THE PRINCE OF THE COVENANT…

The U.S.-Israel Strategic Alliance–Part IV

Footnotes

 

Return to the article

 

Please select the footnote that you came to see
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

 

 Notes:

 

[1]     (Return to article) The phrase, The U.S.-Israel Defense Pact, is not mine; the only difference is the placement of the U.S. before Israel in the description. 

 

“Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the deepening and strengthening of ties with the United States has always been a central, essential issue in Israeli foreign and defense policy. In this context, the possibility of establishing a formal defense pact with the United States has arisen from time to time. There are a variety of different aspects to the creation of such a pact, which also raises a number of central questions and dilemmas. Since the end of the Cold War and with the progress made in the peace process, some complex elements have been added. It is clear that the nature of such a pact in the current period would be significantly different from one during the Cold-War era.” (Yair Evron, An Israel-U.S. Defense Pact, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, Israel, Strategic Assessment, Vol. 1, No. 3, October, 1998)

 

The eschatological significance of the phrase found in Daniel 9:27a (“Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week . . .”) adds another dimension to the current U.S.-Israel Strategic Alliance, to wit:  If the exegesis of Daniel 9:27a interprets the antecedent “he” found in Daniel 9:27a with the “prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26, therefore, the “covenant” is not orchestrated by “Messiah the Prince” in Daniel 9:25 (i.e., the Messiah who is “cut off” in Daniel 9:26a), but with a yet future personage: The Anti-Messiah/Anti-Christ.  Furthermore, the contextual sense of “he shall confirm a covenant with many” is expounded by numerous evangelical expositors of the Premillenarian camp and deserves additional extrapolation; however, a sampling will suffice who capture the essence of the “strategic alliance” and its ultimate “covenantal” dimension:

 

“(6) At a later time, ‘after threescore and two weeks’ which follows the first seven weeks (that is, after 69 weeks), Messiah the Prince will be ‘cut off,’ and Jersualem will again be destroyed by the people of another ‘prince’ who is yet to come.  (7) After these two important events, we come to the last, or Seventieth Week, the beginning of which will be marked by the establishment of a firm covenant or treaty between the Coming Prince and the Jewish nation for a period of ‘one week.’  In the ‘midst’ of this Seventieth Week, evidently breaking his treaty, the coming prince will suddenly cause the Jewish sacrifice to cease and precipitate upon this people a time of wrath and desolation lasting to the ‘full end’ of the Week.  With the full completion of the whole period of the Seventy Weeks, there will be ushered in a time of great and unparalleled blessings for the nation of Israel.” (Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, Dunham Publishing Company, p. 241).

 

“Concerning this individual Gaebelein says:  ‘Out of the Roman Empire (i.e., revived or head “Western Civilization”) there shall arise in the future a prince.  This prince or chief of the fourth empire is identical with the little horn of Daniel vii.’  He is further to be identified with the ‘king of fierce countenance’ of Daniel 8:23, with the ‘wilful king’ of Daniel 11:36, with the ‘man of sin’ of 2 Thessalonians 2, and with the ‘beast out of the sea’ of Revelation 13:1-10.  Inasmuch as the covenants made by Messiah with Israel are eternal covenants, Messiah can not be the one making the covenant, inasmuch as it will be temporary.  This covenant, which will guarantee Israel the possession of their land and the restoration of their religious and political autonomy, is to be viewed as a false fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.  This covenant deceives many in Israel into believing that this ‘man of sin’ is God (2 Thess. 2:3).  It is the proclamation of this false covenant that marks the beginning of the seventieth week.” (Arno C. Gaebelein, The Prophet Daniel, p. 142; Ibid. p. 250)

 

Pentecost continues . . .

 

“According to Daniel 9:26-27 the prince of the Roman Empire will make a covenant with Israel for a seven year period.  This covenant evidently restores Israel to a place among the nations of the world and the integrity of Israel is guaranteed by the Roman powers.  This is not only an attempt to settle the long standing dispute among the nations as to Israel’s claim to Palestine, but is also a satanic imitation of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant which gave Israel title deed to the land.” (Op. cit. pp. 342-3)

 

“(5) The seventieth week belongs to a seven-year relationship between Antichrist and Daniel’s people Israel in eschatological times, and concludes with the second advent of Christ.  This is required by the language of the last verse of this prophecy, verse 27 . . . the ordinary rules of grammar establish that the leading actor of this verse is the Antichrist—the great evil man of the end-time, ‘He shall make a firm covenant’ etc.—thus the verse opens.  A more literal reading of (the original language) is:  ‘and he shall cause to prevail a covenant.’  If the pronoun ‘he’ were present in the Hebrew a case might possibly be made for the introduction of an entirely new personality into the story at this point.  However, there is no pronoun—only the third masculine singular form of the verb indicates that an antecedent is to be sought, and that of necessity in the preceding context.  There is only one antecedent admissible, according to the accepted rule that the last preceding noun which agrees in gender and number and agrees with the sense is the antecedent.  This is unquestionably (the individual mentioned as) ‘the coming prince’ of verse 26.  He is a ‘coming’ prince, that is, one whom the reader would already know as a prince to come, because he is the same as the ‘little horn’ on the fourth beast of chapter seven.  He is a Roman prince because he is of the people who destroyed Daniel’s city after the restoration of the first seven weeks, and also because the ‘little horn’ of chapter seven (of Daniel) can be only a Roman prince.  He is Antichrist, because Paul and John clearly identify this personage of Daniel’s prophecy as a final evil personage—the final antichrist.” (Robert Duncan Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, Fleming H. Revell Company, pp. 150-1

 

“The ‘acid’ test as to the identity of the Antichrist concerns the Treaty with Death and Hell . . . only one person, and one person only, will ‘cause this treaty to prevail’—and that one person is the Antichrist.  The treaty will be in the form of a ‘Defense Pact’ and will be directed against the Northern Confederacy.” (S.R. Shearer, The Beginning of the End, p. 169).

 

[2]     (Return to article) The Iraqi insurgency is the armed campaign being waged by various regular and irregular forces, both Iraqi and external in origin, against the occupation of Iraq by the multinational force and the new Iraqi government. The campaign is referred to by their supporters as the Iraqi resistance, and by some of their opponents (especially, the Iraqi Government and the Coalition military) as Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF). Not all those opposed to the new Iraqi government, multinational forces and/or the reconstruction are militant groups. Various Iraqi groups and political parties advocating non-violent resistance also exist.

 

“The insurgency grew during the period between the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the establishment of a new sovereign Iraqi government. Originally, the insurgents targeted the coalition force (forces from thirty-one countries with most from the United States and the United Kingdom) and the interim government (e.g., the Coalition Provisional Authority) formed under the occupation. Many militant attacks have been directed at the police and defence forces of this new Iraqi government. It has continued during the transitional reconstruction of Iraq as the new Iraqi government, under the auspices of the United Nations, has developed. A portion of the Iraqi population, especially the Sunni Arab minority, sees military attacks on Coalition forces as legitimate opposition to a colonial occupying power. Iraq's deep ethnic and sectarian divides have been a major dynamic of the insurgency, with the insurgency finding much weaker support from some segments of the population rather than others.

“The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine. It is often divided by analysts into several main ideological strands, some of which are believed to overlap:

·                     “Ba'athists, the armed supporters of Saddam Hussein;

·                     Sunni Islamists, the indigenous armed followers of the Salafi movement;

·                     Foreign Islamist fighters including al Qaeda, largely driven by the similar Sunni Wahabi doctrine, as well as the remnants of Ansar al-Islam;

·                     Nationalists, mostly Sunni Muslims, who fight for Iraqi independence;

·                     Sunni Muslims who fight to regain the power they held under previous regimes;

·                     Patriotic Communists (who have split from the official Iraqi Communist Party) and other leftists.

·                     Criminal insurgents who are fighting simply for money; and

·                     Nonviolent resistance groups and political parties (not technically part of the insurgency).

“The Militant followers of Shi'a Islamist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, once active members in the insurgency, appear to be no longer taking part in the fighting.” (Winkipedia-Iraqi Insurgency)

[3]     (Return to article) A “double game” has played out in U.S. Middle East policy—keeping Israel’s security, while sufficing the oil corporations by placating Arab states to appear somehow “evenhanded.”  However, the end of the Cold War has changed all that . . .

 

“‘The Americans now face a historic choice,’ pronounced Ignatieff (back in April, 2002, Why Bush Must Send in His Troops, Guardian Unlimited). ‘For 50 years, they have played the double game of both guaranteeing Israel's security and serving as honest broker in the region. This game can't go on.’ This is the greatest of all the calumnies—not just against Israel, but against generations of U.S. policymakers. A ‘double game’? It's been an immensely successful strategy, which won the Cold War in the Middle East and produced the Israeli-Egyptian peace. This ‘double game’ has prevented a general conflagration for thirty years. And it must go on, because the moment America's commitment to Israel seems diminished in Arab eyes, the region is destined to spiral into war, just as it did in 1967 and 1973.” (Martin Kramer, Ignatieff’s Empire, Frontpagemag.com, January 6, 2003).

 

This is a valiant, though impractical, attempt on the part of Martin Kramer to keep the status quo of the region (i.e., the double game); however, Michael Ignatieff nailed it—game over!  Iran’s present insistence and outrage over its isolation from the international community grows each day.  One only needs to witness the upcoming Moslem scholars gathered by Iran’s president to discuss the “fabrication” of the Jewish holocaust Harry’s Place, January 7, 2006.  The more isolated Iran becomes, the more her implacable resolve to join the nuclear club.  Mr. Ignatieff’s article confirms that the U.S. has thoroughly engaged the region; therefore, past successes in policy are irrelevant, if not “dangerous,” to pursue.  Ignatieff is correct:  Israel’s security needs do match those of the U.S.—it’s time to change policy!

 

[4]     (Return to article) Eric Alterman in his piece, Intractable Foes, Warring Narratives:  Measuring the Unmeasurable, WRMEA.com, May 2002, pages 26-31, The Zionist Zone, Side Bar I, lists a Who’s Who of media players—the punditocracy—whose communication’s influences are ubiquitous.  He categories them as “(1) Columnists and Commentators Who Can Be Counted Upon to Support Israel Reflexively and without Qualifications; (2) Publications That, for Reasons of Owner or Editorship, Can Be Counted Upon to support Israel Reflexively and without qualification; (3) Columnists Likely to Criticize Both Israel and the Palestinians, But View Themselves to Be Critically Supporters of Israel, and Ultimately Would Support Israeli Security Over Palestinian Rights; and, (4) Columnists Likely to Be Reflexively Anti-Israel and/or Pro-Palestinian Regardless of Circumstance.”

 

          Alterman laments the inconsequential “anti-Israel contingent of the punditocracy does not add up to a single George Will or William Safire, much less a Wall Street Journal or U.S. News.”

 

[5]     (Return to article) “The Prince of the Covenant” is taken from Daniel 11:22b in this context: 

 

“With the force (Lit. arms) of a flood they shall be swept away from before him (i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes IV, the Syrian king who ruled from 175 to 163 B.C.) and be broken, and also the prince of the covenant.  And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully, for he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people” (Daniel 11:22-23).

 

In that Antiochus IV is viewed in this passage (Daniel 11:21-23 – i.e., “the vile person”), as well as through Daniel 11:24-35, we, nevertheless, must come to terms with his prophetic configuration (in vs. 21-23) as a prototype of Antichrist—clearly seen from Daniel 11:36-45 where his figure takes on cosmic proportions.  As such, we cannot neglect the initial use of the term “flood” and “covenant” which are used in Daniel 9:26-27: 

 

“And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.  Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering . . .”

 

The late Dr. John Walvoord in his text, Daniel – The Key to Prophetic Revelation, 1971, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, presents an exegesis of Daniel 11:22 by delimiting the title prince of the covenant to that of the high priest of Israel, at the time, Onias, who was murdered under orders by Antiochus IV in 172 B.C.  Furthermore, Walvoord completely omits any Jewish alliance with Antiochus IV (i.e., “after the league is made with him”); instead, he submits that vs. 23 “described his various leagues with other nations, especially with Egypt which involved considerable intrigue and deceit” (pp. 265-6).

 

That Onias was murdered by Antiochus IV—having been swept away in the flood before the wrath of this vile person—we have no doubt.  However, the same “flood” and “prince who is to come,” as well as an extraordinary reference to “the covenant” are all concentrated in Daniel 9:26-27 and bespeak of the direct Prince who shall make a “covenant with the many for one week.”

 

Antiochus IV had indeed made a league with those who had forsaken the covenant—make no doubt about that:

 

“According to the account of 1 Maccabees, the High Priests at Jerusalem appointed by Antiochus were involved in systematically changing the traditions of the Jews that were based on the laws of Moses, to make them conform to Greek beliefs.” (Douglas E. Cox, Antiochus and the Jews, 1996)

 

An outstanding account of Antiochus IV’s subterfuge and initial collusion with disparate elements among the Jews is given in JewishEncyclopedia.com:

 

“The Jews themselves afforded Antiochus the first opportunity to interfere in their domestic affairs. The struggle of the Tobiads against the high priest Onias III., originally a personal matter, gradually assumed a religio-political phase. The conservatives siding with the legitimate high priest approached the king of Egypt; for they relied more on that monarch than on Antiochus, sometimes nick-named 'Επιμανής (madman), while the Tobiads well understood that Antiochus' favor was to be purchased with gold. The Tobiads caused the deposition of Onias (173), and the appointment of their own partisan, Jason. In order to ingratiate himself with the king, this new high priest established an arena for public games close by the Temple. But the king cared very much more for gold than for the Hellenizing of Palestine, and a certain Menelaus made use of the fact so shrewdly that he received the high-priesthood in place of Jason, in the year 171. But when false tidings came to Jerusalem that Antiochus had died on a campaign in Egypt, Menelaus could not maintain himself in the city, and together with the Tobiads fled to Egypt. On his return homeward, Antiochus came to Jerusalem to reinstate Menelaus, and then the true character of the Hellenism that Antiochus desired was revealed to the Jews. He entered the Temple precincts, not out of curiosity, but to plunder the treasury, and carried away valuable utensils, such as the golden candlestick upon the altar and the showbread table, likewise of gold. This spoliation of the Sanctuary frustrated all the attempts of Jason and the other Tobiads to Hellenize the people, for even the most well-disposed of Hellenizers among them felt outraged at this desecration. They must have given vent to their sentiment very freely; for only thus can the policy of extermination waged by Antiochus against the Jews and Judaism, two years later, 168, be explained. As long as he was occupied with preparations for his expedition against Egypt, Antiochus had no time for Palestine; but when the Romans compelled him to forego his plans of conquest, his rage at the unexpected impediment was wreaked upon the innocent Jews. An officer, Apollonius, was sent through the country with an armed troop, commissioned to slay and destroy. He first entered Jerusalem amicably; then suddenly turning upon the defenseless city, he murdered, plundered, and burnt through its length and breadth. The men were butchered, women and children sold into slavery, and in order to give permanence to the work of desolation, the walls and numerous houses were torn down. The old City of David was fortified anew by the Syrians, and made into a very strong fortress completely dominating the city. Having thus made Jerusalem a Greek colony, the king's attention was next turned to the destruction of the national religion.” (Louis Ginzberg, Antiochus Epiphanes IV, JewishEncyclopedia.com)

 

The point to be made in all this is the alliances made with Antiochus by the Jews—therein lies the rub!  Specifically, this alliance involved money, military security provided by Antiochus IV and “spiritual power” directly related to Temple worship; in sum:  Economics, Politics and Religion. 

 

It is the amazing similarity of “The Coming Prince” in Daniel 9:26 who affirms a covenant with the Jews and the initial league made by Antiochus IV with the Jews specifically related to temple worship and involving the Jewish High Priest that provides abundant exegetical linkage.  Antiochus IV, through his own high priestly emissaries, was found in league with the Jews—there’s no doubt about that!

 

It is, therefore, in that very definitive sense that he himself has become the Prince of the Covenant!  And, just as The Coming Prince will break the treaty with future Israel—even so, The Prince of the Covenant has already performed his dastardly deed and usurped God’s-appointed worship.  If this is not blasphemy, nothing is!

 

[6]     (Return to article) The Christian Triumphalism whereof I speak is not so much an historic expression of Manifest Destiny—although, to be sure, it is that—it is more a theological superiority and belief system which demands that the social and political strictures submit themselves within the context of Christian theocracy:  The Theocratic State.  Known by an assortment of theological jargon:  Replacement Theology, Christian Reconstructionism, Post-Millenarianism (certain forms), Dominion Theology and Theonomy, Covenant Theology, Kingdom Now

 

[7]     (Return to article) There ostensibly are three major millenarian views held by Christian theologians:

 

(1)   Amillennialism is that view of the Scriptures that rejects the idea of any period of a thousand years either before or after the return of Christ.

(2)   Postmillennialism is a derivative of Amillennialism in that, simply put, we are now living in the millennium—Christ will return after the millennium and bring in the final state with a general judgment and resurrection (Note:  Several World Wars and ongoing Cold War and continual wars, famine, etc., throughout the earth have greatly diminished this eschatological system; however, it is “alive and well” amidst the “theological jargon” seen in Note [6].

(3)   Premillenialism:  “The premillennial view is the view that holds that Christ will return to earth, literally and bodily, before the millennial age begins and that, by His presence, a kingdom will be instituted over which He will reign.  In this kingdom all of Israel’s covenants will be literally fulfilled.  It will continue for a thousand years, after which the kingdom will be given by the Son to the Father when it will merge with His eternal kingdom” (Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 372). (Cf., Charles L. Feinberg’s Millennialism, the Two Major Views, Moody Press).

 

Likewise, there are three eschatological systems which must be given consideration, to wit:

 

(1)  Preterism—The Second Coming of Christ has already transpired.  Fundamentally, virtually all prophetic Scriptures in the Revelation and elsewhere in the Bible have already been fulfilled—all prophecy has been fulfilled during the First Century A.D. around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

(4)  Historicism—In Christian circles, the term historicism refers to the confessional Protestant form of prophetical interpretation which holds that the fulfillment of biblical prophecy has taken place throughout history and continues to take place today; as opposed to other methods which limit the time-frame of prophecy-fulfillment to the past or to the future.

(3) Futurism--Futurism is an interpretation of the Bible in Christian eschatology placing the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel in the future as literal, physical, apocalyptic and global rather in the past as literal, physical and localized (i.e., in Judea or Europe) or in the present as non-literal and spiritual as distinct from Preterism, Historicism and Idealism.  Futurism is by far the majority view among Western, especially American, Protestant evangelicals largely due to the success of publications such as the Scofield Reference Bible, Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth and Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series.

Futurism has its roots in the life, publications and influences of John Nelson Darby and his system of Dispensationalism. (Winkipedia)

 

[8]     (Return to article) The term “Antichrist” is essentially a term used by the Apostle John.  It is exclusively found in I John 2:18, 22,; 4:3 and in II John 7); however, do not allow John’s exclusive use of the term truncate this figure’s titles! 

 

The Bible does not casually mention names. As Arthur W. Pink in his book, The Antichrist—a Systematic Study of Satan's Counterfeit Christ cautions: "Devil" and "Satan" are not synonymous, nor are they used haphazardly, but with Divine discrimination. Upon the meaning of names found in Holy Writ rests a whole scheme of interpretation; even the order in which names occur is not fortuitous but designed, and constitutes a part of each lesson taught, or each truth presented. 

 

Though we here have already highlighted his titles as "King of Babylon" and "King of Tyre," (in the e-book:  Unsealing the End of Days @ www.the-tribulation-network.com) because of their strategic placements in the end-times’ judgments of Babylon the Great in Revelation 17, 18 and 19, a quick, though partial, overview of his exhaustive titles by Pink will commence his disclosures:

 

1.   The Antichrist-I John 2:22

2.   The Man of Sin, Son of Perdition-II Thess. 2:3

3.   The Lawless One-II Thess. 2:8 (R.V.), vs. 9

4.   The Beast-Rev. 11:7

5.   The Bloody and Deceitful Man-Psalm 5:6

6.   The Wicked One-II Thess. 2:8

7.   The Man of the Earth-Psalm 10:18

8.   The Mighty Man -Psalm 52:1

9.   The Enemy-Psalm 55:3

10. The Adversary-Psalm 74-8-10

11. The Head Over Many Countries-Psalm 110:6

12. The Violent Man-Psalm 140:1

13. The Assyrian-Isa. 10:5 & 12

14. The King of Babylon-Isa. 14:4

15. The Son of the Morning-Isa. 14:12

16. The Abominable Branch-Isa. 14:19

17. The Spoiler-Isa. 16:4

18. The Nail-Isa. 22:25

19. The Branch of the Terrible Ones-Ezk. 21:25-27

20. The King of Tyre-Ezk. 28:12

21. The Little (i.e., "Younger") Horn-Daniel 7:8

22. The Coming Prince-Dan. 9:26

23. The Vile Person-Dan. 11:21

24. The Willful King-Dan 11:36

25. The Idol Shepherd-Zech 11:16-17

26. The Angel of the Bottomless Pit-Rev. 9:11

 

Please see our expose entitled:  The Antichrist is Coming

 

[9]     (Return to article) The entire concept of a Jewish Antichrist is altogether spurious.  Dr. John Walvoord from Dallas Theological Seminary succinctly declares:

 

“Some expositors hold that the final king (i.e., Antichrist) will be an apostate Jew, possibly not the world ruler but one who arises in Palestine and cooperates with the final Gentile power.  For many reasons the identification of this king as the final Gentile ruler is a superior interpretation.  According to Daniel himself, he will be a willful king who will consider himself above every god as well as above every king.  This would not fit a Jewish king who was not the supreme ruler in the times of the Gentiles.  It would also be incredible that this ruler would be a Jew inasmuch as he persecuted Jews.” (The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, John F. Walvoord, Victor Books, 1984, pp. 271-2).

         

To further exacerbate the Jewish identity of the Antichrist we have the bizarre and illogically absurd, and altogether convoluted writings of one, Barbara Aho.  I use such strong terminology to describe her prattling because she lives in an academic bubble wherein all things in life appear conspiratorial—and, I am confident, that once she discovers me, that I shall become the “missing link” needed to complete the Da Vinci Code! 

 

Let her own words destroy any semblance of rational thought you may otherwise seek to find in her endless meanderings:

 

“Adding to the general ignorance, there is little information coming forth in the way of exposure of the Merovingian dynasty as the Satanic bloodline from which the Antichrist and False Prophet will come.  Whatever lip service is paid to this subject is usually accompanied by enough misinformation to keep the masses of Christians ignorant of the truth.

 

“Yet the Bible presents specific evidence concerning the identities of the Antichrist and False Prophet, the Mark of the Beast, Mystery Babylon the Great and other entities that will be imperative for God’s elect to recognize during the Tribulation Period. For instance, Revelation 13:1, which identifies the Antichrist as ‘the beast that rises out of the sea,’ becomes crystal clear upon discovery that a demonic bloodline that exists today that was originally sired by a mysterious ‘sea beast’—the Bistea Neptunis.  Merovingian authors like Laurence Gardner inform their readers about the demonic bloodline of the Bistea Neptunis in New Age books such as Bloodline of the Holy Grail . . .”  (THE MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY, Satanic Bloodline of the Antichrist and False Prophet, Barbara Aho)

 

There you have it—Antichrist will either be a reincarnation of King Solomon (as you read further into her writings) or, better yet, in keeping with Barbara’s “bloodlines” – a relative of the Merovingian dynasty (e.g., Emperor Charlemagne).  Eventually, Aho’s Antichrist—along with Jewish Freemasonry—all are connected to the Learned Elders of Zion (a fabrication of one—you guessed it—Madame H. P. Blavatsky).

 

Well does Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries illuminate the circuitous, conspiratorial machinations of the one he calls “Barbara Aho Blavatsky!” (Blavatsky was founder of the Theosophical Society)

 

“Ruckmanite Barbara Aho subscribes to a form of the channeling ideas pioneered by the Blavatsky tradition in her embrace of the 'guided writing' claims of Ruckmanite authoress (Riplinger). Although Riplinger was debunked as a fraud when the CRI Journal (Christian Research Institute of Southern California, USA) who proved she could not even read Greek, it has made no difference to Aho. Who needs to know biblical languages in writing a book on translations when you are ‘spiritually guided’?

 

“The technique, claiming supernaturally guided letter patterns, is cabbalistic and is used by Gnostics and mystics, which is most peculiar given Aho's disdain for things Jewish as many of Aho's beliefs are plainly from the racist Identity Movement. Who is the Ruckmanite spirit guide? Some might say it is (the) same one who guided Helena Blavatsky.” (Barbara Aho Alert, Jacob Prasch, Moriel Ministries;  see also http://www.moriel.org/notice/wolves.htm)

 

[10]    (Return to article) A lengthy discussion on the origins of Antichrist is mandatory at this time; however, space does not permit.  Needless to say it is the opinion of this writer, and a growing number of Premillenarians, that America is the Babylon of the “end of days” (i.e., last days); and, furthermore, that as Babylon the Great, it is she who will produce the latter-day Antichrist:  The Leader of Western Civilization.  America is the inheritor of all things European and worldly; moreover, she represents the final stage in the development of Greco-Roman culture—par excellance!  I urge you to examine Dene McGriff’s outstanding series entitled:  In Search of Babylon.  If his text does not confirm your worst suspicions—then please read Chapters 8-10 of Antichrist and the Gog-Magog War.

 

[11]    (Return to article) Neo-Babylonia vs. ancient Babylon:  Ancient Babylon dates back to the 23rd century BC – whereas Neo-Babylonia dates from circa 627 B.C. (Wikipedia).

 

[12]    (Return to article) The seven major civilizations which have countenanced the globe and the theory of the Clash of Civilizations were propounded by Dr. Samuel Huntington of Harvard.  His thesis stipulates that economic and political ideologies will not, as they had in the Twentieth Century, cause wars, but cultural and social disparities will.  Hence, the Islamic, the East (Chinese) and the West have, are and will continue to clash.  Huntington’s civilizations, however, differentiate the West into Northern Europe/North America/Australia and New Zealand from Orthodoxy and Latin America (which are embraced under The West); likewise he differentiates Japan, Northern India and other heavily populated Buddhist regions of the world from that of the Hindu influences in the Indian subcontinent. (See Wikipedia)

 

[13]    (Return to article) A great deal of “prophetical speculation” has occurred in reference to the “ten toes” and/or “ten horns” (and the 11th horn) of the Image/Beast as seen in Daniel’s accounting.  If the Image of King Nebuchadnezzar is viewed as a progression and development of Western Civilization, then the toes are fundamentally connected to the Roman Empire’s extension in some way.  Since feet prop up an Image and enable the Image to walk—even so, these feet began to walk the entire face of the earth in these “latter days” (European colonialism).  Scriptures bear record that these ten toes are similar to the ten horns of Daniel and that they are comprised of both iron and clay—some “weak and some strong” (Cf. Daniel 2:41-45; 7:7-8; Rev. 12:3; Rev. 13:1, 5).

 

          Daniel 7:8 records:  “I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one (i.e., little as in younger), coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots.  And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words (i.e., great things).”  Obviously, this horn is an “authority.”  This authority is not only a person—this person is a nation or kingdom much akin to Nebuchadnezzar’s image which was a person (“thou art that head of gold”) and a kingdom, viz. Babylon. 

 

          In addition to the personification of this younger horn—for this nation’s “roots” are primarily found or have their source amongst the ten kingdoms/ten toes.  Historicists have long considered a multiplicity of nations which have come and gone; however, Premillenarian futurists consider all these nations as yet future and, at this time (aside from being former member provinces of the old Roman Empire) undisclosed—awaiting the revelation of the little horn.

 

          We find these interpretations to be flawed on both counts.  For one, and although both schools attribute the Roman Empires’ association with these ten toes in some form (past or totally future), they are missing the entire imagery of Daniel’s development of that civilization which interacted for so many centuries with Israel:  The West.

 

          In doing so they have neglected the progressive development of the Image and the breaking up of Rome’s original Empire into sundry nation states developing in earnest from the Thirteenth Century onward.  Furthermore, Dispensational Premillenarians have adjudged the Beast “rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name” (Revelation 13:1) as wholly set aside within the confines of Daniel’s 70th Week.

 

          Indeed, the Beast does—in his ultimate personification of Satan’s incarnation—appear in the midst of Daniel’s 70th Week; however, the ten horns and the little horn of Daniel do not necessitate their development and historic progression being confined exclusively to Daniel’s 70th Week—that is pure conjecture.  You may argue that our assumptions are as well.  Indeed, however, the weight of history is on our side—as Israel’s materiality demands an historic recognition; likewise, so does the development of the West, and in particular, the United States of America.

 

          The ten toes, therefore, and the final ten horns of this Beast, have, in the main, been ten previous nations of the former Roman Empire who have countenanced the planet and “resurfaced” in the modern colonial nation states of Europe.  Some of them were strong (iron), others weak (clay).  We afford at least one constellation of possibilities:

 

          France, England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden-Russia. 

 

          The three horns which were uprooted when the younger horn (the USA) burst forth, could easily find their colonial counterparts in those toes which walked the New World but were later uprooted by the younger horn:  Britain, France and Spain.

 

[14]    (Return to article) The allusions here are of the West’s and the world’s most powerful military:  The United States of America.  The militarism of the USA is, in the annals of human history, unsurpassed—unprecedented.  Her military-industrial complex so entrenched and pervasive in her economy that all historic comparisons (though per capita Rome’s comes close) are exhausted.

 

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” (James Madison, Political Observations, 1795)

 

“He shall come up and become strong with a small number of people” (Daniel 111:23b).

 

“Global military expenditure and arms trade form the largest spending in the world at over $950 billion in annual expenditure, as noted by the prestigious Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SPIRI), for 2003. Furthermore:

 

“World military spending in 2003 increased by about 11 per cent in real terms. This is a remarkable rate of increase, even more so given that it was preceded by an increase of 6.5 per cent in 2002.

 

“Over two years world military spending increased by 18 per cent in real terms, to reach $956 billion (in current dollars) in 2003.

 

“High-income countries account for about 75 per cent of world military spending but only 16 per cent of world population.

 

“The combined military spending of these countries was slightly higher than the aggregate foreign debt of all low-income countries and 10 times higher than their combined levels of official development assistance in 2001.

 

“... There is a large gap between what countries are prepared to allocate for military means to provide security and maintain their global and regional power status, on the one hand, and to alleviate poverty and promote economic development, on the other.

 

“The main reason for the increase in world military spending is the massive increase in the United States, which accounts for almost half of the world total.... In the absence of [appropriations for the new war on terror, and on Iraq], US military expenditure would still show a significant increase, but at a much slower rate, and world military spending would show a rise of 4 per cent rather than 11 per cent in 2003.

 

“... While US military expenditure is set to continue to grow and will continue to propel world military spending, the pace is likely to fall back somewhat in the next few years. In the longer term it is doubtful whether current levels will be economically and politically sustainable.”

 

·        The US military budget was almost as much as the rest of the world’s.

·        The US military budget was more than 6 times larger than the Russian budget, the second largest spender.

·        The US military budget was more than 30 times as large as the combined spending of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $13 billion.

·        It was more than the combined spending of the next fourteen nations.

·        The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)

·        The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $134.2 billion, 34% of the U.S. military budget.

(Source:  Arms Trade:  A Major Cause of Suffering, Anup Shaw, Global Issues, June, 2005).

 

[15]    (Return to article) Numerology in Scripture is significant here.  The number “11” connotes one shy of 12.  Rather than an extensive discussion on this topic it is noteworthy to deduce that the number 11 is associated throughout the Scripture in highly significant passages.  The 11 sons of Canaan juxtaposed to the 12 sons of Jacob—at odds with each other to this day!  The “Son of Perdition” (Judas Iscariot made the 12 disciples the 11; therefore, Judas is often referred to as the “Eleventh.”  The 11th Horn of Daniel is clearly the Antichrist-Beast.  Satan’s attempt to duplicate the work of God (4=Creation x 3=The Tribune God=12) is one shy and always will be.

 

[16]   (Return to article)  Please see Note [13]

 

[17]    (Return to article) Premillenarians struggle with America’s headship in the latter days and nearly all are locked into a turn-of-the-century 1800s’ millenarianism which was “Euro-centric” in its outlook.  However, from time to time a bright star appears among them, and glimmers of insight can be seen as America’s hegemonic outreach becomes so intolerable that the only way to remove this Gentile World Power, for Europe to ascend, would be a cataclysmic series of unprecedented disasters—which, in essence, would wipe out the world as we know it!

 

Harry Ironside, former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, demonstrates the “transitional world eschatological view” of many of these expositors who awoke to smell the historical roses:

 

“After the death of the Lord Jesus Christ the Roman Empire continued in existence for something like 500 years, though divided into the Eastern and Western parts, which till the end of its history held together more or less loosely.  It was finally destroyed by the invaders from the North and the East.  But though the Empire as such was broken in pieces, nevertheless Roman principles prevailed throughout the great part of Europe and became the basis of the civilization which we now know.  Our American system of jurisprudence is founded upon that of Rome.  In the recent world-war the Entente allies, and America too, were all representatives of the old Roman Empire, with the exception, of course of Japan, China, and the other heathen nations (Note:  World War I is in view here.).  On the other side we saw the very same powers joined together (the Goths, Vandals, and Huns), who, in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, hurled themselves upon he Roman Empire and destroyed it.  It was a most singular thing surely, and almost unexplainable for those who do not read their Bibles, that in the 20th century the same great divisions were maintained as in the closing days of Roman domination.  But we may see from this how readily that Roman Empire will be revived through a great international movement—a confederation, offensive and defensive, of all the Latin or Latinized nations.

 

“It was the boast of the Roman conquerors that they never destroyed a civilization, but absorbed into their own great commonwealth everything that was best of the various nations which they subjugated.  And we cannot but be reminded of this as we read the second verse:  ‘And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion:  and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.’ Observe how, in these few words, you have distinctly set forth the fact that the last phase of the Roman Empire will be linked up with all that has gone before.  In Rome you have the leopard of Greece, the bear of Persia, and the lion of Babylon.  Thus you have incorporated into this last great confederacy the chief elements of every civilization that has left a great mark upon the world.  Everything that man has been able to build up, and has learned to value throughout the centuries, will be headed up in this final federation of nations.

 

“For it is not Rome as existing in John’s day merely which is in view, but Rome as it will exist in the closing days of the dispensation, as is plain from the 3rd verse, if rightly understood:  ‘And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed:  and all the world wondered after the beast.’” (Lectures on the Book of Revelation, Harry A. Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers, 1920, pp. 227-9)

 

[18]    (Return to article) The ascendancy of Antichrist will NOT be through royal linage, but he will hail as a common man from the vast sea of the people.  By this is meant the extremity of democracy.  “And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue” (Daniel 11:21).

 

The rise of democracy among nation states—led by the USA—is now the clarion call of the current administration’s anecdote to all other forms of government.  Antichrist will and does find a fertile basis to launch and extend his hegemonic rule and reign from the sea:  “Then I stood on the sand of the sea.  And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name . . .” (Revelation 13:1).

 

Several evangelical expositions point out the ideological posture of the earth at the close of this dispensation:

 

“The Antichrist will appear suavely, swiftly, quietly.  He will be a man, first of all, of quietness before he manifests himself in his Satanic form.  He will be an anti-Christ, a counterfeit Jesus—not a counterfeit devil.  When we understand this, we will understand what to look for . . .

 

“The intolerance of Satan now reaches its peak.  Power is in his hand, he uses it against all who will not acknowledge him and worship him.  One commentator has written, ‘Thus, in the name of Democracy and popular rights, comes absolute Dictatorship and Imperialism; in the name of Freedom, comes complete and universal enslavement; in the name of better Reason, which tramples on religion and revelation, comes a great consolidated system of gross idolatry; in the name of a charitable Liberalism, which disdains allegiance to any creed, comes a bloody Despotism, which compels men to worship the base image of a baser man, or die.  Here is one star in the crown of this world’s boasted Progress.’” (Revelation, An Expositional Commentary, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Zondervan, 1971, p. 246)

 

“Laodicea completes this septenary series, and brings us down, practically, to the last stage of the professing church’s history on earth—the close of the present dispensation.  Laodicea is a compound word, and means ‘the rights of the people.’  Could any other term more aptly set forth the condition of present-day church affairs?  It is the era of democratization, both in the world and in the church.  The masses of people are realizing their power as never before.  The terrific slogan, vos populi, vox Dei (The voice of the people is the voice of God), is ringing through the world with clarion-like distinctness.  Imperialism and every form of aristocratic government is disappearing—at least for the time being . . . In the Great War we were told our soldiers were fighting to make the world safe for democracy.  In a little while statesmen will be attempting to raise armies to make the world safe from democracy.  The spirit of this ultra-democratic age has invaded a large portion of the professed church.  The authority of God and His Word is rapidly being denied.  The spirit of the age is the spirit of a large part of the church; hence the striking correspondence between this letter to the Laodiceans and the latitudinarianism so prevalent about us.” (Lectures on the Revelation, Harry Ironside, p. 74)

 

[19]    (Return to article) “The Coalition of the Willing” comes to mind here.  The stress upon unilateralism, preemption and wars of national interest are gauged through diplomatic coalition building insofar as their successful prosecutions go.  The United States is determined to tout her coalition-building efforts whenever and wherever possible.  At times a bit laughable (considering Costa Rica and Mongolia, etc.).  Again, the point to be made is the signature of Antichrist is dedicated to amassing, at least the appearance, of a vast coalition.

 

   

[20]    (Return to article) The “Worship of the Beast” is led by the False Prophet in Revelation 13:15:  “He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed” (Cf. Rev. 14:11).  The ultimate blasphemy is to substitute man’s innate desire to worship God with the distortion of the “Worship of the Image of the Beast.”  Indeed, as we have pointed out before, the Image, the Expression, the Reflection of what becomes the Image of the Beast is the antithesis of the Image of Christ, the Church, and the Bride.  Just as the Holy Spirit breaths into the Church, thus bringing her to life in Christ—even so, the False Prophet shall direct the masses to the Beast wherein they will “behold and reflect as a mirror” and will be “transformed into the same image” (II Corinthians 3:18, in reference to the Church’s transformation).  Therefore, juxtaposed to the Bride of Christ (i.e., “the image of Christ” spoken of in II Corinthians 3:17-18) who “Worships the Lamb” (Cf. Rev. 22:9—“Worship God”) is the exact opposite:  Worship of the Image of the Beast.  Here is self, here is all that fallen man desires to be—so that in the “Worship of the Beast” and “his Image” the people in point of fact worship themselves!  Again, this quote from Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda for Nazi Germany, is telling:

 

“The entire nation clings to him with reverence and with deep heartfelt love.  The people feel that he belongs to them – flesh of their flesh and spirit of their spirit . . . in their midst stood the man who had become for them the personification of an eternal Germany, providing them with friendly, kindly words of consolation to take along with them on their difficult path.  He came from the people, and he is still one of the people . . . those of us who have the privilege of seeing him on a daily basis receive nothing but light from his light.  We want only to be his obedient followers in the procession led by his flag. 

 

“Herein lies the secret of the indestructibility of Adolf Hitler and his work – the guarantee that the road he has taken can not be altered.  For it is no longer the man Adolf Hitler, it is no longer his works and no longer the road he has taken that expresses itself in him.  It is the German nation itself that expresses itself in him.  In him the nation loves itself, in him it follows its most secret desires.  In him its most daring thoughts become reality.  Every single person feels this and because of it Adolf Hitler is a stranger to no one, and no one is a stranger to the Fuehrer.  Workers and farmers speak with him; Nobel Prize winners and artists, warriors and dreamers, happy men and despairing men speak with him, and each and every one hears his own language, he understands and is understood in return.  Everything is natural and self-evident, and no one is shy before this great man.  No one is ordered to follow.  No one is courted, but everyone is called, just as one would be called by his own conscience.  He has no choice but to follow, should he not want to be guilty and unhappy in his own heart.  Thus, what must happen happens voluntarily, and no nation on the face of this earth has more freedom than the Germans (Adolf Hitler, A Chilling Tale of Propaganda, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Reprinted and translated from a 1936 Edition, Copyright 1999 by Typhoon International).

 

[21]    (Return to article) In the late 1800s Sir Robert Anderson had a keen sense, as did many other evangelical Premillenarians of his day, that a restored Israel announced to the world the promises of the Almighty were everlasting:

 

“The Scriptures teem with promises and prophecies in favor of that nation, not a tithe of which have yet been realized. And while the impassioned poetry in which so many of the old prophecies are couched is made a pretext for treating them as hyperbolical descriptions of the blessings of the Gospel, no such plea can be urged respecting the Epistle to the Romans. Writing to Gentiles, the Apostle of the Gentiles there reasons the matter out in presence of the facts of the Gentile dispensation. The natural branches of the race of Israel have been broken off from the olive tree of earthly privilege and blessing, and, ‘contrary to nature,’ the wild olive branches of Gentile blood have been substituted for them. But in spite of the warning of the Apostle, we Gentiles have become ‘wise in our own conceits,’ forgetting that the olive tree whose ‘root and fatness’ we partake of, is essentially Hebrew, for ‘the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.’

”The minds of most men are in bondage to the commonplace facts of their experience. The prophecies of a restored Israel seem to many as incredible as predictions of the present triumphs of electricity and steam would have appeared to our ancestors a century ago. While affecting independence in judging thus, the mind is only giving proof of its own impotence or ignorance. Moreover, the position which the Jews have held for eighteen centuries is a phenomenon which itself disposes of every seeming presumption against the fulfillment of these prophecies.” (The Fullness of the Gentiles, The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson, Chapter 12)

 

[22]    (Return to article) The “Futurity” of the entire 70th Week of Daniel is covered in the text:  Unsealing the End of Days, the Visions and Prophecy of Zechariah found in its entirety on The Tribulation Network (Section II, Appendix 3).  At issue here, however, is the transfiguration of Antichrist (though he still holds the AC title) into the Beast.  It is in the midst of the 70th Week which commences that period of eschatological significance known as “The Great Tribulation” (Matthew 24:21) where Antichrist will assume his new title as the Beast.   The entire 70th Week is commonly called “The Tribulation Period.”

 

What constitutes the change in name and character of Antichrist is the following:

 

“The first beast is the future Roman dictator who shall become the antichrist by the incarnation of Satan; the second beast is the personal head of the religious system which will go along with the dictatorship and the Antichrist . . . Since God has succeeded by means of an incarnation and then by means of the work of the Holy Spirit, the devil will work by means of an incarnation in Antichrist and by an unholy spirit . . . After we had written this down, we discovered this same thought in a very old commentator, brilliantly expressed more than a century ago.  ‘The full embodiment of all evil in our world comes out in an infernal trinity, the mimicry of eternal realities.  First, is the unseen and hidden father, the dragon, the old serpent, the devil.  The next is the seven-headed and ten-horned beast from the sea, ‘the son of perdition,’ begotten of the devil, his earthly manifestation, who dies, and revives again, and reappears on earth after having been in the invisible world, and is awarded the power and throne of his father, the devil.  And to this comes a third, the two-horned beast from the earth, who proceeds from the dragon father and the dragon son, for his speech is the dragon’s speech, and ‘he exerciseth all the authority of the first beast in his presence,’ carrying into living effect the Satanic will of both the father and the son.  Thus we perceive three distinct personalities, the devil, the antichrist, and ‘the False Prophet’; and these are one—one vital essence, one economy and one administration.  The dragon sets up an anti-God; the beast, his son, is the anti-Christ; and the two-horned beast, proceeding from and operating in the interest of both, is the anti-Holy Spirit.  And these three together are Hell’s trinity in unity, the devil’s unity in trinity, as revealed and operative in our world, when iniquity has once come to the full.’” (Donald Grey Barnhouse, Revelation, an Expositional Commentary, pp. 240-1, 251)

 

Barnhouse associates the Antichrist with the designation of the Beast; however, further exposition demonstrates where that title is announced . . . let us commence with the first mentioning of the Beast in Revelation:

 

“When they finish their testimony (i.e., the Two Witnesses for a period of 42 months or 1,260 days—Revelation 11:3), the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them.”

 

It is utterly incongruous and inconceivable to assume that the Two Witnesses have absolute authority prior to the ascendancy of the Beast who is given extraordinary authority during the Great Tribulation itself (i.e., the last 3 ½ days or 3 ½ years of the 70th Week of Daniel—Revelation 11:9-11; 13:5).  “Divine confusion” reigns if both the Two Witnesses and the Beast are “given authority” during the same period of time!  The Two Witnesses are empowered for 1,260 days; then the Beast makes war against them, overcomes them, and they are killed; and, finally the Beast has for 42 months unimpeded authority. 

 

“And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days (or 3 ½ days, or 3 ½ years or 42 months), clothed in sackcloth.  These are the two olive trees (Israel) and the two lampstands (the Church) standing before the God of the earth.  And if any wants to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies.  And if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this manner.  These have power to shut heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues, as often as they desire.  When they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them . . . .

 

“Then I stood on the sand of the sea.  And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name . . . and he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue (“make war”) for forty-two months” (Revelation 11:3-7; 13:1, 5).

 

In addition to the commencement of and length of the “Reign of the Beast,” in these passages, a great deal of confusion over the interpretation of the following verse regarding the Beast’s “wound” continues to this day:

 

“And I saw on one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed.  And all the world marveled and followed the beast” (Revelation 13:3).

 

From the context of Revelation 13:1-5 it appears abundantly clear, through the description of the Beast, that he not only constitutes a personage but also a kingdom—he is, in the main, decisively political in essence; whereas the Second Beast is overtly religious in essence (Revelation 13:11-17).  Furthermore, this “seven-headed ten-horned-crowned Beast from the abyss” is a composite of the sundry animals described in Daniel’s vision (Daniel 7:4-8).

 

The healing of the deadly wound in the head, we affirm, is the point of Satan’s incarnation spoken of by Donald Grey Barnhouse.  This is also the very “Abomination of Desolation” spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 (alluding back to the prototype of Antiochus Epiphanes’ desecration of the Jewish temple by offering up a pig on the altar of burnt offering and erecting an idol of Zeus thereon) and looking forward to the fulfillment of Daniel’s words yet future—i.e., according to the Apostle Paul:

 

“The man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (II Thessalonians 2:4).

 

The Greek word used by Jesus for the “temple of His body” (John 2:19-21 – naŏs) was not the same Greek word in the context of these verses in John where Jesus spoke of the physical temple in Jersualem and where he “drove the moneychangers out of the temple” (John 2:14-15 – hiĕrŏn).  Paul uses the Greek word naŏs in II Thessalonians 2:4.  Thus, the emphasis is not upon a physical temple/structure but the body of a man.

 

Therefore, the argument can be made—not that Antichrist at the commencement of the 70th Week of Daniel will not initiate the sacerdotal rites of the Jews in the rebuilding of their Third Temple as cardinal to his deception—but that it is precisely at this time when Satan’s incarnation and falsification of the resurrection of Christ in the body of Antichrist (who has received a “wound in the head” – an assassination?) takes place. 

 

It is in the context of this “Abomination of Desolation” – wherein the “man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition” (Note:  Satan entered into the body of Judas Iscariot to commit the dastardly betrayal of Jesus recorded in Luke 22:3; likewise, Jesus called Judas the “son of perdition” in John 17:12) – the entire tenor of the 70th Week of Daniel is radically changed.  The “restraint” over the human spirit—at this time—is “taken out of the way” (II Thessalonians 2:6), allowing the Abomination of Desolation (i.e., the desecration of the human spirit of Antichrist by the incarnation of Satan).   Only then are his evil titles embellished:  “And then the lawless one will be revealed . . . the coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception, among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (II Thessalonians 2:8-10).

 

Dr. John Walvoord’s insights are helpful:

 

“According to the prophecy of Christ, there will be a clear-cut event referred to as the abomination of desolation similar to the language of Daniel 9:27, which will occur in the period just preceding the second advent.  Christ said, ‘When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: . . . For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be’ (Mt 24:15-16, 21).  The fulfillment of this prophecy necessarily involves the reactivation of the Mosaic sacrificial system in a temple in Judea.  The present occupation of Jerusalem by Israel may be a preparatory step to the re-establishment of the Mosaic system of sacrifices.  Obviously, sacrifices cannot be stopped and a temple cannot be desecrated unless both are in operation.” (John Walvoord, Daniel the Key to Prophetic Revelation, p 235)

 

Walvoord continues the identification of Antiochus Epiphanes with the sacerdotal rites of the Jews . . .

 

“According to verse 11 (Daniel 8:11), the little horn, fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes historically, magnifies himself even to the prince of the host.  By this is meant that he exalted himself up to the point of claiming divine honor, as brought out in his name Epiphanes which refers to glorious manifestation such as belonged to God.  His pretensions are similar to the little horn of Daniel 7:8, 20.  Antiochus, however, obviously also directed blasphemous opposition against God Himself and to this extent magnified himself against God as well as reaching toward the glory and honor belonging to God.

 

“As a specific illustration and supreme act manifesting this attitude, it is stated that he took away the daily offerings and desecrated the sanctuary.  ‘By him,’ in verse 11, is literally, ‘from him,’ that is, from God.  By this meant that Antiochus stopped the morning and evening sacrifices, taking away from God what were daily tokens of Israel’s worship.  The expression daily sacrifices, from the Hebrew tamid, which means ‘constant,’ applies to the daily offerings (cf. Ex 29:38 ff.; Num 28:3 ff.).  Young, accordingly, feels that it should not be restricted to the morning and evening sacrifices, but that it included all the offerings customarily offered in the temple services.”

 

[23]    (Return to article) The Prince of the Covenant has by this time defeated the forces mentioned in Daniel 11:40-43 and in Ezekiel 38-39 (i.e., Egypt, the Libyans and Ethiopians or modern Sudan).  The modern state of Jordan “escapes from his hand” (i.e., Edom, Moab and the chief of the sons of Ammon—i.e., Jordanian royalty?).  A similar and/or identical constellation of nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38-39 includes not only those identified with the King of the South in Daniel 11:40-43 but also those allied under Gog (i.e., Magog) or the King of the North.  We are absolutely persuaded that these two conflicts are the same—with the emphasis in Daniel 11:40-43 upon Antichrist (which mirrors the tenor of the entire passage) and the focus in Ezekiel 38-39 is upon Israel. 

 

In Ezekiel 38-39 the constellation of nations allied with the forces of Gog (i.e., Magog) are the following:  Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal (ancient designations for tribes and nations in modern-day Turkey and/or south of the Caucasus).  Additional allies are Persia (Iran), Gomer and Togarmah (also in Turkey—all these together constitute those nations under the umbrella of the King of the North. 

 

In addition to these tribes, peoples and nations allied under Gog’s banner against Israel are, once again, Egypt, Ethiopia (Cush or modern-day Sudan) and Libya (ancient Put).  The mentioning of these three nations/peoples under the umbrella of the King of the South (allied with Gog) is identical with those mentioned in Daniel 11:42-43; thence, the identification of these identical conflicts as one in the same.

 

Those allied with Antichrist in Daniel 11:40-44 are, by “escape” - appear to be those within the borders of modern-day Jordan.  Antichrist, who is identified with the West, is, we affirm, identified with “the ships of Tarshish” in Ezekiel 38:13, along with Sheba and Dedan:

 

“Sheba, Dedan, the merchants of Tarshish, and all their young lions will say to you, ‘Have you come to take plunder?  Have you gathered your army to take booty, to carry away silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods, to take great plunder?’”

 

Ancient Sheba and Dedan are clearly within the borders of the Saudi Arabian Peninsula—modern-day Saudi Arabia and Yemen.  Tarshish in antiquity is connected to the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and/or the Western-most regions of the ancient Phoenician trading empire.  The commercial aspects of Ezekiel’s account and those within Daniel 11:40 both speak of gold and silver and/or material wealth motivating Antichrist against the forces of Gog-Magog.

 

Tom Ice summarizes America’s presence in the Ezekiel mix:

 

“Perhaps the strongest case for America in Bible prophecy can be made from a statement found in Ezekiel 38:13.

 

“‘Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all its villages, will say to you, ‘Have you come to capture spoil? Have you assembled your company to seize plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to capture great spoil?’ (Ezekiel 38:13)

 

“It is argued that ‘the merchants of Tarshish, with all its villages,’ refers to the colonies of Western Europe and the nations that have subsequently arisen from them. This would include North America and the United States.

 

“The identity of ‘the merchants of Tarshish, with all its villages,’ is the key phase for those who believe this to be a reference to America. What are the arguments for this interpretation?

 

“First, merchants of Tarshish refer to the Phoenician maritime and trading community located in Spain during the general time of King Solomon, 3,000 years ago. Second, the merchants of Tarshish, during the last 500 years, developed into the modern mercantile nations of Western Europe like Spain, Holland, and Britain. Third, the phrase

‘with all its villages’ or the variant rendering ‘with all its young lions,’ would be a reference to its trans-Atlantic colonies, which would include America. Thus, it is reasoned, because America is the most dominant of these Western nations, this must be a reference to America.

 

“This view is strongly espoused by Steuart McBirnie, who concluded:

‘In the light of such conclusive scholarship, coming to light most significantly at this time when the nations indicated by Ezekiel to be involved in a great Middle Eastern war, we can now say with definite assurance that the merchants of Tarshish and ‘the young lions (colonies) thereof’ must include the Western nations of Europe and the Americans, particularly the United States.[6]

David Allen Lewis agrees:

 

“‘So the young lions of Tarshish would definitely refer to the North American colonies as well as the European colonies, and hence bring the U. S. into this prophecy . . .’

 

“What does the phrase ‘the merchants of Tarshish’ mean? Tarshish appears to be a wealthy trading community on the extremity of the Mediterranean world. ‘Tarshish is ancient Tartessus in the present-day nation of Spain. This view is supported by standard Hebrew language reference books..[8] One work states:

 

“‘We read often in the OT of ‘ships of Tarshish’ which were large, oceangoing vessels (Ezk 27:25) that carried all sorts of precious cargo, especially metals such as silver and gold (I Kgs 10:22; 22:48; II Chr 9:21; Isa 60:9; Jer 10:9; Ezk 38:13) as well as iron, tin, and lead (Ezk 27:12).[9]

 

“Harvard Professor, Barry Fell, has done extensive study on these matters and their relation to activities in pre-Columbus America. Dr. Fell says:

 

“‘From the Bible we learn that the ships of Tarshish were the largest seagoing vessels known to the Semitic world, and the name was eventually applied to any large ocean-going vessel. . . . the ships of Tarshish became proverbial as an expression of sea power. . . .’

 

“There does appear to be a significant basis to support the notion that the merchants of Tarshish are connected with the seafaring Phoenicians of 3,000 years ago. These merchants naturally established trading posts scattered along their various routes . . . it also could be that she (America) is somehow part of the Revived Roman Empire of the Antichrist, since our country originated as colony (sic.) established by Europe . . . for it is very clear (that) the United States will be included in the prophetic destiny of the Gentile nations. (Tom Ice, Is America in Bible Prophecy, The Thomas Ice Collection)

 

Tragically, however, many of these same Premillenarians—notwithstanding American dominance throughout the earth and significant Scripture—equivocate and resist the inclusion of the obvious:

 

The blatant obfuscation, however, regarding “how America fits into Bible prophecy” and the denial thereof by influential and well-meaning brethren within the Premillenarian camp is conflicted and, sad to say, monetarily suspicious—mercifully, events have overtaken them as well.  Yet, in their persistence to maintain credibility with the evidentness so stated, their equivocations regarding America’s presence waivers—as America’s presence grows ominously overwhelming:  Even they must face the truth head on . . .

 

“No one disputes the fact that America has a unique history during which it became, and continues to be a preeminent feature in global affairs. The recent war in Iraq is but one example. In a quarter of a millennium it has become a nation unlike any other nation in the history of the world. In some respects, it rivals nations with much longer histories. Yet the Bible is remarkably silent when speaking about the role of America in Bible prophecy. Dr. Tim LaHaye writes, ‘One of the hardest things for American prophecy students to accept is that the United States is not clearly mentioned in Bible prophecy, yet our nation is the only superpower in the world today.’[1]

 

“Dr. LaHaye has put his finger upon the source that likely generates the often ask (sic.) question, ‘How does America fit into Bible prophecy?’ Rarely, if ever, does anyone ask,  ‘How does Mexico, or Canada, or Chile fit into Bible prophecy?’ The United States has a strong Christian heritage and is currently the world’s only superpower. Since many Christians believe that we are near the end of the age, it is hard to envision a prophetic scenario which excludes America—the world’s most influential nation. Yet, other nations are the focus of biblical prophecy. (Tom Ice, Is America in Bible Prophecy? The Thomas Ice Collection)

 

Fortunately, in counter distinction to the vicissitudes of the aforementioned, men and women with insight and “spiritual guts” have declared the unmitigated truth of America’s role in the finale of history.  In 1967, S. Franklin Logsden (who filled one of the most prominent pulpits in America, the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago) thundered against this historical and prophetical deceit by declaring:

 

“It is unthinkable that God who knows the end from the beginning would pinpoint such small nations as Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia and Syria in the prophetic declaration and completely overlook the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the earth. Too long have we evaded the question. Too long have we summarily grouped our country with the so-called revived Roman Empire. Too long have we persisted in terming the U. S. A. in prophecy as one of the ‘lion's cubs,’ thus giving her but an inferential mention in the shadow of a diminishing Britain.” (S. Franklin Logsden, Is the USA in Bible Prophecy? Southwest Radio Church, 1967) (See footnotes on Logsden @ The Revelation of Jesus Christ)

 

[24]    (Return to article) Dwight Pentecost elucidates the extant of the “Battle of Armageddon” as extending throughout the entire 70th Week of Daniel.  It appears that Antichrist commences his immediate conflagration at the Gog-Magog conflict (Daniel 11:40-45) somewhere near the beginning of Daniel’s 70th Week—this event either precipitates the Covenant with Death and Agreement with Hell or it immediately precedes it.  After Antichrist’s defeat of the forces of Gog-Magog (King of the North and King of the South) the following is recorded:

 

“But news from the east and the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many” (Daniel 11:43).

 

Now, Pentecost:

 

“It has been held commonly that the battle of Armageddon is an isolated event transpiring just prior to the second advent of Christ to the earth.  The extent of this great movement in which God deals with ‘the kings of the earth and of the whole world’ (Rev. 16:14) will not be seen unless it is realized that the ‘battle of that great day of God Almighty’ (Rev. 16:14) is not an isolated battle, but rather a campaign that extends over the last half of the tribulation period (three-and-one-half years). The Greek word polemos, translated ‘battle’ in Revelation 16:14, signifies a war or campaign, while machē signifies a battle, and sometimes even single combat.  This distinction is observed by Trench (Richard C. Trench, New Testament Synonyms, pp. 301-2), and is followed by Thayer and Vincent (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 528; Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, II, 541.).  The use of the word polemos (campaign) in Revelation 16:14 would signify that the events that culminate in the gathering at Armageddon at the second advent are viewed by God as one connected campaign.” (Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 342)

 

Although Antichrist’s promise is one of “Peace, peace” and safety—destruction follows in his train.

 

[25]    (Return to article) The Davidic Covenant and a number of covenantal expansions of the original Abrahamic Covenant are generously covered by, once again, Dwight Pentecost—regarding the Eternal’s promises past, present and future for Israel; in sum, Pentecost presents the following:

 

(a) The Abrahamic Covenant – The promise of a national land (Genesis 12:1; 13:14-15, 17) – This aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant was confirmed in the “Palestinian Covenant” which gave Israel particular assurance of final, permanent restoration to the land (Deuteronomy 30:3-5; Ezekiel 20:33-37, 42-44).

(b) The Abrahamic Covenant – The promise of redemption, national and universal (Genesis 12:3; 22:18; Galatians 3:16) – This aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant was confirmed by “The New Covenant” which has particularly to do with Israel’s spiritual blessing and redemption (Jeremiah 31:31-40; Hebrews 8:6-13, etc.)

(c)  The Abrahamic Covenant – The promise of numerous descendents to form a great nation (Genesis 12:2; 13:16; 17:2-6) – This aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant was confirmed by the Davidic Covenant which has to do with promises of dynasty, nation, and throne (II Samuel 7:11, 13, 16; Jeremiah 33:20, 21, 31:35-37).

(Sources:  Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 71-72; Charles Fred Lincoln, The Covenants, pp. 206-7)

 

All the above covenantal promises are eschatological in nature and unconditional (except the Mosaic Covenant—the Law—which is/was conditional).