The North in Daniel 11 is Turkey not Syria

That is IF it has End Times application at all.  

The most mainstream view among Futurists has been that Daniel 11 up to verse 35 is about the Hellenistic Era, but then 36-45 jumps forward to the End Times and is Antichrist relevant, and then within that is an internal debate on if the "Willful King" who is the subject of those verses is still a King of The North or if the North is a separate entity in verse 40, I was when I held the standard view in the Willful King being separate camp.

I have on this blog broken with Futurist orthodoxy and argued that the Willful King is Augustus Caesar (with the King of the North in verse 40 being Anthony and his Son by Cleopatra who was given the former Seleucid domains).  But I've found on YouTube those who brake with the orthodoxy in the opposite direction have been increasing in popularity, most of them still see some connection to the Hellenistic Kingdoms but see it's leap forward to the "End Times" as being more amorphous.  But those who reject any connection to the Hellenistic era do exist.

So I've decided to play Devil's Advocate with those types as well as the standard view.

The Seleucid Kingdom is by historians sometimes treated as synonymous with "Syria" the same way Ptolemy is with Egypt, so that's why trying to map any part of this chapter onto the borders of the modern Middle East tends to involve identifying the North with Syria.  But at it's greatest extent the Seleucid Empire also controlled almost all of modern Turkey, Iraq and Iran, stretched even into Pakistan and Afghanistan, held sway over Lebanon and Jordan and even for a time of course had Israel.

To the Ancient World a Civilization's Capital City was even more important to understanding it's identity then it is in our modern Cosmopolitan way of thinking.  And the Seleucid Kingdom's Capital was Antioch which was still part of Syria during Roman times but in the initial post WWI redrawing of the Middle East was part of Hatay which became a province of Turkey.

When one attempts to trace the royal genealogical legacy of the Seleucid Dynasty beyond when the Seleucid Kingdom proper ended, it very heavily involves the ruling dynasties of regions in modern Turkey like Pontus, Commagene, Cappadocia, Pergamon, Galatia and Cilicia. Also two of the cities that housed the Seven Churches in Asia of Revelation were founded or renamed by Seleucid Kings, Laodicea and Thyatira, and most of them were part of that kingdom at some point in their history.

Then there is the view of The Little Horn I've been developing, that it never represented an individual per se, in Daniel 8 it's the Seleucid Empire with the bigger horn it came out of being Ptolemy, then in Daniel 7 it's the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire which was in many ways the legacy of the Seleucid Empire continued.  Then the Ottoman Empire was simply the Byzantine Empire with a change in Religion and Language, and then at the end of WWI what was left of the Ottoman Empire became modern Turkey.

But the Key Argument for the North being Turkey and not Syria in modern geopolitics is the very word "North" itself.  In the Hellenistic Context why was the Seleucid Kingdom the North when it wasn't actually the most northern since there were rivals based in both Macedon and Thrace?  

It's because the Hebrew word translated "North" here is Zaphon which was also the Semitic name of a mountain the Greeks and Romans called Kasios/Casius but is today called Jebel Aqra/Acra.  This mountain was just south of the city of Antioch and Seleucus I Nicator decided to found Antioch where he did after performing a Sacrifice to Zeus on that mountain, at least that was the city's official founding myth.

Today it is officially right on the Syria-Turkey border, but due to Turkey's involvement in the Syrian Civil War it's functionally all under Turkish control.  But also just think about it poetically, the Mountain Named "North" is the Sothern most tip of Turkey.  For the small group who want to throw the Hellenistic Kingdoms out of how to interpret Daniel 11 entirely, this mountain is the only clue we have and it favors Turkey.

And yes the word for "South" in this chapter is also the name of a specific Geographical location, the Negev Desert which was under Ptolemaic Control when the wars between the Ptolemies and Seleucids that Daniel 11 is talking about started.  I think the Ancient definition of the Negev was a bit broader then how it's properly defined today and might have overlapped with The Sinai to include places like Ras Kouroun and so was to some extent still Ptolemaic even after the Seleucids took Judea/Jerusalem.

I no longer believe in Gaps in Daniel chapters 9 and 11

I've held that view in the past, but I've slowly come to abandon it.  For that reason I changed the name of this blog, I sadly don't know a way to create a full new URL without rending all existing links to this Blog dead.

I had cited Hippolytus as an early source on Gaps in Daniel.  Thing is he's the only Early Church Father to hold this view, he seems to have invented it.  And while I still agree with him more then most Church Fathers on a number of End Times issues, his bizarre views on the Song of Solomon hurts his credibility.  And his view on when the 69th Week ended does not agree with anyone today, he ended it at Jesus Birth.

I first started work on this 70th Week study when I was still against seeing the 70th Week as already fulfilled.  But as you can see my open minded study of the evidence lead me to become convinced that yes the 70th Week was fulfilled from 30-37 AD.  I talked more on that subject here.

I have also shown that Daniel 11:36-45 was about Augustus.

Gaps have nothing to do with making Daniel 2 or 7 End times, they are in nature incredibly broad symbolic visions of all history.  But the visions in Hebrew Daniel are usually more narrow in scope.  The way in which Revelation draws on Daniel is only really explicitly to Daniel 7 and to some extent 12.  That Daniel 12 is jumping from the first to second Advent isn't a Gap really, it is again a broader in scope prophecy.

Matthew 24 is indisputably End Times.  The basis for making material from Hebrew Daniel end times relevant is Jesus saying "The Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel The Prophet".  Thing is while terminology similar to that is arguably used in the last verse of Daniel 9, the exact phrase is used in Daniel only in 11 and 12, and in 11 it's not the part any reasonable person argues is before the gap but in the part clearly about Antiochus Epiphanes.

Now I do think it's possible that the 70th Week and Daniel 11:36-45 could have end times relevance via Double Fulfillment.  And I think to an extent even Daniel 12's End Times relevance is via double fulfillment.  But the only thing I see absolutely required to happen again is what Jesus specifically refereed to.

But in the case of the 70th Week I've come to view that as only being applicable if the entire 70 Weeks is fulfilled twice, which I have argued a possible model for on this blog.  If that model doesn't bear out, then Daniel 9 is not End Times relevant.

If Daniel 11's relevance is via double fulfillment  Then when it starts being End Times relevant may have to be pushed sooner, because again it's the phrase "Abomination of Desolation" that is the key to Daniel's End Times relevance.

One thought I just started considering is that maybe two End Times Abomination of Desolation events will happen, one that seems more like a direct repeat of what Epiphanes did at the start of the 70th Week, and then what II Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13 depicts at the Midway Point.  (Update Sept2016: I've now considered an entirely new take on the Abomination of Desolation in Daniel 11.)

Going back to Daniel 9:24, let's look again at what the purpose for the 70 Weeks are.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

It is commonly argued that the Second Advent is required for this to be fully fulfilled, that certain aspects of this clearly aren't fulfilled already.   In fact I've even seen some Christians try to remove the First Advent from this altogether, like Chris White.  To me that grossly undervalues what happened in 30 AD in a way no Christian, no matter how Futurist and Premillennial they are, should be willing to do.

If you think "make an end of sins" means no one will be sinning anymore then you have to move the end of the 70 Weeks to after the Millennium, not before it.  I would be curious to hear someone argue such a theory.  This is referring to Jesus paying the price for Sin on The Cross, when He said "It Is Finished".

Some take "seal up the vision and prophecy" to mean no more Prophecies left to be fulfilled.  Again you have to move the 70th Week to after the Millennium in that case.

I think that the anointing of the most Holy can be seen as fulfilled at Pentecost.

Every argument that the first advent wasn't enough to fulfill that requires an interpretation that places the fulfillment after not before the Millennium.

I feel there is a perfectly very real sense in which all those details were satisfied in 30-37 AD.

In my past study on the first 69 Weeks proving they ended in 30 AD.  I justified the gap concept not with the usual Pre-Tirb/Dispensationalist the Gap is the Church Age logic.  But by arguing that since it revolved around The Temple, the Gap was from when the Second Temple lost it's Holy Anointing when the Veil was Torn till when the future Temple will be consecrated.  I brought that up in some other posts too.

I feel ashamed of that argument now, because it implies what the Veil being Torn achieved is gonna be undone.  I won't remove that argument from that post because it's intent was to refute Chris White which it still does  At any-rate when studying the possible dual fulfillment I realized it didn't revolve around The Temple as much as I thought.  In fact it's barely mentioned at all.

Daniel 11:36-45 is about Octavian Caesar Augustus

I'm a Futurist on Bible Prophecy because there is no ambiguity to me what so ever that Matthew 24, I Thessalonians 4, II Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-22:5 are still yet future.  And others I think are too, but those are what define one's views on Eschatology.  Anything that indisputably depicts the Second Coming is in the future.

But too many Futurists are determined to not let any Prophecies besides the first Advent and a few other obvious ones be already fulfilled.  And I feel this is a mistake.  We should rejoice in showing the World those Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled to prove the reliability of God's Word and demonstrate that they should take seriously what remains to be fulfilled.

Now the part of Daniel I'm going to discus today, I had in the past assumed like most futurists to be about The Antichrist, in many posts on this blog.  What I'm going to express here however only further backs up that Rome is indeed the Fourth Beast.

I even cited Hippolytus of Rome as ancient precedent for viewing this as still yet future.  But on my other Blog I've explored a lot recently how even the pre-Constantine Church Fathers were already having doctrinal problems and becoming proto-Catholics.  Hippolytus's "On Christ and Antichrist" I think lies at the root of what I feel has gone wrong with the Antichrist Doctrine in it's very title.  Some Christians want to see the Antichrist in Scripture almost as much as Jesus.  I've come to grow concerned that that is a dangerous unhealthy attitude, but one I've also been a victim of in the past.

Chris White shares a healthy skepticism of some passages assumed to be Antichrist or End Times relevant that maybe aren't.  But on this passage he has to some extent come to see it rather then anything in the New Testament as the defining Antichrist passage.  To him no Antichrist suspect should be taken seriously till they fight wars that match Daniel 11:40.  I think that is a horrible misdirection.

Now I still don't consider it impossible that via double fulfillment and typology that the Antichrist will manage to match this passage also.  In fact if he is indeed creating a revived Roman Empire then Augustus is someone he's going to want to emulate.  But the core of the Antichrist doctrine needs to be based on what Jesus, John and Paul told us about the End Times, and everything else supplemental.  Especially since I suspect there will likely be a decoy Antichrist before the Abomination of Desolation, maybe more then one.

II Thessalonians 2 is the only Antichrist prophecy that will be indisputably obvious when it happens.  I'm sure White would not deny it when it does if the person that does it never did anything like Daniel 11:40 first.  But what he may be is completely unprepared for it, or suspecting the wrong person if someone else does fight wars with Egypt and Syria.

I'm aware that others have argued for Augustus fulfilling this prophecy before. They are usually Preterists in their general view of Prophecy however, my approach will be different.  And honestly the idea did enter my head before I looked and saw others had drawn the same conclusion.

Now to begin.

When I argued against those who say Rome isn't the Forth Kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7, I mentioned how Daniel 11:4 hints at the Hellenistic Kingdoms falling to another Empire.  Since the rest of the Chapter is an elaboration on the last part of Daniel 11:4, I have come to feel how that happens should be part of the following Prophecy.  I had also mentioned other hints of Rome's rise.  I see 11:33 as foretelling both the Maccabees revolt and the Hasmonean kingdom latter falling to Rome under Pompey in 63 BC (same year Augustus was born).  Rome further finished the Hasmoneans off in 37 BC when Antigonus Mattathias was defeated by Anthony and beheaded.

I will cover 40-45 first because that's the specific events, and get into how the primarily spiritual details of 36-39 apply later.

First I want to say terms like "Time of the end" also occur earlier during what few deny was fulfilled in the Hellenistic age.  So selectively using that as proof we're in the full End Times here is rather disingenuous.  What is notable is that Augustus lifetime overlaps into the New Testament era.  In fact he was younger then the Prophetess Anna.

Daniel 11:40

And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

The Naval aspect of this battle is usually not emphasized when trying to interpret it in a modern context.  Since Naval warfare hasn't really been as important as it used to be since WWII.  These ships could still be aircraft carriers, but those are just glorified launching pads.

Chris White's argument for the "he" here being separate from the King of The North is very good in his commentary on this.  People generally do not note that the King of The South has the leadership role here.  Even how this is tied into the Mahdi theory with Sufyani needs to consider the North more important.

You can probably guess where I'm going here is that this is Actium, and that the two "kings" of north and south are Anthony and Cleopatra.  You may be thinking "but wouldn't it be the Queen of the South then?"  The Prophetic sense simply means the King as synonymous with Nation more or less in these kinds of verses.  But I could also point out that Antony and Cleopatra were more or less officially ruling in the names of Cleopatra's children.

The main one was Ptolemy Caesarion who she had by Julius Caesar, who was Pharaoh of Egypt.  Then there was her and Anthony's youngest son Ptolemy Philadelhus who at the Donations of Alexandria was proclaimed King of Syria and other core Seleucid lands.  Alexander Helios was mostly given Kingdoms they didn't actually control yet, Parthia, Media and Armenia.  And Cleopatra Selene was given the usual Ptolemaic lands peeled off for younger brothers and bastard sons to rule.  I personally speculate that Cleopatra was planning to marry Selene to Caesarion once she was old enough, the question is how okay Anthony would have been with that.

Now the movies about Anthony and Cleopatra and Octavian usually skip right from Actium to the fall of Alexandria.  But in fact plenty happened in-between,  You could learn about it by reading ancient historians like Josephus, or you could just read Daniel 11:41.

He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

Yes Augustus did enter the Biblical Promised Land during this time. Herod switched sides over to him and he confirmed Herod's kingship increasing his power.  A number of local governments were overthrown at this time.  However Biblical Edom, Moab and much of Ammon were part of the Nabatean Kingdom that Rome never conquered till the reign of Trajan.  What little of Ammon wasn't part of Nabatea was part of the Decapolis, independent city states.  The Nabatean kingdom was a thorn in Rome's side all through the Julio-Claudian and Flavian periods.

Then in Daniel 11:42-43 is the fall of Alexandria.

He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.  But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

This is when the Fourth Beast fully replaced the Third. I talked in another post of mine about his visit to Alexander's Tomb.

Augustus gave Egypt a special status among Roman Provinces.  It was treated as his personal possession.  Which is why it's Governors were appointed by him rather then the Senate even though it wasn't a military province.  Egypt became his gold mine basically.

Libya (Phut in the Hebrew) in the Bible doesn't really correlate well to modern Libya or what would become the Roman province of Libya, it's more like the rest of North Africa west of Libya and Cyrene. What Rome controlled of the rest of North Africa was only ever the very northern Mediterranean coast-lands.  And even then right after Egypt fell Mauritania remained a client kingdom.

Also there were wars fought between Rome and Kush during Augustus reign, but Rome never conquered them.  It annoys me that people want to make Cleopatra black when there was a black African Queen contemporary with her who unlike her did keep her nation independent from Rome.  But Hollywood doesn't make movies about that Queen.

Daniel 11:44

But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

The east here no doubt means east of the Euphrates, Parthia and it's client Kingdoms.  The north here must be further north then the Seleucid lands already conquered, probably other nations that were proxies between Rome and Parthia like Armenia.  Alluding to the sort of cold war between Rome and Parthia.  But it could also have in mind Rome's ongoing wars with the northern Celts and Germans.

The earlier parts of Daniel 11 sometimes moved to a successor without it being obvious it was doing so.  So it could be carrying over into Tiberius here, or even later Julio-Claudians.  But both this and the next verse I feel can remain in the time of Augustus.

Daniel 11:45

And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

I've talked about this verse elsewhere.  The word for "tabernacles" here means tents. Preterists who want to make everything about 70 AD say this refers to the tents Roman soldiers camped in in Jerusalem then.  Similar Roman encampments could have happened earlier during any time Roman soldiers had to take Jerusalem from rebels.  Including the rebellions that broke out after Herod died, or when Archelaus was removed in 6 AD.

The word translated "palace" was not even a Hebrew word but a Persian one.  So it's not an allusion to The Temple or anyone deifying themselves in The Temple.  It's probably the Antonia Fortress finished by Herod in 19 BC which was where the Dome of The Rock is now.

Augustus died in 14 AD, many scholars now are skeptical of the rumor that Livia poisoned him.  Either way it fits the end of Daniel 11:45 fine in my opinion.  And so would any other Judeo-Claudian Emperor.

Herod had a Kingdom that was pretty sizable, all of modern Israel and chunks of Jordan and Syria.  After he died Augustus divided it into four Teterarchies.  Archelaus got Judea, Idumea and Samaria, and Antipas got Galilee and Perea.  Philip got Batanea, Trachonitis, Aurantis, Gaulantis and Ceasarea Philippi.  And Herod's sister got the Gaza strip.   So that is probably what "shall divide the land for gain" in verse 39 means.  Though it's apparent chronological placement before Actium means it could be Rome's division between the second Triumphirate.

Now to get into the spiritual aspects of 36-39.

Augustus did not deify himself in the obvious insane way some later Emperors like Caligula would.  But it was considered perfectly acceptable in Rome for him to be worshiped as a god by the conquered peoples.  He didn't force it on the Jews, but the other people around Israel worshiped him as a god, in Egypt he basically took over the traditional Pharonic worship.

In Rome, he was not openly worshiped as a god while he lived, but there was a lot of quasi deification going on.  The name Augustus effectively meant divine, and he was given that name the same year his adopted father Julius Caesar was officially deified, so he officially became the son of a god.  More of his deification of himself will become relevant later.

I still interpret what "the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women" means the same as I have before.  But I believe Rome had an Ephraimite heritage, including it's spiritual heritage.  So he did descend from the Patriarchs of Genesis.

Now "the God of forces" sounds like a war god.  Rome identified their local deities with Greek ones, but Ares was never a favored deity among the Greeks.  To Rome however Mars was their Patron, the father of Romulus and Remus.  They defined themselves by their military nature, this is part of what America has inherited from Rome, and Christians sadly take part in it.

The word for "Strange" means foreign.  Apollo was the only Olympian the Romans didn't have their own deity to identify with, so even in Latin he is just worshiped as Apollo.  But Apollo was not a very poplar deity in Rome before Augustus.  In fact Apollo was almost unheard of to Romans before Augustus. A number of articles have been written on how greatly Augustus popularized Apollo.

A rumor circulated that Augustus was actually fathered by Apollo.  Augustus's birthday (September 23rd) became Apollo's national holiday.  Virgil's fourth Ecolouge contained a pseudo Prophecy from the Cumea Sybil of Augustus as an incarnation of Apollo.

The fascination that the renaissance, enlightenment and modern world has with Apollo mainly goes back to Augustus' promotion of him.  Especially since it largely tends to be filtered through Virgil.  So the fact that the ships that took us to the moon were all called Apollo you can thank Augustus for.

It may be that the extent to which this is typological of The Antichrist is more about 36-39, his deification, then 40-45.  Just as we see The Antichrist in the first part of Ezekiel 28 because that Nagyim of Tyre sees himself as a god, but no one thinks The Antichrist will be a ruler of Lebanon specifically.

Due to the DSS manuscripts of Daniel skeptics are limited in how late they can get away with late dating Daniel.  Generally they can't even allow it past the death of Epiphanes.  The fact that it describes Augustus as accurately as it did Epiphanes is a major problem for them.

You may think "there were no chapter divisions originally, Daniel 12 says "at that time" referring to what just happened", 10-12 is all one revelation.  I think Daniel 12 has a definite second application to Revelation 12 and the eschatological 70th Week.  But I have also argued that the 70th Week can be seen as fulfilled already.  Because I definitely see a double fulfillment there.

Could Michael standing up apply to the first Advent of Jesus?  Maybe, what is Michael standing up linked to?  The word for "delivered" means saved, it could be simply referring to the Age of Grace.

12:2 says "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake", in the past I've argued the Resurrection that is part of the Rapture is meant here.  And that I still think is it's second fulfillment.  But there is only one other Bible verse on the subject of Resurrection that says "many" were raised as opposed to all.  Matthew 27:52-53

The graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Some see the reference to Michael in Jude as being linked to when Moses was Resurrected at this time.

Matthew only seems to refer to saints being risen though, but the Rapture is the same way, the general resurrection of the unsaved isn't till after the Millennium.

Scholars complain about the accounts of Judas death allegedly contradicting each other, but I notice that neither actually refers to him as dead.  Acts 1 describes something he couldn't possibly have survived however.  Maybe he was resurrected for the second resurrection early and then "taken to his own place" the Abyss.  And maybe it's the same with whoever of the first five kings turns out to be the Eight King.  And now they're sealed away till Revelation 9.

As far as the knowledge increasing statement goes, I know it's popular to see modern technological development in that.  But as Chuck Missler has said knowledge of God's Word increasing is the real intent of the passage.  It could be referring to Jesus and the New Testament increasing our knowledge.  I've already argued that Daniel's book being unsealed refers to the publication of Revelation.

Hebrew Daniel's applications to the End Times are mostly typological.  But Daniel 7 definitely had the End Times in view.  .

Understanding what Syria means in various Bible references

In all likelihood no use of "Syria" in the King James Bible is exactly synonymous with Modern Syria.

Every time you see Syria in The Old Testament, the Hebrew said Aram, one of the sons of Shem.  Now very early on Aram settled further north, maybe in modern Turkey.  But they had traveled to the Damascus area well before the time of Saul.

The kingdom of Aram was centered around Damascus, but it did not include all or even most of modern Syria.  It's size varied at different times of course.  But it certainly never controlled anything on the other side of the Euphrates River.  And also never anything north of Lebanon.  Pretty much anything between Damascus and modern Syria's borders with Leabanon and Israel and western Jordan had been Aramean territory at times.  And they also sometimes controlled parts of north western Jordan, and possibly extended into the Golan Heights.

Our word Syria comes from Greek usage that was adopted by the Romans.  In origin it derives from Assyria, which is what they called Asshur.  The Assurian Empire at times controlled pretty much all of modern Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Israel, and also parts of Turkey.  The original intent of the word might have been Mesopotamia + Syria = Assyria.

The name became synonymous with the Seleucid Empire to an extent.  At it's greatest extent Seleucus controlled all of what Assyria had and even more of Turkey (almost all of it really) and Iran and into Afghanistan and Pakistan and the very edge of India.

But once Parthia broke off as well as the Hasmonean revolt it shrunk a great deal, many parts of Turkey became independent as did Petra/Nabatea.  For awhile it looked a lot like modern Syria and Iraq plus chunks of Turkey.   In about 150 BC it lost Mesopotamia to Parthia.

Damascus was also independent of the Seleucids for awhile.  Also, Antioch the Seleucid capital is not part of modern Syria but in Turkey.

The Septuagint is likely the origin of thinking of Syria and Aram as synonymous.  I think the Septuagint translators made a bit of a mistake there.

The Roman Province of Syria also never matched modern Syria exactly, it's capital was also Antioch.  It never had anything on the other side of the Euphrates, and also most of the time did not Include Damascus (sometimes Damascus was independent, sometimes it was under Herodian control, Aretas had it when Paul was there).  To an extent it was the base of what the Seleucid Kingdom had declined down to when it fell to Pompey.

After Hadrian put down the Bar-Kochba Revolt he made Judea which he renamed Palestina part of Syria.  Later that again broke off into a separate province.

This is why Daniel 11 never uses Syria as a synonym for the King of The North like it does Egypt for The South.  And why we should be iffy about assuming any possible eschatological application for 36-45 must equal modern Syria or Damascus.  Or of reading references to Syria and Damascus in other prophecies as being about the same as the King of The North.  There is however good reason to see a possible correlation between The Assyrian and the King of The North.

If The Antichrist is the Willful King of Daniel 11:36-45 he is NOT the King of The North.

I.S.I.S. has been observed as starting to look kind of like both ancient Assyria and the Seleucid Empire.  But in order for that to fully work it'll have to take some parts of Turkey.  And that seems highly unlikely.

Since the Captial was often the most important identifying city of a Kingdom in ancient times, it's easy to see why the King of Antioch would be the King of The North from Israel's perspective even though other Hellenistic Kingdoms were further North.  It's directly due North of Israel.

Today Antioch is in Turkey, but it's not Turkey's capital.  So an argument that the King of The North now refers to Turkey would be a complicated one to make.  It's ties to Seleucus are as valid as Syria and Iraq's.  But in Daniel 11:40 the King of The South is taking the lead, Turkey is not likely to let Egypt take the lead in any alliance.

Modern Syria is broken up between at least 4 camps right now.  The Assad government which may not control much outside the immediate vicinity of Damascus does kinda look like Aram right now.  I.S.I.S., The Kurds who don't want anything besides their homeland, and other resistance groups who hate Assad and Isis equally.

The largest city in modern Syria is Aleppo rather then Damascus.  The news confuses me so I honestly have no idea if Aleppo is under I.S.I.S. control or not, but I think it's currently not, but it is definitely an objective of ISIS to take it..  It's near the Turkish border where Antioch is.

Aleppo is possibly around where Aram was at some point before they traveled south and settled in the Damascus area.  Seleucus named the city Beroea, which derived from Boreas, the North Wind in Greek Mythology, which is interesting.

The Hebrew word translated North in Daniel 11 is Zaphon, which is also the name Ugarit texts give Jebel Aqra on the modern Syria-Turkey border south of Antioch.And apparently Seleucus I made the decision to found Antioch where and how he did after praying to Zeus on that very mountain.  So he was truly the King of Zaphon.

Some Old Testament locations that equate to around where Aleppo and Antioch are would be Laish (conquered by Dan in Judges, not to be confused with Leshem, the Dan of the Golan Heights) and Hammath.

Basically the areas where the Denyen of the Egyptian Sea Peoples records and Danuna of the Amarna letters lived.  As well as Yamhad.  Ugarit is also near there.

Hippolytus of Rome (170–235), and Jewish sources on Gaps in Daniel

Hippolytus of Rome (170–235), was the only one of the Early Church Fathers to really write in depth on Eschatology.  He was indisputably Futurist and Premillennial .  But his understanding of the Return of Christ was also what we'd call today Post-Trib.  I'm sorry Pre-Tirbbers but your desire to make it sound like the Church Fathers were pre-trib by taking their quotes on "imminence" out of context simply fails when reading everything they wrote.

I'm not bothered by the Church Fathers being wrong on the Rapture.  Daniel 12 foretells that Knowledge of God's word would increase.  And the Post-Trib error is the unavoidable consequence of replacement theology.  Jesus returning more then once simply makes no sense if you don't understand there are two Covenant peoples he's returning for.  This replacement theology was born out of the Church's reactions to the persecutions they faced from Jews during the Bar-Kochba revolt.  These latter Christians weren't able to follow the example of Stephen.  I said this before in my post on Ephream the Syrian.

Hippolytus like most early Christians believed the Witnesses were Enoch and Elijah.  He believed Rome had to fall first and the 10 Horns were Kingdoms that would arise out of Rome's fall. Those are things I feel he was right on.

He also believed The Antichrist would be a Jew of The Tribe of Dan, and would claim to be The Jewish Messiah.  He may be right on that too.

But he was also a date setter.  He had an understanding of Chronology (partly based on the problematic Septuagint) that told him Jesus was crucified in the 5500th from Creation.  And so he believed the Sabbath Millennium would start in 530 AD.  That he didn't date set within his own life time shows a lack of personal bias.  His date was wrong of course, but admittedly during the time period leading up to that date, the Western Empire had just fallen, and there were Messianic Samaritan and Jewish Revolts in the Holy Land.  If there were people at the time familiar with him, it might have seemed like his predictions were coming to pass.

Among the ideas that critics of Dispensationalism like to accuse of being made up by Darby and others in the 1800s, is the idea of gaps in certain Old Testament Prophecies, particularly Daniel 9 and 11.  And I've seen them abuse quotes from Hippolytus to try and back that up.

However reading his commentary on Daniel shows, that he viewed the first 69 Weeks as ending with Jesus, but that the 70th was yet Future.  And likewise in Daniel 11, he viewed the first 35 verses as being The Hellenistic age, but that verses 36-45 were about a yet future Antichrist.

39. Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every god, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: "And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth." As also it was announced to Daniel: "And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed"--that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the test of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: "And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days."

The source I copied that from has apparent typos I chose not to correct.  I assume "Test of the week" should mean "rest of the week".

What might surprise one even more is to discover some Rabbinic Jewish sources who agree the 70th Week could be yet future, as well as the last part of Daniel 11.

Britam is a Rabbinic Jewish website that supports it's own unique form of British Israelism, but without any of Christian aspects of the idea.  I don't desire to endorse British Israelism, but the site's commentaries on Daniel 9 and 11 are interesting.

[Daniel 9:27] AND HE SHALL CONFIRM THE COVENANT WITH MANY FOR ONE WEEK: AND IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK HE SHALL CAUSE THE SACRIFICE AND THE OBLATION TO CEASE, AND FOR THE OVERSPREADING OF ABOMINATIONS HE SHALL MAKE IT DESOLATE, EVEN UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION, AND THAT DETERMINED SHALL  BE POURED UPON THE DESOLATE.

These verses are also applicable to future events leading up to the Messianic Age.

And

Until now the account has quite faithfully followed the historical developments that did indeed occur exactly as described. From here on Scripture seems to depart somewhat and enter another future realm.
In effect we may say that this present chapter of Daniel although apparently dedicated to the Maccabee Period and what preceded it in effect is proto-typical. It is referring to the end times and using historical events as a pattern for future end-time prophecy.

They don't see Jesus in the first 69 weeks of course, but that's not the point I'm seeking to prove here.

Update September 2015: I no longer agree with the message of this post.  A I have explained here.

The Mahdi, The Islamic Antichrist theory

Is becoming increasingly popular in The Church.  Basically with most Christians, if they don't think he'll be the ultimate Western Liberal, they think he'll be an Islamic radical.  ISIS paranoia in the news lately is only propping that up.

I leaned towards it for awhile, but a different way of looking at.  For one I didn't go along with the usual Shiite Twelfth Imam fixation.  I figured he'd mainly claim to be the Sunni Mahdi, and that his war in Daniel 11:44 would be him waging war against the Shiites in Iran.  I also never agreed with many of the popular augments for the Islamic Antichrist view, including as I already discussed The Desire of Women reference.

The first draft of this older post of mine was made back when I still leaned that way, but it's been updated since then.

The main reason I've abandoned the theory isn't any insurmountable technical objections to the arguments for it.  But because of the Logic Chris White explains that it'll be conservative Judeo-Christians the Antichrist mainly seeks to seduce.

Some of the arguments against the view I still consider annoying.  Chris White says, referring to the Wars he fights in Daniel 11:40 "Why does he conquer these Muslim nations if he's a Muslim?".   White's normally pretty smart but that really makes him look stupid.  The Muslims are constantly at war with each other.

One Specific Mahdi prophecy says "The vast majority of people who profess to be Muslim will be so only in name despite their practice of Islamic rites and it will be they who make war with the Mahdi."  The specific figure of Sufyani has been suggested as correlating to the King of The North, ruling parts of both Syria and Iraq.

Also some critics of the theory will insist that either the Gog and Magog war and/or the Psalm 83 War will result in the Islamic world being destroyed and rendered politically insignificant.   First of all, as explained in those earlier posts I linked to, the trendy views of those Prophecies are wrong.    But also some views of Islamic eschatology do say a major catastrophe happens to the Muslim World before the Mahdi arises.

As I explained elsewhere, I do think the emphasis on beheading for those Martyred by The beast is the best argument for an Islamic Antichrist.  As well as against White's view of him posing as a Jewish Messiah.

Thing is I do, still think the Mahdi could be relevant to Prophecy, that a Mahdi claimant will be the Boogeyman the Antichrist presents himself as saving the world from.  And/or the person who gives him his mortal wound.

The Desire of Women

Daniel 11:37, is nearly universally agreed by Pre-Millennial Futurists to be about The Antichrist.

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

What is meant by "the desire of women" here is perhaps the most cryptic mystery of this verse.  No identical phrase seems to appear anywhere else in Scripture.

There are two very popular wrong views about this phrase, which derive from a similar bad reading.  That it means he's a Homosexual, or that it means he's a Misogynist.

The latter is usually only argued for by those focused on a Mahdi theory, but even back when I was leaning towards the Madhi view I never considered that argument plausible.  The former happens to fit in with the other great Boogeyman modern Evangelical Christians are afraid of, western liberals.  There are of course LGBT individuals and supporters who are politically "Conservative" in other areas, like Log Cabin Republicans, and Libertarians.

Even if the phrase implied a lack of sexual desire for Women, that doesn't leave Homosexuality as the only option, it could also mean Asexual.  But that's not what the phrase means.  If it was meant to say that it would have said he doesn't desire women.

The grammar is about something women desire, which equally invalidates both those false conclusions.

I agree with both Chuck Missler and Chris White that "The Desire of Women" is a Messianic Title.  And with White that "the God of His Fathers" is The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.  I agree with White's Antichrist Theory in terms of the first half of the 70th Week, but not the second half and his related Pre-Wrath suppositions.  The Willful King will disregard the True Messiah by claiming the title for himself.

The word "Desire" being used in a title for The Messiah has a precedent in Haggai 2:7 "And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts."

The beginning of Messianic Prophecy, in fact all Prophecy, is Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The promise of The Seed of The Woman. 

Later we have Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Luke 1:41-45

 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.  And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?  For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.  And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord."

And at the center of this theme is Revelation 12, where The Woman gives birth to The Man Child.

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.  And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 

So "The Desire of Women" is clearly Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

Does Daniel 8 limit The Antichrist's origin to lands ruled by Alexander?

Christ White assumes it does, and that's the only real reason he feels there is to rule out America as The Antichrist's nation of origin.

First off Daniel 8 does not link The Antichrist to vaguely any of the 4/5 nations to form out of the division of Alexander's Empire, but specifically to The Seleucid Empire.  Yet Daniel 11, where The Seleucid Empire is refereed to in purely geographical terms as the King of The North, once it reaches the career of The Antichrist during the End Times in verses 36-45, verse 40 clearly has him at war with the King of The North.

In my Genealogy of The Antichrist study I lay out why I feel Daniel 8's connection of him to the Seleucid Dynasty is genealogical not geographical.

At any rate he does conquer the region the ancient Seleucid Empire ruled.  It does not need to be his place of origin.

As I've said elsewhere, I definitely still think the Ten Horns are the European Union/WEU.  And maybe it's possible The Little Horn is the United States.  If The Antichrist is at first an ally of Israel coming to their aid as Chris White thinks, America fits that the best.

Gog and Magog: After the Millennium or before?

Chris White has been making a good argument against the popular notion of Ezekiel 38 and 39 happening before or during the 70th Week, and that it is fully the same as Revelation 20.
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/bpt-the-gog-m...ing-of-the-war/
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/bpt-the-gog-m...tries-involved/

His arguments are very good and have me convinced. Still I do think it's possible that there may be a near lesser fulfillment, but Doctrinally I have come to think mainly it's about the end of the Millennium.

The concept of Double Fulfillment is generally only applied to Prophecies where the near fulfillment has already happened. Where we see the final fulfillment as being in the 70th Week or the

start of the Millennium. But I think we should consider that it does apply to other areas as well.

Chris makes more of a point then he should, I think, out of Ezekiel 38&39's relationship to the immediately proceeding chapters of Ezekiel, 33-37 mainly. "And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying" is always referring to a new vision. That there isn't a date given here probably means he had it the same day as the preceding visions, but it's still a distinct vision. But also even within a single vision what's foretold isn't always purely chronological. And even within the context of the Gog and Magog Prophecy, I've seen people argue that Ezekiel 39 actually happens before 38, though I'm not sure I understand that logic.

It's funny actually because we keep using the phrase "God and Magog" in specific reference to Ezekiel 38&39 even though Biblically that exact phrase appears only in Revelation 20. In Ezekiel it's clear that Magog is the name of the Land and Gog an individual from there who rules Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. And I keep seeing people read that same distinction into Revelation 20, we should use Scripture to pertinent Scripture but not in conflict with the clear Grammar of a phrase. Grammatically in Revelation 20 ""Gog and Magog" both refer to the location or tribes.

I see this inconsistency in usage as perhaps explained by Ezekiel 39. "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it The valley of Hamongog."

People like to talk about how seeing the Gog and Magog invasion in modern Times requires allegorizeing the references to Bows and Arrows and Horses and stuff. And Chris suggests that technology will sort of phase out during the Millennium so that solves that problem.

First off I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the suggestion that technology would die out during the Millennium or even New Jerusalem. This sounds like a somewhat Hippie minded notion of what a Utopia would be, and carries the implication that maybe God doesn't like technology. The Law of Moses made Ancient Israel as technologically sophisticated as a nation could be at that time, so no I don't think technological advancement is inherently bad.

And the people who think it must be allegorized are ignorant of the Hebrew Language. The word for "Arrows" is even in the 1611 KJV translated a variety of different ways. "Missile" is in fact the most literal translation of what the word means, and the word for Bow means anything used to launch said missile. Jeremiah 50:9 says "their arrows shall be as of a mighty expert man; none shall return in vain." if you study the Hebrew words here and the grammar, what it's literally saying is the Arrows themselves have intelligence, and it never misses it's target. Before the last century the only interpretation of this was that God was doing it supernaturally, but the text doesn't explicitly define it that way.

Also the words referring to horses and horsemen can simply mean Cavalry, we use the the word Cavalry today to refer to motorized mobile military unites. And Helicopters are called "Air Cav". Also the Hebrew word translated "Chariot" can mean more then just horse drawn carriages, and it is what the modern Israeli army calls their Tanks.

Now I want to make clear I don't support all the places people like to read Nuclear warfare into Bible Prophecy. When Jesus said "lest those days be shortened no flesh should be saved" that's not about technology, that's about the effects of the Bowls of God's Wrath, in which among other things all water on Earth becomes undrinkable. And Zachariah 14 is talking about when God destroys the enemies of Israel.

In Ezekiel 39, it's not to me about any perceived description of the Nukes themselves. This Chapter is the only time, ever, The Bible describes the clean up after a battle. And what's interesting is there is no way to make sense of it without the possibility of nuclear radiation.

Ezekiel 39:24-15"And they shall sever out men of continual employment, passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search. And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamongog." People are going to have full-time employment making sure all this stuff is buried. And it seems to be imperative no untrained person actually touch anything if they find something.

What's also interesting is that it's now known that the half life of the Nuclear materiel in Russia's Nukes is 7 years. It fits this Prophecy perfectly.

I love how people try to make it sound like those of us seeing the region of modern Russia are torturing the data. Yes people have been identifying this Prophecy with various Boogeymen throughout history, but by no means every Boogeyman. What's interesting to me  is no one saw Islam in this passage before the Soviet Russia started supplying support to various Muslim enemies of Israel during the Cold War. Because the main three allies mentioned became Islamic regions over a Thousand before, the core of the Prophecy was always understood as being about the North.

The Caspian Gates legend can be traced back at least to the time of Josephus who alludes to it if I recall correctly towards the end of Wars of the Jews. And that Legend is always defined as Alexander making this Gate to keep the "Hordes of Gog and Magog" locked up in the North. Now this legend isn't real, Alexander built no such gates, but both of the structures suspected of inspiring the Legend (or commonly identified with it) are located where everything North of them is modern Russia, between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea.

All of the main "boogeymen" identified with this Prophecy have had some connection to the area of modern Russia. And I could get into it a lot more if I wanted to but I think that's for another study. The Point is, even if the timing of the Prophecy refers only to After the Millennium, that land North of the Black Sea (and the supposed Caspian Gate) is still the only land I see Magog as referring to. It's actually one of the more consistently interpreted Prophecies geographically speaking.

Josephus said Magog was the Scythians.  I know the Greeks used Scythian as a broad term so maybe not all Scythians were of Magog (I suspect both Tubal and Meshech were considered Scythians, and some of Ashkenaz was connected with that region).

The ONLY reason any Scholars try to move what Magog means to Asia Minor/Anatolia/Modern Turkey is because of the desire of Preterists and Bible Skeptics to say Gog refers to Gyges/Gugu a King of Lydia.  Problem is the Lydian King with that name lived before Ezekiel's time not during it or soon after.

Also even if I was open to a Preterist or History written after the fact interpretation of Ezekiel 38-39.  I would still find it idiotic to look for Gog's name in history.  Likewise as a Futurist I do not expect that to be Gog's real personal name, either for a near fulfillment or after The Millennium.  Because it's clear from the text itself Gog is just a nickname used as a pun on the name Magog.  It's not just in English it looks like Magog with the first part removed.  In fact it's more so in Hebrew, without the vowels it is literally just one letter, Mu, that is removed.  So looking for Gog's name in secular history of any time period is a futile effort.

Gyges was king of Sardis/Lydia, which Biblically is Lud a son of Shem not Japheth.

The thing about Prophecies with a double Fulfillment is, core details apply to both events. Certain ones apply only to the Finale Fulfillment, mostly only that one fits the full Epic Scale of the Prophecy. But details can also only strictly apply to the near fulfillment. Those mostly relate to the background of the Prophecy. Like Daniel 8 and the Little Horn, any sense by which The Antichrist can be said to come from the Seleucid Dynasty (or any other Hellenistic Kingdom) is going to be very, very, very indirect.

That is why, I do still think we need to pay attention to modern Russia and it's Alliance with Iran and Shiite Islam. Regardless of how much other evidence points to a post Millennial Fulfillment.

The thing is, lots of Extra-Biblical Prophecies seem to me to be setting the stage for the Antichrist and/or The False Prophet to claim the credit for defeating Gog and Magog. Muslims today associate Dajjal with the West and Gog and Magog with the Communist world (which like many westerners they still associate Russia with). And Rabbinic Judaism sees either Gog or Armilus killing Ben-Joseph to be later defeated by Ben-David.  Chris White thinks it's possible a fake Gog and Magog invasion could be used by The Antichrist.  I think maybe that "fake" invasion could be the near fulfillment.

And I do see in Daniel 11:36-45 a possible Biblical Basis for this. Where the Libyians and Ethiopians are at his steps, and tidings Trouble him out of the North and East (The King of the North who is Syria and possibly parts of Iraq he's already defeated at this point, so this is further North). So for that reason, I think it's important not to minimize the Post-Millennial significance. But I see these tidings as also possibly tying into the Medes/Modern Kurds role in Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51, and the destruction of Elam (southern Iran) in Jeremiah 49:34-39.  Iran now by porxy controls much of Shiite Iraq.

[Update September 2016: The last Paragraph there involved assumptions I've long since abandoned about Daniel 11.  But my views on the Kurds and Elam/Jeremiah 11 haven't changed much.]

The Dome of The Rock and the Southern Conjecture

I favor the Southern conjecture of The Temple’s location. Threshing floors were never on mountain tops for one thing, and God commanded Israel NOT to build altars on High Places as the pagans did.

Hadrian had a huge Temple complex to Jupiter built over the entire modern Temple Mount site. Ancient sources say he had a huge Equestrian Statue of himself built over where the Holy of Holies had been. The same Architect built another Temple to Jupiter at Baalbek using the same design. That complex still exists, and a diagram of it fits over the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem perfectly, putting the Equestrian stature where the Al-Kas fountain is, not over either Mosque.
Temple Mount Southern Conjecture Pictures

So I think the future peace plan will have the Al-Kas fountain moved and have The Temple rebuilt between the two Mosques. This fits Revelation 11’s model of the outer court given to the Gentiles perfectly.

Also when Daniel 11:45 says “And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain;” I don’t think this is the Abomination of Desolation yet, because his “death” that leads to his counterfeit resurrection happens next “yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”

The word translated “palace” here is only ever used in Scripture this one time, ‘appeden (ap-peh’-den); Noun, Strong #: 643. Upon further study it’s actually a Persian loan word (Daniel by this time had no doubt picked up a lot of Persian in the third year of Cyrus), from apadana which means “audience hall”.

That is not an accurate description of The Holy Place of the Jewish Temple, which is confined and not public. When The Abomination of Desolation happens the whole world will be be able to see because the Man of Sin will brings news media with him, but it’s design is not to be an “audience hall”. And I don’t think Daniel would have used a gentile non Hebrew word to describe The Temple, this is clearly a Gentile place of worship.

I think he’ll actually place a Throne of sorts on the Rock venerated under the Dome of The Rock. The Dome of The Rock isn't like most Mosques, in fact I’m not sure it’s really considered one at all. In-spite of them usually not allowing cameras in it’s a much more open public area, it could easily serve as an “audience hall”.

I will share some facts I considered interesting back when I learned toward the Mahdi view.  There is no doubt much I always disagreed with here, but it says the entire design of the Dome of The Rock was about it’s Prophetic significance to Muslims.

  http://www.academia.edu/913208/The_Meaning_of_the_Dome_of_the_Rock-published_The_Islamic_Quarterly_Fall_1999
the Muslim Dome of the Rock commemorated an event (rather a connected series of events)which was (and still is) future—the Resurrection, Judgment, and final rule of God upon earth. This is why the Dome of the Rock remains a mystery from the art historical point of reference—commemoration looks to the past—but here, in the first great structure of Islam, the commemoration is eschatological and thus points to the future.-
Muslims also believe, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and other sources, that prior to the occurrence of the Resurrection and the Last Judgment,
Mekkah’s
black stone will come to the holy city of Jerusalem, as a bride to her husband, to perform a circumambulation around the Rock which the Dome covers. Then the angel of death,
Israfil
, will blow his trumpet—the last trumpet—and this will initiate the resurrection day.
[Busse, Sanctity, 468, n.141]
This Qur’anic statement is inexplicable if early Islam is to be understood in the same way as modern Islam is comprehended in its separation or distinction from the former faiths. However, if we accept the eschatological solution to the mystery of the origin of the Dome of the Rock, this Qur’anic statement becomes comprehensible.
The eschatological associations, which the Dome of the Rock possesses, are enunciated even in its inscriptions. For example, the inscription on the northeast outer ambulatory states,
To Him belongs dominion and to Him belongs praise. He gives life and He makes to die; He is powerful over all things.
[conflation of Qur’an 64:1 and 57:2]
Muhammad is God’s messenger, may God bless him and accept his intercession on the day of resurrection for his community.[Encyclopaedia of Islam, 267][emphasis mine]-
The Umayyards created a suitable covering over this Rock upon which the Judgment of the World would commence, and surrounded it with the crowns of those who must present themselves before God after the Resurrection. [See Figure 4,page 15]

I obviously don’t expect much of this to be literally fulfilled, and they don’t directly mention the Mahdi. But the key is it’s association with the Resurrection. While for Christians the Resurrection began with Jesus, for Muslims it will begin when Isa resurrects the Mahdi. So it’s easy to speculate that the Mahdi will reign from here publicly for a bit, be assassinated here, and his body entombed here until his counterfeit resurrection.

I think this significance for the Dome of the Rock could also tie into Isaiah 14’s talk of the Abominable Branch being cast out of his sepulcher/buryingplace/grave.  And Daniel 9:27’s talk of the desolating abomination spreading from a Wing of The Temple, which some have already seen linked to the Outer Court reference of Revelation 11.

I do believe the Beast’s receiving his Mortal Wound must be very Public, as Public as JFK’s assassination if the whole world can wonder at it’s healing without doubt it was purely supernatural. And so must it’s healing. So an “Audience Hall” is a fitting location.

I of course am no longer as sold on the Mahdi Antichrist theory, I was for awhile (when I wrote the first draft of this).  But it can work with other theories too.  Since it was built non Muslims have used The Dome of The Rock when they controlled the area.  Like the Knights Templars.

I've studied Chris White's False Christ theory, it's compelling though certain details I can't accept.  I could see a Jewish Leader, or Ally claiming to be messiah Ben-Joseph also making a makeshift "Audience Hall" out of it after retaking control of the Temple Mount.  But I suspect this is a change in control of the site that would happen after The Temple was already built.