Debunking the European Antichrist (UPDATED)
Dear bothers and sisters in Christ, Bible Prophecy In The News and The Beast From the East recently posted a new article entitled Debunking the European Antichrist. A certain number of individuals have challenged the Assyrian Antichrist connection by saying that it was the Roman government that ordered the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, therefore it does not matter whether the Roman soldiers were Assyrians or not. In fact, the opposite is true.
In his work, The Wars of the Jews book 6 chapter 4, Josephus who most likely was an eyewitness to these events says that the Roman government DID NOT want the Temple to be destroyed. The Roman soldiers did it out of disobedience to the Roman government simply because they hated the Jews. The Roman legions that destroyed the Temple were composed mostly of Assyrian soldiers as we mention in the article by citing many different historical sources.
Read the updated version of our article in which we cite almost the entire passage of Josephus to show that the idea that it was the Roman government ordered the destruction of the Jewish Temple is simply not true. Go to the article by clicking to following link:
If the link does not work, go to www.beastfromtheeast.org , go to the article page and look for Debunking the European Antichrist. It is the first article at the top of the page.
In Christ’s service,
Rodrigo Silva
www.bibleprophecyinthenews.com
www.beastfromtheeast.org
January 25th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
It’s always been said that the Roman government did not want the Temple destroyed, on the grounds that General (later Emperor) Titus had ordered it preserved. However, many have taught that this was Josephus colored his history to be favorable to Titus because Titus was his patron.
January 25th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
If the premise of “the Romans ordered the destruction of the temple” as the basis for the belief that the “people of ‘prince’ who is to come” is to be Roman. If that premise is debunked, then the entire argument for the “European” empire is debunked.
They all base their theory off this one verse and belief. They never nor can they point to another verse to support their view. The cornerstone is the “people of the prince” and history has shown time and time again, that the people who destroyed the temple were Syrians and other middle eastern people.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:14 am
I could never bring myself to believe that the anti-christ would be of European orgin, based upon scripture. It was the Syrians who destroyed the Temple, and the anti-christ will be of Middle Eastern Orgin in my opinion. I researched the above scripture with Josephus 3 years ago, and came to the same conclusion as you. Like pre-trib die hards, dispensationalists refuse to look at the facts in scripture. The old Roman Empire included Syria and a large portion of the middle east, which is the land of the Bible and it’s only common sense that the anti-christ would originate from there. In fact, I did an article about it on my blog a few years ago.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:31 am
It is my understanding that the temple was set on fire (I am not sure if it was on purpose or by accident). However, the resulting fire melted most of the gold in the temple which seep down into the stone foundation. In order to obtain the gold that was trapped in the stones the Roman soldiers had to basically tear the temple apart stone by stone.
January 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Joel,
I’d like to pick your brain here. I’ve read Rodrigo’s article and agree with it in large part. The AC will not be European in origin, but will most likely be a Syrian or a usurper of the Syrian crown. In either event, he will ride Islam to power. However, for several years now I’ve had misgivings about the proper interpretation of “the people of the ruler who will come”. I have never been completely convinced that the AC was “the ruler who will come” of Daniel 9:26. I’m conflicted here, and have left room for another possibility.
If we assume for a moment that the NIV translation is accurate, then “the people of the ruler to come” could also represent the Jewish people themselves. Josephus clearly laid the blame for the burning of the Temple on his fellow Jews, who had taken refuge in the Temple and were conducting hit-and-run attacks on Titus, leaving him with few options. I won’t bore you with the details, since you know what I’m referring to.
The point is, just as Paul blamed the death of Jesus on the Jews even though Rome crucified him, Josephus also blamed them for the burning of the Temple, even though a Roman soldier set off the blaze. In both instances, the rebellious actions of the Jews were the root cause, and blame was assigned to them. If this is the intent here, then the term “the ruler” in this passage may refer to Jesus Christ throughout the entire passage, and “the people” of the ruler would be the Jews themselves. Assuming for a moment that this is true, this passage suggests the following;
“From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler (Jesus), comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One (Jesus) will be cut off and will have nothing. The people (the Jews) of the ruler who will come (still ‘Jesus’) will destroy the city and the sanctuary (due to their rebellion). The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.”
Since God makes the covenant for 70 sevens, and Jesus is the fulfillment of the first 69 sevens, then it would make sense that He is also the subject of the final seven, and is “the ruler” in every instance where this phrase is used. Jesus could then also be the “he” that confirms the covenant and stops the sacrifices in verse 27;
“He (Jesus) will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he (Jesus) will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him (there is the problem).’”
This makes some sense since God has decreed the desolations of Jerusalem, not the AC. So why would God not also be the one to put an end to sacrifice and offering? However, He would NOT be the one who would have this “end” poured out on him. There is the problem. But this tension seems to be easily resolved if other translations are considered. For instance, the NASB arranges verse 27 this way;
“And he (Jesus) will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he (still ‘Jesus’) will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate (the AC), even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate (the AC).”
In this interpretation, the AC is not in view until we read “will come one who makes desolate”, suggesting that the “he” would still refer to the Jesus of the previous verses. The ESV, the Amplified, the KJV and many others also hold to this general theme, seemingly rejecting the NIV rendering.
Now, I will admit that I don’t know the constructs of the Hebrew language well enough decipher the ‘intent’ of this passage myself, so I must rely on others. I’m assuming you have labored over this verse already, so if you have the time, I would be interested in hearing what you believe the original Hebrew may suggest.
What say you my friend?
January 26th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Michael,
The position that you presented here is one that some have considered and many believe. This is no doubt a difficult passage. My difficulty with it is that if one does a word study on the abominations that causes desolations and offerings ceasing in the Book of Daniel, they are always related to the Ac or AC types. As such, I have a hard time accepting that in this one case, that it is Jesus that is causing offerings to cease etc. Does that make sense?
January 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Joel,
Yes it does, hence my problem with this verse. It seems like there are two paths to follow here, and I can’t reconcile them yet. I believe that all of the references to the abomination are one and the same, from Daniel to the Gospels to the Revelation, and yet I also wonder if “the ruler” is always the same in the Seventy Sevens. These things seem at odds with each other, so I’m wondering just where the ‘rope a dope’ is in this instance. Sometimes the original Hebrew sheds a little light on these things, but I have not had the time to try to crack this nut yet. Hoped that you had.
Thanks
January 26th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Michael,
Unfortunatey, the original lanaguges here will not help. It is one of those cryptic passages that has been debated from various sides. For me, it is more about external evidence than internal. My buddy here has written a great article on it: http://al-mahdi.atspace.com/peopleofprince.html
January 27th, 2009 at 9:51 am
How is the WEC viewed? Is their connection, as it may appear to be in the quoted article below, different than the EU or is it the opinion that the WEC and EU are the same? Do some of the countries associated with the WEU have a large Islamic population and representation?
——–
Assembly urges the EU to play a stronger role in Middle East peace quest
Paris, 15 June, 2005.- The WEU Assembly has urged the European Union (EU) to bolster its capacity to establish peace in the Middle East.
One challenge facing the region was the political integration of radical Islamic movements. “Their place is within society, provided that they disarm and respect the rule of law” said Mrs Durrieu. Models still had to be found to reconcile Islam with democracy but there were some hopeful signs such as the banking system in Bahrain, which was based on Sharia law.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Actually, Pam I think I can answer your questions. Let me try, at least. The WEU is the military wing of the EU. Those countries, of which there are 10 are voting members of the EU and have significant influence in the EU. And yes, Islamic immigration is very significant within those 10 countries. In fact, Muslim immigration and birth rates are exploding and within 20 years, if the trend continues, Muslims will be the majority ethnic group over native Europeans. This cannot sit well with those governments. What the implication for such facts are unknown right now.