Does the Bible Really Say the Antichrist Must Be Jewish?

I recently listened carefully to the Kim Iversen Show discussion concerning the identity of the Antichrist and the assertion made by her guest that Scripture teaches that the Antichrist will be Jewish.

I want to begin by saying that this response is offered in love and with respect for Kim and her guest Emmanuel Lemelson. Kim has demonstrated a willingness to investigate difficult subjects rather than simply repeat conventional wisdom. That willingness to ask uncomfortable questions is precisely why this discussion deserves a deeper examination.

In fact there are a few things that need addressing that Kim asked about and didn't get an answer or the answer wasn't properly pointed out in scripture. First, there is one place where I wish Lemelson had gone directly to Scripture. When Kim asks what actually happens to the Antichrist—whether he dies, is killed in war, and whether Scripture tells us—Emmanuel does not cite the remarkably direct biblical passages that answer her question. He had just correctly stated that the Antichrist's power is extinguished by Christ's Second Coming, but Scripture goes considerably further.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 could hardly be clearer:

Daniel appears to describe the same supernatural end. Daniel 8:25 says that the little horn will “stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.” And Revelation 19:19–20 describes the Beast and the kings gathering against Christ, followed by the Beast being captured and “cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.” Taken together, these passages provide a remarkably direct answer to Kim's question: Scripture does tell us how this final enemy comes to his end, and his destruction is directly associated with the victorious return of Christ.

There is another statement from Lemelson that deserves correction. At approximately 26:12, and again near 36:10, he says, “Even Christ says he doesn't know the end times.” That overstates what Jesus actually said. In Matthew 24:36, Jesus says, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”—the statement concerns the precise day and hour, not ignorance of the end times generally. Indeed, the surrounding chapter is Jesus' own extensive teaching about the signs preceding His return, THE END TIMES! The disciples specifically asked Jesus about the end times in Matthew 24. Jesus speaks of wars, famines, earthquakes, persecution, deception and the abomination of desolation; He compares His coming to “the days of Noah” (Matthew 24:37), and He commands His followers to watch (Matthew 24:42).

Furthermore, it is extremely concerning that Lemelson discourages people not to read and study Revelation for themselves. Revelation begins by pronouncing a blessing upon the person who reads, hears and keeps its prophecy. "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." (Revelation 1:3). Revelation closes with another blessing upon the one who keeps “the sayings of the prophecy of this book” (Revelation 22:7). Therefore, caution against reckless date-setting is thoroughly biblical; suggesting that Christ did not know or teach about the end times—or that Christians should avoid studying Revelation—is wholly and completely erroneous.

Next Kim asked if the anti-christ might pretend to be a Christian and Lemelson said no the bible says that he is a Jew. First of all, There is nothing in Scripture that would rule out the Antichrist pretending to be Christian. That would be a possible inference from the deception passages, though Scripture does not explicitly say, “he will pretend to be a Christian.”

Several passages make the possibility plausible:

Daniel 11:32–33 distinguishes between those whom this ruler corrupts through flattery and “the people that do know their God,” who resist him. That certainly permits a ruler who uses religious language or presents himself in a way calculated to deceive people of faith.

So when Kim asks Lemelson whether the Antichrist might pretend to be Christian, his response—“No… Scripture says he's a Jew”—doesn't actually answer the deception question. And even if his claim that the Antichrist must be Jewish were accepted, the two propositions aren't mutually exclusive. A Jewish person could pretend to be Christian. Ethnicity does not determine what religious identity someone might falsely present to others.

So nothing in Scripture requires the Antichrist to present himself openly as an enemy of Christianity from the beginning. To the contrary, Daniel repeatedly associates this ruler with deception and flattery, while Paul describes his coming as accompanied by “all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). Therefore, Kim's suggestion that such a figure might initially present himself as Christian—or otherwise employ Christian language and imagery—cannot simply be dismissed from Scripture. The Bible does not tell us that he will do this, but neither does it tell us that he cannot.

Finally, on the particular question of whether the antichrist is a Jew, I believe Lemelson's statement saying that “Scripture says he's a Jew” goes considerably further than Scripture itself goes.

During the interview, when Kim asks whether the Antichrist might pretend to be Christian, her guest answers no and states that Scripture says he is Jewish. He then connects the coming ruler with rebuilding the Temple and the restoration of sacrifices.

There certainly is an ancient Christian tradition holding that the Antichrist will be Jewish. Hippolytus, for example, taught that Antichrist would arise from the tribe of Dan, drawing connections from passages in Genesis, Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.

That tradition deserves to be studied seriously.

But a tradition concerning Scripture is not identical to an explicit statement of Scripture.

And once Daniel is examined closely—in Hebrew, historically, geographically, symbolically and prophetically—the picture becomes considerably more complicated.

One of the most important passages in this discussion is Daniel 11:37.

The King James Version reads:

At first glance, that sounds significant.

If “the God of his fathers” unquestionably meant the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then it would certainly strengthen an argument for Jewish ancestry.

But is that unquestionably what the Hebrew says?

No.

The Hebrew contains אֱלֹהֵי (elohei), the construct form of elohim. The word is morphologically plural in form, although elohim and its construct form can unquestionably refer to the one God of Israel elsewhere in Scripture.

That distinction is extremely important.

Therefore, we should not make the opposite mistake and declare that Hebrew grammar absolutely requires “gods of his fathers.”

It does not.

The expression can potentially be understood as either “God of his fathers” or “gods of his fathers/ancestors,” depending upon context.

However, there are substantial reasons for thinking that “gods of his fathers” is the stronger reading in Daniel 11:37.

First, later in the same verse Daniel uses אֱלוֹהַּ (eloah), a singular noun for “god,” in the statement that the ruler will not regard “any god.”

Second, ancient Greek witnesses understood the ancestral gods expression plurally.

Third, numerous modern translations consequently render Daniel 11:37 as “the gods of his fathers” or “the gods of his ancestors.”

There is also an important grammatical correction that needs to be made to an argument sometimes offered for the plural reading.

The Hebrew verb יָבִין (yavin) is singular.

But that does not prove that elohei is singular.

Neither does it prove that elohei is plural.

Why?

Because the subject of yavin is the king.

The expression means essentially that he will not pay attention to or regard the God/gods of his fathers. Yavin is therefore singular because “he” is singular. The verb does not grammatically settle the semantic number of elohei.

So the careful conclusion is:

“God of his fathers” remains grammatically possible, but “gods of his fathers” has substantial contextual and ancient translational support and, in my assessment, is the stronger reading.

That alone should make us extremely cautious about building an entire doctrine of the Antichrist's Jewish ancestry upon the English wording “God of his fathers.”

Most importantly, the central point of Daniel 11:36–38 appears to concern the ruler's relationship to worship and deity, rather than providing us with his genealogy.

He disregards the ancestral God or gods.

He disregards other objects of worship.

He magnifies himself above them.

Then he honors a “god of fortresses.”

Whatever his original religion or ethnicity may be, Daniel's emphasis ultimately falls upon self-exaltation and power.

Paul gives us an extraordinary parallel in 2 Thessalonians 2:4: the man of lawlessness exalts himself above everything called God or worshiped and ultimately presents himself as God.

Whatever religion he begins with, his final religion appears to center upon himself.

This question deserves considerably more attention than it usually receives.

Throughout much of Daniel 11, Israel sits geographically between two competing Hellenistic dynasties.

The King of the South refers historically to the Ptolemaic dynasty centered in Egypt.

The King of the North refers historically to the Seleucid dynasty, whose power was centered north of Israel and whose enormous empire extended through Syria, Mesopotamia and much farther east.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes belongs to this Seleucid/King-of-the-North line.

This matters enormously because Antiochus becomes the great historical prototype of the persecuting ruler who desecrates the sanctuary, interferes with sacrifice and attacks God's people.

When Daniel reaches verse 36, however, the designation changes simply to:

Verses 36–39 then describe the extraordinary self-exalting ruler—including the controversial statement in verse 37 concerning the God or gods of his fathers.

One important interpretation understands this king as continuing the King-of-the-North line.

That interpretation should be given more weight than merely calling it one possibility among several.

The historical narrative leading into this section has been following the Seleucid northern ruler, and Daniel 11:40 then describes the end-time King of the South pushing against him and the King of the North responding with extraordinary military force.

The Hebrew description of the northern king's response is particularly vivid.

Daniel says that the King of the North comes against his opponent “like a whirlwind.”

The underlying Hebrew verb is שָׂעַר (sa'ar), carrying the sense of storming, raging or coming tempestuously.

BibleHub's lexical discussion consequently describes Daniel 11:40 militarily: the northern king “storms against” the southern coalition and sweeps through like a flood.

That reflects a longstanding interpretation of the passage in which verse 40 continues the fundamental South-versus-North conflict.

Under that reading, the sequence is essentially:

The King of the South pushes against the northern ruler → the King of the North responds overwhelmingly → he enters countries → sweeps through them → enters the Glorious Land → continues his campaign until his final destruction.

That reading has an important advantage: it preserves the geographical and political structure that Daniel has spent much of the chapter establishing.

Nevertheless, there is another interpretation that deserves acknowledgment.

Because verse 40 says the King of the South pushes “at him” and then mentions the King of the North coming against “him,” some interpreters understand three distinct participants:

the self-exalting king of verses 36–39,

the King of the South,

and the King of the North.

That interpretation is grammatically possible and should not simply be dismissed.

But neither should the King-of-the-North continuity interpretation be treated as an insignificant possibility. There is substantial historical and interpretive reason for understanding the final tyrannical ruler as emerging from, or continuing, the northern Seleucid trajectory.

And if that interpretation is correct, it has enormous implications for the claim that Scripture says the Antichrist must be Jewish.

The historical King of the North was not an Israelite kingdom.

It was the Gentile Seleucid world.

Furthermore, we should not make the mistake of equating the Seleucid Empire simply with modern Syria.

At its height, Seleucid territory stretched across an enormous region from Asia Minor through Syria and Mesopotamia toward Persia and considerably farther east.

Its political centers included Antioch—located in what is today southern Turkey—and territories encompassing regions associated today with Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Therefore, if Daniel 11:36–45 continues the King-of-the-North trajectory, the geographic evidence actually directs our attention initially outside Israel.

That doesn't prove the final ruler will arise from precisely the same modern territory.

But it certainly makes this statement difficult to defend:

“Daniel tells us that the Antichrist will be Jewish.”

The historical prototype came from a Gentile northern kingdom.

The prophetic geography potentially continues the northern trajectory.

The ruler moves toward the Glorious Land.

He interferes with Jerusalem.

He attacks God's people.

None of those things requires Jewish ancestry.

Indeed, if the final ruler follows the historical geography of the Seleucid world, then the broad Middle Eastern/King-of-the-North sphere becomes a legitimate place to investigate.

That could conceivably involve territory associated today with Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran or neighboring regions.

But here another distinction is essential.

Middle Eastern does not automatically mean Muslim.

Daniel never says “Muslim.” Islam did not exist when Daniel was written.

Likewise, Iranian does not mean Arab. Most Iranians are Persian rather than Arab.

Therefore, even if prophecy ultimately points toward territory overwhelmingly Islamic today, that would not automatically establish that the ruler himself will practice Islam.

Nevertheless, it creates a legitimate alternative to the assertion that Scripture clearly tells us to expect a Jewish ruler arising from Israel.

If the final ruler follows the ancient Seleucid geography, then someone arising from what is today an Islamic region is certainly conceivable.

But conceivable is not the same thing as revealed.

The same caution should apply to both theories.

We should no more declare:

“The Antichrist must be Muslim”

than declare:

“Scripture says the Antichrist must be Jewish.”

The fact that this ruler becomes intimately involved with Jerusalem and the Temple also does not establish his ethnicity.

Daniel describes interference with sacrifice and sanctuary.

Paul describes the man of lawlessness occupying God's Temple and exalting himself.

That establishes an extraordinary relationship with Jerusalem's religious system.

It does not establish Jewish ancestry.

The historical prototype makes this distinction obvious.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes was a Gentile Seleucid ruler, yet he interfered catastrophically with Jewish worship and desecrated the sanctuary.

A Gentile ruler can therefore dominate Jerusalem, stop sacrifices and desecrate the sanctuary without being Jewish.

Indeed, this may tell us something extremely important about the final ruler.

Perhaps his relationship with Israel is not primarily genealogical.

Perhaps it is political.

And that possibility brings us back to Daniel 8.

Daniel 8 is unusually valuable because Gabriel actually identifies its symbols.

The ram represents Media and Persia.

The goat represents Greece.

The great horn represents its first king.

After that great horn is broken, four kingdoms arise from the original kingdom, although they do not possess its former strength.

Historically, the correspondence with Alexander the Great and the fragmentation of his empire is extraordinary.

We should never erase that historical fulfillment.

But Daniel also repeatedly pushes the vision toward “the time of the end.”

Daniel 8:17 says:

Verse 19 again speaks of the latter end of the indignation and the appointed time.

That has caused generations of interpreters to ask whether Antiochus and Alexander exhaust the prophecy—or whether those historical events also establish a pattern ultimately reaching an end-time fulfillment.

If there is an end-time recapitulation of Daniel 8, an extraordinary question emerges:

What would Persia and Greece look like in the modern geopolitical world?

Persia presents the easier question.

Modern Iran is the historical homeland of Persia.

Greece presents the much more difficult question.

It would be far too simplistic to say:

“America is Greece.”

Daniel does not say that.

But if the ancient fulfillment establishes a prophetic pattern capable of reappearing through later political systems, then we should at least ask what became of the civilization represented by Greece.

Ancient Athens occupies an extraordinary place in the development of Western democracy.

The word democracy itself derives from Greek concepts of demos—the people—and kratos—rule or power.

Ancient Greek political thought subsequently became one of the foundational intellectual inheritances of Western civilization.

Over many centuries, that inheritance passed through enormously complicated historical developments—Rome, European civilization, Christianity, English constitutional development, the Enlightenment and eventually the American constitutional experiment.

The United States therefore cannot simply be called “Greece.”

But America eventually became the most militarily powerful state within the broader Western democratic civilization whose intellectual ancestry includes ancient Greece.

And there is another remarkable fact.

Modern Greece itself is incorporated into the same Western military alliance in which the United States possesses extraordinary power:

NATO.

So consider the possible civilizational progression:

Ancient Greece → foundational Greek democratic tradition → development of Western political civilization → modern democratic West → American military predominance within that Western system → modern Greece itself incorporated into that alliance.

None of this proves that America fulfills Daniel's goat.

But if Daniel 8 contains an end-time recapitulation rather than requiring modern Greece itself somehow to recreate Alexander's empire, this becomes an intriguing possibility worthy of investigation.

Especially because on the opposite side of the ancient confrontation stands a nation whose historical continuity is far easier to recognize:

Persia—Iran.

This question requires especially careful wording.

Daniel does not say that Israel possesses the great horn.

Daniel explicitly identifies the goat historically as Greece and its great horn as its first king.

Therefore, we should not simply declare:

“America is Israel's great horn.”

But we can legitimately ask a different hypothetical question:

Could American power somehow participate in an end-time manifestation of the great-horn pattern?

Israel possesses formidable military and intelligence capabilities of its own.

Nevertheless, Israel's strategic relationship with the United States gives it access to military, diplomatic and economic support on a scale Israel could not independently reproduce.

Some critics of American policy believe Israel has sometimes succeeded in drawing the United States into carrying military, financial or diplomatic burdens that primarily advance Israeli objectives.

Supporters of the alliance describe essentially the opposite relationship: two strategic partners pursuing overlapping security interests against common adversaries.

Those are competing political interpretations.

We need not settle that political argument in order to ask the prophetic question.

What matters for our hypothetical is that American and Israeli military power are profoundly interconnected, while American global military capacity enormously exceeds Israel's independent capacity.

Our previous Daniel 8 hypothesis therefore considered Israel almost as a forward regional partner or spearpoint within a much larger American-centered military system confronting Iran.

Perhaps, then, the better question is not:

“Is America Israel's great horn?”

But:

“Could the great-horn pattern, in an end-time recapitulation, manifest through an American-dominated Western military power operating in extraordinary partnership with Israel?”

That is a question.

It is not yet an answer.

This is where the hypothesis becomes especially provocative.

Daniel does not leave the ram unidentified.

The ram is Media-Persia.

Modern Iran is Persia's historical continuation.

Therefore, if Daniel 8 possesses an end-time recapitulation, Iran becomes an obvious country to watch.

And which present military power is capable of attacking Iran with overwhelming force from the broader Western geopolitical system?

The United States—particularly acting alongside Israel and potentially other Western allies.

Again, that does not prove Daniel 8 is being fulfilled today.

But the parallel deserves examination:

Ancient Persia → confronted by Greek power.

Modern Persia/Iran → potentially confronted by the dominant military power of the modern Western system whose civilizational ancestry includes Greece and whose military alliance includes Greece itself.

One correspondence can be coincidence.

A prophetic argument becomes considerably more interesting when an entire sequence begins corresponding.

And Daniel gives us a sequence.

Daniel 8 contains one of the strangest reversals in biblical prophecy.

The goat becomes exceedingly great.

Then:

when he is strong, the great horn is broken.

Not after centuries of obvious decline.

Not because the power has already become insignificant.

At the moment of tremendous strength.

Our previous hypothetical explored what this could look like if an American-centered Western power were somehow participating in an end-time repetition of Daniel 8.

Iran becomes increasingly difficult to defeat.

The United States and Israel eventually overwhelm Iran.

The victorious power appears extraordinarily dominant.

And then something unexpected happens.

The victorious power itself fractures.

Our hypothetical article then considered four successor political systems arising from the broken American order, paralleling Daniel's four horns.

This is hypothesis, not a declaration of fulfilled prophecy.

And it gives us a means of testing the hypothesis rather than merely believing it because one portion looks interesting.

Suppose Iran is defeated and nothing resembling Daniel's subsequent sequence occurs.

America remains unified.

No sudden breaking occurs.

No four successor kingdoms emerge.

Then this proposed modern correspondence has suffered a major blow.

But suppose something radically different happened.

Suppose Persia/Iran were overwhelmed.

Suppose the victorious American-centered power subsequently reached an extraordinary height of military dominance.

Suppose that power were then unexpectedly broken while strong.

Suppose four recognizable successor kingdoms arose from its former political system.

At that point we would no longer be looking at one interesting resemblance.

We would be looking at an increasingly specific sequence of correspondences.

That would deserve extremely serious prophetic examination.

This may be the most important point in this entire discussion.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question.

Everyone wants to know:

Will the Antichrist be Jewish?

Will he be Muslim?

Will he be Arab?

Persian?

European?

American?

But Daniel may give us something considerably more useful than an ethnic label.

Daniel may give us the political genealogy of his kingdom.

What power precedes him?

What happens to that power?

What kingdoms emerge afterward?

From which political system does the little horn arise?

How does he obtain power?

In which directions does he expand?

How does he interact with the Pleasant Land?

What happens to the sanctuary?

What happens to sacrifice?

What happens to God's people?

And ultimately, whom does this ruler claim to be?

Under our hypothetical modern Daniel 8 framework, the sequence would look something like this:

Persia/Iran rises.

An American-centered Western power operating alongside Israel confronts Persia.

Persia is overwhelmed.

The victorious power becomes extraordinarily great.

The great power is unexpectedly broken while strong.

Four successor kingdoms emerge.

Those kingdoms undergo further political development and conflict.

Eventually the little horn emerges from that successor world.

His power grows beyond his original political base.

He expands toward the Pleasant Land.

He becomes involved with Israel and Jerusalem.

The sanctuary and sacrifices become involved.

Persecution follows.

He magnifies himself.

He eventually stands against the Prince of princes.

And finally he is broken without hand.

Our previous article follows essentially this hypothetical sequence from Iran through the breaking of American power, four successor kingdoms and eventually the emergence of the little horn.

If that sequence ever began unfolding recognizably, the question “What ethnicity is the Antichrist?” might suddenly seem much less useful than:

“Which of the successor kingdoms produced the little horn?”

There is another possibility worth considering.

Suppose Israel becomes extraordinarily dependent upon one surviving portion of a fractured Western/American political order.

A ruler eventually arises from that system.

Initially, Israel might perceive him as a protector.

He guarantees security.

He provides military support.

He brokers agreements.

He restores stability.

He gains trust.

Perhaps he appears to restore something resembling the security relationship Israel once enjoyed with the former United States.

Then the relationship changes.

The protector becomes the master.

The alliance becomes domination.

The ruler who gained access through political friendship eventually turns upon those who trusted him.

Our hypothetical article previously explored precisely that possibility.

Suddenly, the ruler's eventual presence in Jerusalem would require no Jewish ancestry whatsoever.

His political relationship got him there.

Then comes the betrayal.

Sacrifice ceases.

The sanctuary becomes central.

Persecution intensifies.

And finally this ruler no longer merely demands political obedience.

He exalts himself.

That is remarkably consistent with the ruler described in Daniel 11:36:

And with Paul's man of lawlessness, who exalts himself above everything called God or worshiped.

This is why the question of his original religion may ultimately become almost secondary.

Whether he began culturally Jewish, Muslim, Christian, secular, pagan or something else, he ultimately exalts himself above them all.

This brings me respectfully back to Kim and her guest.

I believe we should be extremely careful about turning one English phrase into certainty concerning one of Scripture's greatest prophetic mysteries.

Proverbs 2 gives us an entirely different model for seeking understanding.

The believer is instructed to receive God's words, incline the heart toward understanding, cry after knowledge and seek wisdom as silver, searching for it as hidden treasure.

That is not casual reading.

That is digging.

It means comparing Scripture with Scripture.

It means examining Daniel 7, Daniel 8, Daniel 9, Daniel 11 and Daniel 12.

It means comparing those passages with Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation.

Sometimes it means getting underneath an English translation and examining the Hebrew or Greek.

Sometimes it means studying history.

Sometimes geography.

Sometimes symbolism.

Sometimes the rise and fall of kingdoms.

And sometimes it requires enough humility to say:

We don't know yet.

Hebrews 11:3 tells us:

And Hebrews 11:6 speaks of God rewarding those who diligently seek Him.

Daniel himself was told that prophetic matters would be shut up and sealed until the time of the end.

Perhaps some things become clearer only when the historical circumstances necessary to understand them finally exist.

That possibility should make us humble about declaring beforehand that every mystery has already been solved.

So, Kim, this is offered respectfully and in love:

Keep digging.

Perhaps your guest will ultimately prove correct.

Perhaps the Antichrist will indeed be Jewish.

Perhaps the ancient Christian tradition concerning Dan contains a clue whose significance will become apparent later.

But Scripture itself does not presently justify saying simply:

“The Bible says he's a Jew.”

Daniel 11:37 does not settle the matter.

“God of his fathers” is a legitimate possible translation.

But “gods of his fathers” has substantial linguistic, contextual and ancient translational support.

Furthermore, even if one retained the singular translation “God of his fathers,” that still would not amount to the explicit statement:

“This man is Jewish.”

It would be evidence to consider—not a declaration of ethnicity.

And Daniel 11 may contain another clue pointing in a very different direction.

If Daniel 11:36–45 continues the King-of-the-North trajectory, as a substantial interpretation of the chapter maintains, then the historical political geography behind this ruler is Gentile Seleucid territory outside Israel.

The King of the South pushes.

The King of the North answers like a storm.

The Hebrew imagery of Daniel 11:40 is violent and overwhelming: sa'ar conveys storming or raging, followed by the picture of the northern power overflowing and passing through.

Then the campaign moves into the Glorious Land.

That geographical movement deserves careful consideration.

A ruler moving into the Glorious Land from the northern imperial world does not naturally amount to a declaration that he originates as a Jewish ruler within Israel.

Again, it doesn't prove he isn't Jewish.

But it certainly complicates the assertion that Daniel straightforwardly identifies him as Jewish.

Meanwhile, Daniel gives us enormous amounts of other information.

He gives us kingdoms.

He gives us horns.

He gives us geography.

He gives us directions of expansion.

He gives us political succession.

He gives us deception.

He gives us war.

He gives us the sanctuary.

He gives us the cessation of sacrifice.

He gives us persecution.

He gives us self-exaltation.

And he gives us the ruler's ultimate confrontation with God.

Perhaps we should pay more attention to those things than to attempting to determine his ethnicity prematurely.

The King-of-the-North possibility deserves serious examination.

The Seleucid geographic connection deserves serious examination.

The possibility of a ruler arising from territory that today belongs largely to the Islamic world deserves examination.

But Middle Eastern does not equal Muslim, just as involvement with Jerusalem does not equal Jewish.

Likewise, the extraordinary Persia-Greece sequence of Daniel 8 deserves renewed examination because Daniel explicitly associates the vision with the time of the end.

Persia survives unmistakably in modern Iran.

Ancient Greece no longer possesses anything remotely resembling Alexander's world power.

But the civilization whose political inheritance includes Greece developed into the broader democratic West, whose dominant military power became the United States—and modern Greece itself now participates in that Western military system.

Does that mean America is Daniel's goat?

We cannot responsibly say so.

Could an American-centered Western system participate in an end-time recapitulation of the ancient Greek-Persian pattern?

That is a legitimate hypothesis worth testing against what happens next.

And Scripture itself supplies the test.

Don't merely watch Persia.

Watch what defeats Persia.

Then watch what happens to the victorious power.

Does it become exceedingly great?

Is its dominant horn unexpectedly broken while strong?

Do four successor powers actually arise from it?

Does a later little horn eventually emerge from that political inheritance?

Does that ruler expand toward the Pleasant Land?

And if Daniel 11 continues the King-of-the-North pattern, does an overwhelming northern power eventually storm southward and enter the Glorious Land?

Does the ruler become involved with Jerusalem?

Does he interfere with sacrifice?

Does he persecute God's people?

Does he magnify himself above every god?

Does he ultimately stand against the Prince of princes?

If those things do not happen, we should have the humility to reconsider the hypothesis.

But if history ever begins following that sequence with extraordinary precision, then perhaps Daniel has given us something much more valuable than the ethnicity of the Antichrist.

He has given us a trail.

A sequence.

A political genealogy.

A means of recognizing the kingdom before attempting to identify the man.

Perhaps the greatest mistake would therefore be becoming so certain that we already know the Antichrist's ethnicity that we fail to recognize the prophetic sequence unfolding before us.

So rather than beginning with:

“Look for a Jew.”

Or:

“Look for a Muslim.”

Perhaps Daniel is telling the diligent student of prophecy something considerably more profound:

Watch the ram.

Watch the goat.

Watch the great horn.

Watch what happens when it reaches the height of its strength.

Watch the four that replace it.

Watch the political world that emerges from them.

Watch the North and the South.

Watch the movement toward the Glorious Land.

And then watch carefully for the little horn.

Because perhaps the mystery of the final ruler will not ultimately be solved by guessing his ethnicity beforehand.

Perhaps God has given us something better:

the sequence by which he will eventually be revealed.