The

ASSYRIAN ANTICHRIST

Appendix A – Antichrist – Reflections on the Desolator

by

Doug Krieger

The aspiring Assyrians are hardly thought of as the fountainhead of the final Antichrist; nor are their modern ancestors, the Kurds; however, the notion that Antichrist hails from Assyria – the land of Nineveh (founded by Nimrod), Assurbanipal, Saladin and today’s Kurds or Kurdistan (Northern Iraq and parts of Turkey, Iran and Syria) – is perhaps one of the most phantasmagoric ideas ever concocted in the marvels of eschatology – yet it is given extensive discourse and eschatological credibility far more than you can imagine.  So, the Assyrian Antichrist must be Muslim?  No, today’s actual Assyrians claim to be Christian!  But somehow he’ll hail from either Syria or Assyria, whichever the preference of your local eschatologist prefers.

This concept of an Assyrian being the final Antichrist is not as obscure as you may surmise – that is, if you even cared – but no worry, even if you don’t, the topic is most fascinating from the perspective of its recent ascendency (along with a lot of other screwball theories from whence this Despicable One originates – everything from the plausible Eurocentric Antichrist cropping up from amongst the nations now comprising the Western European Union (WEU – the so-called Revived Roman Empire theory) to a Syrian Jew (closely aligned with the Assyrian Antichrist but a bit off the geographical chart, notwithstanding the Eastern Leg of the Roman Empire seems to be gaining a measure of credibility these days).  Or, if you prefer, those who aspire to a vacuous idea that antichrist is but a “spiritual phenomenon” beyond the reach of incarnate evil embodied in the Man of Sin throughout the ages in that there are, as the Apostle John remarks, “even now many antichrists have come, by which we know it is the last hour” and “he is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son” (I John 2:18, 22).  That intangibility does little to tantalize the majority of Biblical literalists who refuse to spiritualize humanity’s innate quest for tangibility and relevance from the Scripture of Truth—keeping in mind and spirit the antithesis of Jesus Christ – as truly God and truly Man in perfect hypostatic union – is wholly apart from the truly anti-God, anti-Man, the Antichrist…he is of the earth, earthy, but in his rebellion the supreme angelic counterfeit of the God-Man.

My infatuation on this topic of Antichrist and his origins, apparently knows no end.  Just why is that so?  For one, so little serious theological study has endeared the subject amongst eschatologists – at least any that is not wrought with commercial exploitation of some sort (i.e. making a buck off the topic); a rather trivial pursuit of religious pop culture.  That there will be such an end-time figure, most futurists conclude; and even perceive his timing to be fairly certain—at the end of the age and during the infamous Seventieth Week of Daniel’s prophecy, yet future.  Most Historicists are so enraptured and entrapped with the Papacy as the “seat of Antichrist” (a sort of “spiritual reality”) or, of late, some have accepted the drivel of an Islamic personification of the Beast and his actual whereabouts, if found in the land of ancient Assyria, will most definitely be the Supreme Terrorist of the East (or the North, depending on your logistics), the Man of Sin, Gog himself – chief of the Islamic hoards yet to descend upon Israel (although this is somewhat complicated in that Gog is defeated, yet it would appear the Antichrist-Beast lives to fight on until destroyed by the coming of the Lord in glory and by the Breath of His Mouth; however, that can be resolved by claiming that the Gog-Magog War of Ezekiel 38-39 is actually the same war as Armageddon, a fete altogether impossible from a multitude of Biblical recordation).

Initially, when I commenced my study of the Assyrian-Antichrist connection, I had no idea the extent of the speculation and the high-level of debate amongst Premillenarians.

Perhaps the most significant harbinger of prophetic doom awaiting this hapless hazard called earth is the shocking fulfillment of the Abomination of Desolation, highlighted by Daniel the Prophet, while receiving immense credibility from Jesus in His Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14)—the incarnation of Satan into the body of Antichrist whereby the title of the Beast is given, coupled with the desecration of a soon-to-be rebuilt Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem signaling the final struggle between the children of light against the children of darkness.  The ethnicity of this despicable act has significant eschatological consequence – for if sundry hypotheses persist then the exclusivity of Antichrist’s arousal from the abyss will be from the immediate north and east of Jerusalem – or is our restriction between Rome and Nineveh, between the Western and Eastern legs of the Image Non sequitur, illogical in its foundation, a false starter? 

Again, so little has been written on this ultimate desecration that Desmond Ford’s research on the topic for his doctoral thesis exhausted its study so quickly (in English).  He was forced to fulfill his discoveries in multi-languages; and this too was an exercise in miniscule futility.  In the end Ford resorted to the Historicist refuge and his Seventh-Day Adventist roots wherein the Abomination of Desolation is naught but an extended concept of the “spirit of antichrist” wrought through the amalgam of Church and State mixture (though true to a certain extent – it wholly obfuscates the Man of Sin and conceals his true identity).  Yet, one would think, that at the conclusion of Jesus’ ministry, His Olivet declaration of this awful prophetic happening would deserve much weightier consideration. 

Thus, this miscellaneous writing shall be subjected to the text, Antichrist, Reflections on the Desolator as an appendix– now gradually rendered in podcast, so one may both read and listen to the text simultaneously – the final two-part saga of this verbose disclosure, for The Assyrian is legitimately one of Antichrist’s manifold entitlements.

BLAMING THE CATHOLICS FOR A LITERAL ANTICHRIST IS WRONG!

First, and though this may appear tangential, it is necessary to clear the air a bit insofar as the literal Antichrist, yet future.  Therefore, let me disabuse my fellow evangelical brethren who continually blame the Catholic theologian, Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) for perpetrating the so-called falsehood of a physical Antichrist to arrive at the end of days:

(Jesuit Francisco Ribera) [A]ssigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John's own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half years' reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that Antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world--all in this brief space of three and one-half literal years!” (Prophetic Faith Vol.2 p. 490 – Seventh-Day Adventist Writing - Adventist Biblical Truths)

Also – another Jesuit is blamed for a literal Antichrist:

“There was also (Saint) Robert Bellarmine, Jesuit, cardinal and theologian who, as an outstanding controversialist opposing the Protestant doctrines of the Reformation, was regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as one of its most powerful defenders. He entered the Society of Jesus in 1560....He was a lecturer at the new Jesuit College in Rome.”

“Between 1576 and 1589, in addition to his teaching Bellarmine lectured to large audiences. He insisted that the prophecies concerning Antichrist in Daniel, Paul and John, had no application to the papal power. This formed the third part of his Disputations de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos published between 1581-1593.” (The Counter Reformation Antichrist?  Who Could That Be? – From:  Adventist Biblical Truths)

Putting the blame on the Catholics by Historicists via the likes of the Seventh Day Adventists – who, like their Reformational Protestant brethren acclaimed the Papacy as the Seat of Antichrist and the entire Roman Catholic Church system as “the Antichrist” – is a blatant denial of historical fact – i.e., the Counter Reformation did not dream up a literal Antichrist to take the heat off the Papacy.  For if that be so, then why did Hippolytus cir. 200 AD declare with great vehemence the coming of the future Antichrist – along with a literal yet to be fulfilled full seven year Seventieth Week of Daniel (unlike the Seventh-Day Adventists and their Historicist pals who claim that the entire seven years has passed or parts thereof – please see:  Early Church Fathers, Our Prophetic Legacy by Doug Krieger?  Let all the Seventh Day Adventists admit to their utter ignorance on this matter and quit blaming the Jesuits for a literal Antichrist!  Shame on you for rewriting history!  Please read Hippolytus’ entire tractate:  On Christ and Antichrist – then be done with your historical revisionism!

Furthermore, the first Latin Theologian from Slovenia no less, who prior to 300 AD (for he was martyred in 303 AD) wrote an entire Commentary on the Apocalypse – Victorinus, bishop of Poetouio in Upper Pannonia, now Ptuj on the Drava in Yugoslavia, wholly confirms the literal Antichrist, yet future.  Victorinus spoke of this future and literal Antichrist who shall come upon this earthly clod – and said so in its entirety (i.e., his complete work on the commentary on the Book of Revelation, unlike the fragments found of Greek theologians on John’s Apocalypse (Justin Martyr and Irenaeus; Melito of Sardis and Hippolytus of Rome) . . . “the Vulgate Apocalypse is a masterpiece of literature and comes home to the reader with a charm and a vigor all its own” (F. F. Bruce, see below for reference). 

F.F. Bruce, though in fellowship with the Dispensationalist Plymouth Brethren, never avowed their eschatology; therefore, are we not surprised that when he supervised Desmond Ford’s Abomination of Desolation dissertation and proclaimed it to be in the tradition of the Historicists, therefore, Ford could find no literal Antichrist connected with the Abomination of Desolation?  F. F. Bruce, however, and perhaps reluctantly, at least admitted to the early Church Fathers and their belief in a literal millennium prior to the Church’s subjection to Origen’s influences and the Roman Empire’s justification for the merger of the Kingdom of God upon this earth is literally now—we are living in the Millennium right now!

Notwithstanding, Victorinus proclaimed a literal Antichrist yet to be, even the Assyrian:  Assur is the Antichrist  (See p. 363 of F. F. Bruce, “The Earliest Latin Commentary on the Apocalypse,” The Evangelical Quarterly 10 (1938): pp. 352-366).  Nevertheless, the damage to F. F. Bruce’s understanding of eschatology was severely tainted by his own confession from the Preterist writings of one Phillip Mauro – a man whose eschatological writing deserved my utter contempt! (Please See:  What is a Jew?, by Dene McGriff and Doug Krieger)

“Phillip Mauro identifies the ‘willful king’ with Herod the Great.  (Mauro’s study, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation), came under my observation in my earliest teens, and made a deep impression on my mind which has not yet been completely effaced” (A Mind for What Matters, F. F. Bruce, 1990, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 186).  Tragically, the impression was made upon the brilliant Manchester, England brain of F. F. Bruce, who in turn received his initial poison from Phillip Mauro’s denial of the Jew, the Antichrist and the future Millennium and his disdain for Dispensationalism – Bruce’s flirtation with the Plymouth Brethren must have been a great exercise in futility for the Brethren!  That said, Mauro and Bruce were ardent believers in Christ—simply terribly confused regarding eschatology – though Bruce knew full-well the conviction of the early Church fathers.

“The first commentators interpreted the Apocalypse more literally than their successors: in particular, they accepted the ‘chiliastic’ view of the millennial reign of chapter xx (i.e., Revelation 20). ‘These writers were acquainted with the original interpretation of this chapter. But this interpretation was soon displaced by the spiritualizing methods of Alexandria. Tyconius, adopting these methods, rejected the literal interpretation of chapter xx, treated the millennium as the period between the first and second advents of Christ. Jerome and Augustine followed, in the footsteps of Tyconius, and a realistic eschatology was crushed out of existence in the Church for full 800 years.’ Justin, Irenaeus and Hippolytus all belonged to this school, and Victorinus followed in their steps. “Like them he was a Chiliast, and still preserved elements of the true and ancient interpretation. of the Apocalypse according to the Contemporary-Historical Method. Thus Nero redivivus is the first Beast, and the False Prophet is the second. But his most important contribution historically is his ‘Theory of Recapitulation.” (Ibid)

Furthermore, although Victorinus acclaims the future Antichrist as the Assyrian (perhaps not a literal one but an archetype of Antichrist yet to come) he is absolutely clear regarding the full Seventieth Week of Daniel yet future to the astounding chagrin of those believers among the Seventh Day Adventists and others persuaded by the Reformational Protestants that the whole or portions of the seven-year time frame have been fulfilled—i.e., there is no future antagonist known as the literal Antichrist:

“After these two have prophesied for three and a half years (Note:  The first 3.5 years.), they are killed by the beast which comes up from the abyss, and rise again after three days and a half, i.e. “on the fourth day”, not on the third, “that none might be found equal to God.’  The beast or Antichrist, who then proceeds to reign for a further period of three and a half years (Note:  The next 3.5 years – and, though unclear, Victorinus places the 3.5 days after the Abomination of Desolation which we affirm to be the same 3.5 years of the Reign of the Antichrist-Beast), Victorinus finds foretold by Isaiah (viii. 7) and Ezekiel (xxxi. 3) as the king of Assyria or the Assyrian, and by Paul (2 Thess. ii. 3ff.) as the man of lawlessness or the lawless one.”  (Ibid. F. F. Bruce, p. 363)

ASSYRIA AND BABYLON – HEREIN IS THE LINK

Now, much ancient Assyrian history or the Neo-Assyrian Kingdom/Era in this constriction will have to suffice severe abridgement.  Notwithstanding my rejection of the literal, ethnic Assyrian Antichrist, there are some amazing eschatological connections of Assyria with the coming of the future Antichrist…but first…

“Ancient Assyria’s timeline spans from 5000 BCE, when its first sites were inhabited, to 609 BCE when Ashur-Uballit II, the last Assyrian king, retreated in defeat at Harran.  Ancient Assyria is the term used to describe a region on the Upper Tigris River, named for its original capital, the ancient city of Assur. According to some Judeo-Christian traditions, the city of Ashur was founded by Ashur the son of Shem, who was deified by later generations as the city’s patron god.”

“The upper Tigris River valley seems to have been ruled from Sumer, Akkad, and northern Babylonia in its earliest stages, and was part of Sargon the Great's empire. Assyria proper was located in a mountainous region, extending along the Tigris as far as the high Gordiaean or Carduchian mountain range of Armenia, sometimes called the ‘Mountains of Ashur.’” (Ancient Assyria, Ancient Metaphysics – the Foundations of Philosophy – Note:  I do not concur with all these inclusions from the Foundations of Philosophy but they are, in the main, accurate.)

Assyria’s fascination for astronomy and ipso facto astrology was extensive – invention of the world’s first telescopic lens can be found in the British Museum in room 55, case 9 of the Lower Mesopotamian Valley; unearthed in 1850 from the Nimrud Palace Complex in northern Iraq by Sir John Layard (Ibid.).

Their passion for astrology knew no end – you might say they were so enthralled with its divinations that their entire society centered on the subject; to wit:

“Using Astrology, for the interpretation of omens, some of Assurbanipal's astrologers, such as Rammanu-sumausar and Nabu-musisi, became so adept at interpreting omens from daily movements of the planets that a system of making periodical reports to the king came into being.”  (Ibid. Ancient Assyria, Ancient Metaphysics)

To the Assyrians the planets were the gods…

“The planets were truly gods, not mere celestial bodies. What we now call the planet Venus was the goddess Ishtar, for example, and similarly Jupiter was Marduk, the chief Babylonian god.  However, neither the 360º Zodiac, nor (the) 30º Zodiac divisions were as yet used astrologically to describe the position of the planets.”  (Babylonian-Assyrian Ittu [Omen] Astrology Before 550 BC)

The Assyrian connection becomes all the more illuminated insofar as the historicity and theological implications derived from these associations:

“NIMROD (ii, 'n3; Septuagint, NE,6pw& : various reading in Gen. 10:8, NE t 3pc.v: Vulg. Nemrod). Nimrod is only mentioned in three passages in the Bible; in Micah 5:6 Assyria is called ‘the land of Nimrod,’ and I Chron. 1:10 quotes a portion of the third, the most important reference, Gen. 10:8-12. The last named is ascribed to one of the oldest writers of the Pentateuch, the Yahwist; but not perhaps to the oldest stratum of his work (Ball, Sacred Books of the Old Testament). In Gen. 10:8, as Jabal was the inventor of music, so Nimrod was the first warrior, gibbor, the first hunter, ‘he became a mighty hunter, gibbor cayidh, before Yahweh, so that it is said, ‘A mighty hunter before Yahweh like Nimrod’; the first builder of cities and ruler of a widespread dominion, ‘the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth into Assyria,’ and built Nineveh, Rehoboth, Ir, Calah and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city).’ The general statement that Assyria was originally an offshoot and dependence of Babylon is substantially in accordance with Assyrian and Babylonian authorities.”  (Nimrod, Classic Encyclopedia)

There is slight confusion as to the identity of Nimrod—just who built Nineveh (was it Asshur or was it Nimrod; was it the Assyrian or was it Nimrod?).  The Darby Version is helpful but all the more mystery surrounds…

 ⁸And Cush begot Nimrod: he began to be mighty on the earth.

 ⁹He was a mighty hunter before (Lit:  against) Jehovah; therefore it is said, As Nimrod, the mighty hunter before Jehovah!

 ¹⁰And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

 ¹¹From that land went out Asshur, and built Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah,

 ¹²and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah: this is the great city.

We also find:

“The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim , Put, and Canaan…Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth…Canaan begot Sidon (as in ‘Tyre and Sidon’)” and the race of the Canaanites commenced (I Chronicles 1:8-13).

Previously, we have discussed these Biblical linkages regarding Noah’s “curse” upon Ham which befell on Canaan (Genesis 9:25 – “Cursed be Canaan” – who defamed the man (Noah) created in the “image of God”) – the 11 sons of Canaan (Genesis 10:15-18) are juxtaposed to the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel (“11” in numerology bears witness to Antichrist—the 11th horn and to Judas Iscariot making the 12 disciples 11; whereas, 12 is the divine calculation of the Triune God (3) times the creation of man (4) = 12 or God and man in multiple harmony and relationship).  Here we have the “struggle” for the land until this day.  The word “Canaan” actually means “Merchant” – herein lies the epistemological origins of commercialism and its linkage (King of Tyre; of the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Punic people and Ships/Merchants of Tarshish—the Western trading nations) to Israel’s apostasy (Jezebel and King Ahab) until Babylon’s commercial exploitations (Revelation 18) are consumed by fiery judgment at the close of this age and the prophetic pronouncements of Zechariah are heard in the House of the Lord:  “In that day (i.e., the Millenarian Reign of Messiah) there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of Hosts” (Zechariah 14:21)…our “prosperity gospel” folks and their incessant commercial prattling will cease and desist once and for all!

Although commercialism abides within the “curse of Canaan” – with religious overtones (apostasy – and, indeed, when commercialism is mixed with religion it is thence bedeviled as “apostasy” and this is precisely why distinguishing “religious Babylon” as found in Revelation 17 with “commercial Babylon” found in Revelation 18 is nigh so similar in its composition that it appears that “religious Babylon” and “commercial Babylon” are one in the same – just as it was in the days of Jezebel and King Ahab) – political Babylon is definitely associated with Nimrod’s exploits, whose defiance against the Lord, as well as his reliance upon political will and armaments, coupled with religion, make him an ideal prototype of the final Antichrist.  Therefore, Nimrod’s connection with Antichrist is altogether plausible for Nimrod’s astrological fascinations are renowned (See:  Rev. Alexander Hislop’s: The Two Babylons – The Worship of Nimrod and his Wife, Chapter 2, Section 2, Sub-Section 1, The Child in Assyria)

It is, therefore, no small affair as Assyria, prior to Babylon, moved upon Israel’s 10 Northern Tribes, bringing them into captivity in 772 BC (the so-called Ten Lost Tribes).  Then Neo-Babylonia under King Nebuchadnezzar took the remainder of the Israelites from Judah and Benjamin, deporting them in 597 BC.  Therefore, the linkage of Assyria – Nimrod – Babylon is most probable; and surely, to wholly distinguish the “land of the north” as wholly Babylon without Assyrian influences and approximations borders on intellectual myopia (Ref. Zechariah 2:6; 6:6, 8)…this brings us to the ASSYRIAN ANTICHRIST; from whence its origins?

The enigma abides:  Did Nimrod go out and build Nineveh or did Asshur go out and build Nineveh?

Assyria is referred to as the “land of Nimrod” (Micah 5:6).  Chuck Missler (Personal Update, October, 2002, p.8) suggests that “It is provocative that the Prophet Micah refers to this final conqueror as the ‘Assyrian.’” So the issue persists:  The futurity of Micah 5:5-15 casts Israel in her Millenarian role (Note:  Both Dwight Pentecost and Tim LaHaye assert the Antichrist timeframe of these passages – see Pentecost, Things To Come, p. 352 and Tim LaHaye’s Prophecy Study Bible, p. 960).  “The remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples” and “Thus He (Messiah) shall deliver us from the Assyrian, when he (i.e., the Assyrian) comes into our land and when he treads within our borders” (Micah 5:6).  Therefore, from “the Assyrian” who is from “the land of Assyria” which in like manner is called “the land of Nimrod,” can we, therefore, take “Assyria” literally?

PHILLIP GOODMAN AND THE ETHNIC REVIVED ASSYRIA AND THE ASSYRIAN ANTICHRIST

Perhaps one of the most vociferous proponents of the “literal Assyrian” Antichrist hypothesis is one, Phillip Goodman, who is the director of the current and very popular annual Prophecy Conference held in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Goodman has his naysayers who, like David Reagan of Lamb and Lion Ministries (Article Titled:  Antichrist A Moslem ? “The Assyrian Connection”) refute Goodman’s well-articulated conjectures – and, although I do not support the literal Assyrian (or, most definitely, not a reincarnation of Nimrod) as the Antichrist so proposed by a Peter Goodgame (not Phillip Goodman), I do respect his intelligent and cogent arguments propounded in his thesis; to wit:

1)      The specific identity of the Beast lies in the identity of the “slain” Head.

a)      Though 6 of the 7 Heads of the Beast live, the Beast does not live until the “slain” Head comes to life.

2)      The 7 heads are 7 Mountain-Kings, that is, 7 Empires.

a)      Among the 4 Kingdoms of Dan 2, the “king” of Babylon is also the “kingdom” of Babylon (Dan. 2:38-39), which is also a “mountain” (Jer. 51:25), & Greece has 4 “heads” (Dan. 7:6) which are also 4 Grecian “kingdoms” (Dan. 8:22), & all of these are superseded by the “kingdom” of Christ (Dan. 2:44) which is also a great “mountain” (Dan. 2:35).

b)      Before Satan gives his accumulated worldly Empires to the Beast, these same “7 heads” are seen under his control with crowns on them (Rev. 12:3)—signifying Satan’s temporary kingship over kingdoms (Matt. 4:8-10; John 12:31).

c)      Daniel 7 shows 4 Beast Empires with a total of 7 Heads. Revelation 13 shows the same 4 Beast Empires joined together into a single composite Beast Empire, but with the same 7 Heads.  Since the 7 Heads of Daniel 7 are Empire-Heads, so too must the 7 Heads of Revelation 13 be Empire-Heads.

3)      The 7 Empires are Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome I (Note:  Meaning the Roman Empire of antiquity) and the Ottoman Empire.

 (Krieger’s Note:  It is absurd to project the Ottoman Empire in the context of John’s Apocalypse in that John is writing from “These are also seven kings (i.e., Gentile World Powers juxtaposed to Israel) five have fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece), one is (Roman Empire of antiquity), and the other has not yet come.”  For Goodman to assert this “one to come” is the Ottoman Empire is both ludicrous and utter conjecture in that the Ottoman Empire had dissolved prior to Israel’s rebirth in 1948 and is inconsequential to Israel’s future history, or he conjectures that Assyria shall revive and since it was once a part of the Ottoman Empire, then his thesis holds firm; furthermore, the Ottoman Empire could hardly be considered “a short time” – its duration was nigh 600+ years ending in 1923)

a)      Of the kingdoms impacting Israel’s history and prophetic future, all are comparative molehills alongside the 7 “mountain-size” kingdoms—or Empires—which dominated the world of their times.

4)      Chronologically, one of the Empires has a double existence because the Beast comes as an 8th Empire—yet there are only 7! 

(Krieger Note:  To suggest that the Ottoman Empire, Goodman’s Seventh, is Revived as the Eighth, is stretching the metal – and makes the “base of Antichrist” the Revival of ancient Assyria and/or somehow its own Caliphate or Moslem Empire ready to descend upon Israel as Gog – which in point of biblical fact would be Antichrist vs. Antichrist – utter nonsense and, frankly, somewhat absurd!  Furthermore, Goodman must, to be consistent with his argument, produce a literal Assyrian as Antichrist in that his Ottoman-Assyrian connection makes it mandatory.)

a)      The Beast has only 7 heads—not 8 (Rev. 13:1 & Rev 17:3, 7, 9, 11).

b)      Head 8, then, is one of the 7—just as Rev. 17:11 says.

c)      Therefore, one of the heads—or Empires—has a double existence!

(Krieger Note:  Indeed, Goodman’s “double existence” is altogether clear to this proponent of the Antichrist being the apex of Western Man, the pinnacle of Gentile World Power (which, of course, is currently embodied in the leadership of the United States of America—a proposition that most of the “patriotic prophets” both abhor and are determined to diminish to the uttermost in order to make room for the WEU expression of Antichrist; or, as is the case of their affiliate, Goodman, the eastern leg of the former Roman Empire or the Seventh King, Ottoman Empire and its wounded-head counterpart, the ancient Revived Assyrian Empire and THE Assyrian himself as Antichrist, perhaps even the reincarnation of none other than Nimrod, juxtaposed to the future Revived Roman Empire, and let’s say, the reincarnation of Nero. 

(Krieger Casual Note: To say that Bible prophecy is not predictive is absurd – sorry, Barbara Rossing in her inane attempts to trifle with evangelical fundamentalism in her The Rapture Exposed – it is predictive; by definition Biblical prophecy foresees the future – we eschatologists simply disagree a whole lot sometimes, but it does not make Bible prophecy less predictive.)

Goodman, very cleverly asserts that the Seventh Empire to come is the Ottoman Empire, surely not connected to anything Western or Roman in its origins.  He toys with the Ottoman Empire in that its jurisdiction occupied much of the Eastern Roman Empire—but could hardly be considered “a short time.”  Likewise, he therefore creates another major break in the evolution of empires yet future – a break between the Seventh and the Eighth empire of Revelation—which is not supported by the text.  The only Seventh Empire who has had major interplay with Israel in the present constellation of world nations and powers has been the United States of America.

That said, the “Seventh King” is Daniel’s “Seventh Head” (Rev. 17:10; Daniel 7:7) with Ten Horns and mirrors the Seven-Headed, Ten-Horned Beast of Revelation 17:9-14.  Simply put, the Fourth Beast found in Daniel 7 is not specifically the ancient Roman Empire (as G.H. Lang cautions – p. 190, Appendix A, The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel – though it must be considered the “fourth in succession” to the original three—i.e., the ultimate and final outburst of Gentile World Power) – neither is the Seven-Headed/Ten-Horned Beast from the Abyss in Revelation 13:1-2 specifically an expression of a Revived Roman Empire or, in Goodman’s case, a Revived Assyrian Empire or national identity, but is wholeheartedly the expression and culmination, as well as composite, of Gentile World Power.  The closest that Daniel comes to Rome’s immediate prophetic imposition in history is found in Daniel 9:26 wherein “the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” prior to the historic interlude between Jerusalem’s first destruction in 70 AD and her latter-day “defense pact/covenant” with the “Coming Prince” (See: Sir Robert Anderson’s The Coming Prince).  The “prince who is to come” does not directly destroy the  Herodian Temple, for this one is surely the antithesis of Messiah the Prince (Daniel 9:25) and must be considered as the Antichrist or the anti-Prince, for this destroyer’s people (which cannot describe Messiah the Prince) laid waste to Jerusalem and her temple in 70 AD and were most assuredly led by Titus of Rome.  The notion that these Roman soldiers hailed, in the main, from ancient Assyria or Syria, and therefore adds credibility to Goodman’s arguments, is utter nonsense – no, all of history demands that Roman Legions destroyed Jerusalem and the Herodian Temple.  Furthermore, “the people of the prince” confirms that this “coming prince” who destroys and makes desolate, the ultimate desolator, is connected to those who destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple.  It is that relationship which demands the WESTERN character (not necessarily the Rome, Italy character) of the future Antichrist – not necessarily a Revived Roman Empire but, most definitely, the uttermost extension and assuredly, the leadership of the West…that is without equivocation.

For the “Seventh Head/Seventh King” who sprouts Ten Heads/Ten Horns/Ten Crowns from whence outcrops the Eleventh Horn, can be none other than Daniel’s Anti-Prince, the Antichrist; therefore, as this Anti-Prince’s culmination of final Gentile World Power descends upon the final stage of prophetic fulfillment he must be referred to as now only “the prince who is to come” but “the other has not yet come…and when he comes, he must continue a short time” (indeed, this is NOT the longevity of the Ottoman Empire of Goodman, for it lasted nigh 623 years – unless Goodman’s idea of “a short time” is different from mine)

5)      There are 3 chronological periods in Revelation 17 that are framed around John’s time (the time of Rome) and outline a chronological order of existence for both the 7 Empires and for the Beast & his Empire.

a)      Jesus Christ sets a precedent in Rev. 1:19 for a past, present, and future chronological system in Revelation.

b)      This system is confirmed—with John himself as the reference point—by the Rev. 17:12 statement that, from John’s perspective, the 10 Kings are still future.

c)      Revelation 17:8-11 places the time of both the Beast and the 7 Empires within this timeframe.

6)      The Beast comes from the “Was” period—or the “East” sector of Rome (all of the “Was” Empires were from the east).

a)      Is there anything that would prevent the Beast from coming from the East since he must be a Roman (Dan. 9:26)?

b)      The “east” sectors of Rome are still Rome just as Dan. 8:22 says the “east” sectors of Greece are still Greece.

c)      The 10 Kings are already a complete Revived Roman Empire (Rev 17:17) before the 11th King-Beast arrives (Dan. 7:24, “after them”).  Revived Rome already exists before the Beast.

7)      The Beast comes from a slain and resurrected Empire.

a)      One of the Beast’s heads is slain and Revived in Rev. 13.3.

b)      Since the 7 heads are identified in Rev. 17 as 7 Empires, one of the Beast’s Empires has been “slain” & “resurrected.”

c)      If the “head” that was slain had been one of the 4 heads on the Dan. 7 “leopard,” it would have been one of the Grecian kingdoms that was “slain.”

d)     The Beast is Empire #8, but there are only 7, meaning one Empire has a double existence, having been “slain” & “resurrected.”

(Krieger Note:  The faulty reasoning of Goodman, unfortunately, seriously undermines his propositions of the Assyrian Antichrist.  For one, Revelation 13:3 simply states that “one of his heads” (i.e., seven heads – Rev. 13:1) “had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed…and all the world marveled and followed the beast” – we are not told it is the “seventh head” per se, but simply “one of his heads.”  Later in Revelation 13:12 and 14 John states:  “whose deadly wound was healed . . . who was wounded by the sword and lived” – but, once again, we are left to conjecture as to which one of the heads was so wounded.  As close as we can get to the possibility of the “wounded head” being the Seventh or “out from one of the Seven” (viz. “one of the seven”) is this phrase:  “And when he comes (i.e., the Seventh), he must continue a short time…the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition” (Rev. 17:11).  We must view Revelation 17:10 (i.e., the “seven kings”) from two perspectives:  (1) These seven kings are empires; (2) They are individuals (Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great) or the very leadership of that Empire, which all of these so mentioned  were headed up by a Pharaoh or Caesar, etc.  Therefore, to lay stress on either the “Beast Nation” or the “Beast” himself, obfuscates the other side of the coin.  What comes up out of the sea in Revelation  13:1-10 is clearly both:  The Beast Nation as well as the Beast in that Revelation 13:2-4 clearly points to Empire, although it is most definitely intertwined with the person of the Beast; whereas Revelation 13:5-8 decisively points to the singularity of evil, the Beast – the worship of an empire is ludicrous; likewise, “Who is like the beast?  Who is able to make war with him?” (Rev. 13:4b) obviously has a duality of meaning, Beast and Beast Nation. 

Hence, we must carefully comprehend the meaning of Revelation 13:3 in the context of “one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded” does not reside, if at all, in our understanding as a Beast Nation, so much as it points us to an individual, the Antichrist – whose assassination attempt results in the Abomination of Desolation (i.e., “his deadly wound was healed”).  And, this is all the more substantiated by the chronological fact that it is mid-way through the Seventieth Week of Daniel wherein the Beast commences his persecution of the saints, the Two Witnesses, “your people”:  “When they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them” (Revelation 11:7).  Again, the chronological significance of this is full proof in that the first 3.5 years (3.5 days) of the Seventieth Week of Daniel the Two Witnesses have unmitigated release of prophetic testimony (“And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth” – Rev. 11:3).  Then the Antichrist becomes the Beast through the Abomination of Desolation, at which point we understand the meaning of this:  “…for it (the “compromised Court of the Gentiles”) has been given to the Gentiles…and they (the Gentiles) will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months…nations will see their dead body three-and-a-half days…Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them…then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days…where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent” (Revelation 11:2, 9, 11; 12:6, 14 – also Daniel 12:7 in reference to the plight of the Holy People – “that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time”).  It is not until the mid-way point of the Seventieth Week that we hear of the Beast; therefore, the verses in Revelation 13:1-10 have a profoundly singular, as well as corporate, implication; however, the wound and the so-called “healing” thereof pinpoint the Beast as a personality, not as a recovering empire.

What Goodman has done is to eliminate the singularity of the Beast himself from Revelation 13 and fixate wholly upon the Beast Nation or Empire—therein is found his Achilles Heel.

Here, this author affirms, that it is indeed the seventh head and/or the coming end-time Gentile World Power whose leadership is personified in its supreme authority whose “head” is but a “short time” (even so is America’s Empire of short duration compared to most world Empires) and/or the final Anti-Prince shall find his rule cut off – so it would appear that in the midst of the Seventieth Week the Abomination of Desolation occurs and the fullness of evil, through the incarnation of Satan into the body of the Anti-Prince occurs…and so his destination “the eighth…is going into perdition” (i.e., destruction) or as the Apostle Paul calls him, the “son of perdition” (II Thess. 2:3) which echoes Jesus’ description wherein Satan entered into Judas wherefore Jesus called this Judas “son of perdition/destruction” (John 17:12; Luke 22:3)

As a side bar, unwittingly, Goodman’s Islamic Assyrian Antichrist, fits into Nostradamus’ “Third Antichrist”  being Muslim (Napoleon being the first, Hitler the second and the third a Moslem, Mabus (some say of OsaMA or even ObaMA (the secret Muslim) and George W. BUSh or MABUS); or forbid, could be Nostradamus’ ALUS or “ALied US forces” Nostradamus Names the Third Antichrist, Baha’i Faith, Universal House of Justice); which proves, if you want the bizarre, we can delve into that cesspool of wisdom any time to “spice it up” a bit.

8)      The only slain/resurrected Empire is Assyria.

a)      The other Empires have an “extended life” after they lose their dominion (Dan 7:12; compare Dan 2:35).

b)      History bears out that Assyria disappeared without a trace from history while the other kingdoms shrank back, but lived on.

(Krieger Note:  “Resurrected” only in the sense if it is Goodman’s Ottoman Empire or is it his resurrected Assyrian Empire in the form of a Latter-day Eighth Empire yet to be?)

9)      The land of the extinct Empire of “Assyria” became “Syria,” and was the land of the ‘proto-antichrist,’ Antiochus IV, from whose land & legacy will stem the final Antichrist.

a)      Both the Assyrian namesake & the Assyrian political realm became Syria.

b)      In both Dan 8 & 11 the Syrian Antiochus merges almost imperceptibly into the final antichrist.

c)      Syria (Assyria) reappears in the “latter time of their rule” to produce the Antichrist (Dan 8:23).

d)     The Beast is “like” Greece in Rev. 13:2, whose Syrian sector was dominant among the 4 Grecian “heads.”

(Krieger Note:  Goodman’s reasoning here, though articulate, makes Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Grecian Seleucid King wholly Syrian—which could not be further from the truth.  Daniel’s prophetic outburst has Alexander the Great’s single horn breaking into four from whence the “little horn” out of one of the horns arises—this is Antichrist, no doubt, but he is strictly associated with the Grecian himself, Alexander the Great.  In so far as ancient Assyria being subsumed by ancient and even modern Syria, this would virtually preclude Nineveh’s engagement and ipso facto Nimrod; however, Goodman may wish to extend the boundaries of the “Syrian Empire” to the Seleucid boundaries which then would include nigh the boundaries of the Persian Empire and most definitely, ancient Assyria.)

10)  The “Prince of Assyria” of Daniel 10 ascends out of the Pit and gives the Beast-Empire a double existence, and gives the Beast-Person a double personage….MORE IN THE BOOK… (Taken from The Assyrian Connection, by Phillip Goodman of ProphecyWatch.com)

(Krieger Note:  I have no idea from whence Goodman derives the phrase “Prince of Assyria” from Daniel 10 unless he adjudges the following to be his “Prince of Assyria”:  “but the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me …. Now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia” (Daniel 10:13, 20).  The “prince of Persia’ is juxtaposed to the “prince of Greece” in Daniel 10:20 – as far as the “Prince of Assyria” goes – there is no mention; perhaps, however, Goodman foresees that Persia is in point of fact Assyria – the USA now in ancient Assyria (Northern Iraq) might find that a bit disconcerting?)

LATIN ORIGINS OF THE ASSYRIAN ANTICHRIST

Proponents of the Assyrian Antichrist are keen to produce our aforementioned obscure text – though wholly accurate – recorded by the Church’s first truly Slovenian Bible Scholar (Latin), Victorinus Poetovionensis, around 260 AD in his Commentary on the Apocalypse (in which the complete work is in tack and decidedly, to the chagrin of anti-millenarians, wholly given over to chiliasm – in 398 AD Jerome tampered with the commentary to conform it to the Church’s rush to replacement theology, i.e., the Jews have been disinherited and there is no future proprietary Millennium position for the Jew).  Victorinus quotes from Micah and then very bluntly states:  “Assur, that is, Antichrist.” 

Others fascinated by the Assyrian Antichrist include Chuck Missler of Koinonia House in The Return of Nimrod; a former Muslim, Walid Shoebat in Why I Left Jihad  (2005) – Walid’s debate in Prophezine is excellent;  Joseph Chambers in The Rebirth of the Assyrians; and David Winston Busch in The Assyrian:  Satan, His Christ & the Return of the Shadow of Degrees (2006)

THE ASSYRIAN ANTICHRIST of G.H. Lang vs. THE WEST

Prior to the initial perpetrators of an Assyrian as Antichrist, we acknowledge that the titles of Antichrist include those of the King of Babylon, as well as “the Assyrian.”  Allow me to quote from the eschatological elegance of G. H. Lang, who, on the one hand rightly ascribes the Assyrian in the legacy of the future Antichrist, but on the other hand, as far as I can ascertain, has allowed his Biblical literalism to becloud his Biblical insights – just as those who claim a literal Babylon upon the plains of Mesopotamian to be the Babylon of Revelation 17-18.

“1. In Isa. 10:5, 12, 24 he (Antichrist) is called ‘the Assyrian,’ and the context is wholly of the last days, of the ‘consummation determined,’ of the return to Zion of the ‘little remnant,’ of the ‘shoot out of the stock of Jesse’ establishing His authority, destroying this ‘Assyrian,’ relieving nature of the curse, and the earth being ‘full of the knowledge of the glory of Jehovah.’  It is the time when the Root of Jesse shall be the centre of the nations, when the remainder of Israel still dispersed will be gathered, and they shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel being in their midst (ch. 12).  As before mentioned (p. 18, n), in the time of Israel ‘Assyria’ included Babylonia.”

“2. In other places Antichrist is styled ‘the king of the north’ (Jer. 1:14; Ezek. 26:7, a term, as far as we see, regularly meaning in Scripture Assyria.  To one in Palestine Assyria was the kingdom of the north, because its territory did in fact extend so far up the Euphrates valley as to be north of the Holy Land, but yet more because its armies, not being able to cross the wide deserts to the east of Palestine, went up north and turned southward to attack Palestine.  The term is to be distinguished from ‘the uttermost parts of the north,’ as in Ezek. 38:6, 15; 39:2, a region then apparently indicating the countries north Armenia between the Black and Caspian seas, or further north in Scythia; regions so untraversed by the more southern races that they were to them among ‘the uttermost parts.’” (The Histories and Prophecies of Daniel, G. H. Lang, The Paternoster Press, London, 1950, pp. 114-5)

Lang continues his thesis of the Assyrian (Heb. Asshur) with Antichrist but tragically and unnecessarily demands that the Assyrian of the Latter Days be a literal Assyrian:

“Therefore Antichrist will be the king of Assyria with Babylon as his capital, which of old was in the dominion of Seleucus, who gained the eastern area of the empire of Alexander.  Thus when Antichrist arises he will not come at Rome, or anywhere in the West.  Had this been understood many vain and misleading speculations would have been avoided, such as that of the Pope, or the Papacy, or Napoleon, or others, being he.  And when he comes his military efforts will be expended mainly upon Egypt and the south, the east, and Palestine” (Ibid. pp. 115-6).

It is clear from his aforementioned text that Lang has in mind a literal Babylon along the Tigris-Euphrates and a literal king of Assyria as the Antichrist.

Lang has erred in his exegesis of Daniel 11 wherein his “King of the North” is the Antichrist (thereby justifying his claim of the Assyrian Antichrist) – whereas, as we have pointed out from Robert Duncan Culver’s excellent interpretations, it is the King of the North and the King of the South who come up against and attack “him” – i.e., the Antichrist (Daniel and the Latter Days, Robert Duncan Culver, Fleming H. Revell Company, 1954; Ref. Daniel 11:40-45).

The cardinal error in these erroneous eschatological musings by numerous evangelical writers relative to the Assyrian Antichrist being a literal ethnic Assyrian or the reincarnation of Nimrod, the Asshur, dissolves into a fundamental misunderstanding of the identity in the final verses of Daniel 11’s King of the North and the complete disregard of the identification of the “little horn” in both Daniel 7 and 8 wherein the necessity to reconcile the two simply amplifies the description of the Antichrist in both chapters as the same end-times’ character – i.e., the references to Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the prototype of the Assyrian (since he occupied the northern arena or Seleucid Empire) may endear him as a type of Nimrodian figure, but he was in every way decisively Greek in his heritage to the uttermost and sought to Hellenize the Jews during the Maccabean period.

Furthermore, the dual description of the “little horns” in Daniel 7 and 8 prefigures the precise origins of this end-time Willful King, the Antichrist – he is both Greek and Roman – he is Greco-Roman Man, Western Man, Western Civilization for in Daniel 8 he is described as Alexander the Great in his assault against the Medo-Persian Empire (Daniel 8:7-12) wherein this singular authority (i.e., horn) was broken into “four notable ones” but finally, “out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land…and it grew up to the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them…he even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast done…because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground…He did all this and prospered…then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, ‘How long will the vision be concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?’…and he said to me, ‘For two thousand three hundred days, then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.” (Daniel 8:7-14)

These verses clearly depict the WESTERN image of the “little horn” and are overwhelmingly prophetic, substantiated by this introduction:

“And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the WEST, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes” (Daniel 8:5).

Without controversy this is Alexander the Great whose WESTERN origins are indisputable.  We are forced to adjudge Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who came out of Syria to persecute the Jews and profane the temple between 171 and 164 B.C. as the prototype of the “little horn” of WESTERN origin, though his encampment was to the north and east of Jerusalem.

Furthermore, to neglect the same use of the phrase “little horn” as found in Daniel 7 (the Fourth Beast “had ten horns”) – which strategically precedes the little horn of Daniel 8 (i.e., Alexander the Great) – for it is the dominance of the first mentioning of this end-time Gentile World Power over his Greco “trait” and of its WESTERN extremity that immediately confronts Daniel – ROME:

“After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong.  It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet.  It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had TEN HORNS.  I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a LITTLE ONE, 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 watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking.  I watched till the beast was slain and its body destroyed and given to burning flame” (Daniel 7:7-8, 11).  The progression of these four empires is decisively WESTWARD.  Although the Fourth Beast is never designated without refutation, the Roman Empire, because of its succession to the other three kingdoms clearly in sequence – Neo-Babylonia, Medo-Persian, Greece – the fourth empire to afflict Israel was clearly Rome.

The cosmic vision of the “little horn” of Daniel 7 is indubitably naught but Antichrist in his fullness but utterly prejudiced from the fourth beast who supersedes the Grecian Leopard of Daniel 7:6—moving ever Westward.  That he is the ultimate Antichrist is decided by the intervention of the Ancient of Days vision of Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14 – interjected, interwoven into the account of the little horn speaking pompous words – until the “Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven . . . then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom” – yes, this is the Second Coming of Messiah who shall defeat the beast from the abyss.  But, be it known, he who is manifested as the fourth beast is of the WEST and speaks to Roman conquest . . . yet we cannot avoid his comparisons as the “little horn” of Daniel 8 which bespeaks of his complimentary Greco traits; therefore, we must conclude that this one is the full manifestation of Greco-Roman Man, Western Civilization – the apex of civilization.

The time frames of both Daniel 8 and 7 are of the final end of days – the vision of the Antichrist and of his beastly kingdom.

Thus, these two infractions – the exclusive connotations of equating Antiochus IV Epiphanes as the “little horn” to be other than Greco in his heritage (i.e., Assyrian or Syrian) and neglecting the complimentary implications of the Roman conquest, the fourth beast, of Daniel 7 as the fullness of Western advancement (i.e., “the prince to come” of the “people of the prince”  - who were the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem (the city) and the Temple in 70 AD – Daniel 9:26) until we see his image at its zenith in Revelation 13:2:

“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.  Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion.  The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.”

Be it known – this is the fullness of Gentile World Power as the kingdom of the Antichrist and the description of the Antichrist himself!  Behold:  Composite Catastrophe!  The leopard of Greece, the feet of the bear (Medo-Persia) and the mouth of a lion (Neo-Babylonia) – but altogether they constitute the final end-time Beast – not the Revived Roman Empire but of the ultimate manifestation of the kingdom of darkness.  He is decisively Greco-Roman in nature – logically evolving, developing until today we behold him shortly in his fullness.

These two “little horns” are speaking of the same personage – they are distinct, but they are two sides of the same coin.  Without their reconciliation and complimentary acknowledgement, confusion will reign regarding the origins of the Antichrist and of his fullness at the “end of days.”

GOODMAN vs. REAGAN - OR:  THE LEFT AND RIGHT LEG DEBATE

Now I quote from the research and exegesis of these learned evangelical Premillenarians in that the prophetic nuances are extremely defined in sincerity and forethought – both, as most of those with whom I beg to differ insofar as the origins of the final Antichrist – are original thinkers and steeped in the prophetic Scriptures.

Again, Goodman vs. Reagan is a good-natured feisty debate over the two legs of the so-called Revived Roman Empire – whose veiled allusions, aside from the “prince who is to come” are altogether debating about something which does not exist in the prophetic Scriptures aside, again, unless we take the Ten Horns of the Beast to mean the WEU or some other constellation of nations surrounding the Roman Sea of yesteryear, including its eastern leg (Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire or “Empire of the Greeks”) which technically outlasted its western leg by nearly a thousand years – Rome/West traditionally falling in 476 AD and Constantinople in 1453 AD – of interest is the so-called Holy Roman Empire, inheritor of Rome’s glory lasted from 962 AD (Otto I) to Francis II in 1806 or some 844 years – so you see, Rome doesn’t die easily.   And, insofar as Empire, Kaisers and Czars are concerned – Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Tsar Nicholas and Adolph Hitler all replicated the glory that was Rome – but take a trip to Washington, D.C. and behold the glory that was Rome!  No, Rome does not die easily.  But now let us consider the battle over the legs of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.

Goodman:

“THE ISSUE: Will the Antichrist and his Empire be strictly a Euro-centric, European-based, Rome-headquartered Empire, or will it be a Roman Empire-centered, Eastern-leg-based, Middle-eastern-headquartered Empire? The first is exclusively European and stands alone, aborting the Eastern leg. The second includes both Europe and the Middle East.”

Reagan:

“Furthermore, to deny that the empire (i.e., the empire of the Antichrist) (not) to be Revived is (sic. “as”) the Roman Empire is to deny the significance of the miraculous Revival of that empire in our day and time in the form of the European Union — an event that has been predicted by prophecy experts for several hundred years.”

Goodman:

“This is a flat contradiction of what I wrote.  For example, from page 25 in The Assyrian Connection is this statement:  Why are the eyes of much of the Christian world cast in the direction of Europe at this time?  What is the prophetic significance of the rush toward European unity?  The Revival of the Roman Empire…is a clear prerequisite to the return of Christ…

This kind of an oversight in a book Review makes the entire critique credulous. My contention is precisely that the Roman Empire will be Revived, and that every sign points to the rise of the European Union as a first step in that direction. That’s what the book says—and that’s what I teach. Why would someone who has read the book—and who has spoken at the Tulsa Prophecy Conference five times, where I have taught on this subject— think otherwise?”

“In The Assyrian Connection I make the case that the Bible gives strong indications the Antichrist will arise— not only from the Revived Roman Empire— but from the eastern wing of the Revived Roman Empire. Still, it is the Revived Roman Empire. To say, as Reagan does, that the Revived Roman Empire must be equated strictly with Europe is in error. This Eurocentric view evaporates in the light of both Biblical prophecy and secular history. Here is what respected prophecy author Chuck Missler, a close associate of Hal Lindsay, said in his Personal Update (11-02, p.3),   ... ‘while we understand that the [Antichrist] is predicted to come from the Roman Empire, we tend to be myopic regarding the extent of this designation: we tend to equate the Roman Empire with Western Europe, ignoring the eastern leg of this empire, which outlasted the western leg by a thousand years!’ Chuck Missler”

Reagan:

“So, if the type of the Antichrist—Antiochus Epiphanes— was from Seleucia [territorially, the earlier Assyrian Empire], then Goodman argues the Antichrist will also come from that same area (Syria/Iraq) and will thus be an Assyrian... But the primary focus of the chapter is on the personality and character of the Antichrist (verses 23-26), not on his origin.  But even more important is the fact that Antiochus Epiphanes was of Greek heritage.  He was not an Assyrian.”

“So, if the prophecy in Daniel 8 is pointing to the heritage of the Antichrist, it is indicating that he will be a Roman of Greek heritage.   Keep in mind that there are many other symbolic types of the Antichrist in Scripture besides Antiochus. They include such persons as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, King Saul of Israel, David’s son, Absalom, and King Herod.  Some of these are Jewish, but that does’t mean the Antichrist will be Jewish. One of the most significant, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was from Egypt, but that does’t mean the Antichrist will be an Egyptian...”

Goodman:

“Regarding Antiochus as a key to the origin of the Antichrist, let’s look to Reagan’s book God’s Plan For The Ages, page 147, where he says that Daniel 8:23 & 24 apply to the Antichrist. True. But look closely— verse 23 also says the Antichrist will arise “in the latter period of their rule.” That phrase “their rule” is keyed back to the previous verse which describes whose “rule” is in view: It is the “rule” of the 4 kingdoms which rose out of Alexander’s Greek Empire. One of these 4 kingdoms is the focus of the passage. It is the kingdom of Antiochus—namely the Syrian (Seleucia) sector. This is an Antichrist passage precisely because it focuses on “the latter period”— the Antichrist will arise during the latter period (latter days) rule of the Assyrian kingdom of Antiochus. Why the connection? (The modern name for that territory is Syria-Iraq)”

“Reagan credits as a consultant for his Review Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, the Christian-Jew Bible Scholar.  But Fruchtenbaum does not believe what Reagan says above, but instead says this,  ‘The only biblical type of the Antichrist is given in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, A Gentile’ (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah, Ariel Ministries Press, 1983, p. 212).”

Reagan:

“Nor do I believe there is any validity to the use of Micah 5:5 to determine the national identity of the Antichrist. Micah 5:3-15 is entirely about the Millennium. The Antichrist will be dead and gone during that time. Revelation 19:20-21 says that at the Second Coming of Jesus – at the end of the Tribulation – the Antichrist and his False Prophet will be thrown into the lake of fire where they will be tormented eternally (Rev. 20:10).  I believe that all the prophet is saying in Micah 5:5-6 is that during the Millennium the Lord will protect Israel from all its natural enemies – as symbolized by Assyria (the enemy of Israel at the time the prophet wrote).”

Goodman:

“The stretch that is required to wrench the term ‘Assyrian’ into something other than what it says would be admirable—except this is the Bible.   Reagan uses what he calls ‘flashbacks and flash-forwards’ extensively in Wrath And Glory in order to keep the plain and literal readings of Revelation intact. I am in agreement with him on that. And Micah 5:5-6, taken literally, is a ‘flashback.’  Within the Millennial context, the text takes a ‘flashback’ look at the invasion of Israel by one called the Assyrian during the Tribulation. Reagan drops this clear flashback in favor of spiritualizing the passage.  But the term ‘Assyrian’ is literal and it is future. The Assyrian invades Israel at the end time. He attacks her cities and tramples her land. And it is at that climactic time when ‘He [Christ] will deliver us [Israel] from the Assyrian.’ (Micah 5:6) The Assyrian is none other than the Antichrist.

(Debate taken from:   The Origin of the Antichrist From the Revived Roman Empire—Specifically, the Eastern Leg, by Phillip Goodman, Jan-Feb, 2009)

Please go to Appendix B for the completion on this subject.