Many of you know that I think former EU official Javier Solana has fulfilled prophecies about the Antichrist’s personality and rise to power. He has fulfilled them in such a conspicuous way that I think he is still worth watching after all these decades. Though 83 years old, he may move into position mere weeks from now.

If you are new to this idea and want a quick summary of why I think Solana has fulfilled those prophecies, you can watch this video here. If you already have some idea of the “inside baseball” I’m talking about, the below summary will probably suffice. I typed this up rather quickly, so forgive me if the writing could be better.

In the past, I noticed that many significant events related to Javier Solana and prophecy occur in the month of June. For example:

The Rise of the Little Horn

• June 3-4, 1999 - Solana was appointed to be the European Union High representative (which was anticipated by Journal Entry/Document 666) at the Cologne European Council. He was also made Secretary General of the 10-nation Western European Union military alliance. As a result, it fits the image of a smaller horn rising up among 10 larger horns of the fourth beast in Daniel 7. The ten horns are said to represent ten kings who come from that kingdom. Commentators widely believe the fourth beast represents the Roman Empire. Therefore, this Antichrist figure comes out of the Roman Empire, which will be (and has been) revived just prior to the Second Coming of Christ (Daniel 7:13-14; 7:27). Despite controversy on the Internet over the nature of the fourth beast, there is vast agreement among Daniel commentators that it represents the Roman Empire.

Ten Kings Give Up Power

• June 5, 2000 - Western European Union recommendation 666 proposed that Javier Solana be the chair of the EU’s Political and Security Committee in an emergency. This was formalized less than a year later. The PSC exercises “political control and strategic direction” of the EU’s military operations. This gave him the “power and authority” to lead EU military operations, which had just been given to the EU from the 10-nation WEU. Revelation 17:12-13 anticipates that the ten kings will give their “power and authority” to the beast. This may be an incipient fulfillment of the prophecy, which will happen more intensely in the future. The final outcome indicated in Revelation 17:16-18 is that these ten kings give up their full sovereignty to the beast.

Three of the Ten Kings Humbled

• June 6, 2006 - Solana emerged as leader of E3 group (UK, France, Germany) on 06/06/06. Initially, that group wanted to do Iran negotiations on their own. But after smaller countries complained, he was included in the group. On 06/06/06 he was seen in Iran presenting a deal on behalf of the E3 and broader EU. In this way he “humbled” the E3 in his rise to power (Daniel 7:24, NASB2020 translation). Perhaps this was a snapshot of the broader process of the little horn “uprooting” three of the ten horns. Nevertheless, the E3 has recently experienced a resurrection. Perhaps these three politicians will have to step down if the EU consolidates more power to Solana in the future. Solana’s displacing of those three in 2006 could be a complete fulfillment of the “humbling” described in Daniel 7:24, but an incipient fulfillment of the broader process of uprooting, which may have relevance in the near future.

The God of Fortresses

• June 16, 2016 - Solana presents to the European parliament subcommittee on defense on 06/16/16 on making the EU a military power. Back in 2015, he was so passionate about making the EU into a military power that he went on tour. He even said that he would put all of his remaining energies into EU military unification. As an agnostic, Solana has no regard for any god, not even the god(s) of his ancestors (Daniel 11:37). However, he does honor a “god of fortresses” (military defense) with financial means (Daniel 11:38). Again, perhaps this is an incipient fulfillment of this prophecy, which will later manifest more intensely and repeatedly as he goes on to exalt and trust in military protection rather than God during his beastly career.

The Financing of the God of Fortresses with Wealth

• June 7, 2017 - EU defense fund announced/launched. EDF has numerous connections to 666, because Solana indirectly influenced the creation of this program. At first, I thought these numerous connections simply meant he was going to come back out of retirement to lead this program. While that very well could be true, some of my research indicates that Solana did play an important, but indirect, role in the creation of the European defense fund (perhaps that is the subject of a future article). In Daniel 11:38, it says the Antichrist honors the god of fortresses with financial means. Again, we would say this is a preview or initial fulfillment of the broader financial glorification of military defense that he may exhibit during his later career.

New European Defense Structure and a New Chairman?

• June 26, 2026? - Which leaves June 26, 2026. A prophecy happened on 06/06/06. Another happened on 06/16/16. So, I believe it is quite likely one will happen on 06/26/26. Furthermore, many of the prophecies happen in June, generally speaking. I would not put as much stock into this idea, except for the fact that everything else seems to be lining up for this very moment.

There are several reasons why this is likely, given the current situation.

Solana: “I don’t want to die with things like this”

Solana is still intensely focused on European military unification. In a Youtube video a year ago, he very frankly stated “I do not want to die with things like this” and that he would “do everything possible” to make sure the EU integrates generally, and specifically in the area of defense.

Euro-model for European Defense

For the past year or two, Solana has repeatedly called for the creation of a European defense in the same way the euro was formed. He says that those who are willing to go forward should not wait until everyone is ready. This is key, as we need those 10 WEU countries to come back into some sort of alliance, where they empower the beast. Significantly, the UK is getting increasingly pressured to join a European defense alliance, despite Brexit happening a few years ago. This is significant, since the UK was part of the original WEU.

European Order of Merit

Solana will be an Honorable Recipient of the European Order of Merit at the European Parliament session in May. This is a brand new “European Hall of Fame,” where the European Parliament itself honors those who played a role in building the EU into what it is today. That means he will be in Strasbourg at the European Parliament session if he receives the award in person, which he presumably will. Former EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, was on the selection committee. (He is also Solana’s friend). Former EU Commission President Barroso, who worked with Solana, is also on the committee.

June 26 is Before NATO Summit in July

The NATO summit is on July 7-8, 2026. Trump criticizes NATO every day or so lately. It’s almost as if he’s teeing up a withdrawal or a serious consequence to NATO members that did not help with the Iran war. If he was to do this, it would be before the NATO Summit in Ankara. If he plans on withdrawing troops or protection from Western Europe, he wouldn’t wait until the meeting to do that.

NATO Tensions

An email leaked that said the Pentagon suggested kicking Spain out of NATO, because they wouldn’t let the US use their air bases during the Iran war. This comes on the heels of Trump threatening to withdraw from NATO.

Possible Rebirth of WEU or Similar Structure

It is significant that Western Europe, not Eastern, is the part of Europe that Trump wants to punish. This could result in the rebirth of the Western European Union, as an old colleague of Solana has suggested. And if Trump wants to kick Spain out of NATO, who else will emerge but Javier Solana to lead the charge for a NATO alternative in Europe?

Mutual Assistance Clause

If NATO collapses or is seriously weakened, a few scenarios emerge. One would be the creation of a separate treaty outside the EU for defense purposes, as EU commissioner Kubilius has suggested. The EU may need to build a NATO alternative almost overnight, either by salvaging what’s left of NATO or doing their own thing. There are a few options on how they could do this. The EU already has a mutual assistance clause. But it is unclear what people are supposed to do when it is activated. As a result, the EU is building a playbook for how to do that.

A Few Observations

I have slightly adjusted my views on some of the prophecies Solana has fulfilled. Some have been completely fulfilled. Others have been fulfilled in an “incipient” or “preview” form. These are not general or non-specific prophecies. On the contrary, they occur throughout the central Daniel prophecies that describe him.

“Preview” or “partial” fulfillment is totally acceptable theologically, especially considering the way the New Testament does prophecy. Has the “kingdom of God” already come? Or is it still coming? The answer is “Yes” to both! Jesus launched the kingdom of God in an inaugural form at His first coming, prior to its full realization at the Second Coming. We didn’t know that he would launch it in its initial form separate from its final realization. In the same way, the resurrection of Jesus is the inauguration of the broader end time resurrection that has not happened yet. (1 Corinthians 15:20).

Gaps are a common theme in prophecy. I analyzed the prophecies about Antiochus IV and Alexander the Great. When the passage portrays something as decisive, it is often describing the prophetic outcome. Not the long and messy political process to get there. This fits with the Solana situation, as there is a gap in his career with fits and starts in the whole process.

Waiting on God

God has made us wait many years to see any culmination of this “theory.” Many have waited much longer than I have. Whether you agree with me on prophecy or not, I have immense respect for all of you for keeping watch on the wall all these years. Someday, we will all meet in person at the Great Reunion at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

Nevertheless, Paul says that everyone who has faith in Jesus has faith like Abraham and follows in his steps (see Romans 4). That is true of all believers in Jesus. But the fact that we had to wait for God to fulfill his promises in this specific instance is very reminiscent of the lengthy wait that Abraham went through. Indeed, many Biblical figures waited decades for God to finally fulfill His promise. He uses that to build our character, as unpleasant as it is.

But God is a promise keeper. There comes a day when He makes good on His word, long after we’ve thought it was impossible. The rebirth of the Roman Empire and the rebirth of Israel itself are indications of how God operates in this manner. God is the one who raises the dead and calls the impossible, possible.

He might be doing the same with the Solana issue. Whether or not Solana will go on to become the Antichrist is totally in the hands of God, as God sets up kings and deposes them (see Daniel 4:17). This is true of the Antichrist too, since it is God who incites the ten kings to give their sovereignty to the beast (Revelation 17:17).

Thankfully, God will make good on His promise that we will be with Him forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17-18). In that, we can take immense encouragement.

Would love to hear from you all in the comments. Do you agree? Disagree? Any additional thoughts? Either way, I’d love to hear from you!!

Blessings to you all. Come Lord Jesus.

-Dave

Recently, President Donald Trump has threatened to leave the NATO alliance.1

NATO is the military alliance where an attack on one country is viewed as an attack on them all. For years, the US has provided protection to Europe in this alliance, in exchange for being able to project power throughout the world.

However, President Donald Trump has become increasingly frustrated with the lack of defense spending on the part of the NATO allies in Europe. This is why he has recently threatened to leave the alliance.

Whether he can do this legally is up for debate. Regardless, he could effectively end the NATO alliance, either by withdrawing or refusing to send troops if an ally is attacked.

What do I think will happen as a result? As strange as it may sound, I think the Bible has the answer.

But first, some important background.

Background

Daniel 7 describes a ferocious beast with ten horns on its head. Bible scholars almost unanimously identify the fourth beast as the Roman Empire. It was terrifying and extremely strong, just like the passage describes.

This is what he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and will devour the whole earth and trample it down and crush it. (Daniel 7:23)

In Daniel 7, the Antichrist rises to power as a little horn among ten horns on the head of this beast. He humbles three in his rise to power.

While I was thinking about the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the previous horns were plucked out before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like human eyes, and a mouth uttering great boasts. (Daniel 7:7-8)

Then he goes on to boast against God and persecute God’s people for three and a half years. This is none other than the end-time Antichrist.

I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and prevailing against them, ²² until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom. (Daniel 7:21-22)

The text says that the ten horns represent ten kings that will come from the Roman Empire. This fits well with the ten nation Western European Union military alliance. In 1995, the Western European Union military alliance became 10 countries. It remained 10 countries until its closure in 2011.2

Later in 1999, Javier Solana was appointed to be the first European Union High Representative, while simultaneously being the Secretary-General of the 10-nation alliance.

He arose after the ten-nation alliance was in place and had less power than them. This fits the image of the little horn rising up among ten larger horns.

The EU high representative was supposed to represent the European Union on the world stage. However, a group of three countries, known as the E3, wanted to conduct EU foreign policy on their own. They were even accused of a “power grab” when holding a special meeting on the EU’s future, without the other members present.3

This was especially true regarding Iran’s nuclear program in the early 2000’s. Initially, they left Solana behind. But after some countries complained, Solana was added to the negotiating team.4

Yet on 06/06/06, Solana became leader of the group. He was seen across major news outlets, presenting a deal that the Iranians could potentially accept.5

This fits what Daniel 7 says the Antichrist will do.

As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will humble three kings. (Daniel 7:24)

Solana humbled the E3 by becoming their leader, even though they originally wanted to work without him. He gradually replaced the E3 as the leader of the Iran negotiations.6

Though this fulfills the interpretation found in Daniel 7:24, some are not convinced that it exhausts the whole prophecy, as the little horn is said to cause three of the ten kings to be “plucked out” (Daniel 7:8).

Interestingly, the E3 group have experienced a revival in 2025.7 But the leaders of France, Germany, and the UK have very low approval ratings at home. Therefore, a return of Solana to an official position, such as a newly created President of Europe, may destabilize them politically so much that they have to step down. The fact that this is a process, and not an instant, is consistent with how prophecy often works.

Fast Forward to 2026

Solana is still active in think tanks and has a strong desire to influence EU politics. He is very frustrated with the current situation. Regarding European unification, he said “I don’t want to die like this.”8 This man has clearly tied up his legacy with the fate of the European Union.

Nevertheless, Solana has since stepped down from formal politics. Despite being in apparently good health, he is nearly 84 years old. Furthermore, the Western European Union dissolved as an organization in favor of the broader European Union in 2011.

Therefore, some have very understandably abandoned the idea that he may fulfill the remaining prophecies about the Antichrist. However, I believe the Bible may anticipate this present crisis with NATO and may even describe how Solana will return to power.

Current Events Commentary on Revelation 17:12-18

Below, I will provide a brief commentary on how I think the last part of Revelation 17 may pertain to the current situation:

12 The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour.

Javier Solana ruled alongside the 10 nation WEU alliance from 1999-2009.9

13 These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast.

From 2000-2001, the WEU transferred their military functions to the European Union under the leadership of Javier Solana. From now on, any mission that the WEU would have done would now be chaired by the EU.10 As a result, the EU conducted numerous military operations under the flag of the EU while Solana was in office.11

14 These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

This reinforces that the alliance of the ten kings would have a military dimension, since they wage “war” against Jesus at Armageddon.

It seems the message of the ten kings would conclude here. But it does not.

15 And he *said to me, “The waters which you saw where the prostitute sits are peoples and multitudes, and nations and languages.

This refers to the ethnic diversity of the prostitute. As we will see, the prostitute represents a city that is an economic superpower on the coast of the sea (Revelation 18). If the WEU are European countries from the revived Roman Empire, it follows that this city is New York City, and by extension, the United States.

¹⁶ And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the prostitute and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire.

The 10 countries of the WEU will hate New York City, and by extension, the U.S.A. Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to leave the NATO alliance, which guarantees the security of European nations in the event of an attack. Furthermore, the EU and the US have very strong tensions when it comes to trade.12

This hatred intensifies to the point where the revived Roman Empire will do a nuclear attack on the U.S. “Burn her up with fire” refers to the total destruction of the city by fire in a single day (Revelation 18:8) This likely refers to a nuclear attack.

¹⁷ For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.

God puts it into the hearts of the ten kings to transfer their “kingdom” (ESV: “royal power”) to the beast, until they destroy the city. Previously, the ten gave their functional ability (“power and authority”) to the beast. But “kingdom” is stronger language, implying total sovereignty.

The 10 nations who were once part of the WEU will hate New York City/USA so much that they will transfer their sovereignty to Javier Solana. This will certainly give him the authority to launch a nuclear attack on their behalf. Interestingly, the leader of the largest party in European parliament has called for an EU-level nuclear deterrent.13

¹⁸ The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

This city has great political power over the world. As mentioned before, it is an economic superpower. All kinds of commodities trading happen within the city, which fits New York City quite well (Revelation 18:11-16). Furthermore, everyone who makes their living at sea will weep at its fall.

As a result, I expect the reunification of the 10-nation military alliance, which was dissolved in favor of the EU in 2011. This makes perfect sense in this climate, because the WEU was a mutual defense alliance for Western Europe, just like NATO is for the North Atlantic area. Perhaps they will dust off the old Treaty of Brussels if Trump pulls out of NATO. 14

Furthermore, there are already calls to make a single president of Europe.15 16 Europe has two main presidents (and a high representative) which frequently get into conflict with one another. Perhaps the person in charge of the newly reborn group of ten nations will also be made President of Europe.

Summary of Revelation 17:12-18

I will summarize my interpretation of Revelation 17:12-18 using brackets to identify the different characters and actions. Note, the items in brackets are NOT part of the original text but are simply my interpretation.

The ten horns which you saw are ten kings [Western European Union] who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast [co-rule with the Antichrist] for one hour. ¹³ These have one purpose, and they give their power [military capabilities] and authority [authority to lead operations] to the beast [Antichrist, head of revived Roman Empire].

¹⁴ These will wage war against the Lamb [at the battle of Armageddon], and the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

¹⁵ And he *said to me, “The waters which you saw where the prostitute [New York City/USA] sits are peoples and multitudes, and nations and languages [the city is ethnically diverse]. ¹⁶ And the ten horns [former WEU countries] which you saw, and the beast [Javier Solana?], these will hate the prostitute and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire [nuclear attack]. ¹⁷ For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose [common security and defense policy], and by giving their kingdom [sovereignty] to the beast [Javier Solana?], until the words of God will be fulfilled. ¹⁸ The woman whom you saw is the great city [coastal economic superpower], which reigns over the kings of the earth [has global political influence].” (Revelation 17:12-18; my comments in brackets)

June 2026

In the past, prophecies have often happened on dates with three sixes in them. For example, Solana humbled the E3 on the world stage on 06/06/06. Furthermore, he presented to European parliament on how the EU can become a military power on 06/16/16. If this is precedent of any kind, he may be nominated or appointed to some position in June 2026. Though highly speculative, it is worth watching, given the political situation.

Javier Solana recently became an honorable member of the European Order of Merit.17 This is basically a hall-of-fame for people who helped with European unification. The award is given out by the European Parliament. The ceremony will be sometime in late May, and Solana will presumably be there in Strasbourg to accept the award.

Perhaps that will be a great networking opportunity for him. Perhaps this will coincide with the end of NATO and a brand-new European military alliance. You never know these days…

Come Lord Jesus.

The book of Daniel is one of the best starting points for learning about end-time prophecy. It is cited frequently by Jesus in his discourse on the end of the age (Matt. 24-25). Furthermore, it has a disproportionate influence on the book of Revelation, especially relative to its size.1

A big question people often have is if we are to interpret prophecy literally, figuratively, or somewhere in between. Thankfully, the book of Daniel shows us how to interpret end time prophecy with a very strong degree of precision.

In addition to end time predictions, Daniel also contains prophecies that have already been fulfilled. For example, Daniel predicted Alexander the Great’s defeat of Persia and the dynasties that succeeded his empire after his death (Dan. 8; 11). Daniel also predicted the coming of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was a horrible persecutor of the Jews (Dan. 8; 11).2

All these prophecies were written in the book of Daniel over 500 years before the time of Christ.3 The Daniel prophecies about Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV Epiphanes and others were fulfilled hundreds of years later.4 5 Yet these fulfillments still preceded Jesus’ earthly ministry by centuries.

By studying how these prophecies actually turned out in history, we can determine if Daniel intended these prophecies to be taken literally, figuratively, or somewhere in between. As we will see, prophecies about Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV, and others were, for the most part, literally fulfilled in history.

The Prophetic Storyline of Daniel 11

One major example of this is Daniel chapter 11, which is the most detailed and precise prophecy in the entire Bible. The first five verses of the chapter predict Persian king Xerxes’ antagonism against Greece, the rise of Alexander the Great, as well as the four successors who replaced him. 6

Verses 6-20 go on to give an incredibly detailed account of wars back and forth between the “king of the South” and the “king of the North.” These refer to the Syrian Wars, which took place between the Seleucid Empire north of Israel and the Ptolemaic Empire, which was south of Israel. 7

Verses 21-35 describe that wicked persecutor of the Jews, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It goes into great detail about his military campaigns and his attempts to lure the Jews into idolatry. He ultimately set up an altar to Zeus on the altar of the Jewish temple, in an event known as the “abomination of desolation.” After a successful Jewish revolt, the temple was rededicated. Today, this is celebrated as Hanukkah.8

All these prophecies came true in a literal fashion. As a result, the remaining 10 verses in the chapter ought to be interpreted in a relatively literal fashion as well.

Verses 35-39 suddenly shift to a figure who exalts himself above every god. The text emphasizes that he won’t even honor the gods of his ancestors but will boast against them all. Furthermore, he honors a “god of fortresses” (military might) with financial means and promotes people based on their willingness to support his cause.9

His battles in verses 40-45 are much more sweeping and grandiose than those of Antiochus IV or his predecessors. After being attacked, this self-exalting figure goes on a rampage through many countries, ultimately invading Israel and taking control over northern Africa. While preoccupied in Egypt, he responds to bad reports north and east of Israel. On the way north, he sets up shop in Israel and is ultimately defeated there.10

Yet this poses a problem. The battles in verses 40-45 do not correspond well to history. This man’s defeat does not correspond to Antiochus IV, since Antiochus did not meet his end in the Holy Land.11

Furthermore, the arrogance of this figure goes above and beyond even Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Antiochus IV made coins that called himself “god manifest.” 12 However, he clearly honored the gods of his ancestors, since he tried to get people to worship Zeus. Though Antiochus IV probably was perhaps claiming to be Zeus “manifest,” he still honored the gods of the Greek pantheon.

To try to make these verses fit into history, we could consider giving them more interpretive leeway than the preceding verses. Yet this immediately raises the question as to why we would change our method of interpretation two thirds into a chapter, when no change in literary genre is indicated. To “change horses midstream” is a rather unsatisfying and ultimately, inadmissible solution.

The rest of the book of Daniel, and even the apostle Paul, can give us clues to the interpretation of this figure. Paul alludes to Daniel 11:36 and speaks of an extremely boastful figure who exalts himself above every god, even to the point of sitting in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). Paul goes on to say that he will be personally destroyed by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming (2 Thess. 2:8).

This end time interpretation fits well with the rest of the book of Daniel, which speaks of the general resurrection of the dead which happens around the time that this wicked figure is operating (Dan. 12:2). Furthermore, just before the mentioning of this terrible monarch, the text pivots to the “end time” (Dan. 11:35).

We can thus conclude that the end of Daniel 11 describes a literal wicked king who will be defeated by God in the end times. If prophecies of Antiochus IV and Alexander are literal, then so too are the prophecies of this particular villain.

Historical Fulfillment in Daniel 8

All this is fine and dandy when it comes to prophecies which are presented literally. But Daniel contains visions of beasts and horns, representing empires and kings. So how are we supposed to interpret these symbols, which are clearly not literal in nature?

As it turns out, we can use the same process to interpret Daniel’s visions. We can take the imagery and the angel’s interpretation of the vision and compare how these actually turned out in history. Daniel 8 is an excellent case study for this.

In his vision, Daniel sees a ram with two horns charging around in an undefeated manner (Dan. 8:4). Then, a goat with a big horn on its head charges the ram and violently defeats it (Dan. 8:5-7). However, the big horn on the goat’s head is broken, causing four horns to rise up in its place (Dan. 8:8).

A little horn then arises from one of the four horns, growing very great in multiple directions. This horn opposes God and desecrates the Jewish temple. However, the sanctuary is properly restored after a set period of time (Dan. 8:9-14).

The angel interprets this for Daniel, saying that the ram with two horns represent the “kings of Media and Persia” (Dan. 8:20). Therefore, the ram represents the Medo-Persian empire. However, the shaggy goat attacks the Medo-Persian ram, totally defeating it. The big horn on the goat’s head represents the “first king” in the Greek empire, corresponding to Alexander the Great (Dan. 8:21).

Nevertheless, the big horn on the head of the goat is broken, representing the death of Alexander. The four horns represent his four successors who came up in his place during the Hellenistic period. (Dan. 8:22; 11:3-4)

Finally, the little horn represents a cunning king that opposes God and hurls truth to the ground. Despite opposing God, he is defeated without human intervention (Dan. 8:23-26). This last king corresponds to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Though he opposed God and persecuted the Jews, he died from an illness outside of Israel.13

Just like how the prophecies of Alexander and Antiochus IV literally came true in Daniel 11, so too, the angel’s interpretation of these events literally came true. Furthermore, the imagery corresponds to what happened in history.

For example the ram, representing Medo-Persia, had two horns, with the longer horn coming up last. This corresponds to the lop-sided nature of the Medo-Persian empire, which came to be dominated by the Persian side during its heyday.14 Furthermore, the broken horn on the goat represents the death of Alexander. Finally, the little horn that came up out of one of the four horns represents how Antiochus IV came from one of the four kingdoms that succeeded Alexander.15

End Time Prophecy in Daniel 7

Daniel 7 describes one of Daniel’s visions which contain a lot of the same themes as Daniel 8. Both involve a series of animals leading up to a final antagonist. Furthermore, the last animal has a little horn coming up from among other horns, similar to Daniel 8. Both of these little horns represent a villain who persecutes God’s people for approximately 3 years until they are ultimately defeated.

Despite their thematic similarities, they have several important differences. Daniel 8 only describes two animals in a series, a ram and a goat. However, Daniel 7 describes four beasts in a series. In Daniel 8, the last beast has a little horn that comes up out of one of the four horns. Yet in Daniel 7, a little horn arises from among ten horns, not out of one of the four horns as in Daniel 8.

The identities of these four empires are relatively uncontroversial. Daniel 2 also presents the same four kingdoms, from a different angle. In that passage, the first kingdom in the sequence is Babylon. Furthermore, Daniel 5 tells us that the Medo-Persian empire succeeded the Babylonian empire. As we saw before, Daniel 8 tells us that Alexander’s Greek empire succeeded Medo-Persia. This leaves the fourth and last kingdom, which is the Roman Empire. It defeated the Greek empire and was terrifying and violent, just like Daniel 7 describes.

Just like in Daniel 8, there is a direct historical correspondence between the characteristics of the animals in Daniel 7 and the empires they represent. This, among other reasons, is why commentators are in wide agreement that the fourth beast represents the Roman Empire.16

Daniel 8 and Daniel 7 are very similar types of literature that have similar themes. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to interpret Daniel 8 with one method of interpretation, only to abandon that method in the previous chapter. This is particularly true, given that the beasts in Daniel 7 correspond to history in the same way that the animals in Daniel 8 do.

But just like in Daniel 11, we run into a situation where the last part of the vision in chapter 7 has not been literally fulfilled. Daniel 7 states that ten horns, representing ten kings, will come from the fourth beast, which is the Roman Empire (Daniel 7:23). Then a little horn rises up among the ten, uprooting three in the process (Dan. 7:7-8). The angel interprets this for Daniel, saying that this king will “humble” three of the original ten in his rise to power (Dan. 7:23-24). We can already see that this does not correspond to Roman history.

The text of Daniel 7 says that this little horn goes on to boast against God and persecute God’s people. Yet he is violently destroyed when God sets up an eternal kingdom, led by the Messiah (Dan. 7:11-14). In this new kingdom, all empires and rulers are in submission to God and his people (Dan. 7:27). Once again, this cannot apply to the fall of the Roman Empire, since it gradually disintegrated.17

Just like with the wicked figure in Daniel 11, we can find clues in the New Testament about the nature of this wicked man. In context, this final ruler is defeated when the “son of man” comes “on the clouds of heaven” as Daniel 7:13 says. He goes on to receive a kingdom where all nations worship him (Dan. 7:24).

“Son of man” is probably the most common title that Jesus used for Himself throughout the four Gospels. Furthermore, Jesus uses the language of the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven to describe his Second Coming in Matthew 24:30. Finally, the beast with ten horns reemerges in Revelation 13 and 17, only to be defeated by Jesus Christ during the battle of Armageddon (Rev. 19). These would lead us to believe that the final ruler of the Roman Empire in Daniel 7 is defeated in the end times, not during the historical Roman Empire.

Focus on Outcomes, Not Gaps or Processes

Though prophecies in Daniel are fulfilled in a consistently literal manner, there are some nuances to keep in mind. For example, Bible prophecies Daniel tend to only describe political outcomes. The prophecies deliberately leave out large gaps of time and the messy historical processes that led up to those outcomes. There are several examples of this within Daniel.

First, Daniel 8 seems to describe Alexander’s fight against Persia as a violent and climactic defeat. However, Alexander actually spent over three years fighting three separate battles before finally defeating the Persians.18 This supports the idea that the vision is emphasizing the outcome of Alexander’s battles, not the drawn-out military campaigns that led to the defeat of the Persians.

Second, both Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 make it seem like Alexander’s four successors replaced him immediately after he died. Yet his potential successors battled for over 20 years before finally landing in the Hellenistic world’s four-part division after the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C. 19

Third, Antiochus IV is said to come up out of one of the four horns. This is true, since he came up from the Seleucid Empire, which was one of the four kingdoms that succeeded Alexander. But the four-part configuration of the Hellenistic world had long ended by that point.20

In the same vein, prophecies often skip large gaps of time that are irrelevant to the final historical outcome. For example, Daniel 11:2-5 talks about the first four kings after Darius the Mede, ending with Xerxes, who would be far richer than the previous three and would provoke Greece. Then, it starts talking about a “mighty king” who we know to be Alexander the Great.

However, the prophecy skipped about 6 kings between Xerxes and Alexander, since it wasn’t part of the author’s literary goals.21 Yet this is not misleading, since the text never says that Alexander came immediately after Xerxes.

All these show a focus on the outcome, not the intervening political processes leading up to the outcome. The author skips irrelevant time gaps and historical details in order to focus on how things will turn out at the end of each process.

This nuance helps inform our literal understanding of end-time prophecy in Daniel. For example, it helps us understand why there is a huge gap of time between the historical Roman Empire and the defeat of its final villain in Daniel 7. The prophecy did not mention this gap of time. However, this does not mean a gap is absent, as Daniel 11:2-4 indicates.

Furthermore, the rise to power of the little horn in Daniel 7 may not be as smooth and seamless as some theologians portray. On the contrary, it will involve messy historical processes, the historical outcome of which will involve a relatively insignificant king rising to power, humbling and (possibly replacing) three of the original ten kings in the process.

Conclusion

We have seen how a consistent method of interpretation leads us to believe in literal end time prophecies about a terrible villain who will emerge in the end times, only to be defeated by Christ at the Second Coming. This rules out interpretations such as preterism, which see these as having already been fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. It also rules out allegorical interpretations which see these as descriptions of the history of the church.

This has large implications for our interpretation of other passages, such as those found in Matthew 24, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation. As it turns out, the use of Daniel by Jesus, Paul, and John in the book of Revelation does not diminish the idea that these are literal future events. On the contrary, it greatly amplifies that notion.

Someone needs to do an academic study on groupthink in EU political institutions. What happened in 2016, where everyone started adopting the same language as Javier Solana about EU defense, is happening again.1

Does this mean they consulted together? Or that groups start to have a shared language when they come to an agreement? I don’t know.

For those who are new to this website, former EU official Javier Solana has a history of doing things that appear to be connected to Bible prophecy. Furthermore, the European Union is shaping up to be the revived Roman Empire anticipated by the book of Daniel in the Bible.

Lately, Javier Solana (83) hasn’t been active on the political scene. But he’s been much more forceful in his language when giving talks and interviews. In YouTube videos and articles, he consistently says the following:

1. EU should build a defense system in the same way it built the euro. Those who are ready to move ahead and unify this way should do so, without waiting for all 27 EU states to agree. The others can come later if they want to. He sees the “Coalition of the Willing” as a positive development in this direction.2 3 4 5 6 7

2. He consistently emphasizes (sometimes in a blunt manner!) that the EU needs to stop talking, stop making reports and plans, etc. We already have the plans, he says. He says what is needed now is implementation. He would say that the time for talking is over, and that the time for doing is now.89

3. He consistently emphasizes that he is going to help get this done as long as he has breath still in him.10 He even said “I don’t want to die this way” with respect to EU unification.11

Let us compare this language to two high-level individuals. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez and EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius.

Spanish Prime Minister: Europe Needs Military Unification without Unanimous Agreement

Just yesterday, the Prime Minister of Spain made the same recommendation.

“Faced with this situation, Europe must move forward in its integration process and equip itself with a truly common defence. And for this we do not need the unanimous agreement of the 27 member states. We can move forward a series of countries in this integration process towards a truly European Armed Forces, with a truly European defence industry, and we can build bridges with other countries in the world that are also very concerned about what is happening. Europe must move.”12

This echoes what Sanchez’s foreign minister had been discussing last week. He suggested using the “Coalition of the Willing” to build a European army. He too emphasized that Europe should move forward with this plan, even if not all countries are ready to commit. This nucleus will act as an “embryo” for this new European military force.

“The proposal, promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs led by José Manuel Albares, consists of creating a coalition of volunteers within the European Union. It would be a group of countries willing to integrate military capabilities in a coordinated way as the embryo of future European Armed Forces, without forcing all the partners to participate from the beginning.”13

Apparently, other EU countries are very open to the idea.

“According to the minister, he has discussed the project of a voluntary body of European partners with some of his counterparts and ‘many of them think in exactly the same terms’ as Spain.”14

It is quite plausible that the Spanish government has been in contact with Solana in this regard. Javier Solana is a well-respected veteran member of the PSOE (socialist party) in Spain. The Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, is himself a PSOE member.15 16

In any case, the Spanish government either spoke to Solana, or they are experiencing some kind of political groupthink.

EU Defense Commissioner: Europe Needs European Security Council with “10-12” Members

It’s less surprising that Pedro Sanchez and the Spanish government would take this line. What is more surprising is that the EU’s primary defense official is vigorously calling for a very similar thing.

EU Defense Commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, called for a European army to replace the backbone of U.S. troops in Europe, in the event the U.S. pulls away.17 This is especially urgent, given Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland.

Kubilius has made not one, but two speeches over the course of a week, calling for a “European Security Council” with “10-12” members in total.18 19

This would include both the UK and EU leadership (which would represent 1-2 seats, depending on if both the Commission and Council get a seat). This would upgrade the current ad hoc coalition into an official military body.20 If implemented, this Security Council might have 10 member countries + the EU leadership (11 or 12 in total).

Kubilius, like Solana, also said that the time for talking is over, and that existing plans should be implemented.

“So that is now the first task - to have a proper platform of European Security Council. I would like to repeat - the most important challenge now is not how to develop new ideas on European independence in defence, but how to realize existing ones.”21

In recent talks, Kubilius even referenced the same phrasing as Solana used in his 2015 paper on defense. Last October, Kubilius said in another speech:

“Common defence! When, if not now?”22

This phrase was something of Solana’s rallying cry during his 2015-2016 tour through European capitals pushing for a European defense union.23 Back then, Solana repeatedly said:

“If not now, when?”24 25

In fact, the term “European defense union” doesn’t seem to have been widely used until Solana introduced it in his report. 2627

This all goes to show that institutional groupthink is emerging once again. Whether Solana is the direct instigator, or if they all just started copying one another remains to be seen.

Massive Crisis in NATO Over Greenland

Why is this all happening now? The U.S. is trying to acquire Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark. Denmark is a NATO member. Trump has not ruled out using military force to get the island.28 Therefore, Trump’s threats on Greenland amount to the NATO alliance’s most important member (USA) threatening to attack another.

If he were to invade Greenland, it would be completely unprecedented. The NATO treaty doesn’t even have a scenario where one NATO member attacks another. Therefore, many experts believe that such an attack would end the military alliance, where an attack on one is viewed as an attack on all.29 30

Military Unification of Ten Kings in Revelation

This has an uncanny relationship to what the Bible says.

And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the prostitute and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 17:16-18)

Here, the ten kings give their kingdom (i.e. sovereignty) to the beast (Antichrist) because they hate “the prostitute.” Who is the prostitute? It is a city that is an economic superpower on the coast of the sea (Revelation 18:19). Because of their hate for the city, the ten give away their sovereignty to the Antichrist, in order to destroy the city by fire (see also Revelation 18:8).

Destroying someone by fire involves military unity, not just economic unity. Therefore, the ten give their military power to the Antichrist, including, apparently, the nuclear launch codes. All this happens due to God’s plan; to punish the great city for the role it will play in the end time persecution of God’s people.

The city is likely New York City, and by extension, the United States. Hatred of the United States is causing military unification in Europe. This unification is plausibly going to involve 10 nations + the EU leadership.

Who Will Lead this New Military Body?

There has been talk of merging the two EU President positions (Commission and Council) into one super-president. The Italian foreign minister and some in the European Parliament are in favor of this. 31 32

Interpersonal conflict between the two positions have historically involved “institutional turf wars.” 33 This is exactly what you don’t want if you are trying to stand up to the USA and “speak with one voice.”34

It is theoretically possible that the current EU Commission President could be replaced. Consider the fact that the EU Commission president has been having a pretty rough second term.35 By the end of the week, she will have faced four no-confidence votes in just 7 months.36 Her political allies in EU parliament are increasingly frustrated with her. 37

Furthermore, her trade deal with the U.S. amounted to a serious capitulation. She is not showing the desired strength in the face of U.S. pressure and hardball negotiating tactics.38

Therefore, it’s entirely plausible that the President of the European Security Council would be made the President of the EU Commission as well. And EU Commission President Von Der Leyen is acting too weak for that. They would likely find someone else if they were to fill both roles with one person.

Conclusion

None of this has happened in a vacuum. Bible prophecy has been underway in the European Union since the mid-1990’s. In a future post, I will explore that history and how it might have a very tight connection to what we are seeing today…and what we might see in the very near future.

Come Lord Jesus!

For those who follow the rise of the revived Roman Empire in Europe, things are getting quite interesting. Here’s why:

Summary

1. EU defense official Andrius Kubilius has called for a “European Security Council” (ESC) with “10-12” members in total.

2. The E3 (France, Germany, and UK) have experienced a revival.

3. The relationship between EU and the US is souring very quickly, causing military unification in Europe.

We will take each of these in turn:

10 members on the European Security Council?

The European Security Council would include the UK and the EU leadership, such as the President of the Council and President of the Commission. It would be composed of some permanent and some rotating members.

According to EU defense commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, it should contain “10-12” members in total.1 It is meant to be analogous to the UN Security Council, where major decisions are made by the big players to quickly make decisions in time of crisis.

The ESC is not a new idea. Both Macron (President of France) and Angela Merkel (former chancellor of Germany) called for this a few years ago.23 The Martens Centre think-tank proposed a 10-member model back in 2019 as well.4

In addition, there has been talk of merging the EU Council President and the EU commission president positions into one super-President of the EU. Notably, some in EU parliament and the Foreign Minister of Italy currently support this idea. 56

If we go with 12 ESC members, merge the 2 EU presidents, you got your 10 members + 1 President format right there.

This is significant for those watching Bible prophecy, as the final Roman beast empire is composed of a group of 10 kings (Daniel 7:24, Revelation 17:12-18). These 10 ultimately give their sovereignty to the Antichrist, who is the last king of the Roman Empire. (see Daniel 7:24-25, 9:26-27).

Three Kings in the Driver’s Seat

Furthermore, you have the return of the E3 group which was very prominent back in the mid-2000’s. They played a major role in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. 7

The UK is part of the E3. The E3 plays a big role in the “coalition of the willing” which is supposedly going to put troops on the ground to enforce a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

However, there’s already complaints that the E3 are taking too much of a driver’s seat in the “coalition of the willing.”8 9 Furthermore, each leader of the E3 has political troubles back home.10

One could easily see how a new EU president could encounter resistance from a hesitant E3 as he rises to power. Furthermore, this group of three could be replaced with new leadership if the Antichrist is able to sideline them during his rise to supremacy in Europe.

Perhaps they would be replaced by heads of state or government who are loyal to the Antichrist. If this were to happen, you would have 3 out of 10 European states which would be part of a military system of 10 European countries.

Daniel 7:7-8 and 7:24 agree that the Antichrist will “humble” (NASB2020) three out of ten kings in his rise to power. In the imagery, 3 of the 10 kings (represented by horns on the head of a beast) are actually uprooted during that rise to power. This implies that the result of the humbling process may involve their replacement with loyalist leadership.

The Revelation beast continues to have 10 kings all the way until the battle with Jesus at Armageddon (Revelation 17:12-14), so this is one way to harmonize the idea that 3 are humbled/replaced in some way, but those 10 kings remain until the final battle.

Europe-US Tensions

The book of Revelation provides information about the Antichrist and ten kings that the book of Daniel does not provide. In particular, the ten kings and the Antichrist hate a great city (Babylon the Great) that has immense economic and political power in the world. (Revelation 17:16-18:24). This city is apparently on the coast of the sea. (Rev. 18:17-19)

The text implies that the beast and the city were previously allies. The city is represented as a prostitute, and the Antichrist and his ten kings are represented by a beast with ten horns. Earlier in chapter 17, the woman is riding the beast. This implies an alliance of some kind.

But that takes a dark turn.

The ten kings hate for the city so much that they give over their sovereignty to the Antichrist, in order to destroy the city. All this is part of God’s plan, to judge that city’s role for its persecution of Christians in the end times (as well as past eras).

Destroying a city with fire involves a military attack, and possibly nuclear, since the city is completely obliterated with fire very quickly (see Revelation 18:8). This is analogous to how God used the Medes as his instrument of judgment on historical Babylon (Jeremiah 51:11).

I suggest to you that this is exactly what we are seeing with the US and EU. On this interpretation, the city represents New York City (and by extension, the United States) and the Antichrist is the head of the ten-king revived Roman Empire (group of 10 European states).

NATO is the alliance that has held the US and Europe together for so long. But now, that is beginning to fracture.

The EU has long been dependent on the U.S. for its protection. In that way, the U.S. has taken the lead. However, this is changing fast this past year, due to Trump’s policies towards Europe.

His desire to annex Greenland may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, as they are part of Denmark (an EU member). After all, if NATO attacks itself, is there any NATO left?11

This is precisely why the EU defense commissioner wants a plan in the event Europe has to go it alone. In effect, hatred of the U.S. seems to be driving European military unification, exactly as the Bible predicted.

Conclusion

It appears we have the possible emergence of a group of 10 countries, with 3 that want the driver’s seat, all uniting militarily because of their hatred of former ally. All that’s missing is a king, to subdue those three in his rise to power.

Time will tell, but things may be shaping up to fulfill Bible prophecy.

Come Lord Jesus!

(NOTE: A small section was added on Dec. 4, 2025, to increase the strength of the argument. You can jump straight to the new section by clicking here. Furthermore, this article received minor updates for clarity and grammar on that same day).

Where will the Antichrist come from?

Will the Antichrist come from a revived Roman Empire from Europe as most futurist scholars say? Or will he be a Muslim from a revived Ottoman Empire based in Turkey, as author Joel Richardson thinks?

In this article, I am going to make a positive case that the Antichrist will come from a revived Roman Empire. I will also provide a response Joel Richardson’s book, where he argues that the Antichrist will come from a revived Ottoman Empire. (He has kindly provided his book for free. You can read it here.)

Nothing in this article should be considered as an attack on Joel’s character. I do not know him personally, so I can’t vouch for him on that level. Nevertheless, I hear positive things about what he is doing for the kingdom.

Theological Assumptions

For purposes of our discussion, I am going to assume the “futurist” view, that a literal, blasphemous king will persecute God’s people in the end times. This wicked man will be personally defeated by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming.

This is in contrast to the preterist view, where those Antichrist passages are seen as referring to someone in the past (like Nero Caesar). I plan to evaluate and critique preterism in another post.

I also believe in Biblical inerrancy, namely, that everything God says is true. I realize this is not a given for some. I plan to write an article defending the authenticity of the prophecies in Daniel. But for purposes of this article, I am assuming that the Bible is completely true.

I will be using the NASB2020 Bible translation. The New American Standard Bible is well known for being one of the best word-for-word translations available. Regarding the Bible quotes, bear in mind the use of italics. As the Lockman Foundation website states:

In the NASB, italics are used to communicate to the reader words that are not found in the original language, but are implied in the original language or are needed for a complete thought in English.1

To be clear, I do not know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Where definitions are required, I will try to use a scholarly lexicon like The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) or A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). These lexicons incorporate word usage from other texts from the time period, both within and outside the Bible. I will use these when possible. Otherwise, I will use Hebrew/Greek interlinear.

Overview of Arguments in Favor of a Roman Antichrist

My positive case for a Roman Antichrist revolves around the following claims:

1) Rome is the Fourth Kingdom in an Ordinal Succession

The Roman Empire is the only political entity that qualifies as the “fourth” kingdom in Daniel’s four kingdom sequence of chapter 2 & 7. On the contrary, the Ottoman Empire cannot be considered the “fourth” kingdom on any system of counting, especially when ordinal succession is in view.

2) The Roman Empire Fits the Description of the Fourth Kingdom

The Roman Empire fits well with the description of the fourth kingdom in both Daniel 2 and 7. It’s terrifying strength, destructive nature, location on the Mediterranean Sea, and persecution of Israel fit with the symbols provided in those texts, as well as their interpretations. Comparisons to the Ottoman Empire are a moot point, as the Roman empire adequately fulfills the descriptions in Daniel 2 and 7.

3) The Antichrist Will Have Global Authority at the Peak of His Reign

The beginning of the Antichrist’s reign will be regional, centered around the Euro-Mediterranean area. Nevertheless, he gains authority over the entire planet at the height of his reign, due to military conquest and religious deception. This two-stage reign, among other things, provides the best explanation for the seven-kingdom sequence in Revelation 17. On the contrary, Richardson’s seven kingdom sequence is not the best explanation of the passage.

4) The “People of the Prince” Is Best Understood to be the Romans

Daniel 9:26-27 indicates that the Antichrist will come from the same people that would destroy the temple and Jerusalem. Most commentators believe this refers to the Romans, since they did this very thing in the year 70 A.D. Richardson contends that the Hebrew word for “people” always means an ethnic group, arguing that most of the soldiers at that siege were of Syrian, Arab or Middle Eastern descent. On the contrary, Hebrew usage of this word most naturally reads in a non-ethnic sense in Daniel 9:26.

5) The Antichrist Will Be Self-Deifying, Not Islamic

The Bible consistently shows that the Antichrist will exalt himself above every god or deity, including the true God. He will do this to such an extent that he will display himself as God in a rebuilt Jerusalem temple. Richardson argues that the Islamic Antichrist will stop short of actually deifying himself. On the contrary, the Bible overwhelmingly points to the self-deification of the Antichrist. In context, his service to the “god of fortresses” in Daniel 11:38 is best explained by the worship of military might rather than regard for a traditional deity like Allah.

6) The Northern Foe in the Bible is Distinct from the Antichrist

The Bible repeatedly speaks of a northern antagonist(s) who will be defeated in the end times. Richardson’s arguments attempting to equate this northern foe with the Antichrist are ultimately unsuccessful. Furthermore, equating Daniel’s “king of the North” with the Antichrist does not ultimately undermine the Roman thesis, as Rome occupied the areas directly north of Israel at the height of its reign. Finally, there is good reason to believe that the “king of the north” is distinct from the Antichrist.

1. Rome is the Fourth Kingdom

Daniel 2 and 7 describe four empires that rise up in world history, one after another. In chapter 2, Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar has a dream of a giant statue, with four parts of its body each made of different metals. Then a rock hits the feet of the statue, causing the whole thing to come tumbling down. In chapter 7, Daniel sees a vision of four beasts that rise up out of the “great sea,” one after another. The final beast is violently destroyed by God when he sets up a global kingdom, led by the Messiah.

Daniel 2 identifies the first empire as Babylon. Daniel 5 tells us that the Medo-Persian empire came after the Babylonian Empire. Furthermore, Daniel 8 says that Greece came after the Medo-Persian Empire. This leaves the fourth empire, which came after Greece. It was terrifying and violent, just like Daniel 7 describes.

Scholarly Consensus

A wide consensus of scholars, starting from the early church all the way to the present, identify the fourth empire as Rome. You can check out quotes from those scholars here.

Preterists say the prophecy of the fourth kingdom has been completely fulfilled in the historical Roman Empire. Others believe Roman Empire will revive in the end times, to be led by the Antichrist (as I do). Others (such as Lutherans) associate the fourth kingdom with the Papacy and the Roman Catholic church. Yet despite these differences, they all agree that Rome is the final kingdom in the four-kingdom sequence.

Richardson should be commended for his willingness to challenge the consensus on these issues where he thinks they are mistaken. Scholarly consensus does not make something true. However, the truth is often a reason why there is a scholarly consensus. I hope to demonstrate that the latter is true in this case.

Rome is the “fourth” kingdom in ordinal succession in both Daniel 2 & 7. To make sense of this, we first have to explore the two passages that discuss this sequence of four empires.

The Fourth Kingdom in Daniel 2

Let us take Daniel 2 for example:

³¹ “You, O king, were watching and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary radiance, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome. ³² The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its chest and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze, ³³ its legs of iron, and its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. ³⁴ You continued watching until a stone was broken off without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. ³⁵ Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed to pieces all at the same time, and they were like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the entire earth. (Daniel 2:31-35)

When he interprets the dream, Daniel explicitly states that the first kingdom is Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon.

³⁶ “This was the dream; and now we will tell its interpretation before the king. ³⁷ You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the honor; ³⁸ and wherever the sons of mankind live, or the animals of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has handed them over to you and has made you ruler over them all. You are the head of gold. (Daniel 2:36-38)

Daniel goes on to say that another kingdom would arise “after you.” Then a “third kingdom of bronze” would come after the second kingdom.

³⁹ And after you another kingdom will arise inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth. (Daniel 2:39)

Daniel very clearly is providing us an ordinal sequence of kingdoms. This is further reinforced by the fact that he goes on to discuss a “fourth kingdom.” Unlike the previous three empires, which are represented by one metal each, this final empire has two stages.

⁴⁰ Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; just as iron smashes and crushes everything, so, like iron that crushes, it will smash and crush all these things. ⁴¹ And in that you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it will be a divided kingdom; but it will have within it some of the toughness of iron, since you saw the iron mixed with common clay. ⁴² And just as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong, and part of it will be fragile. ⁴³ In that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another in their descendants; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not combine with pottery. (Daniel 2:40-43)

Nevertheless, God defeats the fourth empire and sets up an eternal, global kingdom in its place.

⁴⁴ And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. ⁴⁵ Just as you saw that a stone was broken off from the mountain without hands, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is certain and its interpretation is trustworthy.” (Daniel 2:44-45)

Below is a summary of how many futurists have interpreted the statue.

For context, here are some maps of each of those empires at their greatest extent.

#1 - The Neo-Babylonian Empire

#2 - The Medo-Persian (Achaemenid) Empire

#3 - The Greek (Macedonian) Empire

#4 - The Roman Empire

The Fourth Kingdom in Daniel 7

Daniel sees a vision of the same four empires (and their defeat by God) on another occasion. But this time, the kingdoms aren’t represented by metals of decreasing value. They are symbolized by four “beasts” that come up out of the great sea.

Daniel said, “I was looking in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. ³ And four great beasts were coming up from the sea, different from one another. ⁴ The first was like a lion but had the wings of an eagle. I kept looking until its wings were plucked, and it was lifted up from the ground and set up on two feet like a man; a human mind also was given to it. ⁵ And behold, another beast, a second one, resembling a bear. And it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth; and they said this to it: ‘Arise, devour much meat!’ ⁶ After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. ⁷ After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed, and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. (Daniel 7:1-7)

Furthermore, imagery in Daniel 7 matches what we know of these four empires.

The fourth kingdom is not described as any specific animal. It is terrifying, ruthless and extremely strong, breaking everything to pieces. This corresponds to the historical Roman Empire.

Rome’s Final King and Subsequent Defeat

However, the text goes on to describe political features of this beast that do not correspond well to history.

⁸ While I was thinking about the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the previous horns were plucked out before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like human eyes, and a mouth uttering great boasts. (Daniel 7:8)

This figure is none other than the end time Antichrist. He meets his fate when God sets up an eternal kingdom in its place, led by the Messiah.

¹¹ Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was killed, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire. ¹² As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time. (Daniel 7:11-2)

In the vision, Messiah Jesus comes “with the clouds of heaven” to rule the entire world in God’s new kingdom.

“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a son of man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
¹⁴ And to Him was given dominion,
Honor, and a kingdom,
So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)

Daniel is distressed by the vision. As a result, the angel provides a summary of its meaning:

¹⁷ ‘These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth. ¹⁸ But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and take possession of the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.’ (Daniel 7:17-18)

Nevertheless, Daniel is particularly curious about the fourth beast and its final ruler.

¹⁹ “Then I desired to know the exact meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its claws of bronze, and which devoured, crushed, and trampled down the remainder with its feet, ²⁰ and the meaning of the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, and before which three of the horns fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth uttering great boasts, and which was larger in appearance than its associates. ²¹ I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and prevailing against them, ²² until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom. (Daniel 7:19-22)

The angel further interprets this for Daniel, saying:

²³ “This is what he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and will devour the whole earth and trample it down and crush it. ²⁴ As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will humble three kings. ²⁵ And he will speak against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be handed over to him for a time, times, and half a time. ²⁶ But the court will convene for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever. ²⁷ Then the sovereignty, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the empires will serve and obey Him.’ (Daniel 7:23-27)

You can see how these correspond to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2 here.

We can be sure of the identity of the four empires for these reasons:

Revived Roman Empire vs Revived Islamic Caliphate

Since this Roman empire exists in the end times, many futurists believe that the Roman Empire will be “revived” before the return of Christ. In contrast, Joel Richardson believes that the Islamic Caliphate will be revived in the end times, only to be defeated by God at Jesus’ return. Since he views the fourth kingdom culminating in the Ottoman Empire, it is that empire, not the Roman Empire, which will be revived in the end times. As Richardson states:

These ten horns represent the revived Islamic Caliphate and correlate to the feet of iron and clay in Daniel 2.2

The Islamic Caliphate started in the 600’s A.D. and went until the early 1900’s. It went through a series of caliphs and caliphates, who were the legal successors to one another.

Rashidun Caliphate

Umayyad Caliphate

Abbasid Caliphate

Ottoman Caliphate (Empire)

The Roman Empire, not the Ottoman Empire, is the 4th Kingdom

The Roman Empire meets the texts requirements for being the fourth beast in ordinal succession, as Daniel 2 & 7 indicate. On the contrary, the Ottoman Empire is not the fourth kingdom on any system of counting.

In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar is told that another kingdom will come “after you.”

And after you another kingdom will arise inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth. (Daniel 2:39)

Many empires came “after” Babylon. But what does Daniel mean here? He means that empire succeeded, replaced, or conquered the previous one. This is the precedent set by the book of Daniel itself.

For example, Daniel 5 describes how the Babylonian kingdom would be given to the Medo-Persians.

²⁸ ‘Peres’—your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” (Daniel 5:28)

This happens the very night that Daniel gives the prophecy:

³⁰ That same night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. ³¹ So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at about the age of sixty-two. (Daniel 5:30-31)

What about the Medo-Persian empire? Who replaced, succeeded, or conquered them? This was none other than Alexander the Great’s Macedonian (Greek) Empire. In chapter 8, Daniel sees a vision of a Ram and a Goat. In this vision, the Ram (Greece) violently attacks the Goat and throws it down. In the interpretation, the angel indicates to Daniel that the vision represents the defeat of the Medo-Persians by Greece, and subsequent history.

This is why Daniel 2:39 describes it as the “third” kingdom. It was the third kingdom in a succession, after Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon.

To summarize what Daniel 2 says:

1. “You are the head of gold.”

2. “And after you another kingdom will arise inferior to you”

3. “then another third kingdom of bronze”

4. “Then there will be a fourth kingdom”

The same can be seen in Daniel 7. Regardless of who they represent, the four beasts are in an uninterrupted sequence.

1. “first was like a lion but had the wings of an eagle.”

2. “another beast, a second one, resembling a bear.”

3. “After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard”

4. “After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible”

It is not as if Daniel saw 5 or 6 beasts but only enumerated 4 of them. On the contrary, he saw four beasts in total, without any skipping. These are clearly in a temporal sequence by the counting (first, second, fourth) and the repeated use of “after this.” As it stands, the Ottoman Empire is not the “fourth” kingdom on any sequence of uninterrupted counting.

It is difficult to determine what is meant by “after you” in Daniel 2:39 without this succession criteria. These four civilizations actually overlapped one another in time. For example, the Medes and Persians existed before Babylon fell. The Greeks had always been there. Even the Roman civilization predated the Neo-Babylonian empire by hundreds of years. It was just not a hegemon at that point. If we don’t use this imperial succession criterion, our empire count gets tangled and confused.

This clearly sets a precedent for what is meant by “after.” In a chain of “who conquered who,” Rome is the clear fourth in an uninterrupted sequence of conquests.

On the contrary, the Ottoman Empire cannot be the fourth kingdom. It skips (one or two?) empires in between.

No Gaps in Ordinal Succession

Richardson believes that this “gap” is allowed, because gaps are a common feature in prophecy.3

…we frequently find in the Scriptures an intermingling of the historical and the future into one seamless passage.4

He is absolutely right about the presence of gaps. But there are not gaps in ordinal sequences like this.

Daniel 11:1-4 is a perfect example of a passage that uses a gap and a numbered sequence.

“In the first year of Darius the Mede, I arose to be of assistance and a protection for him. ² And now I will tell you the truth. Behold, three more kings are going to arise in Persia. Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them; as soon as he becomes strong through his riches, he will stir up the entire empire against the realm of Greece. ³ And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases. ⁴ But as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass, though not to his own descendants, nor according to his authority which he wielded, because his sovereignty will be removed and given to others besides them. (Daniel 11:1-4)

We know from Daniel 5 that “Darius the Mede” took the throne the moment the Babylonian empire fell. The text says that three more kings will arise in Persia. “More” implies in addition to the first one. As a result, we have this sequence:

“In the first year of Darius the Mede”

0. Cyrus the Persian /Darius the Mede

“three more kings are going to arise in Persia”

1. Cambyses II

2. Gaumata

3. Darius I

“Then a fourth will gain far more riches than all of them”

4. Xerxes I

Xerxes I was in fact, the fourth in an uninterrupted sequence of four kings in Persia.5 Yet this is not the case of the next king that is mentioned.

“And a mighty king will arise”

• Alexander the Great

There were approximately 6 more kings after Xerxes I until Alexander the Great.6 Yet despite being mentioned in the next sentence, Alexander is never called the “fifth” king.

“But as soon as he has arisen, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass”

After decades of fighting, Alexander’s successors stabilized into the four kingdoms of the Diadochi after the Battle of Ipsus in 301 B.C.7

• Diadochi:

  • Ptolemy I Soter

  • Cassander

  • Lysimachus

  • Seleucus I Nicator

Though gaps exist in prophecy, we cannot appeal to one when there is an ordinal succession of people or empires. Therefore, the Ottoman Empire cannot be the fourth kingdom.

2. Rome Meets the Description of the Fourth Kingdom

The Roman Empire meets the description of the fourth kingdom in both Daniel 2 and 7. The Ottoman may or may not meet some of these features as well. Nevertheless, this is a moot point, as the fourth empire in the sequence (Rome) adequately meets the criteria without having to resort to another candidate.

Dreadful, Terrible, and Extremely Strong

The Roman Empire was indeed dreadful, terrible, and exceedingly strong. This is most clearly indicated in Daniel 7.

⁷ After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed, and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. (Daniel 7:7)

The angel interprets this later on:

“This is what he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and will devour the whole earth and trample it down and crush it. (Daniel 7:23)

This is corroborated by Daniel 2, which says:

⁴⁰ Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; just as iron smashes and crushes everything, so, like iron that crushes, it will smash and crush all these things. (Daniel 2:40)

Adrian Goldsworthy is one of the most prominent historians of the Roman military. In his book, Pax Romana, he describes the ruthless ferocity of Roman conquests.

The Romans were warlike and aggressive, but that scarcely requires saying for empires are not created or maintained without violence. Precision is impossible, but we can confidently state that over the centuries millions died in the course of the wars fought by Rome, millions more were enslaved, and still more would live under Roman rule whether they liked it or not.8

Goldsworthy is quite aware of the nuances of this statement. In fact, his entire 500-page book is devoted to if the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) was a real thing. He agrees that it was. However, Rome’s aggression was the very reason such a peace existed within its borders. As he also says:

The conquered were given ‘Roman Peace’ whether they liked it or not, and the method was through the use or threat of military force,9

Goldsworthy is quite aware that there have been historically different views on Rome’s ferocity:

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – an era when modern empires had colonised much of the globe – many were ready to take the Romans’ own claims at face value. Faced with hostile neighbours, the Romans fought only to protect themselves, and so won conflict after conflict and acquired an empire almost accidentally.10

Nevertheless, he states that modern scholarship has swung to the opposite extreme.

More recently the pendulum swung to the opposite extreme, a view that crystallised among English-speaking academics in the years following the Vietnam War, and especially among scholars who had become adults in the decades after the Second World War. […] Any talk of defence was a sham, and the Romans were active and determined predators who attacked other peoples year after year.11

Goldsworthy agrees that the Romans were violent conquerors.

The Romans were warlike, aggressive imperialists, who exploited their conquests for their own benefit.12

Yet he adds a degree of nuance that other authors don’t have. He is well aware that the surrounding peoples were no better and would have done the same if they had the chance.

Rome was uniquely successful at war-making and empire-building, but other contemporary states and peoples time and again proved themselves every bit as aggressive and savage.13

Goldsworthy is not alone in his assessment that Rome was aggressive. In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, Dr. John Serrati writes:

Nevertheless, it is now generally accepted that the Romans were an aggressive imperialist power, even though not all of their wars fell into this pattern and not all of their aggression stemmed from conscious political choice.14

In another place, Serrati writes:

Rome was a society for which war and conquest were the norm, and it would not be too strong a statement to say that, during the early and mid Republic at least, the Romans were socialized to make war.15

Devouring, Crushing, and Trampling the Rest

Daniel 7 says that the fourth kingdom would be “devouring”, “crushing” and “trampling” the rest. The EBSCOhost Research Starter on Roman warfare states:

Under a strong general, the storming and plundering of a city proceeded by well-defined stages, announced by signals. First the troops slaughtered. Next they looted. Finally they disposed of their spoils, with the profits distributed equally among all the soldiers. More often, however, the general made little attempt to restrain them. They held the power of life and death, and they did whatever they wished to the inhabitants of a captured city. In these cases, of course, every soldier looted for himself, and everything he laid his hands on became his private property.16

There are several specific examples of this.

The Siege of Carthage

In the third Punic war, the Romans managed to wipe an entire Mediterranean civilization off of the map, never to rise again. The siege of Carthage resulted in significant casualties. As Encyclopedia Britannica notes:

Of a city population perhaps exceeding a quarter of a million, only 50,000 remained at the final surrender. The survivors were sold into slavery, the city was razed to the ground, and its site was condemned by solemn imprecations to lie desolate for ever. The territory of Carthage, which had recently been much narrowed by Masinissa’s encroachments, was converted into the Roman province of Africa.17

The Battle of Corinth

Corinth faced a similar (though less permanent) fate as Carthage. In the same year as the siege of Carthage, Corinth was destroyed by Roman general Lucius Mummius.1819

The Revolt of Spartacus

After a gladiator slave revolt led by Spartacus, 6000 of the participants were crucified along the Appian way. This showed the Romans capacity to torture those who would rebel, putting terror in the hearts of anyone walking by who might think of trying something similar.20

The Gallic Wars

Julius Caesar’s conquest of Gaul is a very poignant example of the terrible atrocities that the Romans were capable of. Though casualty numbers are difficult to determine, Goldsworthy remarks that:

…it was claimed that one million enemies died during Julius Caesar’s Gallic campaigns alone. It may well be that more human beings were killed by Roman gladius swords than any other weapon before the modern era21

Though some details remain murky, the article Caesar and Genocide: Confronting the Dark Side of Caesar’s Gallic Wars gives specific examples of what we would consider to be examples of genocide and war crimes by today’s standards.22

The Jewish Roman Wars

The Jewish-Roman wars were particularly devastating. In the climactic siege of the First Jewish Roman war, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned the temple. According to World History Encyclopedia:

It is estimated by the ancient historians Tacitus (l. c. 56 - c. 118 CE) and Flavius Josephus (36-100 CE) that there were about 600,000 to 1,100,000 people killed in the siege.23

To summarize, the Romans were very strong, terrifying, and crushed those who would oppose them. According to Roman historian Tacitus, a chieftain in Britannia strongly urged his men to fight against the incoming Romans, because:

They have pillaged the world: when the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. If an enemy is rich, they are greedy, if he is poor, they crave glory. Neither East nor West can sate their appetite. They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the lying name of ‘empire’. They make a desert and call it ‘peace.’24

Richardson responds, saying that the Roman Empire was relatively tolerant, whereas the Ottoman Empire completely replaced the cultures of the previous empires. He explains that:

Rome’s law and the protection of its military also created a peace and stability that came to be famously known as the Pax Romana. Rather than being a crushing force, the Roman Empire was often a positive influence to its conquered peoples.25

Nevertheless, this mistakenly cherry picks the data. Sure, both empires were oppressive in their own ways.

But this is a moot point anyway. There were lots of empires “worse” than Rome. The Mongol Empire was far worse than either of them.26 Neither of us count that in our sequence. Yet the question is not “which empire was worse.” It is “which is the fourth kingdom in the sequence, and does it meet the dreadful and destructive criteria described in both passages?” We’ve already seen that Rome meets both of these. The Ottoman Empire fails at least one, in that it was not the fourth kingdom in the sequence.

Furthermore, Richardson tells us that hyperbole is a common feature in Biblical literature.

The Middle Eastern culture that gave birth to the Bible is particularly fond of hyperbole. And because the Bible uses the idioms common to the peoples of the region, to correctly interpret multitudes of biblical passages requires an understanding of this device.27

Richardson believes that this literary device is used when describing the kingdoms in Daniel. This is true to a large extent. As he rightly notes, Daniel uses hyperbolic throne language to describe the extent of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire (Daniel 2:36-38).28

Yet this cuts both ways. If hyperbole is allowed, then Rome most definitely meets the criteria listed in Daniel 2 and 7. In either case, we have no need to appeal to another empire candidate, as Rome sufficiently meets the brutal, fearsome, and violent criteria listed in the passage.

(The issue of hyperbole and interpretation will be addressed more later on.)

The Mediterranean Sea

The empires are also said to come up out of “the great sea.”

Daniel said, “I was looking in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. ³ And four great beasts were coming up from the sea, different from one another. (Daniel 7:2-3)

In the Bible, this is a consistent reference to the Mediterranean Sea. (Though its meaning is probably not limited to just that.) There are several examples of this in Scripture:

‘As for the western border, you shall have the Great Sea, that is, its coastline; this shall be your western border. (Numbers 34:6)

From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and as far as the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun will be your territory. (Joshua 1:4)

And repeatedly in Ezekiel (a contemporary of Daniel).

“And the west side shall be the Great Sea, from the south border to a point opposite Lebo-hamath. This is the west side. (Ezekiel 47:20)

The Roman Empire fits this criterion quite well, as it covered the entire Mediterranean, unlike the first three.

Control of the Holy Land

The Roman Empire was the fourth empire to control Israel/Judea. While not explicitly stated in the text, the context would indicate this to be the case. Richardson agrees that the Bible “is and always has been a thoroughly Jerusalem-, Israel-, and Middle Eastern–centric book.”29

For the most part, I would agree. Nevertheless, saying that it is “Middle Eastern-centric” is only true because Israel is in the Middle East. I do not think the Bible is constrained to speak only of the Middle East, since Israel and most of her enemies just so happen to be there. On the contrary, the Bible speaks of Israel’s enemies regardless of their location.

From Daniel’s perspective, he is concerned with the empires that directly affect Jerusalem and its people. As it turns out, this is true of all four empires. As far as military occupation of the holy land is concerned, Rome was probably the worst offender. As mentioned before, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed during the First Jewish-Roman War. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed by the Romans at this time. In this way, the Israel-centricity of the Bible is actually evidence for the Roman thesis.

To summarize, Miller states:

The incredible might and cruelty of Rome are aptly depicted by Daniel’s fourth beast. Just as this monster was “different” from all the others, so the Roman Empire differed from those that had preceded it. Rome possessed a power and longevity unlike anything the world had ever known. Nations were crushed under the iron boot of the Roman legions, its power was virtually irresistible, and the extent of its influence surpassed the other three kingdoms.30

Problems with The Geographic Criterion

Richardson believes that Rome cannot be the fourth kingdom, since he says it fails to fulfill Daniel 2:40:

And after you another kingdom will arise inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth. Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; just as iron smashes and crushes everything, so, like iron that crushes, it will smash and crush all these things. (Daniel 2:40)

Richardson contends that the Roman Empire didn’t conquer the previous three empires as Daniel 2:40 says. However, the Ottoman Empire conquered the geographic area that belonged to the previous four kingdoms.

The text is clear that the fourth kingdom would “crush,” or conquer, all three of these empires. The three empires never coexisted, of course, and thus we must ask what the text means when it says that the fourth empire would “crush” all of the others.

TO CONQUER GEOGRAPHICALLY

The first meaning of the word crush refers simply to geography.31

Neither the Roman Empire nor the Ottoman Empire crushed the Medo-Persian, or Babylonian empires. The Romans did conquer the Greeks, but the Medo-Persian and Babylonian empires were long gone by then.

Richardson tries to resolve this tension by insisting that “all these” refers back to the land area where they used to be, not the kingdoms themselves.

Yet the text is clear; to fulfill the criterion of Daniel 2:40, an empire would need to crush, not one, but all three of these. The Roman Empire simply does not fulfill this requirement.32

Later on, Richardson says:

If we are to be honest, to say the Roman Empire fulfilled Daniel 2:40 would be a stretch at best. On the other hand, the historical Islamic Caliphate fully, absolutely, completely conquered all the lands of the others. 33

Contrary to Richardson’s view, the text does not say that the fourth kingdom would conquer the land area where the previous three kingdoms used to be. “All these things” clearly refers back to the empires themselves, not the territory they used to occupy after they were long gone.

However, there are textual indications that the geographical criterion is not what Daniel has in mind here. First, Daniel 2:39 indicates the kingdoms are sequential, succeeding one another. Therefore, “all these things” cannot mean that the fourth kingdom literally conquered the first two empires, since they were no longer hegemons by the time the Ottomans or the Romans showed up.

Second, Daniel 2 says that the statue was “crushed all at the same time.”

³⁴ You continued watching until a stone was broken off without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. ³⁵ Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed to pieces all at the same time, and they were like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. (Daniel 2:34-35a)

As a result, the vision indicates that all four empires are crushed “all at the same time” by God’s kingdom, not by the fourth kingdom.

Daniel 7:12 supports this interpretation as well:

Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was killed, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire. ¹² As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time. (Daniel 7:11-12)

The fourth beast is violently defeated by God at the Second Coming of Jesus. However, the angel makes clear that the first three beasts would live on in some way, after their status as imperial hegemons was long over.

Daniel 2:40 must be read in light of these other two verses about the fate of the first three empires, not merely in isolation. As Paul Benware notes:

The first three empires had their domination over other nations ended by the appearance of stronger empires. But when they did lose their dominion, they still continued to exist in many ways. For example, when Babylon came to end in October of 539 B.C. at the hands of the Medes and Persians, there were elements of Babylonian religion, philosophy, government, language and learning that continued on long past 539 B.C. Elements of old Babylon would be detected centuries later for those who had eyes to see. And so it was for the first three empires. This is why they (the lion, bear and leopard) are seen embodied in the last terrible beast in Revelation 13:2. So to each of the three, after their defeat, “an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time” (Dan. 7:12). But this was not to be the case with the fourth and final beast. It too would be deprived of its empire, but it would not experience “an extension of life” as Revelation 19:19-20; 20:10 makes abundantly clear. It would be totally destroyed (along with the remaining vestiges of the first three beasts) and would vanish completely forever in order that God’s kingdom could be instituted.34

As Miller likewise states:

7:12 The other beasts, namely, the first three empires, had their authority taken away but were allowed to continue (lit., “length of life was given to them”) “for a period of time.” How could these beasts lose their authority and still exist? The explanation is that their dominance ceased, but they continued to live because they were absorbed into the next empire. For example, Greece was conquered by Rome; and although Greek dominance came to an end, the nation continued to live by being absorbed into another one of the earthly kingdoms, the Roman Empire. But the fourth empire will be completely destroyed and replaced by a totally new world order, the kingdom of God. In chap. 2 the continued existence of the defeated kingdoms is paralleled in that the statue did not collapse until its lowest part, the iron and clay feet and toes (representing the final phase of the last empire), was struck by the stone.35

We cannot introduce the geographic criterion to solve one way of reading one verse (Daniel 2:40), only two leave out two others (Daniel 2:35; 7:12). Our interpretation of Daniel 2:40 must be in harmony with all the verses in question, not just one.

Richardson also points to the beast in Revelation 13 as evidence of the geographic criterion. The ten-horned, seven-headed beast has elements of every preceding empire in it.

Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten crowns, and on his heads were blasphemous names. ² And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne, and great authority. (Revelation 13:1-2)

Richardson correctly notes that these animals were the first three beasts in Daniel’s four beast sequence. He then argues that this final beast must encompass the land area of all three previous empires.

If we were to combine the geographic “bodies” of Greece, Babylon, and Medo-Persia, what empire would we have? Would it look like the Roman Empire or the Islamic Empire? The answer is obvious to anyone with an understanding of the geography of the region.36

Although the ten horned beast in Daniel 7 seems to only have one head (Daniel 7:19-20), the Revelation beast has seven heads (Revelation 13; 17). As Richardson and I agree, the seven heads represent kingdoms that have persecuted God’s people throughout history.37 As a result, the seven-headed beast represents all the empires opposed to God’s people throughout history, with a climactic finale in the Antichrist’s rule.

The book of Revelation telescopes the beast’s entire history into one monster. A similar literary device is used in Daniel 7 to describe the Hellenistic world.

⁶ After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it. (Daniel 7:6)

The third beast is a leopard with four wings and four heads. However, the leopard and wings part clearly refer to the swift nature of Alexander the Great’s conquests. Whereas the four heads refer to the four kingdoms of the Diadochi. Yet Alexander died many years before these four kingdoms emerged.

This is an example of how the third beast has its whole history compressed into one image. The same is true of the beast in Revelation 13. There, the past, present, and future world empires are all compressed into one monstrous animal.

Alternatively, the Revelation beast and its final Antichrist empire probably does include the remnants of the previous four empires. As will be argued later, the Antichrist kingdom at its height will be global in scope, despite starting off as a regional power.

Furthermore, it is safe to say that the Antichrist’s empire will have the characteristics of the previous three beasts in it as well. It will be big like Medo-Persia, fast like Alexander’s empire, and strong like Rome.

Another problem with the geographic rule is Richardson’s inconsistent use of the criterion. When comparing maps of the Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate, he does not use a map of Rome at its greatest extent. This is the case because, admittedly, Trajan didn’t occupy what is now Syria/Iraq very long. However, when making maps of the extent of Islamic Caliphate, he superimposes a map of areas that all the Caliphates ever controlled at any time in history.38

3. The People of the Coming Prince Were the Romans

Daniel 9:26 states that the people of a coming ruler will destroy Jerusalem and the temple.

²⁶ Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. (Daniel 9:26)

This happened in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and burned the temple. However, the text does not say that “the prince who is to come” will do the destroying. On the contrary, it says that “the people OF the prince” who is coming will do so.

This leaves room for the coming ruler in verse 27, who will stop sacrifices and desecrate the temple in the end times.

²⁷ And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.” (Daniel 9:27)

The most straightforward identification of the “people” in verse 26 were the Romans. Richardson takes issue with this, saying that the Hebrew word for people (am) refers to an ethnic group. As Richardson says:

If we look up the meaning of that word (am) in the Hebrew, we find that it is an ethnic denotation. It does not refer to the kingdom or empire under which the people lived, but rather the people themselves.39

It does mean an ethnic group in many cases. However, the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) even has an entry for a use of the word that is “not national.” Therefore, this word has uses that are not limited to ethnicity. For example, HALOT says:

—3. עַם not national: a) the people Is 42:5 (:: 6, see Stamm Fschr. vRad (1971):510ff); b) race, people: הָעָם of Bethlehem Ru 4:9, עַם יְרוּשָׁלַיִם 2C 32:18, עַם כְּנַעַן Zeph 1:11; the people around a particular person Gn 32:8 1K 19:21 2K 4:41; the people which Ju 3:18; עַם רַב many people Nu 21:6; בְּזוּי עָֽם scorned by the people Ps 22:7, the derision of the people Jb 17:6 (rd. לִמְשַׁל for לִמְשֹׁל and ? עַם for עַמִּים) → B; c) young people Hos 4:14 (Rudolph KAT 13/1:107 and 112 :: Wolff BK 14/12:111: the whole population including the young), population of a city Jr 39:8 (for בֵית, rd. בָּתֵּי, BHS cf. 52:13), later, of a synagogue; d) military personnel 2K 13:7, the garrison 2K 18:26 parallel with Is 36:11, militia Ju 20:10 1S 14:17 2S 2:26 10:10 etc. (Rost Credo 91 and 100; Junge 4ff, 29ff, = צָבָא); e) relative importance: the right people Jb 12:2 :: Davies VT 25 (1975):670f; the poor and oppressed people עֲנִיֵּי עַמִּי Is 10:2, עֲ׳ עַמּוֹ 14:32, עַםּ־עָנִי Ps 18:28 parallel with 2S 22:28 (rd. ? עָנָו); הָעָם הַדַּלִּים Jr 39:10; מתי עם common people Sir 7:16 (Sept. ἁμαρτωλοί). 40

In this context especially, we are certainly warranted in thinking that this is not an ethnic designation. It says “the people of the prince” who is coming. This construct (“people of X”) is found throughout the Old Testament. Here are some examples of what we find in English translations:

• “people of the land” (very common)

• “people of war”

• “people of the LORD”

In our case, we have “the people of the prince.” What does prince mean? Let’s have a look at what HALOT says:

נָגִיד: cs. נְגִ(י)ד: pl. נְגִידִים: chief, leader, sovereign:—1. sovereign, prince, of Tyre Ez 28:2, sg. coll. of Assyria 2 C 32:21;—2. in small sphere of authority: a) officers in Assyrian army alongside śar 2 C 32:21, w. David 1 C 13:1, commanders of cities 2 C 11:11; b) court officials, e.g. nāgîd lebêt yehûdâ 2 C 19:11; c) head of family 2 C 11:22, people of rank Jb 29:10;—3. cultic officials: nāgîd bebêt yhwh = high priest Je 21:1; chief officer of contributions 2 C 31:12; chief of doorkeepers 1 C 9:20;—4. leader of Isr. appointed by Y.: Saul 1 S 9:16, David 13:14, Solomon 1 K 1:35 &c.;—5. var.: mašîaḥ nāgîd, ‘am nāgîd Dn 9:25f; negîd berît = high priest Dn 11:22.41

“Nagid” means “chief, leader, or “sovereign.” It’s military and temple use shows that it doesn’t require that the leadership be over an ethnic group.

The Old Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of Daniel 9 also shows that the translators did not view this in ethnic terms. Written before the time of Christ, the Old Greek was written long before the events described transpired. In the University of Pennsylvania English translation of the Septuagint, it says:

And after seven and seventy and sixty-two weeks, an anointing will be removed and will not be. And a king of nations will demolish the city and the sanctuary along with the anointed one, and his consummation will come with wrath even until the time of consummation. He will be attacked through war. (Daniel 9:26 English Translation of the LXX Old Greek)42

The point here is not that the authors of the Septuagint did a good job translating the Hebrew into Greek. (At many times, it was not a good translation of the Hebrew.) However, the point is that whoever was translating the Hebrew into Greek did not even translate “people” and certainly did not have an ethnic meaning in mind. Theodotion’s Greek translation is even closer to the Hebrew, but still makes no mention of the people, but only a political leader.

And after the sixty two weeks, an anointing will be destroyed, and there is no judgment in it. And it will destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the leader who is to come. And they will be cut off by a flood and there will be annihilations to finish of a shortened war. (Daniel 9:26 English Translation of the LXX Theodotion)43

Syrians, Arabs, and Middle Easterners

Richardson says that the Roman armies had a large contingent of Syrians, Arabs, and Middle-Easterners in their ranks.44 Yet this misses the forest for the trees. If an ethnic group is being talked about here, then we have to pick which one. Arabs have an origin south of Israel, while Syrians have origins north of Israel. Yet the Bible presents this mixed group as one people.

Furthermore, the fact that the Roman army was so ethnically mixed (it did include Europeans after all) shows us that God was not trying to tell us about an ethnic group, but precisely, the people of a future ruler. This future ruler is the little horn in Daniel 7.

Richardson points out that the attackers of Jerusalem destroyed the temple, despite the fact that Roman general Titus didn’t actually want this.45 Though Titus didn’t want them to burn the temple, it was still destroyed by the “people of the prince” (not the prince himself, whether that be Titus or Antichrist).

Furthermore, Richardson also makes an anachronistic argument, when he equates these Syrians and Arabs with “Muslims.”

The overwhelming evidence from both ancient historians and modern-day scholarship points out the ethnic identity of the “Roman” peoples that destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple: they were the ancestors of the Muslim peoples that dominate the entire region today.46

But Syrians and Arabs are not religious groups, but ethnic ones, existing long before the coming of Mohammed and Islam.

Richardson also claims that “the Romans” is too vague to be a meaningful ethnic designation.47 Here he is correct. The Roman “people” were not an ethnic group. The “people” are a political group (or military personnel, see Joshua’s “people of war”), associated with the coming leader. The simplest way to interpret this is that they are associated with the kingdom of this coming leader (Daniel 7). Therefore, it doesn’t require that the Antichrist be of any specific ancestry, whether that be Italian, Syrian, Arab, or Middle Eastern descent.

4. The Antichrist’s Domain Will Start Regional and Become Global

Richardson also states that the Antichrist will have only a regional empire, not a global government.48 I appreciate the nuance here, and I think the traditional revived Roman Empire interpretation has not been sufficiently clear on this point. I would agree that the Antichrist starts off as a regional power. He fights regional wars, only to emerge victorious. As John Walvoord says:

With the northern kingdom destroyed there is no major political force standing in the way of the Roman Empire, and the world empire is achieved by proclamation.49

Through military conquest and religious deception, he briefly achieves something akin to world domination.

It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority was given to him over every tribe, people, language, and nation. (Revelation 13:7)

However, cracks start to show in his alliances, causing his status as global hegemon to be challenged by others (Daniel 11:44-45). Furthermore, it does not say that the Antichrist has “a kingdom” over the whole planet. It is the ten kings who have given their “kingdom” to him, and it is these who wage war against Jesus in the end times at his command (Revelation 17:17).

² The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but they receive authority as kings with the beast for one hour. ¹³ These have one purpose, and they give their power and authority to the beast.

¹⁴ These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

¹⁵ And he *said to me, “The waters which you saw where the prostitute sits are peoples and multitudes, and nations and languages. ¹⁶ And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the prostitute and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. ¹⁷ For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. ¹⁸ The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.” (Revelation 17:12-18)

(Footnote for “reigns” says “Lit has a kingdom”)

One way to think about this is in terms of a police officer. “Authority” (exousia) is the police officer’s badge. “Power” (dunamis) is the gun. “Authority” is the legal right to carry out certain tasks on behalf of the government. “Power” entails the means or ability to do that. You can have the authority (badge) without the power (gun). Or you can have the power (gun) without the authority (badge), as criminals do.

This is what the ten kings give the beast in the end times. Furthermore, they even go so far as to give their “kingdom” (Revelation 17:17 NASB) or “royal power” (Revelation 17:17 ESV) to him as well.

“Authority” seems to be a weaker term than “kingdom.” For example, he cannot simply order the kings from the east to do what he wants, as they are a separate group (Rev. 16:12; Dan. 11:44).

Hyperbole in Daniel

Richardson argues that Revelation 13:7 is hyperbole, just like some of the language used in Daniel. For example:

³⁷ You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the honor; ³⁸ and wherever the sons of mankind live, or the animals of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has handed them over to you and has made you ruler over them all. You are the head of gold. (Daniel 2:37-38)

This is clearly hyperbolic. Of course, Nebuchadnezzar knew about the Medes and Persians, did he not? He was not literally king over every human on the planet. The same could be said of the third (Greek) empire.

And after you another kingdom will arise inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth. (Daniel 2:39)

Richardson infers the same for the fourth beast.

“This is what he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and will devour the whole earth and trample it down and crush it. (Daniel 7:23)

Certainly, this could include the entire planet. For example, Daniel 2:35 has the exact same Aramaic expression used to refer to the Messiah’s global kingdom. I don’t know of anyone who thinks the Messianic kingdom is merely regional.

³⁵ Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed to pieces all at the same time, and they were like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the entire earth. (Daniel 2:35)

We also see hyperbole in Daniel 3:

⁷ Therefore as soon as all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery, bagpipe, and all kinds of musical instruments, all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages fell down and worshiped the golden statue that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. (Daniel 3:7)

Clearly, every ethnic group on the planet was not present when Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone to bow to his golden statue.

We see this exact same phrasing in Daniel 7, which describes the scope of the Son of Man’s reign.

And to Him was given dominion,
Honor, and a kingdom,
So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:14)

Again, here is a clear case where what is sometimes spoken of hyperbolically is literally true. Jesus will reign over every ethnic group on the planet. This is reaffirmed in Daniel 7:27, which is much more politically comprehensive.

Then the sovereignty, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the empires will serve and obey Him.’ (Daniel 7:27)

Unlike the fourth kingdom, “all the empires” will serve and obey God in his new kingdom.

Hyperbole in Revelation?

This literary flexibility is certainly present in Daniel. But is it present in Revelation? Regarding the beast, it says “authority was given to him over every tribe, people, language, and nation.” Let’s compare that to a similar expression in Revelation 7.

⁹ And they *sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are You to take the scroll and to break its seals; for You were slaughtered, and You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation.

¹⁰ You have made them into a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth.” (Revelation 5:9-10)

And also:

⁹ After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all the tribes, peoples, and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; (Revelation 7:9)

This is clearly global in scope. This is especially the case since the word “tribes” is used. In Revelation 7, John just got done seeing 12,000 people sealed from the 12 tribes of Israel. Each tribe is named. According to context, when it speaks of all the tribes and languages in Revelation 7:9, it means every ethnic group on the planet.

Other passages in the New Testament indicate that the Great Commission is ethnically comprehensive.50 The other uses of this language in Revelation seem to indicate that it is global in scope.

Keep in mind, Revelation was written in Greek, whereas Daniel was written in Hebrew/Aramaic. Furthermore, John was writing 600 years after Daniel, in a different place. It is unsurprising then, that the literary conventions in Daniel’s writing don’t have a one-to-one correspondence to those used in Revelation.

However, the type of rule will be different. Antichrist merely has “authority” over the world, but his “kingdom” is only the ten kings. Whereas Christ and his subjects will literally “reign” on the earth (Revelation 5:10).

I do not subscribe to the Left Behind notion that there will be a super-organized world government system. I’m more inclined to think that there will be an unchallenged global hegemon who controls the entire world by the threat of (or actual) military force and religious deception. Nor do I agree that this empire will start off globally (i.e. with ten world regions).

On the contrary, the ten kings are local to the Roman Empire, as many Daniel commentators have suggested. The ten kings are present before the Antichrist rises to power, not after. Furthermore, he does not achieve world power instantly, since he has competitors. The ten kings arise before, not after, he becomes world hegemon. Therefore, the ten kings are local to the Euro-Mediterranean area.

As we will see later on, process of elimination leads us to believe that at least most of these ten kings will be from the European mainland.

Seven Heads/Mountains/Kings

We learned that the beast in Daniel 7 has ten horns on “its head” (implying just one head, see Daniel 7:19-20). However, the beast in Revelation 13 has seven heads. Though some believe these seven heads correspond to Roman emperors, many futurist interpreters believe that it corresponds to a series of empires. Mark Hitchcock does a good job defending that view here.51 So does John Walvoord elsewhere.52 Since Richardson and I agree on this point, I will not repeat those arguments.

In his debate with Dr. Thomas Ice, Richardson stated that his sequence of empires makes more sense of the seven king/kingdom sequence in Revelation 17, rather than the traditional futurist view. He argues that the futurists are usually inconsistent, in that they have Rome three times in the sequence. Whereas Richardson’s model only has the Ottoman Empire twice in the sequence, as he says it should be.53

I will argue that the typical futurist view of Revelation 17:9-11 is in fact consistent with the different topical sections involved: Daniel 7, Revelation 17:8, Revelation 17:10-11 itself, and Revelation 17:12-18.

On the contrary, Richardson’s list of the seven kings and kingdoms do not fit as well with those four passages. At worst, Richardson’s view is actually inconsistent, because he borrows Rome in the Revelation 17 sequence of kings, but skips it in Daniel.

Regardless of one’s view, the interpretation of this passage is quite confusing and complicated. Though not perfect, I believe the traditional view is best.

⁹ Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains upon which the woman sits, ¹⁰ and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. ¹¹ The beast which was, and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. (Revelation 17:9-11)

Here’s my take on the seven heads/kings sequence.

As you can see in the picture, five kings/kingdoms who persecuted God’s people had fallen by the time John received the Revelation vision on the island of Patmos. One existed during the time of John’s exile, namely, Rome. However, the angel goes on to say that there is another king/kingdom coming.

(Note, he does not say that this kingdom is 7th in an ordinal succession. Only that it “has not yet come.” It is 7th, in that this empire represents the 7th head on the beast.)

Furthermore, the revived Roman Empire will be short-lived and only remain a “little while.”

The angel tells us that the beast (Antichrist) “is himself also an eighth.”

But there’s a problem! The beast in John’s vision only has 7 heads, not 8. What then are we to make of this?

The angel says that the eighth is “of the seven.” The phrase “one of the seven” (ek ton hepta) is in NASB, but “one” is italicized in that translation, because it’s not in the original text. Another literal translation, the English Standard Version, says the beast “belongs to the seven.”

The Greek word “of” (ek) implies “out of” or “from” something. Such an expression can mean he is just one of the seven kings. We find a similar expression in the book of Acts.

On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. (Acts 21:8)

Though it is not italicized in the NASB, “one” is not in the original text of Acts 21:8, as you can see here. For the nerds out there, this is called a “partitive genitive.”54

These men in the early church were in charge of taking care of the orphans and widows (Acts 6). There were literally seven men, and they are all named. It’s the same expression as found in Revelation 17:11.

Interestingly, the book of Revelation doesn’t usually use this expression when describing someone who is “one of” seven. In fact, it almost always literally says “one of the seven.” (heis ek ton hepta) For example, even in that very same chapter, it says:

Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters, (Revelation 17:1)

Later in chapter 21, it says:

⁹ Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls, full of the seven last plagues, came and spoke with me, saying, “Come here, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:9)

And also:

Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, “Come!”

Even when referring to “one of” the seven seals or “one of” the four living creatures, it always literally states “one of” (heis ek) in Greek. This is in contrast to Revelation 17:11, which unusually, just says, “of,” (ek) just like the expression in Acts 21:8.

Since the beast only has 7 heads, how can he be the eighth? Does this mean he reigns twice?

This is likely, but there is more to it than that. We can see how the second phase of his reign is qualitatively different than the short phase of co-rule with the ten kings.

Saying that the Antichrist originates from among the seven, and reigns again in a more terrifying way makes the most sense of what we see in Daniel 7. In that chapter, there is a fourth kingdom, which is the historical Roman Empire. Then, the group of ten kings comes “out of” the Roman Empire (Daniel 7:24). As a result, the Antichrist himself originates from the revived Roman Empire, briefly co-rules with the ten, and goes on a 3 1/2-year global reign of terror.

Ultimately, the Roman Empire has three phases to its career:

1. Historical Roman Empire

2. Revived Roman Empire: Antichrist and Ten Kings Co-Rule

3. Global Reign of Terror: Antichrist’s Exclusive Rule

The Beast’s Career in Daniel 7

Below is the sequence of events in Daniel 7, along with excerpts from the relevant portions of Daniel 7.

This coincides quite nicely with what Revelation 17:9-11 says, in that both have the Antichrist originating from the ten-horned stage of the Roman Empire.

Rome existed while the apostle John was in exile on Patmos, receiving the Revelation vision. However, the future revived Roman Empire (in its ten-nation format) did not exist yet (Revelation 17:12).

However, the Antichrist comes from (ek) that seventh kingdom and goes on a reign of terror for 3 1/2 years (Revelation 13:5). Again, if we map excerpts of Revelation 17:10-11 to the sequence of events in Daniel, we get a similar picture.

Daniel 7’s Consistency with Revelation 17:11

We know Antichrist’s entire career is actually longer than 3 1/2 years, as he is active to confirm a 7-year covenant with Israel (Daniel 9:27.) However, his final 3 1/2 persecution phase is singled out in both Daniel and Revelation (Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5).

Once again, the period of co-rule with the ten kings is only a “little while” (Revelation 17:10). This too is consistent with excerpts from Revelation 17:10-11 (see below).

Daniel 7 is Consistent with Revelation 17:10

This lines up with what the angel says about the ten kings as well. Though the Roman Empire (historical) existed in at the time John received this vision, the ten kings (revived Roman Empire) hadn’t arrived yet.

When they do arrive, they briefly co-rule with the beast, only to give up their power and authority to him. If we superimpose excerpts from Revelation 17:12-18 onto our Daniel 7 sequence, we get another consistent narrative of the beast’s career.

Daniel 7 is Consistent with Revelation 17:12-13

This “co-rule” phase and “dictatorial” phase represent the 7th and the 8th king. The 7th king/kingdom is the ten-nation confederacy, co-ruling with the Antichrist. That kingdom is brief, only lasting “a little while” or “one hour.”55

However, the 8th king has total authority and has a much bigger impact. Though he is both “one of the seven,” and also “of the seven,” in that he originates from that group of seven.56

Revelation 17:10 is Consistent with Revelation 17:12-18

Note, the 7th king reigns only a little while. The 7th is not said to “go to destruction.” But the 8th is said to “go to destruction.” We can speculate then, that there is a gap of time between these two reigns, with the latter being “far more dynamic and dominant than before.”57

All this to say, there are not two, but three stages that concern us:

1. Historical Roman Empire

2. Revived Roman Empire: Antichrist and Ten Kings Co-Rule

3. Global Reign of Terror: Antichrist’s Exclusive Rule

Therefore, the typical reading of these 7 kings/kingdoms is completely consistent with the Antichrist’s career in Daniel 7 and Revelation 17.

Richardson’s 7 King/Kingdom Sequence

Richardson does not have the advantage of this consistency. If we map his views onto my chart, it goes something like this.

First thing you will notice, is that Richardson keeps Rome here.58 He’s right about that. But he does not use Rome in the 4-kingdom sequence of Daniel 2 & 7. This is inconsistent.

This reading forces Richardson to say that the Ottoman Empire only lasted “a little while” (Revelation 17:10). On the contrary, the Ottoman empire lasted longer than any of the previous five empires. This fact fits best with the typical interpretation, wherein the beast and the ten kings co-rule for a brief time, prior to his reign of terror.

Furthermore, it is an unnecessarily complex interpretation to say that Rome is present in the Revelation 17 sequence, but not in Daniel. On the Roman view, it is present in both, since Daniel treats the empires as back-to-back. As with any theory, if there are two competing systems, you should go with the simplest one that explains all the facts. This idea is known as Occam’s Razor.

Furthermore, there are heavy symbolic parallels between Daniel 7 and Revelation 17. To say that Daniel skipped Rome, but it is present in Revelation 17, would be most unusual.

Richardson responds, saying that the empires in Daniel 2 & 7 were from the perspective of Babylon, not all evil empires in history.

As we have seen, these passages simply speak of the empires that would rise after Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, and the Roman Empire was not included among these.59

In a way, his hermeneutic works against his own view. The Roman Empire actually is the fourth from the perspective of Nebuchadnezzar. It is the 4th in a series of imperial conquest and replacement, which started with Babylon.

But let us concede Richardson’s point for a moment. Perhaps the statue in Daniel 2 is from the perspective of Babylon. Yet this cannot be said of Daniel 7, where we see the empires from God’s perspective as they really are: ruthless beasts.60 This is further reinforced by the fact that Daniel sees the final ruler persecuting God’s people (Daniel 7:21; 25).

Of all the books of the Bible, Daniel sees things from a Gentile perspective. Both Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel see a series of Gentile kingdoms that rise up out of the Mediterranean, one after another. The book of Daniel has a very “Gentile” vantage point, in that Daniel is in exile in a foreign king’s palace at the time of writing. This differs significantly from most other Hebrew prophets.

Daniel also mentions the Roman Empire (at least, indirectly, on Richardson’s view) by referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The fact that the empire which killed the Messiah and caused the biggest exile in the history of the Jewish people was skipped in Daniel, only to be included in Revelation, is a very awkward reading of both.

No matter your view of the date of Revelation (most say 90’s A.D.), the phrase “one is” in Revelation 17:10 clearly refers to Rome. If Richardson was consistent, he would leave out Rome and put the Ottoman Empire there. But this would be incorrect, as the Islamic Caliphate didn’t emerge until after the Roman Empire fell.

There are other ways to read the details of Revelation 17:8-11. Mine is just one of them. Nevertheless, I give my view to show that it is consistent with the Roman Empire view. On the contrary, Richardson’s view lacks the consistency that the Roman view has.

5. Antichrist Will Be Self Deifying, Not Islamic

The Antichrist will be self-deifying, not Islamic. Daniel 11:36-39 describes his personality:

³⁶ “Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt himself and boast against every god and will speak dreadful things against the God of gods; and he will be successful until the indignation is finished, because that which is determined will be done. ³⁷ And he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will boast against them all. ³⁸ But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, precious stones, and treasures. ³⁹ And he will take action against the strongest of fortresses with the help of a foreign god; he will give great honor to those who acknowledge him and will make them rulers over the many, and will parcel out land for a price. (Daniel 11:36-39)

The text goes to great lengths to let us know that the Antichrist does not serve any traditional deity of any kind. Instead, he will exalt himself against all of them. The apostle Paul makes an allusion to this passage, when he states:

³ No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, ⁴ who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4)

Paul adds the additional detail that he will set himself up in the temple “displaying” himself as being God. This is not the only time that such an event is mentioned. Jesus himself uses the masculine participle to refer to the abomination of desolation. Which is why ESV renders it as the following:

“But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Mark 13:14; ESV)

In the book Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, all writers from each viewpoint unanimously conclude that this is related to the Antichrist himself. This is true, despite their differences on the Rapture.

As Craig Blaising (pretribulationist) states:

Although Mark omits this middle reference to false christs, he does use the masculine participle hestēkota with the neuter abomination of desolation (in contrast to Matthew, who maintains proper subject-verb agreement), indicating that the desecration is linked to the presence of the perpetrator himself in the temple.61

As Alan Hultberg (prewrath) argues:

In Matthew this period is during the “great tribulation” (vv. 21, 23 – 24) that follows “the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place” (v. 15 ESV, emphasis added; cf. the masculine participle in Mark 13:14, “standing where he does not belong”).50 This language corresponds to Paul’s when he speaks of the Man of Lawlessness taking his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God (2 Thess. 2:4). For this reason, and due to the allusion to Daniel 11:36 in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, most scholars are agreed that Paul is thinking of the abomination of desolation when he mentions the session of the Man of Lawlessness.62

As Douglas Moo (posttribulational) states:

Is Jesus envisaging an event that transpired in AD 70, when Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed and desecrated by the armies of Rome? Or is he referring to the end-time Antichrist? Several indications could point to the latter interpretation. First, the phrase “abomination of desolation” clearly alludes to the same prophecies in Daniel that we have just seen Paul citing to describe the end-time Antichrist (in 2 Thess. 2:3 – 4). Second, Mark (13:14) suggests, by using a masculine participle after the neuter “abomination,” that he is thinking of a person — and, again, the similarities to the Antichrist described in 2 Thessalonians 2 are clear.63

Despite their differences on timing, they all seem to think that the Antichrist is himself associated with an idolatrous act in the temple.

Abomination of Desolation

Abomination of desolation itself is a technical term for the placement of an idol in the Jewish temple, causing it to be abandoned in shock and horror. “Abomination of desolation” language is used three times in the Old Testament, all within Daniel.

The first abomination of desolation happened in 167 B.C. when Antiochus IV Epiphanes set up an altar to Zeus on the Jewish temple altar.64 Daniel predicted this when he says:

³¹ Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation.

The rededication of the temple after this event is now celebrated as Hanukkah.

English Bibles use the word “abomination” in a broader sense for everything God hates. For example, the NASB of Leviticus 18:22 says that it is an “abomination” for a man to have relations with another man. However, the Hebrew word for abomination that we are concerned with in Daniel has a much narrower meaning. It’s only used 28 times in the Old Testament, referring very specifically to idolatry or idolatrous practices.

In 167 B.C. a statue of Zeus or the altar to Zeus was the idolatrous thing in the temple. But in the end times, the idol is a person. This is reinforced by the fact that Daniel 9:27 uses the same language to describe what the Antichrist does halfway through the final 7-year period before the final restoration of Israel.

²⁷ And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.” (Daniel 9:27)

Just like in Mark 13, it is the person that makes desolate, not an inanimate statue.

Will the Antichrist Really Claim to Be God?

Richardson states that the Antichrist won’t really claim to be God in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, but will stop short of doing that.

While it is clear that the Antichrist will be a shameless self-promoter and will demand absolute allegiance, subservience, and submission, there is also the possibility that he will stop just shy of actually proclaiming himself to be God Almighty.65

Furthermore, Richardson says that if he does claim to be God, it is not the God of the Bible.

But what exactly does the text mean when it says that the Antichrist will show himself as God? Will he claim to be Yahweh, the God of the Jewish people? It does not appear so.66

Now, if the Antichrist is setting himself up in the “temple of God,” then what God would he be claiming to be, other than the one true God? This is especially the case, given he exalts himself above all traditional deities.

Richardson is right on one point, namely that 2 Thessalonians 2 doesn’t say the Antichrist necessarily “claims” to be God with his words at that time. It says he will be “displaying” himself as being God. This is perfectly aligned with the idea of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. In this case, the idol is a person, not a statue.

Richardson also claims that the image worshipers in Revelation 13 are paying homage to the beast, not worshiping it as God.

Most reason that because the beast receives worship, he must be viewed as a god. But this is not necessarily so. The word used here for “worship” is the Greek proskyneō,[…]67

Richardson is right that proskuneo can mean bowing to a king or an authority figure.68

But its context determines its specific meaning. If proskuneo is not a reference to worshiping someone as God, then we are unable say that Jesus is worshiped as God when he walks on water. This seems to be a high price to pay, based on the context of that and other passages.

After Jesus walks on water, the disciples worship Jesus:

And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are truly God’s Son!” (Matthew 14:33)

This is clearly in the divine sense. Before this, Jesus is walking on the water, when He says:

But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage, ^[q]it is I; do not be afraid.” (Matthew 14:27)

q. “Lit I am”

Jesus is walking on the water, which the book of Job says that God does (Job 9:8). Then, Jesus says “I am, do not be afraid” (see John 8:58). Then he gets in the boat, and they worship (proskuneo) him. It is clear from the context that the disciples are worshiping Jesus as God, not just paying humble reverence.

The same is true of the beast in Revelation 13. In that passage, you have an idol that people have to worship, or else they are killed (Revelation 13:15). Furthermore, those who worship the idol are consigned to torment in hell (Revelation 13:9-12). This clearly involves more than just bowing down or giving reverence to a king. It involves worshiping the beast as God.

The God of Fortresses

Daniel 11:36-37 goes to great lengths to show that the Antichrist has no god, not even the God/gods of his ancestors. However, Daniel 11:38 states that he does serve a god!

³⁸ But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, precious stones, and treasures. ³⁹ And he will take action against the strongest of fortresses with the help of a foreign god; he will give great honor to those who acknowledge him and will make them rulers over the many, and will parcel out land for a price. (Daniel 11:36-39)

What are we to make of this?

I believe the common futurist explanation is the best one. The Antichrist will worship warfare and military strength in place of any traditional or ancestral deity. This is not unprecedented in the Bible. Speaking of the Babylonian military in Habakkuk 1:11, God says:

Then they fly along like the wind and pass on.
But they will be held guilty,
They whose strength is their god. (Habakkuk 1:11)

Context would seem to support this idea. The next verse goes on to say that he will attack “the strongest of fortresses” (Daniel 11:39). Antichrist will place his trust in the financing of his war machine. It speaks of him using “gold, silver, precious stones, and treasures.”

Very similar language is used to describe the Antichrist military campaigns, when he extracts the wealth of Egypt for his own purposes (Daniel 11:43). Therefore, context would lead us to believe that this “gold” and “silver” is not for purposes of decorating a temple, but for financing warfare.

⁴³ But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels. (Daniel 11:43)

It goes on to say that he will do all this with the help of a “foreign god.” Foreign god is an Old Testament term for the gods of the surrounding nations (Psalm 81:9).

But how can he be helped by a foreign god? Isaiah 44 is clear that idols can’t do anything. In that passage, Isaiah gives a parody of idolatry. In his satire, the craftsman takes one block of wood to cook his dinner, and the other half to make a god.

¹⁶ Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he eats meat, he roasts a roast, and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, “Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire.” ¹⁷ Yet the rest of it he makes into a god, his carved image. He bows down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, “Save me, for you are my god.” (Isaiah 44:16-17)

Even Paul says idols are “nothing at all in the world.”

⁴ Therefore, concerning the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. (1 Corinthians 8:4)

Though the false gods are nothing in themselves, the powers behind them are something.

¹⁹ What do I mean then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? ²⁰ No, but I say that things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become partners with demons. (1 Corinthians 10:19-20)

If we check out Revelation 13, this foreign god appears to be Satan. He is the one who empowers the Antichrist.

I saw one of his heads as if it had been fatally wounded, and his fatal wound was healed. And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; ⁴ they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?” (Revelation 13:3-4)

Furthermore, this passage also reinforces the idea that it is military power the Antichrist serves. In fact, this is the very reason the world worships him.

Richardson acknowledges that this means the Antichrist worships a “specific god of war.”69 As a result, he states that Allah is the god of war, and that Allah is Satan. Yet this interpretation of Daniel 11 doesn’t make the best sense. If the Antichrist is a traditional monotheist, Daniel 11, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Mark 13:14 sure have a strange way of communicating that, given verses 36 and 37.

A God Unknown to His Fathers

The most serious problem for the view that Allah is the “god of fortresses” is that it explicitly states that his ancestors did not know this god. First, it says he will not honor the gods/God of his fathers.

Whether this refers to the true God, or to pagan deities, the text is not clear. The Hebrew word for “God” (elohim) is plural. In context, it could be read to refer to multiple pagan deities, as most translations have it. But it could also be a reference to the true God in the phrase “the God of his fathers.” Either way, the god of fortresses is decidedly not the god that his ancestors worshiped.

If that weren’t clear enough, it goes on to say that that the god of fortresses is “a god whom his fathers did not know.” But if the Antichrist is from an Islamic Caliphate, then his fathers (ancestors) most certainly did know and serve Allah.

Richardson does not spend much time on this objection. However, he does address it when he says

If Islam is the religion of the Antichrist, then the phrase “a god whom his fathers did not know,” could easily be understood as a reference to Allah, the moon-and-war god of Arabia.70

Perhaps Richardson is alluding to the fact that the Antichrist’s distant ancestors worshiped a different god other than Allah? But here, the wording makes it sound like the Antichrist (on his view) does worship a god of his distant ancestors. (Perhaps Richardson can clarify his views on this subject, as I do not want to misrepresent him.)

Perhaps the Antichrist could be a convert to Islam, when his parents and ancestors were not Muslim. Nevertheless, this seems quite unlikely, given that the Antichrist comes from an Islamic Caliphate on Richardson’s view.

6. The Northern Foe is Not the Antichrist

Richardson successfully argues for a northern foe who is active in the end times. I would agree. This foe (or foes) are called “Gog and Magog”, “the Assyrian,” and the “King of the North.” Richardson argues that these refer to the area directly north of Israel, especially Syria and Turkey, though it is not limited to that. Furthermore, he believes that these are all separate names for the Antichrist.71

Furthermore, he works hard to prove that Gog and Magog primarily refer to Turkey only, not Russia as well.72 For sake of argument, I am willing to concede that point. As far as I’m concerned, Richardson makes a valuable contribution to the Russia and/or Turkey debate regarding the identity of Gog and Magog.

Regional Beginnings Allow for Multiple Antagonists

If at the very least, the Antichrist starts out as a regional power (as Richardson and I seem to agree), then there is plenty of room for multiple villains on the global chessboard in the end times. Richardson already apparently agrees, as the “kings from the east” (Revelation 16:12) and Edom (Obadiah) are separate from the Antichrist.

Gog and Magog Is Not the Antichrist

Richardson says that God “directly says” that Gog is the Antichrist.

GOD DIRECTLY DECLARES THAT GOG IS THE ANTICHRIST

But beyond all of the evidences that we have seen thus far, perhaps the clearest and most direct proof that Gog is the Antichrist is quite simply because God says so. 73

He argues for this using two main reasons:

• God predicted this invasion in the past74

• The invasion happens during the Day of the Lord75

This hardly amounts to God “directly” saying that Gog is the Antichrist. Lots of battles happen in the Day of the Lord (Daniel 11:40-45). Furthermore, scholars have always found it difficult to determine where else God predicted the Gog and Magog invasion prior to Ezekiel. (I can think of a few possibilities such as Isaiah 29 or the end of Isaiah 17, but I cannot be dogmatic.)

Richardson argues that Gog and Magog are destroyed at the battle of Armageddon.76 Personally, I am not entirely persuaded of when the Gog and Magog invasion happens. There are multiple views on the subject. In fact, there are about as many views on the Gog/Magog war timing as there are Rapture views.

Even if true, this does not prove that Gog is the Antichrist. Jesus defeats “the kings of the earth” (Revelation 19:19) and the kings from the east (Revelation 16:12) as well as the ten kings (Revelation 17:14) and perhaps also Edom (Isaiah 63) at Armageddon.

To say that this foe is defeated at Armageddon does nothing to prove who he is, other than that he is an end times villain.

Furthermore, Richardson also makes the argument that Gog (just like the Antichrist) makes a surprise attack on Israel.77 However, this is characteristic of invaders generally, not the Antichrist specifically.

The Assyrian is Not the Antichrist

Richardson claims that “the Assyrian” mentioned in Isaiah and Micah is also the same as the Antichrist.78 I agree the Assyrian could plausibly be the same as Gog, since the Assyrian empire encompassed some of modern-day Turkey (as well as Syria and Iraq).79 Perhaps Jesus will personally defeat the Assyrian in the end times. Or he will do it via delegation to his people. It is not entirely clear. For example, Isaiah says:

²⁴ Therefore this is what the Lord God of armies says: “My people, you who dwell in Zion, do not fear the Assyrian who strikes you with the rod, and lifts up his staff against you the way Egypt did. ²⁵ For in a very little while My indignation against you will be ended and My anger will be directed toward their destruction.” ²⁶ The Lord of armies will wield a whip against him like the defeat of Midian at the rock of Oreb; and His staff will be over the sea, and He will lift it up the way He did in Egypt. (Isaiah 10:24-26)

Nevertheless, God often uses military powers to carry out judgment on his behalf. This is what it seems to be saying in Micah. Speaking of Messiah, he says:

This One will be our peace.
When the Assyrian invades our land,
When he tramples on our citadels,
Then we will raise against him
Seven shepherds and eight leaders of people.
⁶ They will shepherd the land of Assyria with the sword,
The land of Nimrod at its entrances;
And He will rescue us from the Assyrian
When he invades our land,
And when he tramples our territory. (Micah 5:5-6)

This passage says that the Messiah defeats the Assyrian. But it also says that there will be shepherds and leaders who “shepherd” the land of Assyria with the sword. Perhaps Jesus the Messiah will conquer the Assyrian by delegating this role to Israel.

It is unclear what relationship the Assyrian has with the destruction of Damascus mentioned in Isaiah 17.

The pronouncement concerning Damascus:

“Behold, Damascus is about to be removed from being a city
And will become a fallen ruin.
² The cities of Aroer are abandoned;
They will be for herds to lie down in,
And there will be no one to frighten them.
³ The fortified city will disappear from Ephraim,
And sovereignty from Damascus
And the remnant of Aram;
They will be like the glory of the sons of Israel,”
Declares the Lord of armies. (Isaiah 17:1-3)

Again, this describes a foe north of Israel who has an important role to play in the end times. Whether he is the same or different from Gog and Magog remains to be seen. However, just because Jesus defeats him in the end times does not mean he is the Antichrist, as Jesus defeats many villains in the end times.

The Web of Antichrist Passages

Though interesting for prophecy studies, there are no specific cross-references from this northern foe(s) to the Antichrist. Uncontroversial New Testament references to the end time Antichrist seem to consistently converge on the same ideas and passages.

For example, Paul speaks of the man of lawlessness, with clear cross-references to Daniel 11:36.

⁴ who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4)

Compare to Daniel 11:36:

³⁶ “Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt himself and boast against every god and will speak dreadful things against the God of gods; and he will be successful until the indignation is finished, because that which is determined will be done. (Daniel 11:36)

Furthermore, his devastating reign is for 3 1/2 years (Revelation 13:5), just like the boastful horn in Daniel 7, who is also destroyed by Jesus at His Second Coming.

⁷ And I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish smashing the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed. (Daniel 12:7)

A very similar phrase is used in Daniel 7 to describe the reign of a boastful figure.

²⁵ And he will speak against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be handed over to him for a time, times, and half a time. (Daniel 7:25)

This boastful figure is defeated and given over to being burned.

¹¹ Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was killed, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire. (Daniel 7:11)

This king is defeated when the Messiah comes on the clouds of heaven and receives a kingdom.

¹³ “I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a son of man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
¹⁴ And to Him was given dominion,
Honor, and a kingdom,
So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)

If you recall, Jesus quotes this passage when talking about His Second Coming.

And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30)

Furthermore, when Jesus speaks of the abomination of desolation, he is speaking of the Antichrist, as we noted before (Mark 13:14).

We can do all kinds of literary cross-referencing with these various passages, as you can see here. The important thing to note here is that Gog and Magog, the Assyrian, and as we will see, the King of the North, do not fit into this web very well.

The King of the North Is Probably Not the Antichrist…Though It Technically Doesn’t Matter

Throughout Daniel 11, there are a series of prophecies about battles between the “king of the South” and the “king of the North.” The king of the North has consistently referred to Syria/Turkey (Seleucid empire) and the king of the South consistently referred to Egypt (Ptolemaic empire).

Seleucid Empire

The prophecies found in Daniel 11:1-35 were fulfilled in the past. Nevertheless, at verse 36, the prophecies no longer accurately describe historical events. In fact, the context indicates that these events pertain to the end times, since they happen at the “time of the end” (Daniel 11:40). Interestingly, the “king of the South” and “king of the North” are mentioned as having a role to play in the end times as well.

Ptolemaic Empire

Richardson believes that the Antichrist is the “king of the North” described in the following passage.80

³⁶ “Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt himself and boast against every god and will speak dreadful things against the God of gods; and he will be successful until the indignation is finished, because that which is determined will be done. ³⁷ And he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he show regard for any other god; for he will boast against them all. ³⁸ But instead he will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his fathers did not know; he will honor him with gold, silver, precious stones, and treasures. ³⁹ And he will take action against the strongest of fortresses with the help of a foreign god; he will give great honor to those who acknowledge him and will make them rulers over the many, and will parcel out land for a price.

⁴⁰ “And at the end time the king of the South will wage war with him, and the king of the North will storm against him with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he will enter countries, overflow them, and pass through. ⁴¹ He will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his hand: Edom, Moab, and the foremost of the sons of Ammon. ⁴² Then he will reach out with his hand against other countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape. ⁴³ But he will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his heels. ⁴⁴ But rumors from the East and from the North will terrify him, and he will go out with great wrath to eliminate and annihilate many. ⁴⁵ And he will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

Commentators who believe this refers to the end time Antichrist are quite divided on who the pronoun “he” is referring to at the end of verse 40.

There are two main views:

• “He” refers back to the Antichrist, who is the same person as the king of the North (Two-King view)

• “He” refers back to the Antichrist, who is not the same person as the king of the North. (Three-king view).

I will give reasons why I think the Antichrist mentioned in the preceding verses is not the king of the North, but is a third, more dominant, figure on the world stage.

Through the entirety of Daniel 11:36-39, “he/him/his” refers back to “the king.” (I have added labels in brackets to indicate who the individuals are, and if they are debated.)

³⁶ “Then the king [ANTICHRIST] will do as he [ANTICHRIST] pleases, and he [ANTICHRIST] will exalt himself and boast against every god and will speak dreadful things against the God of gods; and he [ANTICHRIST] will be successful until the indignation is finished, because that which is determined will be done. ³⁷ And he [ANTICHRIST] will show no regard for the gods of his [ANTICHRIST] fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he [ANTICHRIST] show regard for any other god; for he [ANTICHRIST] will boast against them all. ³⁸ But instead he [ANTICHRIST] will honor a god of fortresses, a god whom his [ANTICHRIST] fathers did not know; he [ANTICHRIST] will honor him with gold, silver, precious stones, and treasures. ³⁹ And he [ANTICHRIST] will take action against the strongest of fortresses with the help of a foreign god; he [ANTICHRIST] will give great honor to those who acknowledge him and will make them rulers over the many, and will parcel out land for a price.

Except for the debatable case in question (Daniel 11:40), all the pronouns in verses 41-45 also refer back to the Antichrist. He was introduced in verse 36 and is the main character until the end of verse 45.

⁴⁰ “And at the end time the king of the South will wage war with him [ANTICHRIST], and the king of the North [DEBATED] will storm against him [DEBATED] with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he [DEBATED] will enter countries, overflow them, and pass through. ⁴¹ He [ANTICHRIST] will also enter the Beautiful Land, and many countries will fall; but these will be rescued out of his [ANTICHRIST] hand: Edom, Moab, and the foremost of the sons of Ammon. ⁴² Then he [ANTICHRIST] will reach out with his [ANTICHRIST] hand against other countries, and the land of Egypt will not escape. ⁴³ But he [ANTICHRIST] will gain control over the hidden treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and Libyans and Ethiopians will follow at his [ANTICHRIST] heels. ⁴⁴ But rumors from the East and from the North will terrify him [ANTICHRIST], and he [ANTICHRIST] will go out with great wrath to eliminate and annihilate many. ⁴⁵ And he [ANTICHRIST] will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he [ANTICHRIST] will come to his end, and no one will help him [ANTICHRIST].

Minority Third Position

It should be noted that a very small minority have defended the view that the passage starts off discussing Antichrist in 11:36-39, only to switch to a separate king of the north at verse 40. Then the passage sticks with that new king of the north for the remainder of the chapter.81

Yet this is not very likely as we will shortly see. This is due to how Daniel 11 usually behaves when putting the spotlight on a particular king. The whole narrative in 11:36-45 is consistent with Antichrist, not another person.

The real question, then, is if “the king of the north” is just another name for the Antichrist, or if it is a separate king from the Antichrist. Richardson believes king of the North is Antichrist, whereas I believe he is (probably) distinct from the Antichrist.82

Back and Forth Reading - The Counterattack

If we think that the willful king of 11:36-39 just is the “king of the North” in verse 40, the reading will look like this.

⁴⁰ “And at the end time the king of the South will wage war with him [ANTICHRIST], and the king of the North [ANOTHER NAME FOR ANTICHRIST] will storm against him [KING OF THE SOUTH] with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he [ANTICHRIST] will enter countries, overflow them, and pass through.

This reading would mean that there are only two main actors. The king of the South attacks the King of the North (Antichrist), and the King of the North makes an overwhelming counterattack.

The Single Subject Reading - The Pincer Attack

If we think that every “he/him/his” in the passage refers back to the willful king in Daniel 11:36, our reading will look like this:

⁴⁰ “And at the end time the king of the South will wage war with him [ANTICHRIST], and the king of the North will storm against him [ANTICHRIST] with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he [ANTICHRIST] will enter countries, overflow them, and pass through.

This reading would lead us to believe there are three actors here, not two. In this case “king of the South” would be Egypt (as it was historically) and “the king of the north” will be Syria/Turkey (as it was historically) who attack a more intimidating figure, “the king,” in the end times.

Precedent Throughout Daniel 11

The “king of the North,” the “king of the South” and other kings (i.e. Alexander the Great and Antiochus IV) are discussed throughout the previous verses in Daniel 11. Therefore, we should look at how those verses deal with pronouns and titles. Therefore, we must ask an important question: Based on how pronouns and titles are used throughout Daniel 11, which reading should we go with?

I do not know Hebrew. However, there doesn’t seem to be any grammatical rules that force a certain reading of who’s who in this passage. Nevertheless, as chaotic as the pronouns and titles appear to be, they do happen to have patterns.

Pronouns for Main Characters

When a person is introduced with a title, the pronouns usually stay with that person until it “resets” with a new person. For example, the “mighty king” (Alexander the Great), is the sole subject of the pronouns until a new person is introduced, even though other people are mentioned.

³ And a mighty king [ALEXANDER] will arise, and he [ALEXANDER] will rule with great authority and do as he [ALEXANDER] pleases. ⁴ But as soon as he [ALEXANDER] has arisen, his [ALEXANDER] kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four points of the compass, though not to his [ALEXANDER] own descendants, nor according to his [ALEXANDER] authority which he [ALEXANDER] wielded, because his [ALEXANDER] sovereignty will be removed and given to others besides them. (Daniel 11:2-4)

Daniel 11:21-35 does the same thing with Antiochus IV. Despite numerous other actors (sometimes even third parties), it usually uses “he/his/him” to talk about Antiochus IV.

Daniel 11:21-35 provides a good example of this precedent:

²¹ And in his place a despicable person [ANTIOCHUS IV] will arise, on whom the majesty of kingship has not been conferred; but he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will come in a time of tranquility and seize the kingdom by intrigue. ²² And the overflowing forces will be flooded away from him [ANTIOCHUS IV] and smashed, and also the prince of the covenant. ²³ After an alliance is made with him [ANTIOCHUS IV] he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will practice deception, and he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will go up and gain power with a small force of people. ²⁴ In a time of tranquility he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will enter the richest parts of the realm, and he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will accomplish what his [ANTIOCHUS IV] fathers did not, nor his [ANTIOCHUS IV] ancestors; he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will distribute plunder, spoils, and possessions among them, and he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will devise his [ANTIOCHUS IV] schemes against strongholds, but only for a time.

²⁵ And he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will stir up his [ANTIOCHUS IV] strength and courage against the king of the South with a large army; so the king of the South will mobilize an extremely large and mighty army for war; but he [KING OF THE SOUTH] will not stand, because schemes will be devised against him [KING OF THE SOUTH]. ²⁶ Those who eat his [KING OF THE SOUTH] choice food will destroy him [KING OF THE SOUTH], and his [KING OF THE SOUTH] army will overflow, but many will fall down slain. ²⁷ As for both kings [ANTIOCHUS IV & KING OF THE SOUTH], their hearts will be intent on evil, and they will speak lies to each other at the same table; but it will not succeed, because the end is still to come at the appointed time. ²⁸ Then he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will return to his [ANTIOCHUS IV] land with much plunder; but his [ANTIOCHUS IV] heart will be set against the holy covenant, and he [ANTIOCHUS IV]will take action and then return to his [ANTIOCHUS IV] own land.

²⁹ “At the appointed time he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before. ³⁰ For ships of Kittim will come against him [ANTIOCHUS IV]; therefore he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will withdraw in fear and will return and curse the holy covenant and take action; so he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will come back and pay attention to those who abandon the holy covenant. ³¹ Forces from him [ANTIOCHUS IV] will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. ³² And by smooth words he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will be strong and take action. ³³ And those who have insight among the people will give understanding to the many; yet they will fall by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder for many days. ³⁴ Now when they fall they will be granted a little help, and many will join with them in hypocrisy. ³⁵ And some of those who have insight will fall, to refine, purge, and cleanse them until the end time; because it is still to come at the appointed time.

You will notice that the pronoun only changes when it brings up a new subject (the “king of the South in verse 25). But the pronouns reset back to Antiochus IV as a “default setting” when it is done talking about “both kings” in verse 30. Even though the subject is ambiguous, a bare pronoun refers back to the main subject of the entire section, not the King of the South.

This bolsters the case for the three-actor reading. When “he” is not explicitly announced, it usually refers back to the main character of the section.

Pronouns When Third Party Attackers Are Involved

Daniel 11:29-30 is a good test case of the pincer view, since it involves a third-party attacker.

²⁹ “At the appointed time he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will return and come into the South, but this last time it will not turn out the way it did before. ³⁰ For ships of Kittim [THIRD PARTY] will come against him [ANTIOCHUS IV]; therefore he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will withdraw in fear and will return and curse the holy covenant and take action; so he [ANTIOCHUS IV] will come back and pay attention to those who abandon the holy covenant.

In this case, the bare pronouns “he/him” after the third party consistently revert to Antiochus IV, not the ships of Kittim. This is of course true, since “ships of Kittim” is plural, and “he” is singular.

But what if we don’t have that additional helpful information? This is where Daniel 11:40 comes in:

⁴⁰ “And at the end time the king of the South will wage war with him [ANTICHRIST], and the king of the North will storm against him [ANTICHRIST] with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he [ANTICHRIST] will enter countries, overflow them, and pass through.

The precedent set by the text is that when new characters are introduced as attacking the main character, the pronouns default to the main character, not the newly introduced attacker. This would mean that the “king of the North” is a separate character from the main one, who is the Antichrist.

Alarming Rumors from the North

The most powerful argument that the Antichrist is distinct from the king of the North is found in the context of Daniel 11:44-45.

⁴⁴ But rumors from the East and from the North will terrify him, and he will go out with great wrath to eliminate and annihilate many. ⁴⁵ And he will pitch the tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the beautiful Holy Mountain; yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

Here, the Antichrist is alarmed from rumors coming from “the East” and “the North.” If the Antichrist simply is the king of the North, then why is he alarmed by reports from his own domain?

One could respond by saying that the Antichrist is alarmed by reports east and north of himself, not north of Israel. On this view, when the Antichrist is in the process of dominating Egypt, he is alarmed by reports in Israel (north of himself) and reports east of himself.

Yet this is also problematic because directional names throughout the book of Daniel always refer to locations relative to Israel (“Beautiful Land”), not relative to the actor being spoken about. You can see how references to the North, the South, the West, and the East are used throughout Daniel by clicking on the respective links provided.

This is supported by the fact that the Euphrates River dries up for the “kings from the east,” so they can meet for war at Armageddon in Israel (Revelation 16:12-16). These are likely the rumors from the east which causes the Antichrist to panic and move back up into the holy land to fight.

Another possibility is that these northern rumors come from a different northern location than the king of the North’s power base. For example, Richardson speculates that the reports from the North could be from Russia, and those from the East could be China:

Then, sometime in the midst of the Antichrist’s conquests, “rumors” from both the North and the East upset him greatly. Exactly what these rumors are, we can only speculate. But we would assume that they refer to the movements of large armies, perhaps from Russia in the North and China in the East:83

Since Richardson believes that the “king of the North” is the same as the Antichrist, these reports have to be coming from a northern location other than Turkey and Syria. Otherwise, the Antichrist would be alarmed by rumors from his own domain. This would be very unlikely, since that’s the origin of his own power base on Richardson’s view.

Yet this is an inconsistent use of the directional term. For example, the bare term “the South” is used in Daniel 11:29 to refer to forces from the same location as the “king of the South.” Namely, “the South” denotes the Ptolemaic (Egyptian) forces.

Therefore, consistency would have us think that “the North” is a reference to the area of the former Seleucid empire, namely, Turkey and Syria. This would mean the Antichrist is alarmed by internal problems from his own domain. Yet this is extremely unlikely, since the Antichrist’s power appears to be consolidated until Armageddon (Revelation 17:14).

The best explanation for this is that, while in Egypt, the Antichrist is alarmed by rumors from the area of the king of the North, who has since regrouped his armies after being defeated (Daniel 11:40). This causes the Antichrist to move back north into the holy land, to fight both the eastern and northern threats. On this view, there are three actors, not two.

Specific Kings vs Titles

Throughout the early part of the chapter, “king of the South” and “king of the North” are almost always explicitly introduced with those titles, unless a very specific person is in view (Daniel 11:5-19). In fact, these terms function more like regional placeholders in most cases, as these generally refer to dynasties. On the contrary, terms like “a mighty king” (Alexander) or “contemptible person” (Antiochus IV) or simply, “the king” (Antichrist) refer to specific individuals.84

For example, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is actually the king of the north, since he was a Seleucid king. Yet he is never called such in the Hebrew, because he is introduced as “a contemptible person.” In fact, the term “king of the North” is last used in verse 15 and doesn’t appear again until verse 40. This is true, despite the fact that those regional actors are still at play throughout Daniel 11.

As a result, the fact that the Antichrist is not introduced as “the king of the North,” but only as “the king” is very telling. In verse 40, the king of the north is reintroduced, despite being absent since verse 15. It usually refers to a dynastic placeholder, or a “regional officeholder” if you will. This is why it’s unusual that “the king” would be renamed to “the king of the north.”

This is especially the case, since his influence seems rather outsized compared to a mere regional actor. He will do as he pleases, just like Alexander the Great (Daniel 11:3). This points to the idea he is not limited to the area of one of these dynasties but has a bigger role to play. This would also explain why he is simply called “the king” in an unqualified sense.85

Types, Patterns, and Foreshadowing

The entire chapter of Daniel 11 mostly speaks of back-and-forth battles between a northern player and a southern player. Verses 11:36-45 involves the same two characters (king of the South and the King of the North) in the end times. Since the events of Daniel 11:21-35 foreshadow the end times, some argue that 11:36-45 must follow that same theological pattern as well.

Furthermore, one of those northern kings, Antiochus IV, is widely considered to be a forerunner and “type” of the Antichrist. In the same way King David foreshadows Jesus, Antiochus IV foreshadows Antichrist.86 I would agree. Though never explicitly called as such, Antiochus IV was the “king of the North,” since he was a Seleucid ruler.

Richardson seems to think that typology requires an exact duplication of geography. In particular, he implies that the Antichrist and Antiochus IV must come from the same region, since Antiochus prefigures Antichrist.87

This is problematic for a few reasons.

First, typology is not usually tied to geography. Granted, king David was born in Bethlehem, just like Jesus.88 However, there are numerous instances where types do not come from the same place. For example, Ezekiel 28 speaks of the king of Tyre as if he is Satan. We do not think that Satan is literally a man from the city of Tyre, even though the king of that city prefigures him. Furthermore, the descriptions of Satan in Ezekiel 28 actually contradict the king of Tyre, as the latter never lived in Eden (Ezekiel 28:13).

Furthermore, the abomination of desolation in the end times most certainly will not involve allegiance to Zeus, as it did in 167 B.C. Furthermore, just from the text, Daniel 11:36-45 involves character traits that were not true of Antiochus IV. For example, Antiochus IV did honor the gods of his ancestors, which Daniel 11:36-38 makes clear the Antichrist will not do. Furthermore, Antiochus did not die in the holy land, whereas the Antichrist will be defeated there (Daniel 11:44-45).89

Therefore, when cannot use typology to argue that there are only two actors in Daniel 11:36-45. Though they have notable similarities to what they are foreshadowing, types often have notable and uncanny differences from what they are foreshadowing as well.

Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Antichrist is a northern, Seleucid ruler, just due to typology. The mere presence of the king of the North and king of the South in the end times is a sufficient parallel to the past. The text does not require that we push the parallel beyond this.

The Antichrist’s Power Base Begins in Europe

Since the Antichrist is distinct from the king of the south and the king of the North, it bolsters the case that he and his ten kings will originate from mainland Europe.

Before the Antichrist rises to power, there exists a group of ten kings from the Roman Empire. After he consolidates power, he goes to war with someone south of Israel (Egypt) and someone north of Israel (Turkey/Syria).

But if the Antichrist goes to war with all these places, where is he attacking from? Where is his homebase from where he launches his military operations?

The only place left on the map of the old Roman Empire is western Europe.

Both Views Work with a Roman Antichrist

It should be noted that neither of these actually undermines the revived Roman Empire view. The Roman Empire at its height encompassed large parts of Turkey and Syria. Therefore, the Antichrist could still be “Roman” and still come from the north. As J. Paul Tanner writes:

To be consistent with the chapter, the king of the north should be related to the countries that once composed the ancient Seleucid Empire (e.g., Syria, Iraq, Turkey... and even Israel). If this is true and the Antichrist is the “king of the north,” then this would need to be reconciled with Daniel 7:23-24 that somehow connects him with the Roman Empire. This is not necessarily a contradiction, since most of the countries that comprised the ancient Seleucid Empire were also a part of the Roman Empire.90

From the north would be totally appropriate designation in this case. As Tanner writes:

the use of the term “north” in reference to countries outside of Israel is a frequent expression of the prophets for Israel’s neighbors of the Middle East, either Babylon, Assyria, Medo-Persia or the Seleucid empire. The reason why eastern countries such as Babylon would be designated as being “from the north” is to be found in the explanation that an attack upon Israel by these foes always came from the north, whereby the major highways across the Fertile Crescent (along the Euphrates) would take one to the upper regions of Galilee in the northern part of the country. 91

In summary, part of the historical Roman Empire was in fact directly north of Israel. Furthermore, any ground invasion of Israel would come from the north, regardless of the fact that the bulk of the historical Roman Empire was not directly north of Israel. This is consistent with the fact that other northern invaders are treated as such in the Scriptures.

That being said, the way pronouns work throughout Daniel 11 technically allows for the two-king or the three-king view. Nevertheless, in my opinion, titles and pronoun usage in the previous parts of Daniel 11 moderately favors the three-king view. As a result, we can make a cumulative case to show that the king of the north is probably distinct from the Antichrist.

Summary

There are several reasons to believe the Antichrist will come from a revived Roman Empire. In contrast, there are many reasons to believe he will not be a Muslim from a revived Islamic Caliphate.

The Fourth Kingdom is the Roman Empire

We saw several reasons why the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 & 7 is the Roman Empire, not the Ottoman Empire. First, we saw that the Roman Empire was the “fourth” empire in a series of sequential empires after Babylon. Second, the book of Daniel sets the precedent that the empire that conquered the previous is the next empire in the sequence. The Ottoman Empire did not come fourth in a sequence of successive empires after the Babylonian Empire. We saw how an appeal to prophetic gaps does not work here, as the word “fourth” does not imply a gap in an ordinal set, as demonstrated from Daniel 11:2-4.

The Roman Empire Meets the Description of the Fourth Kingdom

We saw how the Roman Empire was terrifying and violent, just like Daniel 2 & 7 describe. We saw how the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) existed because of its terrible violence. Scholarship on the Roman Empire supports this notion. Furthermore, we can find specific examples of its violence in the Punic Wars, Gallic Wars, Destruction of Corinth, and the Jewish Roman Wars. Whether the Ottoman Empire was more violent than Rome is a moot point, since the fourth empire in succession after Babylon (Rome) meets the criteria of violence just fine, without having to appeal to another candidate.

Furthermore, Rome dominated the entire Mediterranean Sea area, fitting the description that the beast comes up out of the “Great Sea.” Furthermore, Rome was one of the most brutal oppressors of the Jews and occupiers of the holy land. If Daniel mentions, indirectly, the activities of the Roman army in Daniel 9:26, as a very significant event in Israel’s history, we would find it quite odd that he would leave it out of the four-kingdom sequence in Daniel 2 & 7.

The People of the Prince Were the Romans

The people who destroyed the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. were the Romans. Daniel 9:26 predicted this event, stating that the coming ruler (Antichrist) would be from the same people who did this. Richardson claims that “Romans” is too vague and cannot count due to the fact the word “people” allegedly refers only to an ethnic group. We saw that the word for people does not always refer to an ethnic group. In this context, it is best interpreted as being those politically affiliated with a certain leader.

The Antichrist Will Have World Domination at the Height of His Reign

We saw how the Antichrist will start off as a regional power. At the height of his reign, he will have world domination. This coheres well with the traditional futurist reading of the seven king/kingdom sequence in Revelation 17, where the Antichrist emerges from the revived Roman Empire to have a second reign that is much larger and powerful than before. We saw how this reading of the seven king/kingdom sequence fits with Daniel and the rest of Revelation 17. On the contrary, Richardson has to borrow Rome to make his sequence work. Furthermore, the long duration of the Islamic Caliphate does not fit well with the reign of the revived fourth kingdom for only “a little while.”

The Antichrist Will Be Self Deifying, Not Islamic

We saw how the Antichrist will most certainly claim to be God, through his actions and likely his words. This is clear due to Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians 2, which aligns with Daniel 11 and passages about the “abomination of desolation” as an idol in the temple. Richardson’s claim that the Greek word proskuneo does not mean worship is mistaken, since the Antichrist demands this allegiance on pain of death, causing those who submit to go to hell. Finally, the “god of fortresses” is best explained as the worship of military power and might in general, not a reference to Allah.

The Antichrist is Distinct from the Northern Foe

We saw how there does exist a northern foe in the end times. We saw how Richardson’s claims that these are the same as the Antichrist do not succeed, since there are many villains who are defeated at Armageddon, not just Antichrist. Finally, we saw how the “king of the North” likely refers to the Antichrist’s attacker, not the Antichrist himself. Appeals to pronouns in the passage are probabilistic at best, and typology does not force us to accept him to be the king of the North.

Conclusion

I hope you found this article to be interesting and thought provoking, even if you don’t agree. My primary goal in this article is not so much to “debunk” the Islamic Antichrist, but to show a positive case for why the Antichrist is from the revived Roman Empire instead. This way, we are not caught off guard when the Antichrist comes from the Euro-Mediterranean area.

Furthermore, as I said before, none of this is meant to be a personal attack on Joel’s character. If he has the time, I greatly look forward to and appreciate his response to my article.

Sitting in the background is the relationship of this debate to current events. In my next post, I hope to provide a summary of the revived Roman Empire interpretation’s relevance to the last few decades of world history. If you’d like to be notified when that comes out, feel free to subscribe here. Contrary to what it first appears; there is a lot more going on there than meets the eye.

Come Lord Jesus!

(NOTE: A small section was added on Dec. 4, 2025, to increase the strength of the argument. You can jump straight to the new section by clicking here. Furthermore, this article received minor updates for clarity and grammar on that same day).

This is a compilation of theologians throughout Church history who affirm that the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7 is the Roman Empire. This is a reference that I will link to in my forthcoming article. In that article, I will be defending the idea that the Antichrist comes from a revived Roman Empire and will not be a Muslim from a revived Islamic Caliphate.

If you want notified when that article comes out, subscribe below.

1. “Against Heresies,” Irenaus of Lyons (130 – 202 A.D.)

   1. John and Daniel have predicted the dissolution and desolation of the Roman Empire, which shall precede the end of the world and the eternal Kingdom of Christ. The Gnostics are refuted, those tools of Satan, who invent another Father different from the Creator.

   2. In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, ...

2. Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel (200’s A.D.)

   1. Then he says: “A fourth beast, dreadful and terrible; it had iron teeth and claws of brass.” And who are these but the Romans? which (kingdom) is meant by the iron--the kingdom which is now established; for the legs of that (image) were of iron. And after this, what remains, beloved, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which part is iron and part clay, mixed together?

3. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.)

   1. But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power; and of the kings who reigned before him, three he shall humble, and the remaining seven he shall keep in subjection to himself.

4. Daniel 7 Geneva Study Bible (biblehub.com) (1560)

   1. (l) That is, the Roman empire which was a monster, and could not be compared to any beast, because there was no beast that was even comparable.

5. Daniel 7 - Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1509-1564)

   1. I have no doubt that in this vision the Prophet was shown the figure of the Roman Empire, and this will be more apparent as we go on.

6. Daniel 2 Matthew Henry’s Commentary (biblehub.com) (1662–1714)

   1. “The legs and feet of iron signified the Roman empire.”

7. Daniel 7 - Wesley’s Explanatory Notes - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1765)

   1. A fourth beast — The Roman empire.

8. Daniel 7 Gill’s Exposition (biblehub.com) (1697–1771)

   1. As concerning the rest of the beasts..... The other three which represent the Babylonian, Persian and Grecian monarchies: they had their dominion taken away; not at this time when the fourth beast, or Roman empire, is destroyed, but long ago; and not together, but successively; the dominion was taken away from the Babylonians, and given to the Persians; and then their dominion was taken away, and given to the Grecians; and after that the dominion of the Grecians was taken away from them, and given to the Romans: the prophet having observed what became of the fourth beast,

9. Daniel 7 Keil and Delitzsch OT Commentary (biblehub.com) (1800’s)

   1. If we now approach more closely to the historical reference of the fourth world-kingdom, it must be acknowledge that we cannot understand by it the Grecian, but only the Roman world-power.

10. Daniel 7 - Coke’s Commentary on the Holy Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1801-1803)

    1. The fourth beast signified the Roman empire;

11. Daniel 7 - Clarke’s Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1762-1832)

    1. Verse Daniel 7:7. I saw - a fourth beast - it had great iron teeth — This is allowed, on all hands, to be the Roman empire.

12. Daniel 7 - Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1828)

    1. And explaining these prophecies by the events which have followed, it should seem, that there can be no difficulty in supposing, that the first beast, like a lion, represented the Chaldean monarchy. The second, like a bear, set forth the Persian, which succeeded it. The third, like a leopard, the Grecian kingdom. And the fourth, the Roman.

13. Daniel 7 - Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1835)

    1. Daniel 7:7 . After this I saw a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly. This very strikingly applies in all its characters to the great Roman empire; and all attempts to apply it to the Turkish dominions, not only make a chasm in history, but they are ill supported by argument.

14. Daniel 7 Matthew Poole’s Commentary (biblehub.com) (1853)

    1. A fourth beast: this was the Roman empire; for that followed the Grecian, and was monstrous as to his rise and progress.

15. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1857)

    1. This fourth kingdom can be no other than the Roman empire, which answers this emphatical description better than any of the former kingdoms.

16. Daniel 7 - Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1859)

    1. Four great beasts; viz. the Chaldeans, Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires.

    2. Time. Each of the four empires had its period assigned. That of Rome attracted the prophet’s attention most, and is mentioned first. (Menochius)

17. Daniel 7 - Trapp’s Complete Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1865-1868)

    1. Ver. 7. Behold a fourth beast. ] Not likened to any certain beast, because none can be named so cruel which can express the cruelty of this fourth monarchy - viz., that of the Romans, no, although it were

18. Daniel 7 Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (biblehub.com) (1871-1878)

    1. Whereas the three former kingdoms were designated respectively, as a lion, bear, and leopard, no particular beast is specified as the image of the fourth; for Rome is so terrible as to be not describable by any one, but combines in itself all that we can imagine inexpressibly fierce in all beasts. 

19. Daniel 7 - Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1892)

    1. The four, as already seen in connection with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, are those of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome [153]

    2. According to the all but unanimous belief of both Jews and Christians, the empire indicated is that of Rome, which, as is well known, succeeded that of Greece.

20. Daniel 7 - Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1897-1910)

    1. The terrible beast, too dreadful for a name (Daniel 7:7 ) corresponds to the legs of iron, and is equivalent to the Roman empire. Its ten horns, like the ten toes in the other case, speak of ten kingdoms into which it shall be divided at the end of this age.

21. Daniel 7 Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (biblehub.com) (1905)

    1. these four empires are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Græco-Macedonian, and the Roman.

22. Daniel 7 - The Biblical Illustrator - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1905–1909)

    1. These beasts were four in number, and represented four kingdoms that were to arise upon the earth. That these were the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires is evident from a variety of considerations.

23. Daniel 7 - Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1913-1922)

    1. Daniel 7:7-8 . This represents Rome, corresponding to the two legs of iron and the ten horns with the little horn between has the same meaning as the ten toes on the feet of the image

    2. The ten horns are kings and the little horn in their midst will be the final imperial head of the revived Roman empire, that world domineering person of whom we read repeatedly in the Word of God. He must be distinguished from another one, the personal anti-Christ, the man of sin and son of perdition.

24. Daniel 7 - F.B. Meyer’s ‘Through the Bible’ Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1914)

    1. The lion represents Babylon, whose cruel and mighty kingdom was animated by marvelous intelligence; the bear, Persia; the leopard, Greece under Alexander the Great; and the fourth beast, with great iron teeth, Rome.

25. Daniel 7 - Scofield’s Reference Notes - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1917)

    1. (1) In the beast vision of Daniel 7:0. the fourth beast is declared to be “the fourth kingdom,” i.e. the Roman empire, the “iron” kingdom of Daniel 2:0. The “ten horns” upon the fourth beast (Roman empire), Daniel 7:7 are declared to be “ten kings that shall arise” (Daniel 7:24) answering to the ten toes of the image vision of Daniel 2:0.

26. Daniel 7 - Treasury of Scripture Knowledge - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1856-1928)

    1. a fourth: The Roman empire, which destroyed the Grecian, and became mistress of the world. Daniel 7:19, Daniel 7:23, Daniel 2:40, Daniel 8:10, 2 Samuel 22:43

27. Daniel 7 - Kretzmann’s Popular Commentary of the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1921-1923)

    1. The fourth beast is the Roman Empire with its insatiable fierceness and love of conquest, whose spiritual descendant and successor is the kingdom of Antichrist, of the Pope at Rome, just as delineated in the Book of Revelation.

28. Ironside, H A. 1920. Lectures on Daniel the Prophet. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers. (p. 35)

    1. This can be no other than that great world-power which was in existence at the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ…

29. Daniel 7 - Hole’s Old and New Testament Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1947)

    1. But a fourth empire was to arise, as stated in verse Dan_7:7 ; namely the Roman, which would be so remarkable that no well-known beast, such as lion, bear or leopard, could represent it. It would be, ‘diverse from all the beasts that were before it’, ‘dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly’. Its teeth would be ‘iron’, and it would not only subdue, but also devour and break in pieces all that it subdued. How exactly this described the Roman empire, history bears witness.

30. Leopold, H C. 1949. Exposition of Daniel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (p. 296)

    1. Everything points to the Roman world power as the empire typified by this beast.

31. Young, Edward J. 1949. The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans-Lightning Source. (p. 75)

    1. The traditional interpretation, which is also adopted in this commentary, is to refer to the fourth kingdom to the Roman Empire.

32. Revival of Rome -- By: John F. Walvoord | Galaxie Software (1969)

    1. The identification of the fourth empire as Roman was the majority view of biblical scholarship until the rise of modern criticism.

33. Wood, Leon J. 1973. A Commentary on Daniel. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers. (p. 68)

    1. This fourth kingdom must be Rome, for it succeeded Greece. Conservative expositors agree on this identification, but liberals do not.

34. Feinberg, Charles L. 1981. Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord. Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books. (p. 36)

    1. A fourth and last kingdom is symbolized by the statue’s legs of iron and feet of iron and clay. This kingdom is identified with the Roman Empire, which was in power at the time of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

35. Showers, Renald E. 1982. The Most High God: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc. (p.34)

    1. Greece was to be succeeded by a fourth Gentile kingdom represented by the image’s legs of iron and feet and toes of iron and clay (vv.40-43). This would be the Roman Empire.

36. Archer, Gleason L. Jr. 1985. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 7. Edited by Frank E. Gabelein. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. (p. 47)

    1. Verse 40 describes this fourth empire, symbolized by the legs of iron. From a despotic standpoint, the Roman Republic was of far less value than gold, silver, or bronze; yet iron was most suited to crush opposing powers. Iron connotes toughness and ruthlessness and describes the Roman Empire that reached its widest extent under the reign of Trajan (98-117 A.D.), who occupied Rumania, and much of Assyria for at least a few brief years.

37. Pentecost, J D. 1985. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty: Old Testament. Edited by John F. Walvoord, and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books.

    1. The legs of iron represent the Roman Empire. This fourth kingdom conquered Greece in 63 B.C. (p.1335)

    2. As stated earlier, the four kingdoms are Babylon, represented by the lion; Medo-Persia, represented by the bear raised up on one side; Greece, represented by the winged leopard with four heads; and Rome, represented by the mongrel beast. (p.1351)

38. Whitcomb, John C. 1985. Everyday Bible Commentary: Daniel. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers. (p. 106)

    1. The identification of this kingdom as Rome can hardly be questioned except by those whose presuppositions do not permit them to believe in the possibility of predictive prophecy.

39. Daniel 7 - Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1989)

    1. The greatest minds of human history, as well as many of the intellectual giants of our own millennium, have unanimously and invariably identified the “four beasts” of this chapter as Babylon, Medo-Persia, the Greeks, and the empire of the Romans.

40. McGee, J V. 1991. Thru the Bible Commentary Series: Daniel. Nashville, Tennessee: Thru the Bible Radio. (p.116)

    1. This beast which represents the Roman Empire is characterized by strength.

41. Daniel 7 - Bridgeway Bible Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1994)

    1. The fourth beast, so horrible and terrible that it was beyond description, symbolized brutal all-conquering Rome.

42. Miller, Stephen R. 1994. The New American Commentary: Volume 18: Daniel. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group.

    1. By the second century B.C., Rome had superseded Greece as the dominant world power. The fourth beast, therefore, represents the Roman Empire, symbolized in chap. 2 by the iron legs and feet of the great statue.

43. Gangel, Kenneth O. 2001. Holman Old Testament Commentary: Daniel. Edited by Max Anders. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group. (p. 60)

    1. According to Daniel, iron breaks and smashes everything, and that is precisely what happened when Rome ruled the world.

44. Daniel 7 - Smith’s Bible Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (1927-2013)

    1. But finally this last beast, the Roman Empire, is just an awesome beast of which there is no correlation, there’s no... you can’t say it’s a lion or a bear

45. Daniel 7 - Dr. Constable's Expository Notes - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (2003)

    1. Most conservative scholars believe that the fourth beast represents the Roman Empire,

    2. These four kingdoms, according to the interpretation commonly received in the church, are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. 

    3. However, there seem to be indications in Daniel and elsewhere in the Bible, which I will point out later, that God will revive or reestablish the Roman Empire in the future.

46. Duck, Daymond R. 2007. The Book of Daniel: The Smart Guide to the Bible Series. Edited by Larry Richards Phd. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. (p. 51)

    1. There was a fourth world kingdom (see Illustration #9) in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Daniel did not identify it, but there is general agreement that the iron kingdom was the Old Roman Empire.

47. Hill, Andrew E. 2008. Daniel: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman III, and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. (Kindle location 2980)

    1. Generally, conservative scholars hold the Roman view (supported by the NT; see below), while mainline scholars tend to opt for one of the Greek views.

48. Daniel 7 - Pett's Commentary on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (2011?)

    1. Its beginnings may be seen as Rome, but it does not just represent Rome, for it divides up into a number of smaller ‘empires’ under a number of rulers. It represents the idea of ‘empire’, in opposition to God, the future unidentifiable ‘empires’ going on to the end of time which take the place of Rome.

    2. The fourth wild beast also represents an empire from the Mediterranean world. Diverse (altered) from all empires signifies its uniqueness in that it will continue in a broken up form as depicted in chapter 2. It is first the mighty Roman empire, but then it expands into a number of empires (‘ten’ indicates ‘a number of’), and finally produces the Anti-God.

49. MacArthur, John. 2016. Daniel & Esther: Israel in Exile. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. (p. 17)

    1. The nations represented in the dream were Babylon (gold), Medo-Persia (silver), Greece (bronze), Rome (iron), and a future earthly domain (iron and clay.)

50. Daniel 7 - Bell's Commentary on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org (2017)

    1. (7,8) The Terrible Beast

       1. ​​​​​​Roman Empire (Iron)

       2. 10 horns(like 10 toes) powers that be in the future the revived Roman Empire

       3. There is also a little horn that pops up, which defeats 3 of the kingdoms. He will become the world Ruler, he is Anti-Christ.

51. Benware, Paul. Daniel: God’s Man with God’s Message (p. 171). Dispensational Publishing House. Kindle Edition.

    1. The “Roman view”, which sees the fourth beast as the Roman Empire, deals much more forthrightly with the text of Daniel. And it has a much better fit with the events that have taken place and that will take place.

52. Jeremiah, David, and C C. Carlson. 2019. The Handwriting on the Wall: Secrets from the Prophecies of Daniel. Nashville, Tennessee: W Publishing Group. (p.133)

    1. There is no animal in all the animal kingdom that we can compare to the fourth beast. It represented the cruel, materialism of Rome, the empire that was known for its cruelty.

53. Tanner, J P. 2020. Daniel: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. Edited by H W. House, and William D. Barrick. Bellingham, Washington: Logos Bible Software. (p. 411)

    1. Conservative evangelicals are virtually unanimous in identifying the fourth and final beast as the Roman Empire.

54. Tsarfati, Amir, and Rick Yohn. 2024. Discovering Daniel: Finding Our Hope in God’s Prophetic Plan Amid Global Chaos. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers. (p. 51)

    1. Kingdoms two, three, and four- Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.

Like many American Christians, I grew up with a pretribulational background. Upon discovering the prewrath view as a young man, I defended that view for 18 years. In recent days, I had been reading some pretribulational scholarship. For a few weeks, I was convinced by them. Yet despite my flirtation with pretribulationism, I have come back to prewrath for a variety of reasons.

Not surprisingly, one of the most important is 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Pretrib scholarship has got some very interesting things to say about that verse. However, I think their interpretation ultimately fails.

The Elephant in the Room: 2 Thessalonians 2:3

The big deciding factor to return back to prewrath is the Greek of 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Though I do not know Greek myself, I have examined what the interlinear says and what those who do know Greek have said.

The “Missing” Part of 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Most Bible translations add a clause in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that is not in the text but are implied by it. This is why the NASB italicizes words that are implied, but not in the Greek.

No one is to deceive you in any way! For IT WILL NOT COME unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, -2 Thessalonians 2:3 NASB

Pretribulationists like Robert L. Thomas and Craig Blaising rightly point out that the words "it will not come" are not in the Greek text of 2 Thessalonians 2:3. This is why the NASB italicizes words that are implied, but not in the Greek.

What it literally says is something like this:

No one is to deceive you in any way! For ... unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Here there is an implied, unstated phrase in this conditional sentence that should be there in normal English. The controversy is what should go there.

Day of the Lord: Here or Near?

Paul is trying to calm the panicked Thessalonians who think the Day of the Lord has already begun. In the preceding verses, he is refuting the claim that the Day of the Lord "has come/is present."

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that THE DAY OF THE LORD HAS COME. -2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

"Has come" means "is present." It does not mean "is near" or "at hand."1 It means the Thessalonians thought that the end time Day of the Lord, predicted throughout the Old Testament, was already underway.

This is central to the pretribulational reading of 2 Thessalonians 2. To examine this, we will follow the argumentation of the late scholar Robert L. Thomas on this subject.2

Day of the Lord: “will not come” or “is not present”?

The basic idea is that the present tense of verse 2 should carry over to the implied statement in verse 3. On his reasoning, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 should read something like this:

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come[i.e. "IS PRESENT"]. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For [IT IS NOT PRESENT] unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

Since what Paul is denying is in the present tense, pretribulationists say that the implied statement should be present tense as well. As a result, the missing implied phrase should say "IT IS NOT PRESENT." On their view, "IT WILL NOT COME", as most translations have it, is an unfortunate mistranslation of what Paul has in mind in verse 3.

On Thomas’s and Blaising’s view, Paul is saying you can know you are not in the Day of the Lord because you don't see any of the events that would be happening if you were in it. Here, Paul mentions something in the first half (i.e. "apostasy") and the midpoint (Antichrist seating himself in temple) of the 70th week of Daniel (Daniel 9:27). (The 70th week of Daniel is a 7-year time period that precedes the setting up of Jesus’ Messianic kingdom on earth.)

On this interpretation, Paul is effectively saying that the events of the beginning and middle of the 70th week are events WITHIN the "Day of the Lord." Since Pretribulationists (and prewrathers) believe that the rapture is the first event of the Day of the Lord, the rapture would then come before the 70th week of Daniel.

Similar Examples in Greek: Mark 3:27

Robert L. Thomas and others cite Mark 3:27 and John 7:51 as examples for this interpretation. They have the same or similar Greek construction as 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property UNLESS [ean me] he FIRST [proton] ties up the strong man, and then he will plunder his house. - Mark 3:27

You can see the similarity to 2 Thessalonians 2:3:

No one is to deceive you in any way! For...UNLESS [ean me] the apostasy comes FIRST [proton], and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

This immediately raises an important question about Mark 3:27. Is tying up the strong man a PRECURSOR to entering the house? Or is it an element of what happens once the robber is ALREADY in the house?

Dr. Craig Blaising argues that the "precursor" view does not make sense. In that case, the text is saying that the robber has to tie up the strong man outside of the house before he goes inside. Rather, Blaising correctly says that the binding of the strong man takes place within the house. Then the robber plunders the strong man’s property. 3

Blaising carries this reasoning over to 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where he views those events not as precursors to the Day of the Lord, but aspects within it.

This may sound convincing at first. Yet upon closer examination, Mark 3:27 is actually fatal to the pretribulationist interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Here's why:

Jesus is literally saying that no one is ABLE (present tense), HAVING ENTERED (aorist-completed action) TO plunder (infinitive) the goods unless he FIRST ties up the strong man. Then he WILL (future tense) plunder his house. 4

It is not saying that tying the strong man is a precursor to merely entering the house. It is saying that, once a robber has gotten inside, he cannot plunder the house until he has tied up the strong man.

The Literal Standard Version (LSV) gets it quite right:

"No one is able TO SPOIL the vessels of the strong man, HAVING ENTERED into his house, if FIRST he may not bind the strong man, and then he WILL spoil his house." - Mark 3:27 LSV5

Also, note how the tense shifts from present to future. No one is presently “able” to plunder the house until he first ties up the strong man. Then he will (future tense) plunder the house.

This may seem like nitpicking, but it has huge implications for how we interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and its implied missing clause. Tying up the strong man really is a future precursor to being presently able to plunder the house. Therefore, the events of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 should be viewed as precursors to the Day of the Lord, not events within it.

Just like how Mark 3:27 shifts from present tense to future tense with precursors, the same should happen in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. Therefore, pretribulationists are mistaken to carry over the present tense from verse 2. It should read something like this, as it does in the NASB, ESV, and NIV.

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, ² that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come [i.e. “is present”]. ³ No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, ⁴ who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

Similar Examples in Greek: John 7:51

The same phenomenon can be found in John 7:51.

Our Law does not judge the person UNLESS [ean me] it FIRST [proton] hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” -John 7:51

On first glance, it looks like hearing the accused and knowing what he is doing is a precursor to judging him. However, Thomas argues that hearing from the accused and knowing what he is doing are parts of the judicial process itself.

Though interesting, this is a weak response for two reasons. First, I am not sure of all the nuances of (krino). However, many verses in John use that word to refer to rendering a negative verdict. John 3:17 and John 5:24 are good examples of this. At least in these verses, it does not refer to “judging” in the sense of evaluating a case, but as rendering the judgment or condemnation involved.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. - John 3:17

Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. -John 5:24 NASB

Rendering a negative judgment or decision is the clear context of John 7. Everyone is arguing about whether Jesus is the Messiah or not. The Pharisees want to arrest Jesus, because they’ve already decided he’s not the Messiah. However, Nicodemus stands up and says that you shouldn’t make any conclusions before hearing from the accused. Therefore, John 7:51 indicates that hearing the accused is a precursor to judging him, not a part of that process.

As we have seen, both examples that Thomas and Blaising appeal to are arguments in favor of the view that Paul is speaking of precursors to the Day of the Lord, not events within it.

Many pretribulationists are divided among themselves. They do not agree what “apostasia” (apostasy) means. Nor do they agree on when exactly the man of lawlessness is “revealed.” Once we correctly understand the sequence in 2 Thessalonians 2, I think the answer is standing right in front of us.

Consistency with the Teachings of Jesus

Paul makes numerous references and allusions to the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21) as the basis for clarifying end time confusion. As a result, perhaps the teachings of Jesus can illuminate what Paul means here.

Apostasy

In Matthew 24, Jesus talks about a worldwide persecution, where many will fall away and betray each other.

Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. ¹⁰ And at that time many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. ¹¹ And many false prophets will rise up and mislead many people. ¹² And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will become cold. ¹³ But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. -Matthew 24:9-13

This sounds like a distinct “apostasy” that Paul talks about in the end times. Apostasies have happened throughout history. But this one will be unprecedented and worldwide.

Man of Lawlessness

What of the man of lawlessness? Paul connects his revelation with an act in the temple, where he takes his seat and displays himself as being God.

No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. -2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

This is the very “abomination of desolation” that Jesus talks about in Matthew 24! “Abomination of desolation” is a technical term for placing an idol in the Jewish temple. Antiochus IV Epiphanes did this around 168 B.C., by placing an altar to Zeus on the temple altar and presumably setting up a statue to Zeus in the temple. Antiochus IV even had coins minted that claimed he was “god manifest” (i.e. Zeus himself)!

This was the initial fulfillment of Daniel 11:31:

Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of desolation. -Daniel 11:31

However, the end time abomination of desolation is a person, not just an image. In Mark 13:14, Jesus uses a masculine participle to refer to the abomination, implying that it is not a statue, but a person who idolizes himself in the holy place. 6 This is why the ESV translates the pronoun as “he” not “it.”

But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. -Mark 13:14 ESV

This is likewise true in Daniel 9:27, where a person, not a statue, is the “desolator.”

And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one WHO makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one WHO makes desolate. - Daniel 9:27

Again, this sounds a lot like what Paul is saying about the man of lawlessness. Paul seems to tie his revelation with an event that happens at the midpoint of the 70th week (Daniel 9:27), not its beginning.

Cosmic Signs

But what about the “Day of the Lord?” Joel 2:31 states that cosmic disturbances precede the Day of the Lord.

The sun will be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. -Joel 2:31

Interestingly, Jesus says that cosmic disturbances precede his return on the clouds.

²⁹ “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. ³⁰ And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. ³¹ And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. -Matthew 24:29-31

This does not prohibit cosmic signs from happening within the day of the Lord as well. Only that some cosmic signs certainly precede it. Nor will it help to say that the “great and awesome” day of the Lord is a subset of “the Day of the Lord.” 7 The Day of the Lord is itself a time frame (whether long or short). There is no indication in Scripture that these modifying adjectives refer to a subset of that day, rather than simply descriptions of it.

Conclusion

Despite my brief stint as a pretribulationist, I am back to the prewrath view, which I have held for 18 years. Pretribulational scholarship is quite interesting. But I do think their arguments ultimately fail.

Even though I believe the prewrath view is correct, I know that its defenses are not without some important weaknesses. It is some of these weaknesses that led me to strongly consider pretribulationism in the first place. I hope to address these in a coming post.

Come Lord Jesus!

All my PowerPoint presentations will be available on this single page. Below each thumbnail, you can download a PDF or the slides with hyperlinks to the sources.

Let me know what you think and which slideshow you’d like to see next. If you enjoy these, more are on the way.

Let me know what you think!

Antichrist’s Rise to Power in Daniel 7

(Now Available!)

These slides explore the Antichrist’s possible rise to power as described in Daniel 7.

Daniel 7 Little Horn Humbles 3 Powerpoint Presentation

2.19MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Daniel Little Horn Humbles Three With Citations

2.83MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Forthcoming Topics:

Proof that the EU is the Revived Roman Empire based on Daniel 2 and 7

(Coming Soon!)

Islamic Antichrist Debunked

(Coming Soon!)