Formerly titled “Caution Concerning Important Distinctions that Help Avoid Misleading False Alarms”. The article has been enhanced since first published on Oct 6th.
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
