ORIGINAL BLOG POST PUBLISHED IN FINNISH ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2022

READING TIME: 20 MINUTES

---

I was finishing my new half-hour video called Biden’s War on America. The President of the Divided States, when I was informed by a Facebook friend that the longest reigning monarch in English history, Elizabeth II, has now passed away. I will post a trailer of just under a minute or two of that new Biden video tomorrow and by Sunday I will aim to post that longer video. To be honest, Elizabeth’s passing came as a bit of a surprise to me too. Not because she wasn’t already old, but because her health seemed to be relatively good until a few months earlier (Elizabeth’s own mother lived to be 101). From a prophetic point of view, I did expect something significant to happen in this year, which was Elizabeth’s 70th year on the throne, and from the Bible we find that in God’s prophetic timetable many significant events follow the “law of seven” and occur at intervals of seven years, 49 years or 70 years.

If you’re a long-time reader of my blog, you’ll know that I predicted some major upheaval this year for the royal house of England and its monarchy. For example, in December 2019 I wrote this: “In 2022 his mother would (if still alive) celebrate her 70th year on the throne and in 2023 it would be 70 years since her coronation in 1953. In the prophetic timeline of the Bible, many events follow one another, often in 70-year cycles. Therefore, the next 2-3 years will be a very interesting time.” Elizabeth came to the throne on 6 February 1952, so her reign lasted almost 70 years and 7 months to the day. A couple of days ago, a long-time follower of my blog sent me a video from a woman called Julie Green. She is one of the many Christians who prophesied Trump’s return for his second term as president.

I’ve watched a couple of videos from this woman, found the prophecies interesting, without taking any further position on them. I have not followed this woman’s prophecies more actively to say whether her prophecies have come true in the past or whether she has predicted something that would not have come true (by such predictions I mean predictions where something named is said to happen at such and such a time without anything happening). With regard to extra-scriptural prophecies, I generally try to follow Paul’s principle: “Do not despise prophecy, but test everything, keeping what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21). In this video posted by a follower of my blog, Julie Green, a few days ago, predicted that Elizabeth II would die and that Charles would be behind her mother’s death even if it was kept in the dark from the public. When I watched that video, I was quite sceptical about this prophecy. But now that Elizabeth II died just a few days after Green’s prophecy, I take it much more seriously. I quote Green’s prophecy below:

Prince Charles, the Lord just informed me today of this thing about Big Ben coming down and it’s a sign to Prince Charles that he’s coming down as well, because he’s part of the globalists and he wants that crown, he wants that power, the elitists want him to have that power and he wants it. He’s tired of waiting, they’re tired of waiting, because to get their one world government, they need everybody in line. The Queen is not in line with the elitist plans the way he is. The queen is not a sycophant in the same way that her son is. The Lord showed me that he would murder his mother because he is trying to get that crown faster.

Green’s guest says a little later, “I found the prophecy interesting because basically your prophecy says that the queen will die and that Charles would be involved in her murder… It’s really amazing that we know the events in advance because God reveals them to us before the actual news.” If Charles was really behind his mother’s death, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. I’ve been writing on my blog for years about how Charles was actually behind the death of his wife in a staged car accident. Diana told several friends that she feared for her life and knew her husband was planning a staged car crash for his ex-wife. Nor would it be at all unusual for the heir to the throne to decide to get rid of the monarch in order to hasten the succession to the throne, even in the recent history of the British royal family. Today it is admitted, right down to the British mainstream press, that Edward VIII, Elizabeth II’s uncle, who conspired with the Nazis, ordered George V’s doctor to murder his father before his natural death. The Guardian reported in March 2017:

Professor Bryant has not sufficiently explored the nuances of King George V’s death (Letters, 20 March). It is misleading to suggest that the royal family at the time did not know the nature of his death. What actually happened is that Queen Mary and her son, the soon-to-be-reigning Edward VIII, explicitly told the King’s physician Lord Dawson that they did not wish to prolong King George’s life unnecessarily in case his condition was fatal. There was no explicit order to kill, but Dawson was hinted that he would ‘do the right thing’ and he understood the hint clearly. He actually phoned his wife an hour before George was killed to get her to tell the Times to hold the front page official announcement of the King’s departure. It was premeditated.

It is difficult for modern readers to understand these circumstances. Perhaps the analogy with Lord Dawson is the classic aristocratic cliché of being left alone in a library with a whisky glass and a pearl-handled revolver. It is very difficult to believe that anyone would murder a ruling monarch without the consent of that monarch’s successor. That successor, Edward VIII, hated his father – and the feeling was mutual. This was an era when treason was still punishable by execution. The means, the motive, the opportunity – the conditions were there. Dawson’s notes are a signed confession that puts the seal on the whole affair. Even today, euthanasia is not in the law, and what Dawson did was unquestionably murder.

Let me return for a moment to Julie Green’s prophecies. The same woman gave another prophecy about Charles earlier this year. In it, Green predicted the following:

More revelations about the royal family. The division, yes there is a side truth to it, but there are liars in their midst. The line has been drawn and the truth has been revealed. There is a traitor in their midst and Charles is his name. Charles, the great fall is upon you, the scandal. Yes, you have committed crimes against this world, your own country and your own family. They have had enough.

Julie Green’s prophecies seem to correctly identify Charles as a key player in the globalist elite’s New World Order projects. They also speak to Charles’ crimes against the world, his country and his family, which I myself have been writing about and offering evidence of for years. But in all honesty, Green does not call Charles the Biblical Antichrist. Instead, she seems to believe that Barack Obama is that person. In that video a couple of days ago where she correctly predicted the Queen’s death, she also states, “Barack Obama and Michelle are going to protect him [Biden] no matter what, and we have to understand this because he [Obama] is the Antichrist – I mean, that’s how I’ve felt for many years, that God put this in my spirit when I saw him walking on stage accepting his presidential oath of office. At the time, I didn’t really know who he was before. I didn’t like him, I didn’t like what he said, because I could tell he was a liar.”

Green uses the phrase “the Antichrist” here to mean that she believes Obama is the ultimate Antichrist and not just one of many. Green seems to present this as her own subjective feeling and opinion rather than as an absolute “thus saith the Lord” prophecy. It is not my place to judge whether a prophetic revelation received by a Christian is genuine or not if it does not fit within the bounds of my eschatological interpretations. The gift of prophecy has its own office in the church as does the office of teacher, and the gift of both is imperfect and subject to human error. While every prophecy should always be tested in the light of God’s Word, it must be remembered that God’s Word can also often be misinterpreted. For this reason, the Bible says, “For our knowledge is imperfect, and our prophecy is imperfect” (1 Corinthians 13:9) and “in many things we all err. If a man does not err in speech, he is a perfect man, and is able to control his whole body also.” (James 3:2).

I wish I could say I lived so close to the Lord that I could receive personal messages from Him in my spirit as Julie Green claims to receive. I have never received any personal revelations from the Holy Spirit that would have convinced me that Prince Charles – or now I guess King Charles – is the ultimate Antichrist. In fact, I would advise you to steer clear of any teacher who claims something like this no matter who their Antichrist candidate is. I have certainly received messages of confirmation and encouragement from the Holy Spirit (at least according to those messages) from other Christians that I have identified the right person as a man of lawlessness.

My starting point for identifying the Antichrist has never been in any subjective “gut feelings” – “this is how I have felt”, “the Holy Spirit has revealed”, “I feel in my spirit”, or anything like that. My approach has always been based on a very deep and systematic study of prophecy, taking into account the teachings of Christians of different eras and trying to harmonize the conflicting eschatological schools. Any other approach is, in my view, sheer arrogance, because it completely ignores the long tradition of eschatological research and imagines that some one-second “ah-ha” experience will undo the biblical commentaries of the most prominent preachers in history, for which they worked all their lives. Tradition should never limit what the Holy Spirit wants to reveal about His Word to this generation, but neither should we forget that the Holy Spirit has been guiding the church throughout the history of the church.

For anyone can say, “The Holy Spirit has revealed to me that Jesus was a woman”. But it only takes a superficial understanding of the Bible to know that there is no female Jesus in the Gospels. Similarly, anyone can claim that “the Holy Spirit has revealed that Barack Obama is the Antichrist.” But even in the light of a superficial study of prophecy, we know that this person would have to come from the former Roman Empire and bear the title of prince or king (Daniel 7:24, 9:27, 8:23, 11:21, 36). While there may often be great differences in the interpretation of prophecy by different Christians, and it is very difficult to find complete agreement with anyone on eschatology, there are also “universal truths” that most Christians have agreed on since the early days of the church, just as they agree that Jesus was not a woman.

Is the Antichrist a prince or a king?

I must say that I managed to publish both my 354-page Finnish book and my 424-page English book on the same subject at just the right time, because the title of both books would have been a bit of a bad choice at a time when Charles is already king instead of crown prince. The English title of my book – To Whom The Majesty of Kingship Has Not Beeen Conferred may also be a little misleading, because someone might infer that Charles was never meant to inherit his mother’s throne. However, I have never argued this myself. The following passage comes from pages 86-89 of my Finnish book:

Daniel 11:21, says the following about him:

And in his place a despicable person will arise, on whom the majesty of kingship has not been conferred; but he will come in a time of tranquility and seize the kingdom by intrigue.

This verse is one of the most important Antichrist prophecies in the whole Bible, although I will deal with them very extensively in this book. For this reason, this verse must be examined in detail in both its original and Finnish translations. The beginning of the verse, “And in his place shall arise” refers to a hereditary monarchy, for in the prefigurative context of the vision it speaks of the rulers of the Syrian Macedonian Seleucid Empire, the last of whom arose Antiochus Epiphanes, the sadistic tyrant who persecuted the Jewish people in the second century BC and desecrated their temple in Jerusalem…

“despicable person will arise, on whom the majesty of kingship has not been conferred“.This would imply that the Antichrist is either not eligible to be king or is not wanted to be king. The 1992 translation of the Finnish Bible would argue for the former, “And in his place shall arise a despised man, to whom kingship is not due. He comes unexpectedly and takes the kingdom by guile.” The English King James translation, on the other hand, speaks for the latter, “And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.” That is, “a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom.” This refers to the people from whom the Antichrist will rise as king of his kingdom. “The honor of the kingdom” of course means kingship itself, the highest position of power and authority in the land.

The characterisation of this person as “disgraceful” suggests that his unpopularity is due to the scandals that have plagued this heir to the throne. However, the 1992 Finnish translation is the most accurate here, since the Hebrew form of the word is bazah , בָּזָּה , which literally means a despised person. So if we approach the Bible prophecies in the most literal way, we should expect the Antichrist to be a despised heir to the throne in his own country, whom his own people do not want as their king. “but he will come in a time of tranquility and seize the kingdom by intrigue.” In a time of tranquility the midst of peace, which King James translates, “in peaceably” is Hebrew shalvah, שַׁלְוָּה which can be translated, with complacency, “in quietness” or “in time of peace”. The word for intigue is chalaqlaqqoth , חֲלַׁקְלַׁקָּה which means hypocrisy, intrigue or slickness. Considering the latter, the best translation might be, “He comes in silence and usurps the kingdom with his intrigue.”

So even if the people don’t want him as their king, he manages to get the kingship by conspiring quietly behind the scenes. Consider how closely this fits Prince Charles, one of the most despised heirs to the throne in British history, who has connived behind the scenes to get rid of the enemies of his succession, including his own wife, and has since used unscrupulous PR gurus like Mark Bolland to restore his own public image after Diana’s death.

Daniel 11:21 – from which both the English and the Finnish titles of my book are derived – foretells not that the Antichrist will never receive the majesty of kingship, but that his own people will not give him the glory of kingship, but who will nevertheless succeed in getting the crown on his head by his plots and conspiracies. The later part of the prophecy in verse 36 explicitly describes this person as a king and not a prince. Similarly, Daniel 8:23 predicts of the Antichrist, “And at the end of their reign, when the apostates have filled up the measure of their sins, a kingwill arise , arrogant in countenance and skilful in craft.” A couple of prophecies, though, also characterize him as a prince. Ezekiel 21:25 calls him “prince of Israel” and Daniel 9:27 describes him as prince of the Romans (not explicitly, but this can be inferred from the context of the prophecy). As I explained in my book, the title of Prince of Wales, heir to the English throne, means precisely Prince of the Romans in its etymological sense, in the science that studies the origin of words.

So the biblical answer to the question of whether the Antichrist is a prince or a king is “both”. However, I have previously thought and theorized that Charles would only become king during the actual seven-year period of the tribulation. I based this idea mainly on the fact that when the Antichrist makes the seven-year covenant with Israel in Daniel 9:27, he would still be a prince and not a king at that point, since he is characterized in the verse as “Prince of the Romans” (i.e., Prince of Wales, a title he loses when he becomes king). On the other hand, Daniel 11:21 would suggest that this person would ascend to the throne of his fathers (I also showed in my book how Daniel 11:10-5 foretold the rise and fall of the British Empire and the reign of Charles’ “fathers” George VI and George V) during the period preceding the time when many would ally themselves with him (verse 23), which would seem to refer to his seven-year alliance with the nation of Israel. And on the other hand – as I already mentioned in my English book – Charles made his first state visit to Israel in January 2020, when he was still a prince. It was during that trip that he pledged to become a peacemaker in the Middle East, as The Times of Israel, for example, reported in its headline. The Times reported:

In his interview, Charles also expressed his wish for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. “I have spent most of my life trying to bring people together,” he said. Asked whether he considers himself a peacemaker, he replied: “I am trying. I would rather be a peacemaker. I think the most important thing [in the region] is a just and lasting peace,” he was quoted as saying. Yes, I pray. I pray very hard all the time.” The Times said he ended the interview with the Arabic word “inshallah” (God willing).

Moreover, as Tim Cohen documented in his book more than 20 years ago, Charles’ key behind-the-scenes role in the Middle East peace process began as early as 1987 after his first visit to the Gulf. So the Prince of Wales, the Prince of the Romans, has been conspiring to bring about the peace treaty foretold in Daniel 9:27 for 35 years. Does he have to be a prince at the very time when that covenant is put into effect? Tim Cohen has taught, at least in the past, that Charles would probably never be king. I myself have disputed this claim in the light of the above passages, among others. Cohen’s thinking has been primarily based on the fact that as king Charles would also lose his title Charles, Prince of Wales, which counts as 666 in both English and Hebrew using the biblical Greek-Hebrew gematria referred to in Revelation 13:16-18 in its original context. Likewise, his coat of arms, full of biblical fraud symbolism, would change when he is a king.

But does Charles necessarily need this number or the coat of arms symbolism anymore during the tribulation period if he already met these Antichrist criteria during his time as prince? The same question could be asked this way: is the exhortation in Revelation 13 to identify the beast by the number of his name meant for Christians who live during the tribulation or for Christians in the church age (which I see as separate dispensations)? I would say the latter so that we could identify this person in advance and warn the world of him before his time. Isn’t this the very purpose of prophecy: to gain knowledge of things that have not yet come to pass so that we can warn the world of them before they come to pass? Christians living in an age of tribulation already know who the Antichrist is. They no longer need to speculate about it and look for numerological meanings in the names of world leaders. At that time, the world will be ruled with an iron hand by only one leader above all others, whom every spiritually aware Christian knows to be the Antichrist.

On the other hand, developments in the coming days and months are still shrouded in mist and it is not entirely certain that Charles will eventually inherit his mother’s throne. And what if the succession of an unpopular heir to the throne does lead to a constitutional crisis? What if the people demand a referendum on Elizabeth II’s successor? What if William succeeds his father as king? Would Charles then usurp the ‘honour of kingship’ by his plots and machinations, as he already seemed to have done, if he was really behind his mother’s death as suggested in Julie Green’s prophecy. How many more family members will have to kill in his lust for power? What is the great scandal that would ravage Charles in the near future as prophesied by Julie Green?

You can order my book :

To whom the Majesty of Kingship has not been Conferred – The Antichrist revealed? here

To whom the majesty of kingship has not been conferred