Russia And Constantinople – Identifying Russia’s Role in Bible Prophecy

In his autobiography Brother Roberts wrote the following: “During this time, the Crimean War broke out we had all been looking out for an advance by Russia upon Constantinople, and it was very exhilarating to find events apparently shaping in that very direction. It was a great disappointment however, to find Russia foiled and finally driven back by the allied defenders of Turkey”.’ Over a hundred years later Christa­delphians are still waiting for this aspect of prophecy to be fulfilled. The following article identifies the relevant prophecy and assesses how near we are to seeing Russia possessing Constantinople.

The prophecy

REVELATION 16:13 reads: “And! saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet”. The powers mentioned in this verse are all in existence when Christ returns to fight at Armageddon. Of the three the dragon is of particular interest for the present study.

The dragon in Revelation begins life by symbolising pagan Rome in Revelation 12. In chapter 13 we find the dragon representing a slightly different system:

“And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority” (Rev. 13:2).

This verse reflects the division of the Roman Empire following the overthrow of its pagan rulers by Constantine. He established an alternative capital to Rome in the east of the empire and called it Constantinople. The new capital became the military headquarters of the empire, and although it also had a small religious role the city of Rome still remained the chief religious centre. Rome relied on Constantinople for military support. So it was that the military dragon gave the religious beast “his power, and his seat, and great authority”.

Nothing more is heard of the dragon until Revelation 16. In view of the use of this symbol in Revelation 13, and the way it is placed in conjuction with the beast in Revelation 16, we understand the dragon in this chapter to be a latter-day equivalent of the power which had possessed Constantinople when the Roman Empire was divided into two.

Historical links

When we look for candidates to fulfil this latter-day role the Russian empire stands out as the only realistic possibility. We know from Ezekiel 38 that Russia is to extend southwards over many countries before the battle of Armageddon. Clearly the power which possesses Constanti­nople (now known as Istanbul) will have great authority, as the dragon had in Revelation 13. Given this fact, together with the expansion Gog is to achieve, the power in Ezekiel 38 and the dragon in Revelation 16 must surely be one and the same.

There are, moreover, deep historical connec­tions between Russia, Constantinople and Rome, which mark out the country as the latter-day dragon. In several respects Russia grew out of the old Byzantine Empire centred around Constanti­nople (formerly called Byzantium). These Byzantine roots were highlighted by the marriage in 1472 between Ivan III, the Tsar of Russia, and Sophia Paleologus, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor. It was around this time that Moscow came to be known as the ‘third Rome’. In 1510 the monk Theophilus wrote to the Tsar Vasily III: “The Apostolic church . . . stands no longer in Rome or in Constantinople, but in the blessed city of Moscow. . . Two Romes have fallen, but the third stands and a fourth there will not be”.2 Previously Ivan III had strengthened the cultural links with Rome by inviting five Italian architects to design and rebuild one of the city’s main cathedrals. Constantinople had developed under a combination of Roman and Byzantine influ­ence. Muscovite culture now became injected with Italian and Byzantine thought comple­menting its own native culture.

The connections Russia has with the old Eastern Roman Empire (of which much more could be said) are important for two reasons. Firstly, they show just how fitting it is for Russia to be the dragon in Revelation 16. Secondly, the connections themselves have been partly respon­sible for what one writer has termed “Russia’s historical aspirations toward Constantinople”.3 That is to say, the very connections we have identified between Russia and Constantinople have provided the incentive for Russia fully to live out her adopted and self-imposed spiritual role as the driving force in the Eastern Roman Empire by actually physically possessing the city of Constantinople.

This was illustrated around the time of the war between Russia and Turkey which broke out in 1768. During this period the attention of Russian eyes was focused more than ever on the capture of the city. As two historians have written: “It was then that the dream of recovering Constan­tinople for Orthodoxy perhaps under Cath­erine’s grandson, portentously christened Con­stantine was revived”.4 Nevertheless, as during the Crimean War in the following century, the Russians were to be foiled.

We are suggesting then that there are deep-seated cultural and religious ties between Russia and Constantinople which have been respon­sible, over the centuries, for drawing Russia towards the city. Nor should it be thought that the Revolution has erased these spiritual aspirations from the Russia of today. This ambition is identified by R. S. Tarn as “another feature which the Soviet state shares with the Tsarist state”.5 The writer Machagan confirms this view and also introduces another reason why Russia has long desired this city: “It is ineluctably true that the rulers of the ‘third Rome’ have long covet­ed possession of the second for both historical and geographical reasons”.6 It is these geographi­cal reasons which we will consider next.

Strategy

Istanbul lies on a narrow neck of water known as the Bosphorus. This links the Black Sea with the Sea of Marmara and ultimately the Mediter­ranean. Clearly the power that controls this area has a massive strategic advantage. At present it lies under Turkish control and the Russians have only limited access through it. If the Russians took Constantinople and the surrounding area their  Black Sea fleet based at Sevastopol would have complete freedom of movement in and out of the Mediterranean and would be in a much stronger position to confront the U.S. fleet present there at the moment. Nor indeed would the improved position this would put them in with regard to an invasion of Israel be lost on the Russians. As far back as the late sixties the Russian Admiral Gorshkov recognised that the Russian Black Sea fleet, even though it had limited access, had a “sobering effect on Israel”.7

Turkey

The spiritual and strategic incentives which influenced the Russians during the days of Robert Roberts are still at work today. There is one factor extant at present, however, which indi­cates that perhaps more than ever we should be expecting a Russian advance on Constantinople. That factor is the weak position of Turkey.

Turkey has long been in a state of unrest and instability. To combat recent internal troubles martial law was introduced. Such has been the length of time that martial law has been required that on November 15th 1984 the International Labour Organisation meeting in Geneva found it necessary to make a formal request to the Turkish Government to complete the abolition of martial law as soon as possible so that normal trade union activities could resume. The EEC further proposed to make a cut of around £13 million in aid to the country in 1985 because of its disquiet at the political situation.

Russia’s adeptness at taking advantage of a country in turmoil is well known. Many com­mentators fear that Turkey could soon fall prey to Russia. As one writer has said: “Since Turkey lies on the frontier of Europe, the condition of that country is of obvious concern to the rulers of the West. This concern has been reinforced by recent events in lands further east, events which have inspired the fear that Turkey might fall prey to religious zealots like Iran or to Soviet invaders like Afghanistan”.8

Constantine Chernenko

Mention was made earlier of the grandson of Catherine who was “portentously christened Constantine”. At the time of writing the president of Russia is Constantine Chernenko. He has the disadvantage of age and ill health, and perhaps this would preclude him from being the man to lead Russia into Turkey. However, in the near future he may be tempted to initiate a military attack in order to correct an embarrassing absence of soldiering in his career.

The only claim President Chernenko has to military activity is his role as a border guard in the 1930s in Central Asia. The president spent the war as a party official in Siberia. This is particularly embarrassing because in May 1985 the Russians will be celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. In order to make the most of his meagre military career the Russians have made a film called Frontier Post Youth, which depicts the supposed courage of the young Chernenko.9 Perhaps the president will feel the need to prove his military worth. What better way than to capture Istanbul and rename it after himself?

Conclusion

Whoever the man is to be who will lead Russia into Turkey, Christadelphians today have as much reason to be as excited by events around Turkey as Brother Robert Roberts was in the last century. The time is ripe for Russia to take Constantinople. The long coveted prize will then be gained. Russia will then take on fully the role of the dragon, giving power and authority to the papacy in the West.

References

  1. Roberts, My Days And My Ways (Birmingham, 1917), p. 21.
  2. M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece: A Short History (Faber and Faber, 1984), p. 109.
  3. Crankshaw, Readings in Russian Foreign Policy, edited by R. A. Goldwin (Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 710.
  4. L Kochan and R. Abraham, The Making of Modern Russia (Penguin Books, 1983), p. 138.
  5. S. Tarn, Readings in Russian Foreign Policy, op. cit., p. 698.
  6. Machagan, The City of Constantinople (Thames and Hudson, 1968), p. 101.
  7. Fairhall, Russia Looks to the Sea (Andre Deutsch Limited, 1971), p. 55.
  8. Mango, “Understanding Turkey”, Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 18 Number 2, April 1982, p. 194.
  9. Reported in The Times, December 10 1984, p. 5.