199 - The Antichrist in Daniel 11 [B]

Antichrist in Daniel 11

The first 35 verses of Daniel chapter eleven are a slightly more detailed look at same history that we have seen already in chapter eight related to the two kingdoms of the Seleucids who are in the Syrian area to the north Of Israel and the Egyptians who are to the south, the Ptomlemies. Daniel 11:2 ^NASB "And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to arise in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all {of them;} as soon as he becomes strong through his riches, he will arouse the whole {empire} against the realm of Greece." This is identified as Xerxes, the one who invaded Greece at the time of the Battle of Marathon.  [3] "And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases." That is Alexander. [5] "But as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass [the division of the Greek empire among Alexander's four generals], though not to his {own} descendants, nor according to his authority which he wielded, for his sovereignty will be uprooted and {given} to others besides them."  

This chapter was written somewhere around 535 BC. The fulfillment occurs some 200 years later around 330-320 BC at the time of Alexander. That is legitimate predicted prophecy and the details that come up from verse 5 down through verse 35 give extraordinary detail ahead of time of what takes place in the area of the northern Seleucid empire. This has meant that Daniel chapter eleven has been one of the most attacked chapters in all of the Bible because of the liberal mindset that rejects Christianity and any kind of real supernatural impact into history, and cannot accept the idea of real predictive prophecy. In order to justify their position they have to argue that this was really written after the fact, it wasn't written by Daniel but by somebody else, and is written as history and not as prophecy. One other thing to be noted is that there are two major powers described between verse 5 and verse 35 and they are described as the king of the south and the king of the north. The king of the north is not Russia in context, it is the Seleucid empire; it is Syrian. The king of the south is Egypt.

Antiochus Epiphanes is the one described in verses 29-35. Daniel 11:29 ^NASB  "At the appointed time he will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before. [30] For ships of Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant." It is at this point that Rome comes as a backup, when Antiochus is forced to yield to Rome, and when he has to backpedal out of Egypt; so he goes back in anger to destroy Israel. The latter part of verse 30 indicates that he is going to honor those among the Jews who have become Hellenized. [31] "Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation." That is the abomination that occurred in approximately 165 BC when he sacrificed a pig on the altar and rededicated the temple to the worship of Zeus. [32] "By smooth {words} he will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will display strength and take action." This is a reference to the Maccabaean revolt.

Daniel 11:33 ^NASB "Those who have insight among the people will give understanding to the many; yet they will fall by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder for {many} days." That was the battles that occurred between the forces of Antiochus and the Maccabees. [34] "Now when they fall they will be granted a little help, and many will join with them in hypocrisy. [35] Some of those who have insight will fall, in order to refine, purge and make them pure until the end time; because {it is} still {to come} at the appointed time." At verse 35 a shift begins to occur to take our attention forward to a future fulfillment.

Daniel 11:36 ^NASB "Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak monstrous things against the God of gods; and he will prosper until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be done." The phrase "until the indignation is finished" really takes us into the future. There is a gap between v. 35 and v. 36. This is not unusual in the Scriptures; there are many prophetic gaps that occur in many different passages within the Bible. For example:

In the prophecy in Daniel 2 which relates to the vision of the statue there is a break between 2:20 and 2:41. It reads like a continuous event but there is a break that occurs between those two verses. In Daniel chapter seven there is a break between 7:23 which is the early manifestation of the Roman empire and verse 24 which is talking about the end-time manifestation of it. In Daniel 9:26 there is a break between it and verse 27. Verse 26 is talking about the first advent and verse 27 is talking about the final seven year period in the Tribulation. In Daniel 11 there is a break between v. 34 and v. 35. I(n other passages there are similar breaks, like Hosea 3 where verse four breaks before verse five. Psalm 22:22 breaks before v. 23. Isaiah 61 between the first part of verse 2 and the second part of the verse. So this is not uncommon to see this take place in the Scripture where the writer just sees things in one continual flow without seeing certain intervening events.

So there is this split between verses 35 and 36. When we come to verse 36 we have to ask who is being discussed here in terms of the king. Up until this point whenever the term "king" is used it is referred to either as the king of the south or the king of the north. It is clear in the context who is being discussed. But suddenly in verse 36 the geographical location disappears. We don't read of the king of the north or king of the south in v. 36 but we do a little further down in v. 40 where we come back to the king of the south and the king of the north. That again is the king mentioned in v. 36. and so we really have three kings mentioned in Daniel chapter eleven: the king of the north, the king of the south, and then this other king that shows up in v. 36. There is also this time gap so that the first 35 verses are historically fulfilled where we have the king of the north who we know to be Syria, the Seleucid empire. Historically we know that the king of the south was Egypt. When we get into the prophetic section in verse 40 where it says, "At the end time the king of the South will collide with him [the third king], and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow {them} and pass through." The king of the north and the king of the south must be understood in their original historic reference. If the king of the north is Syria in the historic fulfillment the king of the north in the future fulfillment must also come out of that area of Syria. In the historic fulfillment the king of the south is Egypt, so in the future fulfillment the king of the south is also Egypt. The king of the north is not Russia. The king of the south is not just a pan-Arabic bloc because some of those elements have already been destroyed by the final stages of the battle of Armageddon.

In Ezekiel chapter thirty-eight we want to note the nations that are involved in this particular assault on Israel. We take the position that this assault takes place near the end of the second half of the Tribulation. There are four different views on the timing of this invasion of Gog and Magog against Israel. The least held view is that this is talking about the Gog invasion that occurs at the end of the Millennial kingdom mentioned in Revelation chapter twenty; this is not that event at all. One view is that there has to be a certain amount of time to cleanse the land after this battle before the kingdom can be established, and it takes seven years to cleanse the land, so this has to come before the tribulation begins, probably between the Rapture and the beginning of the Tribulation. There are others who believe that this battle occurs early in the first half of the Tribulation. The fourth view is that this occurs toward the second half of the last half of the Tribulation as one of the initial events in the campaign of Armageddon.

Ezekiel 38:2 ^NASB "Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him." Historically the Magog area was that which is up around the Black Sea. The prince of Rosh is taken by some to be etymologically related to the root for Russia. Meshech is etymologically related to the root for Moscow. So that is understood to be Russia but in Ezekiel 38 and 39 they are never referred to as the king of the north. [3] "and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. [4] I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company {with} buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords'" …. And then look who the allies are. [5] "Persia, Ethiopia and Put with them, all of them {with} shield and helmet; [6] Gomer with all its troops; Beth-togarmah {from} the remote parts of the north with all its troops—many peoples with you." That is an interesting fact because today for the first time in many centuries there are alliances taking place and Russia is cosying up to Iran. This seems to be setting the stage for something like this.

All we want to do by referencing that is to make the point that that is a different alliance of nations than what we have in Daniel chapter eleven. So these are two different events. We believe that the events that are described in vv. 40-45 of Daniel eleven are going to take place during the heart of the campaign of Armageddon as the Antichrist moves his armies into the Middle East in order to solve these problems and to shore up his own authority in the world which has begun to fragment. He will make his headquarters in the Valley of Jezreel and while he is there he is going to be attacked. Notice the pronouns here, it is he who is being attacked, not Israel. There will be this assault on him from the Syrians and the Egyptians in order to wipe him out. They end up being defeated but it will be right after that that Babylon will be destroyed.

Verse 36 says this king will do as he pleases. He is different from Antiochus Epiphanes. He is similar in that he is incredibly arrogant but there are also several distinctions. As we look at the descriptions that are given of this king they don't fit the historical events that occurred with Antiochus Epiphanes. Remember that this king is not identified as a king of the north or king of the south but he is very different. Remember that Antiochus was identified as the willful king in Daniel chapter eight. Here in Daniel 11:21 he is called a despicable (or vile) person, "on whom the honor of kingship has not been conferred, but he will come in a time of tranquility and seize the kingdom by intrigue." So he is a vile person and he sends forces to desecrate the sanctuary in verse 31. In verse 36 there is a shift to the future person who is monstrous and he is going to establish his palace at the place of the sanctuary which is indicated in Daniel 11:45 ^NASB "He will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain [Temple Mount]; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him." All of this is related to the Antichrist, not historically fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes.

A second point we should make in terms of the contrast between Antiochus and this king is that Antiochus worshipped the Greek gods, he imposed the Greek culture on the Jews to separate them from their religious past; so he had great regard for the religion of his ancestors. He was Greek and he honored his Greek ancestors. So when we come to 11:37 ^NASB "He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any {other} god; for he will magnify himself above {them} all." He will not have regard for the gods of his ancestors, but Antiochus did. Antiochus accepted the daughters of women, he was married several times, but the desire of women is stated to not be in the Antichrist. This brings up another interesting exegetical problem that has confused a lot of people. Some think that this means that he was homosexual, but we don't think that is what this means. There are one or two explanations, the first being that he is so focused on his mission, so self-absorbed and single minded, that he is just not at all concerned with marriage or with having a family or normal human relationships. That is a possible interpretation. The second interpretation is that the phrase "desire of women" which is used only a couple of other times in the Hebrew Old Testament where it is related to the desire of Israel who is the Messiah. So it is thought that this is an illusion, then, to the desire that women would have to be the mother of the Messiah, and so this is a sort of circumlocution as a reference to the Messiah. So then what it would be saying is that he has no desire/regard for the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Hebrew word that is used here is not a desire for women, it indicates a desire that women have. It is used in 1 Samuel 9:20 in a context similar to Daniel 11:37 and there it is used for the desire of Israel. Who is it that Israel desires? They desire to see their Messiah. In Haggai 2:7 the word is also used in a similar context: ^NKJV "and I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory, says the Lord of hosts." So there is a very strong case here that this is a messianic code word to indicate that he will show no desire whatsoever for the Messiah. And that makes sense in context. What is the context talking about? That he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers. Three things are mentioned in Daniel 11:37. The first has to do with gods, the third has to do with gods; to say that the middle term there, "the desire for women," is a non-religious reference doesn't fit with the first description and the third description. So if the middle term is understood and supported by word usage to be the Messiah then all three terms indicate his hostility and arrogance against Christianity and against any religion other than his relgion: setting himself up to be worshipped as God. Verse 38 reinforces this.

Daniel 11:38 ^NASB "But instead [in their place] he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor {him} with gold, silver, costly stones and treasures." He worships military power and military conquest. This "god whom his fathers did not know" is a reference to Satan; Satan is the real power behind the Antichrist, and so that is who he worships and gives all honor to.

Daniel 11:39 ^NASB "He will take action against the strongest of fortresses with {the help of} a foreign god [Satan]; he will give great honor to those who acknowledge {him} and will cause them to rule over the many, and will parcel out land for a price." With the help of this other power he is able to defeat all of his enemies. He rewards anyone who helps in putting him in a place of power.

In verse 40 we see this shift continue to take place related to the future. Daniel 11:40 ^NASB "At the end time the king of the South will collide with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow {them} and pass through." A storm/whirlwind indicates not only surprise and suddenness but also power. So there is a powerful assault against him to stop him. It is very likely that Syria and Egypt, who could be three of those nations of the original ten nations who supported him initially, are now attacking him. They see the opportunity to catch him in a pincer movement between Syria in the north and Egypt in the south and to destroy him. We are just not clear on some of these particulars.

"… with chariots, with horsemen and with many ships…" Some have said that this is just ancient writers writing in terms of their own frame of reference, and that chariots could be tanks and things of this type. But it is also believed that in the end times these are going to be primitive weapons and that they will be shooting bows and arrows, riding horses and chariots, because when we look at all of the destruction that occurs in the first seventy-five per cent of the Tribulation period, roughly five and a half to six years, there is such an assault on the eco-systems of the earth, and about ninety per cent of all trade—everything that is traded between nations—goes on the ocean. So if a third of the shipping is wiped out that basically wipes out international commerce in the world. About ninety per cent of all data that is transferred—transfers of money, data that is sent over cables and wires—travels on underwater cables that have been laid down under all of the oceans. These are going to be disrupted by earthquakes and tidal waves, and with the massive asteroid showers that hit the earth, the burning star that hits the earth, the entire electrical grid on the planet will be pretty much wiped out. So man is thrown back into a much more primitive technology than we currently have.

Daniel 11:41 ^NASB "He will also enter the Beautiful Land [Israel], and many {countries} will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab and the foremost of the sons of Ammon." Where is Ammon? This is indicated by the modern city of Amman, Jordan. In fact, these three terms (Edom, Moab, Ammon) represent most of what is now the modern Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. Moab and Ammon—the two sons of Lot as a result of the incest committed by his daughters when they got him drunk. They are first cousins to Israel, so they are going to escape—part of God's blessing on them—as well as Edom, a descendant of Esau. These are delivered.

Daniel 11:42 ^NASB "Then he will stretch out his hand against {other} countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape." Egypt is not part of that alliance that occurs in Ezekiel 38 and 39. [43] "But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians {will follow} at his heels."—a term for the fact that they have been conquered by him, and that happened some time previously. This is one passage, perhaps, that indicates that with the defeat of Lybia and Ethiopia as allies to the Gog and Magog invasion, it occurs later than earlier.        

Daniel 11:44 ^NASB "But rumors from the East and from the North will disturb him, and he will go forth with great wrath to destroy and annihilate many." The news from the east is when he hears that Babylon is destroyed. [45] "He will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him." This is basically a summation of what will take place at the campaign of Armageddon, during the past half of the last half of the Tribulation period.

So what we see here in terms of understanding the character of the Antichrist are a number of things: He is arrogant, he exalts himself, he has no regard for any other religious system, he is blasphemous toward the God of gods, he gets his real power from Satan, and he worships Satan. There is a strong religious focus in his empire but it is all on Satan.

That takes us out of the Old Testament and into the New Testament. 2 Thessalonians 2:1 ^NASB "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him," – he is talking about the Rapture which he has clearly described to them in 1 Thessalonians chapter four. [2] "that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. [3] Let no one in any way deceive you, for {it will not come} unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." The word "apostasy" is a transliteration. The original word in the Greek looks very similar to the English word; it is apostasia [a)postasia]. We think of apostasy as a very limited word, as falling away from the truth and getting into false teaching. But that is not necessarily the meaning here. The day of Christ, which is related to the Tribulation and the ultimate return of the Lord Jesus Christ, will not occur until something called the apostasia happens and the man of lawlessness is revealed. The term "man of lawlessness" is a term related to the Antichrist, also called the son of destruction.

What is this word apostasia. Does it refer to defection, falling away from the truth, or does it refer to something else? Many scholars believe that this refers to a great end-times falling away from the truth, that a great apostasy must come first before Jesus will return at the Rapture. The problem with that is if the Rapture is a signless, imminent event, then that means that noting is to precede it; it could happen at any time. There does not need to be anything between us and the return of the Lord. We are not looking for the apostasy; we are not looking for the Antichrist; we are looking for Jesus Christ. That is the issue.

The word apostasia has as its root meaning the idea of departure. The noun is only used three times in the New Testament and it has that idea of defection, but the verb aphistemi [a)fisthmi] is used about fifteen times in the New Testament and it is more clearly used to refer to departure, the idea of something leaving. It is used of ships leaving the harbor, somebody departing on a trip; things of that nature. Historically that has been how this word has been understood. For example, in the Vulgate, Jerome's translation of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament into Latin, he chose the Latin verb meaning "departure." In 1384 when Wycliffe translated the Greek into English he translated "the departing must come first." Tyndale in 1526 translated it as "departing." In 1535 Miles Coverdale in the Coverdale Bible translated it "departing." In the 1608 Geneva Bible it is translated "departing first." It is not until the 1611 Authorized Version that there was an English Bible translated "falling away" in the sense of apostasy. The translation of the KJV has shaped all subsequent English translations that want to take this in the sense of departure from the truth, departure from orthodoxy. But if we go back to the original understanding of this word which has solid lexical support it should be translated "the day of Christ" preceded by the events of the Tribulation "will not come until the departure [of the Church] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed"—that comes after the departure of the church.           

Illustrations