Caution Concerning Important Distinctions that Help Avoid Misleading False Alarms

Many have already made premature declarations that the final seven years have started. Others say we are right at the door. Here’s why I don’t think that can be, just yet.

Though several able 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 discrepancies between the details of Dan 11:21-35 that do not agree with all of the well documented historical records of Antiochus Epiphanes IV’s career prior to his desecration of the temple in Jerusalem, and fierce persecution of the Jews. Here are just a couple of examples:

With rare exception, it is typical for scholars to assume that because Antiochus was such a remarkable type of the coming man of lawlessness that Dan 11:31 should be assigned to Antiochus of the 2nd century B.C., not merely as a type prefiguring the coming prince, but the complete and fully past fulfillment. In this view, the abomination and removal of the tamid (regular sacrifice) in Dan 11:31 is a completely different event than Dan 12:11 describes using nearly identical language.

In this view, Dan 11:31 is said to belong to Antiochus’ desecration of the temple of 167 B.C., and vss 32-35 are applied to the ensuing persecution that ended in the triumph of the Maccabean warriors and rededication of the temple almost exactly three years later in 164 B.C. In contrast, the abomination and removal of the daily sacrifice of Dan 12:11 is acknowledged by nearly all premillennial commentaries to be the half week of the final seven (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 11:7; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5).

While we agree with this application of Dan 12:11, we do not agree with the predominant view that Dan 11:31 was fulfilled in 167 B.C.

Firstly, Dan 11:31 & 12:11 are described in nearly exactly the same words and both references belong to the same continuous prophetic narrative that extends over 2 ½ chapters (Dan 10:14-12:13). Jesus will cite this particular event as “the sign” that signals the start of the great tribulation (Mt 24:15, 21) that ends with nothing short of His coming in the clouds of glory (Mt 24:29-3; Rev 1:7).

Can such a time gap of nearly 22 centuries be exegetically justified? Or do both mentions of the abomination and removal of the daily sacrifice have reference to the same event?

All conservative schools of interpretation are compelled to acknowledge the existence of time gaps and parallels between partial, past fulfillment and a more complete fulfillment in the future in Daniel’s visions. Such leaps from past fulfillment to the eschatological future can be demonstrated in chapters 2, 7, 8, 9 &11. But where do we place the gap in Dan 11 between antiquity and eschatology? Is it between Dan 11:20 & 21, or between Dan 11:35 & 36? This is debated among scholars.

Because Paul is so clear in his nearly verbatim reproduction of Dan 11:36-37 in 2Thes 2:4, most scholars locate the gap of centuries between versus 35 & 36. From this point to the end of the book, it is commonly agreed that the topic is the future Antichrist and the half week of unparalleled tribulation.

That the Antichrist is in view from Dan 11:36 to the end is not in question. Our objection is with the tendency of most commentators (not all) to apply Dan 11:21-35 to Antiochus IV when he cannot be more than a type and pattern of the one to come, since he did not sufficiently satisfy all the details of this section of the prophecy and in some points does not fit the profile. Rather, willful king of Dan 11:36 is none other than the “despicable person” of Dan 11:21.

We reject the view that Dan 11:31 & 12:11 are completely different events, not least because this would mean there are two different ends of two different times, centuries apart, both described by the same language within the same prophecy.

This decision is important because if commentators are wrong in their assignment of Dan 11:21-35 to antiquity, a substantial amount of revealed details about the first half of Daniel’s 70th week risked being robbed from the knowledge and witness of the church, knowledge that will doubtless prove invaluable and divinely strategic 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 70 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” of Dan 12:4, 9, 13? Or, is the same end in view in all of these references? This will be decisive in our decision.

Notice that the appointed time of the end in Dan 11:27 is pointing to the end that begins with the abomination of desolation mentioned in Dan 11:31-35.  Can this be a different “end” than the end described in Dan 12:4, 9-13?

As mentioned, many, actually most commentators make the end of Dan 11:27 35 to be speaking about the end of the Maccabean struggle over the Seleucid armies of Antiochus IV.

On this view, this is NOT the “time of the end” referred to in Dan 11:40, 45; 12:4, 8-13.  We are asked to see two different ends of two different (albeit very similar) times of assault on Jerusalem, its temple and sacrifice, nearly 22 centuries apart.

One of several reasons I am disinclined to recognize such a mis-located gap of many centuries between Dan 11:35 and the balance of the book can be illustrated by juxtaposing  two very parallel passages. Note the remarkable similarity:

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.

Are these two passages, belonging to the same prophecy, speaking of two different “times of the end”  22 centuries apart? How likely? You make the call.

This and much more that could be mentioned casts serious doubt, not that Antiochus IV helpfully typifies and parallels the final AC. This is agreed. Antiochus’ attack on the holy covenant in Jerusalem is a very instructive prototype of what brings the age to its appointed end, but he falls short in certain particulars that do not adequately match some of the specific details of Dan 11:21-35. This argues for a fuller, more exact and complete fulfillment in the future of every outstanding detail.

Since Paul so plainly cites Dan 11:36-37 in 2Thes 2:4, most scholars agree that Dan 11:36 to the end of the book is all yet future. This is why most will see the transition between the events fulfilled in antiquity (Dan 11:1-35) and the events yet future between Dan 11:35 & Dan 11:36.

We, on the other hand, find the evidence favors placing the break between Dan 11:20 and Dan 11:21.

As mentioned, if Dan 11:21 introduces the AC of the end, we are furnished with a good deal more information concerning the events leading to the middle of the week found nowhere else in scripture.

And if these verses have been misinterpreted as past already, 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 the God in the fulfillment of every jot and tittle of His infallible Word.

Also, Dan 11:21 seems to hint that the “despicable person” enters during a momentary vacancy that permits his un-entitled, extraordinary rise to leadership (“to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom”).

So if we are correct that the AC is introduced in Dan 11:21, we are justified to be on the lookout for one who has or will come to power in an initially small country of modest beginnings to the north of Israel. This will not be through natural succession, but by “flattery” (slippery fair promises), as specified in Dan 11:21-23.

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

If we are correct that the AC is introduced, not in Dan 11:36 but Dan 11:21, then we have before us a whole sequence of events that appear to be in chronological order, bringing us from the “league made with him” (Dan 11:23) to the abomination of desolation that begins the tribulation in Dan 11:31.

Obviously, sometime before this time, the daily sacrifice has started again, removing any doubt that we have entered the final seven.

To introduce the AC of the end from Dan 11:21 means that sometime “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.

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 is 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 first confirmed and later attacked is called “the holy covenant” (Dan 11:28, 30).

It is this recognition of the “holy covenant”, 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.

The Antichrist makes two distinct southward advances after the alliance but before the abomination. 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. This momentary frustration fills him with rage against the holy covenant centered in Jerusalem.

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 proves short-lived, as the 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), captures most of Jerusalem (Zech 14:2), stops the sacrifice (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), invades and defiles the “holy place” (Mt 24:15), “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped” (Dan 11:36-37 with 2 Thes 2:4), as he places the abomination (an animated image of himself?) that starts the final unequaled tribulation and the trampling down of 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 before us 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 most of the population when the Mediterranean ships of Chittim (US? NATO?) turn back the threat of the AC’s second southward advance.

This is when the boast of immunity from invasion will be at high tide, as we see in 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 impregnable protection, the peace will ‘seem’ invincible.

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 11:31 with 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 see and consider that the unprecedented alignment of foretold events happening right before our eyes surely represent giant steps towards what prophecy gives us to expect?

A fragile peace appears to be in the making, potentially unprecedented and against all odds. When consolidated and set in place, a growing sense of security will follow.

At length, the growing presumption of lasting  security will become the ill-fated, prophecy dismissing boast of Isa 28:15, 18; 1Thes 5:3.

That boast is against the warning that prophetic witnesses under great anointing will be delivering to the leaders of Israel, perhaps the religious leaders in particular.

The warning will be generally dismissed, but it will continue to speak to Israel during the time of wildness flight from the face of the Antichrist (Isa 28:16-19; Dan 11:32-33; 12:3).

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”.

The events of the last two years (Oct 7th, 2023 to today, Oct 7th, 2025), with Trump’s passionate pursuit of peace where peace has been most elusive. is a piece of sovereign divine providence. Still, such excessive, ill-timed optimism reveals the very self-reliant humanism that is so opposed to the Spirit, since it boasts of accomplishing by and through man what God has reserved to Himself alone, namely, “eternal peace in the Mideast” by the long-awaited advent of the Prince of Peace.

So let us be careful and cautious to distinguish things that are not the same, lest we misidentify and thus mislead.

At some point, there will exist in that embattled region, a disarming illusion of what many will assume is, or has imminent promise of becoming, a safe and lasting 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 / endorsement / support) 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.

But 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 (if 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 may, but it may not. 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 be soon implemented, may not include the confirmation of the “holy covenant”. They may or may not happen at the same time.

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, as one among “many” acknowledges, not only Israel’s right to exist, but right of access to the site of the temple to start the daily sacrifice.

So we must be careful of the order of events lest we add to the confusion that is sure to come, and lest we have no answer to disabuse our brethren of premature announcements, diverting from the real article of sober urgency when it does arrive.

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.

Great confusion threatens where these distinctions are not considered.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie