BC. These are the first three empires symbolized by Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, so this leaves only the fourth and last, imperial Rome.
The city of Rome was founded in 753 BC. and the Republic was established about 55 BC.
Again we must note, that actually the Republic was established before 500 BC, began to disintegrate because of Julius Caesar in 49 BC, and ended in 27 BC. Then Comparet says something even more inaccurate:
Expansion into an empire began with the conquest of Macedonia and Egypt in 168 BC.
I do not know why Comparet made this assertion. Egypt was under nominal control of the Seleucids in the 2nd century BC, and Roman influence in Egypt began growing from about the middle of that century. But Rome would not control Syria and the Middle East for another hundred years, and Egypt was not annexed to the Roman Empire until after the battle of Actium in 31 BC. The dynasty of the Ptolemies did not end until then, with the entry of Octavian into Alexandria and the resulting suicide of Cleopatra VII. Rome's expansion into an empire began in Italy, and was cemented with the final conquest of the Macedonia and Achaea by 146 BC.
We need not cover in detail the history of the Roman empire, only enough to note that just as the dream had two legs, the Roman empire was divided into eastern and western parts by Emperor Diocletian in 283 AD. [Actually Diocletian formed a tetrarchy which quickly collapsed, and Constantine restored the empire, but made a new capital in Byzantium.] The division became permanent at the death of Emperor Theodosius in 395 AD. [As we had noted earlier.] The two separate empires, the western generally governed from Rome and always called Roman and the eastern, governed from Constantinople, the original name of which city had been Byzantium and generally called the Byzantine empire, continued for some time after their separation.
The western, or Roman empire, fought a losing battle against the ever increasing pressure of the invading people, who were the Israelites, moving from Scythia into their new European homes.
Here it must be noted, that for the most part the Romans and some of the principle tribes of the Greeks were also Israelites, as were many of the Iberians, Britons and Gauls that the Romans had formerly conquered. All of them had migrated from the East at one time or another since the captivity in Egypt nearly 2,000 years before this time.
The Visigoths were an Israelite people, largely Christian by 350 AD. They were driven west by the pressure of the invading Huns. They entered the Roman empire in 376 AD, scoring a decisive victory over Roman armies in 378 AD, so Rome ceded them certain Roman territories. They invaded Italy in 400 AD and forced Rome to pay a ransom in 408 AD. That year Rome withdrew its armies from Britain to aid in the defense of Rome. It was to no avail for in 410 AD, the Visigoths captured and looted the city of Rome itself. In 412 AD, they moved on into southern France and northern Spain, ruling Spain until the Moorish conquest in 711 AD. In 476 AD, Odoacer, the general of the German mercenary soldiers in the Roman army rebelled, then captured the capital city of the western Roman empire and deposed the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus. This date of 476 AD, is accepted by historians as marking the end of the western Roman empire.
Actually, the Goths first began invading Rome about 238 AD, for reasons other than pressure from the Huns. Comparet is correct, however, that in the later half of the 4th century there was pressure on the Goths from the Huns. According to Procopius, an early 6th century historian who knew both Goths and Huns rather well, both the Huns and the Goths had descended from the Massagetae of Asia. Procopius often refers to the “Huns, who were formerly called Massagetae”.
Meanwhile, the eastern empire, generally called the Byzantine empire with Constantinople as its capital, claimed to be ruling even the western Roman empire, although this was a claim rather than fact. Except for brief periods, starting about 395 AD, the western Roman empire was separate. Enemy pressures were building up against the eastern, or Byzantine empire borders, pressures too strong to be resisted. By about 650 AD, the Muslims had conquered Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa and Sicily. The Byzantine empire was reduced to Asia Minor and the Balkans. Then in 1074 AD. the Turks captured most of Asia Minor, then came enemies from an unexpected source. The combined forces of Venice and the fourth crusade captured Constantinople in 1204 AD, also taking all the Balkan territories and they set up the short lived Latin empire of Constantinople.
While the authority of the Byzantine empire was restored in the city of Constantinople around 1260 AD, all the Balkan territories were lost, they broke up into many small independent nations. Remember, Daniel said the toes were part iron and part clay and would not stick together. For two centuries more, a mere shadow of the Byzantine empire continued, consisting of just the city of Constantinople and its environs. The Turks captured the city in 1453 AD, ending the last pretense of the existence of this leg of the Roman empire.
In our discussion of Revelation chapter 13 in Christreich we interpreted the ten toes of Daniel chapter 2 a little differently, imagining them to be represented in the similar vision of Daniel chapter 7 by ten horns, and the original ten senatorial provinces of the Roman empire. They were Achaea, Africa, Asia, Crete and Cyrene, Cyprus, Gallia Narbonensis, Hispania Baetica, Macedonia and Thessaly, Pontus and Bithynia, and Sicily. Continuing with Comparet:
The year 1453 AD. marks the end of the four world empires of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Remember now the words which many preachers won’t face because it ruins their doctrines. In Daniel 2:44 Daniel records, “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed. The kingdom will not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and it shall stand forever.” We must find Yahweh’s own kingdom in this world, not in some remote future to which the preachers would like to assign it, but now. It must have had its beginning in the days of these kings and therefore we must study this period which we have seen extends from Daniel’s own time about 600 BC, to not later than 1453 AD, this is the period in which the kings of the Babylonian succession of empires ruled, as we have just learned.
We would rather imagine the Byzantine empire of 395 to 1453 AD to be but one portion of Daniel's fourth beast, among others. As Daniel 2:42 said, that fourth kingdom would be “partly strong, and partly broken”. Comparet is correct to assert that the Germanic nations, which were in a state of upheaval for several centuries before the fall of Rome where they finally finished settling into their historic living-places, were Daniel's fifth kingdom. It is they alone who broke in pieces all of the kingdoms which preceded them.
Why do the preachers like to ignore this verse of Daniel’s prophesy? There is a great kingdom which was set up within that period and which still exists, just as Yahweh promised Daniel it would. But it is a nation of Anglo-Saxon Israel and if they recognize this as a kingdom which the God of heaven set up, they can no longer deny the truth of the Anglo-Saxon Israel doctrines. So, they would rather try to make a liar out of Daniel than to admit that their own doctrines are in error and Yahweh has kept His promises to His people Israel.
If it shocks you to think that the nations of Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Scandinavian [people] today are the Israel of the kingdom of Yahweh, then be prepared to be shocked, for that is just what I am about to prove.
The kingdom of Yahweh is the only everlasting kingdom. Psalm 22:27-28 says, “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto Yahweh and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Thee. For the kingdom is Yahweh’s and He is the governor among the nations.” Psalm 145:13-14 records, “Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and Thy dominion endureth throughout all generations.” Daniel 4:3 adds, “How great are His signs and how mighty are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and His dominion is from generation to generation.”
This kingdom of Yahweh’s is not just an abstract idea, lost somewhere among the clouds, it is a very real kingdom upon this earth. It has not been governed as well while mere men rule it as it will be when Yahshua returns to be its king. Nevertheless, it is still the kingdom of Yahweh here on earth. Remember the words of Yahshua at Matthew 21:43, (as He told the Jewish usurpers who ruled in Judea), “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of Yahweh shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
And it is certain that Christ had meant a nation, which is a people of common history and origin living in a common culture, and Christ did not say a church.
Yahweh repeatedly promised to establish a kingdom, Yahweh’s own kingdom in this world and place descendants of King David upon the throne of Yahweh’s kingdom. In I Chronicles 17:11-12, 14 Yahweh’s promise to David was, “I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons and I will establish His kingdom. He shall build Me an house and I will establish his throne forever. I will settle him in Mine house and in My kingdom forever and his throne shall be established forevermore.”
David believed Yahweh’s promise for in I Chronicles 28:4-5 he said, “Howbeit the God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be a king of Israel forever, for He hath chosen Judah to be the ruler and of the house of Judah, the house of my father. Among the sons of my father He liked me to make me king over all Israel. Of my sons, for Yahweh hath given me many sons, He hath chosen Solomon, my son, to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel.”
This is a very real and substantial kingdom on this earth. In His famous parable of the tares sown among the wheat, in Matthew 13:38-41 Yahshua said, “The field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom but the tares are the children of the wicked one. The Son of man shall send forth His angels and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend and them that do iniquity.” Certainly the children of Satan, those who offend and do iniquity, are not in heaven with Yahweh, so they will yet have to be gathered from the sundry places where they reside. They are still here in this world, living here among the nations of Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Scandinavian Israel. You meet them and have business dealings with them every day. So, this is the same kingdom of Yahweh of which Yahshua spoke.
Here, as we pointed out last Friday, is the most glaring problem with the assertions of the preterists. They claim that all prophecy ended in 70 AD. Yet there are many prophecies and words of Christ in the Gospel that His enemies would eventually be rooted out and destroyed permanently. Yet speaking of 70 AD and the destruction to come upon Jerusalem, Christ only said that at that time His enemies would be taken captive into all nations for their punishment. So which is it? Clearly, all prophecy was not fulfilled then, and it is still not fulfilled today. We have not yet seen the fulfillment of these words of Christ in Matthew chapter 13 which Comparet cites here, and which are similar to promises in Obadiah and other prophets.
The Bible leaves no doubt that when Yahshua returns to rule the world, He will sit upon the throne of this very same kingdom. In Isaiah 9:7, which all churches recognize as prophesying of Yahshua it tells us, “Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal for Yahweh will perform this.”
Confirming this in the New Testament, we find the same thing in Luke 1:32-33, “He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest. Yahweh shall give unto Him the throne of his father David and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever and of His kingdom there shall be no end.” This is the same kingdom of Israel which Yahweh established under King David, a kingdom of Yahweh’s saints who are the children of Israel. Daniel 7:27 confirms it. “And the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heavens, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey him.”
Now we know these things: (1) The time within which Yahweh will set up the fifth great empire, which is in the days of these kings of the Babylonian series of four Gentile empires, between 600 BC. and 1453 AD. (2) The kingdom which Yahweh will set up is an everlasting kingdom and only the kingdom of Yahweh is everlasting. (3) It is an Israel kingdom, in fulfillment of Yahweh’s promises to David and to Yahweh’s chosen people Israel.
The word Gentile is a misnomer. Heathen would have been better. The children of Israel are the Gentiles of the New Testament: the Nations of the promise. Using the word Gentile as it is used in the King James Version, in 1 Corinthians chapter 10 Paul insists that the Gentiles to whom he had brought the Gospel are “Israel according to the flesh”.
For a little foundational information, we must go back even before 1500 BC. The Israelites were then in Egypt. In Genesis 49:8-10, the throne had been promised to the tribe of Judah, until Yahshua takes the throne. Judah had twin sons, Pharez and Zarah, but Pharez was born before Zarah so Pharez inherited the right to the throne. Ancient writings record that the descendants of Zarah were very able men, even King Solomon being compared to them in wisdom. Since they could never take the throne in Palestine, where their ability could be used in governing the people, a large part of the descendants of Zarah left Egypt even before the general exodus, looking for places where their abilities could be fully used. They migrated northward along the coast of Asia Minor and into parts of Greece. They founded the city of Troy and also the city Miletus. It is accepted in British history that after the fall of Troy, as described in Homer’s great poem The Iliad, Brutus the Trojan led a party of Trojans to the west and finally landed in England where they founded the city of London. The place where he landed is marked by a monument.
Here Comparet made another serious error which must be corrected. Homer had never mentioned Brutus, and his poems do not give a narrative of events during the fall of Troy. The Iliad ends before the city falls, and the Odyssey picks up in the aftermath, only mentioning certain events which were said to have occurred during the fall of Troy but focusing on the adventures of Odysseus after the war. The character of Brutus and the connection to Britain are not mentioned until the first century BC Aeneid of Virgil, written at a time when it would have been opportune for Caesar to justify his actions in Britain. But the account of Roman descent from the Trojans was accepted by Greek historians throughout the Classical and Hellenistic periods.
While I know of no record that Trojans actually founded Miletus, it was occupied in ancient times by the Carians, who were said to be Phoenicians and who took their kings from among the Trojan princes. They are listed among the allies of the Trojans in their famous war, in Homer's Iliad, Book 2.
The city of Miletus became powerful and famous. Its coins were stamped with the lion of Judah, Milesian mercenary troops were hired by Egypt as border guards. It established several colonies, the most important of which was in Spain. This Milesian colony in Spain became powerful and an expedition they sent to Ireland captured the whole island. Before that time there were several tribal kings in various parts of Ireland but the Milesians united them into one kingdom. Eochaid the Heremon became the first king of Ireland somewhat before 600 BC. The Milesian kings ruled Ireland until the overthrow of Roderick O’Conner, the last native Irish king, by the invading Anglo-Norman armies under King Henry II of England in 1171 AD. The Irish of today who have names beginning with “Mc” or “O”, are descendants of the Milesians.
For many centuries in Ireland, the Milesians were considered the legitimate royalty. The same was also said of the Trojans from early times in spite of their having lost the war to the Greeks. Julius Caesar had asserted his right to rule by his claimed descent from Aeneas, the prince of the Trojans who had come to Italy.
In the early centuries of the Christian era, Ireland was known as Scotia and its people as Scots. More and more settlements were made by them on the northern part of the island of Great Britain, until by a little after 500 AD, they founded a separate nation, Scotland. For a time, Ireland was called Scotia Major and Scotland was called Scotia Minor.
Meanwhile, the raids of the fierce Norse and Danish Vikings on the east coast of England had become so terrible, after the withdrawal of the last of the Roman legions in 408 AD, the Britons invited settlement along the channel coast by the Jutes, Angles and Saxons. Jutland is a part of modern Denmark, the Angles coming from what is modem Schleswig in Germany and the Saxons were part of the people who gave their name to Saxony in Germany. You will recall that before the Israelites left Scythia, two of their tribes were already known as the Angli (the Latin form of Angles) and the Saxons. So by the year 600 AD, we have Ireland, Scotland and England settled by Israelite people. Norse and Danish Vikings also settled areas along the English channel coast. In my discussion of “Historic Proof of Israel’s Migration”, I have mentioned the proof of the migration of the Israelites from Scythia into northern and western Europe, so there can be no doubt the settlers of the British isles are Israelites.
We cannot see the term Saxon as belonging to any specific tribe. Rather, the Persians used the term Sakae of the Scythians in general, as the Greeks had also used the terms Sakae of those Scythians who had migrated into Europe during the Persian period. Only later did the Greeks begin to call the Sakae by another general name, Galatae. So there were individual tribes with distinct names who had been called Sakae or Galatae in general. Later, the name, in the form of Saxons, clung to one portion of these tribes in the north, who had never been Romanized. Continuing with Comparet:
However, this period did not bring a consolidation of them into a single kingdom. Only Ireland was united under a single king, while the island of Great Britain was broken into many petty kingdoms, always at war with each other. We must look to a later date to find the consolidation into one kingdom.
Here Comparet's British Israel inclinations are beginning to show. The British and the Anglo-Saxons in Britain have no greater claim to be an Israelite kingdom than any of the Germanic nations and principalities of the continent. In fact, many of the Angles remained in Germany and are aming the Germans to this day. Yet because British and later Christian Identity studies took root among English-speaking people, its interpretations of prophecy have evolved into a very Anglophile ideology. The German principalities have often elected a single king, and have therefore been organized in a manner which also fulfills the descriptions given in Daniel and the other prophets. Yahshua Christ being King of Kings and Lord of Lords, it is evident that His kingdom on earth is found in a collection of earthly principalities, and not necessarily under a single earthly throne as it was under David. Otherwise, how could the patriarchs bear promises of being separate nations? In my opinion, it is time that the Anglophile view of Christian Identity be retired for a better understanding.
It is well established history that Norse Vikings raided the coasts of Gaul (modern France) for centuries, even capturing and looting the city of Paris three different times. Finally in 911 AD, King Charles II of France ceded the province of Normandy on the channel coast, to a Viking chief named Rollo, who became the first Duke of Normandy. This was done on condition that Rollo would settle large numbers of Norsemen there to form a buffer against further raids by Vikings chiefs. In fact, the word Norman is really just a form of Norseman and shows the racial makeup of its population. From Normandy came Duke William of Normandy, William the Conqueror in the year 1066 AD, in a successful invasion of England. His Norman followers were Israelite Norsemen, of the same racial strain as much of the population of England.
Actually, several counties of England had been populated with Norsemen before this, namely Mercer and Northumbria. England also had several Norse kings before William of Normandy, in the short-lived dynasty of Canute.
William the Conqueror established the English kingdom, which has continued without breaking since the year 1066 AD. True, there have been battles between competing claimants to the throne, but the successful contender never was a conqueror setting up a new kingdom, he was always a claimant to the existing throne of the kingdom of England. The kingdom has had an unbroken existence since the year 1066 AD. It is a well established historical fact that the kings of England and the queens, in the two reigns when there was no king, have all been descendants of King David of Israel. Thus Yahweh’s promise in Jeremiah 33:17 that David shall never lack a descendant to set upon the throne of Israel has been fulfilled.
Comparet paints a pretty face on William the Conqueror. However William gained the throne of England not by conquering it, but by the grace of God and the Anglo-Saxon nobility. Then he betrayed them and brought in the Jews to divide the lands and farm the taxes.
Let’s get back to Daniel and his five kingdoms. All the churches agree that history has proven the four kingdoms represented by Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to be Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander’s empire and Rome. Then Daniel goes on to say in Daniel 2:44, “in the days of these kings.” Daniel has been careful to mention only four kingdoms, the last of which we know to be the Roman empire. “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed.” Daniel never speaks of the toes or the clay in them as kings or kingdoms.
The continuity of the throne of David, through Ireland, Scotland and England is historically established. Now, what about the time of its establishment as the kingdom of England? As we observed, the final end of the Roman empire came in the year 1453 AD. But the present kingdom of England was established in the year 1066 AD, well within what Daniel calls, the days of these kings.
Again Comparet plays the Anglophile. The early Anglo-Saxon kings, just like those of Germany and Scandinavia, claimed the right to rule by their descent from a historical Odin, which is frequently mentioned in the Saxon Chronicles, and it is apparent that the earlier kings of the Irish and the Scots also intermarried with all of these other noble families over time. The English kings either before or after the time of the Normans have no better claim to royal blood above any of these other noble lines. Daniel's Fifth Kingdom is not a single Germanic nation, but rather it is a collection of Germanic nations under Christ. The Anglo-Saxons and Normans by themselves were not the stone that was “cut out of the mountain without hands” of Daniel 2:35 and 2:45. Rather, the Germanic nations collectively fit that description.
All the churches are willing to recognize Daniel as an inspired prophet, through the interpretation of the vision of the dream, as representing the four successive world empires. In the days of these kings, the kingdom of England was established and it became a world empire many times greater than all the previous world empires of world history. If this is not the kingdom set up by the God of heaven, as Daniel says, then how did Yahweh happen to overlook the most remarkable kingdom in all human history? No, this isn’t according to the accepted doctrines of most churches. They would rather reject the word of Yahweh than admit any of their doctrine might be mistaken. It is a bitter pill for them to swallow, for it proves that we who preach the Anglo-Saxon identity message are right. Yahweh did set up His kingdom in the days of these kings.
This concludes Comparet's original sermon.
Historically, England is the most treacherous of all Saxon kingdoms, having been under the thumb of the Jew since the days of Cromwell, as well as in the days of William of Normandy. The Germans and the Irish, the Scots and the Franks, as well as the related Scandinavians and other people, all have as large a role as the English had in making great the lands abroad that were established under the English. All of these nations together are Yahweh's kingdom.
Now we shall offer Clifton Emahiser's critical notes:
We must give Comparet much credit here for an exceptionally well presented lesson in Bible prophecy and the important history surrounding it. Like he says, nominal Churchianity, as a whole, recognizes the four kingdoms as represented by Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian and the Roman empires. Then suddenly, without any good reason for doing so, they change from an historical view of prophecy to a futurist view, whereas an historical view is the only correct one. They then project Daniel’s fifth kingdom 2000 years in the future well out of range of “the days of these kings”. As for “the days of these kings”, Comparet stated: “It must have had its beginning in the days of these kings and therefore we must study this period which we have seen extends from Daniel’s own time about 600 BC, to not later than 1453 AD, this is the period in which the kings of the Babylonian succession of empires ruled....” Comparet also stated in part: “The city of Rome was founded in 753 BC....” This date for the founding of the city of Rome brings up an interesting situation, for Rome in 753 BC would be the beginning of “the days of these kings” rather than 600 BC as he declared. That would make Daniel’s “the days of these kings” from 753 BC until 1453 AD! That would include Daniel’s own time when he wrote his prophecies! And since Yahshua Christ will not take David’s throne until after His Second Advent, He is not included in Daniel’s “the days of these kings” for He said at John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this age...” Therefore, there is a striking contrast between Daniel’s “the days of these kings” and Christ’s “My kingdom is not of this age...”
Actually, Christ had said that “My kingdom is not of this society”, but the effect is the same. The Roman Catholic Church claimed that it was Daniel's Fifth Kingdom, since it was set up “in the days of these kings”, but as Comparet already pointed out, Christ said that the Kingdom would be given over to a nation, and not to a pope. The modern Protestants resort to futurism because they cannot acknowledge the claims of the Roman Church. The truth is that the Kingdom of Yahweh is a collection of nations, the Anglo-Saxon, Keltic, Germanic and related peoples who are formerly known as Christendom, but who today are the Camp of the Saints surrounded by the armies of the Devil.
The futurists as well as the preterists would have a hard time accounting for that.
As I said in the first programs of this series criticizing Bertrand Comparet, we want to commend him and be grateful for what he had right, and how he pointed the way for us to study further. But we have to recognize, correct and improve on whatever he left us. Christian Identity is true, it is the only true attitude towards Scripture and history, and we have to have it as right as we can get it.