--- In bible_prophecy-l@yaho..., Cheri <bear1670@...> wrote:
> The Bible does not say explicitly that the Antichrist will be Jewish. Passages used in Genesis, Daniel, and Revelation may, at best, vaguely imply so. For example, Daniel 11:37 says in the King James Version,âNeither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.â But the word for God in the Hebrew is not âElohimâ, but âelohaiâ, meaning âgodsâ, or idols.
There is a school of thought that believes the entire book of Daniel was first written in Aramaic and portions were later translated into Hebrew. Chapters 2-7 are in Aramaic, and the other chapters are in Hebrew; but the Hebrew sections contain what's called "Aramaisms," that is idioms and structures that seem to have originally been written in Aramaic before being translated into Hebrew. If this is the case, the Hebrew of Dan. 11 is itself a later translation and is not the language Daniel first penned it in.
"Elohai" is the singular form of "Elohim." I have to take Zola Levitt's word that that form is used for a pagan god. I know that "Elohim" is also used for pagan gods, depending on the context it appears. But since the Hebrew of Daniel is likely a translation from the Aramaic into Hebrew we need to show some caution on parsing forms of Hebrew words that were interpreted from another language.
> Another argument for the Antichrist being Gentile comes from Biblical imagery. Whenever the word sea is symbolically used is Scripture, especially in the book of Revelation, it is a symbol of the Gentile nations. Since the Beast of Revelation 13:1 "10 arises out of the sea, this points to the Antichrist being a Gentile.
Like many prophecy writers, Zola Levitt conflates the two beasts into one and writes as if all the scriptures depicting an end time evil personality is the same person. He is correct that "sea" represents the Gentile nations. Rev. 17:15 directly identifies the meaning of that symbol as the nations of the world. "And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."
Levitt failed to take notice of the second beast which is said to rise up out of the "Earth." That Greek word can also be translated land, and in the OT Israel is simply referred to as the land (haeretz) many times. Even in Zechariah 11 the foolish shepherd is said to raise up in the "land" (Israel). The second beast in Rev. 13:11 carries the Messianic symbol of a "lamb" but also says his words are from the dragon, a demonic symbols, hence, a false Messiah.
Like many prophecy writers I believe Levitt fails to understand that end time prophecies speak of two different individuals, and you have to figure out which one is which. He wrongly assumes that the son of perdition in 2 Thess. 2 that sits in the temple like he is a god is the first beast that rises up from the sea. But his actions mimic that of the second beast, not the first. Look at what the second beast does:
Rev. 13:13-14, "And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast. . . ."
Now, look at what the son of perdition does:
2 Thess. 2:9-10, "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 and with all deceivableness. . . ."
The first beast is not described as deceiving people by performing miracles, that's what the second beast does. In Rev. 19:20 the second beast is called the false prophet.
Jesus gives this warning about a false Messiah during the great tribulation.
Matt 24:21-24, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
Do you see that. Jesus, referring to the great tribulation, says if people are saying here is Christ (the Messiah) it's not. He's predicting a false Messiah during the great tribulation. He comments that like other false prophets and Christs, he will deceive people through great signs and wonders. That's exactly what the son of perdition and the second beast are described as doing.
As this passage continues we read this:
Matt 24:25-27, "Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Jesus is making a distinction between how the true Messiah will arrive as opposed to how a false Messiah will come on the scene. When is says he is in secret chambers, that's probably referring to the inner chambers of the temple. This is where we see the son of perdition, in a rebuilt temple. By Jesus distinguishing himself from the coming of another he is predicting a false Messiah, telling us the true Messiah will come like lightning flashing from east to west, not just showing up in the desert or the temple.
A few verses before we read, "For then shall be great tribulation," we read this, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)."
That's pointing to an individual in the holy place (the temple). A false Messiah will take the role of high priest, and will have access to most inner rooms of the temple. That's why I believe when Jesus said not to believe reports of a Christ in secret chambers it's referring to a false Messiah in most inner rooms of the temple. The Jews would not let a Gentile have access to this place, and their Messiah must be from the linage of King David. He is Jewish.
Zola Levitt wrote this:
The passage simply says that the Antichrist will not worship the idols his fathers worshiped, and this is likely since he makes a pretense of being the true God, the God of Israel. The Bible is clear, however, that the Antichrist will be a Gentile of Roman origin.
Again, Levitt is confusing the second beast with the first beast who is a Gentile, most likely leading a revived Roman empire.
I'm not familiar with a version saying idols of his fathers in Dan. 11:27. It is God of his fathers. That phrase is only used for Hebrew ancestry in the OT. That individual is shown leading an army against armies invading Israel from the east and the north, and says he dies between Jerusalem and the two seas. If you draw a triangle connecting those three points the center is the valley of Armageddon where he meets his end. He is shown leading an army in defense of Israel which can only mean he is Israeli. His policies as the leader of Israel almost leads to Israel's total defeat.
Jesus is John 5:43 predicted they would reject him and choose another in his stead. And the prophecies in Zech. 11-12 describes the rejection of Jesus, and their later acceptance of a foolish shepherd just before Christ returns on the day of the Lord. There is just so much written showing a false Messiah, but somehow many of these prophecy writers are totally confused on this issue.
Bible typology shows that the Antichrist will be Gentile. For instance, the book of Daniel portrays the Syrian Gentile Antiochus Epiphanes as a type of the Antichrist (see Daniel 8:9â"14; 11:1â"35). As a matter of consistency, persecutors of the Jews throughout their history have been Gentiles â" Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, the Moslems, the Crusaders, the Inquisitors, and the modern Arabs. Since the Antichrist comes with a covenant for Israel to sign, it would appear that he is an outsider, since Israel wouldnât have to sign a covenant with one of its own.
> Another argument for the Antichrist being Gentile comes from Biblical imagery. Whenever the word âseaâ is symbolically used is Scripture, especially in the book of Revelation, it is a symbol of the Gentile nations. Since the âBeastâ of Revelation 13:1â"10 arises out of the sea, this points to the Antichrist being a Gentile.
> Daniel 9:26â"27 makes it certain that the Antichrist will be of Roman origin. The âheâ in verse 27 of Daniel 9 refers to the same person who isâthe prince that shall comeâ in verse 26. The Antichrist is of the same nationality as the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, which the Romans did in 70 A.D. The Antichrist will therefore be of Roman Gentile origin, not Jewish.
> I so agree. Cher
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]