ANTICHRIST IS NOT A JEW

A seemingly endless response regarding our initial thrust into the Antichrist is Not a Jew, the Pope, Islam, nor a Joke has ensued since its initial release—a release which has only covered the first proposition: The Antichrist is Not a Jew! I did not have the intention to give further address to The Antichrist is Not a Jew, but had desired to expound upon the accusation heaped upon the Papacy—notwithstanding, the topic, incited by several inquiries (thence, from time to time the “personal tone” of this article), has impressed upon the network, the Jewish Antichrist is all too alive, well, and must be extinguished! We will decipher Islam’s Antichrist; the Antichrist of the Early Church Fathers; the Tribe of Dan as the receptacle or Antichrist; and, President George W. Bush as the Antichrist!

It’s not surprising that numerous Christian theologians (amongst all branches of Christendom: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) affirm the Jewish ethnicity of Antichrist and that Islam across the board declares the Dajjal (i.e., Antichrist) is a Jew:

“For Muslims, an Antichrist figure called the Dajjal will be a Jew who will lead an all-encompassing war against Islam, which will culminate in the return of Jesus (as a Muslim prophet), the Kaaba, or Sacred Rock in Mecca, transporting itself to Jerusalem, and final judgment in the valley just below the Noble Sanctuary.” (Red Heifer Days—Religion Takes the Lead, Ron Dreher, NRO=National Review Online, April 11, 2002)

Great detail to the campaign against the final Antichrist (i.e., Dajjal) is given in numerous Islamic teachings (Hadeeths):

“The Holy Prophet Muhammad(p) has prophesied about several events that will occur just before the advent of the day of judgment. Among these, Muhammad(p) has foretold the return of Jesus(p), which will materialize when a one eyed claimant to divinity (Antichrist) will attempt to misguide the humanity into worshipping him. Messiah (Jesus) will descend from the heavens in Damascus, pray behind Imam Mahdi, pursue and kill the Antichrist (Dajjal), destroy the savage and unbelieving armies of Gog and Magog, and bring peace and brotherhood to the world. Christians will recognize the truth and accept him only as a Messenger of God; the religion of God (Islam) will justly rule the world.

“The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Armageddon, World War III, Antichrist, and the Second Coming of Jesus, IslamicWeb.com)

Meanwhile, and much to Christians’ surprise, Moslems recognize Jesus as the real Messiah to come—of course, the current Zionists will be destroyed, along with the Jewish Antichrist, and Jesus will return to confirm Islam as the superior religion:

“Since the Jews fail to accept Jesus (peace be upon him) as the true Messiah, which both Christians and Muslims know to be the truth, the Antichrist will arise as their ‘Messiah’. The shrewd false Messiah will take advantage of the insidious Zionist military expansionist fervor ultimately leading to the downfall of the Zionists.

“Already Muslims have been mercilessly expelled from Palestine while Zionists in their bloodthirsty lust for land and power are not' satisfied with Palestine. In their arrogance they openly admit that they want all of Syria, all of Lebanon, all of Jordan in addition to Iraq, Iskenderun from Turkey, the Sinai, and the Delta area from Egypt and the upper Hejaz and Najd from Saudi Arabia. Yes, they even want the holy city of Medinah.

“According to the Hadith No.11 it is very clear that the Antichrist will enter Syria followed by 70,000 armed Zionists to position himself in Damascus. One morning, Jesus (pbuh) will descend in the eastern part of Damascus near a white minaret to begin the holy campaign against the false messiah. The Antichrist will flee towards Israel through the Afiq Pass, but Jesus (pbuh) will overtake him and destroy him at the airfield in Lod just 13 miles south east of Tel-Aviv. The Israelites will be destroyed putting an end to their treacherous community; whereas with the destruction of the Cross, all the religious communities will merge into the single community of Islam.” (The Downfall of Zionists and Israel, www.islamicweb.com

Some serious concerns and persistent questions—questions which commentators have sought to discern for many generations—have been raised by a number of brethren . . . a sampling will suffice; and, from here we will expand upon these inquiries . . . here, I address a number of these inquiries, person-to-person:

(1)

The tractate written by Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.), Bishop of Portus (and/or Rome; i.e., Portus Romanus, 15 miles north of Rome), establishes the futurity of Daniel’s 70^th week (and, I hasten to add, in its entirety). His spiritual lineage, as you clearly presented, extends back through Irenaeus, to Polycarp, to John and, of course to Jesus; thence, when Hippolytus, not only affirms Daniel’s futurity, does he not present the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 as the two prophets Enoch and Elias? And, if so, why do we here at The Tribulation Network neglect this interpretation by this same Hippolytus who substantiates our interpretation of the futurity of Daniel’s 70^th Week but instead embrace the “corporate interpretation” (and, I hasten to add, somewhat “cosmic” interpretation) that these Two Prophets are none other than Israel (Revelation 7) and the Church (Revelation 14)? Likewise, it appears that we may be a bit “picky” here and take what confirms our thesis and reject what does not.

(2) Hippolytus in his same tractate on the Antichrist adjudges that the origins of the Man of Sin hail from the tribe of Dan, and, ipso facto, he must be a Jew, not a Gentile.

(3) It appears in our writings that we have strongly alluded to the Antichrist’s title as “Prince of the Covenant” to be none other than President George W. Bush . . . but, since he is out of office by 2008, how can that be, since the 7-year treaty with “death and hell” (i.e., between Israel and Antichrist) has not officially commenced as of this reply, etc.

First of all, at the time of the writing of Hippolytus, the “de-Jewdification” of the Gentile-branch of the Church was in full swing. The time of “transition” from the “Jewish Church” to a predominantly “Gentile Church” expression was nigh complete; however, not in toto. Likewise, and, as I am sure you are keenly aware, the Church for many years after the Ascension was considered by the Roman authorities as naught but a sect among the Jews.

Paul’s vociferous, and mainly successful attempts to separate the grace of God from the “Jews’ religion” (Galatians 1:13-14), is legendary—likewise, is Paul’s own capitulations to the same (Acts 21:15-26)—notwithstanding . . . “the Lord stood by him and said, ‘Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.’” (Acts 23:11)

Furthermore, even the Jews throughout the world considered the early Church a sect of their own (such a conjecture has historical justification; cf. Acts 26:5 in ref. to “sect”): “For we have found this man (Paul) a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Tertullus – Acts 24:5).

Now, I bring out these Judeo-Christian tensions for good reason—by 200 A.D. the cleavage between Israel and the Church was pronounced. All things “Jewish” were either dropped (including dance, feast days, etc.) or subtly incorporated into Church practice; appropriated as “original Church practice” and having little to do with the Jews’ religion.

The entire concept that somehow at the close of the age these two (the two olive trees—Israel; and the two lampstands—the Church) could, from the “divine perspective,” constitute a prophetic fulfillment and witness, leading to a direct confrontation with the Beast from the Abyss (so revealed) in the midst of Daniel’s 70^th Week, was the most remote notion from any of these early Church Fathers.

I will not belabor our conclusions as to the “corporate nature” of these Two Prophets (our many writings on this subject present a relatively clear presentation of the same)—which conclusions are, as far as our analysis is concerned—overwhelming, in light of the full thrust of the Scripture and of the divine intention throughout the ages.

Am I saying that somehow these early Church fathers—aside from the terminologies of the Beloved John—are misled in not believing the corporate nature of these witnesses and that their insights into such were skewed by the “great transition” of the early Church from Law to Grace? In sum: Yes!

Given the horrific tensions between the Jew and the Gentile—and of the initial Jewish harassments (though many a Jewish historical revisionist would is wont to revise such histories) toward Gentile believers; which harassments persisted nigh through 600 A.D. (Persecution of Christians by Jews, Wickipedia)—the theological notion that Jews and Christians could assemble under any theological pretense a united witness was altogether impossible, nigh ludicrous. By the time that Gentile preponderance had overtaken the supremacy of the Church’s Jewish branch; all thought of such a duality of witness (and, most definitely insofar as the 70^th Week of Daniel was concerned) had vanished from any eschatological schematic.

So . . . was Hippolytus’ prophetic conjecture regarding Enoch and Elias as the two prophets of Revelation 11 prejudiced by his own historic encounter with Jews? I would have to conclude with a resounding: ABSOLUTELY! Hippolytus, however, was formidable in his eschatological insight:

“39. Thus, then, does the prophet (Daniel) set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every god, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: ‘And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.’

“193 As also it was announced to Daniel: ‘And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed’-that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the test (sic? “rest” or “remainder”) of the week (i.e., the last three-and-one-half-years, editor’s note), and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: ‘And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days.’” (The interpretation by Hippolytus, (bishop) of Rome, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, taken in conjunction. 157)

Today’s “Valley of Dry Bones” (i.e., the ingathering of the exiles) does NOT circumvent the Divine Intention in calling forth these two in the midst of apostasy (the Church) and unbelief (Israel). It does mean, however, that the undertaking will be assuredly supernatural and divinely initiated!

Now, relative to the “pick and pull” methodology in calibrating our defense of the Two Witnesses and neglecting Bishop Hippolytus’ surmisings that the Two Prophets/Witnesses are Enoch and Elias—No, this is not disingenuous on our part. There are scores of brethren amongst the Pretribulationists with whom I have had, and continue to have, a most ardent fellowship, and/or I deeply appreciate as ministers of the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ—however, I disagree with them on the so-called pre-tribulational rapture of the Church; which eschatology I reject outright—both from a biblical sense, as well as from a socio-political motif.

I beg to differ with them on these, what I feel, are salient points of eschatology—and sincerely affirm that if they could be persuaded otherwise, then would the Church’s vision of these Last Days be wholly liberated and in tune with the divine purpose concerning the Testimony of Jesus in the End of Days. Furthermore (and as I was constrained by the Holy Spirit to affirm these prophetic insights regarding a post-tribulational testimony of the Church) such a position sensitizes the Church to major elements of the final apostasy and prepares us all both now and for the immediate trial of our faith.

I am convinced, however, that the immediate Evangelical-Zionist alliance is both a blessing and curse. A blessing because it concerns a vibrant discussion and communication (on-going) between these distinctives; but a curse, in that the Church militant has, through a plethora of socio-political events found herself taken to the “sword” juxtaposed to the “sheath” and has become the battering-ram for all manner of this Administration’s agenda; and, in sum, formed a virtual trident in the hand of the enemy of our souls: Oil, Christianity, and Debt!

Again, Dr. Vernon McGee (Through the Bible), Dr. John Walvoord (Dallas Theological Seminary), and even E. G. White (Seventh-Day Adventists) constitute great and amazing insight into the prophetic Scriptures—but not all their prognostications are wholly inspired; neither are mine. We see through a glass darkly. That having said, we are convinced that as Sir Isaac Newton and many historicists realized, history was not neglected in the prophetic Scriptures—furthermore, keen awareness would accelerate at the close of this age!

These noble brethren sought to bring relevance and “capacity” to bear upon the Word’s immediate comfort to the brethren—I do not fault them for this; however, the futurists/Premillenarians’ synthesis of Scriptures relative to the prophetic is far more cohesive and provides much, in every way, the crest of the eschatological wave upon which to surf! To my Preterist brethren (i.e., virtually all prophecy was fulfilled by 70 A.D. and most assuredly by 100 A.D.) I can only ponder how on earth they can sustain their flimsy convolutions.

I would end this first inquiry to say that the “need to know” is paramount relative to this topic of eschatology. “‘My lord, what shall be the end of these things?’ And he said, ‘Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.’” (Daniel 12:8b-9a). And, how fitting that at the conclusion of the book of Daniel that there are “Two Others” . . . “one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank” who declare the precise time frame of the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11, to wit: “How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?” . . . “it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.” (Daniel 12:5-7) . . . “And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth” (Revelation 11:3) . . . And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt (for) three-and-a-half days (“outside the camp . . . the world/kosmos; Babylon the Great”) . . . Now after the three-and-a-half days, the breath of life from God entered them” (Revelation 11:8, 11).

I simply insert that here, Bishop Hippolytus informs us, these two on the riverbank constitute the “Law and the Prophets” to wit: “42. Who, then, were the two men who stood on the bank of the river, but the law and the prophets?” (Fragments of Hippolytus)—I do not concur with Bishop Hippolytus on this score for, again, juxtaposed to the entire thrust of Scripture, such an interpretation of the identity of these Two Witnesses is in counter distinction, not only to the final eschatological drama, but is countermand to the preponderance of Biblical truth.

Finally, your review of our writings relative to the Two Witnesses as seen in the following would be helpful: The Two Witnesses: Israel and the Church; and the entire Section II (Israel and the Church) of Unsealing the End of Days, the Visions and Prophecy of Zechariah. It is here that the presentation of Israel (Revelation 7) and the Church (Revelation 14) as the “two sets of 144,000” are expounded upon and their ultimate conclusion as the New Jerusalem (144-cubit wall in Revelation 21:17).

Your second inquiry regarding the Jewish ethnicity of Antichrist stems from the comments made, again, by Hippolytus. The initiation of Antichrist as a Jew does not have its origins in Hippolytus, but in Irenaeus, who preceded Bishop Hippolytus:

“...there are those who definitely believe that Antichrist will be a Jew. In tracing the rise of this view one finds that Irenaeus of the second century seems to be the first to teach it. He based his view upon the following points: (1) The name Antichrist is Jewish. (2) Daniel wrote these words about Antichrist: ‘Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers’ (Dan 11:37). (3) He is from the tribe of Dan since this tribe is among the missing of those mentioned in Revelation 7:4-8. (4) To be parallel to Christ he must come from Israel...There is just not enough abundant Scripture for anyone to be dogmatic on whether Antichrist will be Jewish or not.” (www.philogos.org, Antichrist) (My emphasis.)

Again, Hippolytus begs to differ with us insofar as the ethnic origins of the final Antichrist: THE Antichrist. The precise writings of Hippolytus cannot be ignored as the foremost reinforcement of Irenaeus’ convictions—convictions repeated throughout the Church Age—through to the present!

“6. Now, as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of His royalty and glory, in the same way have the Scriptures also aforetime spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Saviour was manifested as a lamb; so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Saviour came into the World in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Saviour gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad, and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem . . . .

“15. That it is in reality out of the tribe of Dan, then, that that tyrant and king, that dread judge, that son of the devil, is destined to spring and arise, the prophet testifies when he says, ‘Dan shall judge his people, as (he is) also one tribe in Israel.’ But some one may say that this refers to Samson, who sprang from the tribe of Dan, and judged the people twenty years. Well, the prophecy had its partial fulfillment in Samson, but its complete fulfillment is reserved for Antichrist. For Jeremiah also speaks to this effect: ‘From Dan we are to hear the sound of the swiftness of his horses: the whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing, of the driving of his horses.’ And another prophet says: ‘He shall gather together all his strength, from the east even to the west. They whom he calls, and they whom he calls not, shall go with him. He shall make the sea white with the sails of his ships, and the plain black with the shields of his armaments. And whosoever shall oppose him in war shall fall by the sword.’ That these things, then, are said of no one else but that tyrant, and shameless one, and adversary of God, we shall show in what follows.” (St. Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and the Antichrist, End Times Prophecy, A Catholic Perspective)

It is evident that the Orthodox, in no uncertain declaration, commit Antichrist to the Tribe of Dan; and, ipso facto, is a Jew:

“That Antichrist will come from the tribe of Dan is evident from the following:

“Dan’s name is excepted from the tribes listed in Rev:7 as being the tribes sealed in their foreheads as the servants of God.

“The tribe of Dan also introduced image worship in the Old Testament Church. Another prophetic Scripture which had its partial fulfillments in Samson who sprang from Dan and judged the people for twenty years, but will find its complete fulfillment in the Antichrist, is that which Jacob said in Genesis xlix:16: ‘Dan shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel.’ ‘Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.’ Gen xlix:17

“From Dan we are to hear the sound of the swiftness of his horses: the whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing, of the driving of his horses." Jer. viii: 16” (Holy Virgin Mary Church in Los Angeles, www.theotokos.org, copywrite, 1998)

“We find it written regarding Antichrist . . . ‘Dan is a lion's whelp, and he shall leap from Bashan’ [Deut. 33:22]. But that no one may err by supposing that this is said of the Savior, let him attend carefully to the matter. Dan, he says, is a lion's whelp. And in naming the tribe of Dan, he declared clearly the tribe from which Antichrist is destined to spring. For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan. And that the case stands thus, we see also from the words of Jacob: ‘Let Dan be a serpent, lying upon the ground, biting the horse's heel’ [Gen. 49:17]. What then is meant by the serpent but Antichrist, that deceiver who is mentioned in Genesis [Gen. 3:1], who deceived Eve and supplanted Adam? . . . It is in reality out of the tribe of Dan, then, that tyrant and king, that dread judge, that son of the devil, is destined to spring and arise (ibid., 14).

“Above all, moreover, he will love the nation of the Jews. And with all these [Jews] he will work signs and terrible wonders, false wonders and not true, in order to deceive his impious equals. . . And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem and will restore it again speedily and give it over to the Jews (Discourse on the End of the World 23-25 [A.D. 217]).” (Catholic Culture on the Antichrist by Hippolytus)

The Roman Catholics, in denying that they (the Roman Catholics) are the Synagogue of Satan, loudly proclaim in the aforementioned piece in response to Luther’s proclamations that the Vatican is the Antichrist:

“To make the prophecies of the Antichrist fit the pope, some even claimed that ‘the temple of God’ in which the Antichrist pretends to be God (2 Thess. 2:4) is the Vatican. The Fathers of the Church would never have agreed. They showed the temple to be the Jewish temple, rebuilt by the Antichrist in Jerusalem. Rather than the bishop of Rome, the early Fathers identified the Antichrist as a government official--a king coming to power in the ruins of the Roman Empire. He would probably be Jewish, possibly from the tribe of Dan. And most importantly, rather than claiming like the pope to be the vicar or emissary of Jesus Christ, he would claim that Jesus was not the Christ but that he was instead. He would then seduce many of the Jewish people by attempting to fulfill the political aspirations they held for the Messiah.” (My Emphasis) (Ibid., Catholic Culture)

Again, it is impossible to expound upon this topic without confronting the works of one, Barbara Aho, of Watch Unto Prayer Ministries—note how the British Israelism seeps through these writings:

“Several obscure prophecies in the Bible point to the fact that the tribe of Dan will produce the Antichrist. In the context of these prophecies, Samson's riddle may be a prophecy that the descendants of the tribe of Dan will one day try to destroy the tribe of Judah in jealous revenge for God’s judgment on their idolatry. From the carcass of the young lion [Judaism] the tribe of Dan [typified by the bees] will attempt to produce a golden age [symbolized by honey]. To suggest that the Antichrist will be a Jew is likely to incur accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ from those who would like to conceal this fact. However, we believe that the Biblical admonition to bless the descendants of Abraham includes exposing the identity of the man of sin who will lead many Jews to their destruction.

“The Merovingians, who plan to rule the world from their future throne at Jerusalem, claim to come from the tribe of Judah through Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. However, the weight of evidence indicates that they descended from the tribe of Dan. Although Scripture states that Samson was ‘of the family of the Danites’ [Judges 13:2], Yair Davidy of Brit-Am Israel claims that his lineage includes the Messianic tribe of Judah: ‘Samson the superman hero came from the Tribe of Dan but his mother was from Judah. Samson, in some respects, was considered a forerunner of the Messiah who will come from Judah but his mother, according to the Midrash will be of the Tribe of Dan.’ [Brit-Am Israel newsletter, 2/9/99]

“It is through the agency of the ultra-Orthodox Lubavitch Movement that the Gentiles are being prepared to submit to the Noahide Laws under a restored Sanhedrin. Yair Davidy posits, ‘The name DAN means “judge” in Hebrew. Many lawyers and judges in the USA are of Irish descent of a particular type as is much of the police force . . . Descendants of Dan today appear to be concentrated in Ireland, Britain, the USA, and especially Denmark.’ [Ibid.]

“The following paper is meant to serve as a study guide for understanding the enigmatic design of Satan to use the apostate tribe of Dan as an instrument and cover for a false messiah. The reader will be able to review the many Scriptures which concern the tribe of Dan -- the prophecies, the Danite people, their land, history, idolatry and symbols -- in conjunction with relevant information from other sources.” (Barbara Aho’s Watch Unto Prayer, www.watch.pair.com by Janet Moser, THE LOST TRIBE OF DAN, The Early Jewish and Christian View of the Identity of The Antichrist).

The train of Christians, past and present, who ascribe credibility to the “Tribe of Dan theory” and to the Jewish identity of the future Antichrist, cannot be surpassed by the elaborate renditions of Arthur W. Pink, who, interestingly enough is a bit tepid relative to Dan’s connection to a Jewish Antichrist:

“But if this pseudo Christ succeeds in palming himself off on the Jews as their true Messiah he must be a Jew, for it is unthinkable that they would be deceived by any Gentile . . . it was the common belief among Christians during the first four centuries A.D., that the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan. Whether this will be the case or no, we do not know. Gen. 49:17,18 may have ultimate reference to this Son of Perdition. Certainly Dan is the most mysterious of all the twelve tribes.” (Arthur W. Pink, THE ANTICHRIST, Chapter 3, The Person of the Antichrist, www.greywolf.com)

Finally, after an exhaustive discourse on the Antichrist and of his aforementioned connections to the Tribe of Dan, initially propounded by Irenaeus until the present, the Pre-Trib Research of Dr. Daniel Ice simply reaffirms the conclusions of the late Dr. John Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary to wit:

“While I think it may be possible that the False Prophet (Rev. 13:11- 18; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) could be a Jew (I am not saying that I necessarily think he will be), there does not appear to be any Scriptural grounds to think that the Antichrist will be of the tribe of Dan nor of Jewish descent. It appears that he will be a Gentile and will arise from within the Revived Roman Empire. In the middle of the tribulation he will take his seat in Israel' s rebuilt Temple and claim to be God Himself (2 Thess. 2:4). His career will be a short-lived seven-year period for which he will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire upon Christ' s return to planet earth (Rev. 19:20; 20:10).” (The Ethnicity of the Antichrist, Dr. Thomas Ice) (My emphasis.)

There is, most assuredly, a great deal of Biblical smoke surrounding Dan—but no fire of the final Antichrist!

The conjectures are simply too flimsy to implicate the tribe of Dan as the ethnic launching pad of the Man of Sin. However, Dan’s accusers have it right in adjudging the tribe’s exposure to the Canaanites, Phoenicians, and the ultimate heresy of Queen Jezebel and King Ahab.

Our article on this early manifestation of blatant heresy—the mixing of the Jewish religion with the Canaanites via the introduction of the fertility gods of the ancient Phoenician-Canaanites of Tyre and Sidon is so overwhelming, that any Middle Eastern historian would be utterly remiss to deny these heretical incursions from the north into Israel.

Our articles on the Shrine of Micah, and our five-part series on “The Apostasy Comes First” make a formidable case that the Tribe of Dan was fully engaged from the outset relative to mingling the religion of Yahweh with that of the Canaanites.

However, having implicated the Tribe of Dan, and knowing full well of its absence from the initial Israelitish role call as seen in Revelation 7:5-8, we are, nevertheless, loathe to connect these dots of apostasy to the ultimate Antichrist. It can be argued, just as well or better, that Dan’s absence from Revelation 7 is naught but the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in demonstrating the divine antagonism toward apostasy in the apocalypse (cf. Revelation 2:12-29 and the Spirit’s outrage towards apostasy in the early Church).

The “names of the twelve tribes of Israel” are not designated by tribal name upon the 12 gates of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:12-13. Furthermore—and, I firmly believe—in confirmation of the Almighty’s transforming power, Dan’s allotment in Ezekiel’s Vision of the Restoration of the Land (Ezekiel 47:13 – 48:29) not only include a portion for the Tribe of Dan—BUT COMMIT DAN’S ALLOTMENT TO DAN’S CAPTURE OF THE NORTHERMOST PORTION OF THE GOOD LAND!

It appears as if the Almighty is literally awarding Dan for his disobedience! To the contrary, the Lord delights in His children and, though He abhors apostasy, He forgives and is true to His own promises:

“Now these are the names of the tribes: From the northern border along the road to Hethlon at the entrance of Hamath, to Hazar Enan, the border of Damascus northward, in the direction of Hamath, there shall be one section for Dan from its east to its west side; by the border of Dan, from the east side to the west, one section for Asher, etc.” (Ezekiel 48:1-2).

What is even more remarkable in reference to the “Gates of the City” and its strong allusions to that of the New Jerusalem, the City of the Millenarian Jerusalem as seen in Ezekiel's prophetic vision declares the following:

“These are the exits of the city. On the north side, measuring four thousand five hundred cubits (the gates of the city shall be named after the tribes of Israel), the three gates northward: one gate for Reuben, one gate for Judah, and one gate for Levi; on the east side, four thousand five hundred cubits, three gates; one gate for Joseph, one gate for Benjamin, and one gate for Dan; on the south side, measuring four thousand five hundred cubits, three gates: one gate for Simeon, one gate for Issachar, and one gate for Zebulun; on the west side, four thousand five hundred cubits with their three gates: one gate for Gad, one gate for Asher, and one gate for Naphtali . . . All the way around shall be eighteen thousand cubits; and the name of the city from that day shall be: THE LORD IS THERE” (Ezekiel 48:30-35—Note: The Conclusion of Ezekiel’s Visions of God).

It will be noted that Dan’s logistics are to the EAST—from whence the “glory” arises—our space does not permit the significance of this direction—suffice it to say, it is exceedingly significant in typology. It was from the east that the glory departed from the House of the Lord during Ezekiel’s accounting (the Mount of Olives; Ezk. 11:23); and it will be upon the Mount of Olives (to the east of the Temple Mount) that the Messiah shall stand (Acts 1:11-12).

GENESIS 48	EZEKIEL-1^st Mention-Ch 48	REVELATION vs. EZK.	REVELATION-1^st Mention (Ch. 7)
Reuben	Reuben	Reuben	Judah
Simeon	Judah	Judah	Reuben
Levi	Levi	Levi	Gad
Judah	Joseph	Joseph	Asher
Zebulun	Benjamin	Benjamin	Naphtali
Issachar	Dan		Manasseh
Dan	Simeon	Simeon	Simeon
Gad	Issachar	Issachar	Levi
Asher	Zebulun	Zebulun	Issachar
Naphtali	Gad	Gad	Zebulun
Joseph	Asher	Asher	Joseph
Benjamin	Naphtali	Naphtali	Benjamin
		Manasseh

Neither one of the two sons of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) are mentioned in Ezekiel; however, to declare the persistence of the divine promise the 12 Tribes of Israel (Jacob) are given a prophetic blessing in Genesis 49 by Israel (Jacob)—these same 12 Tribes reoccur in Millenarian bliss in Ezekiel 48!

Next, Revelation excludes both the Tribe of Dan and the Tribe of Ephraim, while including Manasseh.

It can be argued that the absence of BOTH these tribes in the Revelation is a clear expression of the Almighty’s abhorrence to (a) Apostasy—Dan; and (b) Ephraim—The Shrine of Micah; the original source of Dan’s demise and/or the Ten Tribes of Israel and their false center of worship juxtaposed to Jerusalem as the true religious capitol of Judah-Israel.

Both Dan and Ephraim are omitted from the Twelve Tribes of Israel in Revelation 7 because, I affirm, we must understand the prophetic consternation toward apostasy and false religious practice—as well as disunity.

Let it be conclusively argued that they who concentrate upon a Jewish Antichrist are careful to omit, not only portions from Ezekiel 48, but Israel’s (Jacob’s) final prophetic pronouncement upon his son, Dan:

Yes, it is that “Dan shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel (and that) Dan shall be a serpent by the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse’s heels so that its rider shall fall backward . . . but: I HAVE WAITED FOR YOUR SALVATION, O LORD!” (Genesis 49:16-18).

Not only is this not a prototype of the Antichrist as a Jew: This is an absolute fulfillment of the faithfulness of the Almighty to Jacob!

The God Who keeps covenant will not be thwarted in His eternal plan and purpose for the ages.

Unless one embraces universal salvation—even for the Antichrist—one cannot use the picture of Dan and then witness his salvation!

No, the Gates of Ezekiel echo with the Gates of the New Jerusalem—God cannot and will not be stopped from His accomplishments.

No matter how insidious is the apostasy, no matter how compromised we have become! “He abides faithful—He cannot deny Himself!”

The final prophetical inquiry is the most dicey of the lot: President George W. Bush is the possible “Prince of the Covenant” and ultimate Antichrist—we’ve been told that our “math” may be off in that “Dubya” has but several more years in office but that the Prince of the Covenant will sign a 7-year Defense Pact with Israel—so, we’re off at least five years?

Though it is exceedingly tempting—this network has NEVER claimed that President George W. Bush is the Antichrist. We have identified the Antichrist in numerous capacities and elaborated upon his personality in no uncertain terms; however, unlike others who have committed this title to the current Commander-in-Chief, we have not.

What we have repeatedly said is this: Antichrist is not simply a “spirit gone out into the world” but a real person to be revealed at the commencement of the 70^th Week of Daniel (yet future). Also, that Antichrist is not a Jew, the Papacy, Islam, nor a Joke. Furthermore, Antichrist is not only a kingdom, but a king and that he is decidedly gentile insofar as ethnicity is concerned. Indeed, he is Greco-Roman at his core: He is the leader of the West and of Western Civilization as seen throughout the book of Daniel and the Revelation.

Insofar as our math being skewed—I seriously doubt that Antichrist will endure term limits when he is revealed! In point of fact—it is a world in crisis that will demand aggressive leadership and continuity to guarantee the peace, protect the innocent, and assure that “freedom of religion” is the practice throughout the world, including the world of Islam!

Thank you for your inquiry—Dene McGriff forwarded your questions to me about a week ago. I’d like to apologize for not getting back to you the first time. It may sound a bit “presidential” – however, I simply cannot recollect your first attempt—I may have inadvertently deleted your e-mail somehow . . . I’ve been known to do that!