The increasing popularity of the Assyrian
Antichrist is causing some prophecy authors to rise furiously against the
proponents of this view. Recently a certain prophecy author published an
article in which he criticizes some prophecy writers who believe the Assyrian
Antichrist connection. You can read the article at: https://dailyprophecydigest.wordpress.com/
In criticizing the view of Walid Shoebat and
Joel Richardson in his article, this author writes:
“A good example of Shoebat’s tortuous logic can
be found in his attempt to explain away the meaning of Daniel 9:26. The plain
sense meaning of this passage is that the Antichrist will come from the people
who will destroy the Temple.
“Shoebat and Richardson argue that the Roman
legions that carried out the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD
were composed primarily of Arabs, mainly Syrians and Turks. They therefore conclude
that the Antichrist will arise from the Syrians or Turks and will be a Muslim.
“This is really grasping at straws in the wind!
It doesn’t matter whether or not the
legions were composed of Australian Aborigines, it was the Roman government
that decided to destroy Jerusalem, it was the Roman government that gave
the orders, and it was Roman generals who carried out the destruction. Rome was
the rod of God’s judgment and it is from the Roman people that the Antichrist
will arise”.
The author says it does not matter whether the
legions were composed of soldiers who were not Roman because it was the Roman
government that decided to destroy Jerusalem. Another author makes a very
similar statement:
“Historical precedence typically dictated that
the subservient soldiers of any ruling kingdom or empire became the subjects of
that kingdom or empire. In this instance, even though the Roman Empire was
known to employ non-Roman troops within its ranks, such as defeated Assyrians,
these troops operated solely under the command of their Roman leadership. The
legions that destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple did not do so out of
their own independent accord, but acted solely under the direct authority and
instruction of the Roman Empire”. Read full article here:
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. Josephus writes:
“And now the soldiers had already put fire to the gates, and the silver that was
over them quickly carried the flames to the wood that was within it, whence it
spread itself all on the sudden, and caught hold on the cloisters. Upon the Jews
seeing this fire all about them, their spirits sunk together with their bodies,
and they were under such astonishment, that not one of them made any haste,
either to defend himself or to quench the fire, but they stood as mute
spectators of it only. However, they did not so grieve at the loss of what was
now burning, as to grow wiser thereby for the time to come; but as though the
holy house itself had been on fire already, they whetted their passions against
the Romans. This fire prevailed during that day and the next also; for the
soldiers were not able to burn all the cloisters that were round about together
at one time, but only by pieces.
“But then, on the next day, Titus commanded part of his army to quench
the fire, and to make a road for the more easy marching up of the legions,
while he himself gathered the commanders together. Of those there were
assembled the six principal persons: Tiberius Alexander, the commander [under
the general] of the whole army; with Sextus Cerealis, the commander of the fifth legion; and Larcius Lepidus, the
commander of the tenth legion; and
Titus Frigius, the commander of the fifteenth
legion: there was also with them Eternius, the leader of the two legions
that came from Alexandria; and Marcus Antonius Julianus, procurator of Judea:
after these came together all the rest of the procurators and tribunes. Titus proposed to these that they should
give him their advice what should be done about the holy house.
“Now some of these thought it would be the best
way to act according to the rules of war, [and demolish it,] because the Jews
would never leave off rebelling while that house was standing; at which house
it was that they used to get all together. Others of them were of opinion, that
in case the Jews would leave it, and none of them would lay their arms up in
it, he might save it; but that in case they got upon it, and fought any more,
he might burn it; because it must then be looked upon not as a holy house, but
as a citadel; and that the impiety of burning it would then belong to those
that forced this to be done, and not to them. But Titus said, that ‘although
the Jews should get upon that holy house, and fight us thence, yet ought we not to revenge ourselves on
things that are inanimate, instead of the men themselves’; and that he was
not in any case for burning down so vast
a work as that was, because this would be a mischief to the Romans
themselves, as it would be an ornament
to their government while it continued. So Fronto, and Alexander, and
Cerealis grew bold upon that declaration, and agreed to the opinion of Titus.
Then was this assembly dissolved, when Titus had given orders to the commanders
that the rest of their forces should lie still; but that they should make use
of such as were most courageous in this attack. So he commanded that the chosen
men that were taken out of the cohorts should make their way through the ruins,
and quench the fire…
“And now a certain person came running to
Titus, and told him of this fire, as he was resting himself in his tent after
the last battle; whereupon he rose up in great haste, and, as he was, ran to the holy house, in order to have a
stop put to the fire; after him followed all his commanders, and after them
followed the several legions, in great astonishment; so there was a great
clamor and tumult raised, as was natural upon the disorderly motion of so great
an army. Then did Caesar, both by
calling to the soldiers that were fighting, with a loud voice, and by
giving a signal to them with his right hand, order them to quench the fire.
But they did not hear what he said, though he spake so loud, having their ears
already dimmed by a greater noise another way; nor did they attend to the
signal he made with his hand neither, as still some of them were distracted
with fighting, and others with passion. But as for the legions that came running thither, neither any persuasions nor any
threatenings could restrain their violence, but each one's own passion was his
commander at this time; and as they were crowding into the temple together,
many of them were trampled on by one another, while a great number fell among
the ruins of the cloisters, which were still hot and smoking, and were
destroyed in the same miserable way with those whom they had conquered; and
when they were come near the holy house, they made as if they did not so much
as hear Caesar's orders to the contrary;
but they encouraged those that were before them to set it on fire. . . And now,
since Caesar was no way able to restrain
the enthusiastic fury of the soldiers, and the fire proceeded on
more and more, he went into the holy place of the temple, with his commanders,
and saw it, with what was in it, which he found to be far superior to what the
relations of foreigners contained, and not inferior to what we ourselves
boasted of and believed about it. But as the flame had not as yet reached to
its inward parts, but was still consuming the rooms that were about the holy
house, and Titus supposing what the fact was, that the house itself might yet he saved, he came in haste and
endeavored to persuade the soldiers to quench the fire, and gave order to
Liberalius the centurion, and one of those spearmen that were about him, to beat the soldiers that were refractory
with their staves, and to restrain them; yet were their passions too hard for
the regards they had for Caesar, and the dread they had of him who forbade
them, as was their hatred of the Jews,
and a certain vehement inclination to fight them, too hard for them also.
Moreover, the hope of plunder induced many to go on, as having this opinion,
that all the places within were full of money, and as seeing that all round
about it was made of gold. And besides, one of those that went into the place
prevented Caesar, when he ran so hastily out to restrain the soldiers, and threw the fire upon the hinges of the
gate, in the dark; whereby the flame burst out from within the holy house
itself immediately, when the commanders retired, and Caesar with them, and when
nobody any longer forbade those that were without to set fire to it. And thus was the holy house burnt down, without
Caesar's approbation”.
If you do not have the Work of Josephus at
home, you can read this particular chapter online at:
It is pretty clear that Titus and Caesar as the
rulers of the Roman government did not want the Temple to be destroyed and
actually gave the order to stop the fire so the Temple would not be destroyed.
It was the soldiers of the Roman legions who hated the Jews that decided to
destroy the Temple without the approval of the Roman government.
The same author who wrote the article
criticizing the Assyrian Antichrist connection writes:
“It
doesn’t matter whether or not the legions were composed of Australian
Aborigines, it was the Roman government that decided to destroy Jerusalem, it
was the Roman government that gave the orders, and it was Roman generals
who carried out the destruction. Rome was the rod of God’s judgment and it is
from the Roman people that the Antichrist will arise”.
What does this author mean by a Roman
Antichrist? He explains in his article entitled The Rise and Fall of the Antichrist:
“Where will this sinister person come from?
Some have speculated that he will come out of Syria since one of his prophetic
types in history — Antiochus Epiphanes (215-164 BC) — was a Syrian tyrant. But
Antiochus was actually of Greek heritage. Could he therefore be a Greek? It is
not likely.
“It is much more likely that he will rise out
of the heartland of the old Roman Empire and that he will be of Italian descent. This conclusion is
based upon a statement in Daniel 9:26. In that passage the Antichrist is
referred to as "the prince who is to come”, and he is identified as being
from the people who "will destroy the city and the sanctuary. We know from
history that both Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple were destroyed by the Romans
in 70 A.D. Therefore, according to Daniel, the Antichrist must be of Roman heritage”. [1]
The Bible makes it very clear that a Roman in
not necessarily someone who is born in Rome or in Europe. In the book of Acts
we read:
“And it came to pass, that, when I was come
again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; And
saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for
they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they know
that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: And
when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and
consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he
said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And
they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and
said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should
live. And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into
the air, the chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and
bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they
cried so against him. And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, is it lawful for you to
scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that,
he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this
man is a Roman. Then the chief
captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, with a great
sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then
straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the
chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him” (Acts 22:17-29).
In this passage we learn that Paul was not
condemned by the Roman authorities because he proved to them he was a Roman.
This raises the question: Was Paul born in Rome, Italy? Or if not Rome, was he
born anywhere in Europe near Rome? Here is the answer given by Paul himself:
“But Paul
said, I am a man which am a Jew of
Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a
citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the
people. And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and
beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great
silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and
fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that
he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he
saith,) am verily a man which am a Jew, born
in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of
Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,
and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day” (Acts 21:38-39;22:1-3).
Paul who calls himself a Roman says he was born
in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia located in Asia Minor, modern day Turkey. Was Paul
a European? NO! Then why do people insist that the Romans who destroyed the
Temple in AD 70 were Europeans? Another question: How could Paul having been
born in Tarsus in Asia Minor be a Roman? The answer is simple. When the Roman
Empire conquered a region, it established Roman law and required that from that
time on, every person born is that conquered region to be considered a Roman
citizen. That is why Paul and most Middle Eastern people of that time were
considered Romans but this did not mean they had to have European ethnicity.
People could be Roman and still be Assyrians ethnically. We have something very
similar today. People who are born in Hawaii are considered American citizens
since Hawaii is a conquered island of the United States, but the Hawaiian
people are not Americans ethnically, they are indigenous Polynesian people of
the Hawaiian Islands or their descendants.
The main and only passage used to support this
European Antichrist is Daniel 9:26 where we read:
“and the people
of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and
the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war
desolations are determined”.
Based on this passage alone, people assume the
Antichrist will be a Roman, therefore a European. Even if that was the case, we
saw previously that Paul was a Roman but WAS NOT European.
The Hebrew word translated “people” in the
passage in the word ‘am’ (Strong’s 5971). Strong defines
this word as follows:
1)
nation, people
a)
people, nation
b)
persons, members of one's people, compatriots, country-men
2)
kinsman, kindred
This word appears 1862 times in the King James
Bible. It is translated as people 1836 times, as nation 17 times, people +
01121 4 times, as folk 2 times, as Ammi 1 time, as men 1 time, and as each 1
time.
The Hebrew word “am” refers to ethnicity, not
to citizenship. Although the Roman soldiers who destroyed the city and the
Temple were “Roman citizens”, they were Syrians (Assyrians) ethnically. It is
the angel Gabriel who is delivering the message to Daniel and from God’s
perspective it is not the people’s allegiance to Rome as a government or their
“Roman citizenship” that matters, but their ethnicity.
In an interview with Dr. Arnold Fruchetenbaum,
Bill Salus asked him about the origin of the Antichrist.
Arnold Fructhenbaum
said that the Antichrist must be of the same ethnic group that destroyed the
Temple. Fruchtenbaum clearly points to ethnicity in his answer, not to
citizenship. Perhaps Fruchtenbaum does not know that the soldiers who destroyed
the Temple had Assyrian ethnicity, so he refers to the people as Romans. I sent
Fruchtenbaum an e-mail asking him what he means by a Roman and he answered that
a Roman is NOT necessarily someone who was born in Rome or anywhere near it.
But how can we prove that the Roman soldiers
were Assyrians ethnically? History tells us that there were four specific Roman
legions that attacked and destroyed the Temple. In writing about the
destruction of the Temple, the historian Tacitus states:
“Early in this year Titus Caesar had been selected
by his father to complete the subjugation of Judea. He found in Judea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th, all old troops of Vespasian's. To
these he added the 12th from Syria,
and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom had withdrawn from Alexandria
(Egypt).
This force was accompanied by twenty cohorts of
allied troops and eight squadrons of cavalry, by the two kings Agrippa and
Sohemus, by the auxiliary forces of king Antiochus, by a strong contingent of
Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbors, and lastly, by
many persons brought from the capital and form Italy by private hopes of
securing the yet unengaged affections of the Prince. With this force Titus
entered the enemy's territory, preserving strict order on his march,
reconnoitering every spot, and always ready to give battle. At last encamped near Jerusalem”. [2] (Emphasis
mine)
Josephus writes:
“Titus ordered a camp to be fortified for two
legions that were to be together; but ordered another camp to be fortified, at
three furlongs farther distance behind them, for the fifth legion; for he
thought that, by marching in the night, they might be tired, and might deserve
to be covered from the enemy, and with less fear might fortify themselves; and
as these were now beginning to build, the
tenth legion (Fretensis), who came through Jericho, was already come to the
place, where a certain party of armed men had formerly lain, to guard that pass
into the city, and had been taken before by Vespasian. These legions had orders
to encamp at the distance of six furlongs from Jerusalem, at the mount called
the Mount of Olives which lies over against the city on the east side, and is
parted from it by a deep valley, interposed between them, which is named Cedron”.
[3] (Emphasis mine)
On 14 April 70, during Passover, Titus laid
siege to Jerusalem. To the northeast of the old city, on Mount Scopus, the
legions XII Fulminata (a new addition from Syria) and XV Apollinaris shared a
large camp; V Macedonica was camped at a short distance. When X Fretensis arrived from
Syria, it occupied the Mount of Olives, in front of the Temple. The
soldiers of this legion had a special incentive to fight: they had been
defeated by the Zealots in 66 and wanted revenge. The Roman commanders now knew
that their enemies would fight for every inch of their city, and understood
that the siege of Jerusalem would take a long time. Therefore, Titus changed
his plans. There were signs that the supplies of Jerusalem were giving out:
some Jews had left the city, hoping to find food in the valleys in front of the
walls. Many of them had been caught and crucified – some five hundred every
day. (The soldiers had amused themselves by nailing their victims in different
postures.) The Romans decided to starve the enemies into surrender. In three
days, Jerusalem was surrounded with an eight kilometer long palisade. All trees
within fifteen kilometers of the city were cut down. The camps of the legions V Macedonica, XII Fulminata and XV
Apollinaris were demolished; these troops were billeted on Bezetha…. The
death rate among the besieged increased. Soon, the Kidron valley and the Valley
of Hinnom were filled with corpses. One defector told Titus that their number
was estimated at 115,880.
Desperate people tried to leave Jerusalem. When
they had succeeded in passing their own lines and had not been killed by Roman
patrols, they reached the palisade. Here they surrendered: as prisoners, they
were at last entitled to some bread. Some of them ate so much, that they could
not stomach it and died. In that case, their oedemaous bodies were cut open by
the Syrian and Arabian warders, who
knew that some of these people had swallowed coins before they started their
ill fated expedition… A couple of days later, on 14 July, prisoners told them
that the priests in the Temple had been forced to interrupt the daily
sacrifices, which had greatly demoralized the defenders of Jerusalem. The
Antonia was demolished. The stones were used to build a new dam, this time
towards the Temple terrace. The Romans used the dam to set fire to the
porticoes on the northern and western side of the terrace, but it was
impossible to bash trough the walls. On the tenth of August, the Temple itself was burning. Six thousand
women and children were taken prisoner at the Court of the Gentiles, while the
legionaries sacrificed to their standards in the Holy of Holies”. [4]
In his book entitled The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337, professor of ancient history
Fergus Millar writes:
“If the successful conclusion of the Roman
civil war was Vespasian’s major objective, the capture of Jerusalem still
remained an immense task, which absorbed a high proportion of the total forces
of the empire. This role was left to Titus, who in the winter of 69/70 marched
back from Alexandria along the coats and, once again, made Caesaria his main
base. His forces, listed by both Tacitus and Josephus, consisted of the same
legions as had been under his father, the V
Macedonica, X Fretensis, and XV Apollinaris as well as one further from Syria, the XII Fulminata, the same one which had been routed in 66 at the
beginning of the revolt. Added to these were detachment of the two legion
stationed in Egypt, the III Cyrenaica and XX Deiatoriana, twenty infantry
cohorts and eight mounted alae, as well as forces from Agrippa II, Sohaemus of
Emesa and Antiouchus IV of Commagene, and (in Tacitus’ words) ‘a strong force
of Arabs imbued with the hatred of the Jews customary between neighbors…
Josephus clearly states that the X Fretensis before joining Vespasian 66/67; it
had presumably now been replaced by the IV Scythica. Three thousand men
represented half the strength of the legion. Finally, Josephus mentions again
that a large number of irregulars (epikouroi)
came from Syria. The most immediate
lesson drawn by Rome was that Jerusalem, even though now largely destroyed,
required to be garrisoned. Consequently, the X Fretensis was left there (to
remain in fact for some two centuries) along with some cavalry alae and
infantry cohortes”. [5]
As history shows, the four legions that were
present in the siege of Jerusalem were the legions:
V Macedonica
X Fretensis
XII Fulminata
XV Apollinaris.
Concerning the Roman legion X Fretensis we
read:
“The governor of Syria, Publius Quinctilius Varus, used three of the four Syrian legions to suppress the rebellions of the Jewish messianic
claimants Judas, Simon, and Athronges after the death of king Herod the Great
in 4 BCE. It is likely that X Fretensis
was among them, but we are not certain because we do not know the date of
the transfer from the Balkans to Syria.
“Its presence in Syria in 6, however, is a certainty. Our unit, together with III
Gallica, VI Ferrata, and XII Fulminata, must have taken part in the campaign
led by the famous governor of Syria, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, to Judaea in
6, which had become restless after the emperor Augustus had exiled Herod
Archelaus, added his realm to the Roman empire, and organized the census so
well-known from the Gospel of Luke.
“From 67 onward, X Fretensis fought in the war
against the Jews. It was commanded by Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, the father of the
future emperor. The supreme commander of the Roman forces in Judaea was general
Vespasian, who was to become emperor during the civil war that broke out after
the suicide of Nero in 68.
“In 70, X Fretensis
took part in the siege of Jerusalem (more). After the capture, prisoners of
war were sent to Seleucia, where the legionaries forced them to cut the Canal
of Titus. Although this was hard labor, these people were lucky that they were
not sent to Rome to build the Colosseum.
“X
Fretensis was to stay in Judaea for more than a century and a half. Jerusalem
became its new base, and several unremarkable archaeological finds in the
holy city -bricks and tiles with the name of emblem of the legion- prove its
presence. Unfortunately, we do not know the precise location of its fortress.
The emblem of the legion, a boar or pig, was visible on several places and must
have been intended to humiliate the Jewish population”. [6] (Emphasis mine)
These historical accounts point to the legion X
Fretensis also know as one of the four “Syrian” legions as the one responsible
for the destruction of the city and the Temple. The soldiers of this legion
were Syrians as these historical facts show. The Archaeological Encyclopedia of
the Holy Land states:
These historical accounts point to the legion X
Fretensis also know as one of the four “Syrian” legions as the one responsible
for the destruction of the city and the Temple. The soldiers of this legion
were Syrians as these historical facts show. The Archaeological Encyclopedia of
the Holy Land states:
The Province of Syria
and Judaea
“Syria, one the heart of Seleucid power, was
occupied by Tigranes of Armenia in 83 BC and on his defeat was made a province
by Pompey in 64/63. He restored limited autonomy to a great number of the
Hellenistic cities on the coast and island (Decapolis) that had been conquered
by the Hasmoneans. But they were still subject to the governor of Syria, so
that the province comprised these cities, the client kingdoms of Commagene and
Nabatea, the Jewish ethnarchy, the tetrarchy of the Itureans and many small
territories in the north. Under the Principate Syria was until 70 AD an
important military command with a consular legate and four legions, often held
by outstanding men at the end of their career. All these client kingdoms were
gradually annexed to the province. . .After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, it
was made a separate province, under a praetorian regate who resided at
Caesarea. A legion was withdrawn from Syria
and stationed in Jerusalem, the legio X
Fretensis.
“Syria-Palestine,
being a rural region, was an important recruiting
ground for local and other legions and their auxiliary units. After the
time of Hadrian the Oriental element in the Roman army increased. Information
about the legions stations in Syria can be obtained from a number of historians
and from the military inscriptions found in the area. In AD 23 Tacitus (Ann.
IV,5) enumerates four legions: Legio III Galica, Legio VI Ferrata, Legion X
Fretensis, and Legio XVII Fulminata. In AD 66, on the eve of the Jewish Revolt,
seven legion were stationed there, the three additional ones being the Legio IV
Scythica, Legio V Macedonica and Legio XV Apollonia (Josephus, War II 366ff.)
After the destruction of the Temple the legio X Fretensis was stationed at
Jerusalem”. [7] (Emphasis mine)
All these historical accounts agree that the
four legions that besieged Jerusalem were legion V Macedonica, Legion X Fretensis,
Legion XVII Fulminata and Legion XV Apollinaris. The legion, in particular,
that went through the wall breach and set fire to the Temple was known as X
Fretensis or the tenth legion. It was this particular legion that actually
pulled down the entire Temple and made the Temple Mount its new base. The
historical accounts above indicate that the soldiers of his legion were
Syrians. These historical facts also point out that the other legions were from
the Syrian province of the Roman Empire and that its recruited soldiers were
Syrians ethnically. Josephus confirms this as he writes:
“There was also another disturbance at Cesarea-those Jews who were mixed with the Syrians
that lived there rising a tumult against them. The Jews pretended that the city
was theirs, and said that he who built it was a Jew, meaning King Herod. The
Syrians confessed also that its builder was a Jew; but they still said,
however, that the city was a Grecian city; for that he who set up statues and
temples in it could not design it for Jews. On which account both parties had a
contest with one another; and this contest increased so much, that it came at
last to arms, and the bolder sort of them marched out to fight; for the elders
of the Jews were not able to put a stop to their own people that were disposed
to be tumultuous, and the Greeks thought it a shame for them to be overcome by
the Jews. Now these Jews exceeded the others in riches and strength of body;
but the Grecian part had the advantage of assistance from the soldiery; for the
greatest part of the Roman garrison was
raised out of Syria; and being thus related to the Syrian part, they were
ready to assist it”. [8]
Now, the fact that the Roman legions that
destroyed the city and the Temple (mainly legion X Fretensis) comprised of
Syrian soldiers lead us to identify the people of the Antichrist as Syrians,
therefore the Antichrist must be a Syrian. There is one problem that must be
addressed now which is my opinion is crucial in order to identify the
Antichrist’s nationality and country of origin. The Syrians of the first
century were not Syrians in the modern sense as we know them. The Syrians of
today are Arabs of the modern Syrian Arab Republic whereas the Syrians of the
first century were not Arabs. Josephus made this distinction when he wrote:
“Yet did another plague seize upon those that
were thus preserved; for there was found among the Syrian deserters a certain person who was caught gathering pieces
of gold out of the excrements of the Jews' bellies; for the deserters used to
swallow such pieces of gold, as we told you before, when they came out, and for
these did the seditious search them all; for there was a great quantity of gold
in the city, insomuch that as much was now sold [in the Roman camp] for twelve
Attic [drams], as was sold before for twenty-five. But when this contrivance
was discovered in one instance, the fame of it filled their several camps that
the deserters came to them full of gold. So the multitude of the Arabians, with the Syrians, cut up those that came as supplicants, and searched their
bellies. Nor does it seem to me that any misery befell the Jews that was more
terrible than this, since in one night's time about two thousand of these
deserters were thus dissected”. [9]
This raises a question: What were the Syrians
since they were not Arabs as they are today? Some historical accounts identify
the Syrians of the Hellenistic and Roman periods with the Assyrians. In writing
about the Assyrian Identity in Hellenistic and Roman Times, Assyrian author,
Simo Parpola, Helsinki says:
“In the second century AD, two prominent
writers from Roman Syria, Lucian and
Tatian, ostentatiously identify themselves as Assyrians (Assúrios). This self identification is commonly
misinterpreted to imply nothing more than that these writers were ethnic Syrians (in the modern sense) speaking
Aramaic as their mother tongue (Millar 1993, 460). It is perfectly clear from
the contexts, however, that they were specifically referring to their native
identity and cultural heritage, which they proudly and defiantly contrasted
with the Greek culture. That heritage was Assyrian.
It is worth emphasizing that while Assúrios in Roman times could refer to an
inhabitant of the Roman province of Syria, it basically meant “Assyrian”,
nothing else. No “Syria” in the
modern sense existed in antiquity. In Armenian, Parthian and Egyptian sources
of the Roman period, Roman Syria is
consistently and unmistakably referred to as “Assyria” (Asorik', 'swry'; 'Išr; see Frye 1992; Steiner 1993)”. [10]
Professor Richard N. Frye of Harvard University
writes:
“Confusion has existed between the two similar
words “Syria” and “Assyria” throughout history almost down to our own day.
Several years ago, an article appeared in this Journal of Near Eastern Studies
(Vol. 40 [1981]: 139-40), by John A. Tvedtnes, called "The Origin of the
Name 'Syria'“, in which he rejected the long-accepted statement of Herodotus
(7.63) that the Greeks called Assyrians by the name “Syrian” without initial a-. Tvedtnes
proposed that the two terms are completely different and that Syria is derived
from Hurri, an old Egyptian word for the Hurrians, which in Coptic would have
changed to *Suri. In this article, I suggest that this explanation is most
unlikely and that the statement by Herodotus is preferable. It is conceivable,
of course, that the Egyptians had a term for the Hurrians which they confused
with later Assyria/Syria, but both the vocalization of the word
"Syria" and the reconstructed Middle Egyptian word *Suri present
problems, while the identification of Assyria with Syria does not”. [11] (Emphasis mine)
Herodotus, a Greek historian who lived in the
5th century B.C wrote:
“The Assyrians served with helmets about their
heads made of bronze or plaited in a Barbarian style which it is not easy to
describe; and they had shields and spears, and daggers like the Egyptian
knives, and moreover they had wooden clubs with knobs of iron, and corslets of
linen. These (Assyrians) are by the Hellenes (Greeks) called Syrians, but by
the Barbarians they have been called always Assyrians”. [12] (Emphasis mine)
Strabo, a Greek historian, geographer and
philosopher who lived between the first century BC and the first century AD
wrote:
“When those who have written histories about
the Syrian empire say that the Medes were overthrown by the Persians and the
Syrians by the Medes, they mean by the Syrians no other people than those who
built the royal palaces in Babylon and Ninus (Nineveh); and of these Syrians,
Ninus was the man who founded Ninus, in Aturia (Assyria) and his wife, Semiramis, was the woman who succeeded her
husband... Now, the city of Ninus was wiped out immediately after the overthrow
of the Syrians. It was much greater than Babylon, and was situated in the plain
of Aturia”. [13] (Emphasis mine)
All these historical accounts point to the
Syrians of Hellenistic (Greek) and Roman times as Assyrians. Since that is
indeed the case, then the people of the prince that shall come, namely the
Antichrist were Assyrians. So the idea that the Antichrist will be a Roman or
European is pure speculation based on assumption and not on Biblical and
historical facts. The early Church Fathers understood this reality and wrote
that the Antichrist would be a Syrian (Assyrian). Some early church writings
declare:
“When the close of time draws near, a great prophet
shall be sent from God to turn men to the knowledge of God, and he shall
receive power of doing wonderful things. . . And when his work shall be
accomplished, another king shall arise
out of Syria, born from an evil spirit, the overthrower and destroyer of
the human race, who shall destroy that which is left by the former evil,
together with himself…. Now this is he who is called Antichrist; but he shall falsely call himself Christ”. [14]
The great prophecy scholar Clarence Larkin also
understood this reality and wrote:
“The “King of the North” was the King of Syria,
and his character and conduct is described (Dan. 11:36-39) as similar to that
of the “Little Horn” that came out of one of the “Four Horns” it is clear that
the Antichrist is to come from Syria.
“That the “King of the North” spoken of in Dan.
11:21-31 was Antiochus Epiphanes there can be no doubt, but that he was not the
“Little Horn”, or the Antichrist, who is to come out of Syria in the “latter
days” is clear from the remainder of the chapter from the 35th verse, which
describes the conduct of the future Antichrist.
“The intervening verse, the 32nd to the 35th
inclusive fill in the gap between the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the
appearance of the Antichrist.
“There is no intimation that Antiochus Epiphanes
is even to be regarded as a ‘type’ of Antichrist. They are distinct historical
personages, each dealt with in his own place, and though they resemble each
other in some respects, yet they must not be confounded with each other.
“The term ‘North’ and ‘South’ are applied to
Syria and Egypt because of their geographic relation to Palestine (the Pleasant
of Glorious land - Daniel 8:9, 11:16, and 41). In the thought of Jehovah,
Jerusalem is at once the geographic and moral centre of the earth. We are to
understand therefore by the “King of the North” the King of Syria, which also
included Assyria. This fixes the locality from which the Antichrist shall come,
for we read in Isa. 10:12 – ‘That when the Lord hath performed His whole work
upon Mount Zion and on Jerusalem (which will not be until Christ comes back), I
will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria (Antichrist)
and the glory of his ‘high looks'’’.
“And we read in Isa. 14:25 – ‘I will break the
Assyrian (the Antichrist) in my land (Palestine), and upon my mountains ‘tread
him under foot;’ then shall his yoke depart from off them (Israel), and his
burden depart from off their shoulders.’
“The context shows that this prophecy is
connected with the restoration of Israel to their own land and the time of the
downfall of the Antichrist.
To recapitulate, we see from three visions of
Daniel that:
1. He learned from the “Little Horn” of the
Fourth Wild Beast, that a Mysterious and Terrible Personage was to arise in the
“Latter Days”.
2. He learned from the ‘Little Horn’ that came
up on one of the ‘Four Notable Horns’ that took the place of the “Great Horn”
on the He-Goat, that that ‘Terrible Personage’ was to come out of one of the
Kingdoms into which the Grecian Empire was divided as the death of Alexander
the Great.
3. He learned from the vision of the King of
the North that that ‘Terrible Personage’ would come out of the Syrian division
of Alexander’s Kingdom”. [15]
As we can see, early Church fathers of the
third and fourth centuries understood the reality of a Syrian (Assyrian)
Antichrist. Clarence Larking who wrote in 1915, before the modern Middle
Eastern nations of Syria and Iraq became independent countries also understood
this reality until someone stumbled upon this European Antichrist myth and
popularized it. It sounds like Satan had created a counterfeit Antichrist so the Church
would be misled into believing this foolish European Antichrist myth.
By the end of his article, the author who
criticizes the Assyrian Antichrist connection wrote the following:
“Two final observations. First, beware of Lone
Ranger interpretations of prophecy that are not widely shared. God does not
reveal the meaning of prophecy only to a person or two. 2 Peter 1:20 says, “no
prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation”.
I agree with him that God does not reveal the
meaning of prophecy to only one or two people. If he had really researched this
subject, he would find out that God has revealed this subject not only to early
Church Fathers many centuries ago, to the great prophecy scholar Clarence
Larking in twentieth century even before the rebirth of Israel and to many
other people in our day, but to a number of other prophecy writers. In his book
entitled A Palace for the Antichrist, Pastor Joseph Chambers of Paul Creek
ministries wrote:
“There is no other geographical area on planet
Earth where the Antichrist could
appear but the Middle East. Those
who continue to look only toward the European
Common Market as the primary movement toward the Antichrist will soon be disappointed. . . To look for
Satan’s final activities in any other area than the Middle East is to look in vain
and in error. The Scriptures has left no doubt that this beast of a man
will from Assyrian nationality.
Three times Isaiah called him by this name. The Islam or Moslem religion provides an excellent covering for the rise of the Antichrist”. [16]
Author and Evangelist Perry stone in his book
Unleashing the Beast wrote:
“After studying this subject for 25 years, I
have discovered that there are many facts in the Bible which allude to this
person. I also realize that some teaching is based on tradition or private
interpretation handed down from generation to generation and may have little
Biblical or historical foundation.
“For example, you may have attended a prophetic
conference or read research material that taught the following: The Antichrist
will be a Jew from the tribe of Dan; he will rebuild the Temple for the Jews on
the Temple mount in Jerusalem; and he will be a man of peace and will be the head of the European Union.
“These three theories are based on individual
interpretations or denominational traditions, and not entirely upon the Scriptures themselves…
“After much study, I believe the best and most
Biblical area for the Antichrist to arise is the area of ancient Assyria. This encompasses Lebanon,
Syrian and Iraq or the region of the old Babylonian Empire”. [17]
Perry Stone goes on to identify the Assyrian
Antichrist as a fanatical Muslim leader who will seek to destroy Israel. In
their book entitled What is the Antichrist-Islam Connection, Roland Back and
Michael Back write the following concerning the end of Daniel 11:
“This section clearly and undeniably lists the
Antichrist as the last “king of the north”. All previous “kings of the north”
ruled in the Syrian division of the
Grecian Empire. Not one came from some other area of the world. That means the Antichrist CANNOT come from Rome,
America, Europe, Africa, the European
Common Market, or any other place on the planet EXCEPT the Syrian division of the Grecian Empire.
The only possible candidates are any modern countries that were within that
division (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan”. [18]
Prophecy author Chuck Missler writes:
“It is noteworthy that in both Daniel 8 and 11,
prophecies highlighting the final world leader emerge from the passages
involving the sequence of the leaders of the Seleucid Empire: the region now
known as Syria and Iraq. The seven
empires are also the focus of Revelation 17:
“And there are seven kings: five are fallen,
and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue
a short space” - Revelation 17:10
The “five are fallen” would seem to refer to
the five kingdoms that had preceded John’s day: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon,
Persia, and Greece. The "one is” would seem to be the one existing when
John was writing: Rome, in its “first phase”. The “other is not yet come” would
seem to point to that final world empire that will be taken over by the
"11th horn”. The following verse also focuses on this final empire:
“And the beast that was, and is not, even he is
the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition”- Revelation 17:11.
It would seem that this final “eighth” empire
is one “that was, and is not”, and yet is among the list of seven. The only
empire among the seven that doesn't exist in some form today is Assyria. It strangely disappeared from
history until the sensational discoveries of Henry Layard in 1849”. [19]
We could go on and mention many other prophecy
writers who refer to the Antichrist asa Syrian (Assyrian) such as Finis
Jennings Dake, author of the Dake Annotated Reference Bible who referred to the
Antichrist as a Syrian and many other who have written articles online
referring to the Antichrist as an Assyrian but I think this is enough to refute
the notion that God has not revealed that the Antichrist will be an Assyrian to
more than one and two persons as claimed by Dave Reagan. You can read many
articles by other authors referring to the Antichrist as an Assyrian by going
to my web site at: https://dailyprophecydigest.wordpress.com/
Daniel calls the Antichrist the little horn.
Horns refer to kings of nations and the little horn expression refers to the
Antichrist as the leader of a small, insignificant nation that will rise among
the 10 nations that will form the beast kingdom of Revelation 13. It is my
belief that this small country destined to rise in the Middle East will be a
new Assyrian independent state in the region of Syria and Iraq. The idea of a
new Assyrian independent state is nothing new.
In 1931 and 1932, the League of Nations
received at least five petitions from Assyrian groups. The first two petitions
were dated October 20th and 23rd, 1931. These came from representatives of
Assyrians in Iraq including Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII, the Patriarch of the Church
of the East. They requested that the Assyrians in Iraq be transported to land
under the rule of one of the Western nations or, failing that, to Syria, which
was still a French Mandate. Neither Britain nor Iraq objected to this idea, but
no country volunteered to take the Assyrians. Britain argued that creation of a
homeland was unnecessary because once Assyrians abandoned their quest for an
autonomous homeland; they would become an integrated and “useful” part of Iraq.
The third petition sought the recognition of Assyrians as a millet (nation) within Iraq and the creation of an
Assyrian region within Iraq by redrawing Iraq’s border with Turkey to include
within Iraq the Turkish regions that Assyrian refugees in Iraq had lived in
prior to their expulsion from Turkey. Failing this, the petition requested
a special homeland within the existing borders of Iraq, made up of the whole of
the district of Amedia plus adjacent parts of Zakho, Dohuk and Aqra, for the
Assyrian refugees from Turkey then in Iraq. The fourth petition, dated
September 21, 1932, was signed by 58 people claiming to represent 2,395 families.
The final petition, dated September 22, 1932, is another from Mar Shimun. It
alleges that the Assyrians have a right to claim their original homes or
suitable substitutes from the United Kingdom, for whom the Assyrians fought in
the First World War. It requests the return of the Hakkiari province or
resettlement along the lines sought in the third petition. The petition noted
that the Assyrians had voted for Iraq in
the plebiscite for the Mosul Liwa based on the League's 1925 recommendation
that the Assyrians be given local autonomy. [20]
I am not the only who believes that Assyria
will become an independent state in Iraq to produce the Antichrist. Pastor
Joseph Chambers also believes this based on prophetic revelation. In his
article entitled The Rebirth of the Assyrians, pastor Chambers writes:
“It is breathtaking to watch a culture that
almost everyone perceived to be dead to suddenly experience a rebirth. There is
no question but this is presently happening to the ancient Assyrians. It is
happening because it had to happen by prophetic design. There are two prophetic
facts that demand an Assyrian presence in this world and especially in Iraq.
The Antichrist will be an Assyrian and will be known to the world by that
identification. Second, the Assyrian culture will progressively rise to
dominance in Northern Iraq until during the Millennium of Jesus Christ on this
earth.
The Antichrist
“I have documented in other articles that the
antichrist will be of Assyrian nationality. Bible prophecy leaves no doubt for
those who take prophecy literally. Probably the reason this idea has been
rejected by almost every prophecy teacher is that most teachers wait for the
facts to begin to unfold before they dare to speak. The Word of God can be
trusted when there is not one proof in sight. Prophecy is history written in
advance. This fact by no means suggests or accuses the Assyrian people as a
culture of being Antichrist themselves. In fact, the opposite is true”. [21]
Despite all these Biblical and historical facts
pointing to the Assyrians in the Roman legions as the people who destroyed the
Temple, people still try to find arguments that “prove” their point. In the
article which I referred to above, the author wrote the following:
“Daniel calls this individual by several names
like the beast, representing his hostile disposition, and the horn, alluding to
his authority; however, he never labels
him the “Assyrian”. Similarly,
Daniel issues numerous telling descriptions of him; like he speaks pompous
words and declares himself above all that is called God, but the one who hails
from Assyria, is never referenced among
Daniel’s defining terms”. [22]
In the book of Daniel it is not Daniel himself
who speaks anything concerning the Antichrist, but an angel. In all of the
passages concerning the Antichrist such as Daniel 7, 8, 9:26-27 and 11:36- 45
and continuing in chapter 12, it is an angel who is talking, not Daniel. The
angel did not have to use the term “Assyrian” because the angel knew that
Daniel as a Jew who was familiar with prophets before him already knew that
Isaiah used the term “Assyrian” many
times and used that term a few times to refer to the Antichrist. The angel did
not have to use the term “Assyrian” since Daniel was already familiar with it.
Besides, Daniel himself says in those references that he did not understand the
revelations concerning the Antichrist. They were symbolic for the most part
with the exception of chapter 11 which contains literal references and the
angel said that these revelations were not to be understood by Daniel, but by
the generation of the time of the end when the book would be unsealed:
“And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of
these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed
till the time of the end”. (Daniel 12:8-9)
Daniel himself says that he did not understand
anything concerning the visions about the Antichrist which began in chapter 7
and the angel said that the words would be sealed and would only be understood
at the time of the end.
The angel also referred to the Antichrist in
Daniel 11:36-45 as the last king of the north. The north in Daniel 11 is a
reference to the Seleucid or Syrian division of the Grecian Empire which as
pointed out by great scholar Clarence Larkin was the region of ancient Syria
which included Assyria. One can only see a European Antichrist in Daniel 9:26
if he ignores Daniel 11:36-45 which refers to the Antichrist as the last ruler
of the Seleucid Syrian division of the Grecian Empire which was headquartered
in ancient Syria. The Seleucid dynasty included Assyria and Babylon and both
are within the borders of Iraq today and that can be seen in any map of the Seleucid
Empire.
Some might argue that the Seleucid Dynasty does
not exist today and it has not existed since the Romans conquered the remains
of the Grecian Empire. The political entity Seleucid Dynasty does not exist,
but the geographic realm does (Syria & North Iraq) and that is why the
angel in Daniel 11 uses geographic terms such as the king of the “north” and
not political terms such as the king of the “Seleucid Dynasty” to refer to the
Antichrist.
Another argument presented by one of the
authors referred above is that Daniel starts with the Babylonian Empire
excluding Egypt and Assyria from his scope of prophecy. Assyria had been
absorbed into the Babylonian Empire at the time of Daniel, so when Daniel tells
Nebuchadnezzar that he is the head of gold, Assyria was included. Later Egypt
was absorbed by the Grecian Empire which later on was divided into four
sections. By 175 B.C., the two major divisions which had influence over the
land of Israel were the Seleucid Dynasty in Syria and the Ptolemaic Dynasty in
Egypt; therefore, Egypt was one of the major divisions of the Grecian Empire.
Does the prophecy of Daniel 2 exclude Egypt just because the image of Daniel 2
starts with the Babylonian Empire, centuries after the Egyptian Empire had
fallen? Of course not! Egypt was right there in the thighs of brass of the
metallic image and so was Assyria in the head of gold.
One last thing I would like to address. I have
written in other articles that the Antichrist will be a Muslim. The Assyrians
of Northern Iraq are orthodox Christians, not Muslims and this creates a
problem with the Assyrian Muslim Antichrist theory. I would like to suggest a
possible scenario.
Daniel 11:36-39 says the Antichrist will not
honor the God or gods of his fathers and that he will honor a god of forces
(war?). The Antichrist only becomes the beast halfway through the seventieth
week of Daniel so he can rule for forty two months or three and a half years
according to Revelation 13. I say all that to say this: It is quite possible
that the Antichrist could appear on the scene to confirm a seven year covenant
with Israel as a “Christian” politician since his fathers, or ancestors have
been and are orthodox Christians. Half way through his covenant with Israel, he
converts to the god of forces who his fathers did not know:
“Neither shall he regard the God of his
fathers. . . But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god
whom his fathers knew not shall he
honour”. (Daniel 11:37-38)
It is only after three and a half years that the
prince who confirms a covenant with Israel becomes the beast, so his conversion
to this god of forces might take place somewhere prior to the middle of his
seven year covenant with the nation of Israel. At this point he will give up
orthodox Syriac Christianity and embrace Islam as his new religion. This will
cause him to follow Islamic policy and will seek to destroy Israel along with
the other ten kings of the beast who in my opinion will be ten Islamic leaders
of ten Islamic nations as mentioned in my article entitled: The 10 Kings of the Beast: They Come From
the East which you can read at:
----------------
Notes
Debunking the European Antichrist by Rodrigo Silva – Revised: 01/25/2009
[2] Tacitus, The History New Ed book
5.1 Editor: Moses Hadas, Translators: Alfred Church, William Brodribb (Modern
Library; New York,2003)
[3] Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 5,
Chap. 2 Para. 3
[5] Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337 pp. 75-76
[7] Avraham Negev, Shimon Gibson, Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land
Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005 p. 441
[8] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2 Chap. 13 Para. 7
[9] Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 5 Chap. 13 Para. 4
[12] Herodotus, Book 7.63
[13] Geography
of Strabo, New York 1916, Vol. VIII p.195
[14] Ante-Nicene Fathers, Book VII, Chapter
XVIII
[15] Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth pg. 118
[16] Joseph Chambers, A Palace for the Antichrist, News Leaf Press, 1996, pages 136-142
[17] Perry Stone, Unleashing the Beast, 2003 Voice of Evangelism, pp.16, 46
[18] Back and Roland Back, What is the Antichrist-Islam Connection?, p.103
[19] https://dailyprophecydigest.wordpress.com/
