Virtually every (pre-Millennialist) Christian who has an opinion on Daniel 9:27 believes that the anti-Christ will make a peace deal with Israel in the first half of the last seven years of this age. If ever some yeast got mixed into the whole batch of dough, this is it. The problem is, many post-tribulationists are not likely to start working on their tribulation retreats until they see this peace deal come to pass.

What if the peace deal is not scriptural and does not, therefore, come to pass? Could those who espouse it arrive to the middle of the Week without knowing it? If any prophetic issue deserves sirens, this has got to be one, for it robs one from knowing that the anti-Christ comes in the first half of the Week with guns ablazing, even against Israel. Daniel 9:27 does not substantiate a peace deal between any parties, let alone between the anti-Christ and Israel. Read it for yourself and see:

"And he [the first-century prince of verse 26 = Satan, ruler of the ancient Romans] shall confirm a covenant [in the end times] with the many for one week, and in the middle of the week, a desolator [i.e. Satan acting through the anti-Christ] shall make the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and [make] abominations on an extremity, even until the end."

Without this verse, the peace-deal theory would not exist, for no other scripture so much as alludes to it. But where's the peace treaty? I see a deal, but I don't see an agreement between prior enemies to have tea and cookies. The assumed theme of the text has been expanded to the point of making the anti-Christ a global peacemaker in the first half of the Week...before he suddenly turns into a monster at the midway point.

Many Christians are therefore expecting a cool, deceptively-peaceful, even fashionable man in a suit and tie, when we ought to be looking for a brazen, "strong faced" killing machine. Indeed, the Bible is emphatic about the anti-Christ being an amazing military man in the first half of the Week.

I identify "the prince" in verse 26 as Satan because he lives in two time periods much longer apart than the years of a man. The text identifies him as the ruler of the peoples who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, first off. He's the leader of ancient Romans to whom God gave global authority, who will yet have global authority much later in the last Week. God gave this Globalism to His enemies (beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon) so that they could make an absolute stench of the world of men for to be properly Judged when Jesus returns to take over their kingdoms. This Globalism is depicted in Daniel 7 as four beasts, while in Daniel 2 we see that the fourth beast is in the latter times divided, an obvious allusion to the distinct European nations that now make up what's left of the Roman empire. It is very fitting for the chief of demons to be granted global authority in the end-time branch of the empire, and that's what Daniel 9:27 reveals.

I hold as one theory that the European world will engage themselves in that covenant...and by their participation make it very powerful. What this means to me is that the Europeans, but not necessarily including the Jewish-based Rothschilds et-al, will join the Gog / Muslims who want to be rid of Israel. We can already see this anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim trend in the United Nations, but I expect it also from the European Union.

We can't be much more presumptuous than to interpret "the many" of Daniel 9:27 as Israelites. Just as pre-tribbers promote a pre-trib' rapture without one scripture that at face-value agrees, ditto for the teaching of the peace-deal theory. No one can know that "the many" refers to or includes Israel, for there is no other text that agrees. Moreover, if God were truly speaking of a covenant confirmed with Israel, one would think that He would use a more-explicit term than "the many." Why didn't He just use "Israel" itself? In using "the many," multiple Gentile nations are much better implied than a singular Israel.

In speaking of Gog coming against the mountains of Israel, God uses, "you and all your bands, the many peoples with you." This is found in Ezekiel 38:9, and repeated again in verse 22. And in verse 15, we have this: "you shall come from your place out of the recesses of the north, you and many peoples with you." The Hebrew word "many" in these instances is the same as in Daniel 9:27. Therefore, if you teach that the many of Daniel refers to Gentile nations, you will be on more solid ground with God, and in the end you will not be humiliated as will those who interpret the term as Israel.

There are many things about the anti-Christ which Daniel himself penned, yet his writings are void of peaceful relations between Israel and the anti-Christ. On the other hand, there is much in Daniel, as well as other parts of the Bible, which speak openly of the anti-Christ's military attacks against Israel...even in the first half of the Week. Covenants such as the NATO alliance, for example, can be made for the express purpose of creating military superiority. All sorts of political alliances are made with military associations, and can certainly be viewed as "covenants." So why can't the covenant of Daniel 9:27 be viewed as a war pact...the very pact that we see in Ezekiel 38?

Refuse and oppose the argument that claims the necessity of an Israeli-antiChrist peace deal for the express purpose of facilitating the building of a tribulation Temple, for that sort of reasoning is most-definitely an extra-Biblical argument. There is nothing in all of prophecy that speaks on the rebuilding of the tribulation Temple, and Biblical evidence exists to show that there will not be such a rebuilding. It is possible that the anti-Christ will merely sit in the present Temple site when proclaiming himself to be God, and one might even surmise that he will be invited, by his Arab worshipers, into the Dome of the Rock to make his blasphemous pronouncements against the God of gods.

It's no doubt due to Daniel 11:21-31, where we see the military activities of the anti-Christ in the first half of the Week, that many Christian educators do not view the section as pertaining to the end-times. That's one major piece of damage the peace-deal theory has effected among prophecy educators.

In other words, rather than interpreting the "covenant" of Daniel 9:27 as a war pact against Israel so as to harmonize with the anti-Christ's military activities of Daniel 11:21-31, the educators have denied that Daniel 11:21-31 describes the end-time anti-Christ at all. These teachers begin to view the anti-Christ beginning in verse 36 instead, even though a new personality is not introduced at that verse. This wrong is especially true of pre-trib' teachers, as it very much serves their pre-trib' rapture theory when placing the anti-Christ one verse after certain saints are depicted in great tribulation (vs 32-35).

Thus, the only detailed account of the first half of the Week has been denied us by these educators. Major events which God wants us to know in order for us to rightly time our 1260-day flight have been effectively eradicated from the pages of the Bible.

Here, again, is how my Hebrew interlinear reads:

"And he shall confirm a covenant with the many for one week, AND in the middle of the week, a desolator shall make the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and [make] abominations on an edge, even until the end."

I will discuss the curious phrase, "abominations on an edge" in a later chapter, where I identify the edge as the Western Wall, but for now I don't want to veer from my important topic.

There are English versions of the quote above that use "but" instead of "and" to separate the covenant (in the first half of the sentence) with the attack on Israel (in the second half of the sentence). It's only a one-word difference, but it's significant because "but" indicates contrariness while "and" does not so indicate. Therefore, when using "but," the military attack on Israel in the second half of the sentence is made to appear as a event contrary to the covenant in the first half, wherefore the covenant can be interpreted as a peace deal with Israel.

On the other hand, by using "and" to connect the warfare and the covenant, the covenant in the first half of the sentence becomes that which causes the warfare in the second half, wherefore the covenant can be interpreted as a war pact. And so which do you think is the correct word to use, "and" or "but"?

Other considerations should be discussed in coming to the answer. For example, if we were to say, "the thief made a covenant with many, and in the middle of the night broke into the bank and laid waste its vault," you would surely identify the "many" as fellow thieves, and not the bank staff. Furthermore, you would not view the "covenant" as a peace deal with the banker -- nor even as a peace deal with the many thieves -- but as a pact to commit theft.

So, also, when scripture in effect says, "the anti-Christ made a covenant with many, and in the middle of the week broke into Israel," how could anyone insist that "many" refers to Israelis when it is painfully logical to view them as the anti-Christ's accomplices?

But we are led off-track even more by some Bible versions (the following comments are not an attack on the KJV, which I feel is a very accurate version on the whole). For example, the King James Version interprets Daniel 8:25 like so: ...he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many." Now, please, "by peace shall destroy" is not only a contradiction, but an inaccurate translation, forcing the reader to envision a military trap set up by a political-peace deal. The Hebrew text reads quite differently than the King James Version:

"He will lift himself up in his own heart and be at ease; he shall destroy many."

We see that political peace is not at all present in this translation by J.P. Green Sr. Instead, there is conveyed a peace of the man's soul alongside his conceit. Therefore, Daniel is telling us that he will destroy many while self-confident (or strong of face).

Of course, there cannot be a self-confident military leader who is losing battle after battle, meaning that this verse conveys Gog's successful invasions into nations...with few complications. Indeed, the previous verse reads: "He shall destroy marvelously," and Isaiah 10:6-15 tells us why this proud and wicked man succeeds for a time in all he does, for it is God who prospers him.

In Daniel 11:24, we note that the King James reads: "He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province...he shall scatter among [his armed men] the prey, and spoil, and riches," but if that sounds contradictory, here is how the verse should read:

"Safely, even into the rich places of the province, he will enter..."

Instead of "peaceably," we have "safely." There's a big difference, for one may attack safely without making political peace as a ruse. As "safely" is the same Hebrew word as "at ease" in the quote discussed earlier, this verse could read, "Easily/confidently/successfully/wonderfully, into the rich places of the province, he will enter."

I will agree that the King of the North enters Iraq (initially) portraying himself to the Iraqi peoples and to the world as a good man bent on good ends, but this in itself does not necessitate his making peace treaties with groups and nations, as ruses, prior to attacking them. In my mind, he enters Iraq with deception and smooth talk, but after that he will not mask his invasions as peace objectives.

Alas, such ruses nicely suit the prophecy educators who interpret Daniel 9:27 as the anti-Christ's phony peace treaty with Israel. But even if we take the KJV quotes as being correct -- that is, even if the anti-Christ were to make peace treaties with Mid-East peoples prior to conquering them -- it does not necessitate his doing the same with Israel prior to conquering her. If you wish to teach that view, you will need a Scripture that on its own merit gives you the authority to teach it. We may speak as though speaking the very words of God, but only if God spoke those words too. The Lord will forgive us for interpreting Daniel 9:27 as a peace deal where the King James Bible has been responsible for that error by (unintentionally) misleading us elsewhere in Daniel, but now that you know...stop already!

In the deeper analysis, the things conveyed by Daniel and Isaiah concerning the anti-Christ's intrusions into nations are the maneuvering's of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. Such a beast does not require a peace deal to capture its victims, but overwhelms them. Isaiah conveys this raw power in a passage revealing the uplifted heart of Anti-Christ:

"And I [the anti-Christ] take away the borders of peoples, and their treasures I have robbed, and I subdue inhabitants as a mighty one... I have gathered all the land, and there was not one moving a wing, or opening a mouth, or one chirping" (10:14).

If he were to make a peace treaty with one nation and then betray and invade, no other nation would thereafter be so naive as to fall for the same ruse. But look for one who just plows through "marvelously," with most victimized nations unable to muster a significant resistance...until the appointed time of his end.

I have read articles (that I agree with) wherein the "2300 evenings and mornings" found in Daniel 8 are properly interpreted as literal days (some wild-cat interpreters teach that they are 2300 years) and moreover are properly understood as a period of nearly seven years within the 70th Week. And yet the articles don't mention how that 2300-day period obliterates the peace-treaty theory. Is it not clear enough that there is nothing Revealed by God concerning those 2300 days but the military activity of the anti-Christ leveled against Israel?

Behold something amazing. There are those who (like me) believe that the "king of the north" in Daniel 11:21-31 is the end-time anti-Christ, and yet they too fail to concur that this view obliterates the peace-treaty theory. There is warfare throughout those verses, even against Israel, and it can be plainly seen that they speak on events within the first half of the Week. There will be no peace treaty with Israel in the first half of the Week.

Do you believe that the anti-Christ will take Jerusalem in the middle of the Week without a prior siege of lengthy duration? This is the impression given by those who support a peace treaty, that the deal is betrayed by the anti-Christ at mid-Week, wherefore he instantly enters the Jerusalem sanctuary and sets up the Abomination with no time allotted for a war beforehand. Raise your hands any readers who think the Jews will not put up a fight when the anti-Christ invades their country. Not one hand.

If the anti-Christ treads on Jerusalem for 42 months, as Revelation 11 reveals, it can be understood that he invades Israel as a whole a significant time prior to the start of the 42 months.

We are wrongly taught that, as the Gog of Ezekiel 38 covers Israel's mountains with his armies, he weakens Israel profusely enough to allow the anti-Christ, viewed as another ruler besides Gog, to step easily/instantly into Israel to take her captive. This view is of course rejected by others and myself who equate Gog with the anti-Christ, wherefore we view the covering of Israel like a cloud as the invasion of the anti-Christ's fighters in the first half of the Week so that they are readied to take Jerusalem by the midway point (at verse 31).

Verses 21-31 in Daniel 11 show that the anti-Christ is opposed to the "holy covenant" throughout the first half of the Week, and in fact his invasions into Egypt (as of verse 25) are driven by his animosity toward that covenant. This holy covenant of which I now speak is not the unholy covenant of Daniel 9:27; rather, "holy covenant" is a phrase denoting Israel's right to exist (which was granted by God Himself).

The reason that the anti-Christ attacks Egypt in the first half of the Week is that he is not yet willing (may feel he's not powerful enough) to conquer Israel at that time, as can be seen quite vividly in verse 28, where we read that he strikes Israel a jolt but returns to his own land...before coming back south to finish his anti-Israeli business nearer to the mid-point. This picture does not allow a peace treaty with Israel at that time.

The military resistance of the Jews is what the first 1010 days of the 2300 days must be about. When only 1290 days remain, the Jewish military is broken enough to permit entry of the enemy into the Holy Place of Old Jerusalem, at which point even the leaders of Israel will flee the country, says Isaiah. Proof that the northern parts of Israel will first be attacked and taken, prior to the trampling of Jerusalem, is in the following text, where the end-time "Assyrian" is speaking, and showing us that Samaria in northern Israel will be taken before Jerusalem:

"Is Samaria not like Damascus? As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols...shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols as I have done to Samaria and her idols" (Isa. 10:9-11)?

The implication is that the King of the North takes Damascus in Syria before he moves south to take the Samaritan region north of Jerusalem...before invading Jerusalem itself. Because Jerusalem is not trampled until the second half of the 70th Week, the invasion of Syria and northern Israel must occur either in the first half, or prior to the Week altogether. This, then, will be a significant sign to indicate Gog's arrival to his God-sanctioned mission. Already, before he arrives to Israel, he is known worldwide to be an invader.

In that same Isaiah text (verse 9), we find two more of Gog's questions that will act as yet earlier signs for those who watch: "Is not Calno like Carchemish? Is Hamath not like Arpad?"

That is, before he moves into Syria, he takes Carchemish, and before that, Calno. Carchemish was on the upper reaches of the Euphrates just over the Syrian border into Turkey. The location of Calno is in dispute, some placing it south of Baghdad, and others well north along the upper reaches of the Tigris river in Kurdish regions. I think that Calno is in the north simply because it is mentioned side by side with Carchemish.

It's interesting that Daniel 11:21-31, to be treated in the next chapter, does not mention his invasion of Syria. It could be that he has taken Syria already by the time that he enters Iraq.