Daniel 10 to 12 by The Audio Key!

DANIEL 10, 11 and 12 ANCIENT MID EAST TURMOIL TELESCOPES INTO MODERN TIMES By John Lyall

DANIEL 10-12 ANCIENT MID EAST TURMOIL TELESCOPES INTO MODERN TIMES By John Lyall - http://endtimeupgrade.org 13 May, 2012 Unless otherwise noted, Scriptures are from the New King James Version of the Bible; this post first published 13 May, 2012. Revised October, 2014; February, 2016; August, 2016

1-A: Background Setting (10:1-3) P. 3 1-B: Encounter with Great Christ-like Supernatural Being (10:4-9) P. 6 1-C: Gabriel and Daniel Engage in Conversation (10:10-11:1) P. 9 2-A: The Telescoping Prophecy P. 23 2-B: The Next 200 Years – Fall of Persia and Fall of Alexander (11:2-4) P. 25 2-C: Superpower Rivalry – Kings of the North and South (11:5-20) P. 29 3-A: “Vile Person” Arrives on the Scene (11:21-23) P. 44 3-B: Rise to Power of a Modern “King of the North” (11:24-25) P. 63 3-C: Who Are the Kings of the North and South? P. 88 3-D: Setback to America (11:26-27) P. 105 3-E: Setback to “King of the North” and Turning Point (11:28-30) P. 110 3-F: The Great Tribulation (11:31-35) P. 129 3-G: Nature of the anti-Christ “King of the North” (11:36-37) P. 143 3-H: The “God of Forces” (11:38-39) P. 148 3-I: Among the Nations, Earth’s Final War (11:40-45) P. 163 3-J: Brief Note on Daniel 12, Summary, and Bibliography P. 176

Part 1: Daniel Dives into the Supernatural Realm 1-A: Background Setting (10:1-3) These chapters 10, 11, and 12 in the Book of Daniel together contain a wide-ranging message received by the prophet Daniel near the end of his life on earth. And it deserves our closest attention. Why? Because it teaches so much about mankind’s soon-coming future history. The objective of this study will be to better understand how these words apply to the modern historical situation. Instead of relegating so much of the prophetic message to ancient events and personages, this study will try to show how the prophetic message focuses primarily on future events while past events serve mainly as a backdrop or echo of the prophecy’s primary fulfillment in the near future. In addition, this unique revelation treats us to a stunning glimpse of what it is like for a human being to step out of the natural earthly realm into the realm of the supernatural while receiving messages from the angelic beings who dwell there. *** 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar. The message was true, but the appointed time was long; and he understood the message, and had understanding of the vision. “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia.” This date (536 B.C.) comes about three years after Gabriel had appeared to Daniel and given him the “70 weeks” message found in Daniel 9:24-27. (See post on the “Second Coming”.) Two years before this, the Babylonian empire had fallen to the MedoPersians, and Daniel, who was probably very old by now, had begun once more to enjoy favor in the royal household… of the new regime of the Persian monarch Cyrus. Again, as in chapter 9 and other passages in the Bible, the specific dates in the introduction are evidence of the passages’ authenticity; they are the original written documents, copied faithfully and accurately as they were passed on from one generation to another.

“Belteshazzar.” Daniel was obliged, as a foreign captive in the king’s court, to take on a Babylonian name. The mention here of his old name Belteshazzar was done perhaps to identify him, the author of the following prophetic passage, as the same person who, 72 years earlier, had been hauled off from Jerusalem and brought as a captive to Babylon. However, as a person of noble birth, Daniel had been assigned to be a “captive” in the royal court amongst the wise men of the Babylonian king. Therefore, the name “Belteshazzar” became his official title. As a former head of state in the empire of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and now with his new standing as a head of state in the Medo-Persian kingdom, it seems he retained the same title. “The message was true.” Despite its great length, or maybe because of it, Daniel was quite certain that the message was true. He had every reason to believe so, considering the strange introduction to it that we are about to read in the next few verses. “The appointed time was long.” A more accurate meaning for the Hebrew word used for “time appointed” is “long warfare”, which is the translation found in several Bible versions. Indeed, the whole prophetic message to follow is just that: a lengthy account of the wars and conflicts that were to befall the Jewish nation and Mid East region in the near future relative to Daniel’s time. As for the more distant future, the message continues to catalogue the wars and conflicts that would befall the modern Jewish nation… and the modern people of God who, since the time of Christ, are to be found now in every nation on Earth. Daniel may have been expecting that, in the wake of king Cyrus’ proclamation two years earlier to end the Babylonian Captivity, the Jewish nation would march gracefully into a new golden era…. And perhaps he could not understand why there was so much obstruction, conflict, and delay in that great enterprise of reclaiming the Jewish homeland. (Already the first party of returning Jewish exiles had to cease their re-building work due to opposition.) Well, certainly after the message he is about to receive, Daniel would come to understand that a very long period of conflict awaited the people of God – Jews in the Old Testament and followers of Christ in the New Testament – and this would last for many centuries until the very end of the present age of history. In Chapter 12 we learn, when that future day arrives, “there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation”. (12:1) But this is

followed, finally, by the wonderful news that Daniel was hoping for: “at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book.” Perhaps for Daniel, after learning how much future conflict awaited the people of God, he felt less troubled about the frustrating circumstances that seemed to be hindering Jews of his time and their emigration from Babylon to Jerusalem. “He understood the message.” In contrast with a previous revelation where Daniel says, “no one understood it”, here in this case he does understand it. (8:27) Perhaps that was because this revelation was a message given in words, it made more sense; whereas chapter 8 was a vision whose mysterious symbolism could not be deciphered so easily. 10:2-3 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant food, no meat or wine came into my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled. Evidently, Daniel was very disturbed about something, and this had moved him to spend “three whole weeks” in fasting and prayer. What the issue was we are not told, but as mentioned already, likely it had something to do with his Jewish people and whether or not they were going to re-claim their homeland now that the recent proclamation from king Cyrus had released them from the Babylonian Captivity and granted them permission to return to the land of Judea. Daniel may have been hoping for more immediate results and was concerned about certain political obstructions and/or the slow pace of his people’s emigration to their homeland. (More information about these events may be found in the previous post, “When will be the Second Coming? (Part 4)”

1-B: Encounter with Great Christ-like Supernatural Being (10:4-9) 10:4-6 Now on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, that is, the Tigris, I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz! His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like torches of fire, his arms and feet like burnished bronze in color, and the sound of his words like the voice of a multitude. Note that a specific date is given – “the twenty-fourth day of the first month (Jewish month of Nisan, same month as the Passover feast)”; and a specific place: “by the side of the great river… Tigris”. Again, as in the first verse and in other Biblical passages, these tiny details clue us into the authenticity of this written document, showing that it was preserved and passed on from generation to generation by faithful Jewish scribes. Whereas if they had transmitted the records by word of mouth only, these smaller details would have been lost. The description of this great awesome supernatural being resembles a similar description made 600 years later by John the Apostle: ◊ “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,’ and, ‘What you see, write in a book …’ Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw … One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, ‘Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.’” (Revelation 1:10-18) What Daniel described – “waist… girded with gold”, “face like the appearance of lightning”, “eyes like torches of fire”, “feet like burnished

bronze”, and a voice “like the voice of a multitude” – matches rather well with John’s description, which also identifies this awesome figure as Jesus Christ: “One like the Son of Man… I am He who lives, and was dead.” So it should be safe to conclude here that Daniel was actually seeing the Son of God in His glorified, heavenly form, “the Alpha and the Omega”, the same Person whom John the Apostle saw. These two separate but similar visions of Christ in the Books of Daniel and Revelation help us to understand that these two separate Books are supposed to relate to each other. And indeed, through the interconnecting revelations in these two Books (written 600 years apart), we find an ongoing process of unfolding the mysteries of the future. They portray for us, sometimes in great detail, God’s plan for human history. Others also saw Christ in this glorified form: the prophet Ezekiel (1:26-28), whose revelations can also be linked with those of Daniel and John the Apostle; the disciples Peter, James, and John beheld Jesus like this on the Mount of Transfiguration: “Jesus… led them up on a high mountain by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun… His clothes became shining, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them.” (Matthew 17:1-2, Mark 9:3) A question we might want to ask: Is there any symbolic meaning in the unusual features of this great Heavenly Being? Perhaps it is prudent not to speculate too much along such lines, except to say that there is an overall impression of great power and authority emanating from His Person. If nothing else, this appearance of Christ in His glorified form should help us to appreciate what a great sacrifice it was for Him to leave behind all that heavenly glory and manifest Himself in our earthly realm as a mortal human being with all our fleshly limitations and weaknesses. It was truly a sign of God’s Love to descend from the halls of Heaven and take on the form of humanity. This He did, not for the purpose of lording it over mankind (as Satan was tempting Him to do, as pictured in Matthew 4:8-10 and Luke 4:58), but for the purpose of leading mankind into reunion with his Creator that we might re-claim our spiritual and physical Paradise that had been lost so long ago. If there is any symbolic significance about Christ’s appearance here that we should remember, it might be this: the comparison of his clothing to a linen garment. Such garments, white in color, were considered in those days to

be the purest type of cloth; they were always worn by priests or by angels; and this would highlight the fact that Christ is our High Priest, the One who acts as our connecting link to God. This “man clothed in linen” re-appears later in chapter 12: “Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river.” (12:7) The setting there is much the same as it is here at the beginning of the revelation when Daniel “was by the side of the great river”… meaning that the great Being he saw must have been hovering above the river in front of him. Probably this Being had appeared previously (in chapter 8): “I heard a man’s voice between the banks of the Ulai, who called, and said, ‘Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.’” (8:16) In this case the Being was far enough away that Daniel was not so overwhelmed as he was here in the beginning of this chapter where, it seems, He is standing right in front of Him. 10:7-9 And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision; but a great terror fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. Therefore I was left alone when I saw this great vision, and no strength remained in me; for my vigor was turned to frailty in me, and I retained no strength. Yet I heard the sound of his words; and while I heard the sound of his words I was in a deep sleep on my face, with my face to the ground. Obviously, this was going to be no minor revelation, for it is introduced by Christ Himself. This was such an overwhelming and awesome manifestation of supernatural power that, even though they “did not see the vision”, Daniel’s attendants were so frightened by its side effects, whatever they were, “that they fled to hide themselves”. In a similar incident 600 years later, another prophet, the apostle Paul, saw a vision of Christ, and in like fashion “the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.” (Acts 9:7) It’s almost rather amusing what happens next to Daniel. To behold such a “great vision”, to be in the presence of the Son of God – with His lightning-like face, eyes like flaming torches, voice like a multitude, etc. – was too much of a shock for any earthly being. Although Daniel, as a man of high standing in the Medo-Persian kingdom, well respected and honored, now here in the presence of God, he says, “My vigor was turned to frailty”, or as the King James Version puts it, “My comeliness was turned… into corruption.” He felt

wretched and lowly, and physically too, he had “no strength” and laid out flat on the ground “in a deep sleep”. In similar fashion, when John the Apostle beheld the Lord in His glorified form, he said, “When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead.” (Revelation 1:17)

1-C: Conversation between Gabriel and Daniel (10:10-11:1) 10:10-13 Suddenly, a hand touched me, which made me tremble on my knees and on the palms of my hands. And he said to me, “O Daniel, man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for I have now been sent to you.” While he was speaking this word to me, I stood trembling. Then he said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.”

Daniel Touched by an Angel: As a high official in the Medo-Persian government, Daniel probably dressed a little differently to what is portrayed here “A hand touched me.” It is difficult to tell who is doing what here, but it should be safe to assume that Daniel was “touched” by an angel who was accompanying the “man clothed in linen”. The wording of “a hand” suggests that other angelic beings were present during this startling supernatural manifestation. As a result of this touch, Daniel awakes but is able only to crawl on hands and knees. The same angel then starts speaking to Daniel. That this is an angel, and not the “man clothed in linen”, can be guessed from the angel’s statement, “I have now been sent to you.” It would make more sense to think that an angel would be sent on a mission to Daniel. Whereas the Being who first appeared to Daniel – the Son of God, equivalent to God Himself – was of such high authority that he hardly needed to be “sent”. It would seem more reasonable to suppose that Christ is the One doing the sending, and the angel who “touched” Daniel is the one who has been “sent”. Furthermore, we read in verse 13 (also 20 and 21) about this angel’s struggles with “the prince of the kingdom of Persia”. This refers not to the human prince of Persia. (A struggle between a human being and an angel would be a total mismatch.) Rather, the passage refers to the angel’s struggles with the powerful demon who was guiding Persia from the spiritual realm. It took the angel “twenty-one days” of struggle against this demon of Darkness; for what reasons we are not told, but a good guess might be that he was fighting to clear away some of the obstacles that the “prince of Persia” had managed to throw into the path of the Jewish people’s emigration to Judea. The heavenly archangel said he was “left alone there with the kings of Persia”. The “kings” could have been the rulers of the Persian provinces, whom the archangel had to influence and prevent from interfering with the planned exodus from Babylon to Judea. So from this passage it seems clear that if the one talking now to Daniel had such a struggle with the “prince of the kingdom of Persia”, he must not have been so all-powerful; at least, he was not like the “man clothed in linen” who could have dispatched of that demon of Darkness with nothing more than a single glare. So this new figure who “touched” Daniel was likely just an angel, or archangel, a being whose power was much less than that of the “man clothed in linen” – more or less on the same level as this demon “prince of the kingdom of Persia”.

Regarding these spirits who influence nations, they are not all evil necessarily, but the majority of them probably are. The earth is their domain where they want to establish their kingdom of Darkness – certainly not the Kingdom of God, which in those days was represented by the Jewish nation. (Luke 4:6, John 12:31, 14:30) Along this line in chapter 7 of the Book of Daniel, we can read about the vision of Middle East empires symbolized in the form of “beasts”. So in the mind of God, if these empires were given this beastlike profile, then it stands to reason that most of their controlling deities would be angels of Darkness, demonic archangels, who were permitted to have a large measure of influence over those empires. In fact, in Old Testament times people believed that each nation had its own special national god, or national idol, and in this way these demonic angels were being worshiped. Israel too had her archangel, an angel of God, to fight for her – Michael – who is mentioned again later as “the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people.” (12:1)

This passage offers some intriguing insight into what goes on in the celestial sphere, that fifth dimensional realm that is not bound by earth’s space-time dimensions. From it we may conclude that sometimes angels engage in warfare with demonic spirits. We could also guess that the Being whom Daniel first saw, since He is the Son of God, would exist on a different plane to the angels. He could easily wipe out all the demonic forces if He wanted to… but the time for that great Battle (of Armageddon) has not arrived. Even then He is not going to do everything Himself. We learn in Revelation 19:14 that “the armies in heaven… followed Him on white horses.” Presumably, these “armies” aren’t just coming as spectators but will have lots to do during that great future conquest that will usher in the Kingdom of God on Earth. ◊ (Jesus: ) … It is one of the mysteries of the spirit world how I am allpowerful, all-knowing, and yet I choose to work through you, through spirit helpers, through angels, through spiritual gifts, through many avenues which to you are a source of wonder, but you will understand when you come here and see it all clearly. I choose to limit Myself and work through these other avenues to bring about a plan far greater than the one you can see or comprehend at this time. So trust Me, that I do all things well. (Publication of The Family International, March-2005) As for Christ’s appearance here before Daniel, His role seems to be that of establishing a tranquil setting for this important mission – that is, to clear the ground of any demonic interference that might get in the way of Daniel’s receiving the prophetic message, which the angel is about to give him. That shows also how important the upcoming message would be; it is something that mankind, or God’s people at least, would need to understand well and pay attention to. Most likely, the angel speaking here to Daniel is Gabriel, the same one who appeared to him in chapters 8 and 9. We can guess this too by how the angel addresses Daniel, which is similar to how Gabriel spoke in the above-mentioned chapters: in this passage we read, “O Daniel, man greatly beloved… from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard.” In chapter 9, the angel, who is identified there as Gabriel (9:21), says more or less the same thing: “O Daniel… at the beginning of your supplications

the command went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved.” (9:22-23) And about 11 years before that (in chapter 8), Daniel said of the angel (identified there as Gabriel in verse 16) that “he touched me, and stood me upright.” (8:18) Gabriel then said, “Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation.” (8:19) And here again in chapter 10 the angel (unnamed) follows the same pattern: Daniel says, “A hand touched me… I stood trembling.” (10:1011) Then the angel informs him, “I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days.” (10:14) For the purpose of this study we shall assume that the angel who speaks to Daniel during the rest of the prophetic message is the same angel Gabriel who spoke to him in chapters 8 and 9. Of course, even if this is not Gabriel, we know at least that it is an angel, and a chief one at that, an archangel, who is delivering the message, and that fact alone is outstanding enough. Finally, we learn further ahead the surprising news that this angel, who fought against the “prince of Persia” and is about to reveal a new message to Daniel, had also been working behind the scenes three years earlier during the reign of the previous king: “Also in the first year of Darius the Mede, I, even I, stood up to confirm and strengthen him.” (11:1) The date given here refers back to Daniel’s previous revelation of the “seventy weeks”: “In the first year of Darius… of the lineage of the Medes.” (9:1) In both chapters the same angel was struggling behind the scenes to influence the course of history. That angel who is appearing now informs Daniel that he is about to do double-duty. That is, besides his normal battle duties, the angel will also bring Daniel a new revelation about the future. Since it is the same angel doing battle duty in chapter 9, then probably that angel also was doing double duty, his additional job being that of bringing the “seventy weeks” revelation to Daniel. And since the angel in that chapter was identified clearly as Gabriel (in verse 21), then it should be safe to assume in this chapter 10 that once more Gabriel is the one speaking to Daniel… in addition to his other duties of battling behind the scenes in the spirit world to influence the new king Cyrus. Just as a matter of interest, in a recent prophetic message the angel Gabriel himself said, “I am the keeper of the reservoir, the Word of God.”

(Publication of The Family International, March-1997) That seems to be Gabriel’s responsibility – to see to it that the Word of God gets “downloaded”, as we might say nowadays, into the earthly realm. And in the message that follows, we will see how he certainly has fulfilled some of that great responsibility already. “You set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God.” In the King James Version we find the translation, “chasten thyself before thy God”. Whatever the exact translation should be, it is evident at least that Daniel was very desperate; and such desperation creates the kind of spiritual vacuum that pulls down tremendous power from the heavenly realm, as manifested in the marvelous answer that he was about to receive and which will be the subject of this study. 10:14 “Now I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come.” Very likely, Daniel’s main concern during the three weeks of fasting and praying had centered around the local situation of his Jewish people’s fortunes and their return to Judea. This we can gather from Gabriel’s statement here, “I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people.” But God’s answers to prayer often include much more than what we bargained for. In this case, as the angel points out, the message is going to stretch out for a much longer time - “many days yet to come” – and significantly, right on to “the latter days”. We can understand this to mean the days prior to Christ’s first coming, and most importantly for us, the days coming soon prior to His Second Coming. And as we shall soon learn, Gabriel’s message turned out to be amazingly thorough and detailed, covering events that were to occur in and around Israel in the near future, starting some 200 years later and telescoping from there to events that were to occur some 2,500 years later… but for us in modern times, very soon. 10:15-17 When he had spoken such words to me, I turned my face toward the ground and became speechless. And suddenly, one having the likeness of the sons of men touched my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke, saying to him who stood before me, “My lord, because of the vision my sorrows have overwhelmed me, and I have retained no strength.

For how can this servant of my lord talk with you, my lord? As for me, no strength remains in me now, nor is any breath left in me.” To have beheld the majesty of the Lord Himself, first of all, and now to hear “such words” – about his prayers being answered, about the struggles in the spiritual realm, and then the prospect of hearing the awesome revelations of the distant future that are about to be revealed was a bit much for poor Daniel. As a result he turned his face “toward the ground and became speechless.” Such spiritual experiences can be quite taxing mentally and exhausting physically, having one foot in the spiritual realm, and the other in the earthly realm. Daniel’s initial terrified reaction wasn’t the first time he had felt this way: on a previous visit by Gabriel, Daniel got quite frightened, fell to the ground in a deep sleep, and then, being touched by Gabriel, was made to stand up. (8:17-18) At this point Gabriel seems to take on a more human aspect – “having the likeness of the sons of men” – and touches Daniel’s lips, enabling him to speak. In the previous “70 weeks” revelation Daniel referred to him as “the man Gabriel”, suggesting that Gabriel could appear more human-like when necessary. (9:21) (Alternatively, it is possible that Gabriel had an attendant, someone who once lived on earth and therefore could more easily relate to another earthling.) So, even though he had met with Gabriel before, it seems Daniel still felt overwhelmed; apparently, these are not the kind of experiences that a person, still in his fleshly body, can ever manage to take in stride without a period of adjustment. There are many stories of people encountering angels while separated from their bodies in a dream-like state or in near-death experiences, but to encounter an angel while still in one’s body, with all one’s physical faculties still intact, is a somewhat different experience. And this is how it had to happen; Daniel needed to interact on the spiritual plane with the angel, but at the same time he had to be capable on the physical plane of writing down what the angel had to say. And to engage in this way with those on the Other Side was not an easy experience. But it was rewarded with an amazing and beautiful message that held great significance for the Jewish people in those bygone days; and for God’s people of the present and near future, it also holds great significance.

So now Daniel, in his disheveled state, feels he has to explain what he might have thought was his improper behavior: “My lord, because of the vision my sorrows (or fears) have overwhelmed me… how can this servant of my lord talk with you, my lord?” It is not surprising that Daniel had this reaction of fright and total inferiority before the angel. Similar experiences are recorded elsewhere in the Scriptures. For example, when an angel visited Gideon to tell him that he would “save Israel from the hand of the Midianites,” the angel, in order to authenticate himself, exhibited a small sample of supernatural power – by magically setting fire to the offering Gideon had prepared. This made Gideon deathly afraid: “‘Alas, O Lord God! For I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face.’ Then the Lord said to him, ‘Peace be with you; do not fear, you shall not die.’” (Judges 6:14,22,23) In another case, before the birth of Samson, Samson’s father Manoah witnessed a similar miraculous occurrence: “the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar!… And Manoah said to his wife ‘We shall surely die, because we have seen God!’” (Judges 13:20,22) It is a marvelous, wonderful thing to experience these kinds of supernatural manifestation, and that is what makes this chapter 10 in the Book of Daniel so interesting; we are given a rare glimpse into what goes on in the spirit world – battles between angels and demons, the spiritual powers who rule behind the scenes and influence what goes on in the physical domains of our earthly realm. Perhaps we could witness more such supernatural manifestations, but as is apparent from these incidents recorded in the Sacred Book, we are held back by our own human nature. The automatic human reaction to such manifestations tends to be a fearful one – usually worrying that our time has come to die; so these experiences are not the kind of thing that can happen very often. In these verses 15-17 we note that Daniel feels compelled to offer his explanation of why he had fallen asleep and was so out-of-sorts, even terrorstricken, by the awesome experience of having the angel appear before him. Similarly, Gabriel, back in verse 13, had offered an explanation for the 3-week delay that prevented him from showing up before Daniel a little sooner: the behind-the-scenes warfare with the “prince of Persia”. These “explanations” sound rather like the opening remarks in a conversation between two persons who haven’t met for awhile, which indeed this is… except that one of the persons conversing happens to be an archangel! Gabriel had appeared to Daniel previously in chapters 8 (11 years earlier) and chapter 9 (3 years

earlier), so Daniel may have felt he was due for another visitation – especially after all his prayer and fasting. Possibly, it was Daniel’s own petitions on behalf of the Jewish people that were causing the delay; the angel had to take care of some of those petitions first before he could make his appearance before Daniel. 10:18-11:1 Then again, the one having the likeness of a man touched me and strengthened me. And he said, “O man greatly beloved, fear not! Peace be to you; be strong, yes, be strong!” So when he spoke to me I was strengthened, and said, “Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.” Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? And now I must return to fight with the prince of Persia; and when I have gone forth, indeed the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince. Also in the first year of Darius the Mede, I, even I, stood up to confirm and strengthen him.)” Since Daniel was still feeling wobbly – “no strength remains in me now, nor is any breath left in me” - the angel Gabriel (or his helper) once more touches Daniel and speaks to him to “be strong”. As a result Daniel is transformed into a state of full composure and alertness; for that will be necessary if he is to undertake the task of receiving and recording the angel’s message, which is going to be a rather lengthy one. Although it is not stated, Daniel probably had his pen and paper (scroll) ready to write down whatever the angel was about to say. At the beginning of the Book of Revelation, we learn how that crucial element in the business of receiving revelations – the recording aspect – was not overlooked by the Lord when He told John the Apostle, “What you see, write in a book.” (Revelation 1:10) It should be safe to assume that for Daniel it was the same, except that it was a matter of “what you hear, write in a book”. Regarding this encounter with Gabriel, all it took was a divine touch and word from him to bring Daniel out of his confused, bewildered state. And how true it is for anyone of us who feels likewise bewildered. If we are seeking diligently for God’s presence and perspective, like Daniel, our Lord will gladly bestow on us that divine touch to magically transform a situation, or at the least, transform our perspective, thereby enabling us to rise above our dire

circumstances, whatever they may be, and to see things from a victorious point of view. After witnessing the awesome visions of the Lord and of Gabriel in their full glory, Daniel seemed to suffer from a great inferiority complex. Maybe it was similar to how a naughty school child might feel, after being summoned to the principal’s office, and standing there nervously awaiting his fate. So to dispel his fears, the angel assures Daniel that he is “greatly beloved”: ◊ “Nothing is more likely, nothing more effectual, to revive the drooping spirits of the saints than to be assured of God’s love to them. Those are greatly beloved indeed whom God loves; and it is comfort enough to know it.” (on verses 11 and 19, from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition) At this point the angel asks, “Do you know why I have come to you?” He had already gone over this in verses 12-14, telling him that he was going to reveal “what will happen to your people in the latter days”. But since Daniel had fallen then into a state of shock and became “speechless”, the angel’s words may not have registered with him sufficiently. Gabriel had said there, “I am come because of your words”. In other words, there was no reason to puzzle over why all these strange things were happening to Daniel; it was simply in answer to his own prayers. But in his confused state, he didn’t quite “get it” yet. Gabriel then goes on to says, “I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth.” To an inquisitive man like Daniel, that would have sounded exciting. And it seems, judging by Gabriel’s words to Daniel – “you set your heart to understand” (10:12) – that, aside from his concern about the Jewish people’s present circumstances, Daniel also had at the least a curiosity about more distant matters, like the future history of His people and the coming of the Messianic kingdom. So Daniel is about to get, not some mere word of advice from the angel, but the actual Word of God – “the Scripture of Truth.” Presumably, that means something known in the Heavenly councils was about to be released into the earthly realm. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever.” (Deuteronomy 29:29) So there was to be “revealed” to Daniel an enticing

portion of those “secret things” that “belong to the Lord our God” but would now “belong to us and to our children forever (that is, to us in the modern day)”. Gabriel goes on to explain, “I must return to fight with the prince of Persia”. Apparently, Gabriel’s appearance before Daniel was just an interlude in his struggle against the demonic forces, a struggle that would continue into the future when “the prince of Greece will come”. Evidently, there was another demon prince whom the archangels would have to contend with later – the one whose domain was the nation of Greece, the next empire to rule over the Mid East region. Gabriel then informs Daniel that Michael helped him in his struggles against the demon princes of Persia and Greece, that “no one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.” Apparently, no other angelic forces had the kind of power and fighting ability needed to war against the powerful demons who were confronting Gabriel in his struggle to influence the course of history in favor of the Jewish people, the people of God of that time. We may suppose too that Michael hasn’t stopped his activities but continues to fight as our guardian angel in the celestial dimension, warring on behalf of the modern day “sons of your people”, the followers of Christ who dwell now in every nation on Earth. [End of chapter 10] The discussion from the previous chapter 10 continues here with a remarkable statement that flashes us back to the opening line of chapter 9, which states, “In the first year of Darius… of the lineage of the Medes.” (9:1) This creates a rather interesting link with the “70 weeks” revelation received by Daniel three years before. (And this link between chapter 9 and the upcoming revelations in chapters 11-12 is something we will look into more closely further ahead.) As mentioned already, Gabriel’s statement here again seems to confirm that he was the same angel whom Daniel encountered three years earlier. In 539 B.C. Gabriel was working behind the scenes “to confirm and strengthen” Darius the Mede and bring the “seventy weeks” revelation to Daniel. Now he is engaged again in more behind-the-scenes struggles to influence the Persian court of Cyrus… and at this moment to spring another revelation on the prophet Daniel.

Perhaps this statement was meant to reassure Daniel that, just because there had been a change in earthly rulers, the vigilance being carried on by the angelic forces had remained constant. It seems obvious too that the angel is trying to fill Daniel in a bit, giving him a better idea of how events in the earthly realm depend on what is going on in the spiritual realm… and how he, Daniel, had affected the outcome of events through his prayers. (This diligent mastery of prayer and meditation, by the way, is not exclusive to certain selected individuals like Daniel but is a skill that anyone can easily learn and benefit from.) The short two-year reign of Darius the Mede was a period of great upheaval in Babylon. He, along with his nephew Cyrus, had recently led the Medo-Persian forces to make their sudden conquest of Babylon. It was a time of great uncertainty; Daniel’s enemies were madly jockeying for power and influence in the court of the new king, hoping to eliminate their rival Daniel from their midst. Because of their conniving, Darius the Mede was tricked by this new set of counselors into having Daniel thrown into the lions’ den. (Clearly, it was a time when Gabriel’s influence was much needed in the halls of government.) As we know from that famous story in chapter 6, Daniel emerged from the lions’ pit unscathed (after which a very upset king Darius decided it should be the turn of Daniel’s accusers to get thrown into the same pit). That was a great miracle, to be sure, and it must have been an eye-opener now for Daniel to realize how much Gabriel and the angelic forces were working on his and the Jews’ behalf to bring about those tumultuous changes: first of all, the collapse of the corrupt and anti-Jewish Babylonian monarchy, and then the annihilation of Daniel’s enemies in the court of the new regime. By this time Daniel was quite old; Darius too was well on in years – “about sixty-two years” according to verse 31 in chapter 5, and it is quite obvious from chapter 6 that they were on fairly good terms with each other. So the angel, knowing this, reminds Daniel of that time when he received the “seventy weeks” revelation during the reign of Darius, a king who held Daniel and the Jewish people in high esteem. Little is known in secular history about this king Darius. (Like the word “Caesar”, “Darius” was more of a title than an actual name, and so there were several Dariuses who reigned in the days of the Medo-Persian empire.) Anyway, this Darius seems to have been a sort of sub-ruler under

Cyrus. Nevertheless, he could have had a good deal of influence; at least one ancient historical writing indicates that this Darius the Mede was the uncle of the next king Cyrus. (See historical reference in Appendix below.)Therefore, Darius’ influence on Cyrus may have been a crucial factor that helped to direct his nephew, the new king, into showing favor to Daniel and the Jewish people. (And of course, Gabriel’s influence on both rulers was a crucial factor.) [*Xenophon (translated by H. G. Dakyns,) The project Gutenberg Etext of Cyropaedia, Book 8, C-4, line 17-19] One further point about this startling link-up with the events of four years earlier: it suggests that, in the mind of Gabriel, the two revelations were inter-connected; the “seventy weeks” prophecy in chapter 9 was not separate from what he is about to reveal to Daniel here in chapters 11-12. We should expect then that the upcoming prophecy about the future history of Israel will relate in some way to the previous “seventy weeks” message… and that is something that we will look into further on in this study. ***

Appendix Reference to “Darius the Mede” in the Cyropaedia And now when the march had brought them into Media, Cyrus turned aside to visit Cyaxares [name by which “Darius the Mede” was known]. After they had met and embraced, Cyrus began by telling Cyaxares that a palace in Babylon, and an estate, had been set aside for him so that he might have a residence of his own whenever he came there, and he offered him other gifts, most rich and beautiful. And Cyaxares was glad to take them from his nephew, and then he sent for his daughter, and she came, carrying a golden crown, and bracelets, and a necklace of wrought gold, and a most beautiful Median robe, as splendid as could be. The maiden placed the crown upon the head of Cyrus, and as she did so Cyaxares said: I will give her to you, Cyrus, my own daughter, to be your wife. Your father wedded the daughter of my father, and you are their son; and this is the little maid whom you carried in your arms when you were with us as a lad, and whenever she was asked whom she meant to marry, she would always answer

Cyrus. And for her dowry I will give her the whole of Media: since I have no lawful son. [from Cyropaedia, Book 8, C-5, line 17-19, by the Greek historian Xenophon of Athens in about 370 B.C.(translated by H. G. Dakyns) in The Project Gutenberg Etext, 2009]

Part 2 – Gabriel’s “Telescope” Focuses on Near-Future Events 2-A: The Telescoping Prophecy The progression of events in Daniel 11 could be thought of in terms of how a telescope works. A telescope may focus first on nearby objects, and then extend its focus on objects further away. So this might be a helpful way to understand how the Lord, and Gabriel, were viewing the landscape of history in Daniel 11. In chapter 10 “the man clothed in linen” (Jesus Christ) made his appearance, after which the angel Gabriel announces that he has come to reveal the future to Daniel. Then Gabriel takes his “telescope” and looks into the very near future, panning quickly through the landscape of history and covering about 200 years: from 534 B.C. (the date of this prophecy) through the rise and fall of Persia to the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. and the ensuing break-up of the Greek empire. Eventually, there emerged, out of the ongoing turmoil and rivalry amongst the Greek generals, two “superpowers” who dominated the Mid East world. At this point Gabriel’s telescope seems to turn into a microscope as he zeroes in to get a remarkable, detailed picture of the stormy history of events occurring around the land of Israel in inter-Testament times prior to the coming of Christ. As the angel of God, we could suppose that Gabriel would be quite capable of seeing the future progression of history like this – skimming quickly through the centuries in verses 2-4, then zeroing in for a close-up picture in order to highlight a certain crucial period of Jewish history, a period that was relevant to the Jews, and to some extent, the people of God of all ages. To summarize briefly this next period of history: During the 100 years after 301 B.C., Egypt (under the Greek dynasty of the Ptolemies) ruled Palestine; Alexandria in Egypt became an important center for Jewish culture, and the Jewish people flourished under the tolerant rule of the Egyptian-Greek Ptolemies, as they had under Alexander, and before that, the Medo-Persian kings. But in about 200 B.C., things began to change, and another Greek dynasty, the Seleucids based in Syria, conquered Israel and

proved themselves far less tolerant than their previous rulers. Then, as the remnants of the Greek empire began to crumble, history repeated itself with the rise of a new superpower that took the place of the old – the Roman empire. So in the following verses 5 to 20, the telescope (or microscope) focuses on the landscape of the near future (relative to Daniel’s time) and lingers there for awhile in this pre-Roman age of history. These events took place long ago and have little bearing on modern day events. (Except they do give us a preview in an ancient time of the state of the world prior to the rise and rule of the final Antichrist.) As the saying goes, “history repeats itself”, and there is much we can learn from this unusual near-future-account of inter-Testament events. This detailed message was given for the Jews’ encouragement and guidance in those days – a time when God did not send any more prophets into the land of Israel; Malachi was the last, during the days of the Persian empire, along with Nehemiah, Israel’s governor. However, we can marvel at the amazing detailed nature of Gabriel’s prediction of those past events, and this does encourage our faith that his detailed description of other more distant future events will also unfold before our eyes in these modern times.

2-B: The Next 200 Years: Fall of Persia and Fall of Alexander (11:2-4) Verse 2 “And now I will tell you the truth: Behold, three more kings will arise in Persia, and the fourth shall be far richer than them all; by his strength, through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.” “And now I will tell you the truth.” The preliminaries are over, and Gabriel finally gets down to business, dictating to Daniel his grand revelation of future history. Gabriel’s manner of communication here was highly unusual. Many if not most of the Bible’s prophecies were received through prophets who acted as channels for the messages that were given to them from the Heavenly Realm; and they often had scribes to write down the messages they were receiving. But here it is different: the angel Gabriel is talking directly to Daniel, who in this case has become the scribe writing down what the angel is dictating to him. It could be compared perhaps to having a face-to-face conversation rather than just speaking over the telephone. As a result there was more opportunity to provide clarity and insight – details that would not be so easy to convey over the normal “telephone” of channeled prophecy. Seldom was this means of communication used except on certain special occasions, such as here in chapter 11 (and chapter 9) of the Book of Daniel, and in much of the Book of Revelation. “Three more kings.” Three kings followed Cyrus: Cambyses, Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspes. “And the fourth.” King Xerxes I, also known as Ahaseurus (in the Book of Esther) did “by his strength, through his riches… stir up all against the realm of Greece”. Up to this point the Medo-Persian empire had been expanding, and by the time Xerxes came to the throne, it had reached its pinnacle of wealth and power. The empire’s great resources were then harnessed into launching a war against the Greeks. Estimates vary, but the armed forces are thought to have totaled 2½ million, and if all the various attendants, supply lines, and servants are to be included, the total was over 5,000,000. (This was an estimate from Herodotus, a Greek historian of that time.)

In spite of waging this war with what was probably the largest army ever amassed in the world’s history up to this time, the Persian forces lost badly to the Greeks and their much smaller forces. The Battle of Salamis, 480 B.C., probably the first major naval battle in history, was the stunning defeat that broke the back of the Persian forces and forced them to retreat. Although this did not bring an immediate end yet to the Persian empire, it did signal the beginning of its end. It was left to another king, Darius III, in about 331 B.C. to lose the Persian empire to the forces of Alexander the Great. Just as a matter of interest, after the emperor Xerxes, came Longimanus, or Artaxerxes I (in the Book of Nehemiah); it was during his reign that the Jewish leader, Nehemiah, secured permission to re-build the walls of Jerusalem. (Nehemiah 2)

Battle of Salamis Verses 3-4 “Then a mighty king shall arise, who shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. “And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not among his posterity nor according to his dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be uprooted, even for others besides these.” Gabriel’s words here agree with what had already been revealed to Daniel in chapters 7 and 8 about the rise of the Greek empire under Alexander the Great. (7:6, 8:5-8,21-22) The “mighty king” – Alexander the Great – conquered the Medo-Persian empire, and this bestowed on him a “great dominion” that extended from Greece to Egypt to the borders of India. Like many powerful conquerors, there was no restraint on his willful and often arbitrary rule; he did “according to his will.” This, by the way, is a

notable characteristic of the future Antichrist (according to verse 36 further on). It seems that once a powerful leader arrives at the stage where he can operate “according to his will”, then trouble usually follows. The problem seems to be that very few who manage to garner so much power can handle it wisely – that is, according to God’s will rather than their own will, or even according to the will of wise counselors. This modus operandi has featured prominently in the reigns of tyrants throughout history. An example from modern times is Adolph Hitler. The German Fuehrer rose to power because he was willing to break through established constraints and virtually bluff his way through to success. In the beginning it paid off not to listen to anyone. But then, after victory and success had been achieved for the German people, Hitler got de-railed; he became overconfident and refused to listen to the voice of caution and common sense and counselors who were urging restraint. His modus operandi of going “according to his will” ultimately led to his downfall. “And when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken up.” As the wording here suggests, Alexander’s kingdom was very short-lived. In the space of only 10 years Alexander had conquered most of the known world, but then he died suddenly in 323 B.C. As predicted, the mighty Greek empire did not go through a gradual decline but was quickly “broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven.” This may be just an expression to show that the empire disintegrated, but at one point (301 B.C.) the Greek empire actually was carved up into four territories under four Greek generals, and even to “the four winds”, or the four compass directions (more or less). (See map below.)

South: Egypt, Israel under Ptolemy West: Greece, Macedonia under Cassander North: Asia Minor (NW Turkey), Thrace under Lysimachus East: Syria, Babylon, Persia under Seleucus “Not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled.” The Greek empire did not go to Alexander’s offspring (“his posterity”), nor did it remain as one empire but was divided “toward the four winds”. Not only that, but the dominions of the four generals also changed hands somewhat, and as time went on, the kingdom grew more and more divided. “For his kingdom shall be uprooted, even for others besides these (four generals).”

2-C: Superpower Rivalry: Kings of the North and South (11:5-20) First generation: Ptolemy I Soter (Egypt) and Seleucus I Nicator (Syria) Verse 5 “Also the king of the South shall become strong, as well as one of his princes; and he shall gain power over him and have dominion. His dominion shall be a great dominion.” “King of the south” refers to the dynasty of Ptolemy I Soter of Egypt. At this stage in the dynasty’s history, Ptolemy I was already Egypt’s governor and the first to “become strong” after the death of Alexander. ◊ The fourteen kings of this dynasty were all called Ptolemy and are numbered by modern historians I to XV (Ptolemy VII never reigned). A remarkable aspect of the Ptolemaic monarchy was the prominence of women (seven queens named Cleopatra and four Berenices), who rose to power when their sons or brothers were too young. This was almost unique in Antiquity. Another intriguing aspect was the willingness of the Ptolemies to present themselves to the Egyptians as native pharaohs… (from “Ptolemies” by Jon Lendering, 2002, http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemies.htm)

Ptolemy I Soter

Seleucus I Nicator

“One of his princes.” Another general under Alexander, Seleucus Nicator, had been the governor of Babylon but was forced to seek refuge for a time as an officer (satrap) under Ptolemy I because of the aggressive activities of another powerful general, Antigonus, who was trying to unite the Greek empire under himself. In the Battle of Ipsus, 301 B.C., Antigonus was defeated, and all hope that Alexander’s empire could ever reunite collapsed; it was then formally “divided toward the four winds of heaven” as illustrated in the map from the previous post and mentioned in verse 4. Seleucus then became king of Syria and eventually, the most powerful of Alexander’s successors: “he shall be strong above him”(above Ptolemy I, king of the South), and have dominion.” (KJV translation) Seleucus I expanded his empire to include Babylonia, part of Turkey, Persia, and even right to the border of India: “His dominion shall be a great dominion.” In the region of Syria Seleucus Nicator founded the city of Antioch near the seacoast. Because of its strategic location as an opening to the Mediterranean Sea, Antioch became the nerve center of the empire and in time rivaled Alexandria, Egypt, as the chief city of the Mid East. And so arose these two ruling families, the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt and the Seleucid dynasty of Syria – known as the “king of the South” and “king of the North” respectively – who controlled the Middle East, and later struggled with each other continually for the upper hand and possession of the Holy Land that lay between them. The passage in Daniel 11 now becomes a remarkable predocumentation of various intrigues, wars, alliances between these two superpowers. The events, predicted here in such detail, came to pass just as they were foretold according to the records of secular history. Such remarkable, accurate foresight into future events certainly provides convincing evidence of the supernatural origin of this message, which, as we can gather from chapter 10, was delivered by none other than Gabriel, the archangel of God.

2nd Generation: Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Egypt) – Antiochus II Theos (Syria) Verse 6 “And at the end of some years they shall join forces, for the daughter of the king of the South shall go to the king of the North to make an agreement; but she shall not retain the power of her authority, and neither he nor his authority shall stand; but she shall be given up, with those who brought her, and with him who begot her, and with him who strengthened her in those times.” Telescoping through the years, Gabriel’s message here takes us on to the next generation of kings: Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Ptolemy I’s son, was perhaps one of the more enlightened rulers of his day. Under his patronage the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew to Greek. This became known as the Septuagint and was originally intended as an addition to the king’s library. Copies of it were made, of course, and the Septuagint Bible spread throughout the ancient Greek-speaking world, with the result that many Gentiles converted to the Hebrew religion in those days. “And at the end of some years they shall join forces.” In ancient times it was a common practice of kings to form political alliances by sending their daughters as marriage partners for the king of another nation. For example, the Medes and the Persians had united together, and much of that unity was spurred along by marriage alliances made between the two nations. So this was the type of deal that Ptolemy II attempted to make with Antiochus II Theos in 249 B.C. He hoped to form an alliance with and even draw Syria into his kingdom by giving his daughter Berenice in marriage to the new Seleucid king. “For the daughter of the king of the South shall go to the king of the North to make an agreement.” However, she and her husband Antiochus ended up getting murdered by the latter’s jealous ex-wife in the land of Syria. “But she [Berenice] shall not retain the power of her authority, and neither he nor his authority shall stand.” And so, with this rather nasty turn of events began decades of bloody conflict between future generations of kings of the North and South.

3rd Generation: Ptolemy III Euergetes (Egypt) versus Seleucus Callinicus (Syria) Verses 7-9 “But from a branch of her roots one shall arise in his place, who shall come with an army, enter the fortress of the king of the North, and deal with them and prevail. “And he shall also carry their gods captive to Egypt, with their princes and their precious articles of silver and gold; and he shall continue more years than the king of the North. “Also the king of the North shall come to the kingdom of the king of the South, but shall return to his own land.” It was left to the next generation of Ptolemies to avenge the death of Berenice. Ptolemy III Euergetes, brother of Berenice, and thus “a branch of her roots (her parents)”, successfully invaded Syria as far as the Tigris River. He brought back the “gods”, the idols which the Medo-Persians had carried off from Egypt several generations earlier, along with a vast amount of wealth (“their precious articles of silver and gold”). “To Egypt.” This phrase, of course, serves to identify the “king of the South” as the ruler of Egypt. But interestingly, the land of Syria is not mentioned in the prophecy. At the time of Gabriel’s message (534 B.C.), Egypt was a prominent, long-established nation in the Mid East, but Syria (based in Antioch, not the former Assyrian empire based in Nineveh) was just a small backwater region. And here lies a small clue regarding the genuineness of this prophecy: had these words been written after the events took place (as some critics say), then likely, “Syria” would have been mentioned somewhere as the king of the North’s headquarters. But it is not mentioned, and this suggests that the prophecy came at an early date – before Syria became prominent during the reign of the Seleucid dynasty. “Egypt” was a word that Gabriel could easily use to communicate on the level of Daniel’s understanding, but “Syria” might have been more puzzling than helpful in his dialogue with Daniel. “He shall continue more years than the king of the North.” Ptolemy III outlived his Syrian counterpart, Seleucus Callinicus, by four years. Eventually, Ptolemy III returned to Egypt because of a sedition that had broken out there. At this time the “king of the North” (Seleucus Callinicus)

tried to invade “the kingdom of the king of the south” but was forced to “return to his own land”.

4th Generation: Ptolemy IV Philopater (Egypt) versus Antiochus III the Great (Syria) Verse 10 “However his sons shall stir up strife, and assemble a multitude of great forces; and one shall certainly come and overwhelm and pass through; then he shall return to his fortress and stir up strife.” Seleucus Callinicus had two sons who were intent on recovering the losses incurred during the reign of their father. After only two years on the throne, the elder son died and the younger son, at the age of only 15 years, ascended the throne and became known later as Antiochus III the Great. By the end of his 37-year reign, the Seleucid empire had not only recovered their losses from Egypt but also gained the land of Palestine. “One shall certainly come and overwhelm and pass through.” This refers to the surviving son of Seleucus Callinicus, Antiochus III, who did indeed “overwhelm” the forces of Egypt and “pass through” the land of southern Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. “Then he shall return to his fortress and stir up strife.” This could be translated better as “he again shall carry the war as far as his fortress.” (from ESV Bible) After a temporary retreat Antiochus continued the war right up to “his (the king of the South’s) fortress”, that is, right tothe very edge of Egypt at the border-post of Raphia. Verse 11 “And the king of the South shall be moved with rage, and go out and fight with him, with the king of the North, who shall muster a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy.” “Moved with rage.” Naturally, Ptolemy IV was angered over having lost his territory in Syria and Palestine. Although Antiochus III, the “king of the North”, did “muster a great multitude”, a huge army a little larger than Ptolemy’s, he was defeated in the Battle of Raphia (217 B.C.) with a great loss in dead and prisoners: “the multitude shall be given into the hand of his enemy.” And thus Palestine swung back into the hands of the Egyptians for awhile longer.

War in Ancient Times Verse 12 “When he has taken away the multitude, his heart will be lifted up; and he will cast down tens of thousands, but he will not prevail.” Although it was a triumphant victory for the king of the South, he did “not prevail”. First of all, he got “lifted up” in pride – a common reaction to success in those whose thoughts are not sufficiently grounded in humility. As a result Ptolemy IV failed to consolidate his victory, but instead returned immediately to Egypt where he could indulge in his luxuries and idle pastimes. Furthermore, unlike his enlightened grandfather, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, he had earned himself a rather bad reputation; for example, he had killed his father, mother, and brother – most likely for the purpose of confirming his position as absolute ruler. As a result Ptolemy IV was falling out of favor with many of his Egyptian subjects; they were becoming disillusioned with their foreign Greek king who was obviously frittering away the opportunity to become ruler over Syria. And if all this wasn’t enough, while in Palestine, Ptolemy IV profaned the Jewish temple by entering its most holy place.

5th Generation: Ptolemy V Epiphanes (Egypt) versus Antiochus III the Great (same king as above from Syria) Verse 13 “For the king of the North will return and muster a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come at the end of some years with a great army and much equipment.” In contrast to Ptolemy IV, Antiochus III busied himself with strengthening his huge, far-flung empire, and 14 years after his defeat at Raphia, (“at the end of some years”) he returned in 203 B.C. “with a great army and much equipment” to invade Egypt. By this time a new king sat on the Egyptian throne, Ptolemy V Epiphanes, who was then just a child of age 5. Verse 14 “Now in those times many shall rise up against the king of the South. Also, violent men of your people shall exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision, but they shall fall.” “Many shall rise up against the king of the South.” Because of Ptolemy IV’s misrule and now with a young king on the throne, Ptolemy V, this unstable situation gave rise to some attempted insurrections in Egypt. In addition, the Greek king, Philip V of Macedon, joined forces with Antiochus III, and they were hoping to divide Egypt up between themselves. Furthermore, some of the Jews (“violent men of your people”) were agitating for independence from Egypt. Having experienced at least one period of rule under the Seleucid dynasty, there was a desire among certain Jews to want to shift their allegiance towards Syria. These particular Jews rose up in violent rebellion. “But they shall fall.” At this time the Egyptian general Scopas came with a great army; and, while Antiochus was engaged in other parts of his realm, Scopas subdued the rebellions in Phoenecia (modern Lebanon) and Palestine. “Exalt themselves in fulfillment of the vision” (or KJV: “exalt themselves to establish the vision”). It is difficult to understand exactly what is meant by “vision” here: most interpreters consider it to be a reference to the general vision and warning in the Old Testament about the Jews’ troubles that would befall them if they should forsake the worship and principles of their God. The actions of these “violent men” were opportunistic and selfaggrandizing, and thus not in line with God’s will. Their insurrections did

nothing more than help to open the door for the Syrians to rule over Palestine. And in the years following, the Syrians began to introduce, even force on the Jews, the Greek cultural system of Hellenism and its pagan rites of worship. It was a difficult time for the Jewish people, and they experienced much persecution and trouble as a result of cozying up to the Syrians and the Hellenism that was becoming popular in those days. However, the persecution did have the beneficial result of strengthening the Jews’ faith. Eventually, the Jewish Maccabees rose up – with the right motives – and threw off the Syrian yoke in 165 B.C. And Judah became, for about 100 years, an independent state until the Romans came along in 63 B.C. There is much we can learn about the influence of Hellenism and its similarity to what is going on in our world today. In those days Hellenism had begun to exert a strong pull on the Jewish imagination, and there was a tendency to want to “modernize” Palestine by introducing Greek culture; many Jews forsook their beliefs in order to adopt this enticing cultural alternative, something that seemed on the surface at least to be more exciting than their traditional, and maybe over-traditional, Jewish culture. Perhaps we could compare this situation to how Christian people today (and Jews) experience a strong pull away from their traditional values and beliefs, and it can become a great struggle to resist the secular, humanist, and materialistic mindsets that prevail in our modern times. When people swallow these beliefs, whether ancient Hellenism or modern materialism, it boils down to an exaltation of self, of man, of this world, rather than exaltation of God. It has happened often in history that a religious movement, through time, can become too traditional and compromised and thereby lose its vibrancy and relevancy. As a result would-be seekers may perceive the established worship system as too outmoded, and thus end up getting sidetracked into what they think are reasonable, more exciting alternatives. This is unfortunate, and it behooves those who call themselves Christians to stir themselves up, to shake off the cobwebs of compromise and worn-out approaches while embracing God’s new viewpoints and methods that can better relate to and attract others. ◊ The believers of each time period [in the history of the Christian church] had to be prepared to adapt to the world around them to some degree, in order to reach people and to be relevant to their world. Whenever the church tried to halt the process of change or was unwilling to adapt to the times, it

ran into trouble and either became too rigid and controlling, or it became irrelevant and people lost interest in Christianity. (from publication of The Family International – August, 2010)

Another possible interpretation of this passage: These “violent men” may have been hoping to bring about the restoration of Israel as a great nation (which would have been an indirect way to “exalt themselves”); and there are many predictions along this line in the prophetic books about Israel’s future (in the next Age). This could have been the “vision” they had in mind. They may have thought that somehow, through their alliance with the Syrians, this would be a step on the way to actually accomplish this. But it was the wrong way to go about it. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” and “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God.” (Matthew 5:5,9) Israel had already become a great nation under king David and king Solomon. And the future great “Israel” that many prophecies refer to should be understood as referring to the new “Israel”, consisting of those who are genuine followers of Christ; “the meek” and “the peacemakers”, they are the ones who are destined to take over the government of the world after the Battle of Armageddon. That is a big subject, and so is the question of how the New Testament explains that the inheritance or mantle that once belonged to the Jewish people has been transferred to the followers of the greatest Jew of all, Jesus Christ. More information on this can be found in this post about the Second Coming. To conclude, it is difficult to understand the meaning of every last detail of prophetic messages, much as we might like to understand them. And this particular detail about the “vision” in verse 14 may be one of those details that, for now, will have to remain with a question mark attached to it – at least until some fairly air-tight interpretation can be made of it. Verses 15-16 “So the king of the North shall come and build a siege mound, and take a fortified city; and the forces of the South shall not withstand him. Even his choice troops shall have no strength to resist. “But he who comes against him shall do according to his own will, and no one shall stand against him. He shall stand in the Glorious Land with destruction in his power.” By the end of the 14-year gap in hostilities, Antiochus III the Great had strengthened his armed forces, while during the same time, the Ptolemaic

kingdom was hobbling along under its young and inexperienced king, Ptolemy V Epiphanes. At the Battle of Panium (198 B.C.) in northern Israel, the Syrian army won a major victory. The Egyptian army fled to Tyre on the coast (“a fortified city”), and were again defeated. In spite of sending “his choice troops” – a reference to the dispatch of three top generals to assist in the conduct of the war – the Egyptians had “no strength to resist” and were forced to surrender and return to Egypt. “According to his own will.” Again we see this phrase which seems to be reserved for those political-military leaders who achieve a very large measure of authority in the world of their day: Alexander the Great, or the future Antichrist, and here Antiochus the Great, who now had gained undisputed control of “the Glorious Land”, meaning the land of Israel. As so many conquerors have done – upon reaching the stage where they could operate unhindered – Antiochus the Great over-extended himself, and this became his undoing. “He shall stand in the Glorious Land with destruction in his power.” After 100 years of peaceful Ptolemaic rule, Israel now found herself under the rule of the Syrians who soon proved to be far more ruthless than their former Egyptian- Greek and Persian overlords. The Seleucids ruled Palestine for the next 30 years or so until a revolt led by the Maccabee family brought independence to Israel in 165 B.C. Over the years, Israel – the land that lay between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties – had become quite exhausted from the back-and-forth struggles between the two superpowers. That, and the Syrian policy of harsh repression and persecution, brought “destruction” to the land of Israel from which she would have been spared had she remained in the hands of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Verse 17 “He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do. And he shall give him the daughter of women to destroy it; but she shall not stand with him, or be for him.” Having conquered Phoenecia and Palestine, Antiochus III was about to invade Egypt, a much larger enterprise that would have required him to use “the strength of his whole kingdom”. There were “upright ones with him”. This seems to be a reference to a force of Hebrew mercenaries who thought

that it would be beneficial to cooperate with their new ruler, the Syrian conqueror Antiochus. At about this time, however, Antiochus decided to change plans and “turn his face to the coastlands”. (verse 18) These were territories in Asia Minor (along the Turkish coast) that used to belong to the Seleucid dynasty but were now being taken over by the Romans. “Thus shall he do.” Rather than use his army to invade Egypt, Antiochus had up his sleeve what he thought was a better, more devious plan: he would create an alliance with Egypt by marrying off his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy V with a promise of a large dowry (the lands of Phoenecia and Palestine). “He shall give him (Ptolemy V) the daughter of women.” The young king was only 13 years of age at the time of this proposal in 197 B.C. When the marriage took place in 193 B.C., Antiochus was busy making preparations for war with the Romans. The marriage, he expected, would neutralize the Egyptians in the upcoming war. At that time the Egyptians were all too eager to align themselves with the new rising power. (News of Rome’s victory against the forces of Hannibal and the destruction of Carthage had by now swept through the Mediterranean world; and nations were falling all over themselves to gain Rome’s favor.) The marriage, therefore, was not in the best interests of Egypt but was intended as a way “to destroy it” – to bring Egypt under Syrian rule. The plan, however, backfired because Cleopatra (the first in a long line of queens by that name) was faithful to stand by the side of her new husband, and not betray him. “She shall not stand with him (her father Antiochus III), or be for him.” She is called here “the daughter of women”, a title of honor perhaps because of her royal standing, or perhaps because of her great beauty and accomplishments. (The last Cleopatra became well known in history as the lover of Mark Antony, governor of the eastern Roman empire after 44 B.C., the year of Julius Caesar’s assassination.)

1) Elizabeth Taylor acted as Cleopatra in the movie Cleopatra (1963) 2) The Rosetta Stone ◊ The origin of the Rosetta Stone can be traced back to this era of history: The Stone was discovered in 1799 by Napoleon’s troops in Memphis, Egypt. It was engraved with decrees issued for the occasion of Ptolemy V’s official coronation in 196-197 B.C. at the age of 12. Because three languages were used – Greek, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and Demotic (a later Egyptian language) – the Rosetta Stone provided the linguistic clues that enabled scholars to decipher the hieroglyphic inscriptions of ancient Egypt. Verse 18 “After this he shall turn his face to the coastlands, and shall take many. But a ruler shall bring the reproach against them to an end; and with the reproach removed, he shall turn back on him.” In this verse is foretold Antiochus’ war with the Romans. The Mediterranean islands around Greece and off the western coast of Asia Minor

(Turkey) had come under Roman protection. Antiochus III, wanting to expand the Seleucid empire to its original borders, set out to re-conquer some of these outermost districts in Asia Minor and Greece (“the coastlands”). At first he was quite successful, and this brought “reproach” because it mocked the seeming invincibility of the new rising Roman power. But Rome soon came to the aid of these small territories; and roundly defeated Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia (190 B.C.) in what is now western Turkey. Besides losing all of maritime Asia Minor and Greece, the terms of peace required Syria also to pay for the war, a huge debt which lasted for some years afterwards. In this way the “reproach” that Antiochus had brought was “removed” by the Roman general (the “ruler”) who turned the tables on Antiochus by forcing him to withdraw in ignominious defeat. The wording in the translation is a little confusing, but basically it’s just saying that the Romans caused Antiochus’ “reproach” against them to “turn back on” himself. As a matter of interest, one of the generals responsible for the Roman victory, General Scipio Asiaticus, was the brother of Scipio Africanus who, a few years earlier, had vanquished the armies of Hannibal of Carthage. A bitter and vengeance-seeking Hannibal had in the meantime fled to the east Mediterranean and was hoping to enlist the help of Antiochus III to rise up with him against Rome itself, a move that Antiochus was sensible enough not to consider.

The “Diadokhoi” is a name for the successors to Alexander the Great’s empire. The map shows (a little more than 100 years after the death of Alexander) the Seleucid kingdom with its now extended rule over Israel, plus the location of the major battles fought around this time. (Map used by permission) Verse 19 “Then he shall turn his face toward the fortress of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.” Having suffered such spectacular defeat before the Romans, Antiochus had no other choice but to retreat and seek refuge in “the fortress of his own land” – his own empire where it should have been safe for him to carry on. However, during an expedition to plunder a temple of Zeus in the eastern districts, Antiochus was caught and murdered by the enraged inhabitants of the region in 187 B.C. To offend a people’s religious sensitivities can bring on dire consequences; and we frequently hear, even nowadays, about seemingly minor infringements that, because of enflamed religious passions, end up having tragic consequences.

Verse 20 “There shall arise in his place one who imposes taxes on the glorious kingdom; but within a few days he shall be destroyed, but not in anger or in battle.” Antiochus III’s son, Seleucus IV Philopater (“one who imposes taxes”) spent an uneventful reign trying to pay off the war debt of his father. He sent his envoy, Heliodorus, to the richer regions of the kingdom to levy taxes, which included the “glorious kingdom” – Israel and the temple. “Within a few days he shall be destroyed.” Seleucus IV’s reign was 11 years, relatively short compared to the reigns of the other Seleucid kings. He was poisoned by Heliodorus who was hoping to usurp the kingdom from Seleucus’ older son Demetrius, the rightful heir (who had just been sent away to Rome as a captive).The murder was done “not in anger or in battle”; it was a cold, calculated move by an ambitious member of the government. ◊ So what can we learn from this extensive yet microscopic glimpse at postAlexandrian history, this detailed cataloguing of the bloody wars, treacheries, deceptions, and so on between the kings of the North and South? If nothing else, it exposes for us how thoroughly corrupt are the games of power politics that go on in the world. And this account was not some kind of deviation from the normal run of things but is typical of mankind’s conduct throughout history, even in our modern times. Although there are a few bright spots and there have been a few wise and benevolent rulers, for the most part the history of the elite power-brokers has been a dismal account of brutality, treachery, and greed. There can be no false optimism that man, on his own, will ever achieve lasting peace or harmony in the world. Nevertheless, we can look forward to a bright future. God’s plan along these lines is laid out clearly in the Revelation Book and elsewhere in the Bible. As much as Daniel 11 highlights the world’s depravity and great need for a Savior, other portions of the Sacred Book highlight the great salvation and restoration of Paradise on Earth that God has promised for the future through the work of the Savior. Another purpose accomplished by these detailed predictions of Gabriel: they authenticate the rest of what he has to say about the more distant future. If he’s able to so accurately predict the future of the Jewish people in interTestament times, then it’s obvious he knows what he’s talking about. And so we can rest assured that the remainder of the unfulfilled predictions about the distant future will also come to pass.

Part 3 – Gabriel’s “Telescope” Zooms out into the Distant Future 3-A: “Vile Person” Arrives on the Scene (11:21-23) To recap so far: After predicting the rise of Persia and Greece in verses 2-4, the angel Gabriel continues on with a lengthy description (11:5-20) of wars that would arise between the two Greek dynasties who ruled ancient Syria and Egypt. This struggle between the kings of the north and south, as they are called, leads up to the arrival of “a vile person” here in verse 21. Verses 21-23 “And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty; but he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue. “With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the prince of the covenant. “And after the league is made with him he shall act deceitfully, for he shall come up and become strong with a small number of people.” In the chronology of history, we would assume this “vile person” to have been the next Syrian king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes – a historical figure who fit the role of a “vile person” quite well. But as we shall see, Gabriel is at the same time referring to someone else. This “someone else” is the Antichrist figure of the End Time. How do we know this? In the very next verse we are told, “and also the prince of the covenant.” Or, to translate it more accurately: “and [he is] also the prince of the covenant.” This peculiar statement serves to identify and link the “vile person” to the previous revelation in Daniel 9:27 about a “prince” who confirms a “covenant” in the time of the End. Now most commentaries on these particular Scriptures (from verse 21 on to 35) emphasize more the activities of the ancient king as having fulfilled the predictions given in them. On the surface there may be some reason for thinking this way. But when we study this passage in more depth, it seems rather to reveal a modern day setting and a description of the “vile person” who is to come in the End Time. Significant along these lines is the fact that up to this point (11:20) the events mentioned in Gabriel’s message

can be matched easily with the events of recorded history; but from here on the historical events don’t seem to match the way they should. Studying the various conflicting interpretations and commentaries, one gets the impression that much scholastic effort has been spent on trying to force the historical evidence to fit into a mold – with the intent of applying these Scriptures to ancient history as if they had already been fulfilled long ago in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes when the reality is that they were meant to apply to a future age, the era of the Antichrist. Since the approach of applying this passage (verses 21-35) to the modern era and the Antichrist is not the standard or generally accepted approach, it will take some extra, in-depth analysis to see how it is better to apply the passage to distant future events rather than to the past. Indeed, it would seem quite a mismatch if the revelation, having had such a grand introduction with the appearance of Christ in His supernatural glory (10:4-9), should dwell so much on predictions about an obscure ancient ruler, and not dwell more on the events leading up to the grand climax of human history – what Jesus’ disciples were so curious about and referred to as the “end of the age”. (Matthew 24:3) Having just said that, however, it should be conceded that the angel Gabriel very likely was trying to draw attention to this ancient ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes. As a model of the Antichrist, he fits the role quite well, and his example can help us understand a few things about the future Antichrist and his reign. For instance, Antiochus IV was the first pagan monarch to exploit the Jews for their faith, rather than for their territory or wealth or work-force as previous conquerors had done. And he even went so far as to desecrate the ancient Jewish temple, sacrificing a pig on the altar and then later erecting a statue to the Roman god Zeus. The Scriptures foretell that the Antichrist, in like fashion, will be quite obsessed about the faith in God of not only the Jews but of the Christian world, and probably the Islamic world as well, and any other religions that refuse to accept his rule. Furthermore, he also will desecrate a Jewish “holy place” (with his modern-style “abomination of desolation“). And another feature about the ancient ruler: His last name Epiphanes means “the Manifest [god]“. Like many ancient emperors, he had no qualms about exalting himself into the status of a divine being. In like

fashion, the Antichrist also will pursue a similar (but modernized) version of the ancient pagan practice of emperor worship: “Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God”. (2 Thessalonians 2:4) “He shall exalt and magnify himself above every god”. (Daniel 11:36) ◊ … The war of these two kingdoms [ancient “king of the North” versus ancient Israel] … typically characterizes and portrays the relation of the world-kingdom to the kingdom of God. This war arose under the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes to such a height, that it formed a prelude of the war of the time of the end. The undertaking of this king to root out the worship of the living God and destroy the Jewish religion, shows in type the great war which the world-power in the last phases of its development shall undertake against the kingdom of God, by exalting itself above every god, to hasten on its own destruction and the consummation of the kingdom of God. (from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, 1866: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.) For a further discussion on this subject regarding other examples in the Book of Daniel of historical figures who were meant to foreshadow the future Antichrist, see Appendix 1: Forerunners of the Antichrist.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his persecution of the Jewish people So, although the spotlight shifts here from the “one who imposes taxes” in verse 20 (Seleucus IV Philopater) on to the “vile person” of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, this is not the whole story. For at this point the spotlight suddenly turns into a telescope and peers many centuries into the future onto another “vile person”. This person is like a spiritual descendant, in the modern age, of the ancient king, and, like his ancient ancestor, will carry on a campaign of religious repression against the people of God. In the very next verse we are told, “Yea, also the prince of the covenant” (from KJV translation). This peculiar statement is often misunderstood and probably should have been translated, “Yea, [he is] also the prince of the covenant.” Through this statement, Gabriel is simply reminding Daniel about the previous revelation (in chapter 9, verse 27) about the Antichrist “prince” who “shall confirm a covenant with many” at the end of the “70 weeks”. (See the Daniel 9 Post VIII-6 for more information on that.) He is linking his former message to this new one in chapter 11. In the former message, Gabriel had said that, after confirming the covenant, the “prince” later turns against it. (This violent repudiation of the covenant, by the way, is the last great signpost before the End, that provocative deed which will thrust the world into its last period of history known as the Great Tribulation.) This chapter 11 pictures the same scenario – with different wording and in more detail: first is the identification in verse 22 of the “king of the North” as the same “prince of the covenant” from the previous revelation (in

chapter 9); then there is mention of the “league [covenant] made with him” in verse 23; this is followed by his repudiation of it when he “defiles the sanctuary” (in verse 31). The “covenant” is mentioned five times in this chapter (verses 23, 28, 30, 32), and it is fairly obvious from the “time appointed” and “time of the end” phrases that this “covenant” is meant to take place at the tail end of history, not somewhere back in ancient times. So to be consistent with the rest of the passage, it should be safe to assume that when Gabriel is referring to the “prince of the covenant” here in verse 22, he means by that the “prince” who would “confirm a covenant with many for one week” – the same one whom he had already mentioned some three years earlier (in Daniel 9:27). And as will become clearer as we go on, that “prince” (the Antichrist) and the “covenant” belong in the End Time period of man’s history.

Chapter 11 enlarges on what Gabriel told Daniel 3-4 years earlier (in chapter 9) about the “prince” who would “confirm the covenant” and then break it Now at first glance it might be easy to think that the passage is saying that the “vile person” is going to kill the “prince of the covenant”:

“He (the vile person) shall… seize the kingdom…they shall be swept away from before him and be broken, and also the prince of the covenant.” Judging by the way the passage was translated, this would be a logical conclusion. At this point, however, it will help to dig into some of the nuts and bolts of ancient Hebrew and how it gets translated. The following discussion may seem rather technical, a little tedious perhaps, but probably necessary towards the purpose of determining what this ancient prophecy is really getting at. In times past, doing this kind of exercise on these verses was not so essential, but now that we are entering the era that the prophecy focuses on, it is imperative to clarify and understand more precisely what this ancient message is really saying. To begin this exercise, the following quote from a lively lecture on the subject might make a good introduction: ◊ I have always taught that the prince of the covenant is the Antichrist! … Now it says, “Yea, also the prince of the covenant!” Now, listen, because this is one of those places in which, if you don’t watch out, you’re going to get overthrown…! Don’t stop here and don’t link it too closely with what has just been read, because originally the Bible was not even divided into chapters and verses, neither was it even punctuated! The Old Testament in the Hebrew doesn’t have any punctuation, so you can make a mistake and divide things where they shouldn’t be divided, and run them together where they shouldn’t be run together. There is kind of a pause here, and it looks almost like the translator has linked it together: “Yea, also the Prince of the Covenant.” Now, this sounds like, if you … punctuate it and run it together the way the translator did here that put these verses together, it sounds like, “Oh! The Prince of the Covenant got run over too! He too got broken, right?” But what it is saying here is: “Yea”– and if the translator had only thought to add one more little word here it would’ve made it clear: “Yea, (he’s) also the prince of the covenant!” This is literally what this passage means. It does not mean, “Yea, also the Prince of the Covenant” is broken. I’ll grant you, that’s what at first sight it might look like and sound like, if you don’t really know your Bible and all the rest of the passages … (excerpt from lecture by David Berg – May, 1979) Since there were no periods, commas, or verse divisions in the original Hebrew (typical of languages in their early stages of development), then it should be no problem to adjust verses 22-23 as follows with a period and verse division after the word “broken”:

Verse 22: With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken. Verse 23: And yea, he is also the prince of the covenant; and after the league is made with him, he shall act deceitfully, for he shall come up and become strong with a small nation. ◊ A Note on Hebrew Parallelism: Commonly used in ancient Hebrew was the literary device known as parallel structure. For example, in Psalm 19:1 we read, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” Then in the second part of the verse the same idea is repeated more or less: “and the firmament [expanse of heaven] shows His handiwork.” The words “heavens” and “firmament” both mean pretty much the same thing. And there are countless examples of this literary technique to be found throughout the Old Testament. It was a way of adding some variety to literary expression and some extra information. For example the word “handiwork” gets across an additional point about God as the Creator. In Daniel 11 it appears that Gabriel was trying to use the same technique in his discourse with Daniel. In verses 22 and 23 we find the words “covenant” and “league”. And in verses 23 and 24 the words “small number of people” (or “small nation”) and “province”. It helps to understand this point since, otherwise, it might be easy to think that these words are referring to different things when it was only a matter of using different terminology for the same thing (and thereby adding variety, color, and extra meaning to literary expression). And if we assume a parallel structure here, so that the “covenant” in verse 22 is the same as the “league” in verse 23, then it must be that the “prince of the covenant” in verse 22 is the same person in verse 23 with whom the “league is made”. All that to say, it would not make sense for the “prince of the covenant” in verse 22 to have been “broken” or killed; otherwise, how could he carry on his activities in the next verse, and right on to the end of the chapter? Another factor to consider, in ancient Hebrew key words were sometimes omitted (usually the words for “is” or “are”), and thus, translators had difficulty knowing when to insert an extra word and when not to. These “nominal sentences”, as Hebrew scholars call them, were used extensively in the ancient language. All through the Old Testament, we can find such examples; to differentiate them, these words are printed in italics in most Bibles.

In the Book of Daniel (NKJV translation) we can find the italicized words “it is” in several places – 2:11, 3:14, 6:15, 9:7,9:13, 9:15, 11:35; “there was” in 1:4; “there is only” in 2:9; “is the case” in 3:17; “is the one” in 6:26; “was there any” in 8:4; “they are” in 8:20; “it refers” in 8: 26; “there shall be” in 9:25, 12:11; “it shall be” in 12:7. And here is a random selection from the Book of Proverbs (7:12, 8:32, 9:13 from the KJV translation) – “is she, are they, she is”. Words were written in italics like this just to show that they were not there in the original Hebrew manuscripts but were added by the translators so that, in the English language, the passages would be easier to understand. In the case of Daniel 11:22, the italicized words “he is” should have been added so the passage would make better sense. Otherwise, it sounds as if the “vile person” is going to kill the “prince of the covenant”. That would make no sense since that means he would be destroying himself. Many commentaries, however, have suggested that the “vile person” and the “prince of the covenant” were two different persons – namely, the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes and the Jewish high priest who was murdered around that time. This idea assumes that the word “covenant” refers to the covenant between God and man; therefore, the “prince of the covenant” would refer to the high priest of God’s people of that era, the Jews. As noted above, the “covenant” is also expressed as a “league” (in verse 23). The word “covenant” (berith) often (but not always) refers to covenantsbetween God and man, whereas “league” (chabar) is used for agreements made between groups and individuals, between human beings. As a parallel structure, the words “league” and “covenant” are supposed to refer to the same thing. Thus, the use of the word “league” serves the purpose of fine-tuning our understanding of what kind of “covenant” the “prince of the covenant” is presiding over. It is a political agreement between him and other human beings.. Furthermore, reading ahead to verses 30-31, we learn more about the activities of the “vile person” (who is the “king of the North”) that he will “return in rage against the holy covenant”, and his forces “shall defile the sanctuary” and “take away the daily sacrifices”; and this all happens in the “time of the end” (verse 35). This is saying the same thing (with more detail) that Gabriel had told Daniel three years earlier about the “prince” who would

“confirm a covenant” but then would “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” (9:27). In chapter 9 this “prince” was pictured making war on Jerusalem in the 70th “week”, the last seven years of history. In that prophetic message, Gabriel outlined a period of “70 weeks” (490 years) that would transpire between “the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem” in 444-445 B.C. and the return of the Messiah “to make an end of sins… to bring in everlasting righteousness”. (9:25,24) In that “70 weeks” time span, there is a gap after the end of 69 “weeks” (483 years) when Jesus was crucified. And this “gap” fast-forwards the prophetic message into modern times and the brief period of Antichrist’s rule right before the Second Coming. This is a big subject and is covered in some detail in the post “Christ’s Second Coming Predicted”. So, if we understand in Daniel 9:27 that the “prince” who “shall confirm a covenant” is a figure who will appear in the End Time, then we can safely assume in Daniel 11:22, by this “prince of the covenant” phrase, that the prophetic message has, likewise, shifted into the End Time and will go on to describe in more detail the activities of the same End Time “prince” of the previous revelation (of Daniel 9). And this is confirmed for us later on in verses 35 and 40 where the phrase “time of the end” is used. So with this phrase, it is as if Gabriel is saying, “By the way, in case you’re wondering, this ‘vile person’ happens to be the same one that I was talking about before in Daniel 9:27. You remember the one? That “prince” who confirms then violates the ‘covenant’? Well, I’m talking about him again now.” It seems straightforward enough. Verse 31 makes it clear that this “vile person”, this “king of the north”, should be identified with the same “prince who confirms the covenant” of the previous revelation in Daniel 9:27. And if that is the case, then it is natural to understand the “prince of the covenant” phrase in verse 22 of this chapter 11 as a sort of junction point where the passage makes a switch (or telescopes) from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes to that of the future Antichrist. So, all that to say, it seems out-ofsync with the rest of Gabriel’s discussion to assign some ancient Jewish high priest into the role of “prince of the covenant”. That phrase, “yea, [he is] also the prince of the covenant”, is nothing more than a proclamation to identify who the “vile person” is; and it also serves to guide us into the new distant-future setting of the prophecy. It was

nothing more than Gabriel’s way of linking the present discussion to his former discussion with Daniel from chapter 9. It seems more reasonable to understand that the angel, in his reference to the “prince of the covenant”, is merely trying to maintain a link with the previous message. And he is using that link – about the prince who breaks the covenant – to re-direct the flow of his message in chapter 11. We could say that he is adjusting the telescope; it is being extended from the “vile person” of Antiochus Epiphanes to the final “vile person” – the Antichrist of modern times who is called here “the prince of the covenant”. It is as if Gabriel is saying, “The leader or ‘prince’, mentioned in the previous revelation (Daniel 9), who had much to do with the formation of the 7-year ‘covenant’, is coming back into the picture, and from here on his activities will be the main subject of discussion.” But rather than saying it in so many words, the angel simply gives some extra emphasis to the “prince of the covenant” phrase (by using the Hebrew word gam, translated by the words “yea” and “also” in the KJV translation). Some definitions of the Hebrew word gam : Not infrequently [gam] is used as an intensitive… It often only serves to make a sentence emphatic, and sometimes may be rendered yea, indeed, truly, or else it shows that the next word, takes a considerable emphasis. [from Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (English translation from German), 1846] This little word gam serves then to transform the phrase – “yea, (he is) also the prince of the covenant” – into a sort of proclamation; it was a way of drawing attention to the fact that, although the prophecy had been dwelling on ancient times and the rule of the Seleucids, and now Antiochus Epiphanes, at this point it is shifting to a different character in a different era (but at least someone who will resemble in many ways the ancient king, the ancient “vile person”). And in the mind of the angel who is speaking to Daniel, it connects his present discussion with the previous revelation in Daniel 9:27 about a “prince” who would “confirm a covenant with many for one week”. It’s also the angel’s way of saying that he’s going to elaborate on the sketchy bit of information given three or four years earlier in Daniel 9:27 about this mysterious “covenant” and the “prince” who confirms it.

And as far as the actual ancient history is concerned, there is no real basis for the general tendency in scholastic circles to relegate this “prince of the covenant” phrase into the ancient past. (See quotes on this subject in Appendix 2.) The historical facts simply do not support the view that the “prince of the covenant” phrase has something to do with ancient historical events. And indeed, it would make little sense to suppose that the angel who, three or four years earlier (in Daniel 9:27), had delivered the message about a “prince” who would “confirm a covenant”, should suddenly start talking about an entirely different “covenant” and an entirely different “prince”. In the mind of Gabriel the previous message he had given Daniel was still current. (In the Celestial Domain time is experienced in a different way to how we experience it.) And it would have been natural for Gabriel to refer back to what he had said before and try to connect the two messages. For him this new message wasn’t so new; it was more like a continuation of his previous message from chapter 9; he was just building on it and filling in more details. Like a rudder, this “prince of the covenant” phrase redirects the flow of the prophetic message. Or, we could say, like a marker or signpost it shows us where we are and where we’re headed. And so at this point the prophecy telescopes from the ancient Seleucid kingdom into the modern era (or near future). This is not as unusual as one might think; this peculiar sort of catapulting from an ancient historical era to the modern era pops up in all the other revelations Daniel had about the distant future. For example, in the “70 weeks” prophecy there is a shift from ancient Roman times (in verse 26) straight into modern times (verse 27). There are similar shifts elsewhere: in chapter 2 about the vision of the “image”, the iron legs of Rome shift to the iron-clay feet of the End Time kingdom; in chapter 7, the “fourth beast” is symbolic of both ancient Rome and the modern Antichrist kingdom; in chapter 8 the revelation about the ancient Greek kingdom’s rise to power switches suddenly into the End Time; there the clue was the phrase “in the latter time of their kingdom”. (8:23) All these predictions in the Book of Daniel assume the existence of the Israeli nation. But for almost 2,000 years there was no Israel. So of course, there has to be a “jump” – from the ancient time to the distant future, a day when Israel would be restored as a nation (as it was in recent times in 1948). And like the other passages about the future, the passage in Daniel 11 also “jumps” abruptly out of the ancient Greek empire of the Seleucid king into

the far distant future. And the signal for that “jump” comes here with this phrase, “yea [he is] also the prince of the covenant”. Up until verse 21, the “road” was leading towards Antiochus Epiphanes, but then in verse 22, a key signpost appears, directing us off that road, and we turn onto another road, the one that travels straight into modern times and its anti-Christ ruler. Again, it will help to remember that time is measured differently in the Celestial Realm; what may stretch into centuries by earthly reckoning, in that Realm may seem nothing more than a few days. (Psalm 90:4) Up to this point in Daniel 11, the prophecy had been talking about the ancient struggles between Syria and Egypt, but now the angel switches to a different time and a different “king of the North”. The Syrian dynasty came to a close soon after the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. So it was needful to reassign the “king of the North’s” identity to that of the “prince of the covenant”, the anti-Christ ruler of the End Time, whose reign would in some ways resemble that of the ancient dynasty. ◊ What about the possibility that verses 11:22 and 9:27 refer to the same Endtime “covenant” but to different people? Could it be that the“prince of the covenant” in 11:22 is the author of the covenant while the“prince” in 9:27 is a different person who only“confirms the covenant”? Could the phrase in 11:22 refer to the person who authored the“covenant” but gets“broken” by the Antichrist who, although he once confirmed the covenant, now turns against it? Maybe, but this does seem to over-complicate the scenario. And it doesn’t seem likely that such fine or added shades of meaning should be squeezed out of the simple and rough structure of the ancient Hebrew language. Although the art of Biblical interpretation demands that we do not gloss over but understand fully what passages of Scripture are saying, at the same time it also demands that we avoid the pitfall of reading more into the ancient text than what is really there. It seems too much of a departure from the overall context to view this “prince of the covenant” phrase as anything more than a link and a signpost: a helpful link to the previous revelation in Daniel 9:27, and a signpost to redirect the flow of Gabriel’s prophetic message into the future – not unlike how Daniel’s previous revelations “jumped” suddenly from ancient events into the distant future. Now, although the passage signals here that it is veering into the End Time, this doesn’t have to mean that Antiochus Epiphanes has been completely forgotten. Verse 22 states, “Yea [he is] also the prince of the

covenant”, which suggests that the message can include both personages, ancient and modern. History always seems to repeat itself in different forms and under different technologies. So this section (verses 21-35) can almost be read on two levels – like a double image in photography where two pictures appear on one frame. This is like so many of the prophecies and visions that God gave in the Old Testament, which were designed with this in mind – to illustrate future realities. Perhaps a certain event was taking place back in the ancient time (or about to take place), and this event served as a springboard to catapult the prophet into a future age (the End Time) when events similar to what was going on back then would be taking place. Because the angel seems to draw some attention to the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (as a sort of preview of what the Antichrist’s reign will be like), many scholars have tried to interpret verses 21-35 as already fulfilled in past events, with perhaps a faint echo of reference to the future Antichrist of the End Time. In actuality, it should be the other way around: the events of antiquity are a faint echo of the future events to which the prophecy is directly referring. In short, the Bible scholars of the past generally wanted to make the prophecy fit in with the events of ancient history, not realizing that this portion of the prophecy is supposed to be about the future rather than about the past. It was not an already-fulfilled prophecy, as many of them thought. And, of course, that thinking affected the way that verse 22 was translated – in such a way that the link to the “prince of the covenant” of Daniel 9:27 was obscured. Remembering that this is the archangel Gabriel talking, it shouldn’t seem unusual that he would have been capable of seeing the future, and where there is overlap or similarity of events from two periods of time, he might even be capable of referring to both at once (as he seems to do here in verses 21-22). As an angel, we could imagine that his mind was capable of working on several levels at once and that he could visualize the near future and the distant future simultaneously. In the mind of Gabriel, it seems that these two widely time-separated eras of history are being visualized at the same time. Or to say it in another way, the angel pointed briefly towards Antiochus Epiphanes because he knew his example from ancient times would foreshadow the Antichrist’s persecution of the people of God in modern times.

Gabriel uses this two-persons-in-one method of explaining future events. In his previous revelation to Daniel (9:26-27), as we learned earlier, he speaks of the ancient Roman Caesar and the future Antichrist as if they were the same person. In that case, the invasion and destruction of Jerusalem was the common factor between the ancient and the modern personages. And in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes, the obsession with religious persecution is the common factor. Gabriel uses these former antichrist-type personages from ancient times as a sort of backdrop or illustration that makes it easier to understand the distant future activities of the final Antichrist. . But that doesn’t mean that the events described after verse 21 in chapter 11 are describing events of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Since the ancient events do not match properly with Gabriel’s message, they may at best be understood as a secondary shadowy fulfillment. The primary fulfillment is yet to come… in the very End Time. We are on the exciting threshold of seeing these events happen – the ultimate fulfillment of these words from long ago! Unfortunately, the predominant view in Biblical scholarship sees Gabriel’s message from verses 21 to 30 or 35 mostly in terms of ancient history. Why has this happened, we may wonder? Well, it is quite understandable. In former times Bible scholars did not have the benefit of the kind of historical hindsight that we have today. In particular, they had not witnessed the return of the Jewish people to Israel. So it was natural to think that the “70 weeks” time span in Daniel 9 could have run its course long ago or that the king of the North’s wars and activities against the Jews and the temple in Daniel 11:21-35 were fulfilled by the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes. Since the nation of Israel had been dismantled and no longer existed, it was difficult to see how these Scriptures could be fulfilled other than by assuming that they had been fulfilled in the time of ancient Israel. Furthermore, it is a natural human tendency to want to “explain” everything rather than to admit there are some prophetic messages whose time has not yet come to be explained except in the vaguest of terms. But now, since Israel has returned to existence in the modern world, it is needful to recalibrate and to understand these Scriptures in the light of modern historical conditions.

Although the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes bears some resemblance to Gabriel’s message, there are also plenty of differences. Trying to view Antiochus Epiphanes as the primary fulfillment of this passage seems to be more an exercise in trying to force the historical evidence to fit into a preconceived mold. If one pounds hard enough, the evidence may appear to fit. But probably it is a wiser approach to understand that, from this point on, the historical evidence that fits nicely with Gabriel’s message has yet to appear on the world scene. By the way, there are several other clues pointing to the fact that the prophecy has veered into modern times, the End Time: we have seen already the phrase “prince of the covenant” – first clue. There are others that will be considered as we go along. Then after verse 35 the prophecy swings completely out of any hint of similarity to past events. Up till that point some passing reference will be made to ancient events, for interest’s sake, and even for the purpose of throwing some light on how to interpret the prophecy as it applies to our present day and the near future. *** Getting back then to our commentary: “And in his place shall arise a vile person, to whom they will not give the honor of royalty.” (11:21) As we know by now, the next Syrian king was Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Even though he was not the rightful heir, he usurped the throne from his brother in 175 B.C. and so was not given “the honor of royalty”. This “vile person”, true to this description, carried out a ruthless campaign of repression against the Jewish people. “But he shall come in peaceably, and seize the kingdom by intrigue” – Antiochus had managed to “come in peaceably” and snatch the kingdom from his brother “by intrigue”. It was not any kind of violent overthrow. Now since we know from the next verse that the “vile person” is also the modern Antichrist, then we should look at how this verse would apply to him. And here it might help to go by the more accurate translation in the KJV which states, “He shall come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.” * Although we haven’t seen yet how exactly the Antichrist will get swept into power, we already know that this tactic of coming in “peaceably… by flatteries” has been perfected to a fine art in today’s world. Through the modern institutions of universal voting and media manipulation, sometimes

the most vile of persons can rise to great prominence without firing a shot, seizing the reins of power through their broadcasting “flatteries” to a nation of uninformed people easily swayed by rhetoric and false promises. Hitler was a good, or rather bad, modern day example of someone who made clever use of propaganda and the voting system to maneuver himself into the leadership of the German Third Reich. (*The Hebrew word used here for “intrigue” or “flatteries” means “smoothness, slipperiness”.) In most democracies and dictatorships, these devious voting and propaganda tactics have become standard practice. This is a feature peculiar to modern republican society where the monarchical system of government has been abolished. Thus, a would-be ruler does not inherit “the honor of royalty”, receiving it with all the majesty and honor that the kings and queens of old were given. Instead, he has to “obtain the kingdom by flatteries” (by smoothness and slipperiness). This initial grab for power probably happens in Russia, by the way, which, as we understand from Ezekiel 38-39, will be the Antichrist’s power base. (For more information on this point, see post “Ezekiel 38-39”) We might wonder though, how could Russia become powerful enough to carry out such a grand campaign of warfare now that she has become so weakened since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s? Perhaps this situation could be compared to what happened in the last century when Germany lay in shambles after World War I, demoralized and humiliated; such conditions made it easy for a demagogue (Hitler) to rally the people and restore Germany to its former greatness. So it would not be surprising to see history repeat itself in this way in the land of Russia. Russians haven’t forgotten the old glory days of the Soviet Union, and the Antichrist could easily capitalize on that as he re-builds the nation into a great superpower. Incidentally, it is worth mentioning here that this new section (verses 21-35) starts right off the bat (here in verse 21) fitting very well into the modern context – better, it would seem than into the context of ancient times. “With the force of a flood they shall be swept away from before him and be broken.” (11:22) Then once he has a firm hold on the reins of power, the Antichrist will begin to flex his military muscle and show his true colors. Again we can look at what happened in Hitler Germany. During the early years of Nazi rule, other European nations saw what Hitler had done in

Germany – how he had saved the nation from communism and economic collapse. With that kind of track record and his big armies and weapons, Hitler was welcomed almost as a savior in some nations like Austria and Czechoslovakia where there were large German populations. Other nations like Poland and France were quickly overrun by the German armies. So this was an example of a political leader who rose to power by the use of “flatteries”, then “with the force of a flood… swept away” his opponents and nearby nations. How exactly this might apply to the Antichrist of the future would be difficult to say, but perhaps a good guess is that he will use his popularity and force of arms to consolidate his control over nearby nations, especially those who used to belong to the old Soviet Union and are now only loosely tied to Russia through the organization known as the Commonwealth of Independent States. In the next verse 23, there is mention of a “league”; this continues the train of thought about the “covenant” from the previous verse and finetunes our understanding about it and about the “prince” who confirms it. As mentioned earlier, the two words are an example of the common Hebrew literary device of parallelism; they are two words for the same thing, and the second word may add some extra information. In this case, the word “league” clarifies that this is not the kind of sacred covenant between God and man that appears often in the Old Testament. Rather, this “covenant” is a very down-to-earth “league” – like a political agreement made with certain groups of people. As far as the “vile person” of verse 21 is concerned, this “league” is little more than a ploy that he uses to buy some time during which he can “act deceitfully” and “become strong with a small number of people”. He is certainly no high priest or religious leader or anything like that. He’s just a political ruler, a “vile person” who agrees with other nations to allow religious and political freedom in Israel for a time but with little intention of actually keeping the agreement. And this agrees with what Daniel 9:27 says about the Antichrist that he would “confirm a covenant with many” and then later “in the middle of the week” would violate the terms of that agreement – which is about the same thing that verse 23 here says about the “vile person” that “he shall act deceitfully after the league is made with him”.

Regarding the question of whether or not this passage about the “league” and about becoming “strong with a small number of people [or “small nation”*]” should be relegated to the past, here again the historical facts do not match with the events of ancient history: there is no record of any such “league” or “covenant” made by Antiochus Epiphanes in ancient times, nor was there any “small people” whom he used to make himself strong. Ancient Syria did have dealings with Egypt and was trying to conquer it, but Egypt could hardly be called a “small number of people”, certainly not in ancient times. So this is describing something that has not happened yet, which should clue us in even more to the fact that the prophecy has switched into the End Time and is dealing with events pertaining to the modern day Antichrist. (*The most common translation for the Hebrew word goi used here for “people” is “nation”.) Now what does it mean by “small number of people” or “small nation”? This is just speculation, but maybe it refers to the nation that the Antichrist might use as a staging area or platform from which he could invade Israel and the Mideast; or another possibility: perhaps it refers to a small oppressed people (like the Palestinians) who provide a legitimate enough excuse for the Antichrist to engage in a war of liberation in the Mideast. (Of course, since none of this has happened yet, right now we can only guess at how these words should be understood.)

Appendix 1: Forerunners of the Antichrist Generally, the prophecies in the Book of Daniel start out as predictions about rulers or kingdoms who were to arise back in ancient times. But then at some point in these prophecies, they slide forward into the End Time. That is, the near-future view in a prophecy can easily telescope into a view of the distant future. A telescope pointing in a certain direction may at first focus on objects nearby, but then, as you adjust it, it will focus on objects far away. And many prophecies seem to work in a similar fashion. For example, Daniel’s prophecy in chapter 8 at first focuses on Alexander the Great, but with little difficulty – because it’s aimed in the right direction (on someone who conquered the Mid East world) – it was easy for the Lord to adjust the prophecy into a more long-distance view and focus it on the final Antichrist (who will also conquer the Mid East).

Such was the case also with Daniel’s vision and prophecy in chapter 7 about the “fourth beast”. It does double duty, describing both ancient Rome and the End Time Antichrist empire. Similarly, the prophecy in chapter 11 about the “vile person” seems to refer to both Antiochus Epiphanes, an ancient Assyrian king, and the final Antichrist. So, these ancient rulers (Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Roman Caesars), on whom were based Daniel’s revelations about the End Time Antichrist and his kingdom, might have had certain characteristics that would also feature prominently in the Antichrist kingdom of the future. In Daniel 8, Alexander the Great appears as a “notable horn”. Then later in the prophecy, there appears in the End Time a “little horn” who, by way of association at least, might resemble his forerunner, Alexander, in certain ways: a reign of short duration, a swift conquest of the Mideast, and perhaps movement in the same directions – south, east, and towards the Promised Land. In Daniel 9, there is a Roman “prince” who “shall destroy the city and the sanctuary” – Jerusalem and her temple. This serves as a springboard into the future when another “prince” (the Antichrist) shall do the same. And this passage in Daniel 11, verses 21-22, about the “vile person”, works in a similar fashion. It could be compared to what is known in photography as a double image. That is, it’s a two-in-one picture of two eras of history wherein a similar event took place – namely, the rise of an antiChrist figure who invades Jerusalem and desecrates its “holy place”. The same type of double imaging seems to occur in Daniel 7 about the “fourth beast” who is supposed to symbolize ancient Rome; yet at the same time he is quite obviously representative of the End Time Antichrist kingdom. This we can tell by the embellished description of the “fourth beast” - having “huge iron teeth” and “nails of bronze”, “ten horns”, and “a mouth speaking pompous words”. About this passage we cannot say it is talking only about Rome, nor can we say it is talking only about the End Time empire; rather it’s talking about both. And probably the same could be said for this passage in verses 2122 of Daniel 11. The Daniel 7 passage highlights the strong and extensive military rule that characterized ancient Rome and presumably, the Antichrist kingdom as well. The Daniel 11 reference to Antiochus Epiphanes draws

attention to the Antichrist’s persecution campaign against the people of God and his desecration of a future “holy place” that is to be established in Jerusalem.

3-B: Rise to Power of a Modern “King of the North” (11:24-25) 11:24 “He shall enter peaceably, even into the richest places of the province; and he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers: he shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches; and he shall devise his plans against the strongholds, but only for a time. The same pattern of invasion is used here as described in verses 2122 – peaceful entry followed by forceful conquest. But now it seems the “vile person” has shifted his power-seizing efforts from his home base to this “province”, probably the same “small people” of the previous verse (in Hebrew, “small nation”- maybe Palestine or Syria?). It sounds like it might be a nation whom he wants to use as a base of operations from which to make his conquest of the Mid East. According to the previous verse, he was working “deceitfully” among them so that he could become “strong”, and the passage now seems to continue along this line, explaining how he goes about it. Apparently it’s a seductive spread-the-wealth scheme that lures this nation into allowing the Antichrist “king of the North” to establish himself there. Again, similar to how it happened with Hitler, the Antichrist will enter “peaceably, even into the richest places of the province”. This is rather unusual since it is the richer areas of a nation that are always the most protected and most vigorously defended against invasion. So it would appear from this verse 24 that the Antichrist – similar to how it happened for Hitler in his early days – will be received with open arms into this nation which, presumably, is further away from his home base and located somewhere in the Mid East. That this “small nation” might be the modern nation of Syria is an interesting possibility to consider… for a few reasons: 1) Syria has stood against Israel for many years, and when the “king of the North” invades Israel, as the prophecy predicts will happen (in verse 41), Syria will surely be

one of the main participants in that invasion. 2) Syria is a long-standing ally of Russia and has become the focal point of confrontation between the Russian and American superpowers. 3) It would be remarkably consistent with the “king of the North” terminology as applied to ancient Syria if the modern nation of Syria, through a close partnership with Russia, once more adopted the mantle of “king of the North” by virtue of becoming a kind of Russian “spearhead” or staging ground for future wars in the Middle East and against Israel. Now it doesn’t necessarily follow from all of this that Syria is the “small nation” and “province”, or that Syria will play the “king of the North” role. But regardless of that, it looks, from the way events are moving in the Mid East these days, like Syria is going to play a major role in future Mid East conflicts and will have little other choice but to operate under the sponsorship and direction of her powerful northern neighbor. Syria hosts Russia’s only military base outside of the former Soviet Union, and as we can see in current news, Russia is not about to allow Syria to be dominated by western powers, especially the U.S. (Well, these are just a few suggestions about what the prophecy means; at this point though, it is mostly conjecture, and we won’t really know the outcome until these future events unfold. But in the meantime these speculations are interesting to reflect on.) “He shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches.” Economics can be a difficult subject, and trying to figure out how this passage should be applied is puzzling. Anyway, following are some thoughts on how we might be able to understand this sharing-the-wealth tactic of the “king of the North”. Modern means of producing and distributing financial assets are vastly different from ancient times. Wealth is a much more flexible tool than it used to be. The role of money as a power broker and means of conquest has grown over the years and reached a degree of effectiveness never possible in olden days. And like the propaganda tactic (”flatteries”), it has been refined into a fine art in today’s world. Financial and media domains of influence are sources of immense power compared to what they were in ancient times. And these upgraded forces will prove to be a key factor in bringing the Antichrist to power. These new tactics of conquest – money and media manipulation – differentiate modern invasions from those of ancient times. With less

dependence on military tactics only, it is easier nowadays for a superpower to invade a nation “peaceably” as is pointed out in both this verse 24 and verse 21: “come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom by flatteries” (11:21-KJV); “enter peaceably… disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches.” (11:24NKJV) So here again we have another indication that this section of Gabriel’s message pertains not to the ancient past, but to the distant and modern day future. It is much easier in the modern day to prepare the hearts of people ahead of time for conquest – through propaganda or media manipulation and through lavishing wealth on them – and so “enter peaceably” rather than engage in a big military confrontation. Usually, this money weapon has been used to keep nations in line by undermining their economies, making them poor, but in this case, the Antichrist “shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches.” Regarding the money weapon, superpowers like to use it to keep smaller nations in line by undermining their economies and making them poor. But in this case, the Antichrist “shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches.” Going by this, it would appear that the Antichrist, before his invasion, has already infiltrated amongst the richer and more powerful sections of the country (“the richest places of the province”), and perhaps this is what is meant in the previous verse that “he shall act deceitfully… and become strong with a small number [nation] of people.” Evidently, the Antichrist will have access to a vast amount of wealth, which he can use to his advantage – in this case, in the form of an enormous bribe from what sounds like ill-gotten wealth (“plunder” and “spoil”) of military or economic conquests.(To get a look at current events that seem to offer a sort of “preview” of what this verse 24 might be pointing towards, see the news articles in Appendix 1.) In the game of empire-building, major powers have always had imperialistic designs on smaller nations for the purpose of exploiting their wealth. This happened on a grand scale during the Colonial Era. European nations were enriched by their colonies. And we see it happening today: China, with its huge rising middle class, is extracting resources from many nations in Africa and South America. The United States has used the tactic of buying off the elite in many a poor, undeveloped nation. By this means the U.S. has gained unhindered access to the resources of several Third World

nations. And it is not only governments who are guilty of this kind of devious dealing; the big financial institutions have also done it – through loans, which oblige the borrowing nations to hand over jurisdiction of their resources to outside “developers”. The “king of the North” will also want to use the financial weapon, but instead of exploiting the wealth of the “province”, he does just the opposite and disperses it… not out of any great concern for that nation or for mankind, but because he needs this “small number of people” so that he can “become strong”. (11:23) Perhaps he’ll need to use that nation as a beachhead or staging ground from which he can make his invasion of Israel and the Middle East. Now these verses 21-24 have described events from the point of view of the local politics and economies of the nations the Antichrist must use as stepping stones in his climb to world power. But what happens on a local scale can sometimes be a microcosm of what happens on an international scale. In our modern world especially, there is much standardization of technology and culture because of the ease of communication through media and computer technology and through travel. Perhaps then, the Antichrist will use, or will already have used, many of the same tactics on a worldwide scale as he is seen to be using on a smaller scale (in the “kingdom” of verse 21 and the “small people” and “province” of verses 23-24). His tactics of entering peaceably with flatteries and dispersing the wealth will serve to gain him the support of the world at large. That is, his access to the media will foster acceptance, even worship of him on a worldwide scale, and his access to and manipulation of financial wealth will help him to solve the problems worldwide of a deteriorating world economy. Instead of concentrating all the wealth in a few hands (which is surely one of the main causes for the world’s present dire financial turmoil), the Antichrist and his backers (the False Prophet Beast) will figure they can afford to “disperse” some of that wealth. They may try to promote a fairer taxation system; or they could make use of the mark-number credit system (described in Revelation 13) in a way that will relieve the world’s financial distress. At the same time such a plan of action would, of course, go a long way towards consolidating their hold on the springs of power and on the allegiance of the world’s people.

Although such policies are much needed in the world and would appear to be very just, it is well to remember that the power-brokers promoting such plans will be doing it mostly as a tactic for getting a tighter grip on the reins of world power. They are, we could say, the “descendants” of their ancestors who originally caused, or allowed to fester, the problems of unfair income distribution and oppression of the poor. So they will be “solving” the problems created by their forebears – not so much out of a sense of right, but because such policies will better serve their own interests in a changed world situation.. And once the money–manipulators and power brokers have acquired enough wealth and seized the reins of power in the world, then they can afford to do away with the laissez-faire measures that previously had done much to strengthen their own position through weakening national governments. It will be safe for them to introduce a fairer taxation system and use it to strengthen international government control. Their man, the Antichrist, will have a tight enough hold on the reins of international power by then. For awhile these reforms will give their totalitarian rule a benign façade. Whether or not they will actually implement such a tax scheme we don’t know, but one thing is certain: it makes a great platform or promise which a politically astute leader (the Antichrist) can use to create a wave of euphoric hysteria and thereby gain the favor of the masses. Whatever happens in the initial stages of the Antichrist’s popularity, and despite whatever promises he makes, or even delivers on, we can be sure the new regime will show its true colors eventually, especially when it tries to force its secular religion of materialism and man-worship on the world. What seemed at first like benign dictatorship will devolve into oppressive tyranny. It may resemble some aspects of Hitler’s rise to power: very popular in the beginning, not just in Germany, but in many other nations Hitler was admired for his strong leadership. And fixing Germany’s economic problems was a key factor that won him favor amongst the German people. Then, once firmly in the seat of power, his true colors showed, and Hitler transformed into the oppressive warmongering tyrant, as he is remembered now in history. In like fashion, the Antichrist will start off as the agent of much-needed change in the world, even as God’s instrument of chastisement

on His wayward people. But eventually, he too will transform into a Hitlerlike “vile person”, as he is called in verse 21. Now this tactic of entering “peaceably” and dispersing the wealth bears some resemblance to the old Communist strategy. Instead of winning the rich, however, the Communists tried only to get the poor on their side through propaganda – promising to take the wealth of the rich and give it to the poor. Winning the people’s hearts like this made it much easier to stage Communist revolutions and thereby conquer many nations of the world. By this means the Soviet empire was able to greatly expand its influence during the Cold War days of the last century. No doubt this sort of propaganda will play an important role in implementing the Antichrist and False Prophet’s new financial scheme on the world. However, under the Antichrist and False Prophet this sharing-thewealth tactic will operate with a new twist: there will be the same take-fromthe-rich-and-give-to-the-poor strategy, but apparently, the idea will be a little smarter – win the poor, yes, but without driving away the rich whose capable leadership will be needed to run industries properly and efficiently. This we can guess will be the approach because the passage here tells us that “he shall enter peaceably, even into the richest places.” Failing to engage the wealthy was one of the big mistakes made in the Communist revolutions in Russia and China (and in the French Revolution in 1789). After getting rid of the ruling aristocracies, there was no one left who knew how to run the manufacturing and agricultural industries. And these nations suffered great economic decline as a result. During the Nazi revolution in Germany of the 1930s, things happened differently however. Hitler wisely opposed the “dump the capitalist aristocracy” plan that some of his more zealous but less practical followers were advocating. In fact, to make sure that didn’t happen, Hitler murdered the main proponent of that plan along with 200 supporters in that infamous massacre known as “The Night of the Long Knives”. Having thus gained control of Germany’s industrial base without destroying its leadership was a major factor in transforming Germany into a prosperous nation and one that was strong enough to wage war against Europe and America from 1939 to 1945. And here might be where this peculiar statement fits, “he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers.”That is, the Antichrist and

False Prophet’s financial plans will reverse and correct the policy of their predecessors in the land of Russia; the mistakes of the former Communist Revolution, and even earlier, the French Revolution, will not be repeated because whatever new regime takes over there will not try to wipe out the elite leaders of industry. And presumably, they will carry out a similar policy in the “small nation” and “province” where they “enter peaceably, even into the richest places of the province.” And going back even further into the ancient past of Daniel’s time, then also it was customary for invaders to overthrow the ruling elite and replace them with their own nation’s rulers. From the Old Testament Scriptures we know that the Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms weakened their conquered territories by dispersing the elite classes, carting them off into captivity in other lands. Now in this prophetic message Gabriel is talking to Daniel, who as a young man was sent as a captive to Babylon. So it could be that Gabriel was just trying to show the contrast: how, in the distant future, tactics of conquest were going to change from what Daniel had personally experienced. Since that time, of course, many conquerors began to rule by more enlightened means than did the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians and did not try to wipe out the ruling classes of their conquered nations. What is unique about our modern day situation is that new avenues of power - media and finances – have come into the picture, making it possible to conquer nations without using military force. Under this arrangement, the ruling classes of “conquered” nations stay intact but become more or less puppets of their “conqueror”. There is a hint of this, by the way, in the symbolism of the “beast” and his “ten horns” with their “ten crowns”. They are only “horns”, small nations, who can only do what their “head” tells them to do, yet they still have their “crowns”. (Revelation 13:1)” In summary: Unlike how Daniel’s “forefathers” would have done it, the modern “king of the North” will make his invasion “peaceably” into the small territory and into its richest places. And instead of destroying the leaders of industry, it seems he will manage to harness them to his own cause and war campaigns. And instead of exploiting that nation for its resources, he “shall disperse among them the plunder, spoil, and riches”. “He shall devise his plans against the strongholds.” By means of all this financial manipulation and propaganda, the Antichrist will steadily

strengthen his position of power. Then, having made his “peaceable” infiltration into this “small nation”, he will be ready to take over in full force. “He shall devise his plans against the strongholds”, or in the KJV, “He shall forecast his devices against the strongholds”. Whether that means against the “small people”, or against surrounding nations, or both, is not clear at present. It could be that once the “small nation” realizes they are getting sucked into a big war and being used and taken over by the Antichrist, there will be some opposition, and the Antichrist will have to flex some military muscle to get this small nation to see things his way. Or perhaps just as likely, judging by the next verse 25, the “strongholds” could be situated in areas/nations that are allies of the “king of the South” (symbolic, it would appear, of America and her Mid East allies). In fact, we may be seeing a hint of this in Russia’s recent intervention in Syria. Russia is supporting the ruling elite, “the richest places of the province”, while forecasting her “devices against the strongholds”. Using the ISIS threat as an excuse, Russia has intervened in the civil war and is bombing Americansupported rebels who are fighting the Syrian army. This attack against the king of the South’s proxy armies (“strongholds”) would be the sort of provocative move that could spark the major confrontation we see happening between the two “kings” in the next verse 26. (Whether the above scenario is accurate or not is difficult to determine right now, but it does seem a good possibility.) “Devise his plans.” The most literal translation of this Hebrew phrase would be “devise his devices”, two English words that have a common origin. The Hebrew words used here – chashab and machashebeth – also have a common origin. The word chashab means “to think, reckon, compute”. This is thinking on a higher plane, at a more intense level than the more casual form of thinking would be. And the word machashebeth is the result of that kind of “thinking” – plans, plots, strategies, inventions, and so on. It could either be a mental result (a complex strategy or plot or scheme of some kind), or it could be a physical result (something more down-to-earth and practical – an invention of some sort, something more intricate and complex than the usual run of manufactured objects). Interestingly, in modern Hebrew machashebeth means “computer”. Since the passage here is set in the context of war, we could easily understand this “devise devices” phrase as a reference to the intricate

computer-guided weaponry that mankind has invented in recent times. (For more information on this peculiar phrase, see Appendix 2.) However we may want to understand this phrase chashab machashebeth – whether as a reference to ingenious strategy or to ingenious weapons (or both maybe) – one thing is clear from it: this “vile person” possesses great skill in the art of warfare. This high-level strategy and/or weaponry is the deciding factor that gives the Antichrist the advantage in these power struggles. And this fits in well with what Revelation 13:4-5 reveals to us about the “beast” or Antichrist, that “the world marveled and followed the beast… saying, ‘Who is able to make war with him?’” All in all, these phrases about devising devices are quite mysterious, and one feature in them that stands out is this: the “devise devices” phrase, like the “enter peaceably” phrase, is repeated twice. That is rather unusual and seems to clue us into the fact that the angel, who surely knew what he was talking about, was trying to draw attention to certain peculiar features about how the “king of the North” would conduct his warfare. And looking at the phrases more closely –both the “devise devices” and “enter peaceably” phrases – we saw how they could easily be applied to the kind of warfare that mankind is so busily engaged in nowadays. And related to this is the peculiar statement, “he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers.” We already saw how this seems to apply to the unique way in which the Antichrist will “disperse the riches”, how he cunningly manipulates wealth to his advantage. This we can easily understand as a peculiar feature of modern times: the powerful and flexible financial system that enables power-brokers to force a nation to bend to their will, and in this case enables the Antichrist to make his “peaceable” entry into the “province” spoken of here. Without trying to overthrow the rich and powerful (but just weaken them), he succeeds in conquering the nation. But besides the realm of financial manipulation, this “fathers…forefathers” phrase seems to link also to the next phrase: “and he shall devise his devices against the strongholds.” As discussed earlier, this could be a reference to another peculiar feature of modern times: the weapons used now in warfare. So it is these peculiar strategies of conquest – entering peaceably by dispersing the wealth and devising devices – that are the reason for the angel’s statement that “he shall do what his fathers have not done, nor his forefathers.” They differ so much from the warfare tactics of the past, and

the most logical reason is because the events described here are not happening in the past, but in the Modern Age. In ancient Hebrew the word for “father” or “fathers” had a fairly wide range of meaning other than as a reference to one’s biological father. It was commonly used to refer to distant ancestors and, most likely, the term here does not refer to the generation of the king of the north’s grandfather. It might even be Gabriel’s way of referring to the “forefathers” mentioned earlier in his discourse: Antiochus III and Antiochus Epiphanes and the other kings mentioned whose exploits and character pre-figure those of the Antichrist. To Gabriel this might have seemed like a good way to get across the idea that the activities of the “king of the North”, taking place in a distant future age, would be much different to how things were normally done in Daniel’s day and age. The Hebrew text uses a threefold repetition of the word “fathers”, which suggests that a great span of time has elapsed. “He shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers’ fathers.” (KJV) Similar phrases are repeated in verses 37-38: “he shall regard neither the God of his fathers… a god which his fathers did not know.” We shall look into these verses 37-38 later on, but briefly, they describe the modern secular “religion” that the Antichrist will follow, a belief system devoid of religious trappings, and therefore, a religion that “his fathers did not know”. Now it is interesting to note that these phrases (in verses 37-38) are sandwiched between two “time of the end” phrases (in verses 35 and 40). Obviously then, their setting is the modern era. So it would seem, by way of association at least, that this verse 24, which likewise contains a reference to something that was unknown to “his fathers”, should also have the same setting as verses 37-38 – namely, the “time of the end”. So here we have another small clue or indicator that this passage (from verse 21 on) is supposed to be majoring on the End Time, not the ancient past. Whereas in verses 2-20 the subject matter clearly dwells on events of the ancient past, and so as one would expect, there is no mention of the king of the North doing anything very different from his “fathers” or “forefathers”. These peculiar phrases seem to be reserved for events taking place in the “time of the end”, the modern era, when religion and technology have transformed so much that their present forms were totally unknown to the people of ancient times.

So this phrase about “his fathers” and “forefathers” is another signpost, directing us to understand the modern character of these wars of the Antichrist “king of the North”. It signals for us that the passage from verse 21 on should be understood as describing events of the (not-so-distant) future; the passage should not be relegated into ancient history, as past Bible scholarship has usually taught. “But only for a time.” Whatever form the king of the north’s actions “against the strongholds” may take, it seems to be for just a short time. This “only for a time” phrase may refer to a preliminary move that prepares the way for the major battle to come in the next verse (26). Or it may just refer to the battle itself, that it will be a short-lived one. For some reason the warring parties stop fighting and try to sit down and talk (as we learn in verse 27). Verse 25 “He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South with a great army. And the king of the South shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand, for they shall devise plans against him.” “He shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the South with a great army.” This foretells a major confrontation taking place, either between superpowers, or perhaps just as likely, between their proxy states and allies. In ancient times there was much warring going on between Egypt and Syria. In the end Syria and Antiochus Epiphanes got the upper hand but never really conquered Egypt. That is something that has been left to the Antichrist to achieve. (11:42-43) In this particular war, the “king of the North” wins because of his forecasting of “devices”. As mentioned earlier, this little phrase or “sound byte” seems to take us out of the realm of ancient times. It’s like a clue or a glimpse of what modern warfare will be like – with its dependence on clever “devices”: sophisticated computer technology, advanced satellite systems for spying, high-grade weapons that track their targets, and on and on the list could go. Till now, the U.S. has had the tactical advantage in military technology, and Russia is far behind. How Russia will ever catch up we don’t know, but again, looking at the example of Nazi Germany, we know that a nation can, under the right (or wrong) kind of leadership, re-arm and prepare itself for war in a fairly short span of time.

*** These verses 21-25 have required no small amount of explanation, and one may wonder, why does it have to be so difficult to figure out what this passage means? There are a few reasons: 1) Ancient Hebrew had a limited vocabulary, which makes it difficult to pinpoint the precise shade of meaning for words. 2) Grammatical signposts such as commas, periods, verse divisions did not exist in the ancient language. As a result of these first two reasons, it is rather easy to assign an inaccurate interpretation to some of the ancient Scriptures. Especially in prophetic passages like these dealing with future history, since history tends to repeat itself, it is quite easy to place the passage in the wrong historical era. 3) For these Scriptures about the End Time, it is especially difficult to translate them without knowing the context. Interpreters and scholars of the past did not have the advantage of knowing the context because the historical setting had not yet arrived. So it was easy to assign the setting of a prophetic passage to the wrong historical era. Nowadays, that historical setting has arrived. And this necessitates a review of how certain passages should be interpreted - like this one in Daniel 11. We understand modern technology and culture, and thus we can see more easily how the passage would fit better into a different context â&#x20AC;&#x201C; namely, that of modern times. Which brings us to the fourth reason why so much explanation is neededâ&#x20AC;Ś 4) Similar to how an archeologist has to carefully clear away the rubble of centuries to expose the ancient artifacts that lie buried underground, the same is true in some (not all) cases of interpretation of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. There is a bit of a process to go through in peeling away some of the well-meaning explanations of past generations of scholars, while at the same time trying to uncover the truths that have lain buried underneath them for so many generations. ***

Appendix 1 Russian Defiance Is Seen as a Confidence Builder for Syria’s Government By Anne Barnard, NY Times – March 21, 2014 DAMASCUS, Syria—Russia’s growing rift with the West over the crisis in Ukraine has bolstered the confidence of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, pro-government analysts here say, emboldening him to press ahead with plans for re-election despite a three-year insurgency and making Syrian officials doubt that Russia will pressure him to compromise anytime soon. The Syrian government is acting with new assurance as its ally Russia moves to take over the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, dismissing American objections and signaling growing assertiveness against the West. Russia has been the Syrian government’s most powerful backer, vetoing measures against Mr. Assad that the United States has supported in the United Nations Security Council. And now, Syrian analysts close to the government say, that seems less and less likely to change. The prospect of a compromise brokered by Russian and American officials to end the Syrian war seems increasingly remote, with no date set for the resumption of talks in Geneva. Instead, bonds are deepening, on both official and grass-roots levels, between Moscow and Damascus, Cold War allies that now see themselves standing together against Western aggression. The strong relationship with Russia, combined with recent battlefield victories for the government, like its seizure of the hilltop Crusader castle Krak des Chevaliers on Thursday along a strategic highway, are reinforcing a sense here and abroad that Mr. Assad will stay in power at least for the medium term. A pro-government Syrian journalist assessed official views this way: “Frankly, their attitude is, ‘We don’t need Geneva.’” To Russian and Syrian officials and their supporters, the Syrian war and the standoff over the Crimean Peninsula are essentially part of a single, larger battle, against post-Cold War American unilateralism. They see themselves as

resisting Western conspiracies to topple inconvenient but legitimate presidents, Mr. Assad in Syria, and in Ukraine, the pro-Russian leader Viktor F. Yanukovych, whose flight in the face of street protests led to Russia’s actions in Crimea. Russia’s stance has fostered a new Russophilia among a new generation of government supporters here, who, much as their elders flocked to Moscow to study in the Soviet Union’s heyday, applaud plans for new Russian classes in Syrian schools. And it has brought displays of long-distance camaraderie between the two governments’ supporters—and their detractors, who see their own, different parallels between Ukraine and Syria. They see Moscow and Damascus as too quick to sanction the use of force against popular protests that the governments dismiss as the work of terrorists and conspirators. Anti-Russian protesters in Ukraine and opposition activists in Syria have hoisted one another’s flags, as have pro-government demonstrators in Moscow and Damascus. The Syrian government, not unlike President Obama’s critics in Washington, sees the recent events as part of a decline in America’s influence and a rise in Russia’s. By meddling in the affairs of other countries, from Iraq to the former Soviet countries, said one prominent businessman and political observer in Syria, the United States provoked the world and squandered its position as the sole global power after the Soviet Union’s collapse. “Now there is Russia, China, and tomorrow God knows who else,” said the businessman, E. Ali Al-Ahmad, the general secretary of the chamber of industry in the city of Homs, emphasizing that he was offering his personal political analysis. “America is forcing the world to oppose it. Even a small country like Syria is standing up to the United States.” The American system contributed much to the world by fostering creativity, he said, waving his iPhone to demonstrate. “But now,” he said, “that system is destroying itself from within.” During the Cold War, Syria, led by Mr. Assad’s father, President Hafez alAssad, was squarely in the Soviet orbit, with a planned economy like Moscow’s. Soviet engineers built dams on the Euphrates River. Apartment blocks much like Moscow’s sprouted around Damascus.

Studying in Moscow was a coveted privilege, and thousands of Syrians brought back Russian wives, many still here despite the war. Half of the university professors here were educated in Russia. Among Syria’s government and opposition alike are Soviet-era alumni who speak Russian fluently and fondly remember their days as students in Moscow. After the Soviet collapse in 1991, Russia kept its naval base on the Syrian coast. But when the London-educated Bashar al-Assad became president in 2000, he turned westward, at least in a commercial sense, opening Syria to Western companies. English, not Russian, became de rigueur among the elite. Then came the Syrian revolt. Opposing Western support for it was a natural extension of Russia’s long-stated aversion to international interference on human rights issues. With Iran and China, Moscow sustained the Assad government financially. Most crucially, after chemical attacks last August, Russia helped avert an American military strike by brokering a deal to remove Syria’s toxic arms. “Thank you, Russia,” read fliers in Russian and Arabic taped to downtown Damascus walls. Later, the Syrian government announced that next year, Syrian children could study Russian instead of French, in addition to required English. The goals, the education minister told Hezbollah’s Al Manar television channel, was to renew Soviet-era ties and build cultural bonds with “peoples who want to cooperate based on mutual respect and common interests.”

RUSSIA AND SYRIA: An Old Base (Friendship) Gets a Facelift By Uwe Klussmann, Der Spiegel – June 22, 2006 A mild westerly wind blows in from the Mediterranean onto the harbor of Tartus, where cube-shaped and weathered brownish houses sit atop Phoenician era ruins. A small mosque’s minaret and a fish restaurant dominate the scene. But this idyllic image quickly disappears just a few minutes outside the town, where Russian soldiers have set up camp. Surrounded by olive groves and long greenhouses, and guarded by Syrian marines, Moscow’s last

remaining naval base outside of the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) lurks behind a tall metal fence. At the Tartus naval base, covering an area of almost a hundred acres, about 300 men serve under the command of sea captain Vladimir Gudkov, a former officer in Russia’s North Sea fleet. When Gudkov was transferred to Syria from Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula, Russia’s outpost in Mediterranean was still plagued by a reputation for being a run-down place in the sun. Founded by the Phoenicians, conquered by the Crusaders in 1102 and subsequently attacked by legendary Arab hero Saladin, the port city just 160 kilometers northwest of Damascus has always been considered strategically important. During the Cold War it served as a supply hub for the Soviets’ Mediterranean fleet. But after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, the Soviet fleet disappeared from Mediterranean waters and the Tartus base became dilapidated. But this quickly changed when Gudkov brought in repair teams from Sevastopol to upgrade the facility. A team of technicians is currently replacing hatches and antennas on the base’s floating dock, where incoming ships are refueled and loaded with provisions. More and more Russian landing vessels like the “Jamal,” and modernized warships like the “Smetlivy” and the “Pytlivy,” are dropping anchor in the ancient Crusader port. The missile cruiser “Moskva,” the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, with a crew of 850 and Vice Admiral Vassily Kondakov on board, paid a visit to the Latakia naval base in February. As in the old days, Kondakov met with the head of Syria’s navy to assure his Syrian counterpart that Russian-Syrian relations are about to experience “an upswing.” This, at least, is what Russian President Vladimir Putin intends. In a speech to military commanders, the Kremlin chief said that a newly “modern and mobile” Russian fleet will once again be flying its colors on the world’s oceans. The president had nothing but praise for Russia’s navy, which he said has become “significantly more active” in the Mediterranean, clearly a reflection of Putin’s efforts to boost his country’s profile in the Middle East. Syria is Russia’s most important partner in the region. Thirty-five thousand Syrians hold degrees from Russian universities. At a Kremlin reception for Syrian President Bashar Assad, Putin, referring to the Soviet

era, praised the two countries’ “special and sincere relations”–and promptly forgave about $10 billion in Syrian debt accumulated over the years, principally as a result of arms purchases. Over three decades, the current president’s father, Hafiz Assad, received military equipment valued at about $25 billion from the Russians. To this day, the 308,000 troops in the country’s armed forces are equipped almost exclusively with Soviet gear, including 4,600 tanks, primarily T-72 and T-62 models, about 600 MIG and Sukhoi fighter jets, 170 helicopters and at least two diesel-powered submarines. Putin guaranteed the delivery of Russian Streletz anti-aircraft missiles (referred to as SA-18s in NATO parlance). The carriage-mounted missiles with a range of six kilometers (about four miles) could make “low altitude flights over the residence of the Syrian president” more difficult in the future, Putin said in an interview with Israeli television. Indeed, Israel deeply humiliated the Syrians last year when it sent a squadron of F-16 fighter jets on a low-altitude mission encircling Assad’s summer residence near the Russian base. An office of Russia’s state-owned arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, in Damascus is supplying the Russians’ dependable customers with new guidance systems and spare parts for tanks, modern electronics systems for MIG-21 fighter jets and ammunition. Sergei Chemesov, a Putin associate from the two men’s days working for the KGB in East Germany, runs the company’s Moscow headquarters. In the last seven years alone, Syria’s Baathist regime has ordered Russian weapons valued at more than $1 billion, including Su-27 pursuit planes, MIG-29 fighter jets and T-80 tanks. But in a departure from Soviet days, Moscow now demands cash payment. Moscow’s military assistance is going to a country US President George W. Bush has called an “extraordinary threat to US national security,” a country the US State Department classifies as a sponsor of terrorism because of its support for terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. But what most concerns American military experts is the Syrian army’s acquisition of about 1,000 Russian Kornet-E anti-tank guided missiles. The weapon also has the Pentagon concerned, because of its ability to turn even the most state-of-the-art Bradley armored personnel carrier into burning scrap metal from distances of up to 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) within seconds. About 10,000 Syrian officers have received top-rate training at both Soviet

and Russian military academies, with a fresh crop of pilots and air defense specialists currently attending Russia’s air force academy. Western experts estimate that up to 2,000 Russian military advisors, under the command of Lieutenant General Vassily Jakushev, 60, the former commander-in-chief of the country’s Far East military district, are currently serving in the Syrian military. Russian officers hold teaching positions at Syria’s military officer training academy. Serving on the Mediterranean is popular. With even low-ranking officers earnings at least $1,000 a month, military pay on the Syrian frontier is about triple what it is at home. But a Syrian tour of duty, which usually lasts three years, does have its price: isolation. In an effort to avoid being conspicuous, the Russian guests wear Syrian uniforms and are required to spend their free time with their families in isolated compounds, with a small vacation on Latakia’s sandy, palm-lined beaches a rare and precious respite from the monotony of life on base.

Russia modernizing Syria ports for its warships World Tribune - April 15, 2010 MOSCOW — The Russian Navy has been expanding cooperation with Syria. Officials said the navies of Russia and Syria were enhancing cooperation over the last year. They said Moscow was modernizing naval facilities in Syria’s port of Latakia and Tartous to accommodate Russian Navy warships. “I am certain that we will witness new and significant progress in our bilateral cooperation in the near future,” Russian ambassador to Syria, Sergei Kirpichenko, said. On April 14, Kirpichenko welcomed the arrival of the Russian Navy’s nuclear-powered missile cruiser, Pyotr Veliky, to Tartous. Russia has modernized Tartous and deploys 50 naval officers to maintain and supply warships that operate in the Mediterranean. “The Pyotr Veliky’s visit to the Syrian port of Tartus is a symbolic event,” Kirpichenko said. “It is a continuation of our historic ties with Syria that serves as a guarantee of our future cooperation not only in the naval sphere but also in other areas.”

Officials said a large Syrian Navy delegation visited Pyotr Veliky. Pyotr Veliky has been deemed the flagship of Russia’s Northern Fleet and was headed for an exercise in the Indian Ocean. In September 2008, the Kremlin launched negotiations with the regime of President Bashar Assad to convert Tartous into a permanent Russian Navy base. Officials said Moscow also offered to modernize the Syrian Navy port at Latakia. Tartous was said to have been expanded to accommodate large Russian warships. Officials said Tartous, with three berthing floats, could handle up to a dozen naval vessels. Officials said the Russian Navy regards Syria as a vital base for operations in the Mediterranean and surrounding regions. They said Moscow has been training the Syrian Navy as part of the strategic arrangement. “According to the Russian Navy, the naval base in Syria significantly boosts Russia’s operational capability in the region because the warships based there are capable of reaching the Red Sea through the Suez Canal and the Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar in a matter of days,” the Moscowbased RIA Novosti news agency said.

Appendix 2: “Devise his Devices” – Strategy or Weaponry? “Devise his plans.” The most literal translation of this Hebrew phrase would have been “devise his devices”, two English words that have a common origin. The Hebrew words used here – chashab for “devise” and machashebeth for “devices” – also have a common origin. The word chashab means “to think, reckon, compute”. This is thinking on a higher plane, at a more intense level than the more casual form of thinking would be. And the word machashebeth is the result of that kind of “thinking” – plans, plots, strategies, inventions, and so on. This also bears some resemblance to our English words “engine” and “ingenious”, which also have a common root. It takes “ingenuity” to

invent an “engine”. In fact, the Hebrew word for “engine” is chishshebonoth, which is also related to chashab and machashebeth. In 2Chronicles 26:15 it is stated that the Jewish king Uzziah “made in Jerusalem engines, invented by cunning men, to be on the towers and upon the bulwarks, to shoot arrows and great stones withal.” (KJV) In this Scripture all three words (engines, invented, cunning) are used to describe the manufacture of these ingenious devices, what in those days were their state-of-the-art weapons of war – catapults of various types. Now the word machashabeth in this verse 24 and in the next verse 25 is the noun form of the Hebrew verb chashab (“to think”) – just as the English word “device” is the noun form of the verb “devise”. To “devise” is to do the mental work needed to produce a clever “device” of some kind. The Hebrew word for “device” (machashabeth) can be translated in two ways, similar to how the English word “device” can be understood in two ways. It could either be a mental result (a complex strategy or plot or scheme of some kind), or it could be a physical result (something more down-to-earth and practical – an invention of some sort, something more intricate and complex than the usual run of manufactured objects). In the Old Testament machashebeth was translated often as “cunning work” in reference to the intricate carved objects of gold, silver, brass, and so on that were made to adorn the Jewish temple; but really, it was a fairly general term for anything that was a clever invention, something that required much skill and ingenuity to make. In modern Hebrew the word machashabeth has come to mean “computer”, which is probably the most ingenious “device” that man has ever invented. So the ancient word machashebeth probably could be applied to any of a whole array of modern inventions – computers, weapons, TVs, cameras, and there’s no end of things it could stand for. Now in this verse 24 and in the next verse 25, the Hebrew word machashabeth was translated as “plans”, suggesting that some clever strategy was used as the means for achieving victory in the battles mentioned in these verses. To the translators this version of the word for “device” probably seemed to fit into what they assumed was the context for this passage – the wars of Antiochus Epiphanes in ancient times. But if the context were modern times, how might this word be translated? Now in these cases where the translation of a Hebrew word is

uncertain, it usually helps to look at the context in order to find an accurate meaning for the word. And what is the context here? Besides being set in modern times, the context is also that of warfare. Noteworthy is the fact that these “devices” seem to be a key factor in bringing these ”strongholds” under the Antichrist’s control and in defeating his enemy, the “king of the South”. Both kings are “stirred up to battle”, each “with a great army”. Now of course we know that strategy, planning, these types of “devices” have always played a major part in any age in any war. But there seems to be something different here. In modern times ingenious weapons of war have become a much more important component in warfare than ever before in history. And this aspect could be what the angel was trying to get at here (using the limited vocabulary available in those days to describe such futuristic realities). Further ahead, as we focus on the phrases “abomination of desolation” and “god of fortresses/munitions”, we shall see even more clearly how Gabriel was trying to get across what he foresaw would be the unique aspects of future warfare with its unheard-of-in-those-days weaponry. He was trying to show that by means of some kind of clever futuristic inventions (by “devising his devices”), the Antichrist would gain the upper hand in this war against the “king of the South”. ◊ Limited Vocabulary of Ancient Hebrew: An important aspect of ancient Hebrew that should be kept in mind: With its rather limited vocabulary (normal for languages in their early stages of development), a Hebrew word could encompass many different shades of meaning, which in English could be translated by several different words. For this reason translators often experience difficulty in trying to pinpoint the best word to use for an ancient Hebrew word. In these cases, to eliminate some of the guesswork, it helps to look at the context and other clues that will aid in finding a more or less accurate translation of the word or phrase in question. Since there were no words in ancient Hebrew for the kind of modern technology used in warfare nowadays, it seems that the angel was obliged to use some fairly general terminology. Even if these ancient words – chashab machashebeth - could not pinpoint the exact meaning, as far as the translation side of it goes, we would not be straying outside the boundaries of the general sense of this phrase to select something like this: “he shall develop/deploy his computerized weapons against the strongholds”. Although there is no undeniable proof that this is correct or legitimate, the context of warfare in modern times does at least suggest that it might be a good translation to use.

Translating this phrase as “devise plans” would fit well with events in Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ day. But is that what the angel Gabriel was really getting at here? By mentioning twice this “devise devices” phrase, it seems the angel is trying to draw attention to something unusual, something different. Now there is nothing unusual about clever war strategies; they have always been used in warfare. And if that’s all this phrase was meant to convey, then it should have been used several times already in Gabriel’s message in those parts of it that refer to the warfare going on in ancient times. As far as clever strategy is concerned, there has been plenty of that mentioned already in verse 21 and here in verse 24: the king of the North’s subtle infiltration tactics of first entering “peaceably” into nations that he intends to conquer. But now what big change has taken place in how man practices his dark art of warfare? It lies most obviously in the kind of weaponry which he uses nowadays. Gone are the clumsy inventions of yesteryear, which have almost nothing in common with modern weaponry: computer-guided missiles and drones, explosive devices of all kinds, machine guns, nuclear weapons, and so on. Since it would appear that the message has actually shifted into the End Time (because of the “prince of the covenant” phrase in verse 22), then would it not make more sense to understand this “devise devices” phrase as applying to something unique to modern times? Could it not mean that, through his clever use of various modern inventions, the Antichrist will gain the upper hand in this war against the “king of the South”? Through cyber warfare perhaps (which the Russians have used before to cripple a nation’s communications systems and the Americans/Israelis have used before to cripple Iran’s nuclear program)? Or some of these hi-tech weapons that exist nowadays in a nation’s military arsenal? Or the use of spy satellites? Or some form of biological warfare? Or perhaps a combination of these modern “devices”? Or maybe some weapon we haven’t even heard of yet? Any of these could be categorized as inventions or “devices” that are the product of much ingenious thought and would fit nicely within the scope of what these Hebrew words could mean. And any one of these weapons would be unheard of in ancient times but as a feature of modern warfare would be worthy of mention in a message given by an angel of God to outline what was going to happen in the distant future.

In olden days this phrase was rather puzzling, and translators couldn’t quite figure out what to do with it. Although still rather puzzling, it is starting to make a little more sense now in this age of advanced technology.

3-C: Who Are the Kings of the North and South? Going by what we have learned so far, it would seem logical that, since Syria and Egypt were the kings of the north and south in ancient times, then these nations might very well re-appear in the End Time as the final kings of the north and south. If we go back to Daniel’s vision and the angel’s message of 14-15 years earlier (Daniel 8), we learn there that a “little horn” was to emerge from one of the four divisions of Alexander’s empire – corresponding more or less to modern Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Greece. But the angel doesn’t tell us which division it is. This “little horn”, like the “little horn” in chapter 7, was symbolic of the Antichrist. This we know because of the angel’s statement that “the vision refers to the time of the end” and that the “little horn” would arise “in the latter time of their kingdom.” (Daniel 8:17,23) The description of his activities also points to the End Time era of the Antichrist. (8:9-12, 22-25) Each chapter builds on previous ones, adding more information. So here in Daniel 11, intersecting with chapter 8, there is the same “first king” or “mighty king” (Alexander) whose kingdom gets “divided toward the four winds of heaven”. (8:21, 11:3-4) Then, at that point where Daniel 8 goes on to talk about the “little horn” of the End Time, in Daniel 11 the prophecy describes the rise of a figure called the “king of the North”. This “king of the North” ends up the big winner, grabbing Israel in all the wrangling that followed the breakup of the Greek empire in ancient times. Thus, we can easily conclude that this “king of the North” is the same power or person as the Antichrist “little horn” mentioned in chapters 7 and 8. Eventually, but not until “the time of the end”, this “king of the North” winds up getting the whole Mideast under his control, including Egypt. (11:42) He also desecrates the “sanctuary” with his “abomination of desolation” in verse 31, which is a notable feature about the End Time Antichrist that is

mentioned several times elsewhere in the Scriptures. (Daniel 8:11, 9:27, Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, Revelation 11:2) And thus, chapter 11 answers what these previous chapters had left unanswered, namely, the location from which the Antichrist arises. (Or more accurately, we might guess, the location that serves as his funnel into the Middle East, followed by his conquest thereof, which events in turn catapult the Antichrist into world domination.) And where is that location? As we read through the progression of events in Daniel 11, it is not hard to see. The chapter starts with the conflict between the “king of the North” and the “king of the South”, the wars between the ancient Greek kingdoms of Syria and Egypt. These were the two superpowers who dominated the Greek world some years after the death of Alexander. So that narrows the Antichrist’s nation down from four possibilities (in Daniel 8) to just two – Syria and Egypt. As the prophecy telescopes into the distant future in verse 21 (with the “prince of the covenant” phrase in verse 22), the two possibilities narrow down to one. Verses 21-45 employ the same terms; the kings of the north and south are still in conflict. Eventually, in verses 40-45 the “king of the North” becomes the winner in this struggle, and total master of the Middle East, including Israel. In the context of this prophecy, he finishes what the ancient ruler Antiochus Epiphanes did not quite succeed in doing; that is, he doesn’t just conquer Israel, but also Egypt. “And the land of Egypt shall not escape.” (11:42).

Chart showing how Daniel’s revelations progressively unfolded to pinpoint the identity of the “little horn” (the Antichrist) The question may arise about the Antichrist coming out of Syria because of certain predictions suggesting that the Antichrist would come out of Egypt. Most notable is a vision received by the late American mystic and prophetess, Jeane Dixon, which seemed to point to the Antichrist arising out of Egypt. But it would be hard to understand how the Antichrist could arise out of both Egypt and Syria, when the verses we have just studied show plainly that he will come from the north and fight against Egypt. Well, similar contradictions arose in predictions regarding the first coming of Christ. Three different prophecies stated that he would come out of Bethlehem, Egypt, and Galilee. (Micah 5:2, Hosea 11:1, Isaiah 9:1-2) Anyone trying to figure this out before Jesus’ coming would have been stumped. It could not have been understood until a few years after He came into the world. So, perhaps it’s the same kind of difficulty cropping up in these seemingly conflicting prophecies about the Antichrist. Another possible key to understanding this may lie in the fact that the End Time superpower will not be ruled by only one person. In Revelation 13, we understand that there are actually two key figures involved, the earthBeast (False Prophet) and the sea-Beast (Antichrist). In effect, there are two Antichrists, yet they are seen as one because they work so closely together. Judging from the description in Jeanne Dixon’s vision – of a serpent having great wisdom – the False Prophet might be the fulfillment rather than the Antichrist. He is the one equipped with diabolical wisdom, much of which started in ancient Egypt. Perhaps Egypt was his base or home country at one time, or perhaps Egypt, the first of the superpowers to control Israel, just happens to be the place where this ancient diabolical wisdom lies buried and which the False Prophet has been given access to. Well, this is all just speculation, but for sure these seemingly contradictory predictions about the future will in time be understood. Because the “king of the North” will be the first conqueror since the Greek and Roman empires to subjugate Israel at a time when the Jewish people are actually living there, then that puts him in the same category as the other “beasts” mentioned in Daniel 7, those empires which had conquered Israel in times past. So, undoubtedly, the “king of the North” is the Antichrist. (“Antichrist” is the term applied to the final “beast” to conquer Israel, the one who arrives on the historical stage just prior to the second coming of Christ.)

The logical question to ask now, does this mean that modern Syria and modern Egypt are going to be waging war against each other sometime in the near future? And does it mean that tiny Syria is the Antichrist power that will take over much of the modern world? Well, of course, that latter possibility doesn’t make much sense. So how are we supposed to understand all of this if we want the prophecy to remain sensible and yet maintain a certain degree of consistency – that is, the ancient struggle between Syria and Egypt tying in somehow with the Mid East wars of modern times? Will these two ancient nations serve as staging grounds for the future conflicts between Russia and America? And will these two superpowers fight a proxy war in the Middle East through their client states who might possibly be none other than Syria and Egypt, the modern day nations who once struggled against each other in ancient times? As noted in the previous post, there is a hint of this happening already. With Russia’s intervention into the Syrian civil war, this has brought the northern power into conflict against American-supported rebel forces. That the “king of the North” represents, not just Syria, but also the superpower of Russia, can be easily understood from Ezekiel 38-39, the companion chapters for Daniel 11. These Scriptures paint a clear picture of the northern power of Russia invading the Middle East and Israel in the time of the End. Since the “king of the North” in Daniel 11 is also pictured as invading the Middle East and Israel in the time of the End, then there shouldn’t be any difficulty connecting Daniel 11 with Ezekiel 38-39 and understanding that “king of the North” represents a much larger entity than just tiny Syria; it includes the great northern power of Russia. Ezekiel 38-39, therefore, pinpoints the superpower from which the Antichrist (called “Gog” in that prophecy) arises, while Daniel 11 seems to pinpoint the area in the Middle East from which he arises to conquer that whole region, including Israel, and thereby catapult himself into world domination. If it so happens that Syria and Egypt become the main protagonists in future Mideast conflict, and if they continue to be backed by Russia and America, then it will prove to be a remarkable resurfacing of the ancient rivalry in these modern times. It will still be the “king of the North” and “king of the South” waging war, just like old times. What will be different is the background presence of the superpowers of Russia and America who may even try to install themselves in these same territories that once had fought each other for control of the Mid East way back in ancient times.

It is always difficult to look at the political situations of today and say exactly how things will turn out in the future. About the best we can do is speculate. Nevertheless, the situation in the Mid East does present an eerie closeness to the prophetic messages in Daniel 11 and Ezekiel 38-39: Egypt has continued as an American ally and is still upholding its peace agreement with Israel; Russia has strengthened ties with her longtime ally, Syria, by aiding the Assad regime militarily in the civil war that is going on right now. Another point to keep in mind: There has always been a certain rivalry between Syria and Egypt that could ignite into open conflict at some future time. To conclude: Beyond these general considerations, however, it is difficult to project much further or go into any great detail on what may or may not come to pass. For a little more concrete information, the news articles in Appendix 1: Clash in the Middle East may provide some helpful glimpses as to where things are heading nowadays in the Middle East. Those news articles are helpful because they explain the different levels of conflict in the Middle East. Because the world has expanded since ancient times, then we should expect that these terms, “king of the South” and “king of the North” should also expand, in these End Times, to include greatly enlarged versions of the ancient kings of the north and south. In a sense, the terms seem to perform double-duty, reflecting both the regional struggles going on in the Middle East and the larger geopolitical struggles going on internationally. We have studied how verses 1-20 describe the ancient conflict, which in those days was “big”, but in the modern world a “big” conflict would have to include much more than just Egypt and Syria. The world stage has grown larger, and it is obvious that the Mid East conflict has this extra outer international layer to it that did not exist in the days of the Ptolemy’s and Seleucid’s. These two different levels – the regional and the international – are using one other, each to further its own agenda: the regional players require the support of their superpower patrons to fight their wars while these international players need the smaller nations to inject their power and influence into this strategic and wealthy part of the world. Already, we see these forces converging together on the Mid East battlefield, which, like a dangerous powder keg, is bound to explode eventually… and ominously, to drag humanity into another World War. Now regarding this conflict between the superpowers, there is a comparison we can make here with the World Wars of the last century:

World War II was little more than a revival of World War I between Germany and the empires of England, France, and the U.S. And the coming war between America and Russia will be little more than the revival of the Cold War of the last century when America and Russia were constantly vying with each other for influence in the Middle East (and in nations around the world). What we are experiencing now is a temporary lull in the storm that has been brewing ever since the end of World War II, the war which catapulted the Soviet Union onto the center of the world stage and made her the chief rival to the American superpower. And in these days of late 2015, we can start to foresee that “lull” coming to an end. Now that Russia has joined the fray in the Middle East to protect her ally Syria, this is likely to bring her and America into open conflict, and God only knows how that will end up. During all those years of the Cold War, the conflict never heated up to the point of turning into atomic war. This fear of atomic war probably kept the lid on things, so that the international situation never got so out of hand that it escalated into a world war. But unfortunately, this kind of a stalemated situation cannot last forever. Sooner or later, the forces of Darkness, aiming as always to destroy God’s creation, will precipitate World War III and whatever terrible destruction that will bring. According to the prophecies here in Daniel 11 and Ezekiel 38-39, Russia will come out victorious in this future war. But not for long. According to other Scriptures (Revelation 19-20), God will step in at the Second Coming and the Battle of Armageddon. Jesus the Messiah will reclaim the world that has been held captive by Satan and his legions during the thousands of years of human history. But for now the superpowers are vying against each other, yet trying desperately to avoid direct engagement with each other because of the dreadful prospect that such a confrontation could escalate into nuclear war. Thus, the strategic value of using client states to fight wars by proxy has grown considerably in the warfare tactics of modern times. So, although it may appear to be Syria and Egypt, for example, fighting each other in the Mid East, in reality it would be a struggle between their backers, the major superpowers of Russia and America.

This ancient struggle between Syria and Egypt, however we might want to look at it, was at the least a sort of foreshadowing of events that were to happen in modern times. Just as they had once fought each other for control of the land of Israel and the Mid East, we can easily foresee that the U.S. and Russia will also grapple with each other for control of the same territory. (In fact, it was already happening during the Cold War days and seems to be revving up again in these very recent times.) At present Israel lies within America’s orb of influence, just as ancient Israel was once a client state of ancient Egypt. And just as ancient Syria fought for and plucked Israel out of the hands of the Egyptians, so modern Russia will fight for and gain control over Israel (according to Ezekiel 38-39 and this chapter we are now studying, Daniel 11). It seems obvious then that the modern superpowers – America and Russia – will battle it out against each other from their client states in the Middle East. (See news articles in Appendix 2: Clash between the superpowers.) We might guess this by the statement in verse 42: “the land of Egypt shall not escape.” It doesn’t say, “the king of the south shall not escape”. This suggests then that the “king of the South” is a larger entity than just the land of Egypt – although Egypt, likely, will be very much a part of the king of the south’s domain – an ally or even a staging ground for the “king of the South”. This would be similar to how the term “king of the North” is a broader designation for, not just ancient (and modern) Syria, but also for the superpower of Russia. Now of course, there is no mention of America in the Scriptures. Logically, we can deduce that, if “king of the North” includes Russia, then “king of the South” should include Russia’s main rival in the modern world. And who else could that be but the American superpower, along with America’s allies in the Middle East, especially Israel and probably Egypt? In those days 2,500-plus years ago, no one knew about a U.S.A.; there wasn’t any. So how is the angel going to refer to this future superpower? He calls him the “king of the South”, whose domain in ancient times included Israel. In modern times America’s domain includes Israel. As a longtime and ardent supporter of Israel, America seems to be playing a role similar to that of the ancient “king of the South”. And chances are that “king of the South” will also include Egypt, which is still upholding her peace treaty with Israel. It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows, and even in spite of a temporary setback (Egypt’s

flirtation with the Islamic Brotherhood government), the pendulum has swung back to where it was before; Egypt has returned to her former proAmerican position and may well end up supporting, maybe even fighting on, the side of Israel and America in future Mid East wars.

Appendix 1: Clash in the Middle East Threats of war cloud hopes for Middle East By Liz Sly, Washington Post, February 11, 2012 BEIRUT—Fears of an as-yet-undefined Middle Eastern war are darkening the horizons of a region that only a year ago was celebrating the fall of dictators, the ascent of people power and the promise of a new era of democracy. Iranian threats to mine the Strait of Hormuz raise the specter of conflict between the United States and Iran in the Persian Gulf. Warnings from Israel that it may strike Iran’s nuclear facilities open up the possibility of a regionwide conflict. Most worrying of all, as shells rain down on the Syrian city of Homs and TV screens across the region replay gory scenes of casualties captured on videos posted on YouTube, there is now little doubt that Syria is in the early stages of a civil war, one whose potentially profound ramifications provokes jitters far beyond its borders. Although a wider war is by no means inevitable, 2012 is already proving a dark sequel to the hope and possibility of 2011, as the demands of ordinary people for greater freedoms collide with the competing agendas of big powers in the region’s most volatile heart. “There are two different trajectories in the Middle East,” said Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. While “North Africa is moving toward more democracy,” he said, the Levant region— including Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq—is “moving toward confrontation and sectarian conflict. It is a much darker, gloomier trajectory.”

Despite chaos in Cairo and confusion in Tripoli, the three North African nations of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are getting on with the task, however messily, of building new democracies that may yet work after a year in which authoritarian leaders in each country were deposed. But in the Arab heartlands stretched between Israel and Iran, the awakening of democratic aspirations has stirred also ancient rivalries and more recent grudges across a network of crisscrossing fault lines, any one of which could crack and trigger all the rest. “It feels like anywhere could explode, without knowing why, at any time,” said Umm Haya, a Syrian living in Baghdad, reflecting the widespread sense of unease among many living beyond Syria’s borders. “The whole region is inflammable.” At the center of it all is Syria, whose nearly year-long revolt began as an overwhelmingly peaceful popular uprising against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad but now is being reshaped into a far wider struggle for influence. Unlike Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, whose relatively limited regional reach ensured that their revolts were contained within their borders, Syria lies at the nexus of a web of strategic alliances, geopolitical interests and religious jealousies that would be upended were the regime there to fall. “Libya imploded. Syria will explode,” said a diplomat from a nonWestern country interviewed in Damascus. “And it will explode across the whole region.” It is not only that Syria’s religious and ethnic makeup complicates an essentially grass-roots uprising against decades of tyranny. Assad’s minority Alawite clan, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, controls most key positions in the security forces spearheading the effort to suppress the unrest, lending a sectarian dimension to a revolt dominated by the country’s Sunni majority. Assad’s own record, and that of his father before him, as a champion of anti-Western causes, his alliances with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and above all his close relationship with Iran also puts his regime on the frontline of a far broader struggle for influence.

“Regime change in Syria would have an impact on the entire region, because Syria has geopolitical importance for Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, everywhere. So every country has its own interest in what is happening in Syria,” said Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who is striving to balance Iraq’s delicate sectarian complexity with the unfolding events in neighboring Syria. Or as Claire Spencer, head of the Middle East and North Africa program at the Chatham House think tank in London put it: “The fate of Syria is intertwined with the fate of everyone else in the region, and the fate of everyone else goes through Syria.” That the Syrian crisis is escalating just as America’s influence in the region is waning only further complicates the picture. The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in December and the advent of election-year constraints have sent a clear signal to the region that the United States is unlikely to intervene. “The American presence was a form of deterrence,” Zebari said. “Now people feel there is some kind of vacuum, and they are competing to fill it.” Among those powers is Russia, which thinks it was tricked by the West in Libya, and has now stepped up forcefully in defense of Assad, letting it be known that it will not stand by while a U.S.-backed alliance works to unseat its chief Mideast ally. The Russian and Chinese vetoes of a U.N. resolution condemning Syria, and Russia’s energetic attempts to broker its own outcome to the Syria crisis, evoke Cold War-era memories of an earlier struggle for control of the region that had appeared to end with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the U.S.led rescue of Kuwait in 1991. Underpinning the struggle for Syria, however, is a far older battle for supremacy between Iran and the West, Sunnis and Shiites, Arabs and Persians, which appeared to have been suppressed by the popular clamor for change that erupted across the Arab world last year but which now has resurfaced as a key dynamic driving the competition for power. Syria’s three-decade-old strategic alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran places it firmly at the heart of what Jordan’s King Abdullah dubbed in 2006 the Shiite crescent, an arc of territory stretching from Tehran to Beirut,

through Baghdad and Damascus, that is governed by Shiite-affiliated leaders sympathetic to Iran. If Syria were to be ruled by its Sunni majority, Damascus would anchor what some are already calling a Sunni crescent, stretching from Saudi Arabia to Turkey and severing Iran’s lifeline to the Mediterranean. For the Sunni countries of the Gulf, led by Saudi Arabia, the unrest in Syria presents a fresh opportunity to push back against Iranian influence, which expanded dramatically into Lebanon and Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion, analysts say. Though there is no evidence yet to support Syrian government claims that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been arming the Syrian opposition, that could well change now that concerted international action to resolve the Syria crisis seems unlikely, said Emile Hokayem of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain. “Iran remains the biggest actor in the region, and Syria is the convenient battlefield,” he said. “It’s a place where things can be done against Iran, but Iran remains the biggest prize.” With Russia already providing arms to the government and Iran offering technical assistance and military advice, according to U.S. officials, the stage is set for Syria to serve as the venue for a messy proxy war that could spill into Lebanon, Iraq and perhaps beyond.

Syria Coming to a Boil By Eric Margolis, The UNZ Review - March 29, 2011 Libya, in spite of its oil treasures, is strictly a sideshow in the great game of nations. We should be keeping our eyes on highly strategic Syria, a potentially combustible nation of 22.5 million that lies at the very heart of what we call the Mideast. Sizeable demonstrations have erupted in the Syrian port city of Latakia, Homs, and in three smaller southern towns, including Daraa, where, during World War I, Lawrence of Arabia was captured and tortured by the Turks. There have been small demonstrations in the capital, Damascus. The tough Syrian army has been deployed in many urban areas.

It was inevitable that the revolutions and uprisings sweeping across the Mideast would reach Syria, which has been ruled with an iron hand by the Asad family since 1970. Now, Syria’s neighbors are watching Syria’s gathering storm with a mixture of alarm and uncertainty. Syria has been isolated for over three decades. Damascus is under siege from the United States because of its opposition to Israel and championing of the Palestinians. US trade and arms sanctions have seriously damaged Syria’s weak economy and military forces. Persistent hostility from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iraq, all three dominated by the US, have further isolated Syria among the Arabs. Until recently, Turkey and Syria were also at scimitar’s drawn, but relations have greatly improved. Israel regularly threatens war against Syria because of the vital support Damascus gives to Lebanon’s Hizbullah movement and Palestinians. Israel’s virtual annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights and expulsion of over 125,000 Syrians from the Heights by Israel in 1967, and land expropriation by 19,000 Israeli settlers, remain inflammatory issues. Israeli heavy artillery atop Golan is within range of Damascus. Syria’s once powerful armed forces are by now almost totally outdated thanks to US sanctions, the collapse of Syria’s main arms supplier, the Soviet Union, and Damascus’ lack of hard cash to buy modern weapons from abroad. As a result, Syria’s 1980’s-vintage air and land forces face Israel’s mighty military machine that could crush Syria in days. [If a nation is weak militarily, they have to call on the help of someone stronger. As a result Syria could easily become a Russian protectorate, a staging-ground for the “king of the North”.] Syria is a highly sophisticated nation whose rich, though often tragic history, dates back to the dawn of time. Damascus is believed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city on earth. Syria has always been one of the two poles of the Arab world, along with its rival Egypt. [“king of the North” versus “king of the South”?] The world-view of Syrians is shaped by the fact that under the Ottoman Empire, Syria, or Shams, as it is called in Arabic, consisted of today’s Syria, Lebanon, parts of Iraq and southeastern Turkey, Jordan, Palestine and much of central and northern modern Israel.

More than half of historic Syria was stripped away by the rapacious French and British during World War I. Syria has never accepted this national rapine. Syrian-Lebanese relations are particularly fraught because France tore away the Mount Lebanon region from Syria as late as the 1920’s and created the protectorate of Lebanon to maintain French influence on the Levantine coast. Damascus refuses to accept Lebanon’s independence, insisting it is still an integral part of Syria. The British imperialists did precisely the same thing with the sheikdom of Kuwait, detaching it from historic Iraq. Iraq’s late leader, Saddam Hussein, sought to assert his nation’s historic claim to Kuwait—with dire consequences. What makes Syria so dangerous and volatile is its repressive and narrow political system. Former strongman Hafez Asad and his son Basher, the current president, come from the Alawi, a small, secretive religious minority from the mountains near Latakia said to be an offshoot of Shia Islam. Sunni Muslims regard the Alawi, who mix Shia and Christian beliefs, as dangerous heretics, even pagans. In the 1960’s, the armed forces filled up with impoverished Alawis, who had trouble finding work elsewhere. By the time Gen. Hafez Asad seized power in one of Syria’s endless coups, the armed forces and many of the eight or nine secret police organizations, had become dominated by Alawis. To put down growing unrest to Alawi rule, and attacks by Sunni militants, a draconian Emergency Decree was promulgated in 1963, which remains in force until today. A key demand by protestors in Syria is repeal of this hated martial law that curtails all freedoms and allows summary arrest without trials. The Asad’s iron hand gave Syria its first and only stable government since World War II. No one knows what will happen if that steely grip is released. As of this writing, reports are coming from Damascus that President Basher Asad may repeal the Emergency law and amend the constitution which mandates that the Ba’ath Arab Socialist Party will be the “leader of Syria’s regime and society.”

Even such an important change might not vent sufficient popular steam to avert a major explosion. Basher Asad’s challenge is to muzzle the Ba’ath Party Old Guard and enacting important reforms without allowing the lid to blow off pressurecooker Syria where thirty to forty years of anger, frustration and calls for revenge boil just below the surface. Some 75% of Syrians are Sunni Muslim. Alawis and Druze, another secretive mountain group, make up about 13% of the population, followed by Kurds, Armenians, Jews, and Circassians, whose Caucasian forebears were victims of Russian ethnic cleansing in the 19th century. Christian Syrians, who make up 10% of the population, can trace their roots all the way back to the birth of the faith. Many support the Asad regime out of concern their often favored status as part of the commercial elite would vanish under a Sunni-dominated government. Sunni have long chaffed against rule by “heretical” Alawis, as well as under the two draconian Asad regimes and their feared secret police, the “Mukhabarat.” Islamists have long been active in Syria’s underground, inviting savage repression from the regime. After invading Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration’s neocon crusaders were eager to attack Syria and overthrow the Asad regime. Israel urged a US attack. Syria was and remains a key ally of Iran, the only Arab one, and Tehran’s beachhead in the Levant. Note that Syria’s Alawi are close to Iran’s militant Shia. But it soon occurred to even the dullest minds of the Bush White House that if the devil-we-know-Asad is overthrown, who would replace him? The unavoidable answer was the Muslim Brotherhood—and that term frightened Washington a great deal. So Syria was spared. This time around, if the Asad regime falls, it could just as well be replaced by Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood, that may be thirsting for revenge. A bloodbath could ensure, plunging Syria into political chaos and violence and running the risk of drawing Syria’s unloving neighbors and the Western powers, notably France, into the fray.

Events inside Syria are far too complex for Washington to understand right now. Ending sanctions against Syria, restraining Israel’s interventionist hawks, and applauding democrats from the sidelines is the best thing the US can do for the time being. Syria is no place for the usual US bull in the china shop behavior.

Appendix 2: Clash between the superpowers The American Empire: A Finale By Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com - March 23, 2009 Author’s note: The following is the text of a talk given in Paris on March 21, at the “Prendre le Moyens de la paix au XXI siecle,” which I believe roughly translates into “Prospects for Peace in the 21st Century,” a conference sponsored by Bernardins College and the Sorbonne. (Note: Excerpts of long article) I am not cheered by the subject of my talk here today, which is the decline and fall of the American empire, first, because I am an American, and, second, because the description of America as an empire fits it all too well… The new leaders of the American government are convinced that government spending is the key to economic recovery, and that includes military spending. A longtime complaint we hear in America is that Americans don’t seem to build real products, anymore: heavy machinery, cars, the big stuff. Yet the military sector is doing just fine, even as the rest of the economy wilts. The military-industrial complex is making record profits, and this indicates a growing trend in the international division of labor. If China is the global factory, South and Central America the agricultural hinterlands, and Europe the historical repository of the Western tradition, then America seems fated to become the world’s military arsenal, a natural development of its role as the self-appointed global cop. Like the Romans, the Americans will keep the peace and provide a ready market for consumer goods produced by its colonies, protectorates, and allies, in exchange for pledges of loyalty to the imperial center and tribute passed under the table.

The American writer Chalmers Johnson paints a more detailed and updated picture of how the American version of this system works. Huddling under the American military umbrella, and an arrangement that allows protected colonial industries full access to American markets, our overseas provinces are nominally “independent,” as in Roman times, yet allow the presence of American military bases on their territory. An American empire of bases spans the globe and gives the U.S. military the ability to strike anywhere with a fair amount of speed. The Bush doctrine of preemption wasn’t just empty talk: America, as crippled by spasms of economic pain as she is, retains its status as the hyperpower, in purely military terms. The empire may have reached–and passed–its apogee, but there is no telling how long it will take for the whole massive edifice to come down. The ruling elite is naturally consumed by a desire to avoid the complete economic collapse of their system, which is founded on fraud and coercion. Their reaction, so far, has been to pursue precisely those policies which led to the crisis in the first place: they have embarked on a spending spree, with the big banks getting the largest share of the loot, and the rest going to bread and circuses for the commoners. This, however, will lead inevitably to hyperinflation such as we saw in Weimar Germany, or as we see today in Zimbabwe. These are extreme examples, but is it necessary to remind you that we are living in extreme times? In America, we are already seeing the rhetoric of war applied to the economic realm: we are fighting a “war on recession,” our elected leaders tell us, and their media echo chamber repeats the phraseology, as anyone who opposes the “war on recession” and the economic policies of the current administration is deemed unpatriotic. Republican supporters of the Iraq war were constantly invoking a similar mantra during the heyday of the Bush years, when they accused the Democrats of wanting Bush to fail–with the more fanatic neocons labeling all antiwar voices as treasonous. Today a rightwing radio talk-show host is vilified as a traitor for wanting President Obama to fail as he moves to extend the power and reach of government in the economic realm. I can guarantee that this sort of intimidation will shortly make inroads in the international sphere. It will be suddenly discovered, if it hasn’t already, that the real problem is global in scope and can only be solved by international economic regulators with the power of force behind them. The current crisis is bound to produce a crop of would-be visionaries with endless schemes for a global fix.

100

We’ll hear all kinds of non-threatening phrases like “global governance,” “multilateral integration,” and doubtless other harmless and even benevolentsounding euphemisms for what amounts to a world government. The neoconservatives also have their own version of “global governance,” but theirs is a markedly more ideological–and militaristic– version. Both American liberals and conservatives have signed on to the proposal made by presidential candidate John McCain that America and its allies should form a “League of Democracies.” Admission to this League would be open to Georgia, a country where it is dangerous to criticize the president, but not Belarus, where it is also dangerous to criticize the president. It would amount to an American version of the Warsaw Pact. Barring that somewhat grandiose flight of fancy, however, we are left with NATO, Obama’s chosen instrument of multilateral military action. While most of the action is likely to take place, initially, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the entire ring of former Soviet states bordering the battlefield will take on new strategic significance as the central arena in America’s endless war on terrorism shifts eastward. This means an all-out confrontation with Russia, and the groundwork has already been laid for that. You’ll note that the Obama administration, while critical of their Republican predecessors on the Iraq question, are following in the path of Bush when it comes to the Russian question. It was Vice President Dick Cheney, you’ll recall, who first took out after Vladimir Putin, after the neoconservative guru and “dark prince” Richard Perle demanded that Russia be thrown out of the G-8 for the “crime” of opposing the neocon agenda in the Middle East. Under Bush, a provocative missile shield was begun with American aid in Poland and the Czech Republic. With NATO troops stationed practically at the gates of Moscow, and NATO’s massed armies protected by a missile shield, Putin is staring down a gun barrel. Vice President Joe Biden came to Munich a couple of months ago to let the Russians know that we aren’t dropping our gun, but we may be willing to deal. Yet Putin is unlikely to cooperate in isolating Iran, abandoning Syria, and allowing Georgia to invade its neighbors and kill UN-sanctioned Russian peacekeepers at will. The price of dropping that gun to his head is that he must forget about forging an independent foreign policy in a multipolar world, because that is what represents a real threat to the imperial restoration project undertaken by the present American administration.

101

NATO is their chosen instrument, and the history of this alliance underscores a libertarian insight, which is that no government program ever ends, once it’s started–it merely develops a new rationale and a new title. Or sometimes the old title suffices, as in the case of NATO. Here is an institution that was founded in the fear of a Communist invasion, led by the Soviet Union, with Stalin at its head. The implosion of the Communist empire in 1989 ended whatever rationale NATO may once have had, and yet still, like the immortal vampire, the beast lives on! Georgia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan are actively seeking NATO membership, and it is only the reluctance of some of the Europeans that prevents each country in Europe, in addition to the U.S., from being embroiled in the endless ethnic disputes roiling a very troubled part of the world. President Obama has expressed support for extending NATO’s tentacles into the Caucasus, and our present policy doesn’t look all that much different than the expansionism of the Bush years. There can be no doubt that the U.S. has been engaged in a long-term project to encircle the former Soviet Union and make inroads where opportunity presents itself–or can be created. That’s what the so-called color revolutions were all about. Funded and supported politically by U.S. government agencies, and given plenty of cover in the international media, these supposedly “spontaneous” rebellions that installed pro-U.S. governments from in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere, were and are a direct threat aimed at Moscow, with the ultimate color revolution meant to take place in Russia itself. “Soft power” is a phrase we should expect to hear a lot more of in the age of Obama: it’s much more comforting and pacific-sounding than “regime change” or just plain old “war,” yet it is a war executed sometimes with violence but most often by other means. This soft power, however, has its hard counterpart in the growing size and scope of the U.S. military machine. America’s so-called defense budget is currently larger than all the military budgets of all the other nations on earth combined–and still President Obama has said he means to increase it! It is never enough, not if you’re the hyperpower. There is no security at the top of the world. Our uneasiness and fear arises from the very fact of our supremacy–and our certain knowledge that it cannot last forever. The fear that the end is upon us, that the entire economic structure of the West could come tumbling down, has our ruling elites in a panic. And yet

102

even as the banks fail, people are thrown out of work, and the economic gears stop turning, still the machinery of empire will continue, albeit somewhat less efficiently than before. That’s because our rulers are held captive by their own mindset–they are still living in the heyday of their power and cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that an era is coming to an end. They are determined to hold on to the insignia of power, even if their ramshackle empire is a bit frayed around the edges. They are still living inside the bubble of fake prosperity and breathing air permeated by their own hubris. Like drug addicts who cannot and will not kick their habit, the leaders of the American government, my government, are too far gone to ever change. Their very idea of themselves is imbued with a sense of entitlement and aristocratic noblesse oblige. They feel that they are doing us all a very great favor by consenting to rule over us and determine the fate of entire peoples, indeed of the entire globe. There are those of us, in America and elsewhere, who would rather they didn’t do us this favor, and would prefer that, instead of favoring us with their schemes to save the world, they would retire to private life and tend to their own gardens, rather than meddling in everybody else’s. Times of economic turmoil always produce demagogues, of the Right and the Left, and some who defy all political categories. Europe has already seen what hyperinflation can do to a nation’s politics: the history of Weimar Germany tells us all we need to know about the horrific possibilities. An impoverished people who have once known prosperity is prey to all sorts of demonic explanations for its plight: there are plenty of scapegoats, hateobjects whose existence is pointed to as the source of our plight. When people feel buffeted about like feathers in the wind, helpless to control their fate, that’s when they turn to leaders, to mass movements, to anything to which they can surrender their individual will and find glory–however phony–in something greater than themselves. This is invariably the state, the race, or some other collective construction, such as the proletariat, or the common people–choose your poison. In any case, these movements are authoritarian, by their very nature, and very often outwardly aggressive. War is the essence of their foreign policy, very often, because it is necessary for the governing party to direct the anger and frustration of the people outward, rather than inward, at themselves.

103

Extreme nationalism is historically the given a great impetus by economic hard times, and the greater the crisis the more unreasoning and violent the movement becomes. Economic protectionism is always a feature of these eras, and there is another fuse waiting to be lit, because if goods don’t cross borders, then armies soon will. Trading partners don’t make war on each other: the moment trade barriers go up, the prospects for armed conflict rise. In times of economic stress, the authority and power of the central state tends to expand, and this provides the War Party with the perfect warmaking instrument. As Randolph Bourne, the great American liberal opponent of World War I put it: “War is the health of the state.” War provides the framework and mindset that cedes all authority to the state and gives it free reign over the destiny of individuals. A command economy is organized along military lines, and anyone who disobeys orders–or, worse, questions the mission –is a traitor, to be cast out. As governments accrue more power to themselves, they seek out ways to expand and complete their control–and war is the perfect pretext, the ideal atmosphere in which to enforce this type of mindless conformity. Now I have been saying two things: (1) that the American empire has reached the end of its tether, and (2) that its rulers continue to act as if nothing untoward is happening. We are barreling forward, on the power of sheer momentum, along the same path set for us since the end of the Second World War. Having reached the pinnacle of power, we are still the hyperpower, albeit a bankrupt one–that is, America is a power that can yet do a lot of damage in the world. We may be going down, but we’re sure to take more than a few of you along with us. The end of the American empire has been proclaimed many times, yet it has always defied the prophets of doom. This time, however, there is a difference–because this time the crisis is real.

104

3-D: Setback to America (11:26-27) 11:26 “Yes, those who eat of the portion of his delicacies shall destroy him; his army shall be swept away, and many shall fall down slain.” Within the very heart of the king of the south’s government, there will be treacherous persons (“those who eat of the portion of his delicacies”) who shall undermine the war campaign in some way. They will succeed in subverting the efforts of this nation, America, which is supposed to be the bastion of Christianity. As a result of this treachery, her armies and proxy armies will suffer a major defeat on the battlefield. Has this ever happened before to America? There is a prime example from World War II that is worth looking into. That War was not lost to the Germans, true enough, but it was definitely lost to the Soviet Union. What happened? Instead of taking advantage of their successes on the Italian front, the Allies did not advance straight for the heart of Germany. Had they done as the military men like Churchill and Generals Clark and Patton were advocating, the War could have been shortened by a couple of years, and the communists could have been kept inside Russia instead of being allowed to take over Eastern Europe. But because of the subversive counsel that President Franklin Roosevelt was being influenced by, the Allied forces dithered around and politely waited for the Soviet army to advance on Berlin. The result was a great defeat that could have been avoided: about 40 years of communist oppression in the nations of Eastern Europe, along with all the Cold War conflicts and tensions of those years. What exactly will happen to undermine America’s progress in this future war, we don’t know, of course. But we do know at least that it can happen. Another factor that should be considered: It is quite likely that, as far as God is concerned, He will not be able to protect or allow America to prevail in this war. As happened with ancient Israel when she forgot the God that had made her great and became corrupt and a bad example to the world, God will likewise have to allow America’s enemies to prevail against her. 11:27 “Both these kings’ hearts shall be bent on evil, and they shall speak lies at the same table; but it shall not prosper, for the end will still be at the appointed time.”

105

After a war normally there comes a peace agreement. And, as often happens in peace conferences between warring nations, there is much deception and lying going on as each side tries to make a strong case for its own version of how things should be settled. “They shall speak lies at the same table.” And since “it shall not prosper”, this sets the stage for further war. Failed or misguided peace treaties tend to have this effect. For example, the unfair terms of the Treaty of Versailles after World War I sowed the seeds for the next World War. The British and French delegations were “bent on evil”, wanting to squash their big rival for economic dominance – the monopoly that was theirs prior to the unification and rise of Germany before World War I. This harsh treatment led to much resentment in Germany, a desire for revenge, and eventually, the rise of the Hitler maelstrom. Then at the end of World War II came the Potsdam and Yalta conferences. These conferences were basically a surrender to Soviet Communism, and because of their vague and ineffectual terms, their main accomplishment was to set the stage for the Cold War of the last century. On the other hand, fair treaties can also be brokered. For example, General MacArthur negotiated with the Japanese at the end of World War II and hammered out a fair and reasonable treaty; as a result a long era of peace and good relations has existed since then between the U.S. and Japan. Although the “covenant” had already been signed, it seems it was designed mainly for the protection of Israel and of religious freedom; it didn’t necessarily prevent other conflicts from developing in the Mideast – in particular, the major confrontation, described in verse 25, between the “great and mighty armies” (of the kings of north and south). In today’s world too much head-on confrontation (especially if it’s between superpowers) can lead to the perilous possibility of unleashing nuclear war. Such a dire need to defuse tensions quickly may at this time be a major consideration in the minds of world leaders for ending hostilities and sitting down at the peace table. Now it is commonly interpreted in many a study Bible and commentary, that these “peace talks” mentioned here in verse 27 should be relegated back into some obscure ancient history: Antiochus Epiphanes discussing with the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philometer how they could both

106

rule over Egypt against Ptolemy’s brother Physkon. But as we’ve learned, Gabriel’s message has already switched tracks into the future of the End Time; the Antichrist’s 7-year “covenant” has already started. For further clarification on why this verse should not be relegated to past events, a good (although rather technical) explanation from Keil and Delitzsch can be found in the Appendix. Briefly, their explanation states that, not only do ancient historical facts fail to fit properly with the prophetic message, but we have again a key phrase in this verse, “the end will still be at the appointed time”. This phrase about “the end” being at the “appointed time” is repeated four more times (11:35, 40; 12:4, 9), and in each of those cases the setting is obviously the time of the End. Thus, to remain consistent with those references, this verse 27 should also have as its setting the End Time period of history. The passage in verse 27 states that the peace talks “shall not prosper” – which makes sense. If their hearts are “bent on evil” and are speaking “lies “ to one another, then of course, the talks won’t succeed, and it is inevitable that more war is going to follow. And this will be the final conflict “at the time appointed” by God. We might conjecture that if the talks were to succeed, with all their fake promises and unjust terms, the end result would be a longer, more protracted, and worse outcome. Better to get it over with sooner rather than later, before the warring sides have time to re-arm and recalibrate their strategies and thus prolong the war. “And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved,” Jesus said long ago. (Matthew 24:22) As international tensions escalate and come to a boil, and before mankind winds up destroying himself and the Earth, the Lord will step in so that the human race can continue on into the new Age. Finally, after all this turmoil, or in the middle of it, we can look forward to the return of Christ. Mankind’s peace treaties “shall not prosper”, but Christ’s Return will bring the ultimate peace treaty. His conquest over all the forces of evil, in both earthly and spiritual domains, will bring real and lasting peace in the Earth.

107

Appendix: Keil and Delitzsch’s Commentary on Daniel 11:27 Verse 27. Here then is described how the two kings seek through feigned friendship to destroy one another. The two kings are of course the two kings of the north and the south previously named. Of a third, namely, of two kings of Egypt, Philometor and Physkon, Daniel knows nothing. The third, Physkon, is introduced from history; and hence Hitzig, v. Lengerke, and others understand by the “two kings,” the two kings Antiochus and Philometor confederated against the king of the south, but Kliefoth, on the contrary, thinks of Antiochus and Physkon, the latter of whom he regards as the king of the south, v. 25. All this is arbitrary. Jerome has already rejected the historical evidence for this… … All interpretations of these words which are determined by historical facta are arbitrary. The history of Antiochus Epiphanes furnishes no illustrations for this. In the sense of the prophecy [the Hebrew words for “it shall not prosper”] has only this meaning: the design of the king of the north to destroy the king of the south, and to make himself master both of the north and the south, shall not succeed, and the king of the south will not fulfill what he promises to his deceitful adversary. For yet the end shall be at the time appointed. These words state the reason why the [mischief-making] shall not succeed … [The Hebrew preposition used for “at”] denotes here, as generally, the direction toward the end, as v. 35, and Dan 8:17,19. [Verse 35: “until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time”; Daniel 8:17,19 – “to the time of the end… in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be.”] The end goes yet on to the time appointed by God. That this [Hebrew word meaning “appointment of time”] does not lie in the present, but in the future, is denoted by [the Hebrew word for “still” or “yet”]. [This word] stands before [the Hebrew word for “the end”] because on it the emphasis lies. [The Hebrew word for “the end”] is, however, not the end of the war between Antiochus and Egypt (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig), but cannot be otherwise taken than [the Hebrew words for “the time of the end” as found in] vv. 35, 40, and Dan 12:4. But in the latter passage [“the time of the end”] is the time of the resurrection of the dead, thus the end of the present course of the world, with which all the oppression of the people of God ceases. Accordingly [the Hebrew word for “the end”] in the verse before us, as in vv. 35 and 40, is the time in

108

which the conduct of the kings previously described, in their rising up and in their hostility against the people of God, reaches its end (v. 45) [“He (the Antichrist) shall come to his end”]; and with the overthrow of these enemies the period of oppression also comes to an end. This end comes only [“at the time appointed”], at the time which God has determined for the purifying of His people (v. 35). So long may the kings of the north and the south prosecute their aims; so long shall they strive for the possession of the kingdom without succeeding in their plans. [The Hebrew word for “at the time appointed”] has here and in v. 35 the definite article, because in both verses the language refers not to any definite time, but to the time determined by God for the consummation of His kingdom… [from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, 1866: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.]

109

3-E: Setback to “King of the North” and Turning Point (11:28-30) 11:28 “While returning to his land with great riches, his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant; so he shall do damage and return to his own land.” “With great riches.” It seems the peace agreement (from verse 27) will have paid off in giving the “king of the North” access to great storehouses of wealth. This we could infer has something to do with gaining access to Mid East oil. A passage in Ezekiel 38 also mentions this acquisition of wealth: “Sheba, Dedan, the merchants of Tarshish, and all their young lions will say to you [“Gog” the Antichrist], ‘Have you come to take plunder? Have you gathered your army to take booty, to carry away silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods, to take great plunder?’” (38:13) Without getting into all the details, that passage seems to say that the area of Saudi Arabia and surrounding oil-wealthy states and the Western powers of the U.S. and Britain will protest against what they suspect are the Antichrist Gog’s motives for entering the Mid East – namely, “to take great plunder” (of oil wealth). (For more details see Post IV-5 on Ezekiel 38-39 for more information.) So what we read here in verse 28 of Daniel 11 shows us that, indeed, the taking of “great plunder” was a motive for the king of the North’s Mid East meddling and conflict with the “king of the South”. Because these two chapters are closely linked in various ways, the “Gog” figure in Ezekiel 38 (who is clearly from Russia) can be identified with the “king of the North” figure in this chapter of Daniel 11. (See Post IX-3C for more information.) And so, we may conclude that, as Gabriel’s prophecy telescopes into the End Time, the “king of the North” term refers, not to the Syrian kingdom only, but can be expanded to include the northern “king” from Russia. And who knows? The two nations may in the future become such strong allies that they could more easily be categorized as one power known as the “king of the North”. “The holy covenant.” The “covenant” is again mentioned. The angel is talking as if Daniel (and we readers) already know about it – since it was mentioned previously in verse 22 (and in 23 as the “league”), and in his message to Daniel three or four years earlier: “he (the Antichrist) shall

110

confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease…” (9:27, KJV) So Gabriel is about to elaborate on these previous statements. The use of the word “holy” here (and in verse 30) serves to fine-tune our understanding about the “covenant”; it easily links us back to the “covenant” described in Daniel 9:27, which appears to be an agreement to allow the Israelis to carry on with their religious worship (the “sacrifice and offering” mentioned in that verse); and presumably, this “covenant with many” involves other nations of the world who agree to allow this religious freedom in Israel. Although it is an agreement between nations and groups of people and not between God and man, nevertheless, because it dwells on the issue of allowing religious freedom in Israel, therefore it is called “the holy covenant”. (And by extension, if the Antichrist allows religious freedom for the Jews, then he is obliged to allow it to other faiths throughout the world as well.) In those future days it would appear that “religion” will have become a major political issue. We can see the seeds of it being sown nowadays, unwittingly, by religious organizations themselves – whether it be terrorism by Islamic fanatics, Judaism’s oppression of its nation’s minorities, warmongering stance of some Christian fundamentalists, mob fury of Hindu extremism. Very likely, the Antichrist will capitalize on these foolish antics of certain religious groups as he campaigns to stamp out the true worship of God in the Earth. We can guess that things will head in this direction by certain Scriptures: “That horn [symbolic of the Antichrist]… spoke pompous words … and the same horn was making war against the saints… He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High.” (Daniel 7:20-21, 25) “And he [the“beast” symbolic of the Antichrist] was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies… Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them … the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed.” (Revelation 13:5-7, 15)

111

“Religion” will have become a major issue in tomorrow’s world: should religious practices be allowed to continue, or should the secular worldview be allowed to prevail? The Antichrist will argue forcibly in favor of ridding the world of “religion”, on which he will try to blame all the world’s troubles. Of course, he will ignore all the good works and benefits brought to society by men and women of faith. Throughout the ages conscientious people have greatly benefited the world of mankind. Their reverence for God prompted them to introduce useful inventions, charitable organizations for the poor, educational institutions, wise governance, peacemaking in politics, and the list could on and on. But it seems that, at this point in future history, all that will be forgotten. There will be a great need then to stem the tide of anti-religious feeling that the False Prophet and Antichrist will try to stir up. Against this kind of cultural background, the “holy covenant” is brought before the world and before the “king of the North”, this anti-Christ Gog figure, as a way to protect those who wish to practice their faith from those who would outlaw all forms of religion. So this “holy covenant”, although technically an earthly agreement between groups of people, nevertheless, because it does involve those who are seen as God’s representatives on Earth (however tarnished they may be in some ways), then it will have transformed into an agreement between the secular world and the Kingdom of God. It looks as though the “holy covenant” will even become the last restraining force to prevent the forces of Darkness from unleashing their desired destruction upon the Earth and its inhabitants.

Covenant: In the Time of the End? A question that may come to mind: how can we be sure that the “covenant” happens in the Time of the End, and not in the distant past – a view held by some Bible commentators? This question was addressed to some extent earlier, but here are some other pertinent facts to consider: The “covenant” ties in with the “abomination of desolation”: thisis an obvious clue. The appearance of the “abomination… spoken of by Daniel the prophet” was a specific sign Jesus gave as an event that would happen in the days just prior to His Second Coming. (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14) And here in verses 28 and 30, we read about the “king of the North” hardening his

112

heart against the “covenant”, which leads to that climactic historical event when the “covenant” is broken: “and forces shall… defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation.” (verse 31) This “abomination of desolation” is exactly what Christ was referring to as the key event that would signal the beginning of the Great Tribulation and the soon-coming “end of the age” and His Second Coming. And if the “covenant” also occurs at this time (which it plainly does according to the passages we have just studied), then the “covenant” and the “70th week” must also be events of the End Time, not the ancient past – since they, along with the “abomination of desolation” are part and parcel of the same events preceding Christ’s Second Coming. It is hard to understand how it could be otherwise. If the “abomination of desolation” is what causes the “covenant” to be shattered – as is obvious in verses 28-31 in Daniel 11 (and verse 27 in Daniel 9) – then what other “covenant” could it be possibly be referring to other than the one that is to take place in the Time of the very End, that time when the “abomination of desolation” will “defile the sanctuary” – that ominous event which Jesus pointed out would be a sign to look for just before His Second Coming? In Daniel 9:27 (KJV) the phrase “overspreading of abominations” (or “military invasion of abominations”) by which the Antichrist “shall make desolate (violently)” is a way of describing in the ancient language the practice of modern warfare. The “abominations” are the vehicles and weapons of war that are so prevalent in modern warfare. (Again this is a big subject covered more thoroughly in the post, “Unraveling the Mystery of the Abomination ”.) So here we have another small clue that should help us to understand that this “covenant” (made near the time when these peculiar desolating abominations will be attacking Jerusalem) is not an event of the distant past, but is a modern one. Clearly then, the context of these verses 28-30, and the linkages with other verses in the New Testament about the “abomination of desolation”, point to them as describing End Time events – namely, the Antichrist’s dissatisfaction with the “holy covenant” and the run-up process to the breaking of the covenant with the “abomination of desolation”… in modern times, not ancient times.

113

As a little side-note here, context is very important in understanding ancient Hebrew. Ancient languages, with their smaller vocabularies, naturally lack the precision of more developed modern ones, so to gauge the meaning of a word or phrase or sentence or group of sentences, context and comparison with other passages often have to be the deciding factors. Without giving consideration to the context, it becomes very easy to “make” the interpretation/translation fit with or say whatever seems most convenient to one’s own particular slant, theory, or preconceived notion. It is a pitfall that scholars can fall into – to get “obsessed with disputes and arguments over words,” regarding which Paul advises, “Withdraw yourself.” (1Timothy 6:4-5) Judging then by the context and linkages with other passages, it should be clear enough that these references in Daniel 9 and 11 about the “covenant” do not deal with past ancient events – such as the bargaining that went on between Antiochus Epiphanes and the Egyptian king Ptolemy. That was a strictly political agreement and had nothing to do with religious matters or the state of Israel, which is what the term “holy covenant” is surely referring to. The only link to the past is the historical fact that Antiochus Epiphanes persecuted the Jews for their religion; and Gabriel seems to have used this ancient king as his jumping off point into the End Time – mainly because his reign of terror served to highlight, as far as God’s people are concerned, an important feature of the final Antichrist’s reign – religious persecution. As it was for Antiochus Epiphanes, so for the Antichrist the big issue will be “religion”; and therefore, the “holy covenant” must have something to do with that issue. Another idea held by some scholars is that the last seven years happened during Christ’s earthly ministry, which included the bringing in of the “new covenant”, or New Testament. The weaknesses with this point of view stem from the following: 1) The covenant, as described in Daniel 9 and 11, is designated as a political/religious agreement amongst people in the earthly plane; it does not refer to the spiritual plane, the covenant between God and man. 2) There is no clear record of any such covenant in Biblical or secular history. 3) As outlined already, the “abomination of desolation” is depicted as the instrument that the Antichrist uses to break the covenant and is something that Jesus Himself said

114

would happen shortly before His Second Coming – not in ancient times nor at the end of His first coming. Well, as we can see, there exists much confusion about what the “covenant” means, as they are interpreted in study Bibles and commentaries of the past, which generally interpret them in the context of ancient history. Unfortunately, these viewpoints have carried over into the Bibles and commentaries of the present. These old viewpoints were made originally because certain events of ancient history did seem to fit (to some extent) what these verses are describing. Well, that should not be too surprising. History does repeat itself. But these ancient events should be understood as secondary fulfillments of the words of Gabriel. And these “secondary fulfillments” were rather dramatic events in ancient history: persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, his desecration of the Jewish temple, the Jews’ fierce and bold struggle against the anti-Christ ruler of that period in ancient history, and the rise of the Roman superpower. These events are worth our consideration as they serve as a sort of backdrop to what will happen in modern times; they can shed some light on how to understand the prophecy’s primary application to the soon-coming events of the future. It should be noted that Gabriel’s words here in verses 28-31 focus quite a bit on this future event, the breaking of the covenant. For it is no small thing – that calamitous event which will kick off the last period of persecution and the final period of our present age of history just prior to the return of Christ to rescue His people and the world from total destruction. Now, to provide some more background to the religious aspect of the “holy covenant”, some recent events seem to confirm that, besides politics, religion will play a pivotal role in future Mid East agreements, as brought out in the following news excerpt:

Vatican Hails U.N. Palestine Vote, Wants Guarantees for Jerusalem Reuters - November 29, 2012 “The Holy See welcomes with favor the decision of the General Assembly by which Palestine has become a Non-member Observer State of the United Nations,” a statement said… Thursday’s statement called for “an internationally guaranteed special statute” for Jerusalem, aimed at “safeguarding the freedom of religion and of

115

conscience, the identity and sacred character of Jerusalem as a Holy City, (and) respect for, and freedom of, access to its holy places.” The Vatican’s re-stating of its position on Jerusalem, which has remained mostly dormant for years, was bound to irk Israel… It has been some time since the Vatican re-stated its position on the city so forcefully, and Thursday’s statement was bound to be received negatively by Israel… (To read the article in full, see Appendix 1.) From the above article, we learn that the plan to internationalize Jerusalem has been around for some time and has received new impetus now as a result of the UN vote and the Vatican’s recent statements; both Israel and Palestine want Jerusalem for their capital, and the best solution to break the deadlock is to give it to neither side. Instead, Jerusalem can be put under UN supervision as a sacred site where the three religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism may have their guarantee of freedom to worship. Since it is referred to as a “holy covenant” (in verses 28 and 30), then very likely, it will have a great deal to do with the kind of arrangements in the city of Jerusalem that the Vatican has been trying to promote for many years. So that’s the religious angle. Now it might help to look again at the situation from the political angle. Very likely, the covenant will be designed in such a way as to guarantee protection for Israel against the military advances of the “king of the North”. It could very well be that, by the time the “covenant” is made, the Antichrist will have already established a formidable presence in the Mid East region – which could be why Daniel 9:27 states that he “shall confirm a covenant”. That is, his position and authority, and the world’s respect for him, have advanced to the point where the “covenant” cannot be drafted without his consent, and probably his input as well. And so, a major purpose for the “covenant” will be simply to protect Israel from the Antichrist. Of course Israel will have to make concessions, which may well include internationalizing Jerusalem, guaranteeing religious freedom for all faiths to worship there, and returning land to the Palestinians. And as mentioned before, probably another major purpose for the “covenant” will be to protect the world from the ominous threat of nuclear war. But “his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant”. What has caused the “king of the North” to have this change of heart, we are not told.

116

Perhaps the peace conference in verse 27 has upset him in some way. Both sides “shall be bent on evil” and will have spoken “lies at the same table”; so neither side is going to be happy about the promises made by the other side. Even though he is “returning to his land with great riches”, yet somehow he is not satisfied. One guess might be that the Israelis will not be cooperating or abiding by the stipulations in the “covenant”. In very recent events we have caught a glimpse of how intransigent the Israelis can be in their land disputes with the Palestinians. If this pattern continues and if they keep on in defiance of world opinion, it would be just the kind of provocative behavior that will cause the Antichrist “king of the North” to “be moved against the holy covenant”. Perhaps something along these lines will take place to provide the excuse needed to break the covenant; or it may be some other incident, or series of incidents. Whatever the case will be, it might help to review what happened recently when the United Nations voted to recognize Palestine within the 1967 borders as a non-member state with observer status. The following news excerpts could provide a useful jumping off point for us to project what may happen in the future.

In historic vote, Palestine becomes non-member UN state with observer status Haaretz - Nov 29, 2012 In a historic session of the United Nations in New York Thursday, exactly 65 years after passing the Partition Plan for Palestine, the General Assembly voted by a huge majority to recognize Palestine within the 1967 borders as a non-member state with observer status in the organization… The Palestinian Authority chairman said “The moment has arrived for the world to say clearly: Enough of aggression, settlements and occupation… The world is being asked today to undertake a significant step in the process of rectifying the unprecedented historical injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people since Al-Nakba of 1948.” “The General Assembly is called upon today to issue a birth certificate of the reality of the State of Palestine,” Abbas said. He concluded his speech to a standing ovation.

117

PM: UN can’t force Israel to compromise on security The Jerusalem Post – November 29, 2012 [Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel stated] “It does not matter how many will vote against us, there is no force in the world that will cause me to compromise on Israeli security and there is no force in the world able to sever the thousands year connection between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel.”

Israel Pushing Controversial Settlements After U.N. Vote The New York Times - November 30, 2012 JERUSALEM — Israel is moving forward with development of Jewish settlements in a contentious area east of Jerusalem, defying the United States by advancing a project that has long been condemned by international leaders as effectively dooming any prospect of a two-state solution to the IsraeliPalestinian conflict.… …Israel also authorized the construction of 3,000 new housing units in parts of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The timing of the twin actions seemed aimed at punishing the Palestinians for their United Nations bid, and appeared to demonstrate that hard-liners in the government had prevailed after days of debate over how to respond… … Saab Erekat, the Palestinians’ chief negotiator, said in a statement. “At a moment where the Palestinian leadership is doing every single effort to save the two-state solution, the Israeli government does everything possible to destroy it.” Much of the world considers settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank to be illegal under international law, and the United States has vigorously opposed development of E1 for nearly two decades. … While Israel has frequently announced settlement expansions at delicate political moments, often to its detriment, the E1 move came as a shock, after a week in which both Israelis and Palestinians toned down their rhetoric about day-after responses to the United Nations bid. … …The settlement of E1, a 4.6-square-mile expanse of hilly parkland where some Bedouins have camps and a police station was opened in 2008, could further increase Israel’s international isolation. … Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama have all strenuously objected to any settlement there, and it is internationally known as the third rail for the peace process. Dani Seidemann, a Jerusalem lawyer and peace activist, described E1 as “the fatal heart attack of the two-state solution” and said Mr. Netanyahu was wielding “the doomsday weapon.”

118

… “We’re going to stop this,” he said. “If Netanyahu decides to pursue E1, Henny Penny the sky will fall on him. If he pursues this, Israel is going to find itself isolated in a non-wartime situation as we have never been before.” Clearly, Palestine’s 2012 landslide victory in the U.N. to grant it observer status as a non-member state shows that the majority of the world favors the creation of a Palestinian state and the end of Israel’s occupation of what is supposed to belong to Palestine. Originally, the UN formally sanctioned the creation of separate Israeli and Palestinian states way back in 1948 (Resolution 181). This resulted in a civil war and the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan respectively who wanted to safeguard the rights of the Palestinians. In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel drove out the Egyptians and Jordanians. Again a UN Resolution (282) was passed the same year, calling on Israel to withdraw and grant sovereignty to the Palestinians. Since then however, the Israelis have acted as if the land belongs only to them and are doing everything in their power to make life difficult for their Palestinian neighbors. The world community sees what is going on and knows that the proper and fair solution is simply to grant nationhood to the people of Palestine. However, Israel’s intransigence and defiance of the UN (Netanyahu’s sanctioning of the E1 settlements immediately after the U.N. vote) irritated the international community, including even present and former U.S. Presidents. (See news article in Appendix 3 about how the climate of world opinion has changed even more in the wake of Israel’s 2014 war on Gaza.) So if someone who is less committed than the U.S.A. to protecting the Jewish people – like the Antichrist from Russia, as well as many other nations of the world – should decide finally to do something about the situation (with the UN’s blessing or even a UN mandate), there won’t be much the U.S. can do to prevent it. Presumably, the international agreement of the “covenant” will be the solution brought up that will be aimed at balancing the Mideast equation with fair boundaries and just political arrangements in the land of Israel. But it seems, judging by the phrase, “his heart shall be moved against the holy covenant”, that as far as the Antichrist is concerned, the covenant has become an obstacle to his own plans. For him it may have been nothing more than an appeasement to the Israelis that he felt coerced into, or

119

perhaps a delaying tactic that he doesn’t need anymore, or a guarantee of protection for religious freedom that he no longer wishes to honor – or a combination of these. That he did not, even in the beginning, take the covenant very seriously seems evident from verse 23: “and after the league is made with him he shall work deceitfully”. At any rate, since the events have not happened yet, right now it is mostly a matter of guesswork as to how these Scriptures will manifest in historical reality. Regarding the situation with the UN and the Palestinians, it really does appear that Israel is living in its own world, oblivious to international concerns. And part of the cause for such blinkered vision is the mistaken belief that their actions are sanctioned by God. It may be true that God did seek to bless the Jewish people after their suffering in World War II and allow them to return to Israel. But the conditions for their return are stated clearly in the Book of Ezekiel: “It shall be that you will divide it (the land) by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the tribes of Israel. And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger dwells, there you shall give him his inheritance, says the Lord God.” (47:22-23) Clearly, the Israeli nation is not yet ready to live up to God’s standards for a wise and benevolent ruling power; it will take the heavy hand of Antichrist persecution to bring about such a change… and the return of Christ, at which time it seems that Israel will have forsaken the arrogance that has marred her present regimes; and then finally, she will be allowed to expand her borders, as suggested by verses 15-20 in Ezekiel 47. But Israel’s present day approach cannot be tolerated for too much longer, and so all that Israel can expect now is international condemnation. Inevitably, this will grow beyond words and diplomatic protests (which is the stage where things are at now); eventually, we might foresee that Israel will find herself under strict enforcement of UN guidelines. And so the recent news events mentioned above could mark an important shift in the struggle of the Palestinians. It is as if the ball has been tossed out of the Israeli-Palestinian court into the international court. Sadly for Israel, she seems rather oblivious to how the winds of change have been shifting against her.

120

But it is not all a matter of politics. Getting back to the religious aspect of the “covenant”, we understand, of course, that the Dark Forces will be working hard to influence the Antichrist to turn away from allowing religious freedom; the False Prophet, the one who “causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast (the Antichrist)” will certainly be trying to influence the course of events, and the Antichrist, in that direction… and towards the worship of Materialism, his religion that features the “mark of the beast”. (Revelation 13:16-17). And so the False Prophet may capitalize on the policy blunders of the Israelis and other religious groups and use them to turn the Antichrist’s heart against “religion”, and consequently, against the “holy covenant”. The descriptive word “holy” in these last two references to the “covenant” in verses 28 and 30 were not used in previous references to the “covenant”. We might guess that Gabriel’s use of the word here was meant to emphasize the fact that the religious aspect will have become a much bigger issue and major obsession with the Antichrist. It is not enough for him to have gained great wealth and power, but in addition to military and economic dominance, he and the False Prophet wish to achieve spiritual dominance in the world. So for them at this point the “holy covenant” is just getting in the way of their plans that they (and the powers of Darkness) are aiming for. And “so he shall do damage.” In the original Hebrew the word “damage” is not there. It might have been the correct word to use anyway. But strictly speaking, the passage just says, “so shall he do”, as if to say “he shall do accordingly”, or “his actions will be guided accordingly”. How the Antichrist’s change of heart will manifest at this point we don’t know. It could result in “damage” in the form of military strikes, or it could mean he will work intensely behind the scenes to undermine the covenant. Right now we don’t really know. A little side-note: The translation in the NKJV, “while returning”, suggests that on his way back home the “king of the North” will do his “damage”. Probably the passage was translated this way so as to fit it in with certain ancient historical events: Antiochus Epiphanes, on his way back to Syria after meeting with the Egyptian king, got upset with the Israelis and caused a great deal of havoc in Israel. Most translations, however, merely say, “and he shall return” or “then he shall return”. More likely these versions are correct: it would certainly fit better the modern situation. In the old days a

121

king, traveling by ship or by land with his troops, might easily stop on his way to attack a city; but nowadays, traveling by air, that wouldn’t be so easy. 11:29 “At the appointed time he shall return and go toward the south; but it shall not be like the former or the latter.” “At the appointed time.” A good question to ask might be, who is making this appointment of “time” spoken of here? Knowing that the angel Gabriel is speaking directly to the prophet Daniel, we probably should conclude that the angel has in mind an “appointed time” of some celestial decree that has been, or will be, decided in the Courts of Heaven. In line with the other “at the appointed time” phrases, this likely refers to the time appointed for the working out of God’s Plan to bring about the Time of the very End. For what is about to come will set in motion events that will culminate in the breaking of the covenant, followed by the Great Tribulation, and finally the return of Christ. These pivotal points in history, foretold as they were from so long ago, hardly fall into the category of mere happenstance but will come to pass, ultimately, according to God’s direction. The kings of the north and south may think that they are operating by their own designs, but the fact is, they cannot operate outside of or beyond the plan of God. It would seem that the “king of the North”, after his great victory over the “king of the South” (in verses 25-26),would like to extend his already broad reach to make a full conquest over the Middle East. Probably then, this will be his motive for returning “toward the south”. The main thing standing in his way at this point is the “holy covenant” – which the western powers, especially the U.S. and Britain, will insist on upholding. So besides the religious aspect of the “holy covenant”, there will also be these political considerations; and this may be why it is described as a “league” in verse 23. “But it shall not be like the former”. This “former” return to the south could be referring back to ancient times and thevictorious conquest of the “king of the North”, Antiochus III the Great, against Egypt by which ancient Syria gained possession of the Holy Land (Battle of Panium in 198 B.C.). “He… shall do according to his own will… He shall stand in the Glorious Land.” (11:16) Or just as likely, it could refer to the modern king of the north and his victory against the king of the south (the war mentioned in 11:25-26).

122

“It shall not be like… the latter”. This probably refers to the final great conquest over the “king of the South” when the “king of the North… shall do according to his own will” and “shall also enter the Glorious Land… and the land of Egypt shall not escape”. (11:36, 41-42) But at this point in time the Antichrist is not able to “do according to his own will”, and instead of some glorious victory, he suffers some kind of humiliating defeat and has to make a temporary retreat. His planned invasion is thwarted, as we learn in the next verse. It doesn’t pan out, unlike the triumphant former and latter conquests described in verse 25 (or verses 1516) and verses 41-42. Verse 30 “For ships from Cyprus shall come against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage. So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.” In this section of the prophetic message (verses 30-35), the signpost to tell us where we are is clear – “even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.” (11:35) Nevertheless, history repeats itself, not just in forward time, but in this case, if we go backward in time, history repeats itself. What these verses say about the near future finds an echo in ancient events – in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Back in 168 B.C., when Antiochus tried for the last time to invade Egypt, he suffered, after his previous victories, a humiliating setback; he was not able to “do according to his own will”. Instead he was compelled to retire by the Roman envoy, C. Popillius Laenas. It was an historic scene: the Roman drew a circle in the sand about the king and demanded, before he stepped out of it, his answer to their question: would he withdraw from Egypt? This humiliating experience aroused Antiochus’ fury, which he took out on the Jewish people. Not surprisingly, most commentaries on this verse interpret it as having been fulfilled in this particular ancient historical event. Truly enough, it was a rather outstanding incident and does seem to fit into what this verse says (except for the fact that the “ships” come from Cyprus, not Rome). But recent historical developments seem to point towards a more complete fulfillment coming in events of the near future. And these modern developments fit rather well the details of this Scripture. And, of course, we shouldn’t forget that, according to the overall context of these

123

verses, only future events (of the End Time) can fit as the primary fulfillment of them. So although this incident from ancient times appears in some ways to fulfill this Scripture, it should be kept in mind that the ancient event is more like a backdrop or setting for what is to come; mainly, it serves to point us towards understanding that the “king of the North” will suffer some sort of humiliating defeat that will arouse his anger against the “holy covenant”. In the ancient time that confrontation came in the form of a diplomatic mission; but the phrase “ships from Cyprus shall come against him” suggests that what is about to happen in the future is actually a military confrontation. How then might we apply this verse to the near future? It would seem that, at some point during his campaign to renew and finish off the war with the “king of the south” and/or with Israel, he will be forced to back off when “ships from Cyprus shall come against him”. These “ships” could include “air ships” or warplanes, as well as modern destroyers, submarines, and aircraft carriers.

124

On the island of Cyprus are stationed nowadays two huge military bases (that occupy 3% of its land area). Because of their strategic importance, the British held on to these bases despite the end of Britain’s colonial empire, and despite Cyprus’ entrance into the European Union. Not surprisingly, the U.S. has pretty much free access to these bases, which were used by her during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars of recent history. The U.N. also maintains a strong presence there – with its “buffer zone” between the Greek and Turkish divisions of the island. Likely, U.N. forces too will engage in this intervention against the “king of the North”. Since probably it has played a major role in brokering the “covenant”, then this international government of the U.N. will feel responsible to uphold it. And of course, the American superpower will be more than happy to find whatever good reason it can for the opportunity to curb the rising power and popularity of the Russian “king of the North” and to protect its main ally in the Middle East, Israel. In a wider sense, as some Bible scholars have thought, “Cyprus” could be understood as including the islands and coasts of the Mediterranean Sea. Although this was usually thought to be symbolic of ancient Rome, this could just as easily be understood as representing the military power proceeding from some of America’s Mediterranean naval bases – of which there are three (two in Italy and one near Gibraltar, Spain); there are also three air force bases, not far from Cyprus (in Italy, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in SE Turkey). Although this expedition of “the ships of Cyprus” will appear to succeed in putting a halt to the Antichrist’s rise to supremacy in the Middle East, in actual fact it will have the opposite effect. For this humiliating experience will be the spark that ignites the Antichrist’s fury. Prior to this, his heart was only “moved against the covenant”. (verse 28) Now he is grieved” and wants to “return in rage against the holy covenant, and do damage”. Although the word “damage” was not there in the original Hebrew, nevertheless it was probably right to use it in the translation, for in the next verse we learn about the king of the North’s brutal desecration of the “sanctuary fortress” (or “holy place” as Jesus called it in Matthew 24:15). “So he shall return and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.” There will be plenty of power-brokers who will dislike the “holy covenant” and all that it stands for – especially the False Prophet and all those

125

associated with him. To these wealthy, powerful, and secular individuals, the religious aspect of the covenant will mean nothing. These people could be compared to the Hellenizers in ancient Israel who were attracted to Greek paganism and culture. Like many secularists and skeptics today, their open-mindedness (a virtue when rightly applied) carried them to the extreme of rejecting faith in the true God – throwing the baby out with the bathwater – which eventually brought no end of trouble. And so, thinking the Syrians were their friends, they began to subvert the regime of their Ptolemaic Egyptian rulers. This paved the way for the Syrian regime, with its strong Hellenization program, to take over. But then, what the Jewish Hellenizers thought was a good thing, some kind of step of progress, soon backfired and turned into a campaign of brutal repression under Antiochus Epiphanes. Similar to how Antiochus Epiphanes tried to change the world with his Hellenization program, the Antichrist, with the help of his friend the False Prophet, will also set out to paganize the world – but in the modern fashion turning it away from the true God into worship of the new gods of materialism and demagoguery. In the end, he also will invade the “holy place” in Jerusalem and desecrate it with his “abomination of desolation” (as we know from verse 31). Looking again at the “covenant” from the political viewpoint, to the Antichrist and False Prophet’s way of thinking, the covenant may seem little more than a tool that America and Israel are using to hold on to power in the Middle East – a continuation of the pattern that America has pursued for many years already of supporting and protecting Israel regardless of all other concerns. In the beginning the covenant may have been useful for the Antichrist and False Prophet, a compromise that helped to propel them into a position of greater authority in the world, a sort of continuation of their coming-in-peaceably strategy (of verses 21 and 24). ◊ But at this point, as far as the new rising power of the Antichrist-False Prophet combine is concerned, the covenant is just getting in the way of their plans for achieving supremacy in the world. “Show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant.” In verse 26 we learned how subversive elements worked to undermine the “king of the South” on his home ground in that first major war against the “king of the North”. And it would not be surprising if some of the same people are among

126

“those who forsake the holy covenant”, who have secretly switched sides and are again colluding with the Antichrist forces. Later in verse 32, mention is made once more of these people, this time in more drastic terms, as “those who do wickedly against the covenant”. We can see then the steady downward spiral: it started with acting “deceitfully”, then being “moved against the holy covenant”, then being “grieved” with and having “rage against” it, then forsaking the covenant, and finally it ends with doing “wickedly against” it – by invading the temple sanctuary with the “abomination of desolation”. (11:23,28,30-32) ◊ Regarding this idea of the covenant as a “compromise” that will help to catapult the Antichrist and False Prophet into a position of greater power, there is an interesting historical example that can shed some light on this question. In the 1930s the British statesman, Winston Churchill, had become a political outcast. This situation had arisen as the result of his outspoken opposition against the Zionist quest to establish a Jewish homeland. Because of their influence – in media circles mainly – Jewish powerbrokers were able to engineer this downward spiral in Churchill’s political career. Finally in 1939, Churchill made a “compromise” and spoke out in favor of the Zionist cause. The resulting favorable media coverage gave Churchill the backing he needed for his political re-birth. It may be argued as to who outfoxed whom in this political sidestep of Churchill’s. At any rate the incident does reveal how important it can be – for those who wish to gain prominence on the stage of world politics – that they join, or appear to join, the side of those promoting Israel’s cause.

Outline of Verses 31-45: Verses 21-30 focused on the king of the north’s (Antichrist’s) rise to dominance in the Middle East and includes the run-up events leading to that fateful day when he breaks the covenant. Verses 31-45 describe the final invasion of the Middle East, which includes the conquest of Israel and Egypt. There are different facets to the invasion that happen closely together or even simultaneously, and the passage here in this final section of Daniel 11 (verses 30-45) can be divided into about three different parts:

127



 

Verses 31-35 focus on the persecution aspect of the invasion, which is kicked off with the arrival of the “abomination of desolation” into the “sanctuary”; from there the verses describe the role that God’s people will play at this time. Verses 36-39 focus on the Antichrist’s spiritual state that motivates him to destroy and wreak havoc both in Israel and throughout the world. Verses 40-45 focus on the invasion of the Middle East and Israel.

Many details of future history are mentioned in these verses. Having studied the very detailed prophetic message in verses 2-20 that was fulfilled so accurately in ancient times, this serves to authenticate the many predictions in this new section about mankind’s soon-coming future history; we have reasonable evidence to believe that they also will see their fulfillment. Things may not happen exactly as interpreted in this study. Right now our estimations have to be a little vague and leave some room for error. But once the events have occurred, then we can look back and marvel at God’s amazing foresight into the future (which by then will have become the past).

***

128

3-F: The Great Tribulation (11:31-35) 11:31 “And forces shall be mustered by him, and they shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation.” After being attacked and apparently suffering a setback by the “ships of Cyprus”, the Antichrist “king of the North” will be filled with “rage against the holy covenant”. And here in this verse 31 we see the result: the invasion of the Jewish temple sanctuary with the “abomination of desolation”. If we flashback to the ancient time, there was a similarity of events worth noting: After his humiliation before the Roman envoy, Antiochus Epiphhhanes vented his anger by storming into Israel and desecrating the temple. He sacrificed a pig on the altar and set up an idol of the Greek god Zeus in the temple. This was certainly an appropriate abomination for an ancient time. Verse 31, of course, is set in modern times, and the “abomination” spoken of here will be something quite different to what happened back then. What the two events, ancient and modern, have in common, though, is the fact that they both are desecrations of the “sanctuary fortress” or “holy place”. (Daniel 11:31, Matthew 24:15) The meaning of this phrase “abomination of desolation”, or “abomination that maketh desolate” (as the KJV puts it) is a whole subject in itself. In brief, the wording suggests that it is not an idol at all but is something that destroys violently, something very different to what existed in ancient times. A modern vehicle of war that storms its way into the Jewish sanctuary and partially destroys it would be an accurate fulfillment of this peculiar phrase. A mechanical monstrosity like this would serve, both as an abomination desecrating a religious sanctuary, and also as something that has the ability to cause violent destruction. (This, basically, covers what is meant in the ancient Hebrew by the phrase“abomination that maketh desolate”. It is a subject, though, that may require considerably more explanation, beyond the scope of this study. However, the reader can refer to a post devoted entirely to that topic, called “Unraveling the Mystery of the Abomination”.) Anyway, as mentioned before, the primary fulfillment of these passages, since verse 21, was set to come to pass in modern times. And the phrase “abomination that maketh desolate”, when properly understood, presents an important clue to reveal the modern character of what these words of Gabriel

129

were referring to. The phrase cannot apply in any direct way to what happened in ancient times; however, the phrase does fit well with what we could easily envision will happen in the near future and in our present day society with its advanced military technology. And, of course, Jesus Himself pinpointed this “abomination of desolation standing in the “holy place” as an event that would happen in the future (not the past), a time just prior to His Second Coming.

Comparison of Daniel’s message about the invasion of Israel with Ezekiel’s: Because Daniel’s message was given to him directly by an angel, the prophecy’s terminology is fairly precise, as much as was possible within the limitations of the ancient Hebrew language and scientific progress of that time. We took note already of Gabriel’s astute use of the word “devices”, for example, and how it was appropriate for describing modern inventions, especially those that are computerized. And now we have “abomination that maketh desolate”, another precise wording used to describe a modern weapon/vehicle of war that enters the sanctuary. Ezekiel’s prophecy (chapters 38-39), however, was not dictated to him by an angel. Rather Ezekiel acted as the channel, and the Spirit of God (or perhaps the spirit of an angel) spoke through him. But in such a case, the message, coming via a less direct means of communication, could not be as clear-cut, for the channel’s own mind can get in the way; it can “color” or influence the message that is being received. Thus we find that Ezekiel’s description of the war is couched sometimes in terms that are antiquated – horses, swords, javelins, etc. Whereas, because Gabriel was speaking directly to Daniel, he was able to use terms that fit the modern reality more closely: “for the overspreading [military invasion] of abominations he shall make desolate [violently]… forecast his devices against the strongholds.” (Daniel 9:27, 11:24 – KJV) Occasionally, Gabriel does use some antiquated terminology, such as the word “horsemen” in verse 40, but we could perhaps excuse this as his way of expressing a peculiar reality of modern warfare – namely, that ground troops nowadays come fully equipped with all sorts of gadgets and weapons that make them just as fearsome an adversary as the skilled “horsemen” were in the wars of ancient times. “The sanctuary fortress.” Now that Israel has been re-gathered as a nation, the expectation is high amongst the Jewish people to get on with the

130

job of re-building their temple and of renewing the worship system that had to be discontinued many centuries ago during the Roman invasion and dismantling of their nation. The plans for this temple and worship service are well known in Israel, and probably it is only a matter of time, of waiting for the right window of opportunity to come along. (And this may well have a lot to do with the “holy covenant”.) ***

Ancient Past or Near Future? Because of the heavy weight of well-meaning scholarly opinion, which has relegated so much of this chapter 11 into ancient times, it may be helpful at this point to inject a bit more antidote to remedy the preconceptions of the past. (Former scholars did not have the benefit of enough historical hindsight and thus were unable to accurately pinpoint the full meaning of Gabriel’s message.) Following is a summary of reasons why the primary fulfillment of Gabriel’s prophetic message (especially verses 11:21-35) should be understood as coming in the near future… that brief, tumultuous era prior to Christ’s return: 1) First of all, given the impressive introduction in chapter 10 – the appearance of Christ in His heavenly glory – it would seem quite a letdown and mismatch if the following revelation dealt mostly with the exploits of an obscure ancient king. Gabriel told Daniel, “I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come.” (10:14) It would seem more consistent with that statement if Gabriel’s following message dealt with a “many days yet to come” scenario – the historical events just prior to Christ’s Second Coming in the “latter days”. 2) “Not give the honor of royalty” (11:21) is a phrase that would seem to apply well to modern forms of non-monarchical, republican government. 3) The phrases “come in peaceably” (verse 21) and “enter peaceably” (verse 24) are more characteristic of modern means of gaining power – through voting or through media and financial manipulation – which do not require the use of military force. 4) The use of “flatteries” (meaning smooth, slippery persuasiveness) in verse 21 is another commonly used tactic of modern political leaders who, using the media, can fool the people with false promises just long enough to get themselves voted into power. (“Flatteries” is the preferred translation and is

131

found in the KJV, ASV, RSV, TLB, ESV, NLT.) 5) The existence of the “holy covenant”: Back in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes’ reign, there was no record of a covenant made, much less one that dealt with religious issues. (In verses 28 and 30 it is termed a “holy covenant”.) Nor was there any such covenant made in the years after Christ’s execution. The passage in chapter 11 goes on to relate that the anti-Christ “king of the North” would “defile the sanctuary” when he allows an “abomination of desolation” to enter it. In a message 3 or 4 years earlier, Gabriel had told Daniel about a “covenant” which was to mark the last seven years of history. That “covenant” also had much to do with religious issues (“sacrifice and offering”) and desolating “abominations” that would lead to the break-up of the covenant. Jesus later spoke of this “abomination” as an important sign that would come just before His Second Coming, that is, in modern times. It seems obvious enough then that both revelations (in chapters 9 and 11) are speaking about the same “covenant”. And because the covenant is linked to the “abomination of desolation” (in both passages), there should be little doubt that Gabriel is speaking of an End Time (not ancient) “covenant”. 6) The nominal sentence in verse 22 - “yea, [he is] also the prince of the covenant” - links us back to Daniel 9:27 about the same “prince” who “shall confirm a covenant” (which is easily understood as an event happening just prior to Christ’s Second Coming; see post on Daniel 9 for more information on that point.) Therefore, the “prince of the covenant” phrase here in chapter 11, verse 22, acts as a sort of signpost to direct us forward from the ancient time into the modern era of End Time events. This serves also to maintain the continuity between the two messages (in chapter 9 and chapter 11). And we would expect a certain amount of continuity since, judging by the introductions and context of them, both messages were delivered by the same angel Gabriel. 7) The phrase “fathers… forefathers” in verse 24 does not appear in that part of the message that dealt with ancient history. It was a way of saying that the events being described after verse 21 would occur in a distant future age. 8) The use of special, complex, computerized “devices” in warfare (verses 2425) is a feature peculiar to modern times. 9) The phrases “at the appointed time” and “time of the end” (verses 27, 29, 35, 40) are referring to that momentous event of Christ’s return. It is the fixed destination of human history, over which the other events taking place around that time in history are “appointed” and will have no power either to hasten or delay. These phrases should indicate clearly enough that the passages where

132

they are found are not dealing with past events, but with events that are meant to happen just prior to Christ’s return. 10) The “ships of Cyprus” phrase applies nicely to the modern situation. The Antichrist will be confronted in war by these battleships (and “air ships” too most likely). In ancient times Antiochus Epiphanes was confronted by the Roman envoy, whose ships could have passed through Cyprus; however, it was only a personal confrontation, not a war engagement. 11) The “abomination that maketh desolate” does not refer to some ancient form of idol worship, but a thorough study of this phrase brings to light its hidden meaning as a cryptic reference, in the ancient language, to a modern vehicle of war that enters the “sanctuary”. (Refer to the posts for “Unraveling the Mystery of the Abomination” for more information.) 11:32 “Those who do wickedly against the covenant he shall corrupt with flattery; but the people who know their God shall be strong, and carry out great exploits.” “Those who do wickedly against the covenant.” These who try to subvert the covenant, the Antichrist will “corrupt with flattery” – harden their hearts even further. Smooth words and deceits – needed perhaps to soothe some guilty consciences by affirming that their betrayal of the covenant (and God) was the right thing to do. These are the people who do not “know their God”. Then by way of contrast, we learn about those who do “know their God” and about their spirited reaction to the Antichrist’s open declaration of war on them (when he invades the “holy place” with his “abomination of desolation”). In the ancient time Antiochus’ persecution against the Jews quite backfired, and he was forced by the heroic opposition of the Maccabee family to back down and leave them alone. This struggle of the Maccabees again acts as a sort of background to this passage about “the people who know their God” who “shall be strong, and carry out great exploits” – another example of history repeating itself in backward time. But of course, the final fulfillment for this passage is yet to come. Verse 35 makes that clear: “even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed”. This seems to be saying that, yes, persecutions against God’s people will continue all through history, including the one under Antiochus Epiphanes. But the message now is focusing on the final modern day persecution under the Antichrist. It could be added that, like the persecution in ancient times, which ended in victory, so the modern persecution will also

133

end in victory – with the coming of Christ and the Battle of Armageddon. Even before that great event, true Christians shall rise up in defiance of the Antichrist and, like the Maccabees of old, win great victories in the midst of dire spiritual and physical turmoil. “The people who know their God” are those who have a close, intimate relationship with the Almighty and are sometimes referred to in the New Testament in such endearing terms as being married to Christ, being His wife or bride. Not all who call themselves Christians fall into this category, by the way. Jesus said he would have to tell some who thought they were doing great works for Him, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:23). So who are these elite, dedicated defenders of the faith in the End Time? That would be difficult to pinpoint at this stage. But certainly, God knows who they are. The main thing we have to understand is that they will be able to stand “strong” then because of their close link to the Almighty and the forces of Heaven. Actually, there is nothing very mysterious about this, and anyone who seeks for it can get to “know their God” and as a result “carry out great exploits”. It helps to understand, though, that in the original Hebrew the phrase “great exploits” is not there. Similar to the passages in verses 28 and 30 about the Antichrist “king of the North” doing his “exploits” and “damage”, it was left open-ended. Thus, the translation could just as easily have said, “The people who know their God shall be strong and do accordingly (which would no doubt include ‘great exploits’).” The phrase “great exploits”, although not untrue, may only be part of the picture. The thought of defending the faith with “great exploits” could sound rather daunting and out of reach for most of us. So it may help to understand that being “strong” in the Lord could manifest in different ways, other than by a highly visible display of “great exploits”. Perhaps translators, thinking in terms of the ancient Maccabean revolt, felt that this was the appropriate phrase to use. But several translations do word it differently: “the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action” (ESV); “the people who know their God will be strong and will resist him” (NLT).

134

So again, who are these people “who know their God” and “shall be strong”? Well, it could surprise us to see that some of these may not even be Christians, or at least, not known officially as Christians; they would be similar to the non-Jewish “Gentiles” about whom the apostle Paul noted, “show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness.” (Romans 2:15) He was saying there that many of the Gentiles had just as much right to be considered God’s people as did the Jews, many of whom were a little too sure of themselves in those days that they were the one and only chosen people of God. Well, it is not wise perhaps to speculate too much on these matters, but it may help to keep an open mind and to understand that God’s way of looking at people or situations is usually very different to ours. Paul also stated that in the End Time, when “the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition”, he will “oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped.” That seems to include other religions besides Christianity will suffer persecution. So it is quite conceivable that genuine seekers from other religions, or with no religion, will stand up for their faith in God at this precarious time in history. They may not “know their God” as well as many Christians do, who have had the opportunity to enter into a very personal communion with God through Christ, but chances are many of them may have more conviction to stand up for their faith and for righteousness than do many Christians. 11:33-34 “And those of the people who understand shall instruct many; yet for many days they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plundering. “Now when they fall, they shall be aided with a little help; but many shall join with them by intrigue.” “Shall instruct many.” “What is going on?” That will be a question uppermost in people’s minds during this time of confusion, war, and persecution. For those who have already been instructed with God’s Words, this will be their hour to bring God’s light and understanding to a populace unprepared for such trying times. During this time of totalitarian rule under the two “beasts” (Antichrist and False Prophet), much persecution will be raised against those who refuse to join the new system and to worship the Antichrist. The Antichrist and False Prophet Beasts’ regime will be just another version, albeit the worst and final one, of all the totalitarian regimes that have

135

come and gone through history. Since the beginning of time, such regimes have influenced their peoples to turn away from God: first of all, by their rulers acting as counterfeit saviors that their people can worship, and secondly, by providing a counterfeit utopia in place of the Kingdom of God. We have even seen this happen in modern times under Communist regimes and Hitler’s Third Reich. “They shall fall.” Any persons or organizations who dare to challenge the new status quo will be met with official disapproval and eventual persecution. During these times many “shall fall”, having been caught in the web of the Beasts’ persecution campaign. This is nothing new, of course. Christians and godly people all over the world are suffering persecution right now, and this has been going on for centuries. But at the very End, such persecution will reach its most extensive and severe form. One of the reasons for this, as Revelation 12 indicates, is that Satan and his angels will have been cast out of whatever place they occupy in the Celestial Dimension. This appears to be an event that coincides in our Earth-time with the beginning of the last 3½ years of mankind’s present history. And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him… Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time [3½ years]. Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman [symbolic of God’s people throughout human history] who gave birth to the male Child [Jesus Christ]. But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time [means 3½ years], from the presence of the serpent… And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring [God’s people in the very End Time of human history], who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 12:7-9,12-14,17)

136

Those will be difficult years of rabid, organized persecution engineered by the forces of Darkness. But to counter the influx of demonic activity of those years, God will greatly augment the power of His servants to withstand the forces of evil. We shall see marvelous manifestations of God’s presence: miracles of protection and supply, great harvests of souls won to the cause of God, and proclamations of the Gospel and warning message to the anti-God, anti-Christ forces of the world. Revelation 11, for example, depicts the electrifying activities of the “two witnesses” in Jerusalem, the new center of the Beast’s empire. And very likely, similar manifestations of God’s power will surface in many other parts of the world at this time. So although it portends to be a trying time of persecution against God’s people, they can also look forward to it as an exciting, fulfilling time of seeing God’s power manifested in many startling ways, not too unlike what the children of Israel witnessed as they made their Exodus from Egypt so long ago. According to the above passage in Revelation 12, many of God’s people will “fly into the wilderness”, that is, escape the Antichrist and False Prophet’s web of persecution. But even if they “fall” and are captured, they can count on God’s presence to see them through: “they shall be aided with a little help.” The Lord will never desert His own. “Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down; for the LORD upholds him with His hand.” (Psalm 37:24) And such supernatural help will be needed, for “many shall join with them by intrigue” (or, “cleave to them with flatteries”, as the KJV puts it). Just as the Antichrist forces used “flatteries” (deceitful persuasions) to influence those who betrayed the covenant, they will also use the same to try and rattle the faith of those “who understand”. But “blessed is the man who endures temptation for… he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.” (James 1:12) Although such experiences tend to arouse in us feelings of dread and fear, nevertheless, they can be anticipated from a victorious standpoint – almost as a privilege… to be given the opportunity to stand up for the faith, for which Jesus said, “Great is your reward in heaven”. (Matthew 5:12) It was said of the early apostles, after a court trial and beating, that they were “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name.” (Acts 5:41) It is not easy necessarily to see persecution from this kind of perspective, but it does help to keep it in mind as much as possible.

137

It also helps to remember that at such times God’s presence can become so powerful that it will override whatever terrible things may be going on. A good example is the martyrdom of Stephen who, while the stones were being hurled at him and “being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God… and said, ‘Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!’” (Acts 7:55-56) Verse 35 “And some of those of understanding shall fall, to refine them, purify them, and make them white, until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time.” “Some of those of understanding shall fall.” Why does God allow persecution? The obvious answer: His people who “understand” (all too well how foolish and wicked are the new system and its leaders) are going to have enemies who will want to get rid of them. But also, it’s “to refine, purify, and make white.” Persecution has a way of purging away the foolishness that we, as frail human beings, are all prone to pursue at different times in our lives. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of its greatest heroes who, by enduring persecution, gained important victories in their spiritual lives. For example, Samson, who couldn’t tear himself away from Delilah, landed in the Philistine dungeon, blinded and utterly defeated. His weakness with his Delilah got him into a lot of trouble, but then after this humbling experience, he returned in greater power than ever to destroy his enemies. King David, after causing the death of Uriah, endured flight from his throne and harassment by his own son Absalom. But later he returned to the throne, a humbler and wiser king than before. The great apostle Paul also got to a point in his life where he had become over-confident. He brushed aside the nudges of the Holy Spirit and the warnings of his friends not to go to Jerusalem. As a result he too landed in the soup and had to languish in jail for a couple years. But then, in the midst of this deflating experience God continued to use him mightily. Because of his incarceration and court trials, he had opportunity to testify to the rulers of Israel and even of the Roman empire, and to bring the Gospel message right into the heart of the empire from where it could spread all over the world. So persecution should never be viewed as a defeat, but rather, as the gateway to even greater testimony and achievement in God. “We are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.” (Romans 8:37) The forces of Darkness may find plenty of holes in the armor of them that are known as

138

God’s people. But God is a flexible and capable Supervisor and is more than able to bring glorious victory out of what may look like the most dire and hopeless of defeats. We may well see that glorious victory in this life, but even if we don’t, we can rest assured that whatever we have suffered or endured will not have been in vain. “Until the time of the end; because it is still for the appointed time.” This phrase again clarifies that these words do not concern events in ancient times, but rather events of a distant future that is “appointed” and set for the “time of the end”. In addition, this passage acts as a sort of “reality check”; it confirms the fact that Christians will have to endure that last period of the Great Tribulation. These verses 32-35 clearly picture Christians in the midst of persecution. * Who else could be those of “understanding”? Who else could they be who “know their God” and thus are “strong” and able to do “exploits” and “instruct many”? Much as we might like to think that God will spare His people from the affliction of those days, that is not the scenario that this and other passages in the Sacred Book have outlined. And why does God want His people around at this time? 1) He will need them to provide help and leadership for the many who will be searching and struggling in those days – to “instruct many” and to “do exploits”. 2) Persecution and trying times will serve to “refine” and “purify” His people, making them ready for Heaven and worthy citizens of the coming Kingdom of God on Earth. So no premature rescue, or Rapture – at least not “until… the appointed time”, the time frame that is plainly set forth in the Scriptures: “immediately after the tribulation of those days” when the world “will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:2930, Revelation 12:6,14-17, and others) **

* Who are “God’s people”? “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 15:50) In the Old Testament days, “God’s people” were the descendants of Abraham and followers of the laws of Moses, by which the Jewish people were more or less forced to be good and righteous; they served, in the midst of a pagan world, as the example of a nation that worshiped the God of Heaven.

139

But Christ’s coming into the world changed all that. He said, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.” (John 4:23) God wants His people to love Him voluntarily, to have a personal relationship based on trust, rather than just a going-through-the-motions type of ritual; this loving relationship has the additional benefit of causing His people to become stronger in faith and better connected to Him in spirit. Thus, where these verses in Daniel 11 refer to the “people” who “understand” and “know their God”, this is not referring to Jewish people, but to the followers of Christ (which may include some Jewish people, of course). Now who exactly are the “followers of Christ”? A delicate theological question to be sure. In John chapter 1 the boundary seems a lot more extensive than many people might think. According to John 1:9, “the Word (Christ)… was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” Every person has a conscience, and many, without realizing it, are following that “true Light”. And as he or she continues to follow, that person will eventually be led to receive the “Word” (Christ), and this gives them “the right to become children of God” (John 1:12) So it may behoove Christian people to have a less exclusive concept of who “God’s people” are. If we recognize the fact that some individuals may be following the “true Light” without tying it directly to faith in Christ, then they too should be included as belonging to the Family of God. No doubt, the strongest of leaders in those days will be those who have fully come to Christ and know Him intimately. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be other voices or deeds from people who may not consider themselves officially to be Christians but who, whether they realize it or not, are following “the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” Now, as far as the Jewish people are concerned, Paul spells it out in Romans 2:28-29. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” Much of Paul’s writings were devoted to what was a controversial issue in those days: does one have to be Jewish or observe the Jewish laws in order to be considered one of God’s people? The answer Paul gives in Romans 7:4 sums it up well: “You also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another – to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.” The implication here is that the old system of the laws of Moses could not bring forth enough “fruit to God”. The new broader-based, more flexible

140

approach that Jesus introduced would succeed in bearing more “fruit” – the benefits and blessings that God desires to bestow on His Creation. Now, with hindsight, it is easy to see. It is almost a matter of common sense: why, in His fairness and justice, would God want to continue favoring one race of people over all others? Why should not His salvation be given to all? But it would seem nowadays in the ranks of Christendom, there is a similar problem. As the Jews of old had to recognize that they were not exclusively the one and only people of God, so do Christians in this modern day probably need to stretch their boundaries of whom they consider should belong in the category of “God’s people”. Basically, it should be anyone who loves Christ… but could also include many who are following the “true Light” but just haven’t connected the dots yet to see that Christ who is the “Word made flesh and dwelt among us” is the “true Light” which they have been following. (John 1:9,14) To conclude: It is not up to us to decide who belongs in the Family of God and who doesn’t. God knows who His people are, and about the best we can do, from our limited earthly perspective, is to judge by the fruits of what a person does or says: “By their fruits you will know them”. (Matthew 7:20)

** What Is the “Rapture”? In the Old Testament there were two people mentioned – Enoch and Elijah – who were translated straight from the earthly into the heavenly realm; they did not have to experience the death of their physical bodies, which apparently, by the power of God, were instantly transformed into spiritual bodies that could function in the Celestial Dimension. (Genesis 5:24, 2Kings 2:1,11-12) In Old Testament times, believing Jews commonly understood that they would be resurrected at the Last Day. For example, when Martha was bemoaning the death of her brother Lazarus, she told Jesus, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” To which Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life.” At this moment He felt so sorry for their anguish that He “wept.” And then came the astonishing miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead, a deed which certainly validated Martha’s belief in the Resurrection of the dead at the Last Day. (John 11)

141

According to modern man’s scientific way of thinking, however, the whole idea of Resurrection or Rapture seems preposterous. Although Christians accept this unusual doctrine by faith, it does help to understand that that faith is based on recorded testimonies from the past, including Jesus’ own deeds and words on the subject, including His own Resurrection. We can rest assured then that this is a future event that will come to pass. The big question in Christian circles is “when?” But first, it would help to know, what exactly is meant by the term “Rapture”? The “Rapture” refers to the Resurrection of both the dead, and those who are still alive at the time of Christ’s Second Coming; and it happens “en masse”. It is the sudden transfer into some honored place in the celestial realm of God’s people of all ages in the final moments of mankind’s history. This “end” of the age seems to happen in stages but begins with the dramatic appearance of Christ in the heavens, at which moment the angels will “gather together His elect… from one end of heaven to the other”. (Matthew 24:31) The timing for this event comes in verse 29 in the phrase “immediately after the tribulation of those days”. To go into all the doctrinal why’s and wherefore’s on this controversial subject of pre- or post-Tribulation Rapture is a whole other study in itself. From the little that we have seen, however, the arrows are already pointing to the realization that there is no reason to think that Christians will be spared from this time of Tribulation. And truly, such thinking is counter-productive; it creates an attitude of complacency and false security with a consequent lack of preparedness for the trying days to come. Nevertheless, although Christians should not pin their hopes in what appears to be little more than wishful thinking in a pre-Tribulation Rapture, they can take comfort in the fact that when the Rapture actually does happen, it will spare them from the troubles that are to come in what is known as the “Wrath of God”, or the “Indignation” as it is often called (outlined in Revelation 16); this is another period of trouble, coming afterwards, that will prepare mankind for a new start in the Age of Peace to come. Mankind’s present civilizations and cities will fall in order to make way for the building of tomorrow’s world.

142

3-G: Nature of the anti-Christ “King of the North” (11:36-37) 11:36 “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done.” The “king” (of the North), the Antichrist, having invaded the Jewish “sanctuary”, has by this bold action thumbed his nose at the restraining powers of his enemies, powers given to them, presumably, in the “holy covenant”. He feels emboldened then to operate “according to his own will”. This phrase was used in verses 3 and 16 to describe the rise of Alexander the Great and of Antiochus III the Great. Their willfulness became the weakness that undermined their regimes. Like so many rulers, who thought they could just barrel along without listening to God or anyone else, they and their kingdoms eventually unraveled; they wound up defeated and frustrated and lost their authority and kingdoms. And, as we will soon learn, this is also how the story will play out for the Antichrist “king of the North”. But for the time being, he feels tremendously confident: “he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god”. And if that isn’t enough, he “shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods.” At this point of rebellion against the “holy covenant”, it appears that the Antichrist undergoes a transformation as he begins voicing bitter diatribes - “blasphemies against the God of gods”. From the passage in Revelation 12, we learn that Michael and his angels around this time will have driven Satan and his hordes out of the Celestial Dimension. Which means that those evil forces will be confined to the Earthly Realm. Which in turn means that the Antichrist will be influenced more directly by the forces of Darkness. And so, it is no surprise that at this time he will begin to speak with enhanced power and defiance “against the God of gods”. The Hebrew word used here for “blasphemies” can be translated as “marvelous things”. Other passages speak of the Antichrist as a “beast” speaking “great [proud] words against the Most High” and “blasphemies” and as a “horn” who will “cast truth to the ground”. Daniel 7:8,11,20, 8:12, Revelation 13:5-6)

143

Generally, we may conclude from these different Scriptures that the Antichrist, through his eloquent manner of speaking, will greatly impress and win much of the world; however, the hidden (or not so hidden) intent of his words will be to defy the Most High. And of course, modern means of media broadcasting and communication will greatly multiply the effectiveness of this persuasive propaganda. As Hitler managed, through his great oratorical skill, to get the German nation to rise up in rebellion against the rest of the world, so the Antichrist will succeed in persuading much of the world to rise up in rebellion against the Most High. “What has been determined”. For those living at this time in history, there will be no need to feel defeated or intimidated by the Antichrist’s apparent victory over the world and God’s people. He and his anti-God kingdom will soon come to its end. For it “has been determined” (in the councils of Heaven) and it “shall be done.” Just as happened to so many of history’s tyrants, who thought they could carry on “according to their own will”, the Antichrist “king of the North” also “shall prosper”, but only for a limited time… “till the wrath has been accomplished.” But in this case, instead of raising up enemies or assassination or other earthly means of pulling down the tyrannical regime, this time God Himself will step in by supernatural intervention. This kind of supernatural intervention to bring about battle victories happened a few times during the history of ancient Israel. The most dramatic accounts of these may be found in Exodus 14, Isaiah 37, 2Chronicles 20; and there are others. But the most dramatic and astounding “supernatural intervention” will occur at the Battle of Armageddon, as outlined in Revelation 19, when the Lord Himself, along with “the armies in heaven”, shall swoop down to defeat “the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies”. That the final Antichrist will be defeated in this supernatural manner is a recurring point brought out in the Book of Daniel: in verse 2:45 – “the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands”; 8:25 – “he shall be broken without human means”; 11:45 – “he shall come to his end, and no one will help him.” Incidentally, regarding “the wrath”, the Hebrew word used here is commonly translated as “indignation”, which probably expresses the meaning better. “Indignation” implies righteous anger. God is not arbitrary in His judgments; He is upset for good reasons. He is angry with the wicked

144

deeds of evil men and the evil spirits who influence them and is ready now at this point in history to put an end finally to their stranglehold on the world of mankind. 11:37 “He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.” “The God of his fathers.” The previous verse said that he would “speak blasphemies against the God of gods.” So of course, it is no surprise that he does not regard the “God of his fathers”. The term “fathers” was often used in the ancient Hebrew in a fairly general sense as “ancestors”. Probably it can be taken then as referring to previous generations in the predominantly Christian culture of Europe and Russia. Until modern times, rulers were obliged to at least acknowledge, or “regard” the God of the Bible, regardless of whether or not they were real believers or adherents to Christian virtues. But modern culture has, to a large extent, shed this veneer of acknowledgment of Christianity, and in some nations of Europe, and in former communist nations, it is or was illegal to make any official declarations of Christian faith (or even any other faith). Nevertheless, in those historical situations where rulers did not believe in God, either because of their own unbelief or because of the constraints imposed by their cultural surroundings, God’s voice could still get through to them. And this perhaps is what the phrase about the “desire of women” is about. Some events from ancient times may help us with understanding this. When the Roman generals Julius Caesar and Mark Antony arrived in Egypt, they were quite captivated by the Egyptian queen Cleopatra. Because of this, Egypt received favorable treatment from these powerful men. In another example, the Persian king Ahaseurus yielded to the influence of Queen Esther and saved the Jewish people in his empire from annihilation. In the case of the Antichrist however, he will not be swayed by the “desire of women”. Perhaps that means he is a homosexual and as a result women can’t influence him. Or it could mean that he is such a ruthless character, under the Devil’s influence, that no amount of tender pleading for mercy can cause him to spare in his relentless efforts to persecute and annihilate the people of God, and nations who oppose him, in those

145

days. (Further thoughts on this passage about the “desire of women” may be found in the Appendix.) “Nor regard any god.” Modern, secular society has lost the religious, and often superstitious, orientation of past cultures. Because of the influence of scientific knowledge, the majority of mankind no longer worships the idols and images of old. Arising as he does out of this kind of modern culture, the Antichrist will not regard these gods of the past. For us in modern times that is not so unusual, but for Daniel and the people from past eras, this would have seemed astonishing – a very peculiar feature about the world of the future – its non-religious setting and its final ruler who won’t acknowledge God, or even “any god”. That was a difficult scenario for people in those days to imagine; for even the Caesars, who were supposed to be objects of worship, were themselves still obliged to recognize the authority of the other Roman gods. “He shall exalt himself above them all.” This statement seems to reflect modern mankind’s rejection of the fact that he is a creation of God. Instead, the standard, accepted idea now is that human beings are the ultimate end-product of evolutionary development. So if God is not in the picture, nor any of the former gods, then all that is left is mankind, and the world of mankind; there is nothing better than that (according to modern philosophical trends). Against this sort of cultural background, it would be perfectly natural for the Antichrist to “exalt himself above them all” – above the “God of his fathers” and above any other “god”. This passage then reinforces what was mentioned in the previous verse: “he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god.” Since it is mentioned twice, this exaltation of self must be an important or unusual feature that Gabriel was trying to get across. It was his way of describing in an ancient language the kind of non-religious setting of our modern culture, with its glorification of self, of mankind and his manmade world – all shabby counterfeits for the real thing, but appealing, nonetheless, to modern mankind’s secular and science-oriented outlook.

146

Appendix Regarding the “desire of women” phrase, below is a helpful quote from Keil and Delizsch, two German Bible scholars of the 19th century whose devotion to God enabled them to buck the tide of skepticism that had become popular in the academic world of that era. Their commentary starts off with the question of whether or not “desire of women” is a reference to one of the ancient gods: A verbal proof that [“desire of women”] denotes the Anaïtis or Adonis as the favourite deity of women has not been adduced. For these words, desiderium mulierum (Latin for “desire of women”], denote not that which women desire, but that which women possess which is desirable; cf. under 1 Sam 9:20. But it is impossible that this can be Anaïtis or Adonis, but it is a possession or precious treasure of women. This desirable possession of women is without doubt love; so that, as C. B. Michaelis has remarked, the expression is not materially different from naashiym ‘ahabat, the love of women, 2 Sam 1:26. The thought: “he shall not regard the desire of women, or the love of women,” agrees perfectly with the connection. After it has been said in the first clause: he shall set himself free from all religious reverence transmitted from his fathers, from all piety toward the gods in which he had been trained, it is then added in the second clause: not merely so, but generally from all piety toward men and God, from all the tender affections of the love of men and of God. The “love of women” is named as an example selected from the sphere of human piety, as that affection of human love and attachment for which even the most selfish and most savage of men feel some sensibility. Along with this he shall set himself free from [“any god”], from all piety or reverence toward God or toward that which is divine (Klief.). This thought is then established by the last clause: “for he shall magnify himself above all.” To [the Hebrew words for “above all”] we may not supply [the Hebrew word for “deity”]; for this clause not only presents the reason for the foregoing clause, [“nor regard any god”], but for both of the foregoing clauses [about not regarding “the God of his fathers nor the desire of women”]. Hitzig and Kliefoth are right in their interpretation: “above everything, or all, gods and men,” he shall magnify himself, raise himself up in arrogance.

147

3-H: The “God of Forces” (11:38-39) 11:38 “But in their place he shall honor a god of fortresses; and a god which his fathers did not know he shall honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things.” “He shall honor a god of fortresses ['forces' in KJV].” Paradoxically, right after saying that the Antichrist “king of the North” won’t “regard any god” but “shall exalt himself above them all”, here we learn the opposite, that he does have a god: “he shall honor a god of fortresses”. Further on, we will study how this “god of fortresses” is not a “god” in the true sense of that term; rather it is just a form of self-worship. In any case, the phrase “god of fortresses” does provide a helpful key to understanding what was meant in verse 31 about the “abomination of desolation”. In ancient times most “abominations” were abhorrent practices, or objects, that were part of the worship and service of a demon god. So, what demon “god” should the “abomination of desolation” be associated with? Where is the clue for this? Well, right here in verse 38 – this “god of fortresses”. Here we have the spiritual background or motivation for the Antichrist’s physical act of sending “the abomination of desolation” into the “sanctuary fortress”. Here, as if by way of explanation for the shocking event of verse 31, we are given a look into the Antichrist’s spiritual life: “he shall honor a god of fortresses”. Put very simply, it is because of the Antichrist’s “honor” for some new-fangled god of war, that he is motivated to send the destroying “abomination” into the “sanctuary”. So, who or what exactly is this “god of fortresses”? The word “fortress”, in the most general sense, just means “strength” or a “place of strength”. ◊ In this case, the context of warfare in this chapter would point to the specific meaning: “god of military strength”. So, “god of war” would more or less sum up what the “god of fortresses” is. Indeed, scholars have often thought of this “god of fortresses” as a reference to some ancient god of war, such as Mars or any other of a number of similar gods. Well true, this is a god of war. But since this is “a god which his fathers (ancestors) did not know”, and since the

148

setting for Gabriel’s words are the End Time, the modern day, then we know this is not an ancient idol or god of war. There are going to be some differences. ◊ The word “fortress” is the same word used in the phrase “sanctuary fortress” in verse 31 (“sanctuary of strength” in KJV). In that verse the context tells us that it is referring to a sanctuary devoted to God. The word for “strength” is often applied like this – in a spiritual sense, as in “The Lord is the strength of my life”. (Psalm 27:1 – KJV) But when “strength” refers to those who are relying on their own strength, then it takes on a different meaning of physical strength rather than spiritual strength. Let’s hone in a bit more on this word “fortress” as it is used here. According to the context and in line with the general definition of the word, it should mean a militarily fortified place. In ancient times, to fortify a city required building high walls; and it also meant stockpiling an arsenal of weapons. Back in those days, high walls were an important means of fortification, but nowadays they would serve little useful purpose. Instead, the emphasis now is on amassing a great arsenal of high-tech weaponry. This is how to “fortify” a city or nation in this day and age. So rather than using the word “fortresses” (which conveys the impression of a high-walled enclosure), a more general translation might be more accurate – “god of strongholds” (as in Young’s Literal Translation) or “god of forces” (KJV). Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (pg. 492) defines “fortress” as “a strong or fortified place, a defence, a fortress”. In the margin of many Bibles the alternative translation is given: “god of munitions” – probably in recognition of the fact that weaponry and associated war materials should also be included under the general term of “fortified place”. And the word “munitions” certainly does fit the modern reality better. A modern politician or general might say that the Antichrist will place great stress on his weapons-building program. Daniel 11:38, however, expresses it in a more spiritual way: “He shall honor the god of fortresses (or munitions).” So rather than calling this a “god of fortresses”, the more appropriate translation would be “god of munitions” (or“god of strongholds”, “god of forces”). War and the munitions that go along with it are the objects of worship.

149

And that is the great difference from days gone by. Other “beast” superpowers, those from ancient times, also conquered by means of their military prowess, just as the final Antichrist will do. But nowadays, there’s a new twist – a greater emphasis on weaponry. This may be why the angel did not say “god of war”, but used a phrase that would get across, not only the idea of “war”, but could also point towards the importance of “munitions” in the warmongering of the future. And probably that is why this “god of fortresses (forces/munitions)” is given a rather high profile here in the Daniel 11 chapter. For no ancient god of war ever had at his disposal such colossal destructive power as exists now through modern armaments, including nuclear weapons. Possession of these weapons has become a major “fortification” that nations seek after. Such nuclear capability, according to military strategists, acts as a deterrent against attack from other nations. And furthermore, in the domain of conventional weapons, modern warfare has seen many a battle lost or won on the basis of whoever had the more up-to-date weapons technology. During the Colonial Era, the Europeans were able to subjugate less advanced nations simply because swords and spears were no match against the Europeans’ rifles and cannons. At the start of World War I, the German army with its machine guns easily mowed down hordes of French and British soldiers who were armed with outdated artillery. “With gold and silver, with precious stones and pleasant things (costly gifts – ESV).” Here is another feature about modern warfare that this phrase serves to highlight: the great expense that must go into all the invention and research, manufacture and maintenance required to create and keep a large arsenal of such complex weapons and vehicles of war. Now, there is more yet we can learn from this “god of fortresses (forces/munitions)” phrase. In the ancient language, it would have meant, normally, the “God of strength” (eloah maoz). That was the more common meaning for those Hebrew words. But here the word “strength” was written in the plural form (eloah mauzzim), which differed from the usual singular form used when referring to the true God; and it is quite obvious also that the passage is not referring to the true God. So in this case, “god of strength” was a way of saying “man’s strength” – which in its ultimate form is “military strength”.

150

But this god of military strength is not worshiped openly; it is bound up in the Antichrist’s own worship of himself. This phrase “god of fortresses” provides a rather interesting example of the ancient language being used to express a historical reality that would not arrive until several centuries into the future. The Hebrew word here for “god” – eloah – fits the modern reality well, for it is a word that can be taken in a very secular way. When not used to denote the true God, which in this case it certainly wasn’t, then the word just meant “any god”. And particularly, it could be used in connection with those who rely on their own strength as if that were god. On this point, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon offers this helpful bit of information about the word eloah (pg. 49): There is a proverbial expression, Hab 1:11, of an obstinate self-confident man, “whose strength is as his god”, i.e. who despises every god and confides in his own strong hand and sword… Arms are intended. Apparently then, this word eloah could be used sometimes to refer to those who worshiped their own arm of flesh more than any actual god or idol. And that “arm of flesh” is usually understood to mean “armaments”, or military strength. It might be worth taking a closer look at the passage in Habakkuk that Gesenius was referring to – about the ancient Babylonians; for it seems to prefigure certain features about the Antichrist: “I am raising up the Babylonians, that ruthless and impetuous people, who sweep across the whole earth to seize dwelling places not their own. They are a feared and dreaded people: they are a law to themselves and promote their own honor. Then they sweep past like the wind and go on – guilty men, whose own strength is their god.” (Habakkuk 1:6-7, 11, NIV. Similar versions exist also in the NASU, ASV, NAS, RSV, ESV translations.) These words about the Babylonians, who “promote their own honor… whose own strength is their god”, reverberate loudly through the centuries into modern times. Nations have always admired and worshiped their “own strength”, but in modern times it has gone a step further. Our secular, humanist culture de-emphasizes completely the role of the “gods”. Man’s great achievements are never considered as having resulted from their help. Modern mankind generally does not believe that the supernatural has

151

anything to do with human affairs. It is man’s own ability and strength that always gets the credit. To show how this has manifested in recent history, here is a quote from one of Hitler’s speeches; in it he seems to offer a congratulatory prayer of “worship”, not to God or any other god, but simply to himself and the German people, praising them (and him) for their glorious self-effort in raising Germany out of defeat into the great new power known as the Third Reich. “Germany’s future depends on us alone, on our hard work, our determination and perseverance – just as our forefathers had to build Germany by their own efforts…. My love for my people is unshakeable, and I am utterly convinced that one day the millions who now curse us will salute with us what we have labored so hard to create – the new German Reich in all its greatness, in all its honor, might, glory and justice! Amen.” And so it will be with the Antichrist; the “god” that he worships is just his own (military) strength. Anything beyond that is just superstition. This antisupernatural outlook shows up in Daniel 11:36-38. There it states emphatically in verses 36-37 that the Antichrist doesn’t worship any god at all, but then the passage makes an about-face in verse 38 saying “he shall honor a god of fortresses”. But it’s not a real god, as we’ve learned; it’s just an arm-of-the-flesh god, in particular the military strength that the Antichrist will possess; that’s what he worships – himself and his own military might. So that makes it easier to understand the paradox of how verses 36-37 describe a very secular Antichrist who doesn’t “regard any god”, yet the next verse 38 describes him as one who “honors a god of fortresses”. It was just a way of describing, in an ancient language, how the world, and in particular the Antichrist, would turn away from “religion” of any kind and instead fall into the worship of mankind only and his own strength, and the world of mankind – the humanists’ “brave new world” without God. In recent times this man-centered philosophy has found its expression in utopian communist ideals; no doubt, another “brave new world” scheme will resurrect sometime in the near future with the rise of the Antichrist and his new world order. Primarily then, this Hebrew word eloah meant “god” in the usual sense of a higher, supernatural power. But it could also express in the ancient language the practice of self-worship, or worship of one’s own strength. It was

152

another one of those wordings by which Gabriel was able to express in an ancient language the modern reality that exists in our science-oriented, nonsuperstitious age – an age when the eradication of any concept of God, or gods, has about reached its peak and has been replaced by the practice of selfworship, the atheistic worship of man and his world instead of any kind of Higher Power. From what we have seen so far, this expression “god of fortresses” can be understood from both the spiritual and non-spiritual points of view. Firstly, after turning away from the true God, the Antichrist turns to relying on himself and his own arm of flesh; or as the Ancients would have expressed it, he becomes his own “god”. That’s the non-spiritual point of view. From the spiritual point of view, however, the Antichrist, because of his turning away from God, winds up falling under the spell of a demon god of war. Under the cover of self-worship, this is what’s actually happening. In other words then, his “god” is just one that’s not officially recognized as far as the world is concerned, yet this god is still very much in control of the Antichrist and his crew of warmongers. Whether or not they are aware of the spiritual powers of Darkness behind their warmongering, is difficult to say. For all we know, they may be engaged in worshiping this demon god of war. But if so, it would be done secretly – since publicly, the Antichrist doesn’t “regard any god” but “shall exalt and magnify himself above every god”. This peculiar, atheistic worship of man and his military prowess, without reference to a higher power, is a phenomenon peculiar to modern times, and we’ve seen this practiced devoutly in military-dominated societies (like some Communist nations or Hitler Germany). Since the Antichrist doesn’t worship any god, then what else is there but himself, and his own arm of flesh – his armaments? So, even though the Antichrist “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” and “magnifying himself above every god”, nevertheless, he has his own god that he honors – this “god of fortresses”. (2Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36) It’s a sort of self-god whose power is rooted in war weaponry. In reality though, the Antichrist is only following the Devil, especially his warmongering side. And it’s manifested in this cruel military might of war weapons and abominations and what have you, including the worst of all nowadays, the atomic bomb.

153

Now, it is often thought that the “abomination” should be identified with the “image” of Revelation 13; and therefore, it would be some kind of image, or idol, of the Antichrist. But the “abomination” is supposed to be capable of “making desolate” (as in war); and this links it quite naturally with something like the “god of fortresses”, a military god of war and munitions. (See the post “Unraveling the Mystery of the Abomination” for more information.) So, instead of being an image of the Antichrist, it should rather be viewed as a representation or creation of the “god of fortresses”. The “god of fortresses” then would be the object of worship (at least for the Antichrist and his crew of warmongers). And presumably, the function of its abominations is to help this demon god cause desolation in the earth – whether it be confined to a certain “holy place”, or spread out as nuclear devastation over a vast territory. The “image”, on the other hand, as the Revelation Book spells it out, is an object of worship designed for the world at large, something that everybody can use as part of his worship of the Antichrist. To conclude: This phrase in verse 38 about the “god of fortresses” is an important clue to show what god the “abomination” is supposed to be attached to. And because the Antichrist “honors a god of fortresses”, he is fully engaged in the business of waging war. He opposes anything that might hinder his military campaigns (and self-worship). The “god of fortresses” inspires him to send a destroying abomination into the sanctuary. And that signals the start of all-out war against the religious forces whom the Antichrist knows will oppose his plans for world takeover and worship of himself. In addition, the “god of fortresses” phrase was a way of foreseeing the non-religious culture that would arrive in the distant future. Those supernatural deities known as the “gods” would have to stay out of sight as they go about the same old dirty work they’ve been doing for centuries. Thanks be to Gabriel, and the Lord, for Their perceptive understanding of the future modern reality and their adept use of the ancient Hebrew language to give expression to it! Note: See Appendix) for some helpful quotations on the mysterious “god of fortresses” phrase. 11:39 “Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses with a foreign god, which he shall acknowledge, and advance its glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain.”

154

“Thus he shall act against the strongest fortresses.” A better translation here might be, “Thus shall he do in the most strongholds.” (KJV) Or, “he shall deal with the strongest fortresses.” (ESV) The idea seems not to be that the Antichrist will attack the “strongest fortresses” as implied in some translations. Rather he will reward those “strongest fortresses” (or “fortresses of munitions” as found in the margin of some Bibles), those nations who ally themselves with him under the auspices of this “foreign god” (of war). That fits better into the context of the second part of the verse which explains how he shall reward the “strongest fortresses”: “he shall cause them to rule over many, and divide the land for gain.” What “land” the passage is referring to is not too clear. But likely, it will be those territories in the Middle East that the Antichrist and his allies will have conquered, which invasion is described in the following verses 40-45. Verse 39 also mentions that the Antichrist “shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.” Likely this means he will parcel out his conquered territories to those “strongholds” who go along with him and his policies; and it will be done “for gain” – in some way that will be profitable monetarily, either for the Antichrist or the “strongholds” or both. … The words contain the altogether common thought that the king will bestow honour, power, and possessions on those who acknowledge him and conduct themselves according to his will, and they accord with the character of Antichrist in a yet higher degree than with that of Antiochus. [from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, 1866: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.] “A foreign god.” Here Gabriel refers to the “god of fortresses” as a “foreign god”. And in its modern day guise this “god” would be “foreign” – different from the ancient gods. Modern culture is steeped in secular materialism and has little, if any, tolerance for acknowledging that any kind of higher power, or the supernatural, could be involved in the affairs of mankind. Thus, any official recognition of such a “god” would be unthinkable in today’s world. Such a discreet god was quite “foreign” to Daniel and the people of ancient times. For they were accustomed to seeing much outward manifestation in their religious worship. For example, the ancient god of war, Mars, would be represented by an idol, something easy to worship; and in

155

those days idols were the most common type of “abomination” around. But in the present secular era when “religion” has gone out of fashion, anything that might be construed as superstitious and unscientific, any “god” the Enemy wants to foist on the world, has to appear as if it’s not religious. He has to disguise it with the secular garments of science and technology – a “foreign god”, in other words, a god who is not supposed to be recognizable as a god, as in the old days of idol worship. And there is another “foreign” feature about this “god of fortresses” – the destructive “abominations of desolation” that are attached to it. How peculiar to the minds of those in ancient times wold be these modern weapons of atomic bombs, war tanks, guns, war planes, etc., inventions totally unimagined back then. Never did such a peculiar, faceless, no-name god like this exist in old time. But with the onset of scientific materialism and inventions of modern weaponry, the ancient gods had to take on a new form. The ancient god of war, Mars, has morphed into this “god of fortresses (munitions)” – “a foreign god”, and “a god which his fathers did not know” – unknown to former generations, but known to us in these “last days”. Although nowadays we have no “abomination”, no visible idol to represent this god, we do see this god manifested in all its “abominations of desolation”, these horrible inventions of destruction that are used in modern warfare. Perhaps some will worship this “god of fortresses” in secret behind closed doors, but for the most part the world will worship it without knowing that they are worshiping it. We might say of a greedy person, “he worships Mammon”, even though he doesn’t actually observe any religious ceremonies to show his devotion to his greed. Likewise, those who admire military exploits and hardware, and their accompanying power and self-exaltation, it could be said of them, “they worship the god of fortresses.” Among the general populace, such worship links closely with the worship of the Antichrist himself. Indirectly, the Antichrist’s capability in warfare (his honoring of the “god of fortresses”) will give a boost to another form of worship, that of the Antichrist himself. “They worshiped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?’” (Revelation 13:4) We could compare this to Hitler (a worshiper of the “god of fortresses”) and how his success on the battlefield did much to generate worship and adulation of him during the 1930s and 1940s.

156

As noted already, it is because of the secular nature of modern culture that there are no visible religious trappings that can be associated with this “god of fortresses”. However, there is a belief system, something non-visible but quite evident in modern culture, that is yoked tightly onto the worship of this god; and it is easy to identify. This new “religion”, as we may call it, emerged in the 1700s when the old customs of superstition and idolatry were being discredited. That era marked the dawn of what is known as the Age of Reason, the Age of Enlightenment. People started looking to science for their answers instead of the supernatural realm. The new rational outlook of that day had some good points in that it eliminated some needless and harmful superstitions. But as often happens in history, the new trend went to an extreme; and it soon began to eat away at the foundation of man’s faith in the true God and His Word. In the mid-19th Century, evolution theory came along, and by the time of the 20th Century, a truly “foreign” belief system had sent its roots deep into the collective psyche of mankind. Nowadays, this religion of pseudo-science, or scientific materialism as we may call it, has succeeded in replacing all previous faiths, whether Christian or non-Christian. In fact, this new “religion” has permeated almost all aspects of modern life and belief and given rise to ideologies of humanism, atheism, communism, and so on – philosophies that were quite “foreign” to Daniel and those of ancient times. For example, who in ancient times could have imagined a political philosophy like communism sweeping half the world as it did in the 20th century? The idea of an officially anti-religious state with no “god”, no supernatural deity of any kind, was absolutely unthinkable in Daniel’s day. But that ideology was the Devil’s seed for modern times, and it spread like wildfire during much of the 20th century. And it should be no surprise to see some new version of the same thing crop up again in the near future. Now, if scientific materialism is mankind’s new belief system, what connection might it have with a “god of fortresses”, a god of war? We can probably answer that question by observing what the inventions of science get used for. Let’s take the example of Albert Einstein who discovered how to tap the resources of nuclear energy, a great discovery. Much to his disappointment, however, Einstein saw his discovery, which he envisioned should serve a peaceful purpose, getting harnessed into the cause of war, the

157

atom bomb. And what the world’s military hasn’t stolen for itself, it has discovered in its own research laboratories and projects. Continually, we observe how the theories and discoveries of science, be they helpful or harmful, somehow get harnessed into the service of war. Like an invisible hand lurking behind the scenes, the spiritual power behind the “god of fortresses (munitions)” is on the prowl, directing scientific endeavor towards war and making war weapons. Besides physical inventions of destruction, in the abstract realm of ideas, pseudo-scientific thinking has also caused much harm. For example, the survival-of-the-fittest philosophy from evolution theory was used by Hitler, before World War II, to justify genocide as a means of establishing the supremacy of the Aryan race. The same rationale is used nowadays to justify war as a means of curbing population growth. When man does not trust in God’s care and concern for mankind, he will theorize along such lines. How convenient for world leaders to swallow this one. Why worry about being a peacemaker or finding ways of sharing their wealth with a world that, after all, needs to downsize its population? War and starvation are surely two expedient methods of accomplishing this unfortunate, but necessary, purpose. Such are the logical, but misguided, conclusions of those who seek a shortcut to supremacy in the world and look not to the wisdom and power of a loving God to solve these overwhelming problems of our modern times. Scientific materialism then has become the religion of modern man, although it’s not supposed to be a religion. Yet because it has usurped so many of the functions and beliefs that used to belong in the religious realm, it may as well be called a religion – a “foreign” one in which neither God, nor the supernatural, have any part. And it has worked, just as a false religion would, to draw people away from the true God. This is not to say that scientific endeavor, if exercised from the standpoint of faith, could not greatly benefit mankind and confirm his faith in God. Sad to say, however, the application of scientific thought has resulted in too many destructive inventions, and along with that, destructive beliefs that mock the truth of God’s Word and the existence of the supernatural realm, and its relevance to our earthly existence.

158

The rise of unrestrained rationalism divorced man from the supernatural, hence from God, and has nudged him into the realm of his carnal mind and science-oriented culture. In contrast with the world of yesteryear, the modern world worships the mind and intelligence, and the power and superiority that go along with them; this is a major temptation in these Last Days – “a god which his fathers did not know”. And this exaltation of man’s reason has caused his heart to become colder and his faith in God to become weaker, and has turned him aside into the clutches of “a foreign god… which his fathers did not know” – science, technology, and the use and misuse of the natural forces of creation. The modern world has become a special breeding ground from which this new version of a war god can emerge to carry out his dirty work. The modern philosophy of scientific materialism, although “foreign” to Daniel and those of ancient times, has become the normal, accepted belief system for modern man. It endeavors to belittle the role of God, or any god, in the formation of the natural world, and by extension, in the development of human history, whether on a personal level, or on a societal and international level. It is the ultimate deception – no God, no supernatural world, just the barren utopia of man and his world. Besides giving rise to this “foreign god” of war, scientific materialism has spawned a few other “foreign gods” as well. For example, the god of wealth operates through a commercial system based on modern scientific technology. The inventions of electronic funds transfer, credit systems, etc. have enabled this “foreign god”, known to us as materialism, to proliferate exceedingly in the modern world; and it will eventually dominate modern society through a new worldwide credit system known in the Revelation Book as the “mark of the Beast”. Another god is the Antichrist himself whom the world will worship; only nowadays, we would call it political adulation. And what will inspire this worship? Again, science and modern technology to the rescue. Because of its discovery of how to broadcast images all over the world, the forces of Darkness will be able to generate worship of the Antichrist on a scale unimagined in times past when crafted images and idols were the only means available for propagating worship of a deity or demagogue. So, these “foreign gods” of materialism and demagoguery will also flourish in the Endtime… along with the “god of fortresses”. Now the passage

159

in Daniel 11 focuses on the “god of fortresses” because war happens to be the main area of concern for the Antichrist Beast. But besides that modern day version of a war god, there are these other updated versions for the ancient gods of Mammon and of emperor worship. And, for all these gods, the “foreign religion” of scientific materialism plays a key role in allowing them to rise to the fore in their modern day guise. They are all “strange gods” because of their secular face, and because of the extraordinary power they have now through modern inventions of weaponry, electronic funds transfer, computer surveillance, and media technology. Nevertheless, it’s the same Devil aiming to destroy the world through war, enslave its masses through materialism, and capture its allegiance through a demagogue. Or, to put it another way: Chasing material wealth is the religious “service” that most of the world gives their time and energy to; scientific materialism is the belief system their minds have been deceived by; and the “god of fortresses” is the heathen god that, unknowingly, they’re afraid of and will try to appease (by worshiping the Antichrist and his image). Daniel could not have understood much about modern science and its military inventions, nor the modern philosophies of evolution, rationalism, and our secular culture, but Gabriel was able to explain it to him anyway. He did this by saying that the Antichrist would magnify himself above all gods yet would plunge into the service of a war god. This would not result from any sense of religious devotion but simply from being wrapped up in admiration of his own (military) strength. The ancient practice of devotion to a god of war would continue, only disguised now (as a “foreign god”) under the atheist garb of science, militarism, and man worship. And has this happened in modern times? An outstanding example was Hitler Germany; a whole nation fell under the spell of a militarist warmonger, and this caused untold destruction in the world of the 1940s. Here was a startling example of how the superstitious practice from ancient times of devotion to a god of war (and accompanying emperor worship) could resurrect itself, even in this modern age of rationality and scientific enlightenment.

160

Appendix: Quotes pertaining to the “god of fortresses (forces/munitions)” …There has been no little speculation as to the meaning of this passage, and as to the god here referred to; but it would seem that the general idea is plain. It is, that the only god which he would acknowledge would be force, or power, or dominion. He would set at nought the worship of the god of his fathers, and all the usual obligations and restraints of religion; he would discard and despise all the pleadings of humanity and kindness, as if they were the weaknesses of women, and he would depend solely on force. He would, as it were, adore only the “god of force,” and carry his purposes, not by right, or by the claims of religion, but by arms. The meaning is not, I apprehend, that he would formally set up this “god of forces,” and adore him, but that this would be, in fact, the only god that he would practically acknowledge. In selecting such a god as would properly represent his feelings he would choose such an one as would denote force or dominion… The general sentiment is, that all obligations of religion, and justice, and compassion, would be disregarded, and he would carry his purposes by mere power, with the idea, perhaps, included, as seems to be implied in the remainder of the verse, that he would set up and adore such a foreign god as would be a suitable representation of this purpose. It is hardly necessary to say that this was eminently true of Antiochus Epiphanes; and it may be equally said to be true of all the great heroes and conquerors of the world. Mars, the god of war, was thus adored openly in ancient times, and the devotion of heroes and conquerors to that idol god, though less open and formal, has not been less real by the heroes and conquerors of modern times; and, as we say now of an avaricious or covetous man that he is a worshipper of mammon, though he in fact formally worships no god, and has no altar, so it might be affirmed of Antiochus, and may be of heroes and conquerors in general, that the only god that is honored is the god of war, of power, of force; and that setting at nought all the obligations of religion, and of worship of the true God, they pay their devotions to this god alone.

161

Next to mammon, the god that is most adored in this world is the “god of force”… [as in Revelation 13:4, “and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”] [from Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments, 1879-1885]

*** On the other hand, he will honour the god of fortresses. That [mauzzim – Hebrew word for “fortresses”] is not, with Theodotion, the Vulgate, Luther, and others, to be regarded as the proper name of a god, is now generally acknowledged. But as to which god is to be understood by the “god of fortresses,” there is very great diversity of opinion. [Some]… think on Mars, the god of war, as the one intended; [Some]… regard Jupiter Capitolinus… others, Jupiter Olympius… Melkart, or the Phoenician Hercules… But according to the following passage [“a god which his fathers did not know”], this god was not known to his fathers. That could not be said either of Mars, or Jupiter, or Melkart. Add to this, “that if the statement here refers to the honouring of Hercules, or Mars, or Zeus, or Jupiter, then therewith all would be denied that was previously said of the king’s being destitute of all religion” (Klief.). The words thus in no respect agree with Antiochus, and do not permit us to think on any definite heathen deity. … The “god of fortresses” is the personification of war, and the thought is this: he will regard no other god, but only war; the taking of fortresses he will make his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining the world-power. Of this god, war as the object of deification, it might be said that his fathers knew nothing, because no other king had made war his religion, his god to whom he offered up in sacrifice all, gold, silver, precious stones, jewels. [from Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, 1866]

*** …when a period can be dominated by complex and expensive weapons that only a few persons can afford to possess or can learn to use, we have a situation where the minority who control such “specialist” weapons can dominate the majority who lack them. In such a society, sooner or later, an authoritarian political system that reflects the inequality in control of weapons will he established. At the present time, there seems to be little reason to doubt that the specialist weapons of today will continue to dominate the military picture into

162

the foreseeable future. If so, there is little reason to doubt that authoritarian rather than democratic political regimes will dominate the world into the same foreseeable future… [from Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time By Carroll Quigley, 1966]

3-I: Among the Nations, Earth’s Final War (11:40-45) 11:40-43 “At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through. “He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon. “He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. “He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; also the Libyans and Ethiopians shall follow at his heels.” “At the time of the end.” Again, we are reminded of the timing for these key events of future history. They will happen “at the time of the end”. “The king of the South shall attack him.” It is hard to tell if the Antichrist has already desecrated the Jerusalem “holy place” with his “abomination of desolation”, or if that is yet to happen. The passage about the desolating abomination’s entrance into the temple appeared previously in verse 31, which would lead us to think that it has already happened. This then would certainly trigger the anger of the American superpower to come to the defense of Israel and would explain why we read here that “the king of the South shall attack him (the king of the north).” But then on the other hand, we learn that “he (king of the north) shall enter the Glorious Land (Israel)” at some point during the course of this new major war. So this would lead us to think that it is during the course of this war, and not any sooner, that the Jerusalem temple will be violated.

163

Right now it is difficult to pinpoint how exactly these events will play out, so it will have to remain somewhat vague for the time being. At any rate it should be safe to say that this new confrontation and the desecration of the “sanctuary” are closely connected events and happen very close together in time. “Like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships.” Here is an interesting statement. Obviously, both land and sea forces are involved in this confrontation. Now in days of yesteryear, battles were fought either on land or on sea; usually, it was one or the other but not both. But nowadays, wars are different in this respect – due mainly to the long-range firepower of modern weapons. The majority of modern military assaults combine land and sea forces… and that includes air forces as well. The “many ships” phrase could probably be understood as including, not only ships that float on water (and underwater), but also, ships that float on air – the war planes and air force branch of the military that figure so prominently in modern warfare. Such a combined assault from land, sea, and air certainly would fit the description Gabriel gives: “like a whirlwind”. So, from this verse we can see once more what remarkable insight Gabriel had into the future; he really knew what he was talking about, even though none of it would happen until two-and-a-half thousand years or so later. The word “chariots” here could stand for the many vehicles – tanks, trucks, jeeps, and so on – that are commonly used in modern warfare. “Chariots” may not seem like the right word, but it was the only word available in the ancient Hebrew vocabulary that could describe a moving vehicle, and one that was usually used in warfare. As for the word “horsemen”, these skilled drivers are needed, of course, for their “chariots”. The word can also include mounted horsemen, or knights, who, before the days of artillery, were considered the most skilled and effective soldiers in an army. In the context of modern times, there are many vehicles and complex weapons that need to be driven or operated. Perhaps for want of any more accurate word, the term “horsemen” was chosen as a way of getting across the idea that the soldiers in this future army would be comparable to the skilled horsemen of yesteryear; they would be well trained drivers and operators of their vehicles and weapons. ◊ In the New Testament we run across the saying, “He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.” (Revelation 13:10, Matthew 26:52) The word “sword” has quite a bit of symbolic value. Applying this to

164

our modern time, we would think of “sword” in terms of guns, rifles, and all kinds of weapons that did not exist in ancient times. We would not consider a person exempt from this Scripture’s warning, just because he made a practice of killing with a gun instead of with a sword. So here with this word “horsemen” in verse 40, we could probably understand it in a similar way – as a word with some degree of symbolic meaning. “He shall enter the countries… many countries shall be overthrown.” Other than for Israel (“the Glorious Land”) and for Egypt, the text does not tell which countries the Antichrist forces shall “enter” and “overthrow”. But if we turn to Ezekiel 38, the companion chapter to this one about the invasion of the Mid East and Israel, we can at least learn which countries will not be invaded (in verses 5-6). These would be the allies of the northern leader, Gog, who will descend out of his northern land of Magog (Russia). His allies in the Mid East will be Persia (Iran) and Togarmah (Turkey and/or Armenia) and Libya and Ethiopia (the nation south of Egypt, northern Sudan); and we should include Syria (the ancient “king of the North”) which could, if present historical trends continue, wind up as the “spearhead” of attack and/or entry-point for the forces of Magog (Russia).

165

The names having white background are those nations which, from Ezekiel 38 and Daniel 11, we would guesstimate will be those who will invade Israel and other nations in the Middle East. “Gomer” (Ukraine? Some European nations?) is not included This would leave the other Mid East nations (most of whom happen to be allied to the USA right now) as the ones likely to suffer invasion: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, and Israel. Quite a few – except for one country, Jordan.

166

“Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon… shall escape from his hand.” These ancient peoples of Edom, Moab, and Ammon all lived in the land that we now know as Jordan. Interestingly, the designation “prominent people of Ammon” sounds like a reference to the fact that Jordan’s capital city happens to be Amman, a name derived from the ancient “Ammon”. And why should Jordan be the one to “escape from his hand”? One reason may be the simple fact that, of all the nations mentioned, Jordan is the only one that lacks a great deal of wealth in the way of oil resources. Even oil-starved Lebanon and Israel have discovered large oil deposits recently and are expected to become major oil producers in the future. Another reason too is that Jordan has long taken a fairly neutral stance in Mid East political rivalries, which has given it a good reputation for tolerance and peacemaking. In addition, Jordan has generously provided shelter for refugees and hospital care for the wounded from other nearby nations who are embroiled in conflict. It is a nation against whom no one holds any grudges or complaints. (See news article in Appendix.)

167

“And the land of Egypt shall not escape.” In the ancient time both Antiochus III the Great and Antiochus Epiphanes managed to partially conquer Egypt but were frustrated in their ambition to make a total conquest of the nation. That achievement was postponed many centuries until the modern day successor to the “king of the North”, the final Antichrist, will have made his debut. Then finally, the “king of the North” will finish what his ancestors were unable to achieve. Why so much focus on Egypt? It sounds as if Egypt (as in ancient times when the Seleucid dynasty was struggling so hard to overthrow the Ptolemaic dynasty) will be viewed as the focus of opposition to the forces of the “king of the North”. Perhaps Egypt will harbor an American military presence? As did Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War (1990-1991), and Kuwait during the Iraq War (2003-2011). At any rate for some reason, not too clear just yet, the passage takes special care to mention the defeat of Egypt: “the land of Egypt shall not escape.” “The treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt.” What the passage is getting at here is not too clear. Certainly, there is plenty of wealth in Egypt, the Mid East nation with the largest population. Other nations, with their larger oil resources, are wealthier however, so maybe “treasures” refers to something like Egypt’s archeological treasures. Whatever the case may be, it is clear from this passage that, in addition to the arrogant desire for power, the desire for wealth will also play a major role in motivating these future wars of the anti-Christ “king of the North”. “The Libyans and Ethiopians.” In Daniel’s day Ethiopia was located in the land south of Egypt, which is the modern nation of northern Sudan. In the present era both Libya and northern Sudan are Islamic countries and have strongly opposed Israel. Interestingly, these two countries are also mentioned in Ezekiel 38:5 as allies of Russia (“Magog”) and part of the invasion force that will overrun Israel. Whether “Ethiopia” symbolizes Sudan only, or other African states, is not clear at the moment. And Libya, in spite of the overthrow of its former leader Godhafi in 2011, looks as if it may be headed in the same direction as before: anti-Israel and anti-American. Another interesting point: No mention is made of Libya and Ethiopia until the invasion of Egypt. This suggests that these two nations on the western and southern border play a specific role in the war by contributing towards the fall of Egypt. Why so much focus on Egypt? If Egypt

168

actually does happen to become the headquarters of opposition forces, then to bring about her collapse will require some extra reinforcement from neighboring countries.

Comparison between Daniel 11 and Ezekiel 38-39 The two chapters in the Bible that describe in detail the invasion of Israel in the End Time are Ezekiel 38 and Daniel 11; they each view the situation from different points of view. In Daniel 11 the “king of the North” and his activities reflect more the local sphere of events from the point of view of the Mid East nations involved; the prophecy seems to point to Syria as the “king of the North” (especially true if she remains allied to the Russian superpower). By contrast, in Ezekiel 38, “Gog”, the Russian “prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal” and his activities reflect a more international point of view. For example, he differs from the “king of the North” figure in Daniel 11 in that he seems to have more allies –“many people with thee”. Well, this is not unexpected; Russia’s sphere of influence is a lot wider. As for the more local sphere of operations depicted in Daniel 11, verse 41 says about Jordan, “these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon.” From Russia’s point of view, what happens to Jordan would be of little consequence. But not to Daniel. Gabriel is speaking to Daniel who was eager to know about the future of his people. So the focus of Gabriel’s words here tends to dwell on what will happen to Israel, the “Glorious Land”, and her neighbors. It dwells more on the affairs of the local region. Now, the chapters that dwell on Russia’s conquest of the Mid East (Ezekiel 38-39) have no mention at all of Egypt, nor of Jordan. And this could mean that Russia’s got her eyes on something else. And the only nation mentioned specifically as a target of conquest, besides Israel, is the land of Arabia – “Sheba, Dedan” – with its “great plunder” (of oil?). The international traders of the West (“merchants of Tarshish”) are introduced at this point also. Russia would probably be a lot more interested in the Arabian peninsula, and all its wealth, than in Egypt. So, the passage, explaining Russia’s point of view, takes care to mention this particular aspect of the invasion. Comparing these two separate passages, Ezekiel 38 and Daniel 11, one interesting point comes to light: There exists some intertwining in the descriptions of “Gog” and the “king of the North”, this invasion team from the

169

north. In verse 43 the intersection of the two passages is especially obvious. Both passages name the same two nations as allies in the war against Israel and Egypt, namely Libya and Ethiopia. (Ezekiel 38:5, Daniel 11:43) This common feature in the two passages is a helpful clue to show that both chapters are talking about the same invasion and that “Gog” (in Ezekiel 3839) and the “king of the North” (in Daniel 11) represent the same person. Their activities are just viewed from different perspectives – the international and the regional. 11:44 “But news from the east and the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many.” The previous verses 40-43 described the second major confrontation between the forces of the kings of the north and south. After their first battle (mentioned in verse 25), before things spiraled too far out of control and perhaps out of fear of nuclear confrontation, the two sides tried quickly to patch things up in a peace conference. (11:27) But in this second confrontation, the “king of the North” pulls out all the stops; he emerges as the clear victor and conqueror of the entire Mid East, it would seem. But from the sounds of it, neither of the superpowers’ nuclear arsenals have been tapped into yet. “News from the east and the north.” In the beginning of his dealings in the Middle East, the Antichrist’s moves were probably well calculated, even wise and fair (at least when compared to America’s clumsy and ineffective handling of Mid East affairs in recent times). Likely, this will be one of the factors that will gain him much popularity, catapulting him in the eyes of the world into someone who could replace the USA and its dominance in world affairs. But now, after much success, “the king shall do according to his own will.” (11:36) Like Hitler and many other demagogues and tyrants before him, he will become too enamored with himself and too over-confident of his own strength. At this stage in the war, it will become obvious in many quarters that the “king of the North” has become a power-hungry tyrant eager to gobble up as much wealth and territory as he can lay his hands on. A similar pattern happened prior to World War II. It took awhile for nations to realize what they were dealing with – a liar who was not the least bit interested in peace, the Hitler warmonger, and his ruthless, no-holds-barred intentions of enslaving Europe. When that realization finally dawned on them,

170

then Britain, the U.S.A., and other nations rose up in defiance, which brought on the conflagration of World War II. So at this point in the conflict, there will arise some rumblings of discontent “from the east and the north”. For some unknown reason, there will be some dissatisfaction from “the north” in Europe or in Russia, the Antichrist’s home base. And “from the east” there is the powerful bloc of nations like India and China who may feel that they are losing out too much to the Europe-Russia bloc’s aggressive gobbling up of the Mid East. Nonetheless, the U.S.A. will carry on as the main focus of opposition to the Antichrist. She is still the main enemy to be subdued, and it is very likely that she will be allied to those forces “from the east and the north” that have begun to “trouble” the Antichrist. There is an interesting example from World War II that is worth looking at. At the beginning of the war, Germany made an alliance with the Soviet Union. Later on, when Germany began to invade her, the Soviet Union switched sides and allied with the United States. So it is not unusual for nations to change sides in a war. And this could be the “news” that “shall trouble the king of the North”. Some nations (China and India perhaps?) may have started as allies of the Antichrist, but later, once they see how things are going against them, decide to switch sides. So, although the “news” does not come from the U.S.A., chances are that the Antichrist’s reaction to that “news” will be directed against the U.S.A. And it sounds ominous. “He shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many.” Could this be the dreaded nuclear war that the world has been trying to avoid for decades now? Possibly. The Scriptures in Revelation 17-18 describe a horrific war during the End Time, a war that destroys “with fire” and “in one hour” a nation or empire called the “great harlot”. It would require a great deal of explanation (beyond the scope of this study), but there is reason to believe that, not only is this the dreaded nuclear war that the world has been trying frantically to avoid, but also, this “great harlot” symbolizes the American empire. Having just lost out in the Middle East, America will find herself in a desperate, demoralized state. And the Antichrist’s occupation of Jerusalem could become the “last straw” that will push America’s leaders to start thinking about playing their trump card of nuclear weapons. So, rather than wait for America to lash out with her weapons of last resort, the “king of the North” may at this point decide to launch a pre-emptive strike.

171

In the next chapter we learn that “there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time.” (12:1) With that kind of context it would not be hard to imagine that the Scriptures here are foretelling the onset of a horrific nuclear war. (Now it is important to keep in mind that much of what has just been written lies in the realm of speculation and may need some adjustment in the future. These are important issues that require a solid foundation in understanding. As time progresses, the outline of future events will become clearer, and hopefully, a more extensive and accurate interpretation can be made in some future study.) Verse 45 “And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him. “ “His palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain.” A better translation here would say “in the glorious holy mountain” (as it is in the KJV and other translations), for that is closer to the original Hebrew wording. “The glorious holy mountain” is Jerusalem, which is situated on a high plateau “between the seas”, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Establishing himself like this in Jerusalem will appear to be the ultimate triumph. Jerusalem, the earthly center of God’s people in the Old Testament, naturally carries a great deal of symbolic significance. The Antichrist, “as he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God”, will be the ultimate usurper, the last in a long line of emperors who, throughout history, have presumed to take on the role of God in the minds and hearts of their peoples. “Yet he shall come to his end.” The Antichrist and False Prophet’s kingdom is a sham and counterfeit operation; its presence is an offence to the forces of Heaven, a cesspool in the beautiful environment of God’s creation, and will not be tolerated for very long. Its downfall, and the Antichrist and False Prophet’s downfall, will come in a dramatic and supernatural way. There is much in the Book of Revelation describing how this great future intervention into the affairs of mankind will be engineered by the forces of Heaven, especially in the Battle of Armageddon. However, right now, the angel gives Daniel just a small hint of this supernatural aspect to the Antichrist’s defeat: “no one will help him.” This is similar to other phrases in

172

the Book of Daniel: “he shall be broken without human means” (8:25); “the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and… broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold.” (2:45) *** And that, finally, ends chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel – a long, incredibly detailed prediction of soon-to-come future events delivered to Daniel by none other than the archangel Gabriel. However, the prophecy is not yet finished but continues on into the next chapter 12 with some more details about the glorious finale and victory over the forces of evil – and, of course the deliverance of God’s people. That was Daniel’s great concern in those days when the Jewish people were captive in the land of Babylon. And that is a major focus of Gabriel’s words – the deliverance of God’s people, which Daniel by now must have begun to realize would have to be postponed for quite a long time into the future. ***

Appendix: Jordan Jordan proud to be ‘foster carer’ of the Middle East Jim Carey, BBC - 30 June 2012 The defection of a Syrian air force pilot who flew his jet to Jordan and asked for sanctuary is causing a certain amount of awkwardness in Amman. In this volatile corner of the world, Jordan is a country which would rather be known for its hospitality, than for this kind of headline. I could well imagine the first word uttered by a new baby in Jordan might not be the Arab name for mama or papa. It could be “halla”. It is by far the most common word I hear. I say “hello” they say “halla”. I say “goodbye” they say “halla”. When I say “thank you” they say “halla”. And when I say “no thank you” they say “halla”. Halla is an Arabic word for welcome.

173

Currently pouring across Jordan’s northern border, tens of thousands of Syrians—many requiring urgent medical treatment—come in search of healing, housing and halla. These latest refugees join the thousands of Libyans already receiving treatment here, and the near two million Palestinians who have already found sanctuary in the country. But as I traverse this arid land a question demands an answer. How can a country which, unusually for this region has no oil and very little mineral resources, a land blistered by a hot sun and relentlessly thirsty— afford to be so nice to everybody? Salla, a Bedouin musician from Wadi Rum in the south, offers one answer. “It’s always been the culture of this region to welcome strangers,” he says. But with a precarious economy suffering in the face of the global financial crisis, Jordan’s halla is also its life support system. The United Nations is just one of the organisations pouring money into the Jordanian economy to help the country cope with the latest influx of Syrian refugees. And the current Libyan government pays the medical bills of its citizens being healed in Jordan’s quality hospitals. Palestinian refugees have brought their own money into the country—but they have attracted further UN and other aid packages. “We are the foster carers of the Middle East,” observes Salomon, a hospital worker in the capital Amman. Jordan treads a remarkable path in the region as a friend to many and an enemy to few. A co-founder of the Arab League, Jordan is still one of the few countries around here to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. It also maintains relationships with both the US and Iran. Usually, in a world which pursues alliances and enemies, being a friend of one is to be the enemy of another. Somehow Jordan is doing it differently. In Aqaba, Jordan’s only sea port, there are big government efforts to welcome

174

international trade. When local restaurant owner Abu finds out I am from the UK his smile widens. “Ah,” he says, “our king was educated in your country—for this you will not pay for your prawns.” In the end it is all I can do to stop him giving me the whole main course for nothing. “Halla” he says. The US and EU pour billions of dollars into Jordan to help it stay so friendly. All over the hotels near the country’s biggest tourist attraction, the ancient city of Petra, I notice stickers. They say ‘USAID—A Gift From The American People’. It is a logo stuck on many things, from air conditioner to signposts. Jordan uses this money from its strategic friendships to build up an industry based on halla—tourism. Petra’s vast array of gargantuan temples and tombs are stunning but so are the hefty entrance fees. Jordan needs to cash in on its history. You pay again to view the fetid green puddle at Bethany, the place where Jesus is thought to have been baptised. The spot now lies within a militarised no-man’s land lining either side of the border with Israel and is the only part of the river Jordan which people are allowed to access—but under escort and for quite a price. Both Israel and Jordan cash in on this unattractive biblical attraction. And while two Israeli soldiers with machine guns watch people in white robes baptising each other on the Israeli side, on the other, a Jordanian soldier stares as members of our group take photographs. The unsavoury situation is aptly and theatrically played out by a white dove, coaxed out of hiding by the guide with a handful of grain. The dove has the mangy plumage of an inner city pigeon, and is vigorously trying to peck at an unreachable itch on its back. It runs away

175

whenever anyone draws near with their camera. A paranoid, knackered, fleabitten dove of peace. And there is another problem. Tourism has been hit severely by the international perception that all of the Middle East is unstable and best avoided. But if there are fewer tourists here to experience Jordan’s halla, the country can be sure there will be more refugees.

3-J: Brief Note on Daniel 12 In the next chapter 12, Gabriel brings his discourse to a conclusion. At long last, the words that Daniel so wanted to hear are spoken: “at that time your people shall be delivered.” But this deliverance comes only after “a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation.” (12:1) Gabriel goes on to mention a peculiar feature of this future era: “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” (12:4) Again, we have another signpost pointing towards the modern age. Travel (many running “to and fro”) and scientific “knowledge” have mushroomed in the past one or two centuries. When compared with the slow pace of travel and the rudimentary knowledge of yesteryear, man’s progress in these areas is a spectacular feature of the modern era, which differentiates if from the entire past history of mankind. The passage goes on in some detail about the Resurrection and the timings of the end of the age. Those are interesting subjects, but for now, somewhat in the realm of speculation. For the time being, the interpretation of this portion of the prophetic message will be left until a later date and/or more information about it comes to light. And so we come to the end… except for the following summary.

176

Summary: Ancient Past of Near Future? One of the main goals in this study on Daniel, chapter 11, has been to show that the angel who gave the message was speaking primarily about events to come in the near future – events which should not be relegated to the ancient past, as is promoted in many a commentary. Today, with the benefit of more hindsight than was available to scholars in the past, it is easier to pinpoint accurately the full meaning of Gabriel’s message. But because of the heavy weight of scholarly opinion from the past, the task of adjusting our understanding of this intriguing passage seems to have developed into a major overhaul. So, as a final reminder and because of its prominence in this study and the need to supply an antidote or remedy against the well-meaning preconceptions of scholars from earlier times, following is a review (also found in the post “Part 3F: The Great Tribulation”) of the reasons why the primary fulfillment of Gabriel’s prophetic message (especially verses 11:2135) should be understood as coming in the near future… that brief tumultuous era prior to Christ’s Return: 1) First of all, given the impressive introduction in chapter 10 – the appearance of Christ in His heavenly glory – it would seem quite a letdown and mismatch if the following revelation dealt mostly with the exploits of an obscure ancient king. Gabriel told Daniel, “I have come to make you understand what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come,” (10:14) It would seem more consistent with that statement if Gabriel’s following message dealt with a “many days yet to come” scenario – the historical events just prior to Christ’s Second Coming in the “latter days”. 2) “Not give the honor of royalty” is a phrase that would seem to apply well to modern forms of non-monarchical, republican government. 3) The phrases “come in peaceably” (verse 21) and “enter peaceably” (verse 24) are more characteristic of modern means of gaining power – through voting or through financial and media manipulation – which do not require the use of military force. 4) The use of “flatteries” (meaning smooth, slippery persuasiveness) in verse 21 is another commonly used tactic of modern political leaders who,

177

using the media, can fool the people with false promises just long enough to get themselves voted into power. (“Flatteries” is the preferred translation and is found in the KJV, ASV, RSV, TLB, ESV, NLT.) 5) The existence of the “holy covenant”: Back in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes’ reign, there was no record of a covenant made, much less one that dealt with religious issues. (In verses 28 and 30 of chapter 11 it is termed a “holy covenant”.)Nor was there any such covenant made in the years after Christ’s execution. The passage in chapter 11 goes on to relate that the anti-Christ “king of the North” would “defile the sanctuary” when he allows an “abomination of desolation” to enter it. In a message 3 or 4 years earlier, Gabriel had told Daniel about a “covenant” which was to mark the last seven years of history. That “covenant” also had much to do with religious issues (“sacrifice and offering”) and desolating “abominations” that would lead to the break-up of the covenant. Jesus later spoke of this “abomination” as an important sign that would come just before His Second Coming, that is, in modern times. It seems obvious enough then that both revelations (in chapters 9 and 11) are speaking about the same “covenant”. And because the covenant is linked to the “abomination of desolation” (in both passages), there should be little doubt that Gabriel is speaking of an End Time (not ancient) “covenant”. 6) The nominal sentence in verse 22 – “yea, [he is] also the prince of the covenant” – links us back to Daniel 9:27 about the same “prince” who “shall confirm a covenant” (which is easily understood as an event happening just prior to Christ’s Second Coming; see post on Daniel 9 for more information on that point.) Therefore, the “prince of the covenant” phrase here in chapter 11, verse 22, acts as a sort of signpost to direct us forward from the ancient time into the modern era of End Time events. This serves also to maintain the continuity between the two messages (in chapter 9 and chapter 11). And we would expect a certain amount of continuity since, judging by the introductions and context of them, both messages were delivered by the same angel Gabriel. 7) The phrase “fathers… forefathers” in verse 24 does not appear in that part of the message that dealt with ancient history. It was a way of saying that the events being described after verse 21 would occur in a distant future age.

178

8) The use of special, complex, computerized “devices” in warfare (verses 24-25) is a feature peculiar to modern times. 9) The phrases “at the appointed time” and “time of the end” (verses 27, 29, 35, 40) are referring to that momentous event of Christ’s return. It is the fixed destination of human history, over which the other events taking place around that time in history are “appointed” and will have no power either to hasten or delay. These phrases should indicate clearly enough that the passages where they are found are not dealing with past events, but with events that are meant to happen just prior to Christ’s return. 10) The “ships of Cyprus” phrase applies nicely to the modern situation. The Antichrist will be confronted in war by these battleships (and “air ships” too most likely). In ancient times Antiochus Epiphanes was confronted by the Roman envoy, whose ships could have passed through Cyprus; however, it was only a personal confrontation, not a war engagement. 11) The “abomination that maketh desolate” does not refer to some ancient form of idol worship. A thorough study of this phrase will bring to light its hidden meaning as a cryptic reference, in the ancient language, to a modern vehicle of war that enters the “sanctuary”. (Refer to the posts for “Unraveling the Mystery of the Abomination” for more information.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Avnery,Uri. “Better a Hundred Palestinians Killed than One Israeli Soldier.” Information Clearing House, 21 October 2014. Barnard, Anne. “Russian Defiance Is Seen as a Confidence Builder for Syria’s Government.” The New York Times, 21 March 2014. Barnes, Albert; Murphy, James. Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments. Originally published 1879-1885. Re-published by Biblesoft (PC Study Bible), 1999. Carey, Jim. “Jordan Proud to be ‘Foster Carer’ of the Middle East.” BBC, 30 June 2012. Delitzsch, Franz; Keil, Johann. Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament. Originally published in 1866. Re-published by Biblesoft (PC Study Bible), 1999. Fest, Joachim C. Hitler a Career. Munich: a Werner Rieb production, 1977.

179

Gesenius, H.W.F. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles). Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1847. Re-published Grand Rapids, Michigan; Baker Book House Company, 1979. Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Originally published in 1710. Re-published by Biblesoft (PC Study Bible), 1999. Klussmann, Uwe. “Russia and Syria: an Old Base (Friendship) Gets A Facelift.” Der Spiegel, 22 June 2006. Lendering, Jon. “Ptolemies.” Livius.org, 2002. Margolis, Eric. “Syria Coming To A Boil.” The UNZ Review, 29 March 2011. Quigley,Carroll. Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in Our Time.New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966. Raimondo, Justin. “The American Empire: A Finale.” Antiwar.com, 23 March 2009. Sly, Liz. “Threats Of War Cloud Hopes For Middle East.” Washington Post, 11 February 2012. Xenophon, Cyropaedia, Book 8, C-5, line 17-19 in 370 B.C. Published by The Project Gutenberg Etext (Translation by H. G. Dakyns), 2009. — “In Historic Vote, Palestine Becomes Non-Member UN State with Observer Status.” Haaretz, 29 November 2012. — “Israel Pushing Controversial Settlements After U.N. Vote.” The New York Times, 30 November 2012. — “PM: UN Can’t Force Israel to Compromise on Security.” The Jerusalem Post, 29 November 2012. — “Russia Modernizing Syria Ports for its Warships.” World Tribune, 15 April 2010. — “Vatican Hails U.N. Palestine Vote, Wants Guarantees for Jerusalem.” Reuters, 29 November 2012.

180