It's been a few years now since Applied Digital Solutions applied to the American government for permission to lodge the "VeriChip" (brand name) into human skin. It's predictable that secular/pluralistic governments will not reject such applications merely on account of Christian communities standing opposed, but, just the same, Applied Digital appeared on the 700 Club to convince the Christian public that its product isn't the Biblical "mark of the beast" (of Revelation 13).In early October of 2004, the government granted approval for the marketing of Veri-Chip. I quote the Associated Press:
"A tiny computer chip approved Wednesday for implantation in a patient’s arm...about the size of a grain of rice, for medical purposes...Silently and invisibly, the dormant chip stores a code that releases patient-specific information when a scanner passes over it...The VeriChip itself contains no medical records, just codes that can be scanned, and revealed, in a doctor’s office or hospital."(entire story at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6237364/)
Rumor has it that chips will be imbedded with transponders that work in conjunction with satellites to trace a person's whereabouts within meters (although other sources tell us that this technology is currently impossible using a rice-size device). Civil-liberties groups are gearing to turn opinion against the invasiveness of the skin chips, thus providing a controversy that promises to complicate chip marketing. In the meantime, private citizens such as Jeff Jacobs, who request the chips for medical/health reasons, might prove to be the best allies of the chip companies.
"DELRAY BEACH, Fla. (BUSINESS WIRE) March 3, 2005 -- VeriChip Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Applied Digital (NASDAQ: ADSX), announced today that CareGroup Healthcare Systems...will install a VeriChip(TM) System in the Emergency Department of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) for clinical use. The facility will now be able to access VeriChip identification numbers and retrieve previously entered healthcare information entered in the CareGroup's "CareWeb" electronic medical record system...CareGroup, with 3,000 doctors, 12,000 employees and 2 million patients..."
(full story here)As long ago as November, 2003, we read:
"Applied Digital Solutions of Palm Beach, Fla., is hoping that Americans can be persuaded to implant RFID chips under their skin to identify themselves when going to a cash machine or in place of using a credit card...ADS is running a special promotion, urging Americans to 'get chipped.' The first 100,000 people to sign up will receive a $50 discount."http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-5111637.html
By 2006, a study of 500 students indicated that 8 percent were willing to use skin chips, while only 5 percent of adults were willing. This can be viewed as quite a success since chips for commercial purposes were virtually unkown to the American public just two or three years earlier.
[Update May 2008 -- The following article (not dated) reveals one subtle method of causing society to accept the skincode as something other than the mark of the beast, by locating it first on right arms of the shoulder area. The chips would more likely be placed in right hands if finally it becomes viable/enforced in the marketplace:
"...last month Applied Digital Solutions, Inc. of Palm Beach, Fla., unveiled 'VeriPay,' an RFID chip designed to be implanted under the skin to allow for automatic cash and credit transactions. The size of a rice grain, the device would be embedded in the right arm between elbow and shoulder, the company says."http://www.chemicalprocessing.com/articles/2003/68.html
There we have it, finally, a skin chip with a buy/sell use, and it's already in some consumers. So much for those writers claiming that it would never arrive. I had been waiting since 1995 for it, and the timing of 2008 is roughly what I had then suspected for an introductory voluntary system. Don't even think of using one if you value your life. While it may not end up being the exact format by which the mark of the beast will be applied to consumers, it's just too close for comfort. God is watching. God despises these people who are bringing it on. You will be lumped into the same condemned category if you join yourself to this system. End Update
][Update June 2012 -- I didn't know until now that "[VeriChip] was discontinued in 2010 amid concerns about privacy and safety. Still scientists and engineers have not given up on the idea. A handful of enterprising companies have stepped into the void left by VeriChip, and are developing ways to integrate technology and man. Biotech company MicroCHIPS has developed an implantable chip to deliver medicine to people on schedule and without injection. And technology company BIOPTid has patented a noninvasive method of identification called the “human barcode.” [End update]
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/human-barcode-society-organized-invades-privacy-civil-liberties-article-1.1088129If skin chips are used for purchasing purposes only -- holding no other information but bank account numbers -- they would then be more palatable to those non-Christians now opposed. Of course -- and don't the chip companies know it -- once a skincode has been accepted by the public for the most-basic of uses, other groups will legislate or otherwise enforce skin-based data systems for scores of other uses.
Nobody flinched when only recently electronic deduction via plastic cards quickly overtook our entire society. The chip companies are happy; the banks are even happier. But as electronic deduction through a mark in the skin is proving to be quite another matter, there will almost certainly be an optional skincode system prior to the enforcement stage. The public needs to be conditioned first, and anti-Christian activists will lead the way. The Democrats, for example, who despise the Christian right will soon, not merely accept, but promote, the system.
One could predict that the skincode will be optional for all or part of the first half of the Week. If this proves to be true, there will arise distinct benefits as regards the preparation of places to live apart from the codes. Not only will the optional period be a clear wake-up call and some invaluable time for making preparations, but some of the goats among the Christian churches will be discovered early when they take a skincode at that time. Will there be pre-tribulationists taking the skincode due to their belief that it could not be the Biblical mark of the beast, since they “know” that the mark cannot arrive until after the rapture? Will these urge other believers to take the code as mindlessly as they now use credit cards?
Another prediction to be made is that spiritual enemies in high places, those bringing on the skincode, will not want to give us time to make tribulation preparations, wherefore they might shorten the optional period as much as possible. Christian evangelism and faith-fervor is predicted to boom as soon as the optional period begins, and don’t they know it?
Microchip companies must realize that the big money is in purchasing/banking because virtually everyone does it. But how will it profit the banks to have us wave a hand over scanners as opposed to running a card through them? Banks desire a cashless society because it saves much labor to turn our deposits and withdrawals into rapid electron impulses, but doesn't the plastic card facilitate just such a system already? How will a skin code move electron waves any cleaner or faster?
However, I do not see banks opposing the skin system, but rather welcoming it, for damaged-card replacement is a nuisance, while one chip per person could serve bank purposes for a much longer period than one card. Yet, I do not think that the skincode can be made mandatory based merely on the preferences of banks to reduce/eradicate card replacement.
These considerations lead me to believe that other forces besides banks will predominate in skincode promotion, and the filthy-lucre finger points first to the chip companies having patents on skin chips. But even so, I do not see that the chip companies alone -- apart from banks -- can create a situation where the skincode is anything more than optional. The question of what will be responsible for a non-optional system could be answered more specifically if the Bible had revealed the form of the skincode's enforcement, whether by force of law, or by force of no other purchasing option made available by the banks. In short, the banks don't need the skin system very badly, but can be coaxed into eliminating both cash and cards in favor of skin chips, especially if skin chip companies pay them royalties and/or other rewards.
[Update July 29, 2008 -- In my Iraq Update of July 26-28, 2008, I included this online clip:
"Sources from inside the 2008 Bilderberg meeting have leaked the details of what elitists were discussing in Chantilly Virginia last week and the talking points were ominous - a plan to microchip Americans under the pretext of fighting terrorist groups...Veteran Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker relies on sources who regularly attend Bilderberg as aides and assistants but who are not Bilderberg members themselves. The information they provided this year is bone-chilling for those who have tracked the development of the plan to make the general public consider implanted microchips as a convenience as routine as credit cards.
Tucker underscored that Bilderberg were talking about subdermally implanted chips and not merely RFID chips contained in clothing. The discussion took place in a main conference hall and was part of the agenda, not an off-hand remark in the hotel bar."
I have yet to verify whether this is a true report, and whether the Bilderberg Group was dead serious about tackling this system. I don't see why the report couldn't be true. I don't imagine it was leaked as a joke. I can't venture a guess, with what little info has come out, on how long it will take until we see some movement on a skincode system. I don't know if the following is an exhaustive list of bankers in attendance (in the first week of June, 2008):
"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Timothy Geithner and Fed Chairman Bernanke were in attendance, as well as Jean-Claude Trichet, EU Central Bank President, Mario Draghi, the head of Banca d’Italia, Josef Ackermann, Chairman of the Management Board of Deutsche Bank AG, Tom McKillop, Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, and Seppo Honkapohja, Board member of the Bank of Finland...World Bank President Zoellick was there, along with ex-Bank Presidents Wolfowitz and Wolfensohn."End Update
]Much of the retail industry is inclined to support banks toward a cashless marketplace because stores also save time and frustration when not handling cash and checks...explaining why many retailers are contentedly using electronic deduction i.e. debit cards. Retailers who don't prefer the cashless system, due to high fees charged by credit-card companies, are virtually forced to use it simply because many consumers want to use credit cards for air miles, convenience, etc. It is the goal of the credit-card companies to make the cards sufficiently attractive to the consumers that the retailers will bend the knee more assuredly in accepting credit cards...even though it's the retailer that pays (to the card companies) the fee for every card use: a whopping 3 percent (roughly) of each transaction amount.
Of course, the retailer passes this cost on to the consumer by increasing product price, meaning that the consumer (you) is ultimately the loser even while thinking that he/she is bagging a bargain with "free" air miles, etc. These are worth but a fraction of one percent per item purchased, and yet the same consumer is ultimately paying the 3 percent credit-card fee. You easily realize exactly why the credit card companies don't inform you of this scam (i.e. because they hope to deceive you for as long as they can). So long as retailers are satisifed that the consumer is ultimately paying their credit-card fees, retailers are content paying it on their behalf, because retailers eliminate bounced checks when using cards. Seeing that consumers are turning more to debit cards than credit cards, even though the debit cards do not "reward" the spender with air miles, etc., the Imperial Bank of Canada is now offering a full one-percent cashback for credit-card use (it's still a rip-off and a scam!).
The retailer is far happier with debit cards because, at least to this point in time, the credit-card fee is not in effect. Yet all debit-card users are still paying a little more for everything they buy simply because the retailer has increased product prices to make up for those who use credit cards. As long as there are people who wish to borrow money, there will be credit cards, and I don't see why the skincode could not act as a credit purchase as well as a debit purchase (the latter does not borrow money). How many consumers would start using the skinchip if they are offered a higher "reward"? The companies can easily afford to give a 2-percent rebate because they can easily increase the card fee from 3 percent to 4 percent...without informing the consumer, of course.
The fact that the pro-chip organizations have been slow in advertising the skin system is not necessarily an indication that marketing hopes are dismal; the reason may be technical. Great efforts worldwide are being made to de-bug transaction capabilities of online-shopping, so that buyers and sellers alike might come to trust in wire transactions.
So-called RFID ink (radio frequency identification) has been around since WW2, and is now being used to monitor commercial items. The data imbedded in the no-chip ink can be read by scanners, even hidden ones (e.g. in door jambs or store shelving).
[ UPDATE Februray 26, 2009 -- Most RFID inks are used on objects, but now we read the headline: "Invisible RFID Ink Safe For Cattle And People, Company Says". Here are some pieces of the article:
The process developed by Somark involves a geometric array of micro-needles and an ink capsule, which is used to 'tattoo' an animal. The ink can be detected from 4 feet away....Co-founder Mark Pydynowski said during an interview Wednesday that the ink doesn't contain any metals and can be either invisible or colored. He declined to say what is in the ink, but said he's certain that it is 100% biocompatible and chemically inert. He also said it is safe for people and animals.
...Pydynowski said it takes five to 10 seconds to 'stamp or tattoo' an animal, and there is no need to remove the fur. The ink remains in the dermal layer, and a reader can detect it from 4 feet away.
I picked up some further information at another article that likewise expresses viability for human-skincode development:
"The tattoo is applied using a micro-needle, which is actually a geometric array of many tiny needles, and each tattoo is made up of a unique pattern.Once an animal is tattooed, the ID is permanent"
Invisible. Quick to tattoo. Permanent. Cheap. Safe. No batteries needed (the scanning device activates it). And society is already familiar with tattoos. End Update]
According to an issue of "Senior Scholastics" of 1973, there had been plans -- as long ago as that -- amid the financial circles to implant a number in the skin using a quick and painless shot of invisible ultra-violet laser light. And, said the article, "people would receive a numbered tattoo in their wrist or forehead," the very two places that Revelation 13 foretells. The development of the Universal Product Code, or UPC, was finalized in that very year of 1973. What's more, the smart card was also rising at that very time via Roland Moreno of France and his company, Innovatron (founded 1974). Moreno is the inventor of the typical, modern smart card.
Innovatron licensed its smart-card invention to manufacturers (e.g. Gemplus), and they allied themselves with software and hardware companies (e.g. Hewlett Packard) providing the systems to read cards and handle transactions. Manufacturers supplied viable money cards to Mondex, and Mondex in conjunction with governments, large banks and telephone companies carried out operational pilot projects around the world in several countries between 1996-98, including the United States. The projects were said to be successful. By 2000, Mondex in conjunction with the smart-card software giant, ACI Worldwide, had succeeded in putting together a "compliant" system that safely and reliably permitted e-commerce with multiple security systems, in a diversity of currencies. Global e-commerce was learning to walk.
Smart cards are advertised as "money in the card." No wires are needed to make purchases as with debit cards. Smart cards look like standard magnetic-stripe cards, but are technically different, although some cards are now both smart and magnetic-stripe. Smart-card test projects have reportedly shown that fraud is reduced by 90 percent or more when compared with the magnetic stripe card system.
A debit card has "dumb" numeral data allowing "e-money" to be zipped from the purchaser's bank account, through telephone wires, and instantly plunked into the seller's bank account. An "e-purse" smart card, on the other hand, with it's tiny computer chip, is inserted into bank (ATM) machines to load it with "cash." The chip keeps track of totals unloaded at every purchase point. When the "money" runs low, the cards can be reloaded at bank machines...or at a personal computer when one has the required hardware. Smart cards also come in the one-use, disposable variety. The greatest current use for smart cards is merely the prepaid long-distance card. In other words, smart cards have already become secondary to debit cards.
However, I mention smart cards because they could just become the "mark of the beast" exclusively, for they are a benign method of purchasing as compared to the invasive wire-debit system. In other words, smart cards have the potential of appeasing civil-liberties groups. While debit-card systems can trace a person's movements by running a central-computer check on his/her purchases, smart cards don't wire purchase information into computers; the purchase is known only by the buyer and seller.
Yes, the smart card will have a person-identifying number built in, and that number may be recorded by the retailer's scanning device, but if a law were to be made that does not force/permit retailers to submit that information to any other organization, the personal-privacy issue may be solved. Moreover, when a retailer takes money directly from a bank account, the consumer may have a sense that the retailer gets far too close to the bank-account information and all of the money in it, whereas in a smart-card purchase, the consumer has the feeling that the retailer does not go to the threshold of the bank account, but simply to the money stored on the card, which money can be limited to smaller amounts than sits in the account.
Therefore, Mondex is not failing to advertise this public-friendly feature. The company is 51 percent owned by Mastercard; there are several shareholders having a slice of the other 49% -- mainly banks but also AT&T. Yet if Mondex is planning a skincode smart system, it's not spilling any beans about it.
The next question as per what causes the non-optional skincode system has to do with government wishes. As certain government agencies want purchase data built into e-commerce systems, might not the Biblical skincode go wired? The giant alliance of Europay-Mastercard-Visa is currently investing much in smart chips for wired transactions...because of the vastly improved security features of the smart chips. Wikipedia says that "The UK is in the process of converting all debit cards in circulation to Chip and PIN...to increase transaction security." Thus, everything seems to be turning to a combination of smart and invasive (i.e. wired), like it or not. This gives the people the option of shopping with or without wires, and so solves the privacy issues for those who are so concerned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_cardWired e-commerce amounted to less than one percent of the global economy in 2003, and was then projected to be about five percent in 2004, about 5 trillion dollars (smart cards accounted for a tiny fraction of this amount, a few $billion annually). By 2008, the bulk of the world economy will have gone electronic, especially as debit cards are common place now, in early 2007. Debit card use superceded cash payments a few years ago (2001 in Canada).
SIGNS OF THE ILLUMINATI
In the end, the False Prophet will enforce the skincode, although the Bible doesn't reveal whether or not he is the first to do so. I wouldn't look to him or to the anti-Christ to build the skincode commercial system, but to others -- on an optional basis -- so that the evil duo merely need to walk in and enforce it to fulfill prophecy. Note that it's the False Prophet who is portrayed in the Bible as the chief enforcer of the skincode, not the anti-Christ.
This helps us to identify the False Prophet, not as a purely religious figure (e.g. the Pope or New-Age guru), but primarily as a political leader with much influence in world commerce. It has been my guess that an agent of a superior Illuminati cell will be this False Prophet. But does this mean that the global financial institutions such as Mondex are plugged into Illuminati cells? What could be more logical, since Illuminati cells are by nature financial institutions, on a global order, with the purpose of conducting world affairs?
Note that the Bible text speaks of no penalty/punishment for those refusing the mark. The text only underscores their deprived condition: they won't be able to "buy or sell" (Rev.13:17). It doesn't sound like a crime to refuse the mark, in other words. However, only two verses earlier we read that anyone who refuses to worship the "image of the beast" could end up killed. The text seems to be portraying desperation among world rulers, a hastening unto some utopian ideal.
The important question then is: how closely linked will the mark be to the image? I believe that the False Prophet and anti-Christ Beast will initially be enemies on account of their West versus neo-Communist programs, and that the Iraqi stage is becoming what appears to be the middle ground for a necessary (but unwanted) partnership between Western Illuminatii and the Russian anti-Christ. Because I view the activities of the anti-Christ as confined to the Middle East and Russia, I will suggest that the Image of the Beast will be of greatest important in those areas...but perhaps given only mild lip service in America i.e. without severe punishment given by American authorities to those who ignore the Image.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Visa and Mastercard, working in conjunction, have already decided to call it's smart card, Multi-technology Automated Reader Card, or MARC. Rather, it suggests more than mere willingness to make the Biblical "mark of the beast" happen as a derisive event toward Christians. The MARC card was first used in a 1993 military test project, and proved to be a great time-saving success. Also, Visa (COPAC) had introduced a Mark I and Mark II.
It was pointed out to me that "Mondex" seems to be short for "monetary dexterity." While "dexterity" means "easy handling," the dictionary definition of "dexter" is "right hand" or "right side." Therefore, the term "Mondex" could very well have been chosen to depict "money in the right hand"!! Note also the "monde" = "world."
Wouldn't you know it that Mastercard and Visa's "Secure Electronic Transaction" system produced the "SET Mark," the registered logo for a debit-card system used exclusively for internet purchases...where "Set" happens to be the Egyptian version of Satan, so that SET MARK could have the below-table meaning of "SATAN's MARK." Might we wonder if "Master" in "Mastercard" had been a reference to Satan/Lucifer from the card-company's inception?
It has come to light that Mastercard has produced and distributed smart cards covered in triquetra -- an occult symbol -- so that the cardholder's photo/face is covered with them. The triquetra is a petal-like design which appears to be formed by joining together three sixes. Some are suggesting that the triquetra could itself be the Biblical mark of the beast. Perhaps. It would be a way of placing the three sixes on persons without their acknowledging the fact...Christians would be made to appear as "stretching it" when claiming the triquetra to be the Biblical 666. See photo (Compliments of http://www.russpickett.com/del4jc/rapture/rap04.htm).
The Universal Product Code (UPC) is the bar-studded icon on all store-bought items. Evidence of a 666 is built into the Universal Product Code, and yet the creators provided a way for the consumer to view it as something other than that number. The three black bars representing the three 6s are not openly identified as numbers on any UPC, whereas all other bars are clearly identified with digits directly below or beside them. Those who bring us the UPC will say that the three bars having no digits are merely "guard bars." But then why did UPC designers choose a guard-bar type that elsewhere in the UPC represents the digit, 6? Why didn't they choose a gaurd-bar type that elsewhere on the UPC represented a 2, 3, 4, etc?
And why are there three 6s rather than two or four? We have every right to be suspicious, especially as the UPC was developed with a global purchasing system in view. Surely, government officials overseeing the code's engineering must have known that we Christians would oppose the inclusion of three 6s in a commercial system on very strong religious grounds. But maybe that's exactly why they used 6s of all numbers. Perhaps God has created a self-fulfilling number just by making it known to his enemies, and little do they know that it's no joke!
The positive side is that the UPC engineers have not been successful in concealing the triplet from us. Indeed, it is quite fortunate that a 666 has been found in the UPC because it warns of the nearness of the fully-developed skincode system. I expect the 666 in the skincode system to be likewise deny-able. I'm not suggesting that the UPC will be used in the skincode. Hardly anyone is suggesting that.
The word-for-word Greek reading of Revelation 13:17-18 can be read in two ways: 1) with a skincode that is the name of the beast OR a 666, or, 2) as is commonly believed, with a skincode that is the name of the beast AND a 666. The first option suggests the distribution of two kinds of skincodes, one with the name of the beast but without a 666, and another with a 666 but without the name of the beast:
...no one could buy or sell except the one having the mark the name of the beast or the number of it's name" (v 17)According to verse 18 in conjunction with the verse above, it's the number of the beast's name that will have the peculiarity of adding up to 666. Almost everyone figures that this name refers to that of the anti-Christ, the man, except for those who view the "beast" of Revelation 13 strictly as an empire. Personally, I view the beast as both. It is possible, therefore, that the number to look for may be a number pertaining to a title of the European Union (I believe the Russian anti-Christ will come to chair the EU).
Take a look in your kitchen cupboards, and you will see the 666 triplet on all cans and packages. As it stands today, you can't buy or sell your daily needs without the triplet! But the Bible submits that it is the receiving of the 666/mark on the hand or forehead that is damning, and not the use of the UPC. The skin system becomes evil by association with the "beast." To make sure, I am refusing anything that is skin-based.
The Universal Product Code, as well as similar codes used in other parts of the world, is a creation of the Uniform Code Council (UCC). The UCC is governed by huge corporations, and was a creation of certain food manufacturers and retail representatives who met in Washington in 1969 to iron out a viable code system that, supposedly, simplified inventory records. I would submit to you that globalization was primary in their minds. After all, one year after the UPC's debut, a European counterpart to the UCC was developed, called the EAN.
The European Article Numbering system has a base in Brussels, Belgium, where also the headquarters of Europay sits. EAN has grown international in scope, with almost 100 countries under its wings, so that it has eclipsed the UCC, wherefore the two, working together today, are known as the EAN-UCC. At the EAN home page, the EAN-UCC is represented by a pyramid. What does a pyramid have to do with keeping inventory?
The EAN-UCC joined with the Consumer Products Manufacturers' Association in 1999. This latter organization, CPMA, was formed as a union between Kodak, Johnson and Johnson, Gillette, and Proctor and Gamble. The CPMA home page has what appears to be a pyramid within a pyramid within a pyramid as a logo. The purpose of the coming together of these four apparently-Masonic corporations is to implement new scanning technology for the global mandate of EAN-UCC. Will the scanners be built not only to utilize the UPC, but the skincode as well? Keep an all-seeing eye on those corporations.
Update December 2, 2007 -- The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is a corporation operating in 200-plus countries and could therefore be a world-control organ in disguise...that may come to facilitate/spread the mark-of-the-beast commercial system! At it's website (below), the EIU boasts of being "The world leader in global business intelligence." It's head office is in London, and the current Editorial Director and Chief Economist, Robin Bew, was previously working for the British government in overseeing some of it's economic situations. There is an icon used by the EIU webpage that appears to be a computerized-numeral system in the forehead of a man.
The EIU has what it calls an "e-readiness ranking" that monitors the nations of the world as per their capabilities and progress in e-commerce viability. Let's suppose that the members of the European Union, for its 2007-13 seven-year fiscal period, have ratified an agenda to get all member-nations up to skincode snuff by 2013; the EU could then use the EIU to monitor and assess these nations so that the ones lagging behind the EU agenda can become identified, for the purpose of reprimanding an/or egging them on. In 2007, the US has been ranked second, behind Denmark, and tied with Sweden. Finland, the UK, and the Netherlands are in the top ten...all of which smacks of Aryanism. Iran, however, the ancient bed of Aryanism, came in last (69th).
http://www.eiu.com/
http://globaltechforum.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=10599The question is, does the EIU do more than keep score? Yes, much more. Does it have an underlying/insidious agenda to compell the many governments to conform? If so, it's a self-serving organization, looking not out for your interests, nor even the interests of your country. Why would the EIU "White Paper" state that the EIU will "re-evaluate the impact of those [nations] that appear to be waning." It sounds as though the waning nations are in for a slap on the chin for not having enough e-commerce impact on their people. Why this rush to leave the simpler life behind for a computerized inter-connected world? Only the devil and his love of money knows for sure.
UPDATE March 2012 -- How can we know who the real Christians are? Perhaps, but not conclusively, the ones who can be predicted to adopt the skincode are those who are now advancing skin chips. For example, Sean Hannity of Fox is conniving on his show with Scott Silver of Digital Angel. While Sean seems afraid to signal to his audience that he's not going so far as to support chips in the skin of children, he is nonetheless promoting skin chips for children (see 4-minute mark of video below), in the name of their safety against kidnappers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH-CM1adTJs&feature=relatedIn the least, Sean (who uses "let not your heart be troubled" on his television shows) seems oblivious to Christians warning against the mark of the beast, and yet we can gather that Sean is more than informed enough to know that Christians oppose skin chips like they oppose the mark of the beast. My conclusion is that Sean Hannity is not the sort of Christian who opposes the mark of the beast, and that he appears poised to support and even advance the spread of systems that may turn out to be on par with the anti-Christ's commercial skincode program...which is not to say that Sean will certainly support the anti-Christ. Our word to Christians who watch and honor Sean is, caution.
Sean says that he "loves the idea" of placing chips in ear rings, for example. However, that non-starter argument is in reality a primer for persuading / coercing society to accept the skin chip, for any child abductor will now know to discard his victim's jewelry and clothing in case they have affixed tracking systems.
In the video below, 2017 is highlighted. Might we ask why? Although I was looking for an optional commercial skincode by 2012 a decade ago, 2017 now seems much better. In fact, the way developments are looking now, 2020 seems even better. However, there is always the possibility that the skincode could be sprung on us overnight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzOzAkVwf5c&feature=relatedUse all your wisdom when viewing 666 videos. There's misinformation out there. Watch out for those who use comfort music in the background when warning against the end of the world or related disasters; it seems twisted to me, done in the wrong spirit. Have you noticed that some Christian productions are as concerned with production as with content / message? If the music makes the video seem sensational, you're likely watching the production of a foolish person whose message is likely wrong. End Update
]For my 2011 comments on the stalling of the skincode, see here.
THE NATIONALITY OF ANTI-CHRIST
Written 1997; additions made some years later.
It might be true to say that no one will know the anti-Christ's identity with complete certainty until he sets up the "abomination of desolation." Foreign soldiers will, on a large scale, invade Jerusalem's Temple site with profanities, and from there lay waste (i.e. desolate) the city. This must involve much more than a rock-pelting by Palestinian boys, or a string of suicide bombings, or anything merely sacrilegious. It must be a major military invasion (see Luke 21) occurring at a time when a commercial skincode system, incorporating a 666, is feasible in the bulk of the "civilized" world.
Misleading ideas could be avoided if we could first of all know, from Scripture, which nation the anti-Christ will be a citizen of. This knowledge is a key starting point for identifying the man. In Biblical terms, the anti-Christ is the "Gog of Magog" of Ezekiel 38 and 39. Yes, the evidence is overwhelming, and I will share it with you in this chapter.
It is apparent today, in accordance with the sort of globalization taking shape, that even Gog can become an interim leader of Europe in the near future. As unlikely a scenario as it may seem to you at this time (1997), even as it seemed totally impossible to me in the early 1990s, I have since been claiming just that -- Gog will one day lead Europe -- simply because the Bible leads me to this conclusion. Does it seem a contradiction to portray the anti-Christ as a European ruler and a Russian Gog all at once? No more so than the apparent contradiction found in Daniel where the anti-Christ is portrayed both as a European leader and a Middle-Eastern war hog. The reality must be that the anti-Christ is not going to be the leader or figurehead of a revived Roman empire until he successfully invades the Middle East as a Russian.
In the 1980s, I had two main reasons for rejecting the Gog-anti-Christ equation. For one, I didn't see how the Ezekiel text placed Gog's destruction at Armageddon, after the 70th Week, a timing which is absolutely necessary if he were the anti-Christ. Or perhaps closer to the truth, I had seen Gog's destruction at Armageddon, but only as out of the corner of my eye, yet I simply refused to entertain it even when at times it jiggled out to my awareness. For, like so many other prophecy students, and no doubt due to the overwhelming writings in this direction, I was convinced that Gog could not be the anti-Christ.
Popular writers such as Grant Jeffrey assume that Gog must first be destroyed for the very purpose of opening the way for the anti-Christ to plow unopposed through Israel. But what happens to this view if Ezekiel 38-39 proves that Gog is destroyed at Armageddon? Rather than viewing Gog and the anti-Christ as two military leaders acting against Israel separately, might we not recognize them as being one and the same person? But if true, how can we explain the inability of many prophecy educators to see things this way?
When Revelation 19 depicts Jesus' "white-horse" appearance to defeat the anti-Christ's forces, there is an invitation from God to the birds. Read this invitation below, and then compare it to the wording of Ezekiel below that:
...he [an angel] cried out in a great voice, saying to all the birds, 'Come and assemble yourselves to the great supper of God, in order that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of generals and the flesh of strong men and the flesh of horses and those who sit upon them...'"(Revelation 19:17,18)."Say to the bird of every wing, and to every beast of the field, 'Gather yourselves and come; collect yourselves from all around to my sacrifice which I sacrifice for you, a great sacrifice on the mountains of Israel, so that you may eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat the flesh of the mighty and drink the blood of the princes of the earth...And you shall be satiated at my table, with horses and chariots, and mighty men, all the men of war'" (Ezekiel 39:17-20).
If the language of Revelation was not written to confuse us, the anti-Christ is one and the same, Gog's hordes. Yes, for when the language of Revelation so clearly reflects Old-Testament language, it is expounding on the Old Testament. Some readers may see the above comparison as less than overwhelming evidence; it is indeed possible for there to be two different invitations to the birds, to two different feasts upon the flesh of soldiers representing two different armies. Yet, the possibility remains, and must therefore be entertained, that the similarities in the two texts stand as an Intended indicator -- merely one of several others -- that identifies Gog as the anti-Christ.
Consider the following statement concerning Israel's restoration, found only two verses after Ezekiel's invitation to the birds:
"So shall the house of Israel know that I am the LORD their God, from that day and onward"(Ezekiel 39:22).It is made clear that the period, "that day and onward," is referring to an endless period beginning at the day of Gog's destruction. But if we place that day in the first half of the Week, then we must view Israel as knowing the LORD their God forever beginning then...something altogether strange in all of the Bible. To the contrary, prophecy tells that God will hide Himself from Israel in the second half of the Week, so that "that day and onward" cannot begin in the first half, but is much better viewed as a post-Armageddon blessing. All of prophecy speaking to Israel's endless blessings commences at Armageddon.
So, as "that day and onward" means Armageddon and onwards, Gog must be destroyed at Armageddon...wherefore it becomes irresistible to equate him with the anti-Christ. Don't misunderstand me, Gog will enter Israel in the first half of the Week, as per the prophecies regarding the anti-Christ, and then go on to trample Jerusalem for 42 months, but his destruction is not until Armageddon, the time for Israel's restoration. There is not one scripture showing Israel's restoration at any time prior to the time for destroying the nations at Armageddon.
Similarly, in Ezekiel 38:16 we read that, as a result of Gog's destruction, the nations will "know" God. In verse 23, the LORD repeats this claim: "I will be known in the eyes of many nations." Apparently, those teachers who insist that Gog is destroyed early in the Week, or even prior to the Week, must be strangely convinced that the nations will know the LORD at those times. But how can this be when Revelation makes it plain that the nations will reject Him plague-after-plague until the very last one: Armageddon? How can the nations know God when they are all receiving the mark of the beast? And even at the very tail end of the Week they will send one another gifts to celebrate the deaths of God's Two Witnesses.
Ezekiel 39:21 conflicts with these teachers all the more by saying that, as a result of Gog's destruction, "I will put my glory among the nations," an event that cannot happen during the Week, nor even during Armageddon, but only after Armageddon has Punished the nations. I hate to be redundant here, but the LORD becomes much more persuasive along these lines:
"Now [as a result of Gog's destruction] I will remove the captivity of Jacob, and will have mercy on all the house of Israel..." (Ezekiel 39:25)"I will not any more hide My face from them..." (Ezekiel 39:29)
Do you see that this is post-trib' and post-Armageddon talk? How could the LORD have placed Gog's defeat at Armageddon any more convincingly? It is made plain that, via Gog's attack on Israel, the LORD will hide his face from Israel, but via Gog's destruction, the LORD would never again hide his face from Israel. The period of hiding His face will be the 42 months of Israel's tribulation...wherefore Gog's destruction cannot be prior to the 42 months. Plain and simple, and yes forgive the redundancy.
Some writers are refusing to acknowledge that Gog's invasion is the LORD's personal punishment upon Israel, especially those writers who (wrongly) equate the Gog war of Revelation 20 with the Gog war here in Ezekiel. The reality is that the LORD brings Gog along with "hooks" to Israel's mountains (38:4), wherefore the invasion must be His wrath upon Israel, especially as He simultaneously turns His face from Israel. In Revelation 20, it is not God who brings Gog against Israel, and Gog is not shown inside Israel's borders...which is explained in Ezekiel itself as per God promising to bless/protect Israel beginning at Armageddon and onward.
EZEKIEL'S POST-TRIB LANGUAGE
When describing Gog's destruction, Ezekiel 38 is threaded with terms and phrases bringing Armageddon to mind. For example, such phrases as "the mountains shall be thrown down," or "all men on the face of the earth shall quake at My face," are found in relation to Gog's destruction. Similar post-tribulational language is found abundantly throughout the Old Testament (a dozen verses are included nearer to the end of this chapter for those who are not familiar with them). Take note of the following highlights from the Ezekiel text and compare them to the phrases/terms of other Old-Testament books which speak unquestioningly of Armageddon...also called the "Day of the LORD":
"And it shall be in that day, when Gog comes against the land of Israel, declares the Lord YHWH, my fury shall come up in my face. And in My jealousy the fire of My wrath which I spoke about. Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel. And the fish of the sea and the birds of the air shall shake at My face and the beasts of the field and all the creeping things that creep on the earth, and all the men who are on the face of the earth. And the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places [cliffs] shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground. And I shall call for a sword against him on all my mountains...And I will judge him with a plague and with blood, and an overflowing shower, and hailstones. I will rain fire and brimstone on him, and on his bands, and on the many peoples who are with him...and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am YHWH." (Ezekiel 38:18-22).Consider how impregnated this passage is with terminology from Isaiah, David, and elsewhere, some of it written previous to Ezekiel, as if God would not have us make any mistake about which Day He is speaking of. The phrase, "the fire of my wrath which I spoke about" is very strongly indicating the fiery wrath of the Final Day = Armageddon. The following Ezekiel offering is a similar declaration:
"BEHOLD! IT IS COMING AND IT SHALL BE DONE, DECLARES THE LORD YHWH. THIS IS THE DAY OF WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN (39:8).What future day had the Lord previously spoken of which had such immense significance as to warrant His use of, "This is THE DAY..."? Surely, He is referring to "the Day of the LORD," mentioned often as the world's destruction as a whole.
I hope that you've realized the error of pre-tribulationism wherein the Day of the LORD is wrongly viewed as the entire 70th Week. That Week cannot be the Day of the LORD because the LORD himself gives this period to the throne of Satan. The only reason that pre-tribulationists view the entire Week as this Day is due to the Bible's admission that Jesus returns and raptures His saints on the "day of the Lord."
GOG IS ALSO "ASSYRIA"
It amazes me that for years and years I glazed over the meaning of the following quote:
"Are you not the one of whom I have spoken in former days by the hand of my servants, the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days and years to bring you against [Israel]" (38:17)?If you search the prophetic writings prior to Ezekiel, you will not find the word "Gog" mentioned. Therefore, we must look for him (or his army) in alternative terms. We are looking for someone to attack Israel in the end-times who is so immense that God would refer to him as, "the one." There is no such end-time army/king which in prophecy previous to Ezekiel has such overwhelming priority in Israel like the army/man of the anti-Christ.
There are indeed several references to an army, or to a conglomeration of armies, to be empowered by God for an end-time invasion against Israel, only to be destroyed by Him at Armageddon. At times in Isaiah, this end-time army is equipped under the authority of the "king of Assyria." Elsewhere in Isaiah (13-14), the anti-Christ is revealed as the "king of Babylon." However, it says of this king of Babylon: ...to break Assyria in My land, and trample him on My mountains" (Isaiah 14:25).
It is this little clue that permits us to find the anti-Christ identified as "Assyria" in four other chapters of Isaiah (10, 19, 30 and 31), in Micah 5:5-6, and Nahum 3:18. Historians, including many Christians, don't realize that Isaiah 10 is referring to a second Assyrian assualt on Jerusalem, still to our future. This failure is quite amazing because Isaiah elsewhere depicts an end-time Assyria (see the coming chapter(s) for clarification).
Concerning ancient Assyria in its invasion of Jerusalem, Isaiah said: "So YHWH says this of the king of Assyria, he shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow here...I will defend over this city to save it" (37:33,35). But because the Assyria in Isaiah 10 invades Jerusalem (i.e. "Mount Zion") successfully (v 6), as God's wrath poured out on the Jews yet, the prophecy cannot concern the ancient Assyria that God protected Jerusalem from. As of today, there has not yet been a successful invasion of Jerusalem by an Assyrian, wherefore Isaiah 10 has yet to be fulfilled.
Note that the Isaiah-14 statement referring to end-time Assyria matches Gog's destruction on Israel's mountains: "to break Assyria in My Land, and trample him on My mountains" (Isaiah 14:25). We find in the very same verse that the destruction of Assyria pertains to Armageddon: "This is the purpose that is purposed on all the earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out on all the nations" (Isa. 14:25).
Here's the anger of God against Israel: "Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger! And My fury is the staff in their hand. I will send them against an ungodly nation [Israel], and against the people of My wrath. I will command him TO PLUNDER A PLUNDER, AND TO SPOIL A SPOIL" (Isaiah 10:5-6).
And look at what Gog comes to Israel to do according to Ezekiel: TO PLUNDER A PLUNDER, AND TO SPOIL A SPOIL" (38:12). Same Hebrew words in both texts. The question is: why are both Gog and end-time Assyria to plunder Israel as per the LORD'S will, and both to be destroyed at Armageddon on the mountains of Israel? One answer is: they are one and the same. Some prophecy educators are willing to view the Assyrian of Isaiah as the anti-Christ, but not as Gog, even though the location of ancient Assyria is in the face of modern Russia and ancient Magog.
In Isaiah 19:4, before the chapter ends with a peaceful solution between end-time Assyria and Egypt, the anti-Christ is called "a fierce king" in relation to a successful invasion of Egypt, an event also shown in Daniel 11:25-28 at the hand of the "king of the north." In a profound depiction of the Lord's second coming in Psalm 18, you will also find an oppressor of what appears to be Christ's Body/Elect, quoted as the "strong enemy" and "the violent one." In light of multiple references to the anti-Christ by one phrase or another, prior to the Ezekiel-38 prophecy, God should not be misunderstood when He asks of Gog: "Are you not the one of whom I have spoken in former days..."
WHEN ARE THE WEAPONS BURNED?
Adding to my difficulties at one time, there was the issue of Gog's weapons. The seven years in which Israel burns them for fuel seem, at first glance, to be a span of time occurring simultaneous with the 70th Week. By the very coincidence that both are seven-year time frames, we can be (mis)led to assume this. Scholars don't tend to lean toward the idea that Gog is destroyed at the end of the Week because that scenario juts the period of burning the weapons seven years into the Millennium.
However, it is not wise to chart Gog's destruction based on the timing of the destruction of his weapons when there is not a single indicator revealing that timing...except by first discovering the timing of Gog's destruction. Once the timing of his destruction is pinned down, we can know with 100 percent certainty that the burning of the weapons must occur for seven years thereafter.
I am now convinced that the weapons are burned for the first seven years of the Millennium. This appears unthinkable at first because the Millennium is supposed to be a new age of substantial blessing to Israel, and is she burning weapons for her fuel?? But the picture is not odd when one considers the utter destruction to Israel's forests, some destroyed 1) by the droughts and military invasions that God will bring in the 42 months, 2) by the final "locust" armies of Joel to strip the land clean of vegetation, 3) by the military fire of Armageddon, and possibly, 4) by the volcanic activity and/or melting of some land masses during the earth-shaking 7th Bowl.
The Lord could snap His fingers and create a paradise instantly after Armageddon, but I think it's clear from several Old-Testament prophecies (esp. Isaiah) that Israel will have to rebuild mainly from scratch using human energy and much natural means. Therefore, for seven years the people cook on fires, heat their homes, etc., by burning war equipment, including, no doubt, the use of gasoline and oil available from the machines of war. Where the anti-Christ is called "the trampler," we learn that even clothing is among some of the military things burned:
"For every boot of the trampler is shaking, and a coat rolled in blood will even become burning fuel for the fire. For a Child is born to us; to us a Child is given, and the government is on his shoulders; his name is called, Wonderful,..."You do see that the coats of the trampler are burned when the Israeli government is placed upon the shoulders of Jesus. That rulership will, of course, take place in the Millennial Jerusalem. But after seven years, we may conclude, shrubs and tree shoots will have grown sufficiently large to produce a new and ongoing supply of firewood (Isaiah 9:5).
DAY OF THE LORD QUOTES As promised, here are a dozen Old-Testament quotes which highlight the Day of the LORD, otherwise known as Armageddon. Notice how the terms are reflective of the destruction of Gog in Ezekiel:
1) "Our God [Jesus] comes, and he is not silent; a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very stormy around him" (Psalm 50:3).
2) "You shall be visited by the LORD of hosts with thunder and great earthquake and great noise, tempest and storm, and flames of devouring fire. And it will be like a dream, all the multitudes of the nations who will fight against Ariel; a vision of the night [a nightmarish]..." (Isaiah 29:5,6).
3) "The Lord has a way in the tempest and the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet...The mountains quake because of him, and the hills melt...His wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken down because of him" (Nahum 1).
4) "A plague goes before Him, and lightning went forth at his feet...he looked and shook the nations, and the ancient mountains were shattered; the eternal hills bowed down..." (Habakkuk 3).
5) "The Day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision [Armageddon]. The sun and moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall gather in their light, and the LORD [Jesus] will roar from Zion, and from Jerusalem he will give his voice, and the heavens and the earth shall quake" (Joel 3).
6) "I will shake the skies and the earth. And I will overthrow the throne of the kingdoms..."(Haggai 2:21).
7) "He shall rain snares on the wicked; fire and brimstone and a scorching wind is their share of the cup" (Psalm 11:6).
8) "The earth shook and trembled; and the foundations of the mountains moved and were shaken, because it angered him. A smoke went up out of his nostrils, and fire devoured out of his mouth; coals were kindled by it" (Psalm 18:7-8; Psalm 18 describes the coming of Christ at length).
9) "The LORD thundered in the sky; and the Highest uttered his voice--hailstones and coals of fire" (Psalm 18:13).
10) "The nations roared; kingdoms were shaken; he gave his voice, and the earth melted" (Psalm 46:3).
11) "The LORD will make the majesty of his voice heard; the lowering of his arm [Jesus] he will show, with raging anger, and a consuming flame; cloudburst and storm and hailstones" (Isaiah 30:30).
12) "The earth shook, and the skies dropped before God." (Psalm 68:2).
To prove that the language above depicts the post-trib' period, it is found in Revelation's seventh Bowl, which everyone agrees is an Armageddon-related plague:
"...a great voice came out of the temple from the throne, saying, 'IT HAS BEEN DONE!' And there were lightnings and voices and thunders and a great earthquake occurred, such as never had occurred...and every island fled and mountains were not found. And a great hail came out of the sky..." (16:17-21).Compare the terms in all the scriptures above with the Ezekiel text below in order to see the true timing of Gog's defeat:
"And it shall be in that day, when Gog comes against the land of Israel, declares the Lord YHWH, my fury shall come up in my face. And in My jealousy the fire of My wrath which I spoke about. Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel. And the fish of the sea and the birds of the air shall shake at My face and the beasts of the field and all the creeping things that creep on the earth, and all the men who are on the face of the earth. And the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places [cliffs] shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground. And I shall call for a sword against him on all my mountains...And I will judge him with a plague and with blood, and an overflowing shower, and hailstones. I will rain fire and brimstone on him, and on his bands, and on the many peoples who are with him...and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am YHWH." (Ezekiel 38:18-22).
WHEN IS THE DAY OF THE LORD?Pre-tribbers have had to define the Day of the LORD as the entire seven-year Week just to avoid the ruin of their pre-trib' rapture theory. When viewed as the entire Week, one may accept Gog's destruction as being not at Armageddon necessarily. This is what allows Hal Lindsey and others to promote Gog's destruction at some point prior to the Week (Hal did at one time, anyway). The sheer truth is (as though the LORD worded it purely for the error of pre-tribulationism) that the prophet Joel places the Day of the LORD after the tribulation period:
"The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the coming of the great and awesome Day of the LORD" (3:31).According to Jesus, the darkening of the sun and moon takes place AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS (Matt. 24:29), thereby making it a post-tribulation event. Therefore, the Day of the LORD must be more post-trib' than the darkening of sun and moon, or else Joel is a false prophet.
THE PROPHETS WERE NOT MAD
On at least 3 different occasions in Isaiah, the anti-Christ appears to be identified as Assyria. Yet, he is also called the "king of Babylon" by the same prophet. In Daniel 2, 7 and 9, the prophet gives a European connection, while in chapters eight and eleven, Daniel insists that the same "Roman" king will rule a neo-Seleucid empire in Syrio-Babylon. And as Ezekiel then suggests strongly that he will be a Gogi, shouldn't we ask if the Prophets are reliable?
First, God can't be straight forward, in black and white, or the powers destined to fulfill the prophecies would not. It must appear to the world that prophecies are too difficult / complicated to have the likeliness of reliability. It would of course be unfair to the entire world if the prophecies were unreliable, but they are not. They only seem that way to the mockers.
It's actually good news when the prophets seem confused or unable to explain their own prophecies. Daniel, for example. It's also good that they don't all copy one another to the extreme as might be expected in a conspiracy to commit fraud. If the prophets seem confused, it's only expected. If they were committing fraud, they shouldn't appear confused. In any case, if we trust Jesus, we must trust the Prophets whom he said were Inspired by God. If Jesus quoted from any prophet, we must treat that prophet as a true one. Isaiah and David were quoted much by Jesus.
The subject in Isaiah 14, the "king of Babylon," seems to be portraying Satan. At least, that is what most Christians believe. For it says of him, "O shining star, son of the morning! How you have fallen from heaven" (12). It is for a good reason that God should portray a human king as Satan, if it's a reference to the anti-Christ.
There are other clues in the text helping us to evaluate this "king of Babylon" as our end-time arch enemy. For example, he is, curiously, not permitted a burial in a grave, unlike all other kings. It says of him, "You shall be cast from your grave," and, "You shall not be united with them [the other kings of the earth] in burial, because you ruined your land and you have slain your [own] people" (Isaiah 14:19-20). This harmonizes with Revelation 19 where we see the anti-Christ thrown alive into a "lake of fire." Where Isaiah 14:9-11 speaks of this "king of Babylon" in "sheol," my take is that his soul ends up in sheol (place for souls of the "dead") after his body burns to death in the lake of fire. Note that his place will be in the deepest depths of sheol (v 15).
Ezekiel 39:11 tells that Gog will be given a grave on the east of the Dead sea, which can be in the land of Edom. The fact that he is mentioned alongside a grave leads some to conclude that Gog could not be the anti-Christ. But the prophet does not at all make it easy to decipher whether "Gog" is a single person or the entire army. It could be both, depending on the sentence. Isaiah tells that, in Edom, there will be a fire burning non-stop...that seems to me like the ongoing lake of fire of Revelation 19. Indeed, the following is in Isaiah 34:10, telling that the Armageddon fire kindled in Edom "shall not be put out night or day; it's smoke shall rise forever..." My take is that "forever" in this Biblical case (and others) refers only to the end of the Millennial age, for there will be no day and night after the Millennium.
The prophets would not have know how a lake of fire could burn perpetually, and I don't think Isaiah knew of the 1,000 year period in Revelation 20. Can a fire burn for as a lake for 1,000 years. Ask the oil under the Middle East, or the pitch and tar in the area of Edom near the Dad sea coast. The oil could be released from its rocks at the quaking of Armageddon, and, coming to the surface as per natural forces of pressure, the oil could flow into geological basins, thus forming lakes of oil.
God has not left us without clues to show that the Babylonian king of Isaiah is not Nebuchadnezzar, nor any other ruler of ancient Babylon. In the previous Isaiah chapter (13), where it speaks about the destruction of this king's country, we can first of all be sure that the setting is in the last days because of these words: "Behold, the Day of the LORD comes...the stars of the skies and their constellations shall not give light...I will shake the skies and the earth shall move out of its place" (13:9-13).
We know from Matthew 24:29 that this Day of the LORD occurs "after the tribulation" of Israel. God repeatedly provides special terminology to convey a prophecy of the very last days, and in this instance it helps us to identify the king of Babylon as the anti-Christ with much more certainly. But look at what else we are given. We find that the king of Babylon is the main subject in Isaiah 14 all the way to verse 23 when, suddenly, verse 24 and 25 come out with the following end-time terminology:
"As I have purposed, it shall rise; to break Assyria in My land, and on My mountains I will trample him...this is the purpose that is purposed on all the earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out on all the nations."The end times are again in view because the purpose which God has purposed on all the earth, and the hand stretched out over all the earth, is terminology depicting the Day of the LORD. But what is quite telling, or confusing, however it might strike you, is that the text flows suddenly from describing the anti-Christ's destruction to describing the destruction of "Assyria" without any apparent break in the subject, as if "Assyria" were a term depicting the anti-Christ himself.
No prior mention of the Assyrian armies has been made for three chapters when Assyria pops up out of nowhere in this key quote, and even there, back in chapter 10, the king of Assyria turns out to be an end-time king that must be the anti-Christ himself (for reasons given in the previous chapter as well other reasons provided in a chapter to come). As there are yet other Isaiah texts touching upon an end-time Assyria, whereas Assyria no longer exists today, it's important that he's also a king of Babylon, for it assures that modern Iraq is definitely the country in the text, especially as the Assyrian capital is now in modern Iraq:
"YHWH will make the majesty of his voice heard; the lowering of his arm he will show, with raging anger, and a consuming flame; cloudburst and storm and hailstones. For by the voice of YHWH, Assyria is crushed" (Isaiah 30:30-31).It's that unmistakable terminology signifying the Day of the LORD, where "his arm" is referring to Jesus...as is the case throughout Isaiah (e.g. Isa. 53:1). In this case, it's Jesus at his tempestuous post-trib' return. We can hardly fail to see that "Assyria" is mentioned alone as the brunt of Armageddon's wrath, even though many other scriptures show that many/all nations will be punished on that Day. It's as if this text were pointing out the over-ruling importance of Assyria among all the other nations: For by the voice of YHWH, Assyria is crushed." I can't help but conclude that the empire of the anti-Christ is viewed by God as an Assyrian empire.
After the prophet Micah speaks on the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, in the famous Micah-5:2 passage, we find Jesus as ruler of the earth in verse 4, meaning that the text has moved forward into the Millennium. Then, in verse 5 and 6, an "Assyria" defeated by God is revealed as the enemy of Israel just before the Millennium is mentioned again in verses 7-9. I'm not going to quote it here, so you'll need to find a Bible if you want to see what it says. If you don't have a Bible, then you don't have life insurance, or a manual for escaping Punishment into something much more beautiful. Have you heard that God is beautiful? If prophecy makes it appear to the contrary, think of Punishment as eradicating the cancer from the body of mankind, for the love of what mankind should be.
In Isaiah 31, some emphasis on Assyria continues from chapter 30. We are first of all re-impressed with the setting is on the Day of the LORD, for it says that God (i.e. Jesus) will "comes down to fight on Mount Zion" (31:4). Directly on account of this coming, we again see a similar theme: "Assyria shall fall by a sword not of man; yea, a sword not of man shall devour him" (v 8).
When ancient Assyrian commanders attempted to invade Jerusalem, we know how they were sent into a sudden and painful retreat by angels of God. Believe it or not. Why did God use angels to destroy the Assyrians? In most other cases, he used the Israeli fighters themselves. But in this case, no Israeli fighters were used. Isn't this a deliberate copy of the end-time defeat of the anti-Christ, for example where Revelation (or Matthew 24:30-31) shows Jesus coming with angels?
As the above quote occurs at the return of Messiah, we must view the "sword not of man" as an end-time sword. There is nothing at all difficult with this view, because the anti-Christ is shown more than once being defeated exclusively by the instruments of God. In Daniel 2, Jesus is portrayed as a Heavenly rock, specifically said to be cut from a mountain without human hands, which falls on and destroys the kingdoms. Daniel 8:25 offers the same theme, where the defeat of the final Seleucid king is fulfilled "without [human] hands." 2 Thessalonians 2:8 predicts the anti-Christ's destruction by "the spirit of His [Jesus'] mouth," while Revelation 19 has this to say:
"And out of the mouth of him [Jesus] proceeds a sharp sword [figuratively, of course], in order that he might smite the nations with it...the beast [anti-Christ] was seized and with it the False Prophet...the two were cast alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur" (vs. 15, 20).They didn't see it coming. They thought they could end up proud and victorious against Him. God hates Assyria.
Consider the next quote (a condensed version of Isaiah 10), where an end-time Assyria is first seen as the rod (singular) of God's anger against Israel, but is then defeated by the rod of God's mouth, which can only be that "sword not of man" protruding from Jesus' mouth:
"Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger! And the staff of my fury is in their hand. I will send him against a profane nation [Israel], and against the people of my wrath. I will command him to plunder a plunder, and to spoil a spoil, and to trample them [the Israelites] like the mud in the streets...And it shall be in that day, the remnant of Israel and the escapees of the house of Jacob shall not any more lean on him [Assyria] who struck him. But they will truly lean on YHWH, the Holy One of Israel. The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God...And a shoot [David] goes out from the stump of Jesse, and a Branch [Jesus] will bear fruit out of his roots...and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth...and [later] the wolf shall live with the lamb..." (Isaiah 10:5, 6, 20, 21; 11:1, 4).Didn't I say that God is beautiful? Just like the sight of a wolf and lamb playing together in glory. But for the time being, animals eat one another alive, as is fitting for the world granted temporarily to the devil's smirk.
We see that the Millennial restoration of Israel is a direct result of Assyria's defeat. And as the "rod of his mouth" destroys end-time Assyria in this quote, while in Revelation the "sword of his mouth" destroys the anti-Christ, end-time Assyria and the anti-Christ have got to be one and the same. How many people in this world know this? Now you are one of the few that do. Keep it close to you. Build on it. Be a friend of the Living God who will not hide Himself forever.
When convinced that the anti-Christ is an Assyrian in some way, it becomes much easier to view him as a Russian Gog, if for example the two peoples had common origins. If God uses both "Assyria" and "Magog" to describe the anti-Christ, it becomes imperative to at least entertain a view of his European involvement with eyes that we've never yet used. It hardly seems best to call him "a Roman dictator." Rather, he will be a Russian Gog who comes south and operates in the Middle East prior to being elevated politically into the European community. If he dictates at all, it must be on a level acceptable to European members.
I can't see a Russian citizen at the helm of the EU unless something drastic takes place at the core of the EU empire. And it is an empire because it has been conquered by a few. Yes, globalists have conquered most of Europe without a bullet, by deceit. They have convinced member nations to partake by deceit. They have promised what they cannot deliver.
THE KING OF IRAQ
As we familiarize ourselves with Isaiah 13 and 14, where "king of Babylon" is applied to the anti-Christ, we cross much information defining "Babylon" as the end-time country, not the ancient empire. In other words, the Babylon over which the king of Babylon will rule is revealed merely as Iraq, the people and region once Babylon proper.
There is no persuasion in these Isaiah chapters that Babylon is a mysterious or global entity i.e. "Mystery Babylon" of Revelation 17. Rather, the Babylon of the Isaiah text is said to be utterly destroyed on the Day of the LORD by the "Medes" (e.g. Isaiah 13:17), who, according to Britannica and other sources, include the Kurds. Moreover, we find that "the Arabian shall not pitch a tent there [anymore]..." We also see that Lebanon rejoices at Babylon's defeat; Israel too, is relieved by the king of Babylon's ultimate failure. Finally, we read in 14:19, "Babylon...the beauty and pride of the Chaldeans..." These quotes all localize the Babylon of the text within the sphere of Kurds, Lebanese, Israelites, and Arabians, while the term, "Chaldeans," indicates categorically the ancient region of Babylon where Iraq is now situated.
Therefore, the anti-Christ will come to rule Iraq some day soon, this being no small revelation. From Iraq, he will spread westward into Syria while building his Assyrian empire, which we may perceive also as a neo-Seleucid empire in fulfillment of Daniel 8 and 11.
[Update December, 2012 -- It needs to be asked why Ezekiel, who no doubt had the Isaiah prophecy at his disposal, portrayed the Assyrian of Isaiah as "Gog of Magog," and then even named various nations that would become allied with Gog? Why does Ezekiel not even mention Assyria of Babylon? Are we to think that he strayed far from the Isaiah point of view? Or is he helping to describe what God spoke through Isaiah? This is where we need to ask why no New Testament writer or speaker, that I know of anyway, quotes from Ezekiel. How can we know whether Ezekiel was part of the so-called "Prophets" that Jesus claimed to be Inspired?
If he wasn't Inspired, why would he produce such an elaborate prophecy, foreign in some details to the other prophets? Was Jesus quiet on Ezekiel because the prophet reveals too much detail that could make the end-time anti-Christ take note if Ezekiel's prophecy was a widely-known thing today?
What made Ezekiel think that Gog would become Isaiah's anti-Christ? Ezekiel stresses Tyre prior to arriving to the Gog prophecy, and there is a Satan in his Tyre prophecy too. It could give the impression that Gog had taken over Tyre, and it just so happens that Tyre was conquered and ruled by Assyria just prior to Ezekiel, and throughout his life (born last quarter of 7th century BC). Yet he didn't mention Assyria in his Gog prophecy. Forehead scratch needed here.
Both Ezekiel and Isaiah have Israel attacked by armies to be destroyed at Armageddon upon Israel's mountains, wherefore how could Ezekiel have been speaking about something altogether different than Ezekiel's Assyrian? Did God choose / plan to prophecy through both prophets things that were in their days a copy, to a fair degree, of the end-time situation? Should we expect the Assyrian = Gog to come to Israel after conquering Tyre? Wouldn't that explain why Lebanon rejoices at the destruction of the anti-Christ, since Tyre was in Lebanon? How should we imagine modern Gog conquering Lebanon? Will the support of Putin for the current Syrian president cause Russians to enter the Syrian civil war, to be followed by resistance from Lebanon so that it gives Putin the excuse to take Lebanon too? But then how could a Russian possibly become the head of the EU since it's very predictable that the EU will side with Lebanon against any supporter of president Assad of Syria? The scratch in your forehead could become a ditch here.
What if the policy of the United States changed suddenly so that it ceased to veto any UN resolutions aimed against Israel? Wouldn't that place Russia partly in the UN driver's seat with the US? Could a Russia-US partnership into Lebanon take place where both national leaders have in mind to thwart Israel to some degree? I don't trust Obama, and neither does a large part of the Israeli leadership. There is even a chance that Obama, or a Democrat who follows him, can make a pact with Russia to the effect of a shared global take-over, the best second option where going it alone becomes out of the question, and where globalists can no longer wait for the total weakening of Russia before setting up a global government. To the contrary, Russia has become stronger since falling as a Soviet empire, to Europe's disappointment.
It's interesting that Babylon booted Assyria out of Tyre and took it over toward the end of Ezekiel's life, followed by a conquering of Jerusalem itself. Couldn't that be a copy of the end-time situation allowed by God as an indicator of things to come soon in our time? Admittedly, I don't know that Nebuchadnezzar, the one who conquered Jerusalem, could be considered a Gog. Nebuchadnezzar's father became a Babylonian king when he conquered the Assyrians at Nineveh, today's Mosul, meaning also that he was a king of Assyria.
Nebuchadnezzar was a worshipped of the Amorite god, Marduk, suggesting Amorite blood roots. In my "dragon hunts" over the years since writing this book, I have found that the Varangian Rus, co-founders of Moscow, were within the definition of the Biblical/Revelation dragon, as well as being merged solidly with Moors/Mauritanians of north Africa whom I identify with ancient Amorites and Amazons=Meshech. End Insert]
It is extremely important, on behalf of the timing of our tribulation retreats, to know that Gog enters Iraq and rules it. Acting as helpful evidence in this direction, there is a statement in Daniel 11:21 which verifies the anti-Christ's entrance into Iraq as an outsider. In other words, Daniel shows that, even though Isaiah's Assyrian comes to rule in Iraq, the anti-Christ will not be an Iraqi...which is only expected if he is Gog.
THE IRAQI-EUROPEAN "CONTRADICTION"In chapters 8 and 11 of Daniel, the anti-Christ is shown rising up in one of the four kingdoms (Egypt, Syrio-Babylonia, Macedonia, and Asia Minor) formed by the splintering of the Alexander's Greek empire. Regardless of which four he shoots up from, he will not be a western European. It throws a difficulty into the idea promoted by this same prophet in chapters 7 and 9, where he identifies the anti-Christ with the Roman/European world. But there is no contradiction involved. We must accept both pictures at face value, whether we now find them tolerable or not. We don't accept all of this lightly, however, and I wouldn't see it for years due to the restraining influences of the Cold War. The prophecies are so compelling in this direction, however, once they are accepted at face value, that this view must become integral.
To help us reconcile the "contradiction," we find a striking similarity between the Daniel-8 and Daniel-7 kings. Some refuse to identify the king of chapter 8 as the anti-Christ, even though he is portrayed as a "little horn" (v 9), the very same phrase that in chapter 7 (v 8) is freely/widely believed to express the anti-Christ of Rome. Is it not clear that both uses of "little horn" (i.e. in both chapters) are expressions of the same king? Would God use the same phrase through the same prophet for two different persons?
The phrase is defined for us in Daniel 11:23-24, where it refers to a final, end-time "king of the north" starting small in power, but becoming quickly great through military successes, who then goes on (in verses 36-37) to fulfill 2 Thessalonian's "son of perdition" (2:3) characteristics.
Consider how the (i.e. "prince" or "ruler") of Daniel 9:26-27 is said to rule the Roman empire that conquered Jerusalem in 70 AD, while he also appears in the end times as one making a covenant for one Week for the purpose of destroying Israel. This prince is clearly Satan, therefore, for no human spans that many centuries. The king is the dragon of Revelation 12 which is seen acting only in the first century (attacking the Son of God), but coming again as the beast of Revelation 13, the anti-Christ = Gog = Little Horn, to war with end-time Christians.
Daniel 9:26 makes it absolutely certain that the king is a Roman ruler when it says, "the people of a coming prince shall destroy the city and the sanctuary," for the people who destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple were the Romans. It wouldn't be imperative to view the Revelation 13 beast likewise as a Roman power, except for Daniel 7 portraying the Little Horn as an 11th Roman king. Yet, because Daniel 8 reveals the same Little Horn as a neo-Seleucid power and not at all a Roman power, I conclude that two distinct roles will belong to the same man. The first role concerns an attack on the Middle East and Israel, and later he becomes a ruler of the European Union so as to condemn the entire world with him when he and they kill and otherwise persecute 1/3 the Christian saints.
Satan had been allocated certain kings through which to rule a global empire first Granted (by God) to Nebuchadnezzar...whose Babylonian empire later metamorphosed into the Roman empire. This evolution from Babylon to Rome has got to be the meaning of "Mystery Babylon," a phrase used in Revelation 17 to depict Rome. Indeed, Revelation does not mention Rome, and yet how could Revelation fail to mention this city and empire when, according to both Daniel 2 and 7, Christ comes to overthrow Rome at Armageddon? The fact is, Revelation doesn't fail to mention Rome, but mentions the city under the guise of "Babylon the Great."
The Revelation picture of two similar draco-beasts is why, in about 95ish AD, Revelation 17:8 said that the beast "was, now is not, and is about to come up [again]..." This re-appearing act is also the meaning of one of seven heads of the beast having a fatal wound (Revelation 13:3), and yet revived into an eighth head (17:11). Herein is the gap between the first and second coming of Satan...a gap that is the same basic gap as between the two comings of Jesus.
The gap is also found implied between the 69th and 70 Weeks (Dan. 9:27) where, after the description of 69 Weeks but prior to describing the 70th, it says, "there will be war until the end" (Dan. 9:26). This language necessary reveals the gap because it takes the reader from the 69th Week in the first century to the 70th Week immediately before Armageddon, for in no other way are we to understand "end" aside from Armageddon.
The eleventh king of Daniel 7 is said to arise "after" the ten (Daniel 7:24). If it's true that the ten are of the ancient Roman empire, as I believe, while the eleventh is of the end-times, then "after" must surely refer to the said gap. Also note the following entry placed before us by God:
"And he shall be different from the first [ten]" (Dan. 7:24).The intention of this line, I strongly believe, is to show a citizenship that is "different" in the eleventh king as compared to the Roman citizenship of the first ten. Indeed, since the anti-Christ is revealed as Gog, the king of Assyria, and the king of Iraq/Babylon, he almost certainly does not qualify as a European citizen. I should also mention here my belief that the 10 Roman kings, because three of them are uprooted, are identical to the seven crowned heads of the Revelation-12 Dragon. The three dropped kings explains how the eleventh Roman king is identical with the eighth head of Revelation 17.
Whose brains have the prophets collectively stretched? Who could be more confused than the prophets? Those of us who have access to all of them. But why has God so made it difficult? There may be another reason. When a man arrives who fits all the prophecies at once -- and that's not easy so that it can't be just anyone -- we can be more sure that the Time has arrived.
GOG'S SELEUCID EMPIRE
Although Daniel 8 does not reveal which of the four splinter kingdoms of the Greek empire the anti-Christ will rise from, chapter 11 does. By resorting to historical records, we can learn that he stems from the ancient Seleucid kingdom governed from both Syria and the ancient land of the Chaldeans...yes, Babylon. The majority of prophecy experts agree with the Seleucid interpretation of Daniel 11, but few include Iraq in their definition of that neo-Seleucid kingdom.
Although the ancient Seleucid kingdom held both Syria and Babylon, most scholars to date have chosen to view the anti-Christ's end-time associations more with Syria than with Iraq. In order to compliment Isaiah 13 and 14 (i.e. where he is specifically identified as the "king of Babylon"), I think Iraq is the better choice. Even if we must decide this issue from historical imperative, Babylon still seems the best choice over Syria simply because Seleucus I, the first Seleucid king, generated official power from Babylon beginning in at least 321 BC, when he was officially appointed Satrap of Babylon. Seleucus later rebelled against his authorities and began governing his own "Seleucid empire," from Babylon. It was some years before conquering Syria that he had made Seleucia (on the Tigris) his Babylonian capital, a city only 20 miles south of modern Baghdad; the site of Babylon itself was also situated some 20 miles south of Baghdad, but on the Euphrates river. See the borders of the Seleucid empire in yellow.
After the death of Seleucus, his sons maintained power from Syria to far beyond Babylon. Due to the military campaigns in the Syrian region, the Romans of the time viewed the Seleucids as kings of Syria, yet it is clear that God viewed them as kings of Babylon because he calls the last "Seleucid," who will be the anti-Christ, the "king of Babylon" (Isaiah 14).
Some scholars have decided to view the anti-Christ as a future king of modern Syria simply because Seleucid and his sons are called, "kings of the north." This does appear to reinforce the Syria option rather than Babylon because Syria is to the immediate north of Israel, while Babylon is more east than north. However, it is hasty to suppose that the title, "king of the north," suggests a northerly direction when there is another, equally valid possibility.
For a long period, Israel was controlled by two opposing factions: the Seleucids controlling Israel's northern portion, and the Greco-Egyptian faction controlling the southern remainder. Thus, "king of the north" can refer to this northern occupation of Israel rather than a northerly seat of power (in Syria). To put it another way, a king of Babylon who stretched into Syria also came down into the northern parts of Israel...the same basic path to be taken by the anti-Christ according to other prophecies.
Make no mistake about it, for although Daniel 7 teaches that the anti-Christ will be associated with the Roman empire, he will also be associated with the Middle-East. He will start in Iraq, however, even as Seleucus started in Iraq. To imagine a Russian ruler acquiring power in Iraq is not too difficult, especially as modern Russia has been an intrinsic supporter of that country. Although the Bible doesn't spell out cleanly Iraq's take-over by a Russian, there is a trickle of light or two to this end. For example:
"And a rejected one will stand up in his [previous king of the north's] place, and they [the citizens of Iraq] shall not give him the honor of rulership, but he will enter safely and seize the kingdom by intrigues" (Daniel 11:21).There you have it. The Iraqis will not wish him to be their ruler, but the anti-Christ will "enter" and become a ruler regardless. While an entry as an outsider doesn't at all prove that he will be a Russian, such an entry is absolutely necessary if he is a Russian. In a few chapters from now, I'll explain why the anti-Christ of Daniel 11 starts at verse-21 quote above (though pre-tribulationists and others start him in verse 36).
In the latter part of Nahum 3, end-time Assyria is again shown defeated, scattered on the mountains. Did you know that the book of Nahum concerns the end times; 1:5-8 tips us off with clear Armageddon terminology. The anti-Christ is in verse 11 because verse 12 speaks on Israel's eternal restoration i.e. the Millennium. In verse 11, the anti-Christ is said to come forth from what appears to be Nineveh, the capital city of the Assyrian empire, located now in northern Iraq across the Tigris river from modern Mosul (pop. over 1.5 million). Therefore, my take on this Nahum prophecy is that Gog will set up headquarters in/near Mosul. The palaces of the great Assyrian king, Sennacherib, were in modern Mosul. Saddam Hussein once said that whoever ruled Mosul would rule all of Iraq. Might the anti-Christ agree?
ZHIRINOVSKY'S MOUTH FITS THE PART
Could the Russian ruler wanna-be, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, be the anti-Christ? I don't know, but he certainly fits the bill by his dictatorial style and his arrogant, anti-Semitic talk? In a reader's Digest article entitled, "The Man Who Would Rule Russia," the following statement is made: "The prospect of Zhirinovsky commanding an army some two million strong and a formidable arsenal of nuclear weaponry has sent a chill through the West."The anti-Christ is to become strong in the Middle East by rewarding his soldiers with land, power over conquered nations, and the spoils of war (Daniel 11), and we see in Zhirinovsky the employment of similar desperate tactics for the purpose of getting the military on side. Readers Digest puts it this way: "He has also cannily courted Russia's demoralized and disaffected armed forces. Zhirinovsky promises, if he becomes president, to 'relieve officers of all worries about employment for their wives and medical care.' He says he will provide them free land..." Note how the following admission is fundamentally a wish to invade and conquer the Middle East: "I dream of the day when Russian soldiers can wash their boots in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean."
Zhirinovsky claims that 80 percent of the military is leaning toward him, as opposed to being loyal to Yeltsin. I have heard other, independent figures in the range of 70 percent, meaning that he could possibly take over the country in a coup. I see in Zhirinovsky a man who will not succeed in becoming the President of Russia. If not Zhirinovsky, then someone else, but the anti-Christ picture would still be the same, with a strong Russian acting solo in Iraq and buying his soldiers with the spoils of war.
ADDENDUMFor those interested in the identification of the various kings of the north and south, the prophecy from Daniel 11, verses 4-21, is given below with my entries in square brackets:
"And when he [Alexander the Great] stands up, his kingdom will be broken, and it will be divided to the four winds [four nations] of the heavens, and not to his posterity, nor according to his authority with which he ruled. For his kingdom will be pulled up and given to others [four of Alexander's generals] besides these.And the king of the south [Egypt] shall be strong. And one of his rulers, even he shall overcome him, and he will rule; his rule shall be a great rule. And at the end of years, they shall unite, and a daughter [Berenice] of the king of the south [Ptolemy II Philadelphus] shall come to the king of the north [Antiochus II] to make a treaty. But she shall not keep the power of the [Egyptian] arm. And he [Ptolemy II] will not stand, nor his arm [Berenice's power in the Seleucid empire]. But she will be abandoned [she and her infant son were murdered], and also those who brought her, as well as her begetter [Ptolemy II died soon after giving her to Antiochus II], and her supporter [her husband, Antiochus II, was also dead] in the times.
But the shoots of her roots [her brother, Ptolemy III] will rise in his [Ptolemy II] place, and he shall come to the army, and will enter [in the Third Syrian War from 146-141 BC.] into the fortress of the king of the north [Seleucus II]. And he will act against them [Seleucus' armies] and will show power [this was the height of the Ptolemaic power]. And he will also bring their gods with their molten images, with vessels of their possessions, silver and gold, into exile to Egypt. And for years he shall stand away from the king of the north [Seleucus II]. And the king of the south will come into his [Egyptian] kingdom, and will return to his own land.
But his [Seleucus II] sons [especially Antiochus III, The Great] shall be stirred up, and will gather a host of great forces and will certainly come and overflow [219/18 BC], and pass through. And he [Antiochus the Great] will return to his fortress and be stirred up. And the king of the south [Ptolemy IV Philopater] will be furious, and will go out and fight with him [217 BC], with the king of the north. And he [Antiochus The Great] will raise a great host. But the host will be given into his [Ptolemy IV] hand. And capturing the host, his heart will be lifted up. And he will make fall myriads, but he will not have power [the decline of the Ptolemaic dynasty begins here].
For the king of the north [Antiochus the Great] will return and will raise a host greater than the former; at the end of times, years [i.e. in the final years of these Greek civil wars], he will certainly come with a great army and with much equipment. And in those times many shall stand up against the king of the south [Ptolemy V Epiphanes]. And the sons of the violent ones of your people [Israel] shall lift up to make the vision stand; but they shall stumble. And the king of the north [still Antiochus the Great] shall come and pour out a siege mound, and seize a fortified city [Panium, near the Sea of Galilee]. And the south's arms will not stand, nor his chosen people; for there will be no strength to stand. But he who comes against him will do as he wills, and none shall stand before him.
And he [still Antiochus the Great] shall stand in the glorious land [Palestine] and destruction in his hand. And he will set his face to go in [to Palestine] with the strength of all his kingdom, and upright ones with him; so he shall do [Antiochus took Lebanon, Phoenicia, and all of Palestine from Egypt]. And he shall give the daughter [Cleopatra] of women to him [Ptolemy V], to destroy it [Egypt]. But she will not stand [for Antiochus], nor be for him [Antiochus the Great never did attack Egypt thereafter, therefore].
And he [still Antiochus the Great] shall turn his face to the coasts [in western Asia Minor], and shall capture many [Aeolis, Ionia, and Thrace]. But a ruler [the Romans] shall make cease his reproach for him, and his reproach will return to him [he was defeated by Roman armies in Greece in 191 and in Asia 190/89]. And he shall turn his face to the fortresses of his land [Babylon], but he will stumble and fall, and will not be found [he was killed while raiding a temple in Elam, near modern-day Kuwait].
And one [Seleucus IV] who sends an exactor shall stand in his [Antiochus the Great] place, for the glory of the [Syrio-Babylonian] kingdom. But within a few days, he will be broken, but not in anger, and not in battle [Seleucus IV was murdered by his own official, paving the way for the infamous Antiochus IV to come to power]. And a rejected one shall stand up in his place..." [End of Quote]
Although Antiochus IV follows Seleucus IV in history, the "rejected one" is clearly the end-time anti-Christ, for there is no other personality which rules further as "king of the north" in Daniel's prophecy. That is, if the "rejected one" is the last "king of the north" to be introduced and portrayed, where he is shown associated with end-time events leading up to the resurrection of the saints (12:2), then he must be the end-time anti-Christ.
THE JERUSALEM WAR
The future invasion of Jerusalem is a very sad and horrifying story, and there is much information in Biblical prophecy that can be combined to tell it. I'll make just a few points here, however, and give you an outline.
"And Elam carried the quiver with a chariot of a man and charioteers, and Kir exposed the shield. And it happened; your choicest valleys were full of chariots, and the charioteers surely set in order at the gate [Old Jerusalem]. And He removed Judah's covering; and you looked in that day to the armor of the house of the forest. You also saw the breaks in the city of David, that they were many; and you gathered the waters of the lower pool. And you counted the houses of Jerusalem, and you broke down the houses to fortify the wall...let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (Isaiah 22:7-10, 13).Here are the Jerusalemites taking a last stand in the Old City, for, modern Jerusalem built in the last 100 years has no walls and will, therefore, be taken by Gog first of all.
This segment of Isaiah must depict the end times because Jerusalem was at no other time successfully invaded by Elam and Kir, peoples from modern Iran. You can see that Israel's valleys must -- before the invasion on Jerusalem -- be filled with the machinery of these Iranian peoples (how long will that take???) The Hezbollah now in Lebanon is extremely anti-West and anti-Israeli, and is funded, and therefore controlled, by Iran! Therefore, I expect in the near future a build-up of Iranians in Lebanon.
When the most-devoted Jerusalemites hear how the northern lands are filled by the anti-Christ's men, rather than fleeing -- as Jesus directed anyone whom would listen -- they will look to whatever weaponry they can muster, and then enclose themselves within the Old-City walls...right next to the Temple site destined to support the Abomination!
Among those who flee Israel at that time will be the terrified rulers: "All your rulers fled together" (22:3), and it's predictable that the abandonment of their posts will disorganize the military and leave the Jerusalemites to fend for themselves:
"What ails you now that you have gone up to the housetops? Crashings fill the noisy city, the joyous city..." (22:1-2).What are they doing on their housetops prior to the midway point of the tribulation, if not firing at the incoming soldiers? This is why "crashings" fill the "noisy city," for the enemy is firing in on them, and they are fighting back. Hence, the city has not yet been taken at this point. But it is the critical point spoken of by Jesus: Let those in Judea flee to the mountains; let the one on his roof not come down to take anything from his house..." (Matthew 24:17).
It will be a very difficult thing to escape from Jerusalem when she is completely surrounded at close range. Iranians from the north, but also Arabs from the south and east. Most Jews will wait too long as they do not heed Jesus. But imagine trusting in God to save you when it's God coming as the blazing whirlwind of Ezekiel (chapters 1-11) against all four walls around you. Those that do flee are captured in flight and "tied up together" for exile/execution (Isaiah 22:4). Ezekiel 5:12 tells us that a third of the Jews will die inside the walls due to plague and famine, and a third outside of the walls will also die (when trying to escape I presume).
The enemy will move in, when the main Israeli defense is behind the walls, to cut off their supplies. Much of the available water will be used to mix the mortar needed for filling the holes in the walls. With their guns pointed out in all directions, the Jews watch Gog's looters turn up like rats, morning by morning, in different parts of the unwalled city. Says Isaiah of Jerusalem's siege:
When the overwhelming whip passes through, then you shall be for a trampling to it. As often as it passes, it shall take you; for morning by morning it shall pass; and by day and by night, it shall only be a terror to understand the message" (28:18-19).The "overwhelming whip" is the overwhelming army of Gog, covering the land like a cloud. According to Zechariah 14:2, the intruders pillage homes and ravish women; and upon killing many, they take Jerusalemites captive and deport them, though some...mostly Arab/Palestinian inhabitants, no doubt...will be permitted to stay in the city, to the tune of half the population. Ezekiel tells us that one third of the Jews will be brought into exile, wherefore if Zechariah tells us that one half of the city will go into exile, other peoples besides Jews are also deported. Most of the Jewish remnant that is to populate the Millennium will be among those that go into exile.
The population of Jerusalem is now about 650,000, 450,000 of which are Jews. Thus, if two thirds of the 450,000 are killed, in accordance with Ezekiel 5:12, then only about 150,000 remain alive for exile. Thus, if half the city--about 325,000 people--is to go into exile, while a maximum of 150,000 of them are Jews, some 175,000, at least, will be non-Jewish exiles. Exiled Jews will be scattered to "the sons of the Greeks" (Joel 3:6). Even Daniel 11 refers to the exile (v 33). Then the focus will turn on those behind the Old-City walls. Isaiah 29 says:
"Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David camped...I will compress Ariel, and there shall be mourning and sorrow; and it shall be to me as Ariel [lion-like]. And I will camp as a circle on you, and will lay siege work on you, and I will raise up ramparts on you..." (29:1-3)At least part of the delay in the Old-Jerusalem invasion will be due to the building of ramps against the walls so that the soldiers may flood in over them. With modern machinery, this would not take long, but remember that the Israelis within the walls will have the ability to shoot at the rampart-builders. For this reason, the enemy may decide to wait until the Israeli bullets are mainly spent, and their foods likewise diminished. Indeed, since we know that the Jews within will be starved to death, we know that some significant time must elapse before the invasion continues over the walls.
The invasion may become impeded when Muslim inhabitants of the Old City are used loosely by the Israelis as "hostages." This could explain the building of siege ramps as opposed to indiscriminate bombing over the walls. Moreover, UN pressure may be applied on Gog. It is my belief that Gog is invited to partake in European globalism at about this time, in what could be an effort to pacify him while extending globalism to his side of the world. But no matter. At that passionate point, not even the anti-Christ, should he have a remarkable change of heart, will be able to stop the rabid Muslims from carrying out their brutal will upon the Jews. And the Old City will be "compressed" from all sides by the will of God Himself, with the West powerless to resist His will. God will starve the Jews:
"For behold, the Lord YHWH is turning from Jerusalem and from Judah...the whole stay of bread and the whole stay of water" (Isaiah 3:1-4).While this prophecy speaks of the greater Jerusalem and surrounding areas, it will also fall on the Old-City. You see, the land within the walls has no natural springs of water. The only source of ground water for five miles around is the Gihon spring outside the walls, located well below the city at the bottom of the Kidron Valley. While water is currently piped mechanically into the City, it will be a simple matter for the enemy to cut that supply. Now you might think that the enemy cannot cut off the rainfall, but you would be mistaken, for the enemy is God, and He can, and will, do just that:
"And I will make known to you what I will do to My vineyard. I will take away its hedge, and [the city] will be burned. I will overcome its wall, and it will become a trampling ground, and I will lay it desolate. It shall not be pruned nor hoed, but briers and thorns shall come up. And I will command the clouds from raining on it" (Isaiah 4:5-6).Knowing that the sanctuary must experience the Abomination prior to the City's desolation, one can predict where God's invaders initially break into the Old City: at the wall(s) of the rectangular Temple site acting as the extreme south-eastern corner of the Old City. But after entering over the south or east Temple wall, there is yet the north or west Temple wall which must be overcome before the intruder can step foot onto the city streets. Can you guess which wall -- north or west -- they will choose to conquer? It's not hard, knowing that the Wailing Wall, where the Jews now worship, is the western wall.
As the invaders finally storm into the Temple site, the Israelis will be forced to fall back behind the sanctuary walls, into the city streets, and will thereby prolong the invasion for days. During this time, Gog's men will profane the Wailing Wall section of the western wall (on Purim?). In the meantime--for 30 days?--they will plan their attack into the city streets, deciding to do go over the walls on Passover, I believe.
In Daniel 8, there is the phrase, "transgression that causes desolation," an alternative to "abomination that causes desolation." While the term "abomination" means "a disgusting thing" and may therefore include several possibilities (e.g. an idol), the use of "transgression," which means "a revolt," evokes the following rendition: a "revolt that causes desolation." Now that finally makes some sense to me. Indeed, as an alternative to the "abomination that causes desolation" in Matthew 24:15, Luke reads, "surrounded by camps [of soldiers]." But an "idol that causes desolation" just doesn't have logic. How can an idol cause desolation?
Therefore, my personal definition of "Abomination" is the military revolt that brings about the 42 months of trampling/desolation. But that which makes the revolt abominable is the fact that there is a trampling of the Temple site, not to mention the deeds that accompany the trampling. Daniel wrote:
"and arms from him [Anti-Christ] will stand, and they will profane the sanctuary...and they shall apply the abomination that desolates."We see that the Abomination is applied by soldiers. Will it truly be a propped idol, as many scholars insist? No, but it's the invasion itself, and the particulars...things we don't yet know for certain. It is perhaps predictable that the profaning of the sanctuary will involve ecstatic Muslims proclaiming Gog as a special messenger of Allah, wherefore he will begin from that point on to proclaim himself as God in a jesting manner, specially designed to mock the Jews and their God. Like Goliath before him, he will blaspheme and taunt...but only until "David" the King returns to slay the monster with the "sword of His mouth" (Revelation 19:15).
If the Abomination commences on Purim, I can only wonder if this modern "Haman" will not also think to build gallows at/on the Wailing Wall, to terrorize all Jews locked up in the Old City. In any case, the so-called "abominations on an edge [of the Temple site]" (Daniel 9:27) will be followed by a pouring of Gog's soldiers over that wall on Passover, as if to add steely weight to the desecration.
"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (Isaiah 22:13).
Now, believe it or not, the Bible actually shows a step-by-step advancement of the anti-Christ towards Jerusalem. This discovery came as a result of accepting Gog as the anti-Christ, for I could then see that he was also the "Assyria(n)" in some parts of Isaiah. While the Assyria in Isaiah 7 and 8 is clearly not the end-time kingdom, the one in chapter 10 is. You see, in the first 6 chapters of Isaiah, the end times are definitely central, and while chapter 7 and 8 then revert to ancient times, chapters 9 through to 35 once again focus on the end-times. See if you can you spot the end-time language in the following Isaiah-10 quote:
"And it will be, when the Lord has broken off all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will visit on the fruit of the proud heart of the king of Assyria, and on the glory of his lofty eyes."If this were a reference to an ancient king of Assyria (Sargon or Sennacherib), then the phrase, "when the Lord has broken off all His work on Mount Zion," is not called for. The "work" refers to God's wrath upon Jerusalem using the king of Assyria as His hammer, but it must be end-time wrath because the Lord opposed the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, when he came against Jerusalem in ancient times, instantly turning the invasion into a dismal failure (see Isaiah 37:36). Therefore, as it was not God's will to punish Jerusalem at that time, nor during the earlier time of Sargon, it is unacceptable to say that the Lord did "work" against Jerusalem. And as the Assyrian empire came to an end not long afterward, the "Assyria" under discussion must be a code word for some entity that has not yet fulfilled the prophecy.
Take note of the term "visit." This too is end-time language, evoking Armageddon, when God shall visit mankind. For example: "You shall be visited by YHWH of hosts; with thunder and earthquake, and great noise, tempest and storm...and the multitude of all the nations who fight against Ariel...shall be like a nightmare of the night vision"(Isaiah 29:6).
The next quote from chapter 10, in speaking of the same Assyrian king's destruction, speaks of Armageddon more acutely:
"Under his [the king of Assyria's] glory He will kindle a burning like the burning fire. And the Light of Israel shall be for a fire, and His Holy One [Jesus] for a flame--and it shall burn and devour his thorns and briers in one day" (16-17).The burning of the tares!! Selah. Not long after this fiery destruction is emphasized, the text reiterates:
"For the Lord YHWH of hosts is making a full end, even ordained, in the midst of all the land. Therefore, the Lord YHWH of hosts says this: 'O My people in Zion, do not fear Assyria. He shall strike you with the rod, and he shall lift up his staff against you in the way of Egypt. But yet a little while, and the fury is finished, and My anger shall be over their destruction" (vs 23-25).The "full end...in the midst of all the land" refers to Israel's punishment; the phrase is also found in 28:22, where it is clearly associated with the punishment of Israel. Moreover, it is not the northern house of Samaria which we see being comforted, but "Zion," which is Jerusalem. However, in the time of the ancient kings of Assyria, when they invaded Israel, a full end of the land was not brought about, for Jerusalem was spared. On the other hand, the entire land of Israel will become fully desolate in the end times.
God says to Jerusalem, "But yet a little while, and the fury is finished, and My anger shall be over their destruction." There was no fury of God against Jerusalem under ancient Assyria/Sennacherib. Not that God was altogether pleased with His people then, but that there was certainly no Fury against king Hezekiah. But there will be a Fury against the end-time Jerusalem -- this we know.
No previous Assyrian king ever took the route described below. You can open another browser and follow along using the Google satellite imagery for the region; compare with other maps provided here to find the places named by Isaiah. When the page loads at the above link, you will be above Jerusalem; click the "Satellite" button and wait for the photographs to load. If you have a wheel on your mouse, you can use it to zoom in and out; you can move around on the images by keeping your mouse button depressed, and dragging. The Old City of Jerusalem is to the right of the white dotted line (that separates West from East Jerusalem); zoom in and you will see a large rectangular site with the gold-topped Dome of the Rock temple at the furthest east that the dotted line reaches in this image. Isaiah starts to track the anti-Christ's invasion to the north of the Old City, at Ai:
"He has come to Ai; he has passed Migron; he has left his baggage at Michmash. They have crossed the ford; they have bedded down at Geba; Ramah is afraid; Gibeah of Saul has fled. Daughter of desolation [Jerusalem], shriek with your voice. Hearken Laish, afflicted of Anathoth. Madmenah wanders; Gebim's inhabitants take refuge. Yet he remains in Nob this day; he will shake his hand against the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem" (28-32).The route from Ai begins almost due north of the Old City. Ai was east of ancient Bethel. The webpage below asserts that Bethel was said to be 12 Roman miles stones north of Jerusalem, or roughly eleven of our miles, which is between modern Al Bira and Beitin. It would seem correct, therefore, where Et-Tell is said to be the location of Ai, between Beitin and Dayr Dibwan. Ai is therefore about 2.5 miles to the eastern edge of the major modern center of Ramallah. See modern map (requires Adobe).
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/Locating-Biblical-Bethel.aspxIt seems to me that if he were to be destined for Ramallah, the text would not have chosen Ai to depict it, since Bethel would have been the better choice due to a closer proximity to Ramallah. It seems that he is going in haste to Jerusalem. I would suggest that Ai refers to modern Dayr Dibwan on the east side of the highway.
Until he reaches the vicinity of the Old City, at Nob, the path is wholly in the West Bank (i.e. the west bank of the Jordan river), a territory now devoted to Palestinians and on the bargaining table for to become their own state. Then, while entering Nob, he is in East Jerusalem, the Arab side of town.
Isaiah had no way of knowing 2700 years ago that this route would skirt around Jewish areas of Jerusalem (in blue) and keep to Arab parts (in pink), but the fact that it does so supports the end-time nature of this prophecy. And we can now know the reason, as it makes absolute sense for the anti-Christ to stick to Arab territories for protection and assistance in his military invasion.
We can presume quite confidently from verses 7-11 that Gog will come from Samaria/Damascus to the north of Ai. Going south from Ai, he will keep away from the airport and come to the Arab town of Michmash (modern Mukhmas), just seven miles north of the city. Apparently, he takes the road from Beitin to Mukhmas.
The prophecy tells us that the anti-Christ will leave his baggage at Michmash (green #27 on this Google satellite image). There are two theories in my mind for this. One, the airport (#5) is just 3.5 miles due west at Atarot, meaning that he hopes to leave soon by air (i.e. after conquering the airport). Two, it's a putting off of everything that hinders so that he and his men can work their way on foot down the "ford," and then up the other side to the Arab town of Geba (modern Al-Jaba #18). Shown in the Zondervan Bible Atlas as a steep gorge, the ford is a ditch called the "pass of Michmash" (1 Samuel 13:23). It is also called a "rocky crag" in 13:4. In modern times, it's called, "Wadi es-Suweinit" (valley of the little thorn-tree).
But why would they take this difficult route when the main highway to Jerusalem is just to the west of them? As they are shown crossing a gorge instead, the idea coming to mind is that they are keeping low; there exists a threat along the highway; the Jewish military is still out there; Judah is not yet fully in the control of Gog. Likewise, the airport on that highway could at this time be filled with Israeli war planes and other military equipment, thus forcing the anti-Christ to skirt east of it through wilderness terrain? But do note that both Michmash and Geba are Arab towns today.
For some reason, "he" is taking the route from Ai to Michmash, while thereafter it is "they" who continue onward (see Hebrew manuscripts). Perhaps "he" begins in Samaria/Lebanon/Syria merely with protective vehicles escorting him down the Nablus highway, where he then veers away from the airport and joins a significant group of his fighters stationed at Michmash. Remember, northern Israel will become his conquered land prior to the fall of Jerusalem in the south, so that the Nablus highway will at that time be safe for him to journey upon north of Judah...i.e. north of Michmash. Thus, if Michmash does represent the end of his motor trip, this, too, would explain his baggage being left there.
From Michmash, "they" proceed together on foot toward the Old City, "the fortress," probably planning to tie in with allied fighters awaiting to its south. They take so long to scale the gorge in reaching Geba at the top, a mere 1.5 miles for the bird, that they bed down there, says Isaiah in the prophecy.
When the people of Ramah (modern Ar-Ram) see this crossing, they "are afraid," says Isaiah, suggesting that the army is considerable as well as determined. Furthermore, the heights of "Gibeah of Saul flees." The Jewish communities of Neve Ya'acov and Pisgat Ze've are on the Jerusalem border, on the west of the highway, with Gibeah on the east of the highway. It may be true to say that Gibeah flees while Ramah (green #34) does not because the latter (Ar-Ram) is an Arab community while the former (Neve Ya'acov/Pisgat Ze'ev) is a Jewish sitting duck, built in suburbs after 1967.
From Geba, where the anti-Christ and his invaders start their day, a straight line to the Old City is straight through Neve Ya'acov, and yet they circle around the Jewish neighborhood, perhaps because the Israeli defenses are formidable there. And so the intruders arrive to "Anathoth," now an elevation 900 yards southwest of the Arab locality of Anata, only three miles from the Temple site. Anata (green #2) can be seen to the east of Shu'fat (green #39) on this Google satellite image. Shu'fat is 2.25 miles north of the Old City.
You will see an apartment complex with a rounded end (on the left side) sitting on an elevation just off a corner of the white dotted line. This is Ramat Shu'fat (#64), an Israeli suburb (Israeli settlements are in blue, Arab in green). Use this moderm map to get your bearings if needed.
Gibeah of Saul (not shown with a number but south of #6) is the first hill you come to north-east of the apartment complex. I've marked it on this image...that also shows the path of invasion from Ai to nob.
The arrival to Anata represents the entry into the modern city limits (east side) so that it becomes appropriate for the text to say, "Daughter of desolation [i.e. Jerusalem], shriek with your voice!" God portrays himself as the enemy of Jerusalem by the tone of these words. The number of fighters must be many in order for them to get this far. They will hide out in the homes and apartments, and wonder whether it would be advantageous to stay among Arab homes for cover, but I think they will decide to evacuate Jewish apartments.
If Isaiah's Nob is Shu'fat, as a Wikipedia article suggests that it might be, the army ceases to move southward from Anata, and begins fully westward to Nob. Where the text says Anathoth is afflicted, it sounds as though residential homes along the way to Nob will be trampled. I imagine the army taking positions on the gorge and shooting across it to Israeli positions in Pisgat Ze'ev. Since Anata is an Arab development that the Israeli's won't mind firing on, it makes sense that the anti-Christ's fighters should take a Jewish apartment complex. I think the one at Ramot Shu'fat is the apartment complex of choice, having over 2100 apartments. Below it to the west, at Ramot, there is yet more Jewish territory to exploit and abuse.
http://www.sabeel.org/old/news/newsltr3/index.htmIn going west to Nob, the intruders appear to head toward the very highway that they didn't take previously. It could be that they go west due to being countered by Israeli troops to the south. There is a blue area on the modern map to the south of Anata, which can be seen on the satellite image as a long, baren mountain ridge on the south side of the Anata road. One can see that there isn't anything to speak of in terms of military protection here or at Az Za'im, so that the latter would not likely be his station of Nob. At-Tur across the road from Az Zai'm is more populated, but as it's on the mount of Olives, it's not likely called Nob by Isaiah. Therefore, Nob is best identified as Shu'fat. The Arab Shu'fat will be less protected by Israelis and therefore more easily entered than a Jewish neighborhood, and once there, access to the apartments at Ramat Shu'fat will be at hand.
The Jewish suburb of French Hill is an apartment-ridden elevation, the first hills north of the Old City...the only hills between the City and Gog when he is stationed at Nob. Nob is a half-mile from French Hill, easily within bullet distance. With Israeli guns stationed on the tops of French Hill apartments, and in the Old City area, it would be little wonder that "he remains in Nob this day," as though setting up headquarters from which to "shake his fist" at the "the mount...the hill of Jerusalem." The hill of Jerusalem implies the Old City because that city is situated on the edge of a plateau overlooking slopes that run steeply into the Kidron and Hinnom valleys. A shaking of a fist implies frustration and set-back, but also a determined promise to conquer. The greater the set back, the more abominable the invasion.
You can count on this prophecy being in the end times, for the ancient king of Assyria, Sennacherib, when attempting an invasion of Jerusalem, did not send his army from the north, but, as he was attacking Egyptian troops at the time, they came from Lachish towards the southwest!! This was near the height of the Assyrian empire, when it spread from Iran to Magog to Syria and down through Mediterranean Israel to Egypt--virtually the entire Middle-East...except Jerusalem! These geographical boundaries are a near-perfect copy of what the anti-Christ will soon control, in the first half of the Week, for which reason he can also be called a "king of Assyria."
Isaiah 36:2 tells us that the preoccupied Sennacherib sent his commanders from Lachish to Jerusalem with a "heavy force," and that his commanders "stood by the conduit of the Upper Pool" (2 Kings 18:17) as they spoke a surrender message to the nervous Jerusalem army upon the city walls. But the Upper Pool was on the west side of the city, which is to no one's surprise since the Assyrians were coming up to Jerusalem from Egypt to the west. Therefore, as the Assyrian king of Isaiah 10 comes instead from the north...from Ai to Nob, he is not Sennacherib nor affiliated with him, but must be another king of another time...and there is no other but the anti-Christ.
Historians will tell you that ancient Assyria did come from the north to attempt a Jerusalem invasion, but where do you think they take the idea if there is not a shred of archaeological, or any other historical, evidence? Only one place: Isaiah 10. And even Christian historians and Bible commentators view the Ai-to-Nob route as an ancient one, because they don't know their prophecy.
"And forces will stand from him, and they will profane the sanctuary, the fortress. And they shall remove the regular [offerings]; AND THEY SHALL PLACE THE ABOMINATION THAT DESOLATES. And he will ruin by flatteries those who do evil against the covenant. But the people who know their God will be strong and will work" (31, 32).Herein spells the "middle of the night," the Abomination which coincides closely with the enforcement of the False Prophet's skincode, the time for us to "trim our lamps" and to begin depending upon our jars of oil for the dark night ahead. But many Christians will arrive to this point totally unaware of the time. Don't be one of these "foolish virgins," but prepare some form of wilderness security beforehand at a location acceptable to God.
The "people who know their God," which cannot be mere Jews in the last days due to the word in italics, "will be strong and will work," meaning that deep-rooted (i.e. radical) Christians will be busy at that time, and will not faint:
"And those who understand among the people will teach many; yet they will stumble by the sword, and by flame; by exile and spoil, for days. And when they stumble, they shall be helped with a little help. But many will join them, with hypocrisy" (33, 34).I can't say whether or not these Christians are local to Israel; many will go out to teach others the meaning of the times, though they will be caught in various traps. These are the great ones in God's kingdom, who refuse the mark till death if necessary, while offering their lives for fellow believers. At the head of their thrust will be the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 (Scripture does not say that they are Moses and Elijah), who will speak out against Gog and, apparently, cause him much grief. I don't know whether or not to suggest to you that we all take our cue from their bold method of speech at that time, to speak out as they speak out. It's an interesting thought. God may make all of us (or at least many) like the Two Witnesses.
Because sustenance to endure the tribulation will be located in sites prepared and managed by sheep, the goats will join them there and take up residence, grinding grain and working the gardens alongside the sheep. When Christians fall in the tribulation, they will get some help from other believers, but not much, because many goats will be present, whose concerns will be for their own needs. These are the hypocrites.
When the sheep out and about doing the work of God are caught in dire straits, robbed, jailed, burned or otherwise persecuted, they get little help from the worthless goats. The only thing they will offer is lip-service Christianity, for which reason the sheep will be Taken, and the goats will be left behind, on the day that Jesus returns. Alas, many of the goats are the foolish virgins, denied any sustenance at all, and asked to leave the camps altogether, lest insufficient supplies remain for the wise.
"And many of those who understand shall stumble, to refine and to purge them, and to make white, to the time of the end. For it is yet for the appointed time" (35).The stumbling will be used for the good of those who stumble, to purge the bitter fluids within the human spirit. I am not the only one suggesting that American believers today are in need of much Heavenly bleach. But do make a distinction between the goats, and the sheep who fall. That is, do not suppose that those who fall or backslide temporarily are false believers or otherwise cursed of God, for what is a test from God if it doesn't reach deep with painful reflection and thereby cause some re-evaluation? The fallen sheep will, no matter what God permits to be thrown at them, stand up again upon their feet, and come back nearer to Jesus with more depth of character.
And if you should fear, fear being the hypocrite who prepares a site only for self. If you have means of making good money now, plan on using your "talents" for use in the tribulation. Don't "bury" your resources so that no one else gets anything from them. Sacrifice your present money and time for the great-tribulation Purpose, for by that effort you will sacrifice your worldly life now and be in less need of purification later. Yes, God may ask less of you in the great-tribulation testing.
As for the Beast's soldiers raising their guns victoriously to the sky in Jerusalem's holy site, they will soon after come to regrets, for God is in Zion! For a while, they will scatter throughout Israel, pillaging, raping, burning towns to the ground, hiding out in the choice valleys, and deporting the Jewish inhabitants. Many Jews in Palestine will "lean" on the "Assyrian" (Isaiah 10:20) out of sheer fear or need, as some did upon the Romans in 70 AD, but many Jews who are destined for redemption at the end of the tribulation will escape his death-blow, either by being deported to other countries, or via great tribulation on Israeli soil that does not lead to death.
THE WESTERNIZATION OF ANTI-CHRIST
If it's difficult to correctly determine which nation the anti-Christ will be a citizen of, with all the abundant treatment in the Bible concerning him, imagine how practically impossible it is to be certain of the nationality of the False Prophet. There are, as far as we know, only 7 verses in the Bible describing his activities, all of them found in Revelation 13:11-17 (he is called "false prophet" in Revelation 19 and 20).
I say "as far as we know" because he may in fact be treated in other Biblical books, but if he is there is no special indication. The Old-Testament prophecies seem strangely silent about this person/power highly involved with the end-time remnants of the Roman empire. Daniel wrote about the anti-Christ becoming great by a power not his own, yet this may refer to Satan's power, or even to God's, as much as to the False Prophet's.
The significance of the False Prophet, in my opinion, is that he is the major factor in the western world which bonds the Russian anti-Christ to the West, and reassures the peoples that all is well amid a very explosive situation...after the Russian has invaded several Middle-Eastern countries, including Israel. The anti-Christ's invasion of the Middle East cannot come to pass without opposition (military or otherwise) from at least a large portion of the West, but when it does come about -- and it will -- the situation will require calculated, non-military measures by the West, to pacify the Russian. That's the sort of partnership I'm predicting: phony! It is my guess that efforts to tame Gog will have everything to do with asking him to represent/rule the European Union (or the United Nations). When he receives the leadership position, the world will only be too happy to see an alliance with him rather than gamble with a nuclear threat.
As the situation will need constant care to still tensions, the peoples will be prodded to give constant esteem to the alliance. That, too, will be the job of the False Prophet, and this could be the fulfillment of his engineering a program which the Bible calls "worship" of the "image of the beast."
Below is a quasi-revelation of the False Prophet's national identity:
"And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and it had two horns like a lamb, and it spoke as a dragon" (11).While the anti-Christ beast (earlier in the Revelation chapter) is seen coming out of the "sea," this beast comes out of the "earth" (or "land"). Some prophecy educators feel that "sea" and "earth" are reciprocal terms, on the one hand suggesting an anti-Christ stemming from the "sea" of Gentile nations, while on the other hand "earth" is said to represent Israel. This reasoning suggests a False Prophet of Jewish background.
I don't find that argument very convincing. While some Biblical texts (e.g. Psalm 144) use "waters" to indicate the Gentiles (there is also one in Revelation itself: 17:15), I have never noticed "earth/land" referring expressly to Israel. We see a better argument in his "two horns like a lamb," which are not especially indicative of Jewry as much as Christianity, for Christ is the Lamb. The two horns imply a duality of power (e.g. two offices, two countries) of some sort, and yet this beast is treated as one man judging from Revelation 19:20.
He will not be devoted to the Lamb because he speaks "like a dragon," wherefore his Christ-like religion will be a facade. The fact that he is called a "prophet" at all suggests that he will use his Christian facade to a great extent, but if the purpose isn't to honor Christ, then it's self-interested. Ask yourself why a wicked man of Satan would want to portray himself as a Christian. Phony Christianity has been a tactic used for centuries by the Vatican, Masons and various Illuminatists. It's no different than when Satan took control of ancient Israel with the religio-political Pharisees and Sadducees in efforts to spoil God's plans. Satan is not like an enemy who from the outside fires bombs into the house, but like an uninvited guest who slips insidiously into your party, dropping dope into the drinks of the other guests for to lead them into any philosophy he so chooses. That's why he's depicted as a snake rather than a charging rhino.
Anti-Christians dressed as Christians are everywhere in evangelical and charismatic Christianity, but beware the special push beginning about now to feed Christiandom (and perhaps the entire world) a gnostic Christianity, a re-defining of Jesus himself as the gnostics did of old...for example, as a secret fornicator with Mary of Magdala, or as a secret homosexual with the 12 Apostles. If this is "illumination," then it's black light, and so know the difference.
Again, the exact nation(s) in which the False Prophet will reside and rule is not specified. Yet, what I think the prophecy can do for us is to help eliminate several regions of the world. Rule out Asia, since there are not likely going to be any Christian "lambs" ruling powerful countries there. Rule out the bulk of Africa for the same reason. Don't look to the Middle East, for that's Muslim country. That leaves Europe and the New World, though I doubt very much that he will be associated with any South or Central American country simply because there is not one which holds enough prominence in world affairs to be a skincode leader.
It appears, then, that the False Prophet will either come from North America or Europe; still several countries to choose from. Yet, that's not a bad start, and it suggests a Western power.
Bill Clinton is an example of a dragon with the horns of a lamb as he attempts a Christian act while towing the abortion, homosexual, and Hollywood line. Certainly, there was a great fire lit in his soul against Christian "fundamentalists," whom he blames for putting him down in shame during his second term. It wouldn't surprise me if he were to become the False Prophet by taking an office in the UN or some other global institution. In any case, every American president, no matter how opposed they are to Biblical fundamentals, is forced to appear "Christian" in order to win/retain the many Christian voters, and this makes anyone who holds the office in the future a candidate for being the False Prophet.
The unity between the False Prophet and the anti-Christ will probably be snake-skin deep, if not a complete sham. The motives of the False Prophet must be selfishly his own, and not generated by simplistic loyalty to the anti-Christ. This makes much more sense, for this is not a pair of godly men who in loyalty and with mutual respect make worthy plans, but they are both under the influence of Satanic spirits. Therefore, they are bent on using each other for their respective purposes, for such is how I read the following verse:
"And it [False Prophet] exercises all the authority of the first beast [anti-Christ] before it" (12).Some get the idea here that the anti-Christ has, in the False Prophet, a "vice-president" who loyally expends himself for his big boss. But couldn't we see the False Prophet as superior while exploiting the political powers of the anti-Christ? As we read on in the Revelation, it becomes evident that the False Prophet is the leading figure in both military power and economic influence. In that capacity, he will take the military warthog of the Middle East, wash him up all nice and clean with a new image (i.e. "image of the beast"), and then pin him up as his poster-partner in a global Cause. It is the False Prophet who makes Gog great.
With or without the Russian presidency, it no longer appears as though a Russian elite could be considered superior worldwide. And remember that the anti-Christ rises up in the Middle East with only a few soldiers, as a "little horn," prior to becoming great. It is this small beginning which allows me to argue confidently that he will be politically inferior to certain western governments, including the False Prophet.
An inferior power cannot elevate the Little Horn to a greater height; it takes someone superior to elevate another, and it will take someone superior in the world to elevate the Little Horn to a global leadership role. Rather than serving the anti-Christ, then, as his manager, the False Prophet can take advantage for his own purposes, which apparently is to reinforce Globalism.
The Little Horn must give the False Prophet something dear in return for elevation to the global scene, and that something would be to get his Assyrian empire tamed and in line with Western globalism. Gog will agree, but then argue that he can't help it if the Arabs and Iranians once under him continue to ravage the Middle East. Isn't it true that Russia already uses two faces in this way, one friendly toward the United Nations, and one friendly towards Iraq?
I think it's safe to say that the False Prophet, as his end of the bargain, will get the skincode system promoted in the Russio-Arabic kingdom....so that Western Globalism itself will spread more successfully. But Gog, while concerned for globalism, will not be concerned in the least for Western globalism. He will allow the False Prophet, and other Western partners, to ride on his back, but in the end he will destroy the Harlot (see end of Revelation 17).
Many Russians and Muslims will already be hailing Gog prior to his global elevation, not because of his warthog characteristics, but because he will have successfully invaded Israel. But when the leaders of the West give him high-level recognition, and especially if he becomes a successful bargaining chip within the UN for quelling the terrorists -- and is thereby made a symbol of world stability -- appreciation from non-violent Muslims and Westerners may also catch fire. Then, in his new-found success, he will strut his stuff like a god, the spirit of Satan within him will gloat, and as is his nature he will continue to kill, steal and destroy...right up until the end of the Week (Daniel 11:36-45).
The flimsiness of Gog-Globalism is assured by the need of today's Western members to tread softly on each others sovereign-toes. Meanwhile, extremist Muslims will rather conquer the world, or just be a stench within it, than unify willingly under the Western game plan. And there's yet another empire looking cross-eyed at all this -- the Orientals -- so that the False Prophet, with firm, if not dictatorial, insistence...
"...makes the earth and the ones dwelling in it worship the first beast, of which was healed its stroke of death."It sounds to me like the False Prophet is being demanding. and it certainly reveals his serious commitment to making Gog a global Figurehead. But why? Surely he will know that world stability will be strained all the more by a Gog who up until the final 42 months was an invader of the Middle East.
Put out of your mind the idea in Revelation 13:3 that, as a man, the anti-Christ will suffer a fatal head wound only to be miraculously resurrected to a glorious following worldwide. This idea has no basis in Scripture, but merely has appeal in its imitation of Christ's Resurrection. The fact is that "heads" is pluralized. That is, "one of the [seven] heads" of the beast will be revived, not at all meaning the anti-Christ's own head of hair. I view the revival of that one head as the revival of the Revelation-12 Dragon depicting ancient-Roman rule.
There is coming a time, and has already arrived, when the European Union will advertise itself as the rising up from the ashes of the great Phoenix, a mythical eagle depicting ancient Rome itself. It is a little interesting that my dictionary includes "purple red, crimson" in its definition of Phoenix, the color used to describe both Mystery Babylon and the Dragon. In fact, "Phoenicia" is a term likewise rooted in the color purple, while in Greek mythology, the goddess Europa (and therefore Europe) was the daughter/brother of Phoenix, the mythical depiction of Phoenicia. That is, the Greek secret societies believed that Europe was an extension of their bloodline in Phoenicia.
As of the present, the Roman beast has had its re-awakening, but it (the EU) is having a hard time getting up on its feet, and European Christians opposing European unity -- because they recognize what persecution it's leading to -- have been a significant factor along with others in keeping it tied down politically. It will be the False Prophet's job to jolt that beast to its feet while putting down all opposition with an iron will. [Europeans are already, very rudely I may add, partaking in American elections, for they freely showed their disapproval of Bush in both of his elections/terms in efforts to get a Democrat back in the White House. The Europeans in their clamoring may get their way soon, only to adopt a pair of snakes Ordained to be their bitter end].
May we ask why the False Prophet must "make" (i.e. force) the world worship the beast? Usually, a man worshipped in the common sense of the word attracts his own followers by his own charisma, knowledge, wisdom, mystery, or charity, and by these things he breeds in his followers a certain loyal attachment, be it called adoration or faith. But where in the Bible do we ever read that the anti-Christ will be adored or trusted for such virtues?
See how Daniel discusses his lovable qualities: a) in 11:21: "a rejected one..." b) in 9:27: "the desolator" c) in 11:44 "he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many." The New Testament has no better descriptions. Nor Isaiah. Where, then, do we ever get the idea that he will be a peaceful, loving, and compassionate leader worthy of worship when everything written describes the man as an arrogant, loud-mouthed, war-boar? The anti-Christ will be as attractive as a tank's nozzle pointed at your nose.
Prophecy outside of Revelation is silent on the worship of anti-Christ, the man, even amid Daniel's lengthy treatment of him. Worship of the beast is mentioned four times in chapter 13, and on two, perhaps three, of those instances, it corresponds to the revival of the head wound, wherefore I tend to view the "worship" as esteem for the empire more than worship of the man. Yet, there is one instance where the beast given worship is identified as "him" (v 8), and this would apparently refer to Gog.
Note that the peoples also "worship the dragon because he gave authority to the beast." On account of our secular society, I have always found it difficult to view this sentence as the open/recognized worship of Satan. Yes, to some extent there are certain powers active today seeking to motivate the peoples to an involved worship of Lucifer, but just the same I more-easily accept the Revelation quote as esteem for the Roman empire which the chapter-12 Dragon represents. The picture of the Dragon handing power to the anti-Christ beast is in my mind a picture of Europe handing the baton of power to the Russian Gog. Perhaps it speaks to the temporary/rotating leadership position of the EU/UN.
It's precisely due to the return of the seven-head power structures of ancient Rome that "the whole world was amazed with the beast...and they worshipped the beast, saying, 'Who is like the beast, and who can make war with it?'" (13:3, 4). Therefore, it's not likely the religious components of the empire that are worshiped...because it's not the religious components that are emphasized in the quote. Rather, it's the military components that the people gloat over. More precisely, it's what the military components promise: security. Recall how the peace of ancient Rome was instilled by its raw military powers. And see also that the military of the False Prophet is emphasized:
"And [the False Prophet] does great signs, so that it even makes fire come down from the sky onto the earth before men" (13).I don't believe this "fire" from the sky is a Satanic "miracle" in the true sense of the word, but, quite likely, it's a reference to computerized "smart bombs" and the like. For this reason, I believe that the False Prophet represents a world leader in the military space program. Who but the United States can force the world to give special esteem to Globalism while also showing unmatched ability to drop fire from the sky?
You do see that the fire is made to fall "before men," as in "showing off" the firepower. What purpose can there be in this exhibition but to amaze and/or intimidate in an effort to bring all alongside the wishes of the global rulers? You can see how fragile the Global Cause will be, however, when the means of bonding the world's people is through the use of military display. Russia was famous for using the public display of its military to give the Russian people a sense of security, but look at what those people now have available for breakfast, lunch and dinner: lots of jaw-breaker bullets and hot 'n spicy nuclear warheads!!
Do you remember the firepower in relation to the 1991 Iraqi invasion, and how the world sat in amazement before television sets as they watched military leaders brag about their ability to drop smart bombs down chimney shafts? That's the sort of rallying that comes to my mind in the above quote. But there must yet be another show of firepower in the future, to fulfill the False Prophet's fire, and rather than being merely a display of firepower, wouldn't it make more sense that it will be fire used in actual war, to support Gog in his Middle-East military campaigns?
Not only does Daniel (11:37) verify the atheism of the anti-Christ by revealing his refusal to worship any standard god, but it goes on to tell us that he will worship only the "god of fortresses," which translates into the god of war. All in all, this sounds just like an old-school Russian. Note that God uses religious terms through Daniel to depict military things, even as the Revelation text does. The military of Daniel's northern king is said to be a "god"; the fires of the False Prophet are said to be "miracles"; and the dependence of the world upon their combined military is said to be "worship." In the next verse, see how the military of the False Prophet is used to bond the peoples to Gog's Rome:
"And [the False Prophet] deceives the ones dwelling on the earth because of the signs [from the sky] which it was given to do before the beast..." (14).As the fire-from-the-sky performed before the peoples is said to "deceive" them, it can only mean that the False Prophet's purpose for displaying them is successful. He hooks the peoples so that they "worship" his Cause, but they are duped because they don't realize how it's all leading to Armageddon rather than to stabilty. This is not to say that his purpose is engineered to lead to Armageddon, for he himself will hope to stave off Armageddon and to install an opposite situation.
Notice that it's neither the Roman empire nor the anti-Christ which will perform the miracles in the sky, suggesting that the False Prophet is stronger than both in that respect. Look now at how the mighty False Prophet "tells" the world what to do:
"...telling the ones dwelling on the earth to make an image to the beast, who has the stroke of the sword and lived again" (15).If the purpose in the display of firepower will be to deceive the nations into willing compliance, wouldn't it also make sense that the image of the beast will serve the same/similar purpose? My impression is that the "image of the beast" is a mind-conditioning tool, for we see the image portrayed with the ability to dispense information:
"And it was given to [the False Prophet] to give spirit to the image of the beast, in order that the image of the beast might even speak..."More religious terms: "spirit" and "image." The Biblical idea of an "image" for worship has almost always been a statue or carving. This doesn't sit well with me here, however, because I can't see some sort of talking statue or robot being made to represent the European Union (or even anti-Christ the man) for the purpose of speaking to the world. However, if by "image" an icon is envisioned, while it has the ability to "speak," then right away I think of a picture on television. In this way, through some sort of optical screen image, a program devoted to the global Cause can be set up and communicated (sold) to the world.
It just so happens that the word used in Revelation for "image" is not "eidolon," meaning idol, but "eikon," meaning icon. Therefore, don't look for a statue or cast object, but look for some form of picture, for that is what an icon is. Here is how the verse could be understood: "And it was given to the False Prophet to create the picture of the beast, in order that the picture of the beast might even communicate." Or, more amplified: "And it was given to the United States to create the Globalism television program, in order that the program might even spew out propaganda." The next verse spells out the fervor with which the Cause is cherished:
"...and it [the False Prophet] might force as many as might not worship the image of the beast to be killed" (15).Does the reader still dispute the overwhelming, even dictatorial, power of the False Prophet? And that's us he could be gunning for! On the other hand, and this is very comforting for Christians in the West, those killed by the False Prophet may turn out to be Muslims and all others who reject Western Globalism. If true, then I'd say we're seeing the beginning of that killing machine on our televisions...in Iraq! That's not to suggest that George Bush and Tony Blair are the two horns of the False-Prophet beast, but that another duo with similar firepower, and a similar program for world security via the Westernization of the Middle East, will continue subsequent to them.
If we do not become a political stench in their nostrils...if we are out of the way in the wilderness and no longer key players amid the political arena...the False Prophet and his partners might be totally unconcerned with whether or not we "worship" the image and, therefore, might just leave us alone. Perhaps this is why God warns us at all in this text, in order to send us a message to stay out of the False Prophet's way.
The skincode will act as the commercial base of the beast-empire. The Bible does not say that it will become illegal to refuse the skincode, or that we will be forced to receive it at pain of death, but if anyone launches a propaganda machine against the skincode, it'll be an attack on the beast itself that the image of the beast seeks to prop up as supreme. I am certain that there will be some who are not Christians who will refuse the skincode, for various reasons, and who will be permitted to do so freely, so long as they don't actively oppose the Cause. Scripture ties the image in with the mark in more than one place; here's one:
"If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, even he shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and will be tormented by fire and sulfur before holy angels and before the Lamb" (14:9-10).What if God considers it worship for us to be glued to televisions wishing and praying for the Americans to wipe out the Iraqi insurgents in an effort to set up their version of World Peace? Scary thought. Shouldn't we rather wish for world destruction so that Christ can bring the world forward to World Peace? Of course I realize that such a wish brings an awful lump to your throat, and that you don't want to see people killed or hurt in any way.
The reason that God did not clearly indicate the nationality of the False Prophet in Revelation, I can't say for sure, but if it represents the United States, as I believe it does, then one can see why it could not be included, since it was a nation not yet born and therefore not yet identifiable. But God left clues for future generations which I think point to that country. Aside from being the world leader in commanding the peoples' respect with fire from the sky, the United States is also the economic leader of the world and therefore a nation having every reason to promote a "global-friendly" skincode:
"And it [the False Prophet] makes all men, the small and the great, both the rich and the poor, both the free men and the slaves, that they should give to them a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one could buy or sell except for the one having the mark..." (16, 17).We see that it is not anti-Christ the man who creates and regulates the skincode. Rather, it is the False Prophet who promotes it on what appears to be universal proportions...encouraging a "they" to dish it out to all peoples. This all makes sense since the anti-Christ will be from Russia, a country hardly in a position anymore to promote worldwide a high-tech economic system, while the United States is in just such a position.
Suppose that people with the mark will wish to trade products. Can the government force them to deal with electronic money? Of course not. Or suppose that they will wish to buy using gold. Will the government disallow this basic right? Of course not. Therefore, we will be able to barter in the tribulation, as well as to purchase in unconventional ways using any precious metals we might prepare. The question is, will God frown on our making purchases from, or trades with, from those who have the skincode? We shall have to wait and see what the Two Witnesses say and teach in public, so that we can follow suit.
I reject the False Prophet being a pope because popes are not military powers, nor are they in positions to spearhead the cashless society. Nor are popes in any position to kill those who won't succumb to the Cause. I don't foresee the powers of the Vatican coming back strong as they once were in the Holy-Roman empire. There is nothing in prophecy that indicates the Vatican specifically. The goblet of Christian blood that Mystery Babylon holds, and the purple robes that she wears, portrays the pagan Rome of the first three centuries much better than the Vatican of Inquisition times, for the Harlot's rule over the world's kings is in the present tense (Revelation 17:18).
I don't envision the people of the future in front of their television sets or computers, stooped to the floor before a screen image of a robed anti-Christ reciting Catholic prayers or New-Age meditations. This is not what the False Prophet will demand of the world's "worshipers" as he forces them to worship. A forced worship evokes something altogether different than one having a religious setting, and the False Prophet will be much more interested in promoting the one-world government than promoting the anti-Christ's "priestly" status (even if he had such a status).
The fact that the False Prophet must show a Christian face in an otherwise non-Christian world may mean that the United States will have sufficient numbers of Christians to reduce persecution in the tribulation wilderness. Yet, betrayals are predictable because two opposing brands of Christianity are constantly in our midst, the sheep answering only to God, and the wolves in sheep's clothing completely oblivious to these matters and therefore destined to honor the False Prophet's program. These are the liberal, modernist Christians, many of which are taking to Ecumenicalism...i.e. one-world religion. A third brand are the goats among the sheep but incapable of Christian love.
NO NEW JERUSALEM TEMPLE NEEDED
Do not be deceived by the idea that a new Temple must be rebuilt in Israel before the Abomination can take place. The very scripture in Daniel which associates the Abomination with the Temple site suggests this to be unnecessary. That scripture, according to the English version in the margin of my Hebrew interlinear, reads like this:
"And in the middle of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and on a corner, desolating abominations, even until the end"(9:27).There you have it. The "abominations" will be caused "on a corner" (Hebrew word, KANAPH). On a corner of what? The text does not enlarge any further. We are left to figure it out. Why has God done this?
Some English Bibles have translated "corner" as an aspect of the Temple or altar. The NIV translators thought to use, "on a wing of the temple." That seems acceptable, but the translators of the King James Version were so unsure of the purpose in Daniel's use of "kanaph" that they translated the word, "overspreading." Apparently, this mistaken translation is derived from "wing," although not the wing of a building, but the (overspreading) wings of birds.
Other translators having the same bird-idea in mind thought to use, "on the wing of abominations shall come/be one who makes desolate" (e.g. RSV, NASB, NKJV), but this rendition detracts from the true thrust of the text, to show desolating abominations applied to a section of something...not to the whole thing, but only to a portion. But how does one apply wickedness to only a portion of something, for example a Temple, without profaning the entirety?
Jesus helps us somewhat to identify the "wing" or "corner" by telling us that the Abomination will be applied to "the holy place" (Matthew 24:15). Thus, we can now know with certainty that the wicked thing is to be applied to the Jewish sanctuary. But where in, or on what part of, the sanctuary? Am I being too fussy for even asking that question? If so, then why does Daniel mention a section rather than the whole?
The term that Jesus used has been taken wrongly as the very sacred Holy Place within the Temple building. But consider the same term used by Jesus, "holy place," used also in Acts 6:13, where it is a general reference to the Temple and yet not to the Holy Place:
"This man [Stephen] does not cease speaking words against this holy place and the Law, for we have heard him saying that Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place..."The Holy Place and the Most Holy Place are referred to in the book of Hebrews, but instead of using "holy place" or "most holy place," the writer calls them the "Holy" and "Holy of Holies" (9:2-3). And while the writer of Hebrews capitalizes these terms for the purpose of indicating God's sacred rooms within the Temple building, the "holy place" in the Acts quote above is not capitalized (by the way, while I capitalize "Temple," it is not capitalized in the Bible).
The writer of Hebrews makes it very evident that the capitalized Holy is not identical to the non-capitalized "holy." Yes, just before the writer uses the capitalized terms, he uses a non-capitalized "holy" to refer to the sanctuary as a whole:
"So then, the first [covenant] had ordinances of service and an earthly holy..." (Hebrews 9:1).Both the King James and the NIV render the "holy" here as "sanctuary," not as the "Holy Place." It is only two verses later that we find the capitalized terms, "Holy" and "Holy of Holies," and the writer goes on to show that these sacred rooms were in the "holy," thus distinguishing the "holy (place)" from the "Holy (Place)." Never does the writer of Hebrews, nor any other New-Testament writer, use "holy place" to indicate the Holy (Place). In light of that, consider now the "holy place" of Acts 21:28:
Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; he even brought Greeks into the temple to thus profane this holy place."Sounds like the anti-Christ, but it is just the apostle Paul, who was being accused of profaning the "temple," which we can see has the alternative title of, "holy place." Because the Greek word for "temple" here is hieron, which can depict the temple grounds in general--the courtyard or the building--the "holy place" should be viewed likewise.
Clearly, Paul was not bringing Greeks into the Temple building, and especially not into the Holy (Place), was he? No, but he was merely bringing them into the Temple grounds, or the Temple site, or, as the quote itself says, into the "holy place." And I say all this to show that the "holy place" used by Jesus in Matthew 24:15, which was not capitalized by Matthew, is not the Holy (Place), but just the "holy site" referring to the Temple grounds in general, which may or may not include the Temple building.
Thanks be to Jesus, then, we can now know what Daniel only implies, that the abominations will be applied to some section--"an edge" or "a corner"--of the holy site. But there is yet the question of whether they will be applied to an edge/corner of the Temple building, or to an edge/corner of the Temple grounds.
Strong's Concordance suggests that, in relation to anything having four sides, such as the rectangular holy site, "kanaph" can represent "a quarter" in conjunction with "extremity" or "edge," so as to denote a "quarter edge" or a "quarter extremity." While the English section of my Hebrew interlinear has attempted to bring out this quarter aspect of kanaph by translating it as "corner," the Hebrew word could just as well refer to one of four sides, whereby the NIV's use of "wing" becomes very suitable while "corner" is rendered inappropriate.
As a matter of fact, the Biblical phrase, "the four kanaphs of the earth" does not sit well as "the four corners of the earth," and does much better as "the four ends of the earth." Now the Bible does not speak of the four ends of the Earth from the standpoint of an astronaut in space, but from the standpoint of a person standing on the planet--i.e. north, east, south and west.
Note that the north, east, south, and west sections (i.e. walls) of the Temple site hold much more prominence in the Bible than the corners of the Temple or Temple grounds. And so simply on account of this, Daniel's use of "kanaph" would seem to indicate one of these sides much better than one of the corners. Still, the use of such a term to denote the Temple is unusual in the first place. Why didn't Daniel just say "temple" if that is what was meant? But then, only God knew in Daniel's day that the Jewish holy place would, in the last days, be a small section of one western wall, called the Wailing Wall.
This Wailing Wall (also "Western Wall") was one of four, not of the Temple building itself, but of the very outer walls which surrounded the entire Temple site--outer courts and all. Therefore, it may be hasty to translate kanaph as an edge/wing of the Temple altar, as does the NIV, or as an edge/wing of the Temple building. But as kanaph is defined as "an edge" or "extremity" in Strong's concordance, the Wailing-Wall sanctuary on the extreme western edge/wing of the Temple site befits the word very well, and certainly much better than the Holy (Place) in the central area of the same site. Of course, the Holy Place no longer exists, while a piece of the Western Wall yet stands.
Daniel does not, as all others prophets do not, tell us that the Temple building will be trampled by the anti-Christ's invaders. Consider Daniel 8:11, where, instead of the Temple building being stipulated as the brunt of the anti-Christ's actions, "the place of His sanctuary was cast down." Why does the prophecy use "the place of His sanctuary" instead of "the temple"? It brings to mind Jesus' use of "holy place," does it not? And why didn't Jesus just say "temple" if it was the building he was referring to?
Verse 26 of Daniel 9 tells of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 AD, and it is just in verse 27 that we read about the Abominations being set up on the "extremity." Notice how there is nothing said about the reconstruction of the building between its verse-26 destruction and the verse-27 Abominations. Therefore, it becomes obvious why "an edge" is used since only one edge of the site was left standing by the Romans.
Long after the Romans, some Jews requested from the Turks a small area on the western wall's exterior face (120 square yards) for worship purposes, and when they began to wail loudly there for the re-establishment of Israel's long-gone glory, the sanctuary was dubbed, "the Wailing Wall." We must entertain the idea, then, that the anti-Christ may apply the Abomination on or near this piece of the western wall, which, as far as the modern Jews are concerned, is the Jewish sanctuary. A sanctuary may certainly exist apart from a building, and it would be hard to convince a religious Jew that the mere grounds of the Wailing Wall area is not a sanctuary, or that the prayers and petitions offered on its patio are not "sacrifices and offerings" to God.
When we turn to Revelation, we see that it is not the Temple building, but only the outer court, which is given to the Gentiles for trampling:
"Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and the ones worshipping in it. And throw outside the outside court of the temple, and you may not measure it, because it will be given to the nations [i.e. Gentiles], and the holy city they will trample forty two months" (11:2).I am not imagining things, for this verse tells me that the outer court alone will be given for trampling, while the building will not be given for trampling. How can enemy soldiers trample the outer court...and the entire city...while not trampling the building? Wouldn't the building be the greatest prize of all to the anti-Israeli invaders; wouldn't they abuse it far more than the mere patio? The only way that the invaders can avoid trampling the building is if it isn't going to be there.
My Greek interlinear words it like this: "And the court outside of the temple cast outside," where both uses of "outside" are the same Greek word, "exothen" (# 1855). It sounds as though John is being asked to toss the outer court outside, but because this idea is difficult, Bible translations instead use "exclude" and "leave out." In the roughly 30 KJV uses of "leave," none but in this case do we find that the Greek word is "ekbale" (Strong's # 1544).
Ekbale is used in Revelation when the beast is CAST into the Lake of Fire. In other words, the term is not to be translated, "exclude," or "leave out," but as "throw/eject. Ekbale is also used for casting out demons and for casting money-changers from the Temple. Again, we can't translate that Greek word as "exclude" or "leave out." Therefore, I'd suggest we re-visit this Revelation quote on the outer court, and re-think what it could mean.
How could John throw an outer court outside, and outside of what did was he to throw it? The Temple that John was seeing in this vision (90-95 AD) was not the one standing in the first-century, since it had been destroyed some 20 years prior; the Temple that he was seeing, therefore, was one of a Heavenly vision...where symbolism can predominate so that the tossing out of the outer court is not literal, but an indication to the reader of the court's release from God's umbrella of protection. The implication (i.e. the very purpose of this sentence) is that the building is not to be so released from God’s protection...and therefore not to be trampled.
Directly adjacent to what is now the Wailing Wall section of Herod's Temple (the Temple of Jesus' day) was the outer court called, "the Court of the Gentiles." It is this court which, in the Revelation vision, we see given to the Gentiles for trampling. Of course, this patio is now situated beside the Dome of the Rock and therefore belongs to the Muslims, but it should hardly be said that the Arabs are now trampling the court, or that they have been trampling it ever since the Jewish Temple site became their possession.
Many Christians have allowed themselves to believe that peace between the anti-Christ and Israel must occur in the first half of the Week, for the express purpose of spurring such great peace between Arab and Jew that Arabs will permit a new Jewish Temple to be built beside the Dome of the Rock. This picture is nonsense to me.
I'm not suggesting that the Temple building in the Revelation vision will not be built at all, but that the construction will be reserved by God for a time after the battle of Armageddon, to be built to the specifications of the Ezekiel Temple (chapter 40 and onward).
MISSING: TEMPLE ACTIVITY
Things which are not mentioned in end-time prophecy are Temple furniture, Temple feasts, Temple gatherings, Temple construction, and Temple destruction. Isn't this curious too? We see an "extremity," a "holy place," an "outer court," and a "place of the sanctuary," but never do we see anything that would indicate solid Temple activity as in days of old. We see that typical Temple activity (animal slaughter) is definitely associated with the future Temple revealed in Ezekiel, but nothing as vivid or concrete as the Ezekiel picture is ever painted in any prophecy concerning the tribulation.
We find the invasion and defeat of Jerusalem specified in various ways, with wreckage to its houses, its inhabitants, and even to its city walls, but not a similar word about the Temple building. We find many references to Israel's rulers, businessmen, soldiers, workers, woman, (false) prophets, and, yes, even to its priests, but we would think that, if the end-time priests were to resurrect the sacrificial system of Moses, prophecy would have made clear mention of it. The few cases where "priests" are mentioned in regards to the last days would not necessarily prove that animal sacrifices will be offered. This term may refer to Israel's religious leaders apart from their involvement in animal sacrifices.
In Daniel, there are scriptures alluding to sacrifices in relation to the anti-Christ's invasion, but there is a peculiarity surrounding these texts as well. For example, in one place it says, "and the regular was taken away by him [Anti-Christ], and the place of His sanctuary was cast down" (8:11). The regular what? My Hebrew interlinear, as well as most English versions, suggest the regular sacrifice. But if so, why does Daniel not say so in that clear way? Why does the prophet leave out the word "sacrifice"?
In the next verse, it again uses the same peculiarity: "And a host [holy people] was given with the regular because of transgression." In the verse after that, it doesn't get any better: "Until when is the vision, the regular, and the desolating transgression, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled?" The same undefined "regular" occurs twice more in chapter twelve. So what does it mean? Why has God left out the word "sacrifice" or "offering."
Aside from Daniel, the term, "regular," is used sparingly in the Old Testament in comparison to the many instances of animal sacrifices. And where it is used, it doesn't occur alone as in Daniel, but includes an activity. For example, in the case of Numbers 29:6, "regular" is followed by "food offering" to specify a "regular food offering." In Leviticus, a "regular food offering" is again used. I must assume that for this reason did the English translators of Daniel add "sacrifice" or "offering" after that book's five instances of "regular."
But again, these five stand tall in the Old Testament in their peculiarity; there's just a "regular" blank, possibly suggesting a different sort of regular offering than those associated with a bloody alter. That the Jews continually offer prayers, worship and praise at the Wailing Wall sanctuary permits this alternative possibility. And more so because God has said that he recognizes and desires the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart, more than He does animal sacrifices.
Indeed, the animal sacrifices were intended to induce a contrite heart prior to welling it up with thanksgiving. Psalm 51:16-17 defines "sacrifice" as something which does not include animals, but as the higher form of sacrifice which animal slaughter merely facilitated:
"For You do not desire (animal) sacrifice, or I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise."The Hebrew term, "sacrifices," used in "the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit," is the very same word used to denote animal sacrifices throughout the Old Testament, even though it refers here to spiritual offerings alone. By the time of the New Testament, this higher definition was common knowledge. The writer of Hebrews, while discussing and discounting the importance of Mosaic animal sacrifices, wrote:
Through [Christ], therefore, let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God always" (13:15).The Greek word used above is the same Greek word used typically for "animal sacrifice," but is used to denote a spiritual offering alone. In Revelation 5:8 and 8:4, and along the same lines, the "smoke of the incense" from the "altar" (the altar is where animals are sacrificed) represents not animal flesh burning over a fire, but the "prayers of the saints." Therefore, the "incense" identifies with the Old-Testament "pleasing aroma" which animal sacrifices were to God...not the smell of roasting meat, but the aroma of prayers offered in conjunction with the roasting meat.
Even if the "regular blank," as well as the one usage of "sacrifices and offerings" in Daniel (9:27) turned out to be animal sacrifices, it would not prove that a Temple building must be rebuilt. It is possible for animals to be sacrificed at the Wailing Wall. Yet the "sacrifices and offerings" could exclusively be the "wailing" itself.
ENTER PAUL
Concerning Paul's reference to a "temple of God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4), in which the anti-Christ will sit, there is the possibility that while he (and the other apostles) envisioned an anti-Christ entering a Jewish Temple to proclaim his god-hood, that it will turn out to be the Dome of the Rock on the Jewish holy site instead. Of course, Paul, in his mind, was not referring to the Dome in any way in his use of "temple," though God may have permitted it. I'll admit that I'm not very keen with this view.
Paul knew Daniel 11:36, where it tells us that the anti-Christ "shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and speak marvelous things against the God of gods." But Paul also knew the words of Jesus which placed the anti-Christ in the "holy place." At least, I have no doubt that he was informed first-hand by those who heard Jesus speak the words.
Notice that Daniel does not mention a Temple building in relation to the self-exaltation and blasphemies of the anti-Christ. Note that in the book of Revelation, where we see the anti-Christ mouthing blasphemous words (13), he is not pictured in a Temple building. Nor do we see a building in Daniel 7:25 where he is once again shown mouthing-off against God, nor in 8:25 where he sets himself up to be as great as Christ. Paul is alone in all the Bible in the revelation of the anti-Christ "in the temple of God, showing himself that he is [a] god..."
And so the story in circulation from the apostles may have been that the anti-Christ was to come to the Temple building to fulfill Daniel's prophecies. After all, the Temple building was still standing in those days. In like manner, Paul had believed quite logically the same thing. I realize how hazardous this theory is to the doctrine of Biblical infallibility if there is to be no new Temple in the great tribulation, but it may also be that the word "temple" was exchanged in his writings by others after his death, and apart from the inspiration of God.
You see, the Greek word for "temple" (supposedly) used in Thessalonians is "naos," which specifically refers to the building itself. But perhaps "hieron" was used, indicating instead the Temple site in general. This latter alternative is often used to denote the outer courtyard alone, as in, "Go stand in the temple and speak all these words of life to the people" (Acts 5:20), or, Jesus entered into the temple and cast out all those selling and buying in the temple" (Matt. 21:12).
But if Paul did use "naos," it would seem to be a contradiction of everything I have been saying in this chapter so far. It would be strong evidence for a temple building being in existence in the great tribulation period. Yet, I cannot disregard the term in Daniel which points to the western wall as the location of the Abomination, nor can I ignore Revelation's admission that the building would not be trampled where the outer court and city streets would.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. It may turn out that the building's construction is started in the near future, but not completed due to Arab opposition. In defiance, the Jews might begin to institute animal sacrifices at the Western Wall. The anti-Christ could then sit in the unfinished Temple (shell) to make his infamous proclamation, but eradicate the animal "sacrifices and offerings" at the Western Wall while there applying the abomination/revolt that leads to the desolation of the city.
Yet, while an incomplete Temple building can explain the absence in prophecy of great-tribulation Temple furniture, walls, rooms for priests, feasts, gatherings, etc., it does not explain to my satisfaction how the building could escape trampling, even complete wreckage...destruction never appearing in prophecy.
Perhaps I should have given the reason for this chapter at the beginning, as the reader may not see the importance of this seemingly insignificant debate. The significance is huge. Many believers will not bother to take tribulation preparation seriously until they see the Temple construction under way, if they feel that the anti-Christ must enter a Temple building. In fact, it appears that most are teaching that the anti-Christ cannot come to his appointed Mission until the building is fully operational...as the Ezekiel temple with full-blown animal sacrifices, etc.
Within weeks or days of the Abomination, this teaching may yet be proclaimed. Can you imagine all the miserable implications for the Church if these writers are wrong? Therefore, beware. Depend neither on the starting nor completion of a Temple building when timing the preparation of your tribulation retreat.
There is mention of an "altar" of God in Joel 1:13, as well as "priests." And this text involves a prophecy of the end-time great tribulation of Israel. However, God is addressing the Jews of Joel's day...urging them to repent while at the same time pointing out the devastation of the last days. In that case, could it not be the priests and altar in the days of Joel that are being indicated rather than in the last days?
Yes, when God says, "Gird up and lament, priests. Howl, ministers of the altar..." He is referring to the ancient situation. In the first 11 verses of chapter two, the Day of the LORD is portrayed, but verse 12 says, "Yet even now, turn to Me..." So you see, God is using the fearful future evils of Armageddon to move the ancient people he is addressing. Therefore, when He says (a few verses later), "Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, gather the elders...Let the priests, ministers of YHWH, weep between the porch and the altar...", God is not referring to the end-time priests, porch and altar.
And if these texts in Joel are not end-time references to a Temple, then I don't think there is one text in all the Bible possessing language which would reveal, on this side of Armageddon, end-time Temple activity.
PEACE DEAL, OR WAR PACT?
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 seriously 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. Furthermore, the assumed theme 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 of the period. 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, while, and only perhaps, somewhat of a peace man in the second half when he is at that time elevated into European Globalism.
I identify "the prince" in verse 26 as Satan because the text identifies him as the ruler of the peoples who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. That is, he depicts a leader of the ancient Romans to whom God gave global authority, who will yet have global authority in the last Week. God gave this Globalism power to His enemies (beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon) so that they could make an absolute stench of the world of men and so 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 portion of the empire, and that's what Daniel 9:27 reveals (not to mention Revelation 17).
Now as we see that it is Satan but not necessarily the anti-Christ who confirms the covenant for seven years, 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 in the tangible world is that the Europeans, but not necessarily including the Jewish-based Rothschild Illuminati that has ruled Europe to a great degree for about two centuries, will join the 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. And the reason for that bent is, apparently, to deflect the current crisis that the extremist Muslim terrorists are in the process of inflicting upon the West.
I know for a fact that Illuminatists and Masons have secretly slipped into the teaching circles of Biblical prophecy, as had Isaac Newton and a long train of others, to deceive us with false ideas. What they strive to teach can be ascertained as coinciding with their global programs in order to move Christians into accepting the fulfillments of their predictions as God-fulfilled prophecy...when/if they can bring the predictions about for their counterfeit Biblical Millennium.
The Rothschilds put Israel on the map in 1948 as a result of an ambitious Zionism process beginning long before the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Arthur Balfour, while Foreign Secretary of England, asked Lord Rothschild for permission to place the Jews back in Palestine, and Rothschild agreed of course since the request was part of an inner-circle conspiracy...smacking of the makings of a counterfeit Biblical Millennium. Also in 1917, Rothschilds and other "Jews" seized Russia and formed the Communist system there in line with the socialist Fabian societies that Balfour and other occultists had erected in England. It is understood by myself and others that the Bavarian illuminati was a root of Russian Communism, as Adam Weishaupt's socialistic and world-control concepts evolved into Marxism. The Balfour-Rothschild duo, with many others, went on to form the League of Nations at the turn of the decade...which has since metamorphosed into the United Nations. What the founders were not banking on was a betrayal of Israel by the other members of the UN.
When British Zionists declared Israeli Independence in 1948, it was in the same period as the formation of the United Nations, and this combination can be construed as the first political tinkerings towards the makings of a Biblical Millennium with Israel as its head...but with Rothschilds acting as God's special agents. Hitler was absolutely correct when claiming that there was a globalist Jewish conspiracy aiming to run the world (which is not to say that I justify how he attempted to thwart it). This claim is not at all unreasonable because many Jewish groups arose throughout history claiming that the Biblical Millennium had arrived through one false messiah or another. A counterfeit Biblical Millennium requires Jews living in their ancient land, and this Zionist movement has found respectability among evangelical Christians since the 1800s, but especially among pre-tribulationists/dispensationalists...whom have caused most evangelicals to respect Zionism as a move of God when in fact it is Satanic. Hitler attempted to stamp Zionism out before it came to fruition, and in the meantime the Rosicrucian sect that he belonged to desired world rule with itself in charge.
The Illuminati target date for the start of their Millennium may very well have been the year 2000 (for reasons explained elsewhere in this book), but the movement misjudged the extent of opposition from Muslims...so that the year 2000 came and went without an official start to their so-called "Golden Age." It's the brink of 2005 now, and the Muslims are still the monkey wrench lodged tightly in the Zionist machine. I suspect that it was the Zionist Illuminati which attempted a seven-year peace deal with the Oslo Accords of 1993, as a final effort to pacify the Muslim world by 2000. But the process failed.
Evangelicals at large were informed by some groups that the Accords were fulfilling the Daniel 9:27 covenant. The Accords constituted a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, and yet the anti-Christ was said to be, not of the Palestinians, but of the Western powers acting as the deal's mediators. Try to understand, if you are a prophecy educator, that Zionists who want an Israeli peace deal cannot be/furnish the anti-Christ. The anti-Christ is coming to oppose Zionism. God is sending the anti-Christ to demolish what Zionism has set up without Him.
The timing of the Accords, ending in 2000, makes me believe that the Illuminati, using false-Christian agents, had itself used Daniel 9:27 to create the peace-deal doctrine...with the result that, to this day, some true believers are promoting the same false doctrine. Certainly, there is great motive for the "Jewish" Illuminati to see a peace deal between Israel and her enemies. Convincing the world of Christians that a peace deal must come to pass as God's will makes it easier for the parties involved to bring the "prophecy" about even though it's not God's plan.
Certain British Freemasons portray themselves as Israelites by blood (as per British-Israelism), wherefore the Zionist pick for world ruler doesn't necessarily require a true Jew; a British "Jew" will do. While on the one hand it is tempting to expect this pick to be the Biblical False Prophet, one also needs to consider that the False Prophet will, according to Revelation 13, be a partner to the anti-Zionist anti-Christ. Unless one believes that the Zionist Illuminati will itself invade and desolate Israel, it is best to expect a False Prophet as a member of an anti-Zionist Illuminati group. It may even be that certain Rothschilds (e.g. the French ones) have become anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian.
British Illuminatii (not necessarily loyal to Rothschild Zionists) have pawns entrenched in both political parties of the United States, Bill Clinton being only one. This exposes the power that British forces possess in successfully electing one of their own agents. As money buys power, the Illuminati has one of the best shots at buying world power. I do not know whether the Cecil-Rhodes Illuminati (to which Clinton belonged/belongs) is in cahoots with British Zionists; it is said by those who report on these matters that the two groups were at first (over a century ago) partnered.
Of course, Zionists want a peaceful counterfeit Millennium, wherefore they will predict a wonderful peace-loving world ruler. As a result, prophecy educators who are wise to the Illuminati teach that the anti-Christ will be an Illuminatist, but also that the anti-Christ will be a wonderful, peace-loving world ruler, even though the Bible nowhere depicts him as such. Once again, we see that some of the most mainstream prophecy-related teachings in evangelical circles are born of draconian circles. Yes, the anti-Christ will be "worshiped" in some way, but to that picture we must add that he is worshiped for his great military powers (Revelation 13). As per Daniel 8 and 11 showing that he "destroys marvelously" and "plunders and loots," it is inconceivable to me that his victims will worship him. It seems an easy prediction that it will be Muslims and other anti-Zionists who will worship him. Yes, we should be looking for a Zionism-betraying Illuminatist appearing as a messiah type...but this is the False Prophet (= the world-stage political machine), not the anti-Christ (= the Middle-East military machine).
We can't be much more presumptuous than to interpret "the many" of Daniel 9:27 as Israel, or Israelites. Would you bet your spouse and kids that "the many" includes Israel? You just might endanger your family by taking that position. Just as pre-tribbers promote a pre-trib' rapture without one scripture that at face-value agrees, with the result that the Church will suffer greatly (by entering the last half of the Week unaware that it's the last half), ditto for the teaching of the peace-deal theory. For example, where one online writer discredits Ron Weinland for having Daniel's 1335 days beginning on February 2, 2008, he asks in opposition: "Have you seen anything [since February 2008] that could be considered the appalling abomination set up anywhere? Do you see a situation of Peace and Security yet?" The latter question refers to the Israeli peace treaty that the writer believes (and teaches) must occur before history arrives to the last half of the Week. When the true last half of the Week arrives, expect many writers like him to ask that very question, thus serving to mislead you into believing that the last half has not yet arrived. The writer also teaches that the mark of the beast is not a literal mark on the right hand, thus serving to have you receive the mark.
http://www.theshininglight.info/id59.htmlNo 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 refer 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. Yes, the Bible tells that he will blaspheme God, not speak as a representative of God.
It's no doubt because a special section of Daniel 11 -- namely, verses 21-31 -- appears in substantial detail to be 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 the sort 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 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 with many anti-Israeli peoples (i.e. Gentiles). 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 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 Gog enters Iraq portraying himself to the Iraqi peoples and to the world as a good man bent on good ends, but this in itself does not conclude his making subsequent 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 invades at will without ruses required.
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. 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 (when Jesus comes with his Eastern "locusts").
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?
If I were an angel before God, I'd be hanging my head in shame for the ignorance of prophecy writers, who copy-cat much of whatever their prophecy heroes feed them rather than scratching through the prophecies for themselves. Please accept my urging you to re-think in this way, and, even better, join me in countering the peace-treaty doctrine.
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. So I have hung my head in shame before God at the ignorance of such writers, who for following their peers are afraid to tell what is glaringly obvious: 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. And since the 42 months are known to begin at the midway point of the Week, the anti-Christ must attack Israel a significant time prior to the midway point.
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 mid-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 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.
Is it not apparent, judging from the Middle-East situation as it stands today, that the anti-Christ will attack Egypt precisely due to her peace treaty with Israel i.e. the Camp David deal of the late 1970s that stands firm to this day? How, while he opposes Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, will the anti-Christ make his own treaty with Israel? So strong are these arguments that I am making that those who wish to maintain the peace-deal theory will wipe Daniel 11:21-35 right out of the end-times and opt to enter the end times only at verse 36.
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 Gog 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.
Moreover, 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. Mosul, the city in northern Iraq that Nahum 1:11 reveals as Gog's early base of operations, is likewise on the upper stretches of the Tigris...so that there is logic in Calno being one of his first regions of invasion.
If you know your Seleucid history, you can easily see that his taking Iraq, then Syria, and finally northern Israel, is as the restoration of the Seleucid empire, especially if Gog will be of the same bloodline as the Seleucids, which is what the Daniel-11 prophecy seems to imply.
Ezekiel 30:3 specifically uses the words, "Day of the LORD," indicating that the prophecy takes an abrupt but temporary turn to end-time events (returning to ancient events in verse 6 or 10). Verses 4 and 5, therefore, reveal invasions into Egypt, Cush, and surrounding north-African regions which I see as events near/during the first half of the Week, even though the same regions (namely Egypt, Libya, and Cush) are invaded (again) in the second half as per Daniel 11:43 (verse 43 is well after the midway point of the Week found back at verse 31).
Where Isaiah 19 speaks on the African invasion (as an invasion of the LORD Himself), it says, "I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians...city against city, kingdom against kingdom." (v 2), That same theme of betrayal is made evident in Daniel 11:25-28, where those close to the Egyptian President will betray him on behalf of supporting the King of the North (i.e. Gog). Wouldn't this animosity between citizens of the same countries/cities translate to Arab versus anti-West Arab, or, more specifically, anti-Gog Arab versus pro-Gog Arab?
If you believe along with Zondervan publishers, for example, that verses 21-35 refer to an ancient king/situation, you might consider me a clever author bent on making an ancient prophecy fit the shoe of current events. Not so. Two hundred years after that ancient king, Jesus referred to the Abomination of verse 31 as an event to his future (see Matthew 24:15). Therefore, the soldiers of the "king of the north," who in verse 31 procure the Abomination, must be the soldiers of the end-time anti-Christ, no matter how well Antiochus IV (175 BC) may fit some of the prophecy.
Watch what you read in footnotes and commentaries. Throw your paraphrase Bible out and get one that sticks closely to the early Greek and Hebrew texts. All Bible quotes in this book, unless noted otherwise, are word-for-word translations from Hebrew or Greek interlinears, albeit I personally arrange those words into proper English structure where necessary (one doesn't need to be a language expert to do this correctly).
Some believers today insist that the book of Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, allowing them to make the further claim that the Revelation plagues, including chapter eleven's 42-month trampling of Jerusalem, occurred in relation to 70 AD. They furthermore make the mistake of placing the Abomination (and the "great tribulation" of Matthew 24:21 and Luke 21:23) in relation to 70 AD. That position falls wrong because the Abomination of Matthew 24 occurs, according to verses 15-31, in relation to Jesus' return (i.e. at Armageddon). Therefore, unless Jesus returned in the first century, we shouldn't locate the Abomination and Tribulation in the first century no matter how much the Roman invasion of Jerusalem at that time had commonality with the end-time invasion.
The Bible indicates that the Church will fall asleep in the first half of the Week, and it seems clear to me that erroneous prophetic commentaries will be responsible for much of it. Yet for those with a will to watch and to hang on, I share in this chapter, and the next two, some very important matters in relation to the following points:
2) Bible footnotes and commentaries telling otherwise rob Bible readers of critical signs that are golden to those who wish to safely plan their tribulation security in time for the coming skincode.
Surely, the multiple signs of which I speak have been sitting patiently, more than 2500 years, for no better purpose than to benefit the end-time generation. And so be aroused! Jesus wants us to know that this section of the Daniel-11 prophecy represents the anti-Christ's activities prior to the successful (and future) invasion of Jerusalem, so that we have no less than eleven verses describing events BEFORE the midway point of the final seven years!! This is the kindness of God, then, in allowing us to discern the identity of the anti-Christ with some certainty well before the skincode is enforced.
Regardless of how I interpret verses 21-31, I can tell you for certain that the Lord shared them for the purpose of allowing His final Church generation time enough to prepare -- at the proper time -- for the period of the skincode. These eleven verses are utterly crucial because there is not one section of prophecy in all the Bible that comes close to describing so many events pertaining to the FIRST half of the Week.
We cannot fully understand 21-31 unless we solve the previous verses...which expose the ancient kings of the north as belonging to the Greek faction known to historians as the Seleucid empire, originally centered in modern Iraq but including Syria to the one side and some of Persia (Iran) to the other; see Seleucid Empire (in yellow). One possibility is that the anti-Christ will build a neo-Seleucid empire covering the same geographical regions as did the ancient empire; otherwise, what would be God's purpose in connecting the end-time king of the north to the ancient Seleucid kings of the north? I suppose it's possible that the ruler of the neo-Seleucid kingdom will be of the same bloodline as those of the ancient empire.
The Seleucid kings occupied northern Israel at a time when Egypt occupied the southern half of Israel, for which reason Egypt is represented in the prophecy as the "king of the south." When the end times are suddenly and without notice in view -- as of verse 21 -- we can presume with great confidence that the king of the south is still Egypt. To grant end-timers those details is probably a major reason for the prophecy starting off with ancient events. Note that the current leader of Egypt has recently (Sept. 2003) appeared on the BBC Network to continue verbal support for the American invasion into Iraq, thus setting up the grounds for the fulfillment of verses 25-27...that will see Egypt attacked by the neo-Seleucid king.
[Update May 2012 -- We have yet to see what the new Egypt will look like after president Mubarak's fall. While the Muslim brotherhood and similar Israel-unfriendly types are slated to take the parliament, the next president of Egypt has yet to be chosen. After he's chosen, I'll be watching, and commenting on, whether he invites the wrath of anti-Israeli's so as to fulfill prophecy. End Update]
Note that the anti-Christ's neo-Seleucid kingdom is found in Revelation 13:2, because we see the empire of the "beast" depicted there with features combining those of a leopard (Greece), a bear (Persia/Iran), and a lion (Iraq). For the identification of these animals as the nations in brackets, see Daniel 7 in conjunction with Daniel 8:20-21. In Revelation 13:2, the Beast's kingdom is said to have "a mouth like a lion," which in my opinion means that he will command from Iraq. "Feet like a bear" could mean that his military base/might is in the Iranians; Ezekiel 38 implies that Iran will be the anti-Christ's most-important ally. "Greek-like" may refer to his Westernization, democratization, and/or Aryanism as opposed to Arabic. Or, we might be surprised to find that he, as with the ancient Seleucids, comes from the Greeks proper, though I find this a difficulty to conceive at this time.
If you don't already know from previous chapters, I equate the anti-Christ with Gog of Ezekiel 38, whom I believe will be a Russian. But if I am wrong concerning his Russian blood, then look for any prominent ruler to enter Iraq as per the description of this prophecy. Readers incapable of viewing the anti-Christ as Gog could be tolerant or open to this position just in case I and others are correct. We are few who take this position now.
Of course, one should never trust all my words as though the words of God. We've learned the lesson many times that prophecy speakers can be blushing wrong. You who don't study prophecy could end up being more correct than we who do study it...just because there is a God who determines thoughts, but also because God opposes prophecy writers who think they have a special gift of prophecy when in fact all they have is the normal human power of reasoning and learning.
I reason like so: as the anti-Christ is called the "king of Babylon" in Isaiah 14, where the "Babylon" of that text (13:9) is the ancient country on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, I conclude that modern Iraq will be the military headquarters of the future neo-Seleucid empire, or that Iraq will become the anti-Christ's Military State. This seems a logical approach because the country of Babylon held the capital (Seleucia) of the ancient Seleucid empire...several years before the Syrian co-capital city (Antioch) was determined.
Therefore, as the anti-Christ has been revealed in Daniel 11:23 as a supporter of a militarily-defeated kingdom that will become his kingdom, I concluded that it will be Iraqi. This was no trivial realization, which at the time (1980) was not part of any major prophetic book (I hadn't seen an anti-Christ link to Iraq in any book nor heard of it by any other means). You can imagine my deep interest when the Persian-Gulf War of 1991 came and went...but much more interest now that Iraq has been broken militarily for a second time.
The book of Nahum concerns the end times; 1:5-8 tips us off with clear mountain-melting (= Armageddon) terminology. The anti-Christ is evident in verse 11 because verse 12 speaks on his destruction while leading into Israel's eternal restoration i.e. the Millennium. In verse 11, the anti-Christ, described as "one who devises evil against YHWH," is said to "come forth from" what appears certainly to be Nineveh. What can we make of this phrase, "come forth from," except that, early in his mission, the anti-Christ will have headquarters at Nineveh?
Nineveh was the capital city of the ancient Assyrian empire, but behold, the palaces of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, though he is known to have ruled from Nineveh, were excavated across the Tigris river from Nineveh, in what is now the Iraqi city of Mosul (see map of the Middle East or of modern Iraq). That is, what is now Mosul was once a part of Nineveh. Therefore, or so is my understanding, the anti-Christ, prior to seizing Iraq, will set up headquarters in Mosul (pop. 1.5 million).
Saddam's two sons were killed while hiding out in Mosul, by the way, and many other Saddam supporters have been found in and around that city. Saddam once said that whoever ruled Mosul would rule all of Iraq. It appears that the anti-Christ will agree, if he hasn't already done so.
[Update December 2004 -- As the terrorists were ousted last month from their prime hide-out in the city of Falluja, Mosul has become a major terrorist haven.]
[Update July 18 2007 -- Today, National Public Radio wrote: "Al-Mashhadani is the highest-ranking Iraqi leader in al-Qaida in Iraq. He was captured in Mosul on July 4 [2007]." It is now the fifth year of the Iraqi war, and Mosul still appears to be a headquarters for the Insurgency. Story at:
Wikipedia writes: "Over a three-month period in 2005, al-Zarqawi's affiliates were reportedly responsible for more than 1,700 attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces in the city of Mosul alone."
When it says in Daniel 8:9 that the anti-Christ will start small, and then, en route to becoming a large kingdom, spread "toward the south, toward the east, and toward the bountiful land," we might envision him spreading forth from Mosul, south into the rich province encompassing Baghdad, east toward the Iran border, but also north along the banks of the Euphrates river where the desert is checked. That latter northern stretch could prove to equate with his conquering of Calno and Carchemish (Turkish-Syrian border) as per Isaiah 10, unless he conquers them before coming to Mosul. Isaiah 10 hints that the Calno and Carchemish invasions of the king of "Assyria" are successful campaigns preparing his military path into Israel's northland (for new readers: I explained a few chapters earlier why Isaiah 10's Assyrian invader of Israel must be an end-time ruler).
[Update May 2012 -- As Turkey is on-side the Western-backed effort to remove and replace the Syrian president (Assad), it can make more sense at this time that Russia should furnish the anti-Christ rather than the West. Putin, who is now the new Russian president again, has signalled that he will not take the over-throw of Assad sitting down. One could imagine that the current civil war in Syria, or its aftermath, could provide Putin the excuse or passion to utilize heavily-involved means inside Syria. Northern Iraq -- ancient Assyria -- is right beside the Syrian border. End Update]
In the following Daniel-11 text, the key word "enter" serves as evidence for the anti-Christ's foreign status among the Iraqis over which he comes to rule. That is, he will not be an Iraqi. Here is verse 21 in a word-for-word translation:
Who would "they" be, who reject Gog when he "stands up" to run the kingdom (in the footsteps of a previous king of the north)? Not the defeated Iraqi military (of Saddam) that he will make his own army, but rather the anti-Saddam (i.e. West-supported) Iraqis.
The Hebrew word, "smooth," is translated by some Bible versions as "intrigues" (from "smooth/slippery talk"). If this is indeed a correct translation, it clarifies this one thing: Gog will initially attempt to seize the power structures of Iraq, not with a military effort, but with political intrigues i.e. diplomacy, political wrangling. With this in mind, note the phrase "diplomatic solution," and the word "seize," in the following clip from a People's Daily article (dated Jan. 13, 2003, less than two months prior to the Iraq war):
In the Daniel-11 prophecy, we see the Greek empire -- immediately after Alexander's death (v 6) -- leading into a succession of "kings of the north" until the prophecy extends to the end-time anti-Christ as the final king of the north. The problem which I address to you in earnest is that many Christians are unaware of the anti-Christ's introduction at verse 21, the oversight being due to the widespread claim that the anti-Christ enters the prophecy well further, in verse 36. For those who have been led into that view so that verses 21-35 are thought to portray an ancient king/situation, see Antiochus IV for reasons to the contrary.
1) If the personality in Daniel's verse 31 is the end-time anti-Christ, so also is the personality in the verses previous to 31, going back to verse 21.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12063227&ft=1&f=1004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
End Update.
"And a rejected one shall stand up in his place, and they shall not give to him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smooth talk" (v 21).
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov said on Thursday in Baghdad that Russia is committed to finding a "diplomatic solution" to the Iraqi crisis, the official Iraqi News Agency (INA) reported..."to ensure Iraq's national unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty...
Upon arrival at Baghdad's Saddam International Airport, Saltanov told reporters the delegation members "are here to seize any chance to achieve and find a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Iraq issue and to avoid military scenarios."
While there may seem to be nothing subversive on the surface of those words, it can be shown that Russia was attempting to seize Saddam's very power structures immediately prior to the war. I see Gog continuing forward with the same feigned concern for Iraqi citizens. Although the Russian government was/is opposed to Bush's war because Russian companies had business dealings with Saddam, it seems from verses 22 and 23 that Gog will benefit from the defeat of Saddam by providing an opportunity for a grasping of the nation's heart.
[Update May 2012 -- Yes, Saddam is long gone, but Saddam's Baathist loyalists are predicted to have organized groups, to this day, seeking Iraq back. Plus, the American military only left Iraq months ago, wherefore anytime-soon would be the time for a Russian Gog to grasp at Iraq's heart.
The difficulty that I see for an imminent fulfillment of the prophecy above is that the crisis in Iraq, which I predicted could give the anti-Christ an excuse to engage Iraqi affairs diplomatically, is largely passed. However, several months ago, Maliki's government technically fell apart when the leading Sunni member had to quit, escaping for his life. He's reportedly now in Turkey with the Turkish government offering him protection, and refusing to give him over to Maliki who wants to prosecute him on charges of terrorist acts. There's no telling what sort of crisis this situation could develop into, or how Putin might use the developments to enter Iraq. End Update]
As it appears correct for Gog to initially take hold of Iraq with "smooth talk" rather than with his military, the Iraqi army falling before Gog's face, in verse 22, falls to someone else's army i.e. not Gog's. That was a deduction made in 1980, before anything in Iraq had transpired, wherefore I was looking to some other army to invade Iraq. I am increasingly concerned and yet relieved all at once about verse 22 being fulfilled by the American-led army NOW in Iraq. When I had published this book in 1997, I did not claim to readers that the 1991 Gulf War was definitely the fulfillment of verse 22, but suggested that a second American invasion of Iraq would be a more viable fulfillment because the other parts of the prophecy had not come to pass as of 1997.
As the Americans left "unfinished business" in 1991, it seemed more likely by 1997 -- in light of verse 22 -- that Americans would invade Iraq a second time to finish Saddam off. I have waited patiently for this second instance, and feel that waiting for a third would be stretching it.
[Update May 2012 -- Actually, Obama is a wily and unpredictable war president with seasoned military units in Afghanistan. And if Mitt Romney becomes the next U.S. president, he is predicted to be a war president too in relation to the "fight on terror." U.S. military equipment that left Iraq is stacked in Kuwait and elsewhere ready for any further military "need." We could see a third American invasion into Iraq. End Update]
It is no secret that various Russian leaders have been involved in secret talks with Saddam for 12 years and longer, most recently by Yevgeny Primakov, who was not only a former Russian Prime Minister, but a former Russian Foreign Minister, a former chief of the Foreign Intelligence Service, and a former Chairman of the KGB. Primakov held talks with Saddam in the 1991 War and on other occasions since. In February 2003, just days before the war that ousted Saddam from power, Primakov on behalf of Russian president Putin offered the Iraqi leader a save-face game plan that included Saddam's stepping aside from power and the setting up of a "new interim authority" (from Russia) to rule on his behalf. Primakov has since admitted to making this offer. Atul Aneja of India's national newspaper, The Hindu, put the Primakov offer like this:
"Without seeking his voluntary exile, it is likely that Mr. Primakov proposed to Mr. Hussein that he could continue as Iraq's figurehead President for another year."But during this time-frame, he should consider appointing a new interim authority where all Iraqis, including some of those who were at present in exile, were represented." (For the full story, see Primakov)
One could easily get the impression that Putin and Primakov were attempting to beat George Bush to the Iraqi interim-government gun in an effort to install a pro-Russia authority in Baghdad. According to reports, Saddam rejected the Primakov offer, for which reason Saddam now finds himself as good as dead...badly in need of Russian support.
It is quite possible that some of the uprisings in Iraq since the end of Bush's major combat have been urged and supported by Gog himself (while Gog has remained invisible), and that Saddam is wondering how long it will be before his Russian friends come to free him from prison. I do not know if they will free him, but I do strongly think from verse 23 that Gog will make an alliance with the fallen Saddam/Osama loyalists, using them to invade (militarily) the richest places of Iraq.
George Bush may have invaded Iraq primarily to keep Gog from profiting there, for it is reported online that, before he invaded Iraq, Bush told French president Chirac that the two of them should stop the advance of "Gog and Magog" (i.e. it is reported that Bush actually used that phrase with Chirac). Apparently, Chirac betrayed Bush and sided with Russia (and probably snitched to the Russian rulers about Bush's intentions). It has occurred to me that Bush in Iraq may be by the will of God to delay the advance of Gog until the Appointed Time.
If you're wondering how the verse-22 military conflict has already been fulfilled by the American-led war while the latter portion of the previous verse -- concerning the smooth seizure of Iraq by Gog -- has not yet been fulfilled, the answer should be in verses 22-24. The problem is, I'm claiming that verse 22 has been fulfilled while verse 21 hasn't yet. My solution is in verses 22-24, which amount to an expounded version of the latter portion of verse 21, so that, not easily discerned by the reader, verse 22 actually occurs in history before the verse-21 seizure of Iraq.
Let me try to explain it this way: it appears that the end of 21 is repeated in 23 with slightly different terms. For example, the "smooth talk" of verse 21 becomes "deceit" in verse 23. And the "enter" of verse 21 becomes "he will come and be strong with a few people" in verse 23. In fact, note the comparison below:
VERSE 21: "he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom smoothly."VERSE 24: "With ease, even into the rich places of the province, he will enter."
Therefore, it appears that the end of verse 21 doesn't occur until the events of verses 22 and 23 have occurred. Or, put yet another way, beginning at verse 22, the text brings the reader back in time, before the events of 21, in order to reveal events that lead-up to verse 21...explaining why events of 21 are repeated in 24. The sequence of events is like so:
Saddam's army is defeated and his nation fallsGog joins the fallen Insurgents
Gog attempts to seize/share power in Iraq but is rejected by the New Iraq
Gog succeeds at seizing major portions of Iraq anyway/eventually
Gog uses the Insurgents, and they gladly join him, for military strikes against the New Iraq.
My current opinion, after coming to realize that Gog stems from Mosul, is that both the "kingdom" in verse 21 and the "richest places of the province" in verse 24 refer to Baghdad, the dominant seat of Iraqi power. The predicted military success of Baathist Insurgents against Baghdad would suggest that the American military is no longer in Iraq at that point, and the ever-clamorous Liberals (the world over) who oppose the Iraqi invasion can at that point thank themselves for allowing Iraq to go over to the anti-Christ. Rather than admitting error and hanging their heads in shame for it, the Liberals, I predict, will permit themselves to join Gog, naively believing that he (and his False-Prophet partner) will manage to eke out of the world crisis an acceptable if not utopian resolution.
Here now are verses 22-23 in a translation that isn't quite right:
(22)"And the army of the overflow will be swept from before his face, and they will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. (23)And after they join him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people."
You need to give this problem the consideration it merits if your Bible has a similar translation. I have a serious problem with the first sentence of the above translation (similar to the NIV) because it amounts to the defeat of the overflowing army. I would suggest that this incorrect translation is due to translators trying to fit the prophecy to the events of Antiochus IV. The correct translation, below, is extremely important; it suggests the contrary, that the invading army is victorious.
It is victorious over two armies, the first identified as, "they will be broken," and the other identified as belonging to a "ruler of a covenant." As the prophecy says that the broken ones will join him, I imagined (in 1980) a desperate situation of Gog-to-the-rescue of the fallen armies. That "rescue" seems so predictable now that I feel I have the prophecy correctly interpreted.
[Update May 2011 -- Well, sorry to say, nearly a decade has passed since Saddam fell, and we still don't see Gog to the rescue. Instead, we saw the Americans making an alliance with the fallen Saddam loyalists in the Mosul theater. It had me wondering whether Gog might be the Rothschilds and/or some Western Rus entity. In any case, I have no choice but to wait some more years before abandoning / re-stringing much of this chapter. Yet, there may be no need to, because the prophesied defeat of Iraq that allows a Gog-to-the-rescue scenario could ultimately be just another stage of what the Bush presidents started. End update]
One Hebrew word is used twice in verse 22. The word where "overflow" is used (in the above translation) is "shataph" (#7857 in Strong's dictionary), while the Hebrew word for "swept away" is "sheteph" (#7858). Both words can mean "flood," although the first word can also be the verb, "to gush," according to Strong's Concordance. But that's the kicker: "to gush" is an action, wherefore while the first word is a verb, the second is a noun. The erroneous translation above, and perhaps the one in your Bible version, has the noun first and the verb second, an error having the potential to alter the meaning of the sentence...wherefore I lean heavily on the following translation:
"(22)And the army will gush a flood before his face, and they will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. (23)And after they join him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people."
Now, rather than the army being swept away from before Gog's face, the army is gushing a flood while Gog watches on, implying a victorious force defeating a "they" whom will later join Gog. I read "they" as neither the gushing entity nor the king of the north. In the previous verse (21) "they" refers to the end-time Seleucid domain, wherefore I view the phrase, "they will be broken," as the military defeat of the Iraqis. Within the phrase, "they join him," one can (and probably should) include the armies of the Ruler of a Covenant. That is, both entities join Gog and look to him as their survival strategy and success story.
As the same overflowing army defeats both groups, while the Americans defeated both Osama bin Laden and Saddam in the same anti-terrorist effort, it seems that this portion of the prophecy has been fulfilled!
Before moving on to the next chapter (a continuation of this topic), I'll show all four verses together:
"A rejected one shall stand up in his place, and they shall not give him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smoothness. And the arms will gush a flood before his face, and they will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. And after they join themselves to him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people. With ease, even into the rich places of the province, he will enter. And he will do what his fathers nor his father's fathers have not done. He shall plunder and spoil, and scatter goods among them."
A 9-11 commission found that Al Qaida members were engaged in meetings with Saddam agents, but all that the Democrats would emphasize in response was that the commission found no evidence of collusion on the 9-11 disaster. Of course there was no evidence, for anything, because no one knows what was said at the meetings. But what do Democrats suppose that Saddam held meetings with the terrorists for? Cookies and tea???
To make the alleged meetings seem less likely, Democrats repeatedly reminded America that Saddam and Osama were by no means friends. But now that the meetings are known to have taken place in spite of previous animosity between the two, Democrats play the fool when maintaining that the purposes of the meetings had nothing to do with Saddam's desire to avenge himself against America.
Democrats lost the last two federal elections in the worst-possible way, by the skin of their teeth. It is fast becoming my prediction that vengeful Democratic behavior, as it uses the shaky Iraqi situation for fuel, will thrust the world more quickly to Armageddon. Worldwide animosity toward Bush's efforts in Iraq embolden terrorists, and reduce worldwide support for the war effort. Democrats have for the past few years shown convincingly that they wish for the worst, that Bush will find many embarrassing difficulties in Iraq, and lose the war altogether. Every American killed in Iraq is a cherished point used daily for Democratic political gain. The worst thing that could happen (so far as the leading Democrats are concerned) is for the American military to succeed brilliantly.
[Update May 2011 -- Those Democrats who pretended to care more for the lives of American soldiers than for their political success succeeded in obtaining full powers in 2009. Afterward, we saw no more focus on dead soldiers, as that would harm Obama's image as a war president. Consequently, Iraq started to fade from Western news so that it's been harder to follow or realize what's all taking place under the radar in terrorist Iraq. We shouldn't think that just because Iraq has faded from the news that prophecy is necessarily not unfolding in Iraq at this time. On the other hand, I'm open to being wrong for pegging the current Iraq situation as part of the Daniel-11 prophecy. End Update]
The nightmare of Americans had previously been that Russia might press the nuclear button even if it meant Russia's committing suicide in the process. After coming to grips with that fear, and realizing that Russia was not capable of committing national suicide, we were awakened to the fact that the radical Muslims are capable, and with great gladness should God permit their success.
Muslims have no God in Heaven, no matter how much they think they have "Allah," and yet the true God of Heaven will eventually grant them wild success to bring on both the great tribulation of Israel and the subsequent Mother of all Battles (Saddam may prove to have been more correct than we all initially realized when he predicted that George Bush Senior was starting the "mother of all battles").
The more that Bush Junior and his successor(s) fails, the sooner the Muslim advance will succeed.
God wants Israel to cut itself off from America's protection, and to look to Him for all her needs. I am not in favor of Bush's long-term Iraqi agenda because Babylon is God's enemy and must not be made to prosper. The anti-Christ comes to be that country's end-time ruler for this very cause: that God might destroy him and Babylon together at Armageddon. Bush may as well learn sooner rather than later that he can't change the will of God in this, that the anti-Christ will embolden the terrorists all the more when he comes with success in his hands, and that God will make Gog successful until the Jews are brought down with their faces to the dust...until in their last moments of staggering those stubborn people who call themselves Jews raise a white flag to God in surrender to His will.
I know from Isaiah 13 (and possibly from Jeremiah 50-51) that God opposes the Iraqi people of the end times, and so I would caution you against supporting Bush and his democratic plans for that nation; God intends to destroy Iraq utterly with wave after wave of destruction because, instead of opposing the terrorist acts in Israel, the Iraqis supported them with glee. Now it's their turn to be terrorized.
I must break it to the Democrats that the anti-Christ, according to the last verses of Daniel 11, will make Armageddon take place when committing military suicide in efforts to simultaneously take a good chunk of the world down with him. And so the sort of Russian that we had feared all Cold-War long will come and make real the American nightmare...at which time (said Jesus in Matthew 24) no flesh would be saved if not for the Appearance of Jesus Christ to intervene. But that appearance will be another nightmare for Democrats worse still than a universal nuclear suicide.
Most American Jews are in the Democrat camp, and most Democrat Jews are not religious let alone desired by God. I hate to break it to the Democrat Jews, but soon and very soon your Democrat leaders may turn coat, and side with Gog and his anti-Israeli hoards. God has always turned against you the very peoples you looked to for security and fulfillment, but as yet you have not learned this lesson. Armageddon will make you learn it.
While the United States and Europe both ceased funding of the Palestinian government (in Israel) when the Palestinian voters recently (early 2006) elected Hamas (a terrorist group) to power, Russia did not stop the funding, showing clearly that Russia's position is (still) anti-Israeli. It seems yet necessary (for prophetic fulfillment) that both America and Europe take that position now taken by Russia. In order for this betrayal of Israel to take place, Israel must come to be viewed as the problem. When the world comes to the brink of an Armageddon-like situation, as Gog's will is made by God to prosper, the majority of Western-world powers will more assuredly abandon Israel and view her as the problem. Or so goes my assessment of the future.
European powers who have come to despise Bush and his Iraqi agenda can more-easily side with Russia, if Russia plays her cards right, when a Russian agent arises to rule Iraq on the heels of the Bush agenda. And with a Europe that for the most part despises the Republicans, American voters are more likely to bring in a Democrat Administration. I have been expecting a Russia-US alliance unto a global government ever since I started to believe (in 1997) that the False Prophet would be an American President/leader, and here (below) is the beginning of that alliance, apparently, as told in an article dated May 7, 2006, in Britain's Arabic-language Elaph newspaper:
In an interview granted to the magazine 'Russia in Global Politics,' Lavrov said that bringing together a 'chorus' of major nations into a world government will eliminate the jockeying for power that creates imbalances. Lavrov was certain that 'most countries will welcome such a grouping of leadership.'
He also said that there is no place in Russian politics for animosity toward the U.S., and that the basic goals of American and Russian foreign policy were nearly identical. He made clear that the policies of both countries are to create a more secure and predictable world...
Is that unbelievable or what? A Russia still on her knees, and yet asking, as though she were equally influential in world affairs, to form/join a one-world government with the United States. What are the Russians up to? Surely, there is no way for such a partnership to take place with the current Republican-led America. In fact, Vice-President Cheney lashed out at Russian policy recently (May 2006), and Lavrov hit back defensively. Therefore, if Russian leaders announce publicly the desire to form a global government with the United States, I suspect that they are talking about, and talking with, leading Democrats who feel confident of regaining power in America at this time that Bush has tumbled in the polls.
I expect Democrats to regain the White House in 2008, or 2012 at the latest, for as Christians support Republicans, it's not likely that Republicans will persecute Christians in the tribulation period. Put it this way, that if it's not the Democrats who will be our tribulation enemies, then who? I watched Democrats closely in the previous (2004) election and wasn't surprised so much at their making sky-high complaints against every tiny defect in the Bush Administration as I was at the feverish levels of hatred toward the "Christian right." In fact, Democrat hatred for Bush is clearly the result, not of his Iraqi policies, but of his public confessions and acknowledgements that Jesus Christ is important to him. This hatred must have everything to do with what we're about to face in the tribulation, wherefore I tend to expect that Democrats will then be in power. Question: why are Black believers in Jesus still in the Democratic Party???
As Bush has come to be at odds with Russia while much of the UN opposes him, the Democrats will preach, quite opportunistically, world policy in line with UN and/or Russian considerations. Bluntly, Democrats are expected by myself to form an alliance not only with the UN, but with Gog, and thereby give suck to the power that leads the world to Armageddon. This is why I predict a Democratic False Prophet, because in the last election it was the Democrats who promised to be on friendly terms with the UN. Then again, things can change overnight, and who knows but that Republicans may work out a Globalism deal with Europe and Russia together.
Although Democrat leaders are anti-Christian, they realize that they must portray a pro-Christian image of sorts in order to win elections. No sooner did Bush win the 2004 election that Democrats were talking on how they could best cater to Christian voters for 2008. It has been my opinion that the False Prophet is Given that title precisely due to his catering to Christian voters in the United States. Recent talk amid Democratic circles is spouting off such comments as, "Christians don't have the monopoly on morals." In other words, these people who in truth despise Christian morality seem poised to paint themselves up as Christianized just to win an election!! What kind of rulers could they turn out to be?
If Osama is not the Ruler of a Covenant (i.e. the ruler of Daniel 11:22), then that Ruler must yet be broken; perhaps it will be due to a US-led invasion of Syria or Iran. But if the Americans do not invade another nation while stationed in Iraq, then I would say that Osama is the Ruler of a Covenant, and that Gog will enter Iraq shortly after the American pull out. It seems to me that, if the Americans do not pull out of Iraq, Gog will not be capable of seizing the country with the "ease" and success indicated by Daniel 11:21-24:
And so the Democrats, who favor a pull out earlier rather than later, are trending toward creating a situation in which the American military pulls out too soon, before Iraq can stand on its own legs, so that the nation will be easy pickings for Gog.
[Update May 2012 -- I'm not at all sure that Osama bin Laden is dead due to the suspicious way that Obama treated his "capture." In any case, I came to believe that there was a true Osama and a fake one used in media reports by the CIA to further Middle-East intrusions. The Daniel prophecy reads as though the end-time king of the north will make an alliance with a living "ruler of a covenant," but that could be the other leader, and co-founder, of Al-Qaeda: the Egyptian, Ayman al-Zawahiri. "al-Zawahiri's succession to command of al-Qaeda was announced on several of their websites on June 16, 2011."
If the Egyptian presidency doesn't pan out in the coming weeks / months as Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood desire, Zawahiri is one factor that could bring about the Daniel-11 invasion of Egypt by the anti-Christ. The Egyptian election is scheduled later this month of May. End Update]
Liberals the world over are going to be responsible for the greatest war of all, not merely because they don't realize the present politico-prophetic realities leading up to it, but because they tolerate and/or happily support gay marriage, pornography, fornication, adultery, spouse swapping, child sex, orgies, abortion, recreational drugs, twisted Biblical doctrine, evolution, occult media, occult churches...while despising both Christ and Christians in the meantime who merely wish to carry out the will of God in forbidding these things.
You may think it off-topic for me to speak on American liberals in a chapter that is supposed to be about the anti-Christ, but quite to the contrary, liberals (worldwide) are the people of the anti-Christ, standing hard-and-fast also behind the False Prophet when he arrives. If not the liberals, then who? I say that the False Prophet will work to make the American people stand behind the anti-Christ. Surely, the foundation of the US-Gog alliance will have everything to do with the Iraqi situation now fomenting, and so by keeping tabs on how liberals think and feel today, and what they wish for tomorrow, I can begin to project what might transpire in Iraq's immediate future: a US pull-out and a UN take-over seems easily predictable. Will the Russian Gog enter Iraq with the blessing of the UN?
I frankly am not sure whom God despises the most, American liberals or Muslims (by the way, a few Democrats are not liberals, and some Republicans lean liberal). Both liberals and Muslims are equally ruinous, both equally worthy of losing their lives. If a woman has the right in this world to take away the life of her unborn child for whatever reason she may have, and if she thinks it acceptable to tear that child to pieces under the guise of "medical procedure," she should have no complaint on the day that God comes with his machete to abort what he considers the weeds of society. Doesn't He have a right to destroy His own children, for whatever reason He may have, especially if they stand in the way of His pleasure, his career, or if they are spiritually retarded from birth without hope of being righteous ever??? You get my point.
Let's not mince words; I'm only passing on the message of the Bible. Society cannot tolerate forever both liberals and Christians; one of us has to go. That's the message of the Bible. Liberals are defined as those who wish to "progress" away from Biblical values and toward "freedom" of thought and action. God is defined as One who wishes to destroy such to the sound of sweet music. Hatred between the two camps is inevitable, yet we are commanded to love them, to give them drink when they need it, or food when they need it, that we might be different than they. But I give them a kick in the pants when they need it too, and I tell it to them like it is. I must be of the "old school."
The reason that terrorists and other Muslims hate America so much is due to sinful lifestyles of American liberals. Moreover, the reason that Muslims hate Christianity so much is that Muslims have mistaken the American liberals for Christians. There you have two ways to kick liberals in the pants, but what they really need is to be tied to a tree whipped, like the old schoolers used to do to outlaws. Yet God tells us not to whip anyone...because the whipping of liberals is His to delight in.
There's hope, for not all liberals have remained liberals, and not all liberals are anti-Christian. But again, why are African-American believers supporting the Democrats? Will Black believers also support the False Prophet when he arrives? There are two Christian boats, one true, one false. Those who jumped the liberal ship, including myself, will tell you that it's nothing but pure delight to abandon and betray the devil; the sky is always bluer when one loves the Righteousness of God. The problem is, liberals think they are the righteousness of the planet, and view Christians as pig-heads wanting to impose their moral absolutes on others. Much closer to the truth, Christians don't want liberals to impose their cesspools on what used to be a decent society.
The "worship" of the anti-Christ program found in Revelation 13, which in political language translates into giddy support for the EU and/or UN agenda, is on its way. To succeed, it must have the support of the majority of news outlets. Expect news outlets to persecute us while they work that agenda. But, then, later, afterward, expect the rock they roll on us to roll back onto them.
As is predictable when one understands Daniel 11:21-24 as pertaining to the Iraqi situation, al-Qaida, as well as terrorists from other Muslim nations, poured into Iraq to apply pressure by any means on the Americans. The goal is, clearly, to get the Americans to leave. Aren't Liberals also working that very agenda, in tune with the terrorists?
Verse 23 doesn't tell us how much time transpires between the fall of the Iraqi military and the entry of Gog into Iraq, but I have it by other means that he should enter before 2009. I'm not writing that in concrete, but if I can say nothing more, don't fall asleep now; stay out of the fornication scene, reject media that blasphemes God, choose your friends wisely, and stay clean even if it bores you half to death in loneliness. This won't be forever. A new society will arise that you can fully partake in and appreciate. Is your tribulation strategy formed yet? Have you considered the location? Have you at least prayed about it?
[I no longer hold to the 2009-2016 schedule that I had entertained as a possibility at that time.]
The question as to how Gog becomes "strong with a few people" can be answered thus: lots and lots of anti-West Muslims coming to support a fallen Iraqi military. I wrote that sentence in 1997, by which I mean to say that I had understood this section of Daniel prophecy correctly...because the Iraqi insurgency is happening just that way.
Precisely because Gog is said to start small, I expect his rise to Iraqi power apart from the Russian military being at his official command. Therefore, I am not looking to a Russian president to fill the boots of Gog; perhaps an agent of the Russian president, even a secret agent, but not the president.
Yevgeny Primakov had worked with Saddam as a close friend for decades, and thereby became top-dog in the budding Russia-Iraq trade partnership. Could he now be attempting to stay in touch with the insurgent Saddam loyalists...perhaps through their contact with Al Qaida? Bin Laden is, after all, thought to be in northern Afghanistan/Pakistan, very near to the Russian border. Primakov, or Putin, could broker a deal in a United-Nations program wherein a group of anti-West Russian men are slipped into Iraq (the north-Iraq city of Mosul comes to mind) posing as pro-European Russians...and the Biblical Gog could very well end up being a part of that group.
Years ago, President Yeltsin fired Primakov from his Prime-Ministerial post because he was too Communistic. Indeed, because Primakov had huge dreams for Russia prior to the Fall of the Soviet Union, his bitterness toward the West must now be great. I have few doubts that Primakov knows Gog personally; I would venture to say that the two are good comrades, involved with the same agenda of seeking to bring Russia back to some supremacy on the global scene.
Primakov (original surname "Finkelstein") must be one of the few Jews supported by the half-Jew (and yet anti-Jew), Vladimir Zhirinovsky (father's surname "Eidelstein"). In fact, Primakov has in his long political career made strong partnerships with a variety of Arab nations while being as anti-Jewish (not to mention anti-West) as Zhirinovsky. While Zhirinovsky claims publicly to be anti-Communistic, and even a Liberal Democrat, he is generally viewed in the West as a nutty demagogue (hmm, funny, alternative spelling, "demagog"). The KGB was mainly responsible for establishing his LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party). It's interesting that Primakov was raised in T'bilisi, Georgia, smack in the ancient empire of Gog, "T'bilisi" had been identified as "Tubal" by the historian, Josephus (Ezekiel says that Gog was, or will be, the chief of Tubal).
As Primakov is currently the President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, my theory -- that the anti-Christ will, on behalf of the False Prophet, spread the skincode system in the Russio-Arabic world -- comes irresistibly to mind. In fact, Primakov was deputy director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations as long ago as 1970...when the concept of global economy was in its infancy (universal bar codes didn't make their debut until 1973).
It was only a year ago (in 2005) that I wrote the following: "And something tells me that what was once a difficulty to comprehend -- an American-Russian alliance in Iraq -- will be effected by the Democrats within the next decade." In 2006, Primakov, while speaking on the Iraqi situation and his opposition to Bush's intrusion into that country, sounds exactly like a typical American Democrat opposed to Bush's Iraqi program
I don't think that the aging Primakov (now 76) will be the Biblical Gog, but he could have his eye on a man within his political circle to continue his reaching dreams. I wonder if he has Zhirinovsky's number on his hotline. Really, what is Zhirinovsky doing these days besides throwing flower pots at Russian Jews? And what does the Iraq crisis mean to him? Why do I envision him welcoming the crisis? Here's how Vladimir Volkov of the World Socialist Website put it on March 29th, 2003: (full article http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/russ-m29.shtml).
What Zhirinovsky apparently means is that the defeat of Iraq is a great moment of opportunity...for the realization of his own dreams for a Russia-subdued Middle East. And see below a Reader's Digest quote from Zhirinovsky:
http://www.spiritoftruth.org/cached/The%20Zhirinovsky%20Connection.htm
In early 2006, Zhirinovsky claimed on a Russian radio station (see online news articles) that he had inside information to the effect that George Bush would attack Iran before the end of March (of 2006): "The date for the strike is already known -- it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost..."
If that was truly the Bush plan, I would suggest that Bush's approval ratings immediately prior to that period were sufficiently low (in the 30s) as to require a postponement of such an ambitious invasion. The numbers for Bush may never recover, perhaps by the will of God, for Ezekiel 38 tells that Iran (in good health, I take it) must be a partner with Gog in the invasion of Israel. Mr. Bush needs to consider God's plans for the Middle East before making his own.
Zhirinovsky is known for his verbal stretches; he himself knows that he is not the Biblical God. But might not this political silliness be the very thing that fulfills Scripture where it informs us that the anti-Christ will proclaim himself to be God (or a god)? See 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in conjunction with Daniel 11:37.
Zhirinovsky's political career is still shining somewhat as he currently fills the position of Deputy Speaker in the State Duma. But he has greater plans, though he always loses the presidential elections. He has not only written a book entitled, "My Struggle" (Hitler wrote a book with the very same title), but also one entitled, "Russia's Last Dash to the South," in which he reveals, among other things, antagonism toward Israel. I ask you, what Russian could fit the shoes of the anti-Christ any better than he? Does Zhirinovsky not have a "strong face," as Daniel 8 says he must?
In light of the anti-Christ's ties to the fallen fighters of Saddam and al-Qaida, how could the anti-Christ possibly come forth upon the world as a Jewish Messiah? No one seeking a power base in Iraq poses as the Jewish Messiah, for no Arab would accept him as such. The apostle John defined "anti-Christ" for us as anyone "which does not confess that Jesus is of God" (1 John 4:3). In 1 John 2:22, "anti-Christ" is defined as someone who denies the Father and the Son. Surely, Christians who teach that the anti-Christ will come disguised as the Son/Messiah of God are in error, for there is not one line in the Bible that speaks of the anti-Christ as a counterfeit Jesus/Messiah. Upon understanding that the "anti" in "anti-Christ" means "against Christ" rather than "alternative Christ," and that the Bible reveals the anti-Christ blaspheming God openly in public (Daniel 11:36), watch not for a Jewish peacemaker, but for a rudely outspoken war-hog wanna-be...like Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who, when he appeared very strong in the Russian political scene (mid-90s), had said that Iraq would be key to his aspirations of conquering the Middle East! Now that Iraq has been weakened before his face by an overwhelming army, might he step in to take root? We are learning this, that Zhirinovsky would like nothing more.
The problem is, an anti-West anti-Christ is a difficult riddle to explain. The way most Christians read the texts, the Bible says that members of all nations will "worship" him, suggesting UN acceptance and appreciation. That in turn suggests a Gog who will feign some Western allegiance. The majority of the American public could abandon the Republican agenda in Iraq and instead elect a Democrat president who will gladly join the plan of the UN block.
And the Europeans will be glad to have their Democrat buddies back in American power structures, as they rejoiced over Bill Clinton. And the world will rejoice, and rise to the giddy level of worship for this UN Global Program, fearing that to oppose it will lead to an Armageddon-like scenario...not realizing that the real Armageddon will come precisely due to their supporting the UN Program! And that's why Revelation 13 reveals that the False Prophet will "deceive" the world, because he will promise them success in the name of his Globalism, and protection in the name of his great military powers, when in fact it will lead to utter destruction.
The great tribulation cometh to cut our worldly delights down to size; otherwise, stretch out an arm and receive the skincode, and give glory to the counterfeit New Age. The true New Age (of Jesus Christ) will be ruled by those who maintained worldly poverty prior to the tribulation, but those sheep who maintained riches prior to the tribulation shall be last in the Kingdom of God. Rejoice, poor of the Lamb, because of your high position before God. In just a little while, you will pain no more. But the rich of the Lamb, who are afraid or otherwise unwilling to share with the poor of the Lamb, in order to relieve their pains, are in danger of rejection at the Gate. Many wealthy Christians are refusing to ponder the lateness of the times, and do we wonder why? Wealth blinds the eyes and stunts Spiritual growth.
Any Christian netting $50,000 annually (after taxes), who can't find it in his/her heart to share $10,000 with a poor hard-working Christian making only $20,000 annually, or less, is violating the Law of the Lord. Holding on to that $10,000 is providing some (probably very little) worldly comfort for oneself and yet earning humiliation before Heaven. Is it worth it? If this offends you, then give only $5,000, and the Church will still be a better place to live. Giving money to the Lord is not giving 10 percent to the Crystal Cathedral, but is to relieve the poor of the Lord which this world has made.
By the way, the Lord does not ask for the 10 percent tithe in New Testament times, nor does he require it, in my opinion. The 10 percent was to be given by each of the eleven tribes of Israel to feed and shelter the one Levite tribe that was ordered by God not to earn a living in the regular way...but was instead to tend to Temple duties. There is no Levite tribe today within the Church, nor any body of full-time ministers amounting to 1/12th the Church population, for us to feed, wherefore the tithe is no longer a requirement. Note that none of the epistles speak on the necessity of giving the Old Testament tithe to the New Testament Church.
It is amazing that while ministers today acknowledge that the animal sacrifices and other Temple duties -- even the Temple itself -- have all been done away with and replaced by Christ, they yet demand or cleverly appeal for the 10 percent tithe that was intended for Temple costs. It is no wonder that there are springing up so many half-empty church buildings -- many with a spiritual wall between it and another church -- thanks to Christians lulled by church leaders into the practice of tithing. There is a lot of money going to waste in paying for new buildings and more church staff than would otherwise be required.
This is not to say that we shouldn't give 10 percent or more of our income to the poor if we have it to give. And also consider and pray concerning a reduction in your church offerings so as to start saving the money for your trib' retreat instead, because feeding His people in the time of coming trouble is of obvious importance.
The reason that I am discussing Daniel's verses 21-24 at all is to assist us in getting through the tribulation successfully by first having us predict the timing of that period. And nothing could be more central to this topic than our sharing with the poor of the Lord, for what good is it for us to discover the identity of the anti-Christ if we fail God before and during the tribulation with our generosity? It would be a coming-up shy to think that merely dropping our worldly lives in the tribulation, and then hiding out as best we can, will get us safely into the Kingdom.
Isn't it very likely true that Osama had been working on a secret war pact with Saddam, not to mention other anti-Israeli factions, to fight both Americans and Israelites? America's Democratic leaders were loath to admit this on the run-up to the 2004 election, and instead fed ignorance to their own voting block. Evil powers are inadvertently in the throws of bringing on a prophetic-like Armageddon whether Bush opposes them or not.
"Russian Foreign Secretary Sergueii Lavrov called for the establishment of a world government, bringing together the United States and Russia. Lavrov's call comes at a time of a chilling of relations between Moscow and [Republican] Washington and amidst signs of a new Cold War...
...he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smoothness...And after they [the fallen Iraqis and the Ruler of a Covenant] join themselves to him [Gog], he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people. With ease, even into the rich places of the province, he will enter..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri
(article at: http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/29.html?id_issue=11480485).
"The Russian nationalists propose various scenarios for how the [Iraq] war could be used to stabilize Russian geopolitical influence. The notorious right-wing demagogue Vladimir Zhirinovsky has already declared: 'We should behave worse (i.e. more impudently) than the Americans.' He has called alternately for Russia to send a massive military force to the Middle East, to establish pro-Russian regimes in the Trans Caucasus and Central Asia, and to crush the Baltic states economically. By these and other means he proposes to elevate Russia once again to the rank of a superpower. 'Of course we are sorry for Iraq,' Zhirinovsky declared, 'but the Iraq war is a great moment for Russia'"
"I am the Almighty. I am the Tyrant.
I will follow in Hitler's footsteps"
(Reader's Digest Dec. 1994)
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/07/vzhiriran.shtml
If you believe along with Zondervan publishers, for example, that verses 21-35 refer to an ancient king/situation, you might consider me a clever author bent on making an ancient prophecy fit the shoe of current events. Not so. Two hundred years after that ancient king, Jesus referred to the Abomination of verse 31 as an event to his future (see Matthew 24:15). Therefore, the soldiers of the "king of the north," who in verse 31 procure the Abomination, must be the soldiers of the end-time anti-Christ, no matter how well Antiochus IV (175 BC) may fit some of the prophecy.
Watch what you read in footnotes and commentaries. Throw your paraphrase Bible out and get one that sticks closely to the early Greek and Hebrew texts. All Bible quotes in this book, unless noted otherwise, are word-for-word translations from Hebrew or Greek interlinears, albeit I personally arrange those words into proper English structure where necessary (one doesn't need to be a language expert to do this correctly).
Some believers today insist that the book of Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, allowing them to make the further claim that the Revelation plagues, including chapter eleven's 42-month trampling of Jerusalem, occurred in relation to 70 AD. They furthermore make the mistake of placing the Abomination (and the "great tribulation" of Matthew 24:21 and Luke 21:23) in relation to 70 AD. That position falls wrong because the Abomination of Matthew 24 occurs, according to verses 15-31, in relation to Jesus' return (i.e. at Armageddon). Therefore, unless Jesus returned in the first century, we shouldn't locate the Abomination and Tribulation in the first century no matter how much the Roman invasion of Jerusalem at that time had commonality with the end-time invasion.
The Bible indicates that the Church will fall asleep in the first half of the Week, and it seems clear to me that erroneous prophetic commentaries will be responsible for much of it. Yet for those with a will to watch and to hang on, I share in this chapter, and the next two, some very important matters in relation to the following points:
2) Bible footnotes and commentaries telling otherwise rob Bible readers of critical signs that are golden to those who wish to safely plan their tribulation security in time for the coming skincode.
Surely, the multiple signs of which I speak have been sitting patiently, more than 2500 years, for no better purpose than to benefit the end-time generation. And so be aroused! Jesus wants us to know that this section of the Daniel-11 prophecy represents the anti-Christ's activities prior to the successful (and future) invasion of Jerusalem, so that we have no less than eleven verses describing events BEFORE the midway point of the final seven years!! This is the kindness of God, then, in allowing us to discern the identity of the anti-Christ with some certainty well before the skincode is enforced.
Regardless of how I interpret verses 21-31, I can tell you for certain that the Lord shared them for the purpose of allowing His final Church generation time enough to prepare -- at the proper time -- for the period of the skincode. These eleven verses are utterly crucial because there is not one section of prophecy in all the Bible that comes close to describing so many events pertaining to the FIRST half of the Week.
We cannot fully understand 21-31 unless we solve the previous verses...which expose the ancient kings of the north as belonging to the Greek faction known to historians as the Seleucid empire, originally centered in modern Iraq but including Syria to the one side and some of Persia (Iran) to the other; see Seleucid Empire (in yellow). One possibility is that the anti-Christ will build a neo-Seleucid empire covering the same geographical regions as did the ancient empire; otherwise, what would be God's purpose in connecting the end-time king of the north to the ancient Seleucid kings of the north? I suppose it's possible that the ruler of the neo-Seleucid kingdom will be of the same bloodline as those of the ancient empire.
The Seleucid kings occupied northern Israel at a time when Egypt occupied the southern half of Israel, for which reason Egypt is represented in the prophecy as the "king of the south." When the end times are suddenly and without notice in view -- as of verse 21 -- we can presume with great confidence that the king of the south is still Egypt. To grant end-timers those details is probably a major reason for the prophecy starting off with ancient events. Note that the current leader of Egypt has recently (Sept. 2003) appeared on the BBC Network to continue verbal support for the American invasion into Iraq, thus setting up the grounds for the fulfillment of verses 25-27...that will see Egypt attacked by the neo-Seleucid king.
[Update May 2012 -- We have yet to see what the new Egypt will look like after president Mubarak's fall. While the Muslim brotherhood and similar Israel-unfriendly types are slated to take the parliament, the next president of Egypt has yet to be chosen. After he's chosen, I'll be watching, and commenting on, whether he invites the wrath of anti-Israeli's so as to fulfill prophecy. End Update]
Note that the anti-Christ's neo-Seleucid kingdom is found in Revelation 13:2, because we see the empire of the "beast" depicted there with features combining those of a leopard (Greece), a bear (Persia/Iran), and a lion (Iraq). For the identification of these animals as the nations in brackets, see Daniel 7 in conjunction with Daniel 8:20-21. In Revelation 13:2, the Beast's kingdom is said to have "a mouth like a lion," which in my opinion means that he will command from Iraq. "Feet like a bear" could mean that his military base/might is in the Iranians; Ezekiel 38 implies that Iran will be the anti-Christ's most-important ally. "Greek-like" may refer to his Westernization, democratization, and/or Aryanism as opposed to Arabic. Or, we might be surprised to find that he, as with the ancient Seleucids, comes from the Greeks proper, though I find this a difficulty to conceive at this time.
If you don't already know from previous chapters, I equate the anti-Christ with Gog of Ezekiel 38, whom I believe will be a Russian. But if I am wrong concerning his Russian blood, then look for any prominent ruler to enter Iraq as per the description of this prophecy. Readers incapable of viewing the anti-Christ as Gog could be tolerant or open to this position just in case I and others are correct. We are few who take this position now.
Of course, one should never trust all my words as though the words of God. We've learned the lesson many times that prophecy speakers can be blushing wrong. You who don't study prophecy could end up being more correct than we who do study it...just because there is a God who determines thoughts, but also because God opposes prophecy writers who think they have a special gift of prophecy when in fact all they have is the normal human power of reasoning and learning.
I reason like so: as the anti-Christ is called the "king of Babylon" in Isaiah 14, where the "Babylon" of that text (13:9) is the ancient country on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, I conclude that modern Iraq will be the military headquarters of the future neo-Seleucid empire, or that Iraq will become the anti-Christ's Military State. This seems a logical approach because the country of Babylon held the capital (Seleucia) of the ancient Seleucid empire...several years before the Syrian co-capital city (Antioch) was determined.
Therefore, as the anti-Christ has been revealed in Daniel 11:23 as a supporter of a militarily-defeated kingdom that will become his kingdom, I concluded that it will be Iraqi. This was no trivial realization, which at the time (1980) was not part of any major prophetic book (I hadn't seen an anti-Christ link to Iraq in any book nor heard of it by any other means). You can imagine my deep interest when the Persian-Gulf War of 1991 came and went...but much more interest now that Iraq has been broken militarily for a second time.
The book of Nahum concerns the end times; 1:5-8 tips us off with clear mountain-melting (= Armageddon) terminology. The anti-Christ is evident in verse 11 because verse 12 speaks on his destruction while leading into Israel's eternal restoration i.e. the Millennium. In verse 11, the anti-Christ, described as "one who devises evil against YHWH," is said to "come forth from" what appears certainly to be Nineveh. What can we make of this phrase, "come forth from," except that, early in his mission, the anti-Christ will have headquarters at Nineveh?
Nineveh was the capital city of the ancient Assyrian empire, but behold, the palaces of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, though he is known to have ruled from Nineveh, were excavated across the Tigris river from Nineveh, in what is now the Iraqi city of Mosul (see map of the Middle East or of modern Iraq). That is, what is now Mosul was once a part of Nineveh. Therefore, or so is my understanding, the anti-Christ, prior to seizing Iraq, will set up headquarters in Mosul (pop. 1.5 million).
Saddam's two sons were killed while hiding out in Mosul, by the way, and many other Saddam supporters have been found in and around that city. Saddam once said that whoever ruled Mosul would rule all of Iraq. It appears that the anti-Christ will agree, if he hasn't already done so.
[Update December 2004 -- As the terrorists were ousted last month from their prime hide-out in the city of Falluja, Mosul has become a major terrorist haven.]
[Update July 18 2007 -- Today, National Public Radio wrote: "Al-Mashhadani is the highest-ranking Iraqi leader in al-Qaida in Iraq. He was captured in Mosul on July 4 [2007]." It is now the fifth year of the Iraqi war, and Mosul still appears to be a headquarters for the Insurgency. Story at:
Wikipedia writes: "Over a three-month period in 2005, al-Zarqawi's affiliates were reportedly responsible for more than 1,700 attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces in the city of Mosul alone."
When it says in Daniel 8:9 that the anti-Christ will start small, and then, en route to becoming a large kingdom, spread "toward the south, toward the east, and toward the bountiful land," we might envision him spreading forth from Mosul, south into the rich province encompassing Baghdad, east toward the Iran border, but also north along the banks of the Euphrates river where the desert is checked. That latter northern stretch could prove to equate with his conquering of Calno and Carchemish (Turkish-Syrian border) as per Isaiah 10, unless he conquers them before coming to Mosul. Isaiah 10 hints that the Calno and Carchemish invasions of the king of "Assyria" are successful campaigns preparing his military path into Israel's northland (for new readers: I explained a few chapters earlier why Isaiah 10's Assyrian invader of Israel must be an end-time ruler).
[Update May 2012 -- As Turkey is on-side the Western-backed effort to remove and replace the Syrian president (Assad), it can make more sense at this time that Russia should furnish the anti-Christ rather than the West. Putin, who is now the new Russian president again, has signalled that he will not take the over-throw of Assad sitting down. One could imagine that the current civil war in Syria, or its aftermath, could provide Putin the excuse or passion to utilize heavily-involved means inside Syria. Northern Iraq -- ancient Assyria -- is right beside the Syrian border. End Update]
In the following Daniel-11 text, the key word "enter" serves as evidence for the anti-Christ's foreign status among the Iraqis over which he comes to rule. That is, he will not be an Iraqi. Here is verse 21 in a word-for-word translation:
Who would "they" be, who reject Gog when he "stands up" to run the kingdom (in the footsteps of a previous king of the north)? Not the defeated Iraqi military (of Saddam) that he will make his own army, but rather the anti-Saddam (i.e. West-supported) Iraqis.
The Hebrew word, "smooth," is translated by some Bible versions as "intrigues" (from "smooth/slippery talk"). If this is indeed a correct translation, it clarifies this one thing: Gog will initially attempt to seize the power structures of Iraq, not with a military effort, but with political intrigues i.e. diplomacy, political wrangling. With this in mind, note the phrase "diplomatic solution," and the word "seize," in the following clip from a People's Daily article (dated Jan. 13, 2003, less than two months prior to the Iraq war):
In the Daniel-11 prophecy, we see the Greek empire -- immediately after Alexander's death (v 6) -- leading into a succession of "kings of the north" until the prophecy extends to the end-time anti-Christ as the final king of the north. The problem which I address to you in earnest is that many Christians are unaware of the anti-Christ's introduction at verse 21, the oversight being due to the widespread claim that the anti-Christ enters the prophecy well further, in verse 36. For those who have been led into that view so that verses 21-35 are thought to portray an ancient king/situation, see Antiochus IV for reasons to the contrary.
1) If the personality in Daniel's verse 31 is the end-time anti-Christ, so also is the personality in the verses previous to 31, going back to verse 21.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12063227&ft=1&f=1004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
End Update.
"And a rejected one shall stand up in his place, and they shall not give to him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smooth talk" (v 21).
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov said on Thursday in Baghdad that Russia is committed to finding a "diplomatic solution" to the Iraqi crisis, the official Iraqi News Agency (INA) reported..."to ensure Iraq's national unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty...
Upon arrival at Baghdad's Saddam International Airport, Saltanov told reporters the delegation members "are here to seize any chance to achieve and find a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Iraq issue and to avoid military scenarios."
While there may seem to be nothing subversive on the surface of those words, it can be shown that Russia was attempting to seize Saddam's very power structures immediately prior to the war. I see Gog continuing forward with the same feigned concern for Iraqi citizens. Although the Russian government was/is opposed to Bush's war because Russian companies had business dealings with Saddam, it seems from verses 22 and 23 that Gog will benefit from the defeat of Saddam by providing an opportunity for a grasping of the nation's heart.
[Update May 2012 -- Yes, Saddam is long gone, but Saddam's Baathist loyalists are predicted to have organized groups, to this day, seeking Iraq back. Plus, the American military only left Iraq months ago, wherefore anytime-soon would be the time for a Russian Gog to grasp at Iraq's heart.
The difficulty that I see for an imminent fulfillment of the prophecy above is that the crisis in Iraq, which I predicted could give the anti-Christ an excuse to engage Iraqi affairs diplomatically, is largely passed. However, several months ago, Maliki's government technically fell apart when the leading Sunni member had to quit, escaping for his life. He's reportedly now in Turkey with the Turkish government offering him protection, and refusing to give him over to Maliki who wants to prosecute him on charges of terrorist acts. There's no telling what sort of crisis this situation could develop into, or how Putin might use the developments to enter Iraq. End Update]
As it appears correct for Gog to initially take hold of Iraq with "smooth talk" rather than with his military, the Iraqi army falling before Gog's face, in verse 22, falls to someone else's army i.e. not Gog's. That was a deduction made in 1980, before anything in Iraq had transpired, wherefore I was looking to some other army to invade Iraq. I am increasingly concerned and yet relieved all at once about verse 22 being fulfilled by the American-led army NOW in Iraq. When I had published this book in 1997, I did not claim to readers that the 1991 Gulf War was definitely the fulfillment of verse 22, but suggested that a second American invasion of Iraq would be a more viable fulfillment because the other parts of the prophecy had not come to pass as of 1997.
As the Americans left "unfinished business" in 1991, it seemed more likely by 1997 -- in light of verse 22 -- that Americans would invade Iraq a second time to finish Saddam off. I have waited patiently for this second instance, and feel that waiting for a third would be stretching it.
[Update May 2012 -- Actually, Obama is a wily and unpredictable war president with seasoned military units in Afghanistan. And if Mitt Romney becomes the next U.S. president, he is predicted to be a war president too in relation to the "fight on terror." U.S. military equipment that left Iraq is stacked in Kuwait and elsewhere ready for any further military "need." We could see a third American invasion into Iraq. End Update]
It is no secret that various Russian leaders have been involved in secret talks with Saddam for 12 years and longer, most recently by Yevgeny Primakov, who was not only a former Russian Prime Minister, but a former Russian Foreign Minister, a former chief of the Foreign Intelligence Service, and a former Chairman of the KGB. Primakov held talks with Saddam in the 1991 War and on other occasions since. In February 2003, just days before the war that ousted Saddam from power, Primakov on behalf of Russian president Putin offered the Iraqi leader a save-face game plan that included Saddam's stepping aside from power and the setting up of a "new interim authority" (from Russia) to rule on his behalf. Primakov has since admitted to making this offer. Atul Aneja of India's national newspaper, The Hindu, put the Primakov offer like this:
"Without seeking his voluntary exile, it is likely that Mr. Primakov proposed to Mr. Hussein that he could continue as Iraq's figurehead President for another year."But during this time-frame, he should consider appointing a new interim authority where all Iraqis, including some of those who were at present in exile, were represented." (For the full story, see Primakov)
One could easily get the impression that Putin and Primakov were attempting to beat George Bush to the Iraqi interim-government gun in an effort to install a pro-Russia authority in Baghdad. According to reports, Saddam rejected the Primakov offer, for which reason Saddam now finds himself as good as dead...badly in need of Russian support.
It is quite possible that some of the uprisings in Iraq since the end of Bush's major combat have been urged and supported by Gog himself (while Gog has remained invisible), and that Saddam is wondering how long it will be before his Russian friends come to free him from prison. I do not know if they will free him, but I do strongly think from verse 23 that Gog will make an alliance with the fallen Saddam/Osama loyalists, using them to invade (militarily) the richest places of Iraq.
George Bush may have invaded Iraq primarily to keep Gog from profiting there, for it is reported online that, before he invaded Iraq, Bush told French president Chirac that the two of them should stop the advance of "Gog and Magog" (i.e. it is reported that Bush actually used that phrase with Chirac). Apparently, Chirac betrayed Bush and sided with Russia (and probably snitched to the Russian rulers about Bush's intentions). It has occurred to me that Bush in Iraq may be by the will of God to delay the advance of Gog until the Appointed Time.
If you're wondering how the verse-22 military conflict has already been fulfilled by the American-led war while the latter portion of the previous verse -- concerning the smooth seizure of Iraq by Gog -- has not yet been fulfilled, the answer should be in verses 22-24. The problem is, I'm claiming that verse 22 has been fulfilled while verse 21 hasn't yet. My solution is in verses 22-24, which amount to an expounded version of the latter portion of verse 21, so that, not easily discerned by the reader, verse 22 actually occurs in history before the verse-21 seizure of Iraq.
Let me try to explain it this way: it appears that the end of 21 is repeated in 23 with slightly different terms. For example, the "smooth talk" of verse 21 becomes "deceit" in verse 23. And the "enter" of verse 21 becomes "he will come and be strong with a few people" in verse 23. In fact, note the comparison below:
VERSE 21: "he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom smoothly."VERSE 24: "With ease, even into the rich places of the province, he will enter."
Therefore, it appears that the end of verse 21 doesn't occur until the events of verses 22 and 23 have occurred. Or, put yet another way, beginning at verse 22, the text brings the reader back in time, before the events of 21, in order to reveal events that lead-up to verse 21...explaining why events of 21 are repeated in 24. The sequence of events is like so:
Saddam's army is defeated and his nation fallsGog joins the fallen Insurgents
Gog attempts to seize/share power in Iraq but is rejected by the New Iraq
Gog succeeds at seizing major portions of Iraq anyway/eventually
Gog uses the Insurgents, and they gladly join him, for military strikes against the New Iraq.
My current opinion, after coming to realize that Gog stems from Mosul, is that both the "kingdom" in verse 21 and the "richest places of the province" in verse 24 refer to Baghdad, the dominant seat of Iraqi power. The predicted military success of Baathist Insurgents against Baghdad would suggest that the American military is no longer in Iraq at that point, and the ever-clamorous Liberals (the world over) who oppose the Iraqi invasion can at that point thank themselves for allowing Iraq to go over to the anti-Christ. Rather than admitting error and hanging their heads in shame for it, the Liberals, I predict, will permit themselves to join Gog, naively believing that he (and his False-Prophet partner) will manage to eke out of the world crisis an acceptable if not utopian resolution.
Here now are verses 22-23 in a translation that isn't quite right:
(22)"And the army of the overflow will be swept from before his face, and they will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. (23)And after they join him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people."
You need to give this problem the consideration it merits if your Bible has a similar translation. I have a serious problem with the first sentence of the above translation (similar to the NIV) because it amounts to the defeat of the overflowing army. I would suggest that this incorrect translation is due to translators trying to fit the prophecy to the events of Antiochus IV. The correct translation, below, is extremely important; it suggests the contrary, that the invading army is victorious.
It is victorious over two armies, the first identified as, "they will be broken," and the other identified as belonging to a "ruler of a covenant." As the prophecy says that the broken ones will join him, I imagined (in 1980) a desperate situation of Gog-to-the-rescue of the fallen armies. That "rescue" seems so predictable now that I feel I have the prophecy correctly interpreted.
[Update May 2011 -- Well, sorry to say, nearly a decade has passed since Saddam fell, and we still don't see Gog to the rescue. Instead, we saw the Americans making an alliance with the fallen Saddam loyalists in the Mosul theater. It had me wondering whether Gog might be the Rothschilds and/or some Western Rus entity. In any case, I have no choice but to wait some more years before abandoning / re-stringing much of this chapter. Yet, there may be no need to, because the prophesied defeat of Iraq that allows a Gog-to-the-rescue scenario could ultimately be just another stage of what the Bush presidents started. End update]
One Hebrew word is used twice in verse 22. The word where "overflow" is used (in the above translation) is "shataph" (#7857 in Strong's dictionary), while the Hebrew word for "swept away" is "sheteph" (#7858). Both words can mean "flood," although the first word can also be the verb, "to gush," according to Strong's Concordance. But that's the kicker: "to gush" is an action, wherefore while the first word is a verb, the second is a noun. The erroneous translation above, and perhaps the one in your Bible version, has the noun first and the verb second, an error having the potential to alter the meaning of the sentence...wherefore I lean heavily on the following translation:
"(22)And the army will gush a flood before his face, and they will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. (23)And after they join him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people."
Now, rather than the army being swept away from before Gog's face, the army is gushing a flood while Gog watches on, implying a victorious force defeating a "they" whom will later join Gog. I read "they" as neither the gushing entity nor the king of the north. In the previous verse (21) "they" refers to the end-time Seleucid domain, wherefore I view the phrase, "they will be broken," as the military defeat of the Iraqis. Within the phrase, "they join him," one can (and probably should) include the armies of the Ruler of a Covenant. That is, both entities join Gog and look to him as their survival strategy and success story.
As the same overflowing army defeats both groups, while the Americans defeated both Osama bin Laden and Saddam in the same anti-terrorist effort, it seems that this portion of the prophecy has been fulfilled!
Before moving on to the next chapter (a continuation of this topic), I'll show all four verses together:
"A rejected one shall stand up in his place, and they shall not give him the honor of the kingdom; but he will enter while at ease and seize the kingdom with smoothness. And the arms will gush a flood before his face, and they will be broken, and also the ruler of a covenant. And after they join themselves to him, he will practice deceit. For he will come and be strong with a few people. With ease, even into the rich places of the province, he will enter. And he will do what his fathers nor his father's fathers have not done. He shall plunder and spoil, and scatter goods among them."
In Isaiah 14:29-31, there is what appears to be an inconsistency when it reads as though the Palestinians are themselves attacked by Gog: "Do not rejoice, O Philistia [modern Gaza], all of you, because the rod of your striking is broken, for a viper comes forth from the root of a snake, and his fruit is a fiery flying serpent..." A chronology of events can be ascertained in this text.The Palestinians are first struck by Gog, who is identified easily as "the rod of your striking" and "a snake." Then, the Palestinians rejoice over the destruction of Gog, a destruction seen in previous verses up until verse 28, where he is called both the "king of Babylon" and the "Assyrian."
One would think that Gog would employ the Palestinians as his allies in the invasion of Israel, as they would only be too glad to help, and while it is predictable that some of them will support Gog, the peaceful majority are expected to oppose him because, in his invasion of Israel, Palestinian livelihood dependent upon the Israeli economy will also be at stake. We might even predict that any Palestinians not fighting alongside the anti-Christ cause will be treated badly.
The rejoicing of the Palestinians over Gog's demise brings the times to brink of Armageddon, for Gog's lights are put out (i.e. his kingdom is plunged into darkness) in the 5th Bowl of Revelation, just days prior to Armageddon. At that time, says Isaiah above, another serpent comes forth to put Israel and the Palestinians to more grief, which at that late stage can only be the Orientals who arrive for Armageddon, as per the sixth Bowl of Revelation, to kill the fighters of Gog. Indeed, because the Orientals have depicted themselves as a flying red dragon to this day, they suit the Isaiah phrase very well when it uses "a fiery flying serpent." And so we see that God will pit dragon peoples against dragon peoples for the Mother of all Battles.
Kittim plays an important role in the end times by stopping the advance of the anti-Christ (i.e. Ezekiel's Gog) into Israel by the use of her ships (see Daniel 11); this must be referring to the huge military ships of the revived Roman empire i.e. the EU. The book of Jasher, in chapter 17: "...when the Lord had scattered the sons of men upon the face of the earth, the children of Chittim went and embodied themselves in the plain of Canopia, and they built themselves cities there and dwelt by the river Tibreu" (quote available online). In the next sentence we read: "And the children of Tubal dwelt in Tuscanah, and their boundaries reached the river Tibreu." This is an obvious reference to the Etruscans of Tuscany who lived north of Rome on the Tiber. The Chittim are equated by the Book of Jasher with Latins.
Now it seems obvious to me that this Book of Jasher is a counterfeit; it's purpose in mimicking Scripture was to pass off a shady group's doctrines as God's word. None the less, we see something of how the group viewed history, and it would appear that they had reason to equate the Kittim with Rome. It may not have been erroneous, anyway, because Kittim in Genesis is a son of Javan, in-turn a son of Japheth who smacks of the chief Roman god, Jupiter. But from Japheth also came Magog, Meshech, and a host of scythians that are Gog-relevant.
The Septuagint substitutes "Romans" where the Hebrew Bible uses "Kittim," in Ezekiel 38. The ancient Hebrews who wrote the Septuagint had interpreted Daniel 11:21-31 as being fulfilled by Antiochus IV, who, because he was checked in his Egyptian invasion by Roman forces, gave the Septuagint translators the idea that the "ships of Kittim" were those of the Romans. But will the end-time ships of Kittim be from Romans proper? I don't think so. It's the Brits who have military bases on Cyprus.
I think it possible that the Scandinavian war god, Tyr, refers to the Rosh/Rus, for Jasher chapter 10 says "the children of Tiras are Rushash." It sounds like a Russian bloodline...that I trace to Rhodes, the sacred island of Helios. Greek myth has the Romans stemming from a marriage between Helios and Perse, from whom was born Circe; it was she who gave birth to Latinus. Circe depicted the Caucasus mountains ruled by Gog, for those mountains are/were also called "Circasia," and in fact "Circe" seems to be a variation of "Gorgon/Georgian." Note that Helios and Rhode were said to gave birth to "Kerkaphos" (ignore the "phos' suffix), no doubt the same as the peoples depicted by "Circe."
Some identify Chittim/Kittim as the island of Cyprus because a city on that island is "Kition." In the first book of Maccabees, Kittim is tied to Alexander the Great, a Macedonian by blood. In that book, Macedonia is called the "land of Kittim." This is interesting because the book of Maccabees was written after Antiochus IV, at which time other Jews identified Kittim as the Romans. Alexander traced his bloodline to Epirus, which place I think was named after Aphrodite, who was not only a chief Roman goddess, but was made born (by Greek myth writers) in Cyprus. Moreover, I identify Aphrodite with "Aprutium," and therefore with "Bruttium," smacking of the Brits. The Brits have naval bases on Cyprus.
The origin of the ancient term, "Makedones," remains a mystery to historians. I have read that the "Mak" portion of the word means "great," as per the Greek term, "mega" (caution here because "mac" means "son" in other languages, but not Greek). Therefore, "Makedones" could be understood as Mak-Edones, and suddenly the Edones (Thracians) come to mind...who had a Mygdone tribe smacking of "Megiddo/ArMAGEDDON." Megiddo is not far from Cyprus...nor from Sidon, which is mentioned because Edones also had a SITHONE tribe.
I suppose it's possible that Megiddo was founded by Edones, but then Thracians also had a Getae tribe that may have been from the namers of Kition. In any case, the German historian, Tacitus, wrote that SITONEs (soft-C version of "Kition"?) of Sweden's Gotland (smacks of the Getae) were identical to the "Sviones" except that Sitones had emphasis on female bloodlines. It just so happens that Swedes/Svi co-founded Moscow. The Getae lived off the north-Black sea not extremely far from Moscow, and could be expected in Kiev and Novgorod, where the Swedish proto-Moscovites invaded. Those Swedish peoples were the Varangian Rus, whom we may assume named Russia.
It's interesting that the first Swedes claimed to stem from the "Aesir," a term smacking of "Assyria." It's as though God is bringing this full-circle snake back down again to its ancient roots in Assyria for the Mother of all Meltdowns. Although I'm not fully convinced of it, the ancient Guti of Iran / Assyria are said to have been alternatively called "Gardu" -- the ancient Kurds -- and for this reason it is thought by many that the modern Kurds stem from the Guti. Note that the Aesir gods were said to live in mythical "AsGARD." The Gardu, perhaps?
Ancient Amazons (called "Mazices" in north Africa), whom I've identified with Mazaca, capital of Cappadocia (north of Cyprus), and therefore with "Meshech," were a female-depicted peoples. In other words, Kittim seems to link to Moscow as well as to Romans. [The chief Amazon goddess, Artemis, was traced by ancients to a Cretan goddess, BRITOmartis. Did I mention that Brits have military bases on Cyprus?]
It's likely that Gypsy lines were related to "Kittim." The controversial book of Jasher says that "the children of Chittim are the Romim who dwell in the valley of Canopia by the river Tibreu." The Romim here are the Romans, yet there were Gitan and Roma branch Gypsies.
In a Dead Sea Scroll called the War Scroll, dated a century or two after Christ, the Essene cult of Israel made mention of a red dragon in the west, which for me is the Rhodian peoples leading even to the red-dragon Cimmerians of Wales, and the architects of Rosicrucianism.
There shall be g[reat] panic [among] the sons of Japheth. Assyria shall fall with no one to come to his aid, and the supremacy of the Kittim shall cease, that wickedness be overcome without a remnant..."http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/scrolltranslation.html
As you can see, the War Scroll shares a mishmash on Armageddon topics. As the text is written as a prophecy rather than an explanation of Biblical prophecy, I deem it to be a false prophecy no matter how many correct points it may share. In the Scroll, what we deem to be the anti-Christ is called "Kittim of Asshur." No doubt, the phrase is the result of Isaiah's use of "Ashshur" (= Assyria) when referring (in Isaiah 14:25) to the anti-Christ.
As Gog's second invasion into Egypt is checked successfully by Kittim's European ships, how does he manage to invade Israel instead? Do the ship's of Kittim tolerate his Israeli invasion though resisting his Egyptian invasion?
After finding resistance, he first goes home to think it over. But where does he go home to, anyway? Ezekiel supports the idea that he returns to Magog, not Mosul/Iraq, for Ezekiel tells that, when Gog comes against Israel, he will come from the "recesses of the north," a phrase that doesn't fit Iraq very well, especially as even the northern environs of the Black sea were inhabited in Ezekiel's day (by Cimmerians, Tocharians, and Scythians, for example).
"Magog" does not mean "land of Gog" as so many assert, for "Magog" was a man's name before there was a Gog location. The location of Magog is in dispute, some suggesting Caucasia only, others to the north of it in what is now Russia, and others both of the above. "Gog" is thought by some to have been a variation of "Cauc," and indeed the Gogi can be traced to Caucasia, at Gogarene, to the south of Tubal in Georgia. If the trick is to discover what the Gogi of Caucasia were called on the north shores of the Black sea, Herodotus traced the children of Gargarians to Sarmatians, but he didn't make that trace aside from including Amazons as the mothers of the Gargarian children. If those Amazons carried their Mazaca / Mushki / Meshech term to the north parts of the Black sea, one could envision the term evolving into the naming of Moscow.
Whether right or wrong, I traced Apollo (twin brother of Artemis) to Dacians, a tribe of the Getae. The Hyperboreans, translated by Greeks as "far northerners," were worshipers of Apollo. It may be that God through Ezekiel used "far north" to portray Gog and Togarmah for just the reason of alerting us to Hyperboreans.
Compare an interesting phrase in Ezekiel 39:2 with a phrase in the Daniel quote above. The Ezekiel phrase reads, "And I [God] will turn you [Gog] back, and lead you on. And I will bring you up [to Israel] from the recesses of the north." The LORD will play yo-yo with Gog. If the man won't know what to do to solve European opposition to his plans, it won't matter, for God makes him come back to Israel anyway, by making him believe that he can plunder the nation successfully.
There's a yo-yo event in Daniel too, in verse 30, which says, "And he shall be grieved [by the ships of Kittim], and turn, and be furious against the holy covenant. And he shall act, and will turn, and will regard those forsaking the holy covenant." It appears that he decides to utilize the Palestinian problem as his means to plunder Israel successfully. It also appears that he is fully and passionately in the camp of anti-Israelis due partly to his understanding that the ships of Kittim are operated by pro-Israelis.
While the Daniel text doesn't reveal that it is the Lord who turns him around, the Ezekiel text does. The problem is, I can't say whether the two instances of turning in the Daniel quote are the same event mentioned twice, or two separate turnings.
In the phrase, "it will not be as the former or as the latter," the "former" refers to the first invasion of Egypt, and the "latter" to the first military stab against the Holy Covenant. Both the "former" and the "latter" are revealed to be successful in that both are contrasted with the anti-Christ's failure here in his second strike on Egypt and Israel. Therefore, when he returns to his own land for the first time, after the first strike, it's not a retreat due to his being unsuccessful against Israel. But if not, why will he retreat to his own land rather than carry on with a campaign in which he's winning? I don't know, but it all seems to locate him in Egypt personally during the war, not back in the far north...where we would expect the president of his country (i.e. Gog seems more like a military general than the president).
Now look at what Daniel says concerning that plan to find sufficient support for crushing Israel. Instead of calling out for those who are already anti-Israeli, since these he already has firmly under his command, he calls out for those who "forsake" Israel. This can suggest that he will attempt to convert the masses, especially European rulers, who had previously supported Israel, to urge them to betray Israeli interests. Will the American False Prophet be one of those converts?
Behold. When Gog does come southward again very near mid-Week, he comes with hordes of official soldiers i.e. not merely civilian fighters/terrorists donning aged rifles and running shoes. For Ezekiel 38:4 tells us that he comes to cover the mountains of Israel with hordes "dressed most perfectly." That sounds like official military to me rather than paramilitary terrorists without uniforms...not at all meaning that he won't also have the latter.
Togarmah does not likely refer strictly to Turks proper, for Ezekiel places Togarmah in the far north (with Gog), and for that reason would better refer to the Tocharians north of the Black and Caspian seas. In Christian centuries, Tocharians proper were in Russia but easterly so, in the face of China. However, they had western counterparts called by other names, the languages of whom are collectively called "Kuchean." Strabo described the "Tochari" as a major branch of Scythians in the vicinity of the "MassaGETAE" Scythians east of the Caspian and due north of Aria (original home of the Aryans).
Even as the western Tochari language, Kuchean (the root of which looks like "Kok") was associated with the UGOR tribes of Turks (Turks proper were first called "Kok-Turks / Gok-Turks"), there was in far-north Russia an Aryan peoples called "UGRians" that I think is a corruption of "Gugar" (the Caucasian locality of Gogarene was called "Gugar" in Assyrian).
The reason that I trace Apollo to the Dacian tribe of Getae has to do with my identification of Apollo with proto-Dagestani Dehae peoples in the land of the Massagetae. But I also link Apollo's Dacians fundamentally to the Carpae/Carpii/Arpii that named the Carpathians, and that named the Arpad Hungarians. The latter's Magyar roots are known to be from Gugar-like Ugrians, and of course, "Magy(ar)" resembles "Magog."
The Lord brings end-time Gog to Israel with a delusion, saying, "and I will turn you back and put hooks into your jaws" And so Gog comes back to surround Jerusalem with Iranians, Libyans and all of his "many peoples" listed in Ezekiel 38, with whom he partakes in an anti-Israeli war covenant (that phrase, "many peoples," is found in Ezekiel 38:9, and it mirrors "the many" of Daniel 9:27 who make the covenant).
It's okay to weep for Israel, and to celebrate the destruction of Gog, even if we don't know who Gog is.
