Without doubt, what seemed so hopelessly remote and improbable only two years ago appears to be moving at an unprecedented pace towards the deceptive Mideast peace that sets the stage for the final sequence of events leading to the Lord’s return. Just what form this will take or how long it will be in its development remains to be seen, but prophecy clearly shows that a disarming illusion of peace is the necessary prelude to the shock that must come to Israel and the world.

The danger that besets these exciting developments is the tendency to make premature announcements that discredit prophecy just when its greatest potential for witness and warning is nearing the appointed time when it will be time to say with assurance and authority, “this is that!” (Acts 2:16). Even now, well meaning prophecy watchers are making premature declarations that the final seven has already started.

Others are more cautious to say only that the conditions necessary for the peace that begins the final seven are falling fast into place. Although a necessary first step, the enforcement of a multi-national peace arrangement is not by itself sufficient to signal the start of the last seven, UNLESS this is accompanied by certain equally foretold conditions and signal events. This is what we want to look at in what follows, as it will be a safeguard against the false alarms and premature announcements that are sure to fill the air.

It might be time well repaid for serious students of the scripture to become at least somewhat familiar and respectful of the kind of difficulties and perplexities that have baffled Daniel scholars of all schools (Prov 18:13<; 2Tim 2:15). It is well to remember that according to Daniel’s prophecy, certain outstanding details will not be unsealed till the end is very near (Dan 12:4, 9). Yet, the scripture is equally clear that these things will be revealed well enough before the end to ‘prepare a people to prepare a people’ (Dan 11:33; 12:3, 10).

So while we can expect the signs that Daniel reveals to come into increasing clarity as the time nears, caution, patience, and humility is appropriate, since no other book has given rise to more diverse and conflicting interpretations.

Not only this, but Daniel has been the most tortured object of critical attack by so-called higher criticism than any book of the canon. This should not surprise us, since Satan knows that the end of his rule has been set according to Daniel’s timeline (Rev 12:12).

The difficulties that have plagued Daniel scholarship is not a call to resigned despair or neglect, but to prayer and patient waiting for the promised unsealing that is divinely set to serve its greatest purpose at “the time of the end” (Dan 8:17; 11:27, 35, 40; 12:4, 9, 13). Part of that purpose will be the compelling witness of fulfilled prophecy and its meaning as a catalyst for what scripture more than hints will be the greatest worldwide harvest of souls in history (compare Dan 11:33; 12:3; Mt 24:14; Rev 7:9, 13-14; 14:6).

Paradoxically the great number that will be saved out of “the tribulation, the great one” (double use of the definite article in the Greek) will take place during the time of the greatest deception and revolt against the truth (Mt 24:4-5, 11, 24; 2Thes 2:11; Rev 13:14).

The difficulties that have baffled and divided Daniel scholarship only further confirms that God has chosen to keep certain mysteries under wraps till the appointed time (Isa 8:14-17; Dan 9:24; 12:4, 9). It is also no surprise that Satan is fully invested to obscure and discredit this most embattled of all biblical books.

The unequaled tribulation of the final half week begins with a war in heaven. Michael “stands” to thrust Satan down to earth. This is the moment Satan fears most, since it means his tenure as “the god of this age” has been reduced to a final 3 ½ years (compare Dan 12:1, 11; Mt 24:15, 21, with Rev 12:7-14).

Because “he sees his time is short” (Rev 12:12), his total focus will be to defeat the promise by wiping out the Jewish race before it reaches the finish line at Jesus’ post-tribulational return to “finish the mystery of God” (Amos 3:7 with Rev 10:7). Hence, it may well be said that the downfall of the devil is in the details of Daniel, since the unsealing of Daniel’s prophecy sets in motion the final unmasking of Satan in the revelation of the ancient mystery of lawlessness in the revelation of the man of lawlessness (2Thes 2:3-4, 7-8).

Until then, there is much that can be known that will be decisive in whether we are prepared to recognize what is most urgent to know in the time most urgent to know it. Until then, we should approach the mysteries of Daniel with humility and patience, in the faith conviction that difficulties that seem to defy easy resolution do not exist by chance but by sovereign design. God intends that His children know they are searching out a divinely ordained mystery that is not intended to yield its full light apart from the mercy and grace of our sovereign teacher, the Holy Spirit.

Those will be most blessed in the time of full disclosure who have “searched and inquired diligently” (1Pet 1:10). Blessed are those who, in trembling dependence on the Holy Spirit, have “set their heart” to understand (Dan 10:12) the divine secrets that it has been God’s pleasure to conceal from the prideful, self-reliant wisdom of this age (Mt 11:25-26; 1Cor 2:7-8).

Not that we will resolve every question, but we want to know what the evidence rules out, rules in, or leaves open to question till the time. We want to identify any safeguards that the scripture provides that will protect us from the peril of presumption, as prophecy has been so marred and discredited by the false alarms of prophetic speculation.

But there is a time to sound the alarm, and it is always time to study and prepare ourselves to recognize the time when it arrives. We want to be neither early nor late when it is time to announce that “the time is fulfilled” (Dan 11:33; 12:3; Hab 2:2-3; Mk 1:15).

From our study, it seems most probable that the scripture intends that we look for the Antichrist to arise from somewhere to the north of Israel. Since the pattern of the past often prefigures the future in Hebrew prophecy, it becomes significant that the final aggressor, whose end coincides with the redemption of the great day, is specifically called “the Assyrian” in the typology of the pre-exilic prophets, Isaiah and Micah (Isa 10:5-6, 24:17; 11:4; 14:25; 19:23; 30:31; 31:8; Mic 5:1-7).

In Isaiah and Jeremiah, the foe from the north (“north country”) is identified with the Chaldeans under the king of Babylon (Isa 14:4, 12-14, 25-26, 31-32; 23:14; 47:1, 6, 9; Jer 6:22; 10:22; 50:9). In Ezekiel, the last aggressor is Gog. Clearly, this is the final aggressor, long foretold, not only by Ezekiel but by the many prophets of Israel (see Eze 38:17).

The nations under his command surround Israel from all sides (Eze 38:5-7, 9), but his descent is always depicted as coming from the “far north” (NKJV; NIV) / “uttermost parts of the north” (ESV; ASV) / “distant north” (NLT) / “remotest parts of the north” (NASB / CSB  (Eze 38:15; 39:2).

Here too, there is cause for caution. Who is Gog? When does he attack and how long does the battle last? How far north is his country or countries of origin?

Since Gog’s multinational invasion begins when Israel is in a state of unsuspecting false security (Isa 28:14-18; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; Dan 11:23-24; 1Thes 5:3) but ends with Gog’s destruction at the Armageddon “great day of God Almighty” (Eze 39:8 with Rev 16:12-19) and Israel’s everlasting salvation (Eze 39:22, 28-29), the only conclusion that fits all the evidence is that this battle comprehends the entire 42 months of the great tribulation. It starts with the shock of an unexpected invasion that violates the illusory presumption of peace and ends with Israel’s post-tribulational regeneration and everlasting salvation.

This is significant because the full cast of nations that are gathered by the seduction of demon spirits to Armageddon (compare Dan 11:40-45 with Rev 16:12), do not join the fray until very late towards the end of the tribulation (compare Dan 11:40-45 with Rev 16:12-17; Eze 39:8). This means Ezekiel’s comprehensive vision of Eze 38 & 39 may include nations that come in at the end and are not necessarily one of the union of ten that strike Israel at the beginning of the tribulation.

Furthermore, since Gog is called a “chief prince” over many nations (Eze 38:2-3; 39:1), this may imply something more than only a human leader. According to Paul, “his coming is after the working of Satan with ALL power, signs, and deceiving wonders (2Thes 2:9). Never before has the world seen anything like this.

The case is too involved to enter upon here, but we believe the “mystery of lawlessness” (2Thes 2:7) that is revealed in the man of lawlessness is the revelation of Satan in the flesh, the antithesis of the mystery of God manifest in the flesh (1Tim 3:16). I mention this because the scripture calls the archangel, Michael, “one of the chief princes (Dan 10:13).

This suggests that “THE chief prince” over the nations of the gentiles (Gen 10) could be Satan himself, cryptically referred to as Gog. Gog would then double as both Satan and the Antichrist because he fulfills the mystery of Satan in the flesh. This understanding explains why this title is again used to apply to Satan’s post-millennial release for the “little season” of futile threat to the everlasting peace of regathered Israel (Rev 20:3, 7-9).

But beyond this general reference to the southward descent of the northern invader, depending on how certain debated passages in Daniel are interpreted, it is possible that the typology of the scripture points us to a much narrower, more specific territory from which the final Antichrist may be expected to rise. The passages in question are Dan 8:8-9 & Dan 11:3-21. These verses specify the territory ruled by Antiochus Epiphanes IV. He was the Greek tyrant who attacked Jerusalem and famously desecrated the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar and erecting a statue of Zeus in 167 BCE.

Because Antiochus arose out of one of the four primary divisions of Alexander’s kingdom, scholars usually identify him as the “little horn” of Dan 8:9 who also abolished the daily sacrifice in Dan 8:11. But while Antiochus IV was certainly a type of the “coming prince” (Dan 9:26), we will show in what follows why we cannot accept that he was the complete and ultimate fulfillment.

In notable contrast to Antiochus, the coming “little horn” of Dan 7:8 (the final Antichrist) is one who rises up from among ten nations to lead them in a united invasion Israel. The end of the little horn comes, not three years after the abomination of desolation is placed, as in the case of Antiochus’ desecration (Dec 164 to Dec 167), but 3 1/2 years later with the completion of the predestined half week of Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11).

Such often neglected distinctions are placed in the text to protect the careful interpreter from a hasty presumption that a near parallel or partial fulfillment in the past has sufficiently satisfied the language of the text. It is certain that Jesus was not satisfied that Antiochus’ desecration sufficiently fulfilled Daniel’s reference to the abomination of desolation. He puts it fully in the future in relation to the unequaled tribulation that ends with nothing short of His return in glory and the resurrection of the righteous (compare Mt 24:15, 21, 29-31 with Dan 12:1-2).

Moreover, so far from being a “little horn” who “becomes strong with a small people” (Dan 11:23), Antiochus rose to power in the largest of the four “notable horns” of Alexander’s divided kingdom (Dan 8:5, 8). The territory of the Seleucid Empire stretched from Antioch (named after his father, Antiochus III) to the Mesopotamian regions of Babylonia and Assyria, all of which had been under Macedonian control after the division of Alexander’s kingdom among his successors (Dan 8:8-9; 11:3-21).

On this basis, it has been long expected that someone would rise up from within that general territory towards the end of Hosea’s 2nd millennial day (Hos 5:15-6:2). For this reason, many were reasonably considering whether Jolani (aka Amed al Sharaa) might be the fulfillment of one who would stand up in the estate of Antiochus IV, the great eschatological prototype of the final AC.

The problem with Jolani’s candidacy for the one who enters into an alliance with Israel (Dan 11:23) is that he did not come into power “peaceably”, nor by deceit and smooth promises, as stated in Dan 11:21, but by force of arms. I’m aware that some translations translate, Dan 11:24 “at a time of peace, or tranquility” but that too fails to fit the conditions by which Assad of Syria was so suddenly replaced.

And yet, never has there been a more credible and promising prospect for the kind of deceptive, false peace that the scripture depicts as necessarily preceding the sudden and unexpected outbreak of the final tribulation as we’re now seeing unfold before our eyes (compare Isa 28:14-18; Jer 30:3-7; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; Dan 9:27; 11:24; Mt 24:15-16, 21; 1Thes 5:3; Rev 11:2 with Joel 2:1-3). Ominously, this is all taking place after the greatest upsurge of rabid world antisemitism, not seen since the Hitler time. By any fair reckoning, the stage is being set.

Whether the territory once ruled by Antiochus IV significantly narrows the general area of the AC’s origin will depend on our answer to a very important question debated by scholars. Does the “ vile / despicable person” of Dan 11:21 refer to Antiochus or the future Antichrist, or both? If to Antiochus, this would mean that the willful king who exalts himself over all forms of deity in Dan 11:36-37 is someone else entirely, already nearly 22 centuries removed from Antiochus’ time. You see the puzzle.

The far greater consensus among Daniel scholars is that Dan 11:21 & Dan 11:36 are speaking of two distinct individuals separated by many centuries. This means that both do the same thing, as described in nearly precisely the same words. Both take away the daily sacrifice (regular burn offering) and place the abomination. To reiterate, this would mean that Dan 11:31 (assumed to be past) is a completely different event from Dan 12:11 (assumed to be future).

So, is it only Antiochus, (as a highly descriptive type of the coming Antichrist) who is introduced in Dan 11:21? Or is it the Antichrist himself? All will agree that Antiochus functions as a type, but “if” Dan 11:21 does not introduce the Antichrist, then looking for him to rise somewhere within the estate (general vicinity) of Antiochus IV loses its primary support. It opens the field for him to come from a more expansive area, albeit necessarily to Israel’s north.

Antiochus came into the estate of his deceased brother, Seleucus IV, who succeeded his father, Antiochus III. This becomes significant if Antiochus is a type of the Antichrist, but especially if the person who comes to power in verse 21 is the same person who exalts himself in Dan 11:36-37. I want to show in what follows that there is no exegetical justification to find the break between antiquity and the time of the end between verse Dan 11:35 & Dan 11:36, but much more likely between Dan 11:20 & Dan 11:21.

We begin by pointing out where agreement is almost universal. Due to Paul’s verbatim quotation of Dan 11:36-27 in 2Thes 2:4, few will dispute that Daniel’s willful king is Paul’s man of lawlessness. Nor is there any disagreement that Jesus quotes the language of Dan 11:31 & Dan 12:11 to identify the sign that He expects His disciples to recognize as the event that starts the unequaled tribulation (Dan 11:31; 12:1, 11 with Mt 24:15-16, 21).

But is the abomination of Dan 11:31 the same event as the abomination of Dan 12:11? This is the very question that has divided Daniel scholars. It will decide whether the events spanning from Dan 11:21-35 have relevance for the future.

Though several reputable commentators over the years have offered a compelling defense of the position we take (I have a few in my library), we remain in the comparatively rare minority. This is not the place to recount them all, but there are notable details in Dan 11:21-35 that do not agree with certain aspects of the well documented history of Antiochus Epiphanes IV’s career leading up to his desecration of the temple. We will look at just a couple of examples:

With rare exception, most conservative scholars assume that because Antiochus was such a remarkable type of the coming man of lawlessness that the references to the removal of the sacrifice in Dan 8:11 & Dan 11:31 can only apply to him as the complete and final fulfillment, leaving only Dan 9:27 & Dan 12:11 to have a future fulfillment.

Let us look more closely at what this postulate implies. If Dan 11:31 has in view a different time and event than Dan 12:11, this would mean that mention of the abomination and removal of Tamid (regular burnt offering) of Dan 12:11 is NOT referring back to the familiar event mentioned earlier in Dan 11:31. Instead, it means that Dan 12:11, while a very similar event, is already nearly 22 centuries removed from the abomination of Dan 11:31, despite its being described in so nearly the same words.

These are the very words that Jesus will use to describe the sign that marks the beginning of the final tribulation that will surpass anything in the past or future (Mt 24:15-21). Even His reference to the unequaled time of trouble in Mt 24:21 is a direct quotation of Dan 12:1. Therefore, to NOT expect a future repeat of a very similar act in “Judea”, comparable to Antiochus’ desecration, amounts to a blatant denial of Jesus’ own, manifest understanding.

This is why Jesus sends His disciples to read and understand Daniel’s account of this particular event (Mt 24:15). He knew that by these unmistakable connections the time and nature of this massively transitional event would be recognized by His sheep, visibly, unmistakably, beyond any question (Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4). This will be their strategic advantage for the final thrust of the gospel before the end (Mt 24:14).

Should we then accept the verdict of the far greater number of commentators who believe that Dan 11:21-35 should be interpreted to apply to Antiochus, not as an archetypal foreshadowing of that last aggressor, but as completely fulfilled in 167 BCE by his desecration of the temple? This would also mean that Dan 11:32-35 are applied, not to the tribulation of the end, but to the ensuing persecution of Antiochus that ended in the triumph of the Maccabean warriors and rededication of the temple almost exactly three years later in 164 BCE.

While not all agree that 11:21-35 is past history, there is broad consensus that the abomination and removal of the daily sacrifice of Dan 12:11 is the start of the half week of Dan 7:25; 9:27; 11:12:7; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5). On this we agree. We do not agree that Dan 11:21-35 can be consigned to the past. This means Dan 11:31 & Dan 12:11 are both equally future. Dan 11:31 was partially prefigured by Antiochus’ desecration, but both 11:31 & 12:11 have primary and ultimate reference to the same event.

So to summarize: Because Paul is so clear in his duplication of the words of Dan 11:36-37 applied to the man of lawlessness in 2Thes 2:4, most scholars locate the gap of centuries between versus 35 & 36. From this point to the end of the book, there is common agreement that the topic is the future Antichrist and the unparalleled tribulation of the final 3 ½ years.

This is not in dispute. Our difference lies with the view that Dan 11:21-35 has been fulfilled by Antiochus IV in the second century BCE. Antiochus was a type and pattern of the one to come but he did not satisfy some of the necessary details of the prophecy, thus demanding a future and more complete fulfillment, arriving at the end that is “determined” (Dan 9:24, 26; 11:36) / “appointed” (Dan 8:19; 11:27, 35).

In several notable particulars, Antiochus does not well enough match the profile that history provides. His rise to power certainly did not begin in the way described. He was certainly no “little horn”, since he never began with a “small people” but inherited directly and at once his father’s and brother’s rule over the greatest of the four “notable horns” (Dan 8:9; 11:5).

To argue for the break of centuries to be located between verses Dan 11:35 & Dan 11:36 would mean that the “willful king” of vs 36 introduces another individual entirely, but the continuity of the preceding succession of pronouns militates against such a conjecture. In all, the cumulative evidence weighs against the view that Dan 11:31 & 12:11 are completely different events, signifying two different ends of two different times, centuries removed, despite being described in by the words in the the same prophecy. How likely? You decide.

The stakes are high in this decision, because “if” commentators are wrong in their consignment of Dan 11:21-35 to antiquity, a substantial number of revealed details about the first half of Daniel’s 70th week risks being robbed from the knowledge and witness of the church. We can hardly begin to estimate how invaluable this knowledge will prove to be in its appointed time.

So much is at stake whether the godly remnant will be able to recognize and benefit from a knowledge of the events that occupy the first half Daniel’s 70th week that run from Dan 11:23-30.

So, we ask, does the “appointed time of the end” in Dan 11:27, 35 refer to a completely different end than the “time of the end” in Dan 12:4, 9, 13? The far greater number of scholars think so. What do you think? Will it matter then? Doesn’t matter now?

Notice too that the reference in Dan 11:27 to “the appointed time of the end” comes before the first mention of the abomination of desolation in Dan 11:31. How then can we say that the same “appointed end” mentioned in Dan 11:35 refers to a different end than described in Dan 12:4, 9-13? The details of the text must take priority whether history confirms a complete fulfillment or only partial fulfillment, designed to function only as a type and pattern of a more complete and comprehensive fulfillment in the future.

As mentioned, many, actually most commentators make “appointed time of the end” in Dan 11:27 & Dan 11:35 to be speaking about the end of the Maccabean struggle over the Seleucid armies of Antiochus IV. According to this interpretation, this is NOT the same “time of the end” referred to in Dan 11:40, 45; 12:4, 8-13. Instead, most commentators treat this undeniable similarity as two distinct ends of two different (albeit very similar) times of assault on Jerusalem, its temple and sacrifice, nearly 22 centuries apart.

The extreme awkwardness of this view can be illustrated by juxtaposing two parallel passages of undeniable similarity, but are they the same? Do they signify the same time? Most say yes. A few say no. You make the call.

Dan 11:35:

“And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.”

Dan 12:9-10:

“And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till 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.”

This alone is enough to cast doubt on the Antiochus interpretation, not that he did not prefigure and typify the coming Antichrist in his attack on the holy covenant centered in Jerusalem, but he falls significantly short in certain particulars that do not match some of the details of Dan 11:21-35. This argues for a fuller, more exact and complete fulfillment of every yet outstanding detail.

Alls to say, if Dan 11:21-35 is wrongly relegated to the past, then the witnessing, prophetic body of Christ risks being robbed of crucial end time information that is intended for their advantage and the greater glory of an infallible scripture that requires that not a single jot or tittle pass unfulfilled.

On the other hand, if we are correct that the AC is introduced in Dan 11:21, we are justified to be looking for one who has or will come to power in an initially small country of modest beginnings somewhere to the north of Israel. This will not be through natural succession, but apparently, seizing upon a momentary vacancy, he snakes his way to the top by “flattery” (slippery fair promises), as implied in Dan 11:21-23. This description stands in notable contrast to the historical account of how Antiochus came to power by wresting the throne from a usurper accused of assassinating his brother, Seleucus IV. Again, there are points of notable variance between the details of the prophecy and the historical record of Antiochus’ accession to the throne.

So, unless we are overlooking something (always a real and present danger), there may yet be a longer wait between what we’re seeing now and the “alliance” of Dan 11:23 that ‘appears’ (?) to be the same time that “he” (i.e., the coming prince of Dan 9:26) “confirms” (makes firm / strengthens) the covenant with the many to begin the final seven (Dan 9:27).

If Dan 11:21-35 is retrieved as yet future, then from the alliance of Dan 11:23 to the abomination of Dan 11:31, we have been given a clear chronological sequence of events that occupy the first half of the week.

Sometime after the alliance of Dan 11:23, but before the abomination of Dan 11:31, the sacrifice (regular burn offering) will be restored. If not already apparent, this will remove all doubt that we have crossed over into the final seven.

But there is more that will confirm that we are in the final seven. “AFTER the league made with him” (11:23), he attacks and overcomes a king to his south (Dan 11:25-27). This conquest of the southern king does not appear to impinge on the security of Israel. The conquered king is not killed but joins his conqueror in a secret plot to destroy the holy covenant at Jerusalem, but the plan comes to nothing because the time is not right (Dan 11:27).

These are things those living at that time will see. From this, they will be able to anticipate what comes next, play by play.

Manifestly, the alliance of Dan 11:23 is made with Israel in particular, but since Dan 9:27 says he confirms the covenant “with many”, it seems possible, I think probable, that the AC will be only one among many other nations that are united in common consent to recognize (confirm) Israel’s right, not only to a portion of their promised Land, but also their return to the temple service in Jerusalem as commanded in the law.

This is why the covenant that is confirmed by political expedience while fiercely hated by the AC is called “the holy covenant” (Dan 11:28, 30). It is this recognition of the “holy covenant” in particular either by the AC alone, or more likely an international cast of several nations that starts the seven.

So is the league / alliance of Dan 11:23 the same event described in Dan 9:27? It appears likely, but can’t say with final certainty. If the alliance and the confirming of the covenant are part of a single event, then we can see a certain sequence of specific events that will precede the abomination.

After the alliance of Dan 11:23, the Antichrist makes two distinct southward advances before a third whereupon he invades the Land and places the abomination of desolation (Dan 11:31).

The first is the successful conquest of a nation to his south that increases his power base (Dan 11:25-28). The second southward move is intercepted and repulsed by the “ships of Chittim” (Kittim in some translations). This momentary frustration fills him with rage against the holy covenant centered in Jerusalem (Dan 11:30).

It is inviting to speculate that it is just here that he secretly unites the ten nations that have waited for an opportunity to destroy the peace and recapture Jerusalem for the Caliphate. The check and restraint of the guardian naval power stationed in the Mediterranean is short-lived, as the now fully united ten nation confederacy floods the Land with overwhelming force (Isa 28:2, 15; 59:19; Dan 9:26, 11:22; Eze 38:9, 16; Rev 12:15-16), whereupon he captures Jerusalem (Zech 14:2), enters and defiles the “holy place” by taking away the regular burn offering and placing the abomination of desolation, as he exalts himself “above all that is called God or that is worshipped” (Dan 11:31; 36-37; Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4) and begins 3 1/2 years of treading down the holy city (Isa 28:18; 63:18; Mic 5:5; Dan 8:13; ; Lk 21:24; Rev 11:2).

Now the question: Why and how would Israel in the modern context ever so completely relax their guard as to be taken as much by surprise as they were on Oct 7? How does Israel come to such a presumption of peace as described in Isa 28:14-18; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; 1Thes 5:3?

I would propose that this comes, not only when peace is initially declared and internationally imposed upon dissenters, but it comes with the glaze of false security that will steal over the minds of the population when the ships of Kittim (US? NATO?) turn back the threat of the AC’s second southward advance. This is when the boast of peace and safety will soar (Amos 9:9-10; Isa 28:14-18; 1Thes 5:3).

I’ve always speculated that the ill-fated declaration of 1Thes 5:3 has most particularly to do with what Israel will feel after the ships of Chittim have successfully checked the second southward advance of the northern king. After such a show of seemingly impregnable protection, the peace will ‘seem’ invincible.

Now ask this question: How formidable would the naval power have to be that can halt and turn back the man who in just the next verse (Dan 11:30-31) will rally and return, this time with a confederacy of ten nations united in their commitment to overwhelm and destroy, not only unsuspecting Israel, but the west may very well find itself suddenly incapacitated, unable to mount a successful resistance against the Antichrist’s all prevailing military supremacy? (Dan 11:31with Rev 13:4).

Could this happen in conjunction with an unexpected nuclear strike on the west? That’s where I see the cumulative evidence pointing.

There will be gaps in our knowledge and doubtless surprises, as more becomes un-sealed as the day approaches, but who will not consider that the unprecedented alignment of foretold events happening right before our eyes represent giant steps that perfectly align with what prophecy gives us to expect?

A fragile peace appears to be in the making, potentially unprecedented and against all odds only two years ago. When consolidated and set in place, a growing sense of security will doubtless follow. At length, the growing presumption of lasting security will become the ill-fated boast of Isa 28:15, 18; 1Thes 5:3. That boast is against the warning that prophetic witnesses will be sounding throughout the nations (Ps 19:4).

The warning will be generally dismissed at first, it will continue to speak to Israel during the time of their wilderness flight from the face of the Antichrist (Isa 28:16-19; Dan 11:32-33; 12:3; Rev 12:6, 7-14). The Antichrist’s pursuit of Jewish blood must continue until the light of the gospel breaks through the veil, as the penitent Jewish survivors of the tribulation see the one whom the nation pierced coming in the clouds of divine glory (Zech 12:10; Mt 24:30; 26:64; 1Thes 4:17; Rev 1:7). It is no accident that our president confidently announced, “eternal peace in the Mideast!”.

That declaration, while the equivalent of Jeremiah’s, “Peace, peace!” When there is no peace (Jer 6:14; 8:11), is no less a piece of sovereign divine providence. Such an extravagant expression of optimism reveals the very self-reliant humanism that boasts of accomplishing by natural means what God has reserved to Himself alone, namely, “eternal peace in the Mideast” by the long-awaited advent of the Prince of Peace. “Not by might nor by power but by My Spirit says the Lord!”

So let us guard against the tendency to assume that the long-awaited peace will necessarily include the Antichrist’s confirmation of the covenant that starts the last seven. It may but it may not.

Recognition of the futurity of Dan 11:21-35 leads us to consider that the covenant of Dan 9:27 may be more than a presumed “peace treaty” with the Antichrist. It is more likely his confirmation (strengthening / support / endorsement) of the “holy covenant” of Dan 11:22, 28, 30, 32.

This has implications for the revival of the ancient sacrifice and restoration of the “holy place” in the temple at Jerusalem (Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4). Hence, we must be careful and cautious to distinguish things that are not the same, lest we misidentify and thus mislead.

To be sure, at some point, what could hardly be imagined only two years ago, will exist. There will be a disarming illusion of peace, doubtless protected by one or more of the great world powers.

In its early stages, this remarkable achievement may not immediately include the AC’s “confirmation” (recognition) of the covenant of Dan 9:27, but it will be the framework that makes provision for it.

Why this caution? According to Dan 9:4; 11:22, 28, 30, 32, the covenant is not merely a peace pact, as many have perhaps too hastily assumed. In all other uses of the word throughout the book of Daniel, the covenant is God’s covenant with Israel. So if the covenant of Dan 9:27 signifies nothing more than a peace pact, this one verse would be the only exception. However, if the covenant of Dan 9:27 is the same as THE “holy covenant” of Dan 11:28, 30, a whole new vista comes into consideration.

This would mean that the AC, with “many” others, will be confirming the very covenant that has come down through Abraham’s promise of the Land, through Moses’ institutions of temple service, and through David’s acquisition of the elect city of Jerusalem. If this is the “covenant” that the AC confirms to begin the final 7 [years], then it is more than a peace pact with the AC.

Yes, a preceding peace agreement will certainly need to be in place for the “holy covenant” to be confirmed, whether as part of the initial peace plan or a later event made possible by the peace plan. In other words, it is at least possible that the covenant (assuming it is the same as the “holy covenant” of Dan 9:4; 11:22, 28, 30, 32), may not be confirmed at the same moment the peace is first initiated. It remains to be seen.

In this case, it is NOT the peace agreement that starts the seven years but the confirming of the covenant, even the covenant that Dan 11:28, 30 calls the “holy covenant”. Although inextricably related, the peace plan that may soon be implemented may not immediately include the confirmation of the “holy covenant”.

It is possible the peace plan may come into play and be agreed on by the major parties and exist for some time before the AC confirms the holy covenant. It is also possible that the he is only one of “many” nations that will unite to acknowledge, not only Israel’s right to exist, but their right to temple access to sacrifice again.

As remote as such an eventuality may seem at the moment, it MUST come about, since for the sacrifice to be stopped, it must first be started, and it must conform to the pattern of the past in the passages where Antiochus serves as an importantly instructive type.

So we must guard the delicate balance between watchful vigilance and hasty presumption, but we must also be prepared in the scriptures to “instruct many”, not only in the tribulation but even now. We need to show others how to show others how the signs that confirm certainty can be recognized with certainty.

In short, God doesn’t waste ink! These things were revealed to be unsealed in their appointed time, that the one who reads may run (Dan 12:3 with Hab 2:2-3).

There may be much that remains unclear, but sufficient clarity is given that many of the false alarms of prophetic speculation can be safely ruled out as incongruent with the scripture.

“Hope deferred makes the heart sick” (Prov 13:12). Great confusion threatens where these distinctions are not taken into account and carefully considered.

In His precious service, Reggie

The post Discerning the Beginning of Daniel’s Seventieth Seven appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

The post Caution Concerning Important Distinctions that Help Avoid Misleading False Alarms appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Who is the wicked prince of Israel in Eze 21:25?

How about “the prince of the covenant” of Dan 11:22?

Commentaries will say the wicked prince of Eze 21:25 is Zedekiah, as you can check on Bible Hub in their collection of commentaries. Just type in the verse.

But then, as you know, there is almost always a near and far fulfillment, the past being very often the pattern of last things. So my best guess would be that the “wicked prince” is also the “foolish / idol shepherd” of Zech 11:15, 17.

Apparently, just about the time of the renewed sacrifice, some venerated figure within Judaism will have emerged to become, if not Messiah (less likely), perhaps a potential candidate for Messiah (more likely), or perhaps the officiating high priest over the restored sanctuary and sacrifice.

This highly honored presumer will evidently be “overflown and broken” at the same time the power of the IDF falls to the now irresistible force of the combined armies of the AC (Rev 13:4).

Daniel 11:22 (KJV)
“And with the arms of a flood (see Isa 28:2; 59:19; Dan 9:26) shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.”

This I read as taking place in the middle of the week. There are a couple of good reasons for this that I’ll not take time to go into, but I think it’s important that we NOT permit the placement of Dan 11:22 before the abomination of Dan 11:31 to imply an earlier invasion of the Land and the killing of this leader. Here’s why:

Just as Dan 12:1 functions as a ‘recap’ of the event that was introduced in Dan 11:31 (as clearly confirmed by Dan 12:11); in the same way, Dan 11:22 is inserted as a ‘precap’ of the same time that begins when the Antichrist floods the Land in the middle of the week (Dan 9:27; 12:11).

We know this because until that point, Israel is enjoying an illusory, short lived peace that finds them wholly unprepared for the suddenness of the AC’s surprise invasion to start the 42 months of downtreading of Jerusalem (compare Isa 28:18; Lk 21:24; Rev 11:2, Mt 24:16, 2Thes 2:4; with Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; Isa 28:15, 18; Dan 8:25; 9:27; 11:23-24; 1Thes 5:3).

Then, beginning with the following verse (i.e., Dan 11:23), there is the resumption of an actual unbroken chronological order of events that make up the first half of the week, beginning with Israel’s disarming peace “league / alliance / covenant” made with the man who will become Satan incarnate at the middle of the week (Dan 8:23-25; 2Thes 2:4, 8-9; Rev 13:5, 8; 12:7-12; Rev 17:8, 10).

This is the one who fulfills the final installment of the ongoing “mystery of lawlessness” (2Thes 2:6-8), the ordained counter-antithesis to the “mystery of godliness” (1Tim 3:16). This final mystery of incarnation of the two seeds of the Garden brings the incarnation of the ancient serpent who stands behind all the anti-God, covenant despising aggressors of history (Eze 38:17). This is the “coming PRINCE” of Dan 9:26 (compare Eze 38:2-3; 39:1; Dan 10:13).

As the collective “seed of the serpent” (Gen 3:15), i.e., “the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience (Eph 2:2-3; 5:6; Col 3:6; 2Thes 2:6, 8-9) the man of lawlessness will be the final and complete embodiment of this mystery in a man (Dan Dan 7:8 with Rev 13:18).

So, from Dan 11:23-30, we have a ‘play by play’ order of events from the “confirming” / “strengthening” / “endorsing” of the covenant to begin the week (Dan 9:27, which, most evidently, should be understood as taking place at the same time as “the league made with him”, Dan 11:23) – to the breaking of the alliance (and assault on the “holy covenant”, Dan 11:28, 30) in the middle of the week.

Then, beginning with verse 31, we have a clear order of the events of the second half of the week, which is, of course, what Daniel and Jesus will call the “great”, unparalleled “trouble / tribulation” (Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21).

This “understanding” among the ‘maskilim’ (Heb. the wise having insight) of the basic order and meaning of the final seven years, particularly the first half as critical preparation for the second half, will prove of massive strategic value for the fulfillment of God’s purpose for the close of this age. It will be a bulwark against the unparalled deception (Dan 7:11, 25; 8:23-25; Mt 24:4-5, 11, 24; 2Thes 2:3, 9-10; Rev 13:8). It will be critical to the explaining the divinely intended meaning of the unfolding these final events. It will bring final, gloriously manifest harmony between the Old and New Testaments, what I’m so fond of calling, “the glory of the Story”.

Such manifest fulfillment of prophecy supporting the truth of the gospel, preached under great anointing, will turn to the greatest harvest of souls ever witnessed in history amid “THE tribulation, the great one”. (Dan 11:32-33; 12:3; Mt 24:14; Rev 7:9, 13-14; 14:6).

“When this agreement shall have been confirmed, the wise will know that the final Seven of years has commenced, that the end days are present, that the consummation of the age has arrived. They will expect the violation of the covenant after three years and a half, and will not be overwhelmed with surprise, having been told beforehand by this prophecy. Then will it be seen in fulness that the knowledge of prophetic Scripture is simply priceless.” (G. H. Lang, “The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel”; pg. 140).

The post Who is the “profane wicked prince of Israel”? appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Someone’s been listening in class!

In the interest of brevity and people’s natural lack of stamina for involved discussions, I would only tweak a couple of points. Read his summary first below my remarks, and then return to my comments here for a few, hopefully helpful caveats and additions.

Others may very reasonably differ, but it is not my view that when Michael casts Satan down to take up full and unimpeded residence in the body of the mortally wounded and risen beast that he is now “confined” or restricted to the body of the Antichrist. As in the Lord’s incarnation, the Father remained omnipresent and ubiquitous, but the fullness of His divine nature was concentrated in all its moral perfection in the body / humanity of Jesus. This mystery of incarnation (1Tim 3:16) was, of course, made possible by the virgin birth, because only in this way was it possible for Jesus to be born perfectly free of the fallen, Adamic nature that all others are born into by natural procreation.

In similar parallel, the fullness of Satan’s moral image will be fully embodied / incarnated in the Antichrist, but as Isaiah said, the Antichrist (typified by the Assyrian) does not know God’s intended use of him (Isa 10:7). In the same way, Satan, symbolized as the dragon, knows his time is short, but the risen beast will doubtless think his time has just begun, that nothing will be withheld from this consummate expression of self exaltation.

Furthermore, just as the incarnation of the son was made possible by his freedom from any taint of the fallen nature by means of the virgin birth, just so, it appears that what Paul sees as necessary for the mystery of lawlessness to be revealed requires the removal, not only of Satan from his hindering position in heaven, but something has been removed from the humanity of the Antichrist at the same time. This is why there must be this marvelous intersection and convergence between the time of Satan’s expulsion that starts the tribulation (Dan 12:1 with Rev 12:7-14) and the death and resurrection of the Antichrist in the healing of the mortal wound, which occasions his ascent up out of the abyss into which he descended at death (Rev 11:7; 13:8), all taking place at the middle of the week.

Whatever it is that preserves even the least residue of what it is that makes us human, apparently, this is what has been removed through the Antichrist’s descent and ascent out of the abyss at the very same time that Satan is being removed by Michael from his hindering place in heaven. This great transition is necessary to reveal what Paul calls, “the mystery of lawlessness” (2Thes 2:7).

As Jesus, the Anointed prince of the host in Dan 8:11; 9:25-26, fulfilled the “mystery of godliness” through circumventing passing the fallen seed of man by the virgin birth, just so, the mystery of lawlessness is revealed in the resurrection and full embodiment of Satan in the Antichrist. This is made possible by the miraculous coincidence of the death and resurrection of the Antichrist with the casting down of Satan. Observe what this implies.

Doubtless, through their understanding and certain knowledge of the time, those of understanding (Dan 11:32-33; 12:3-4, 10) will imitate Daniel. Through deep self abasement and prevailing prayer, they too will receive the help of Michael. That is why all heaven rings out with shouts of Jubilee when Satan is cast down. It is also why, just now, as perhaps never before on such a wide scale, the saints received great power and strength (Dan 11:32; Rev 11:2; 12:10). It just so happens that both Daniel and John put this great anointing precisely at the middle of the week (Dan 11:31-33; Rev 11:2; 12:7-10). This is no accident! With Satan’s expulsion, not only is there woe for the ‘earth-dwellers’ (sensual, destitute of the Spirit), but with an open heaven, free of the Accuser’s influence, great power has come upon the saints for the final test and greatest witness unto death.

No wonder all of heaven rejoices when this great blockage has been once and for all removed from his illicit access to the consciences of believers, as through deep travail the veil gives way to the clearest grasp of the liberty of the gospel and fullest enforcement in heaven of the victory that Jesus won at the cross. With Michael’s greatest victory in the removal of Satan from his position of hindrance, the now awakened sleeping giant that is the true body of Christ will arise, and shake itself like Samson, to accomplish more in its last, remaining hours (in this mortal frame) than anytime since Pentecost. I see a type in Samson that gives me hope for the sleeping wise, some of whom have been sinfully distracted and compromised by the vanities of the world system, but God can use again the son He chastens.

So put the two things together. Christ cannot return and the kingdom cannot come in all its fullness UNTIL this man has first been revealed. This event is the ”WHAT” (Greek neuter) that withholds. What is being withheld? The WHAT, I would submit, is the return of Christ to gather us together (2Thes 2:1). Paul says this cannot happen until the man of lawlessness is revealed FIRST (2Thes 2:3). But for this to take place, there is a mystery that he embodies that also must be revealed. This is the mystery of lawlessness, but for this to be revealed, there is a person who must first be removed.

For the reasons shown, we believe that person to be Satan who must be removed from heaven by Michael in the middle of the week. It is Satan’s removal from his position as the one who hinders (1Thes 2:18) that permits the revelation of the mystery of lawlessness to be revealed in the man of lawlessness. This is fatal to his interest.

It is because the whole age waits for this great event that the saints in heaven and earth rejoice, not simply because the time of greatest tribulation has now started, but because “NOW is come salvation, strength, the kingdom of our God and the power of His Messiah” Now, with Michael’s victory over Satan in heaven, that which stood in the way (hindered) the full coming of the kingdom has been taken out of the way. The kingdom can now come unhindered. The opposer can no longer oppose the necessary revelation of the mystery of lawlessness that releases the Lord to release the remaining seals and finish the mystery of God (Rev 10:7; 11:15). Satan is out of the way! The long foretold tribulation can begin that brings in the kingdom and the sure fulfillment of all that is written.

Of greatest puzzlement to commentators is to decide between the what and the who in 2Thes 2:6-7. There is a what (neuter in the Greek text) that is restraining (or some preferred translations say ‘withholding’) and there is also a person who is restraining or withholding. How do we sort this out? I would suggest that the puzzle is best solved by understanding that the necessary prior revelation of the man of lawlessness is holding back the return of the Lord. This corrects the perilous error circulating at Thessalonica.

When Paul says, “and now you know WHAT withholds” (2Thes 2:6), he is saying that after reviewing with them the order of events he had laid down at his earlier visit, they are now reminded and thus fully apprised of why Jesus cannot be expected to return until this necessary preliminary event has first taken place. This calls to mind the person who is pledged to restrain the revelation of the mystery of lawlessness that will mean his time is short.

Who is the person and what is he restraining? Satan is restraining the revelation of the mystery of lawlessness. Why would he do this? It is because he knows that when this mystery is revealed in the person of the man of lawlessness, his time will be short.

Do not confuse the identification of the Antichrist with his revelation. He will be identifiable well before this, but he cannot be ‘revealed’ until Satan has been removed (cast down) in order to become incarnate in the man of lawlessness. For this mystery to be revealed, Satan must be “taken out of the way”.

We say this happens when he is cast down by Michael. Only then will Satan be forced to take up a full and unhindered habitation in the moral nature of the man of lawlessness, thus empowering him with “ALL power, signs, and deceiving wonders”, (reminiscent of the strong delusion evoked by his resurrection). The world has never seen anything, even remotely like this!

So Jesus cannot return until this happens first. The prior revelation of the man of sin is the event (the what) that is now withholding / i.e., hindering the return of Jesus to gather His own. This corrects the dangerous presumption that Christ’s return is immediately imminent, thus diverting from all that Jesus so carefully commended as a bulwark against deception and to be fully armed for the time when it comes (Mk 13:5, 14, 21-23).

But the withholding event calls to mind the withholding revelation and the unnamed person who is committed to withhold it. That is the revelation of the mystery of lawlessness in the man of lawlessness, and this can only be revealed when Satan is removed. It is Satan (not the Holy Spirit, or Michael) that must be forcibly removed in order to be fully embodied in the now resurrected Antichrist.

This is the strong delusion that causes the whole world to marvel when they see the mortally wounded beast that was, and is not, and yet is (Rev 13:8). The removal of Satan from heaven permits the predestined revelation of the mystery of lawlessness, and this in turn opens the way for the return of the King. It is the great ‘without which not’ of Jesus’ return and the end of the age.

When Satan can no longer retain his place in heaven as the one one who hinders / resists / withholds or holds back, the revelation of the mystery of lawlessness, his time is short. It is now, with his removal, that the kingdom can come in all its full strength and power. Therefore, we say Rev 12:7-12 becomes the key to understand the mystery of the restrainer in 2Thes 2:7.

As the brother so well points out (see below), this is all in perfect parallel to the way that through Daniel’s self emptying intercession, Michael was sent to remove the prince of Persia who was “withstanding” (the Hebrew equivalent of hinder / resist / oppose) the arrival of the holy messenger who carried the critical revelation of how the age will end (Dan 10:13-14). Doubtless, this is the background behind Paul’s understanding of the role of the dark powers to oppose and hinder the advance of the kingdom’s conquest of evil.

Somehow, Satan’s dejection must coincide perfectly with the death and resurrection of the Antichrsit (Rev 11:7; 13:3; 17:8). This is what reveals the mystery of lawlessness, which is nothing short of the revelation of Satan in the “coming prince” of Dan 9:26. It is the fulfillment of THIS mystery (i.e., “mystery of lawlessness”) on which all else depends and awaits, because Jesus CANNOT return to gather together His elect UNTIL this final, outstanding mystery has FIRST been revealed (Mt 24:29-31 with 2Thes 2:1-8).

Since the removal of Satan from heaven to earth must coincide perfectly with the time of the Antichrist’s death and resurrection (obviously, very closely aligned in time), we may ask why is the death and resurrection of the Antichrist necessary in order for Satan to fully inhabit this man? I would suggest that just as Jesus circumvented (by-passed) any hindrance to the full expression of the image of His Father through the virgin birth, something here too of a hindering nature must be removed from the Antichrist in order for him to most fully express the fully exposed image of his father, the Devi (“son of perdition”). What might that be? It would seem to have to be something that was never fully eradicated, even in the most wicked antichrists (plural) of history.

Other than the predestined timing, what is it that stopped these demonically empowered antichrists ‘ beasts (plural) from becoming THE Antichrist / beast? Whatever that is, it has apparently been removed by the mortally wounded Antichrist’s descent into the abyss. Whatever this is (the remnant of the moral image that makes us human?), apparently it is the impediment that is fully removed only by the death of the Antichrist (mortally wounded beast).

By death he descends into the abyss. In resurrection he ascends up from the abyss to become now the full incarnation of Satan in the flesh. This has apparently been made possible by the divinely ordained convergence of the death of this particular man and the expulsion of Satan from heaven at the very time the tribulation is about to begin with his entrance into the temple to present himself to the world as above all other forms of deity (Dan 11:36-37 with 2Thes 2:4).

Finally, one may very reasonably ask why was this left to be such a mystery? Why, if at all important for us to know, did Paul not simply identify the restrainers, both the impersonal what or thing that is being restrained, and the person who is restraining? Firstly, it was not his pastoral purpose to expound on all the details, but simply review and recount what he had told them on his earlier visit in order to correct a serious error. But also, it is in the nature of scripture that many things are revealed in such a way as to require grace and mercy for the Spirit’s help in making the correct connections, and this is especially true of anything that the Lord wanted to be kept till the time of the end.

That said, I believe Paul did indeed most definitely identify what was being withheld. It was the return of the Lord. Let me show why this seems so plain to me.

Translators will translate enesteken in 2Thes 2:2 as “already here”, or “near at hand”, depending on whether they think the Thessalonians would have conceived of the DOL as distinct from the actual return of Jesus, since Jesus had obviously not arrived personally. The error of the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord had either arrived or was very imminently to be expected would be corrected by Paul’s demonstration that the DOL is being held back by the necessity of a specific event, namely, the preliminary revelation of the man of sin.

This, I would argue, is the ‘what’, or the impersonal ‘thing’ that is holding back the return of the Lord. It is an event, one that very necessarily MUST preceded the Lord’s return. What is being withheld (some translate restrained) is the Lord’s return, and the thing or event (impersonal neuter in the Greek text) is the prior revelation of the man of lawlessness exalting himself in the temple of God (2Thes 2:3-4). Simple as that!.

Commentators puzzle and say, “if we only knew what Paul had told them on his first visit, then we would know what they knew”, but we must modestly decline anything more than a rather tentative guess. To me, it seems fantastic that there would be any question of what Paul would have told them on his first visit. He told them exactly what Jesus told His disciples in the Olivet prophecy!

With all urgency, Jesus commands His disciples to read and understand Daniel if they will know the signs and escape the great deception. No wonder Paul opens his correction with words very similar to those by which Jesus begins His discourse, “Take heed that no man deceive you” (Mt 24:4). Paul, moved by the same urgency of warning, will say, “Let no man deceive you by any means …” So a lot at stake here.

The only blank that Paul did not fill in is the identity of the person who restrains. I believe this is because the Holy Spirit did not permit him to make this obvious. I believe it is one of those things reserved till the time of the end that when opened would open so much else. By the Spirit’s kind grace we can put the pieces together and see things reserved for the end, so not to be taken by surprise, or at least have a frame of reference by which to understand the unexpected when it comes. Appropriately, God left it to the Revelation of John to give us the clue that would make perfect sense of the restrainer of 2Thes 2:7, as both build upon the angelology (principalities and powers) of Daniel and Ezekiel that build on Moses and the prophets.

Reggie is of the conviction that Satan is the Restrainer of 2 Thes 2. That might sound counterintuitive to many. This is just my attempt to clarify that position. (I’m not saying this is exactly how Reggie sees it). Some thoughts on the Restrainer of 2 Thes 2. Everything you’ve ever been taught will likely contradict what I’m about to say, it took me 28 years to finally come to see this, now I just can’t unsee it….

2 Thes 2v7… “….Now he who restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way” Some translations say “restrain >him<” or “restrains >it<” or “restrains >evil<” etc. That is only because translators have struggled with this verse. The “it”, “him”, “evil” etc. should not be there. Because of bad translations and what we’ve been taught by sincere teachers who have read bad translations, an assumption is made that it is >evil< that is being restrained. New King James Version… And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. (Good Translation – No ‘it’ or ‘him’ etc) New American Standard Bible… And you know what restrains >>him<< now, so that he will be revealed in his time. (Bad Translation – here we see the Paradigm shifting “him”) So that added “him” or that added “it” etc, is like points on a railway track really, something tiny but entirely capable of shunting the whole train (of thought) on to a different track. And that’s clearly what it does.

So to summarize, the original text does not state that it’s evil or ant-christ that is being restrained. Thats a false assumption based on bad translations. Moving on… Scripture doesn’t explicitly state either that this mystery “restrainer” is the Holy Spirit, Church or Michael or Rome etc. All these views are of course quite widely held by believers and indicate the manifold confusion that exists surrounding this passage because its >>assumed<< because of bad translations, that it’s evil that’s being restrained. So all we can really take from the text is that there is a mysterious “Restrainer” mentioned. We don’t know what he’s restraining and that he will be removed at some point, and when he is, the Antichrist can come into view. So here goes… In Daniel 10, Daniel prays and he is heard immediately and the Angel is sent forth at once but the fallen demonic powers in the heavenlies resist and restrain the Angel for 21 days until Michael intervenes. In Revelation 12v7-9 we see Michael again, this time casting down Satan and the demonic powers to earth. We are told exactly when this happens i.e. at the 1260 days (final 3 1/2 year) point.

Directly following this expulsion, we see this in the very next verse… 10 THEN I heard a loud voice in heaven say >>NOW<< have come the >>SALVATION<< and the >>POWER<< and the >>KINGDOM OF OUR GOD<< and the >>AUTHORITY OF HIS MESSIAH<< for the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down (taken out of the way). So as Satan is removed we see a colossal dam burst in the Heavens. Satan and his angels were holding something back, as they are taken out of the way, the dam bursts! So Satan, the restrainer of God’s Salvation, Power, Kingdom, and Authority in the heavenlies, is now cast out and down from his >restraining place< and hurled down to earth.

As stated, this happens clearly at the 3 1/2 year point. In conjunction with this we see the beast receiving a mortal wound in Rev 13v3 but coming back to life again and the whole world marvelling at this. He then sets off on his 42 month (3 1/2 year) reign of terror. So as Satan is cast down by Michael exactly at the 3 1/2 year point this dovetails in perfect concert with the beast (human) dying from a mortal wound then coming back to life.

I think it’s plain Satan is now permitted, or perhaps even forced, to take up residence in this man’s body. So what we now see is the full incarnation of Satan in bodily form. We saw “The Mystery of Godliness” in the incarnation of God in bodily form in the person of Jesus. Now we see “The Mystery of Iniquity”, the full incarnation of Satan, in bodily form.

Astonishingly, there is divine symmetry here. Both “mysteries” commence their “ministry” in a death and resurrection (Jesus baptism by John), both have exactly 3 1/2 years. The Genesis prophetic opener of “the seed of the woman” and “the seed of the serpent” has now fully come into view. Keep in mind also Michael appears in Jude where he contends with Satan over Moses’ body. Why would Satan want access to Moses’ body? As Derek Prince states demons are personalities without a body. Speculating, but did he want to incarnate Moses body to then decieve the Israelites? God did not permit it then, but does He permit it, even orchestrate it, at the 3 1/2 year point? So “the lawless one will be revealed”. I.e. Satan is forced down and out of the heavenly sphere to take up residence in a man’s dead body. He’s now exposed and confined into a human body and is FURIOUS >>knowing<< his time is short. So for me this raises a fundamental question. The presupposition amongst much of what calls itself church in relation to 2 Thes 2 is that Satan >>wants<< to take the stage, that he >>wants<< to take over, that “good” in the form of the Holy Spirit OR the Church OR Rome OR Michael is restraining him. So Does Satan >>really<< want this to happen? Mathew 8v29… “What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to >>torture<< us before the >>appointed time<>knowing his time is short<<, knowing only eternal torture and torment awaits him.

I see it like the mafia in a city where the forces of law and order are finally and relentlessly closing in. They were happy to be incognito and pulling the strings in the dark but now they know their time is soon up and they are being forced out into the open and to pending and ultimate justice. Or like a desperate death row prisoner who knows his time of execution is fast approaching. In both these instances it’s the last thing they want and a truly desperate fight will ensue. And so we have the end times. A desperate and dark kingdom is coming to be exposed and ultimately judged and it well knows it. Like a cornered pack of rabid hyenas the final expulsion will be vicious and brutal.

In closing. If the mystery restrainer is not Satan then who is it? From whatever angle I now look at this from nothing fits better or makes more sense. I just can’t “unsee” it. Obviously the pre-trib camp uses this passage to bolster their early rapture view but it’s a doctrine based entirely on inference (that’s another story). In closing, Scripture makes plain this displacement, this ‘taking out of the way’ event happens at the 3 1/2 year point so a completely “Open Heaven” is there now for the Saints, the restraining demonic forces are removed and unprecedented Power, Salvation and Authority is now made available. It will truly be the Church’s finest hour. Revelation 7 tells us of a harvest of souls from every tribe and nation, a number so vast it cannot be counted will come out of the “Great Tribulation”.

God surely keeps the best wine till last and I believe this “Restrainer” being “taken out of the way” is the key to all this. So considering now the same verse… 2 Thes 2v7… ….Now he (Satan) who restrains (God’s Power, Salvation, Kingdom and Authority in the heavenlies) will do so >>until<< he is taken (literally forced) out of the way (by Michael in the midst of the final week). As clearly detailed in Revelation 12! So instead of “Good restraining the Evil”, it’s in effect “Evil restraining the Good” until Michael casts the evil restrainer down and out at the final 3 1/2 years point and we see an unprecedented release of God’s Spirit and Power and the greatest ingathering of souls imaginable. So this truly turns everything on its head. As I said at the offset, this view will likely blow all your fuses; it did mine. It’s easy to dismiss as it goes against the grain at night on all that’s been taught on it in this hour. I just humbly ask you to prayerfully consider it.

The post Who is the Restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2? appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

The post The Downfall of the Devil is in the Details of Daniel [VIDEO] appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

I would like to know if the restored Kingdom of Israel is the millennial Kingdom. And what is the connection between the antichrist and Islam? Do you believe he will come from there?

To answer your second question first, I have believed the Antichrist would arise from among 10 Arab / Muslim nations since the Yom Kippur War when the Lord revealed to me that the ten kings would be Arab / Muslim, obsessed with a militant hatred of what Daniel will call, “the holy covenant” (Dan 11:28, 30). The general territory from whence the Antichrist takes his rise to power is very clearly denoted in Dan 8:9.

He rises from somewhere within the expanse of territory that was under the Seleucid dynasty of the second century B.C. At its height, this would have reached from Damascus to Babylon. This makes it hard to pinpoint the location exactly, but it does limit the general region of his rise, as it rules out the greater part of the world. This will depend, of course, on a defense of my strongly held position that the ‘little horn’ of Dan 8:9 is none other than the “little horn” of Dan 7:8. Surprisingly, many, perhaps most of the commentaries take the position that the ‘little horn’ of Dan 7:8 is NOT the same person as the ‘little horn’ of Dan 8:9. Therefore, the clue of Dan 8:9 is very largely dismissed from having any future significance.

There are reasons why the list of aggressor nations in Ezk 38:5-6 are not exactly the same as those mentioned in Ps 83. That’s another discussion; but I have always believed that the 10 neighboring nations mentioned in Ps 83 are the very nations that will align with the Antichrist, albeit with the backing of other greater powers to the north.

It is an off topic note, but should we return to this discussion, it is important to note that Ps 83’s mention of the “Hagarenes” does NOT refer to Egypt (see Wikipedia). Egypt is conspicuous for its absence in the list of nations mentioned in Eze 38:5-6. Isa 19 shows why. This is because Egypt is savaged by the Antichrist shortly after he invades Israel.

I believe that Edom, Moab, and Ammon (united today as modern Jordan) “escape out of his (Antichrist’s) hand” (Dan 11:41) because they are sympathetic with his conquest of Israel and he favors them for their profoundly antisemitic, pro-Antichrist sentiment. I infer this on the basis of such scripture as Eze 35:15; 35:5, 10; 36:2-7; Obadiah; Mal 1:4. This is the “ancient hatred” that has boiled in the bosom of Esau since time immemorial.

Now for your first question. The answer is most certainly! The millennial kingdom is the restoration of the Davidic kingdom but now flourishing in the totality of the covenant promises made concerning a particular people and a particular Land. According to the language of the oft reiterated covenant promises, the destiny of the people and the Land are inseparable. God has a point to prove and He will openly vindicate His covenant word concerning Israel, as real ethnic Jews (“natural branches”) in the sight of all nations.

God is going to set forth this astonishing miracle of history on empirical, public display, as the ultimate public demonstration and embodiment of His covenant word, answering forever the great question first put by the Serpent, “hath God really said?” That’s what the cosmic war is all about, the veracity and power of God’s Word, most particularly His purpose “according to election” (Ro 9:11).

He will show His power to bring in, finally and forever, the very nation He first called out of Egypt. He will answer the question that Israel’s historical predicament so eloquently asks. How will a people of such proven inability ever sufficiently keep the requirements of covenant holiness in such a way as to finally realize lasting and secure residence and blessing in the Land?

How will God who first called them out of Egypt and gave them the Land cause them to abide in lasting peace, with no invader ever again threatening? (2Sam 7:10; Amos 9:15, and many more).

It is one thing to bring them in. It is quite another to keep them there! How will such a nation with such a history ever be secure in their own Land as an “everlasting” inheritance, particularly if they are yet in natural bodies as the scripture makes plain? The answer, of course, is the “everlasting righteousness” of the New Covenant (Isa 45:17, 25; 59:21; Jer 31:31-34; 32:40; Dan 9:24).

When this will be established, not only with a remnant, but with “all Israel” (the whole of the nation), then will Israel lie down in safety, none making them afraid again forever. Then will His covenant “with THEM” be satisfied of all its specific promises and implications.

When will He do this?

When the Deliverer comes out of Zion to end the times of the Gentiles (Isa 59:20-21; Dan 12:1-2; Zech 3:9; 12:10 Mat 23:39; Lk 21:24; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:25-26).

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

This can only happen at the “set time” (Gen 17:21; 21:2; Ps 102:13; Dan 11:27, 35).

Psalms 102:13

Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion:
for the time to favour her, yea, theset time, is come.

This appointed time is everywhere shown to be the great day of the Lord, often described as “that day”. It is the day of great transition between this ‘present evil age’ and the millennial day of the thousand years. It is the time when “the mystery of God is finished” with His return at the last trumpet (Isa 27:13; Mt 24:31; 1Cor 15:52; Rev 10:7; 11:15-18).

Why will He do this?

There are two main reasons that are inseparably related:

The first is stated in Romans 11:27

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

The second is stated in 11:28-29, as further drawing out the implications of the great foundational purpose set down in Ro 9:11, 16, 18.

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Romans 9:11

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls)

Romans 9:16, 18

So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. … Therefore He has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.

So covenant election is why God has loved, appointed, preserved, and yes, predestined Israel. They are His means of demonstrating that His salvation is conducted along the lines of an eternal purpose that is not based on works, but upon His sovereign prerogative to choose on a wholly independent basis. This, since only on this basis can the promise be made “sure to all the seed”. And since only in this way is the glory for the fulfillment of all the requirements and conditions of salvation God’s alone through grace alone.

He MUST fulfill His covenant with them on a basis that brings no credit at all to them, but all the glory to His special initiative in grace towards them in particular (Eze 36:22, 32),

Now here’s an exercise I highly recommend.

Go through the Old Testament. Look for every reference that speaks of the climax of the covenant with Israel, that great time of ultimate transition between their constant exposure to covenant discipline and the great reversal that redeems and exalts this blinded, profoundly chastened people once and for all. Invariably this will always be the day of the Lord, whether or not that specific term is used.

It is always found as the climax of an unparalleled time of affliction and distress, called by Moses, the prophets, and Jesus, the great “tribulation”, a time like no other, ending in the day like no other. This is very simple and plain.

Now do this: see the conditions that prevail before this time and mark how radically Israel’s experience on this earth changes after this time. Observe all the radically transformed conditions that are described in such notable detail. Now ask yourself. How can words be preserved of their original intent and meaning and all of this be transferred, either to a present mystical experience in the Spirit or to the new heavens and earth of final, imperishable perfection? It just can’t be done!

No, quite clearly, if plain, non-figurative language means anything, these unprecedented, never before fulfilled conditions are realized on this present earth. And this, of course, demands an intermediate period between this age and the final perfection, the very millennium of which John gives the duration.

But even before a definite duration was revealed, it would have been clear to anyone that these post-tribulational conditions can only be fulfilled on this earth, in the presence of abiding imperfections that point on to yet another stage of even greater change.

The question is, where and when are all of these highly descriptive details of prophecy and promise to be fulfilled? Is this in a mystical realm?, or a new heavens and earth of ultimate, final perfection? The question answers itself.

Just note what a massive volume of scripture is devoted to Israel’s restoration. Where and when do such conditions prevail that have never before existed? Unless we are willing to discount the plain meaning of plain words, these yet imperfect conditions prevail on this earth AFTER the great and notable day of the Lord.

This simple observation of the radical ‘line of demarcation’ between what lies BEFORE the DOL and what follows AFTER will go far towards keeping the interpreter on course. It will establish, to some real degree, the soundness of one’s hermeneutic (method of interpretation), as the only sensible means of demonstrating the credible harmony of the whole of scripture in what I am fond of calling, “the glory of the story.”

In His great grace, Reggie

The post The Antichrist, the Millennium and the Kingdom appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Exactly what event begins the last seven years? With what certainty can this be recognized?

The usual teaching is that the Antichrist signs a peace treaty with Israel. This is based on Dan 9:27.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. Daniel 9:27

“Which covenant is in view?” has been the question that has occupied interpreters. Is it the covenant that God made with Israel on Sinai? Is it God’s covenant to give Abraham’s descendants the Land as an everlasting possession?. Or is it referring to the New Covenant established in Christ’s blood? Commentators of different schools of thought are quite divided.

So, how this verse is translated and interpreted becomes a very delicate matter, in light of nearly identical terms found within the book (e.g. Dan 8:11-14; 11:31; 12:11) as well as other places, whether the reference is to the desecration of the sanctuary (Ps 74:3, 7-8; Isa 63:18; 64:10-11; Mt 24:15; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 11:2), or to the half week that begins with this event (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5).

Whether the last seven years of Daniel’s 70th week is understood as past or future will depend on which of the two princes mentioned in the preceding two verses puts an end to the sacrifice (Dan 9:25-27). If it is Messiah, then the final seven years will be seen to follow the preceding 69 weeks in unbroken sequence. If, on the other hand, the sacrifice is stopped by the future man of lawlessness, then one must recognize a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks.

A gap between the Roman kingdom and the final Antichrist must be observed in chapters 2 & 7 of Daniel. In chapters 8 & 11, the leap is made between the divided Grecian kingdom and the final Antichrist. Rome is passed over.

In many places throughout scripture there is often this mingling and overlapping of near and distant events with no clear distinction of the time that would lapse between them. Often, contemporary events on the near horizon would be portrayed against the background of the climactic completion of the final day of the Lord. This often observed phenomenon, unique to Hebrew prophecy, has been called ‘the near and far” view of prophecy.

This, and the pattern of partial, first-fruits fulfillment that anticipates further completion in the future, lies at the heart of what the NT reveals as the mystery of the kingdom of God, and the mystery of the gospel that reveals an unseen period between the advents. It’s all about the unseen gap! This pattern of a first-fruits, partial fulfillment is seen in the blending of the prophecies that envisioned Israel’s first return from captivity and the ultimate millennial end of exile.

All of this is in perfect keeping with the mystery of Christ’s twofold coming, and the two great mysteries of incarnation that circumscribe this age. The first is the “mystery of godliness” (1 Tim 3:16), fulfilled in Christ’s incarnation and atoning death at the end of the 69th week. The second is what Paul calls, “the mystery of iniquity” (2 Thess 2:7). This is fulfilled when the spirit of Satan is fully manifest in the flesh of the risen beast, in the middle of the final seven years.

Nothing else so well explains the mystery of the gap as these two mysteries, which perfectly incarnate the woman’s seed in Jesus, and the serpent’s seed in the now-fully empowered man of sin (“all power” …2 Thess. 2:9). The age is appropriately bounded by these two climactic mysteries embodying the great enmity originally put between the two seeds.

This is not the place to enter upon a defense for the view that the 70th week of Daniel is yet future and that the one who removes the regular sacrifice is not the Messiah, but the self-exalting “prince who shall come” (Dan 9:26 with Dan 8:11; 11:31, 36-37; 12:11; 2 Thess 2:4). My question is to those who already take our view: What is the nature of this covenant that begins the seven years?

Is the covenant of Dan 9:27 a newly formed peace agreement, or is it a covenant that already exists? Does the one who ends the sacrifice make ‘a’ firm covenant? Or, does he make firm ‘the’ covenant (in the sense of strengthen, recognize, endorse, or cause to prevail)? On a strictly linguistic, technical basis, either translation is equally legitimate, but what does the context indicate?

Our first interest should be to discover how the word is used in all other instances within the book. We should also be very reluctant to conclude that the reference to the covenant would be something entirely different than Daniel’s first readers would have understood.

The covenant with which they were familiar is the “holy covenant” mentioned in Dan 9:4; 11:28, 30, 32. As understood at the time, this would include more than God’s covenant oath to Abraham concerning the Land, or His new covenant promise to Jeremiah. It would also include all the holy assignments and ordinances connected to the temple and the law.

We see this in the use of the term in Dan 9:4, where Israel’s violation of the covenant receives all the penalties threatened in Lev 26, Deut 28-32, and Dan 9:7-14. Clearly, Daniel’s first readers would have made no such dissociation between the covenant of Dan. 9:27 and the holy covenant mentioned in Dan 11:28, 30.

What then has inclined interpreters to so completely dissociate the covenant of Dan 9:27 from the holy covenant of Dan 11:28, 30? Since Paul so clearly cites Dan 11:36-37 in 2 Thess 2:4, there is usually little disagreement that the Antichrist and the final events of the end are in view from Dan 11:36 to the end of chapter 12.

With only a few very notable exceptions, the consensus among most contemporary academic commentaries is nearly monolithic: Dan 11:21-35 was all fulfilled within the 2nd century B.C., between the rise of Antiochus IV in 175 B.C. and the end of his persecution of the Jews (167-165 B.C.). This means that conservative scholars of all schools will usually (but not always) put the gap between verses 35 and 36.

Those who see the covenant as confirmed by Jesus consider it to be the everlasting/new covenant promised in the prophets, not the ‘holy covenant’ that was attacked by Antiochus. Accordingly, they see the covenant as a peace treaty or alliance signed by a future Antichrist, but make no connection at all between this and anything that could be called holy.

Others, most often those of liberal leaning in their view of prophecy, see Antiochus Epiphanes as the one who removes the sacrifice in all four references in Daniel (Dan 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). For them, the covenant in view is the same throughout, as most readily recognized by Daniel’s first readers.

The discussion is too involved to enter upon a defense of our position at this point, but all lines of evidence, both from within the text and a careful reading of the documented history of Antiochus IV, lead us to conclude that many commentators have been far too hasty to assume that all the events of Dan 11:21-35 were entirely fulfilled in the person of Antiochus. Other scholars (some highly acclaimed – Jerome, Tregelles, Watson, Keil, Lang, Emerson) argue that many of the details of the text were not sufficiently met in the history of Antiochus’ rise and fall. This, of course, demands that we look for a future fulfillment.

Futurists very reasonably infer that the covenant is related to a peace agreement, since a number of scriptures show that the Antichrist invasion of the Land takes place at a time when the fledgling new nation is dwelling securely (Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26, with Isa 28:15, 18; Dan 8:25; 11:21, 24; 1Thess 5:3).

Ezekiel depicts Israel as dwelling securely, enjoying millennial-like conditions. However, this security is very clearly not millennial, but a false security, since the attack by Gog ends, not with the eternal state, but with the day of the Lord (Eze 39:8 with Rev 16:17), the burying of bodies and burning of weapons (Eze 39:9-16), but most importantly with Israel’s final and complete redemption (Eze 39:22-29). This tells us that the invasion of Gog takes place before Israel comes to faith on the day of the Lord (Eze 39:8, 22 with Rev 16:14-17).

Furthermore, some translations of Eze 39:26 show this interval of security to be a period during which Israel’s sins increase, placing it in marked contrast to the righteousness that attends the security that will be Israel’s in the millennium. This raises the question: is this peace the result of the Antichrist’s support for the “holy covenant” that implies recognition of Israel’s right to the Land and acceptance of Jewish worship on the forbidden Temple Mount?

Isaiah will show that the final desolation comes when Jerusalem’s rulers will lightly dismiss the prophetic warning of impending invasion because they have (evidently very recently) entered into a “covenant with death and hell” (Isa 28:15-18). Paul is doubtless referring to these OT prophecies when he speaks of those who will be “saying ‘peace and safety’” when sudden destruction comes upon them like birth pangs upon a woman (1 Thess 5:3 with Isa 13:8; 26:16-17; 66:8; Mic 5:3; Jer 30:6-7; Dan 12:1).

Daniel, however, will speak of one who comes in ‘peaceably’ (KJV), “in time of security” (ASV), “in a time of tranquility” (NASU), “when its people feel secure” (NIV), and obtain the kingdom ‘by flatteries”, variously translated as fair words, intrigue (Dan 11:21). Depending on which translation best captures the meaning, it appears there is already some measure of security already existing in the region  when he comes to power.

Can we imagine this? Our translations differ, but the question will depend on whether we understand the best reading as “at a time of peace”, or “peaceably”. The translation that seems most consistent in its use of similar language in Dan 8:25; 11:21, 24 appears to indicate that perhaps not peace itself, but the promise of peace is being extended, but as a strategy of deceit, to obtain political advantage.

And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. Daniel 11:23

It appears that immediately after the fateful “league” is made with him, he begins to work deceitfully, and from the larger context, this deceitful working takes the form of plotting against the conditions that were caused to prevail by his confirmation of the covenant centered at Jerusalem.

If we are correct to interpret Dan 11:21-45 of the future Antichrist as only prefigured by Antiochus, it appears that this alliance takes place at the same time that he, with many others, confirms “the holy covenant”. This would seem to suggest that the covenant of Dan 9:27 is being confirmed at the same time that the alliance of Dan 11:23 is being made between the Antichrist, Israel, and evidently many other nations.

Commentators have also taken different views of the identity of the “many” in Dan 9:27. Is the covenant being ratified between Israel and the Antichrist only, or is this something that the Antichrist does together with other participating nations? We think the latter.

In any event, the single most important question, decisive for all else, is whether or not the covenant of Dan 9:27 is the “holy covenant” of Dan 11:28, 30.  We note that in both places, there is the abolition of the sacrifice. This is often overlooked by the popular view. The covenant in Dan 9:27 stands in the same connection with the sacrifice as the holy covenant in Dan 11:28-32. This must not be missed!

Therefore, if the taking away of the sacrifice in Dan 11:31 is the same event described in Dan 12:11, then how can it be reasonably denied that this is the event that begins the half week of Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11? From Dan 12:1-2, 7, 11, it becomes clear that the half week ends in nothing short of the deliverance of Israel and the resurrection of the dead.  By solid, irrefutable exegesis, it is the same covenant violated by the same act of desecration.

But this brings the supreme paradox. How does the AC “confirm” (in the sense of approve or strengthen) a covenant that is holy if this is indeed the same covenant that he so vehemently hates and conspires to destroy? (Dan 11:23-24, 28-31). We are about to see why this is such a mystery that has defied clear resolution until these end days (Dan 12:4, 9).

Whatever else recognition of the holy covenant might include (such as Jewish right to the Land), it must also include the presence of the “holy place” in Jerusalem (Mt 24:15-16; 2 Thess 2:4). The standing again of the “temple of God” (2Thes 2:4) is certainly required if there is to be a sacrifice that is taken away only 3 ½ years (the half week) before the end (Dan 9:27; 12:1-2, 7, 11).

A comparison of texts within Daniel will show the following: the Antichrist begins as a “little horn” (Dan 7:8; 8:9). Is this metaphor only to indicate that he will arise in a kingdom that is lesser in size and strength than any of the four divisions of Alexander’s kingdom? If we observe the language of Dan 11:23, it seems that the term ‘little horn’ signifies a “small people”. This may suggest a kingdom that is even lesser in size and strength in its beginning than the ten kingdoms he unites in common cause against the covenant.

He comes from the north of Israel. According to Dan 8:9; 11:20-21, this could be anywhere within the general region of the ancient Seleucid (Syrian) empire that ruled from Damascus to Babylon.

Judging from the use of the prepositions in Dan 7:8, 24, it appears that the kingdom that gives rise to the Antichrist is one that comes up “among” the ten, sometime “after” they have already been established as kingdoms. Taken together, the evidence suggests that the Antichrist takes his rise in a fledgling new power after a predecessor has ruled only a “few days” (Dan 11:20). Nothing in history has adequately fulfilled these details of Daniel’s prophecy. Antiochus, whom most commentaries credit with fulfilling vs. 20, ruled, not a “few days” (even if taken metaphorically), but a full twelve years!

From the text, we see that after rising to power an ill-fated alliance is struck by Israel with the AC (Dan 11:23-24) – the proverbial ‘deal with the Devil’. Is this human alliance the same as the holy covenant that the Antichrist does not make, but only confirms? There is an important difference.

It appears that there are two sides to the arrangement: as part of a treacherous human alliance, the Antichrist apparently agrees to confirm (support and endorse) what the Jews regard as holy. This is something he personally hates and begins very shortly to plot against (Dan 11:23-24, 28-30).

On one side, it is confirmation of the holy covenant that recognizes Jewish right to land and temple service. On the other side, Jewish obedience has been made to depend on the frailty of a human alliance, this time the Antichrist himself. This is what Isaiah is calling an ill-fated “covenant with death and hell” (Isa 28:15, 18).

This resolves the paradox of how it is that something can be at once a covenant with death and hell where the Jews are concerned, yet show the great desolator who will take away the sacrifice to be one among many who confirms the holy covenant (Dan 9:27; 11:23).

[Note: Contrary to popular opinion, the anger of God does not burn against the Jews because some want to rebuild the temple and offer sacrifice according to the law. Far from it, His deep umbrage with them will be on the basis of what it has always been: trust in the arm of the flesh. This longstanding misplaced trust will at last sell them into the hand of the final Antichrist. It is the deadly presumption that lasting peace can exist apart from lasting righteousness, that is, the “everlasting” righteousness” (Dan 9:24) that can come only through the Spirit of “the Lord our righteousness” (Jer 23:5-6).]

For these reasons we are led to expect a multinational peace agreement between many nations. This particular peace must include within its provisions a formal recognition of the holy covenant. This will necessarily include, not only recognition of safe borders, but rights of access to the presently forbidden Temple Mount, particularly to attend to the service of the temple according to the law of Moses.

Many nations will oppose and rage against what the Antichrist with many nations have agreed to confirm. We know this because it is with such nations that the Antichrist will have secret intelligence, plotting to overthrow the covenant and recapture Jerusalem (Dan 11:28-30). We can safely add the word, “secret” intelligence, because it is plain from scripture that Israel will not be expecting the invasion of the united forces under the Antichrist.

As noted, some translations imply that the alliance with the AC takes place at a time of security (Dan 8:25; 11:21, 24). Others indicate only trickery and surprise. Even now, as of the recent “Abraham Accords”, regional nations, some of longstanding antagonism, are beginning to pursue normalized relations with Israel. So it is entirely possible that there will be a comparative measure of peace before the many confirm the covenant. It appears that the Antichrist is one among many who “confirm the covenant” (holy covenant) at the same time the “league” is being made with him (Dan 9:27; 11:23).

In this way something holy is being confirmed (supported, endorsed) by one who secretly (or perhaps not so secretly) despises what he has so recently confirmed. This is the great paradox! Little wonder it has not been more recognized by the exegetical commentaries. What scenario of political expediency could possibly incline the Antichrist to enter into an agreement (alliance / league) that will evidently entail his support for something that he vehemently hates and begins almost immediately to plot against? (Dan 11:23-34; 11:28-30). Does his compliance owe to some political pressure?, or, is this a planned strategy intended to pretend compliance until the passionately pursued opportunity presents itself?

If we are correct to identify the covenant of Dan 9:27 with the holy covenant of Dan 11:28, 30, it would appear that the holy covenant is confirmed at the same time certainly Israel, evidently with other nations, enter into the deadly “league” with the man who will prove their greatest adversary. This is the dark side, the “human” side of the agreement that is rightly called, “a covenant with death and hell,” precisely because its basis is a naive trust in man. This is the very deep contention that God has always had with His covenant nation.

So all scriptural evidence, duly considered, contemplates a two sided phenomenon that takes place paradoxically at the same time. This is how something can be at once a covenant with death and hell, even while unholy nations unite to confirm an ancient covenant that is holy. Most apparently, this is a multi-national agreement to recognize Jewish right to the Land of promise and freedom to practice their commanded worship in the appointed place. This will likely take place in connection with a human peace arrangement that will be enforced by a multinational peace keeping force.

But note carefully:

The peace that will be in place when the AC confirms the covenant to start the last seven years must be one that is completely without precedent. We know this because scripture shows that Israel’s guard is relaxed, leaving the nation quite unsuspecting of what’s about to hit them (Isa 28:15-18; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; Dan 11:23-24; 1Thess 5:3). And not only Israel, but I speculate that this shock and the fire that the ten will bring upon the harlot (Rev 17:16) will doubtless include, not only Jerusalem, but the west, with even some of the moderate Arab nations that were favorable toward  the peace. This would include the Gulf States of the Arabian Peninsula (ancient Sheba and Dedan; see Eze 38:13), and most certainly Egypt (see Isa 19).

If, with all of this, one could remain uncertain of the time, it will soon enough become very clear that the covenant so lately confirmed by the Antichrist is the one that begins the seven years. This will be known by the starting again of the daily sacrifice. According to Dan 8:11-14, the sacrifice does not start immediately after the covenant is confirmed. It starts 2300 days (6 1/3 years) before the end, and is stopped 3 1/2 years before the end (Dan 12:7, 11).

This means the sacrifice begins somewhere between the eighth and tenth months of the first year after the covenant has been confirmed. The reason the exact time is not easy to fix is because the 2300 days do not end with the return of Jesus (the precise day and hour unknown), but with the “cleansing of the sanctuary” (Dan 8:13).

Since this point has most likely to do with the “anointing of the most holy place” as one of the end goals of Dan 9:24, the reference to cleansing the sanctuary seems to be part of the dedication ceremony of the new temple. Precisely where this event will fall within the mysterious extension of days in Dan 12:11-12 is difficult to say.

In all other instances where the sacrificed was stopped (Nebuchadnezzar; Antiochus, Titus), it had been in session for centuries. Unlike any of these examples, the sacrifice is one that has not been only recently restarted. Our interpretation of Dan 8:11-14 as future is further confirmed by the observation that the temple that the Antichrist enters to desecrate is one that has only recently come back into Jewish possession (see Isa 63:18; 64:10-11).

By this we know that well before the Antichrist invades Israel and enters the temple, the saints will have opportunity to see many things that will confirm that they have entered the final seven. This will be a tremendous gift to the body and the world. But for those who persist in unbelief in the face of such massive evidence of fulfilled prophecy will become much more accountable and without excuse.

It is another discussion, but knowing the time when it is ‘time to know the time’ will be an unspeakably invaluable gift to the saints. This is because of all that God has invested in the use he intends to make of that complete certainty when the time comes.

“When this agreement shall have been confirmed, the wise will know that the final Seven of years has commenced, that the end days are present, that the consummation of the age has arrived. They will expect the violation of the covenant after three years and a half, and will not be overwhelmed with surprise, have been told beforehand by this prophecy. Then will it be seen in fullness that the knowledge of the prophetic Scripture is simply priceless.” (G.H. Lang, “The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel”; 1940)

The post How will we know when the final week has begun? appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Would you go as far to say that this is the type of figure (see the linked article) we are looking for to fulfill the role of the Anti Christ?

This is indeed the ‘kind’ of fellow who could “come up and become strong with a small people” (Dan 11:23; rejecting the translations that arbitrarily supply the word, “number” that completely skews the meaning). What other ‘small people’ is more strategically positioned to be exploited as a means of the Antichrist’s rise to power than the Palestinians?

I believe a new Palestinian state could be a prime candidate for the fulfillment of this prophecy. Already, Dahlan is “scattering among them the prey, spoil, and riches,” even before the ‘time of tranquility’ that follows the league made with the Antichrist (Dan 11:21, 23-24). So could such an one move into the position of the despicable person (little horn) of Dan 11:21? Whether Dahlan or one like him, I certainly think such a scenario more than possible; I would say it is likely. This is the ‘kind’ of thing I expect.

There is only one thing that doesn’t seem to fit, which could easily change. It is the present support of the enormously wealthy gulf states, whom I see as represented by Sheba and Dedan in Eze 38:13. You will note that these nations are none too happy with the AC’s move to overrun the Land and violate the covenant. For me, this is a real key as to how we should conceive of the Antichrist assault on Jerusalem with his ten nation alliance. My reasons are not only exegetical, but based on a principal of irony in God’s judgment of the whore.

Note the context: By the time of the Antichrist invasion, Israel has become what I expect to be the ‘jewel of the Middle East,” a coveted prize, not only strategically and religiously, but also economically (Eze 38:12-13).

You know my view that the covenant that the AC confirms is not only with many Jews, as usually interpreted, but more probably with many nations, and the view I take that these protectorate powers are represented by the ‘ships of Kittim’ in Dan 11:31, which appears to be either the U.S. or some NATO alliance that is committed to guard the peace arrangement that has included the necessary recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and we may infer provisions for Jewish access to the temple mount, etc.

i believe we might be surprised as to how many of the world’s nations will unite in common support of this agreement. These stand to gain great economic advantage through the peace. I believe this cooperation of nations is very nearly compared to what many think of when they speak of a New World Order. In contrast are the Arab / Islamic powers that are most incensed against the covenant (Dan 11:28-30) and seek opportunity to countermand the power and influence of the west in his bid for absolute power over Israel and the surrounding territories.

“These (the ten kings) shall hate the whore and burn her flesh with fire …” (Rev 17:16). You know that my view of the whore, though implying a much more ubiquitous world-encompassing phenomenon, at least includes Jerusalem in its alliance with the western powers that are pledged to guarantee the security of the covenant.

Contrary to the most popular views on prophecy, the Antichrist is God’s judgment on the NWO (humanistic west) with their vision for ecumenical and international cooperation in policing a peace that will safeguard the desired flow of the world’s economy. I see the scourge of the final AC in much the same way that Islam was the scourge of the west in past history. I see his ten nation alliance as a strategic countermeasure that will, in an unexpected moment, act like a bowling ball that scatters the pins. He will break up, not put together, the cohesion of the nations that aspire to a western dominated NWO.

His sudden and unexpected move against Jerusalem as a resurrected man will position him to wrest the economic advantage from the west (the woman and the ephah returned back to its original base at Shinar; Zech 5). This will be the great shift of power by which he will be able to dictate economic terms to the west, requiring compliance with his policies, chief among which will be his aim to rid the world of the Jewish menace. Those who refuse to comply will be deprived of the basic necessities of life, so that not only those who support him, whether through worship or terror, but all who wish to survive will accommodate his pursuit of the woman through the wilderness of the countries.

What I am suggesting here is a fresh reading of Eze 38:13-14 in light of international support for a peace that works to the advantage of the west and the rich gulf states. It is this balance of power that the AC will seek to reverse through his ten nation union. His sudden invasion of Jerusalem, backed now by the ten nation alliance, and perhaps, even probably, such world powers to the north such as Turkey or Russia, will meet with what is represented in scripture as a helpless protest from the oil rich gulf states. We may infer the same is true of those western nations that are represented in scripture as the ‘ships of Kittim’ (Dan 11:30). Between verse 30 of Dan 11 and Dan 11:31, a tremendous shift in power has taken place that can only be explained by the resurrection of this man at the middle point of Daniel’s seventieth week.

At the point of Dan 11:30, he can still be checked in a second southward advance that is intercepted and turned back by the ships of Kittim. In the very next verse, Dan 11:31, “arms stand on his part.” From this point, he can no longer be checked by even the formidable power of the western alliance. In contrast to the events of Dan 11:30, the question now to be raised in Dan 11:31 is, “who can make war with the beast?”

From this point, the nations are made to look on while he has his way with Israel and from Israel on to the regional conquests that continues to the end (Dan 11:40-45). From the time of his resurrection, he is able now to unite all of those whom he had been courting to unite with him in his secret designs against the holy covenant (Dan 11:27-29).

This will not sit well with many, but in my view, the whore that the ten kings hate and burn with fire may well be a combination of U.S. (the great Satan) and Israel (the little Satan), particularly Jerusalem. Never understand me to suggest that Jerusalem is all there is to the whore, but a considerable case can be made that Jerusalem is spiritually contemplated as part of the whore, and the principal target of the first part of the war that begins with the invasion of Jerusalem and ends with Armageddon.

The post He Shall Become Strong With a Small People appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Notice the mutual language of Isaiah and Jeremiah concerning the yoke and burden that departs off of Israel’s shoulder at the day of the Lord when the final oppressor is destroyed. This is attributed to the Assyrian in Isa chapters 9 & 10, but particularly in Isa 14:25. However, in Jer 30:8, 14, the same language is applied to a yet future ‘cruel one’ who is destroyed in the day of Israel’s deliverance (Jer 30:7). Daniel will later show this to be the unequaled tribulation that ends in Israel’s salvation (Dan 12:1 with Mt 24:21; Rev 7:14).

It should be clear that Jeremiah, even from his limited standpoint, could not have had in mind the king of Babylon. Rather, he sees this last oppressor as a more distant figure who descends on Israel after they have returned to the Land and recovered their holy house (Isa 63:18, 64:10-11). Even from the limited foreview of Isaiah and Jeremiah’s standpoint in history, the final tribulation (Jacob’s trouble), was seen to be the final desolation and ‘treading down’ of Jerusalem (Isa 28:18). This is a constant theme in the eschatology of the prophets (Dan 8:13) and is carried forward in the NT (Rev 11:2). I find it especially impressive that Isaiah represents the final destruction as taking place shortly after Israel has only recently recovered possession of their holy house (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11) when it is once more trampled down.

Jeremiah knew that Jacob’s trouble takes place well after the return that would be decreed by Cyrus, the liberator. That is why he is is taken aback with such astonishment to see a returned Israel in its greatest travail (Jer 30:5-7 with Mic 5:3; Isa 13:7-9; 26:16-18; 66:8). Even after the Jews have returned, and even after they have recovered their holy place, this is not to final felicity, but to further tribulation, even one that eclipses all others. This stands in such seeming contradiction to the glories that would have naturally been expected in connection with most of the prophecies of return. It is little wonder why those returning under Ezra and Nehemiah were surprised and disappointed at how far short their experience of return fell of their understandable expectations.

It is not too different today. The order of return in relation to the day of the Lord was and remains a mystery for this very reason: Most of the prophecies of return imply an immediate deliverance unto final glory, but there are a select few that contemplate a preliminary return in unbelief (short of the righteousness of the New Covenant) that expect further covenant discipline before the final redemption (see Jer 30:3, 6-7; Zeph 2:1-2; Eze 22:19-22; 38:8 with Dan 12:1, 11; Mt 24:15-16, 21; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2). Significantly, these few prophecies (there may be others) represent a return (in unbelief) that has only recently occurred when the final tribulation comes. Perhaps it is because Jeremiah had not himself fully understood or expected this order in the return that explains why he is so stricken and taken aback with such an astonishing vision of a yet further and unequaled tribulation, even after an initial return (Jer 30:3-7 with Dan 12:1 etc.). This is the same astonishment and wonderment that many feel today when they are confronted with the prospect of such a judgment that includes even a short exile of flight into the wilderness of the nations (Mt 24:16 with Rev 12:6, 14). Why, they ask, would God so miraculously return His people to their ancient homeland, as a nation among nations, only to deliver them once again into the hands of their enemies?

Remember too, Jeremiah would have known Isaiah’s earlier prophecy that Babylon would be judged by the Medes and succeeded by the great king Cyrus, whom God calls by name. So certainly Jeremiah sees the final climax of Jacob’s trouble well beyond the limits of the 70 years and the dominion of Babylon. They are back in the Land when Jacob’s trouble begins. Interestingly, they are only “recently” back in the land from the long exile when the final tribulation comes (see Eze 38:8). In Isa 63:18, the final desolation and treading down of Jerusalem comes at a time when the Jews have only recently recovered their holy places (see also Isa 64:1–11). For Daniel, the unequaled tribulation is spoken of as 70 7’s beyond the first return, but with no express anticipation or mention of yet further exile of ‘many years’ (Eze 38:8). The long exile following the Roman destruction and banishment would extend for “many generations” (Isa 61:4), but this is only hinted at and not easily detected by those living before the Roman exile. Nor would we expect that Zechariah and the other post-exilic prophets would have seen a further exile, other than the short tribulation spoken of by Daniel. According to the literature between the testaments, the Jews looked for a tribulation that would be inflicted by Rome, but expected it to last no more than the very brief period (the 3 1/2 years) described in Daniel’s prophecy. All of this combines to make the modern return of Israel all the more a puzzlement to those who have difficulty conceiving that the present state is destined to pass into a time of further desolation before the full and complete return that accompanies the Lord’s return.

As much as we know that Jeremiah had Isaiah’s prophecy ready to hand, it is clear that he would have seen Jacob’s trouble as occurring only sometime AFTER the liberator, Cyrus, had decreed the return from Babylon. This pushes the fulfillment to at least sometime beyond the end of the 70 years. Since he would not have known Daniel’s later prophecy of the 70 weeks, it is interesting to consider how far beyond the return that Jacob’s trouble would have been imagined. We cannot assume with many commentators that the king of Babylon is the “yoke of the cruel one that is broken off of Israel’s neck” (Jer 30:8, 14), because the return envisioned is after the return but before Israel’s deliverance. But for our purpose here, I’m wanting us to underscore the fact that Jeremiah uses nearly the same exact language of this final oppressor that Isaiah uses for both the Assyrian and the king of Babylon. This demonstrates an awareness that the prophets had of an implicit typology of a final Antichrist that went beyond their contemporary situation. Many recognize and acknowledge this in hindsight, as belonging to the nature of prophetic revelation. That is, of course, obvious, but I’m saying that the evidence makes plain that the prophets themselves had to have been fully aware of this in their own day. How else can Isaiah speak beyond the Assyrian to the king of Babylon and beyond Cyrus to a final oppressor that Jeremiah will also put beyond the captivity, and Daniel will put at the end of a long line of oppressors. But Isaiah and Jeremiah show this understanding in their own prophecies before Daniel makes it so clear.

The post-exilic prophets also show their awareness that the present time of partial blessing will at length give way to a further crisis that ends in the day of the Lord. Then will ‘all Israel’ be saved, and then will ‘all Israel’ return, with none left behind (Eze 39:28). Zechariah is very clear concerning this further crisis and subsequent world wide return. How commentators can content themselves with a post-Babylonian fulfillment of the return prophecies when the post-exilic prophet Zechariah sees beyond to the greater return at the day of the Lord is simply without excuse. There was no thought among the prophets that the present return was anything more than a ‘day of small things.’ At best it was a down payment, an ‘already’ of partial fulfillment that leaves a ‘not yet’ of much greater glory to come in connection with the final and complete return that comes only AFTER the day of the Lord.

This amazing overlap and repetition on themes that the prophets themselves realized went well beyond their own contemporary circumstance, opens our eyes to an amazingly rich and varied typology that is consistent and definite. We see this in how the prophets would apply the same language of finality to a succession of oppressors, all bearing the same diabolical image. I personally believe this pre-understanding underlies Daniel’s vision of the succession of gentile powers reaching to the final Antichrist, what Paul will call the “mystery of iniquity.” It is a generic and organic phenomenon that moves through history to its climax in the final “man of sin.”

This is especially clear in Paul’s reference to the Assyrian / Antichrist in Isa 11:4, whose destruction starts the millennium. He quotes the Septuagint, which renders Isaiah 11:4, not as the destruction of the “wicked” (plural) in general, as might appear from our translations, but the Septuagint has “the Ungodly One.” To show that an individual is in view, the Septuagint uses capital letters. We see this in some translations of 2Thes 2:8 to show dependence on the Septuagint and also to show Paul’s interpretation and application.

Clearly, according to Paul, Isa 11:4 is the personal Antichrist whom the Lord destroys by the Spirit of His mouth at His premillennial return (compare Isa 11:4; 30:31; 31:8; Dan 8:25; Rev 19:15). This means that Isa 31:8 is most certainly the AC who is destroyed by nothing less than the sword of the Lord’s mouth, and Daniel is well aware that this is speaking, no less, of his ‘little horn / king of fierce countenance.’ Isaiah’s close association of the Assyrian in Isa 14:25 with the king of Babylon (if they are not indeed identified as the same), and Daniel’s awareness that Isaiah’s “Assyrian” is to be identified with the little horn that rises up in a northern region that was one of the four kingdoms that came out of Alexander’s divided kingdom (Dan 8:9). This may hold a further clue to the territorial aspects of the origins of the Antichrist, as one who begins as a little horn (kingdom) that swiftly comes to much greater prominence and power during a time of tranquility (Dan 11:24) through a ‘league’ that is made with him’ at that time (Dan 11:23). Interestingly, his rise comes through “a small people” (Dan 11:23). I still think it worthy of our consideration if this might have something to do with the Palestinian problem.

When we get time, I want to show how parallel the same language for the Assyrian is for Ezekiel’s vision of Gog and Magog as well. Surely, it is profound puzzle of interplay of type and anti-type that weaves itself all through the prophets to focus on the last gentile aggressor as the composite fullness of all the historical types. Unfortunately, commentators tend to satisfy themselves quite short of the goal and implications of these prototypical figures by attributing to past history a fulfillment that falls far short of the attendant details. The destruction of a final gentile oppressor in everywhere bound to the great transition of the day of the Lord, and for the prophets there is nothing in history that counts as the day of the Lord if it falls short of the comprehensive fulfillment of the covenant in every detail.

Any would be fulfillment that stops short of that great transition can NOT count as sufficient fulfillment! Why isn’t this more clear? The answer is what it must mean for a literal restoration of the nation of the natural branches. No other solution treats the plain language of scripture as the infallible Word of God. A past fulfillment that is anything more than a partial earnest on what is yet to come at a future day of the Lord (Christ’s second coming) is a futile effort to try to “save” the apparent failure of prophecy by positing the untenable solution of spiritual interpretation. The effort is one that makes Jews and liberals to blush at the lengths the replacement minded interpreters are prepared to go to defend their view of the inerrancy of scripture while denying the day of the Lord salvation of Israel (the natural branches). It is a question that will not go away, and one that the events of the end will utterly expose, even as the present return has been counted as an event of prophetic non-significance, an accident of history, the natural evolution of Jewish longing and resolve, etc. Such a view cannot be merely an issue of hermeneutics. There must be an underlying moral component that is going virtually undetected by the prophets of the church.

Another thing an overview of the prophets will address is the problem of how the day of the Lord can be at once represented as ever imminent, yet preceded by clearly foretold events. This has puzzled many. It is interesting to me how the different prophets, some living centuries apart, would present the day of the Lord as always “near” or “at hand,” despite the manifest passage of significant periods of time between one prophet to another. This shows an ever present imminence of the judgments of that great day that does not assume a strictly chronological imminence. This suggests a distinction between ‘chronological’ imminence, which cannot be true until after certain foretold events have taken place, and an ‘existential’ imminence, from which all persons stand at an equi-distance. In this sense, the day of the Lord is always impinging on the present, since the judgments of that day, like the blessing of that day, are subject to be realized in a partial or first-fruits fashion at any given time when the covenant has been grossly neglected or truly honored (knowing, of course, that it can only be truly honored through Christ). The NT reflects this awareness of the ever present imminence (the ‘at hand-ness’) of a day that is obviously preceded by knowable signal events (2Thes 2:3 etc.)

Reggie Kelly, Nov 2013 {edited by Samuel Clough}

The post The Way the Prophets Understood Prophecies of the Antichrist appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

He was never king of a small power before coming into “the glory of the kingdom” (Dan 11:21). He rose to power in the place of his murdered older brother in one of the “notable” (sizable) horns of Alexander’s long since divided kingdom, the mighty Seleucid Empire. That’s NOT a little horn in the sense that scripture makes that distinction.

The Antichrist must be a little horn (actual king or leader of a smaller political power) in his beginnings. AFTER the league made with him, he “comes up and becomes strong with a small people (Dan 11:23) … at a time of security (Dan 11:24). At some point, he unites with the ten in common cause. The scripture says he comes up AMONG them, and rises AFTER them (Dan 7:8, 24). Three of the ten are forced into his orbit of power through conquest.

Just when this occurs in relation to the false peace that provides for temple and sacrifice is not as clear, but it is clear if the ‘little horn’ of Dan 7 & 8 is the ‘despicable person’ of Dan 11:21, then it seems very clear that the move from a little power to a much greater power in one of the four divisions of Alexander’s kingdom is significantly “AFTER the league made with him” Dan 11:23. If this “league” is the same or coincident with the covenant that the coming prince confirms with many in Dan 9:27, then the time of his ascent into the greater kingdom becomes plain. We shall see.

What is really fantastic scrambled eggs is what strikes me as the ridiculous, presupposition driven attempt of expositors to separate the “little horn” of Dan 7:8 from the “little horn” of Dan 8:9. Sorry if I sound a bit scrappy here, but they really should to be called on this. Here in twin chapters is a self exalting prince at the time of the “END”, both (as they were two) speaking boastful words against the prince of Princes, and both, by every expositor’s reckoning, taking away the regular sacrifice (Dan 8:11: 12:11), and we are to believe that Antiochus is the ‘little horn” in Dan 8 and the Antichrist is the “little horn” in Dan 7, and never the twain shall meet? Hardly!

Reggie

The post Antiochus was Never a Little Horn appeared first on Mystery of Israel.