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

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

"And he [the first-century prince of verse 26 = satan, the dragon of Revelation 12, 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 beast of Revelation 13] 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 one. But where's the peace treaty? I see a deal, but I don't see an agreement between prior enemies to have tea and cookies.

Many Christians are therefore taught to expect a cool, deceptively-peaceful man when we ought to be looking for a brazen, "strong faced" killing machine. Indeed, especially in Daniel 8 and 11, the Bible is emphatic about the anti-Christ being an amazing military man in the first half of the Week. Such a character is not expected to fool Israel into a faked peace treaty.

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

I hold as one theory that the European world will engage in that covenant, making it very powerful. The expectation here is that Europeans will join Gog and Muslims who want to be rid of Israel. There is an anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim trend in the United Nations, but I expect it to grow, in spite opposition from some Rothschild elements, in the European Union.

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

And so we can predict a foolish claim from many Christians saying, "we can't yet be in the first half of the seven years because the peace treaty with Israel hasn't yet materialized." And so they could, at that time, teach that the arrival of the anti-Christ is merely Gog, not yet the time to prepare for the 666, for many teach that Gog invades Israel first, and later the anti-Christ. What a mess. It's as though the demons have conditioned Christians to set-up their own failure for securing tribulation security.

In speaking of Gog coming against the mountains of Israel, God uses, "you and all your bands, the many peoples with you." See that? THE MANY peoples under the banner of Gog, not making a peace treaty.

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

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

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

Many Christian educators do not view Daniel 11:21-31 as pertaining to the end-times. This is where we see the military activities of the anti-Christ in the first half of the Week. Therefore, one major piece of damage the peace-deal theory has effected amongst prophecy educators is to see them reject Daniel 11:21-31 as being to our future. 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 view the anti-Christ beginning in verse 36, even though a new personality is not introduced at that verse. This needless error 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 (verses 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 when naturalized into English:

"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.

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 subtly 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. "But" doesn't necessarily demand a peace deal, but it serves that view better than "and."

By using "and" to connect the warfare and the covenant, the covenant in the first half of the sentence becomes that which causes the warfare in the second half, wherefore the covenant can be interpreted as a war pact. And so which do you think is the correct word to use, "and" or "but"? No other Bible text suggests a peace treaty with Israel.

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 be apt to identifying 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." "By peace shall destroy" is an inaccurate translation, forcing the reader to envision a military trap set up by a political-peace deal. The Hebrew text reads quite differently than the King James Version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will agree that the King of the North initially enters Iraq / Syria portraying himself to the Iraqi peoples, and to the world, as a man seeking to right wrongs, but this doesn't necessitate his making peace treaties with groups and nations, as ruses, prior to attacking them. In my mind, he enters Iraq with deception and smooth talk, but will not mask his invasions as peace objectives. He may claim to be helpful to a common and popular cause, which does not necessarily include a premise or promise not to use warfare.

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

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

I agree with articles 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 some 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?

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 fail to concur that this view obliterates the peace-treaty-with-Israel concoction. There is warfare throughout those verses, even against Israel, and it can be plainly seen that they speak on events within the first half of the Week. There will be no peace treaty with Israel in the first half of the Week.

Do you believe that the anti-Christ will take Jerusalem in the middle of the Week without a prior siege of lengthy duration? This is the impression given by those who support a peace treaty, that the deal is betrayed by the anti-Christ at mid-Week, wherefore he instantly enters the Jerusalem sanctuary and sets up the Abomination with no time allotted for a war beforehand. Raise your hands anyone who thinks the Israelis 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. Make sense?

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 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 become ready to take Jerusalem by the midway point at verse 31.

Verses 21-31 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, granted long ago by God Himself.

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

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

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

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

In that same Isaiah text (verse 9), we find two more of Gog's questions acting as 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.

If you have a news / video channel, be my guest to teach the things in this chapter without need to give me credit. This alternative view of the first half of the Week is badly needed to combat needless and reckless error in prophecyland.