On at least 3 different occasions in Isaiah, the anti-Christ appears to be identified as Assyria. Yet, he is also called the "king of Babylon" by the same prophet. In Daniel 2, 7 and 9, the prophet gives a European connection, while in chapters eight and eleven, Daniel insists that the same "Roman" king will rule a neo-Seleucid empire in Syrio-Babylon. And as Ezekiel then suggests strongly that he will be a Gogi, may we ask if the prophets are attempting to drive us mad?

No, but God can't be straight forward, or the powers destined to fulfill the prophecies would not fulfill them. It must appear to the world that prophecy expositors, and the prophecies themselves, are unreliable. It would be helpful if Christians themselves were confused, which is absolutely true...to our chagrin. It would of course be unfair to the entire world if the prophecies were unreliable, but they are not. They only seem that way to the mockers.

The great news is that the prophets themselves seemed confused, and yet there are no contradictions in their statements. It's great news because no one can argue that the prophets were involved conspiratorially in the creation of a fantasy. It's as if they wrote things they did not understand simply because they were Told to write them.

The subject in Isaiah 14, the "king of Babylon," seems to be portraying Satan. At least, that is what most Christians believe. For it says of him, "O shining star, son of the morning! How you have fallen from heaven" (12). It is for a good reason that God should portray a human king as Satan, if it's a reference to the anti-Christ.

There are other clues in the text helping us to evaluate this "king of Babylon" as our end-time arch enemy. For example, he is, curiously, not permitted a burial in a grave, unlike all other kings. It says of him, "You shall be cast from your grave," and, "You shall not be united with them [the other kings of the earth] in burial, because you ruined your land and you have slain your [own] people" (Isaiah 14:19-20). This harmonizes with Revelation 19 where we see the anti-Christ thrown alive into the "lake of fire" (probably in the vicinity of the Dead Sea in ancient Edom). Where Isaiah 14:9-11 speaks of this "king of Babylon" in "sheol," my take is that his soul ends up in sheol after his body burns to death in the lake of fire. Note that his place will be in the very depths of sheol (v 15).

Ezekiel 39:11 tells that Gog will be given a grave on the east of the Dead sea, which is the land of Edom. The fact that he is mentioned alongside a grave leads some to conclude that Gog could not be the anti-Christ. But Isaiah also tells that, in Edom, there will be a fire burning non-stop...that seems to me like the ongoing lake of fire of Revelation 19. Indeed, the following is in Isaiah 34:10, telling that the Armageddon fire kindled in Edom "shall not be put out night or day; it's smoke shall rise forever..." My take is that "forever" in this Biblical case (and others) refers only "to the end of the Millennial age," for there will be no day and night after the Millennium.

God has not left us without clues to show that the Babylonian king of Isaiah is not Nebuchadnezzar, nor any other ruler of ancient Babylon. In the previous Isaiah chapter (13), where it speaks about the destruction of this king's country, we can first of all be sure that the setting is in the last days because of these words: "Behold, the Day of the LORD comes...the stars of the skies and their constellations shall not give light...I will shake the skies and the earth shall move out of its place" (13:9-13).

We know from Matthew 24:29 that this Day of the LORD occurs "after the tribulation" of Israel. God repeatedly provides special terminology to convey a prophecy of the very last days, and in this instance it helps us to identify the king of Babylon as the anti-Christ with much more certainly. But look at what else we are given. We find that the king of Babylon is the main subject in Isaiah 14 all the way to verse 23 when, suddenly, verse 24 and 25 come out with the following end-time terminology:

"As I have purposed, it shall rise; to break Assyria in My land, and on My mountains I will trample him...this is the purpose that is purposed on all the earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out on all the nations."

The end times are again in view because the purpose which God has purposed on all the earth, and the hand stretched out over all the earth, is terminology depicting the Day of the LORD. But what is quite telling, or confusing, however it might strike you, is that the text flows suddenly from describing the anti-Christ's destruction to describing the destruction of "Assyria" without any apparent break in the subject, as if "Assyria" were a term depicting the anti-Christ himself.

No prior mention of the Assyrian armies has been made for three chapters when Assyria pops up out of nowhere in this key quote, and even there, back in chapter 10, the king of Assyria turns out to be an end-time king that must be the anti-Christ himself (for reasons given in the previous chapter as well other reasons provided in a chapter to come). Because there are yet other Isaiah texts touching upon an end-time Assyria, whereas Assyria no longer exists, we have got to straighten up and take notice. For example:

"YHWH will make the majesty of his voice heard; the lowering of his arm he will show, with raging anger, and a consuming flame; cloudburst and storm and hailstones. For by the voice of YHWH, Assyria is crushed" (Isaiah 30:30-31).

It's that unmistakable terminology signifying the Day of the LORD, where "his arm" is referring to Jesus...as is the case throughout Isaiah (e.g. Isa. 53:1). In this case, it's Jesus at his tempestuous post-trib' return. We can hardly fail to see that "Assyria" is mentioned alone as the brunt of Armageddon's wrath, even though many other scriptures show that many/all nations will be punished on that Day. It's as if this text were pointing out the over-ruling importance of Assyria among all the other nations: For by the voice of YHWH, Assyria is crushed." I can't help but conclude that the empire of the anti-Christ is viewed by God as an Assyrian empire.

After the prophet Micah speaks on the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, in the famous Micah-5:2 passage, we find Jesus as ruler of the earth in verse 4, meaning that the text has moved forward into the Millennium. Then, in verse 5 and 6, an "Assyria" defeated by God is revealed as the enemy of Israel just before the Millennium is mentioned again in verses 7-9.

In Isaiah 31, some emphasis on Assyria continues from chapter 30. We are first of all re-impressed with the fact that the setting is on the Day of the LORD, for it says that God (i.e. Jesus) will "come down to fight on Mount Zion" (31:4). Directly on account of this coming, we again see the fall of Assyria: "Assyria shall fall by a sword not of man; yea, a sword not of man shall devour him" (v 8).

When ancient Assyrian commanders attempted to invade Jerusalem, we know how they were sent into a sudden and painful retreat by angels of God. However, because the above quote occurs at the return of Messiah, we must view the "sword not of man" as an end-time sword. There is nothing at all difficult with this view, because the anti-Christ is shown more than once being defeated exclusively by the instruments of God. In Daniel 2, Jesus is portrayed as a Heavenly rock, specifically said to be cut from a mountain without human hands, which falls on and destroys the kingdoms. Daniel 8:25 offers the same theme, where the defeat of the final Seleucid king is fulfilled "without [human] hands." 2 Thessalonians 2:8 predicts the anti-Christ's destruction by "the spirit of His [Jesus'] mouth," while Revelation 19 has this to say:

"And out of the mouth of him [Jesus] proceeds a sharp sword, in order that he might smite the nations with it...the beast [anti-Christ] was seized and with it the False Prophet...the two were cast alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur" (vs. 15, 20).

Consider the next quote (a condensed version of Isaiah 10), where an end-time Assyria is first seen as the rod (singular) of God's anger against Israel, but is then defeated by the rod of God's mouth, which can only be that "sword not of man" protruding (figuratively) from Jesus' mouth:

"Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger! And the staff of my fury is in their hand. I will send him against a profane nation [Israel], and against the people of my wrath. I will command him to plunder a plunder, and to spoil a spoil, and to trample them [the Israelites] like the mud in the streets...And it shall be in that day, the remnant of Israel and the escapees of the house of Jacob shall not any more lean on him [Assyria] who struck him. But they will truly lean on YHWH, the Holy One of Israel. The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God...And a shoot [David] goes out from the stump of Jesse, and a Branch [Jesus] will bear fruit out of his roots...and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth...and [later] the wolf shall live with the lamb..." (Isaiah 10:5, 6, 20, 21; 11:1, 4).

We see that the Millennial restoration of Israel is a direct result of Assyria's defeat. And as the "rod of his mouth" destroys end-time Assyria in this quote, while in Revelation the "sword of his mouth" destroys the anti-Christ, end-time Assyria and the anti-Christ have got to be one and the same.

When convinced that the anti-Christ is an "Assyrian" in some way, it becomes much easier to view him as a Russian Gog. If God uses both "Assyria" and "Magog" to describe the anti-Christ, it becomes imperative for most of us to view his European involvement with eyes that we've never yet used. It hardly seems best to call him "a Roman dictator." Rather, he will be a Russian Gog who comes south and operates in the Middle East prior to being elevated politically into the European community. If he dictates at all, it must be on a level acceptable to European members.

THE KING OF IRAQ

As we familiarize ourselves with Isaiah 13 and 14, where "king of Babylon" is applied to the anti-Christ, we cross much information defining "Babylon" as the end-time country, not the ancient empire. In other words, the Babylon over which the king of Babylon will rule is revealed merely as Iraq, the people and region once Babylon proper.

There is no persuasion in these Isaiah chapters that Babylon is a mysterious or global entity i.e. "Mystery Babylon" of Revelation 17. Rather, the Babylon of the Isaiah text is said to be utterly destroyed on the Day of the LORD by the "Medes" (e.g. Isaiah 13:17), who, according to Britannica and other sources, include the Kurds. Moreover, we find that "the Arabian shall not pitch a tent there [anymore]..." We also see that Lebanon rejoices at Babylon's defeat; Israel too, is relieved by the king of Babylon's ultimate failure. Finally, we read in 14:19, "Babylon...the beauty and pride of the Chaldeans..." These quotes all localize the Babylon of the text within the sphere of Kurds, Lebanese, Israelites, and Arabians, while the term, "Chaldeans," indicates categorically the ancient region of Babylon where Iraq is now situated.

Therefore, the anti-Christ will come to rule Iraq some day soon, this being no small revelation. From Iraq, he will spread westward into Syria while building his Assyrian empire, which we may perceive also as a neo-Seleucid empire in fulfillment of Daniel 8 and 11.

It is extremely important, for timing the construction of our tribulation retreats, to know that Gog enters Iraq and rules it. Acting as helpful evidence in this direction, there is a statement in Daniel 11:21 which verifies the anti-Christ's entrance into Iraq as an outsider. In other words, Daniel shows that, even though he comes to rule in Iraq, the anti-Christ will not be an Iraqi...which is only expected if he is Gog.

THE IRAQI-EUROPEAN "CONTRADICTION"

In chapters 8 and 11 of Daniel, the anti-Christ is shown rising up in one of the four kingdoms formed by the splintering of the Alexander's Greek empire. These four kingdoms were: 1) Egypt, 2) Syrio-Babylonia, 3) Macedonia, and 4) Asia Minor. Regardless of which four he shoots up from, he will not be a western European! This throws a klunky wrench into the idea promoted by this same prophet in chapters 7 and 9, where he ties the anti-Christ to the Roman/European world. But there is no contradiction involved. We must accept both pictures at face value, whether we now find them tolerable or not. We don't accept all of this lightly, however, and I wouldn't see it for years due to the restraining influences of the Cold War. The prophecies are so compelling in this direction, however, once they are accepted at face value, that this view must become integral.

To help us reconcile the "contradiction," we find a striking similarity between the Daniel-8 and Daniel-7 kings. Some refuse to identify the king of chapter 8 as the anti-Christ, even though he is portrayed as a "little horn" (v 9), the very same phrase that in chapter 7 (v 8) is freely/widely believed to express the anti-Christ of Rome. Is it not clear that both uses of "little horn" (i.e. in both chapters) are expressions of the same king?

The phrase is defined for us in Daniel 11:23-24, where it refers to a final, end-time "king of the north" who starts small in power, but becomes quickly great through military successes, who then goes on (in verses 36-37) to fulfill 2 Thessalonian's "son of perdition" (2:3) characteristics.

Consider how the king (i.e. "prince" or "ruler") of Daniel 9:26-27 is said to rule the Roman empire that conquered Jerusalem in 70 AD, while he also appears in the end times as one making a covenant for one Week for the purpose of destroying Israel. This king is clearly Satan, therefore, for no human spans that many centuries. In that case, the king is the dragon of Revelation 12 which is seen acting only in the first century (attacking the Son of God), but coming again as the beast of Revelation 13, the anti-Christ = Gog = Little Horn, to war with end-time Christians.

Daniel 9:26 makes it absolutely certain that the king is a Roman ruler when it says, "the people of a coming prince shall destroy the city and the sanctuary," for the people who destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple were the Romans. It wouldn't be necessary to view the Revelation 13 beast likewise as a Roman power, except for Daniel 7 portraying the Little Horn as an 11th Roman king. Yet, because Daniel 8 reveals the same Little Horn as a neo-Seleucid power and not at all a Roman power, I conclude that two distinct roles will belong to the same man. The first role concerns an attack on the Middle East and Israel, and later he becomes a ruler of the European Union so as to condemn the entire world with him when he and they kill and otherwise persecute 1/3 the Christian saints.

Satan had been allocated certain kings through which to rule a global empire first Granted (by God) to Nebuchadnezzar...whose Babylonian empire later metamorphosed into the Roman empire. This evolution from Babylon to Rome has got to be the meaning of "Mystery Babylon," a phrase used in Revelation 17 to depict Rome. Indeed, Revelation does not mention Rome, and yet how could Revelation fail to mention this city and empire when, according to both Daniel 2 and 7, Christ comes to overthrow Rome at Armageddon? The fact is, Revelation doesn't fail to mention Rome, but mentions the city under the guise of "Babylon the Great," which makes even more sense when we realize that Isaiah's king of Babylon will come to rule the end-time Roman empire.

The Revelation picture of two similar draco-beasts is why, in about 95ish AD, Revelation 17:8 said that the beast "was, now is not, and is about to come up [again]..." This re-appearing act is also the meaning of one of seven heads of the beast having a fatal wound (Revelation 13:3), and yet revived into an eighth head (17:11). Herein is the gap between the first and second coming of Satan...a gap that exists and is emphasized because it's the same basic gap as between the two comings of Jesus. There are Part One and Part Two to the Show Down, and in both cases Jesus wins marvelously over the one who destroys marvelously.

The gap is also found implied between the 69th and 70 Weeks (Dan. 9:27) where, after the description of 69 Weeks but prior to describing the 70th, it says, "there will be war until the end" (Dan. 9:26). This language necessary reveals the gap because it takes the reader from the 69th Week in the first century to the 70th Week immediately before Armageddon, for in no other way are we to understand "end" except as Armageddon.

The eleventh king of Daniel 7 is said to arise "after" the ten (Daniel 7:24). If it's true that the ten are of the ancient Roman empire, as I believe, while the eleventh is of the end-times, then "after" must surely refer to after the said gap...wherefore the ten kings (i.e. Roman emperors) and the eleventh are so separated by that gap. Also note the following entry placed before us by God:

"And he shall be different from the first [ten]" (Dan. 7:24).

The intention of this line, I strongly believe, is to show a citizenship that is "different" in the eleventh king as compared to the Roman citizenship of the first ten. Indeed, since the anti-Christ is revealed as Gog, the king of Assyria, and the king of Iraq/Babylon, he almost certainly does not qualify as a European citizen. I should also mention here my belief that the 10 Roman kings, because there are said to be three uprooted ones, are identical to the seven crowned heads of the Revelation-12 Dragon. The three dropped kings explains how the eleventh Roman king is identical to the eighth head of Revelation 17.

GOG'S SELEUCID EMPIRE

Although Daniel 8 does not reveal which of the four splinter kingdoms of the Greek empire the anti-Christ will rise from, chapter 11 does. By resorting to historical records, we can learn that he stems from the ancient Seleucid kingdom governed from both Syria and the ancient land of the Chaldeans...yes, Babylon. The majority of prophecy experts agree with the Seleucid interpretation of Daniel 11, but few include Iraq in their definition of the neo-Seleucid kingdom.

Although the ancient Seleucid kingdom held both Syria and Babylon, most scholars choose to view the anti-Christ's end-time associations more with Syria than with Iraq. In order to compliment Isaiah 13 and 14 (i.e. where he is specifically identified as the "king of Babylon"), I think Iraq is the better choice. Even if we must decide this issue from historical imperative, Babylon still seems the best choice over Syria simply because Seleucus, the first Seleucid king, generated official power from Babylon beginning in at least 321 BC, when he was officially appointed Satrap of Babylon. Seleucus later rebelled against his authorities and began governing his own "Seleucid empire," from Babylon. It was some years before conquering Syria that he had made Seleucia (on the Tigris) his Babylonian capital, a city only 20 miles south of modern Baghdad; the site of Babylon itself was also situated some 20 miles south of Baghdad, but on the Euphrates river. See the borders of the Seleucid empire in yellow.

After the death of Seleucus, his sons maintained power from Syria to far beyond Babylon. Due to the military campaigns in the Syrian region, the Romans of the time viewed the Seleucids as kings of Syria, yet it is clear that God viewed them as kings of Babylon because he calls the last "Seleucid," who will be the anti-Christ, the "king of Babylon" (Isaiah 14).

Some modern scholars have decided to view the anti-Christ as a future king of modern Syria simply because Seleucid and his sons are called, "kings of the north." This does appear to reinforce the Syria option rather than Babylon because Syria is to the immediate north of Israel, while Babylon is more east than north. However, it is hasty to suppose that the title, "king of the north," suggests a northerly direction when there is another, equally valid possibility.

For a long period, Israel was controlled by two opposing factions: the Seleucids controlling Israel's northern portion, and the Greco-Egyptian faction controlling the southern remainder. Thus, "king of the north" can refer to this northern occupation of Israel rather than a northerly seat of power (in Syria).

Make no mistake about it, for although Daniel 7 teaches that the anti-Christ will be associated with the Roman empire, he will also be associated with the Middle-East, from Iraq to Syria. He will start in Iraq, however, even as Seleucus started in Iraq. To imagine a Russian ruler acquiring power in Iraq is not too difficult, especially as modern Russia has been an intrinsic supporter of that country. Although the Bible doesn't spell out cleanly Iraq's take-over by a Russian, there is a trickle of light or two to this end. For example:

"And a rejected one will stand up in his [previous king of the north's] place, and they [the citizens of Iraq] shall not give him the honor of rulership, but he will enter safely and seize the kingdom by intrigues" (Daniel 11:21).

There you have it. The Iraqis will not wish him to be their ruler, but the anti-Christ will "enter" and become a ruler regardless. While an entry as an outsider doesn't at all prove that he will be a Russian, such an entry is absolutely necessary if he is a Russian.

In the latter part of Nahum 3, end-time Assyria is again shown defeated, scattered on the mountains. Did you know that the book of Nahum concerns the end times; 1:5-8 tips us off with clear Armageddon terminology. The anti-Christ is in verse 11 because verse 12 speaks on Israel's eternal restoration i.e. the Millennium. Now in verse 11, the anti-Christ is said to come forth from what appears to be Nineveh, the capital city of the Assyrian empire, located now in northern Iraq across the Tigris river from modern Mosul (pop. over 1.5 million). Therefore, my take on this Nahum prophecy is that Gog will set up headquarters in/near Mosul. The palaces of the great Assyrian king, Sennacherib, were in modern Mosul. Saddam Hussein once said that whoever ruled Mosul would rule all of Iraq. Might the anti-Christ agree?

ZHIRINOVSKY'S MOUTH FITS THE PART

Could the Russian ruler wanna-be, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, be the anti-Christ? I don't know, but he certainly fits the bill by his dictatorial style and his arrogant, anti-Semitic talk? In a reader's Digest article entitled, "The Man Who Would Rule Russia," the following statement is made: "The prospect of Zhirinovsky commanding an army some two million strong and a formidable arsenal of nuclear weaponry has sent a chill through the West."

The anti-Christ is to become strong in the Middle East by rewarding his soldiers with land, power over conquered nations, and the spoils of war (Daniel 11), and we see in Zhirinovsky the employment of these very tactics for the purpose of getting the military on side. Readers Digest puts it this way: "He has also cannily courted Russia's demoralized and disaffected armed forces. Zhirinovsky promises, if he becomes president, to 'relieve officers of all worries about employment for their wives and medical care.' He says he will provide them free land..." Note how the following admission is fundamentally a wish to invade and conquer the Middle East: "I dream of the day when Russian soldiers can wash their boots in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean."

Zhirinovsky claims that 80 percent of the military is leaning towards him, as opposed to being loyal to Yeltsin. I have heard other, independent figures in the range of 70 percent, meaning that he could possibly take over the country in a coup, if not for the West standing firmly against him. I see in Zhirinovsky a man who will not succeed in becoming the President of Russia, but who could in his frustration storm the Middle East with some of those soldiers to build himself a reputation before the Arabs and Iranians.

If not Zhirinovsky, then someone else, but the picture would still be the same, with a strong Russian acting solo in Iraq and buying his soldiers with the spoils of war.

ADDENDUM

For those interested in the identification of the various kings of the north and south, the prophecy from Daniel 11, verses 4-21, is given below with my entries in square brackets:

"And when he [Alexander the Great] stands up, his kingdom will be broken, and it will be divided to the four winds [four nations] of the heavens, and not to his posterity, nor according to his authority with which he ruled. For his kingdom will be pulled up and given to others [four of Alexander's generals] besides these.

And the king of the south [Egypt] shall be strong. And one of his rulers, even he shall overcome him, and he will rule; his rule shall be a great rule. And at the end of years, they shall unite, and a daughter [Berenice] of the king of the south [Ptolemy II Philadelphus] shall come to the king of the north [Antiochus II] to make a treaty. But she shall not keep the power of the [Egyptian] arm. And he [Ptolemy II] will not stand, nor his arm [Berenice's power in the Seleucid empire]. But she will be abandoned [she and her infant son were murdered], and also those who brought her, as well as her begetter [Ptolemy II died soon after giving her to Antiochus II], and her supporter [her husband, Antiochus II, was also dead] in the times.

But the shoots of her roots [her brother, Ptolemy III] will rise in his [Ptolemy II] place, and he shall come to the army, and will enter [in the Third Syrian War from 146-141 BC.] into the fortress of the king of the north [Seleucus II]. And he will act against them [Seleucus' armies] and will show power [this was the height of the Ptolemaic power]. And he will also bring their gods with their molten images, with vessels of their possessions, silver and gold, into exile to Egypt. And for years he shall stand away from the king of the north [Seleucus II]. And the king of the south will come into his [Egyptian] kingdom, and will return to his own land.

But his [Seleucus II] sons [especially Antiochus III, The Great] shall be stirred up, and will gather a host of great forces and will certainly come and overflow [219/18 BC], and pass through. And he [Antiochus the Great] will return to his fortress and be stirred up. And the king of the south [Ptolemy IV Philopater] will be furious, and will go out and fight with him [217 BC], with the king of the north. And he [Antiochus The Great] will raise a great host. But the host will be given into his [Ptolemy IV] hand. And capturing the host, his heart will be lifted up. And he will make fall myriads, but he will not have power [the decline of the Ptolemaic dynasty begins here].

For the king of the north [Antiochus the Great] will return and will raise a host greater than the former; at the end of times, years [i.e. in the final years of these Greek civil wars], he will certainly come with a great army and with much equipment. And in those times many shall stand up against the king of the south [Ptolemy V Epiphanes]. And the sons of the violent ones of your people [Israel] shall lift up to make the vision stand; but they shall stumble. And the king of the north [still Antiochus the Great] shall come and pour out a siege mound, and seize a fortified city [Panium, near the Sea of Galilee]. And the south's arms will not stand, nor his chosen people; for there will be no strength to stand. But he who comes against him will do as he wills, and none shall stand before him.

And he [still Antiochus the Great] shall stand in the glorious land [Palestine] and destruction in his hand. And he will set his face to go in [to Palestine] with the strength of all his kingdom, and upright ones with him; so he shall do [Antiochus took Lebanon, Phoenicia, and all of Palestine from Egypt]. And he shall give the daughter [Cleopatra] of women to him [Ptolemy V], to destroy it [Egypt]. But she will not stand [for Antiochus], nor be for him [Antiochus the Great never did attack Egypt thereafter, therefore].

And he [still Antiochus the Great] shall turn his face to the coasts [in western Asia Minor], and shall capture many [Aeolis, Ionia, and Thrace]. But a ruler [the Romans] shall make cease his reproach for him, and his reproach will return to him [he was defeated by Roman armies in Greece in 191 and in Asia 190/89]. And he shall turn his face to the fortresses of his land [Babylon], but he will stumble and fall, and will not be found [he was killed while raiding a temple in Elam, near modern-day Kuwait].

And one [Seleucus IV] who sends an exactor shall stand in his [Antiochus the Great] place, for the glory of the [Syrio-Babylonian] kingdom. But within a few days, he will be broken, but not in anger, and not in battle [Seleucus IV was murdered by his own official, paving the way for the infamous Antiochus IV to come to power]. And a rejected one shall stand up in his place..." [End of Quote]

Although Antiochus IV follows Seleucus IV in history, the "rejected one" is clearly the end-time anti-Christ, for there is no other personality which rules further as "king of the north" in Daniel's prophecy. That is, if the "rejected one" is the last "king of the north" to be introduced and portrayed, where he is shown associated with end-time events leading up to the resurrection of the saints (12:2), then he must be the end-time anti-Christ.