The Underground Episode 31: The Bible’s Most Detailed Prophecy About the Antichrist

  • linda keyes
    Posted at 14:25h, 29 February

    Its me again Joel (I’m convalescing at the moment so i have lots of time,smiley face)

    In the days when i had never even heard of Antiochus Epiphanes, while going through the scriptures, i read this chapter, and in the KJV it reads: A vile person. In my innocence i just thought , that’s the antichrist, same with Daniel 9 with the prince to come, it just seemed obvious. I realise “seems obvious” is not very scholarly, but i do think some things just are.

    It was’nt until recent years while trying to understand some things, that i read about Antiochus Epiphanes, and just thought i obviously must have been wrong. So i am really glad for this episode,along with Samuels cloughs piece.
    Thanks, i look forward to the coming episodes.

  • Tamaira
    Posted at 19:41h, 29 February

    Daniel 12:2 says “many” of those sleeping in the dust will awaken,… Do you have any thoughts on why it says many and not all. I would think “all” would imply the emptying of Sheol at the resurrection(rev 19 or 20, can’t remember which). But it says “many”. I can’t come up with a definitive answer for myself.

  • Erik in Texas
    Posted at 20:41h, 29 February

    It’s refreshing to see someone reconsider their views, put them to the test of Scripture, and be humble enough to walk us through your reasoning. Well played sir. Also, it’s refreshing to see someone take their chicken coop and turn it into a studio. That’s just awesome.

  • Joel
    Posted at 21:06h, 29 February

    The point is not to say that only some will be resurrected, while other will not. That would be a misreading. It could be saying that many will be raised to life, while many others will be raised to everlasting contempt. Or some, including myself, see it as simply expressing that multitudes (rabbîm) will arise from the ground. Its just expressing how vast will be the number.

  • Nick
    Posted at 22:49h, 29 February

    The role of Egypt in this scenario is striking. Just as Antiochus attempted to conquer Egypt and the Romans intervened (Popilius Laena), so the Antichrist will attack Egypt. Currently El Sisi and Erdogan don’t get along, because the Turkish regime supported the Brotherhood. This could provide background to the war, not to mention the memory of Ottoman conflicts with Egypt when it fought for independence. It would be worth watching where AL Azhar stood on the proclamation of a Turkish caliph/Mahdi.

  • Nelson Walters
    Posted at 01:06h, 01 March

    Joel, I remember having my eyes opened by this teaching by you 2 years ago. I was thrilled to quote you on it in Revelation Deciphered, my upcoming book.

    In addition to looking forward into Dan. 12 to prove Dan. 11:21-35 is Antichrist, we can also look backwards into Dan. 8’s section about Antichrist. A comments section is not a good place to post numerous scriptures, so I’ll just let your readers look them up:

    Dan. 8:25 and Dan. 11:24 “destroys those at ease”
    Dan. 8:25 and Dan. 11:23 “causes deceit to succeed”
    Dan. 8:25 and Dan. 11:24 “King is shrewd”
    Dan. 8:24 and Dan. 11:35 “destroys the Holy People”
    Dan. 8:23 and Dan. 11:21 “skilled at intrigue”
    Dan. 8:11 and Dan. 11:31 “sanctuary torn down”
    Dan. 8:11 and Dan. 11:31 “regular sacrifice removed”
    Dan. 8:17,19 and Dan. 11:35,36 “time of the end, final indignation, appointed time”

    A reasonable reader cannot see all the similarities and not conclude as you did that Dan. 11:21-35 is speaking of Antichrist primarily and Antiochus as a historic foreshadow.

    Blessings, Nelson

  • David
    Posted at 02:32h, 01 March


    Thanks for having the courage to change positions when led by the Spirit’s enlightening. Too many authors are unwilling to contradict what they’ve written previously.

    Given this new understanding, would it also be wise to consider the possibility that Daniel 8;1-8 is describing the same historical events as the beginning of Daniel 11? It has seemed to me that Daniel 11 is the detail of Daniel 8. And that a final beast kingdom of leopard (Grecia/Syria/Lebanon), bear (Persia/Iran), and Lion (Babylon/Iraq) lines up with an expanding Shia kingdom, not one that is defeated by a Sunni, US puppet regime (Turkey).

    Just something to consider.

    Keep up the good work.

  • Tamaira
    Posted at 04:49h, 01 March

    Thanks. That is what I was reasoning out in my head-that it was saying a vast number, but I didn’t want to miss something. One word can change the meaning of a whole sentence. Thanks.

  • Tamaira
    Posted at 15:18h, 01 March

    It may be too late to ask this question, but…If verses 11:21 to 12 are the coming anitchrist, verse 11:27 refers back further than 21 regarding the two kings Daniel had previously mentioned. Is it possible that the entire prophecy, although it has similarities with past events, could be future? Are there arguments for why that’s not possible? Some of it does sound old school, like sending your daughter as a token, but not out of the realm of possibility in Islam. To my understanding women are treated as property even among the Kings. The princesses in Saudi Arabia for example.

  • Penelope L
    Posted at 15:47h, 01 March

    Hi Joel,
    Can you please give your explanation of what the Holy Covenant is in Daniel 11:28, 30, and 32? I am understanding it to be the “new” covenant which we know is Christ who fulfilled both law and prophets and is the atoning sacrifice whereby bringing salvation through His death and resurrection. Could it be that anti Christ will show favor to those who reject Christ? And flattering and corrupting those who violate the Word of God and His commandments?
    I want to make sure that I am not misinterpreting scripture and would love for you to give your correction and/or instruction on this.
    Thanks and God Bless

  • Debbie Wallace
    Posted at 17:47h, 01 March

    thank you for teaching truth

  • Joel
    Posted at 19:12h, 01 March

    The Holy Covenant is more likely a reference to “the everlasting covenant” which is embodied not only in the New, but in the Abrahamic, the Davidic and the New, all together.

  • Joel
    Posted at 19:13h, 01 March

    Some do argue for the entire thing to be eschatological. Beyond the anachronisms that you mentioned, there are some other problems with this, rooted in its beginning with Medo-Persia in verse 2. I am convinced that it is eschatological at least back to v. 21.

  • Penelope L
    Posted at 23:42h, 01 March

    Thanks for your clarification, Joel

  • Greg Parker
    Posted at 01:03h, 02 March

    Joel – absolutely great to see you doing such a yeoman’s job in putting this out on the Web to challenge us all to consider these things. Tregelles and Lang have been my mainstay for years concerning Daniel but it’s been years since I’ve been in the details – time to dive in again. And your honesty to review your previous honest convictions is another challenge to all of us – reminds me of Marv Rosenthal and the pre-wrath rapture issue.

    Also praying for the upcoming streaming of Sheep Among Wolves you’ve got going – we’ve had one screening at our church with the young adults and another coming up on Mar 15th with our seniors plus friends.

  • Joel
    Posted at 03:07h, 02 March

    Awesome Greg. Fantastic. Lang is my favorite.

  • Gary
    Posted at 07:02h, 02 March

    Joel, Would love to see if you could get Jay Adams in a debate….I love his works on biblical counseling but find his amillenial views problematic.

  • James Beaupre
    Posted at 21:18h, 02 March

    Joel I know you are busy, I find it curious that Islam makes reference to the ” one eyed Dajjal” and perceives him as an evil person ie: the antichrist. When the prophet Zecheriah refers to this apparent person as the “idol shepherd. can you shed any light on this. Joel it would seem that Islam is properly identifying this person.

  • Joel
    Posted at 00:00h, 03 March

    One must understand that Islam has borrowed many of its traditions from Biblical, Christian, Zoroastrian, Jewish, and other various sources. Simply because the Islamic narrative has borrowed this one element, in no way does this mean they have rightly identified the Antichrist.

  • James Beaupre
    Posted at 00:17h, 03 March

    Thanks Joel, I appreciate your ministry God Bless you and your family.

  • Pierre
    Posted at 14:28h, 23 March

    Islam doesn’t borrow.
    Islam takes many sources and claims them to be it’s sources. When you want to establish a religion or another new culture, this is the most cleverer way to do.

  • Marcus Maddox
    Posted at 03:48h, 29 March

    Joel I’m sure you are right about about Daniel 11:21 being in our future and speaking of the Anti-Christ. Here’s how I know. i Just spent all day comparing the history available on the internet( mostly from Wikipedia) concerning the events pertaining to Antiochus IV Epiphanes. I believe I find such a strong correlation with what is in Daniel 11:13-19 that there

  • Marcus Maddox
    Posted at 04:04h, 29 March

    is no doubt in my mind those verses are all about A.E. .Dan.11:18 is when a Roman official turns Antiochus back on his second invasion of Egypt with a threat of war if he continues. The Roman emissary draws a circle in the dirt and tells A.E. he can’t step out without making his decision one way or the other. Verse 18 describes A.E.’s invasions of Phoenicia and Cypress. Verse 19 speaks of his death falling from his chariot. Verse

  • Marcus Maddox
    Posted at 04:43h, 29 March

    15 is about his first invasion of Egypt his capture of most of Egypt but his in ability to take Alexandria. I strongly believe verse 14 is speaking of the Maccabees. In verse 17 i think it when A.E. installs a puppet king who is later overthrown. Verse 20 is an enigmatic segue but I’m guessing it speaks of Augustus although in one version Quirinius dies an old man. In another the tax collector falls on his sword after a defeat of his legion in in Germany. Just a guess about verse 20.

  • Marcus Maddox
    Posted at 04:48h, 29 March

    Thanks for listening. Had to get that off my chest.

  • Marcus Maddox
    Posted at 20:39h, 29 March

    I rechecked Wikipedia and found a Roman general named Publius Quinctilius Varus was governor of Syria under Augustus at just about the time of Jesus birth. This seems to fit Daniel 11:20 quite well. He was sent to Syria to collect taxes by Caesar Augustus. And He did kill himself after a failed battle in Germany. So he was destroyed neither in anger or in battle. “His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle.”
    I think I confused Quirinius with Quinctilius in my comment above.

  • James
    Posted at 21:39h, 30 March


    Thanks for this awesome interpretation, but isn’t this really talking about the fall of Jerusalem? That fits right? And the end is still to come.

  • Joel
    Posted at 23:31h, 30 March

    Yes, its talking about the future attack of J’lem and Abomination of Desolation by the AC.

  • Marcus Maddox
    Posted at 01:09h, 01 April

    I hope I’m not muddying the waters here. I’m just trying to figure this out. According to Wikipedia:

    This Seleucus #4 is the successor mentioned in Dan. 11:20 (the link describes how the fulfillment of verse 20 is recounted in one of the books of the Macabees).
    If this is true and accurate then the prophecy concerning Antiochus # 4 Epiphanies ends in verse 19 of Chapter 11 and Joel’s assertion is borne out. Because verse 20 is like a period in the timeline and separates before A.E. and After A.E.

  • Mike Klemm
    Posted at 15:19h, 16 April

    Hi Joel,

    I haven‘t participated here in many years, but I‘m glad to see your amended position on Daniel 11/12. This is what I have seen in Daniel also. In addition to the points you made, I believe that the antichrist’s emergence in verse 21 is easily confirmed when Daniel’s visions are viewed as a progressive revelation. If we simply make a list of the clues provided in his earlier visions and apply them to the Kings of the South and the North, the clues themselves (in parentheses below) tell us when the antichrist is in view;

    “He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty (“another king will arise, different form the others”). He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure (“when they feel secure, he will destroy many”), and he will seize it through intrigue (“a master of intrigue”). Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant (“a covenant with many”) will be destroyed (“he will destroy the mighty men”). After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully (“he will cause deceit to prosper”), and with only a few people he will rise to power (“started small but grew in power”). When the richest provinces feel secure he will invade them (“when they feel secure, he will destroy many”), and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers (“it prospered in everything it did”). He will plot the overthrow of fortresses – but only for a time.” Daniel 11:21-24

    A number of the clues provided by his earlier visions were highly specific and included key words such as “secure“ and “intrigue” and “covenant” and “destroy” and “deceit” and “power” and so on. I personally believe that it’s far more than coincidence that these specific keys begin to fulfill only in verse 21, but not earlier in chapter 11. Of course, the remaining clues (26 total) continue to plug in throughout the remainder of chapters 11 and 12, so the main point of Daniel’s visions seems clear; they create a progressive revelation designed to tell us when the antichrist emerges, and what he will do when he arrives.

    Or so it seems to me.

  • Jason
    Posted at 17:35h, 22 May

    Joel what do you think about the Antichrist being the Assyrian? In Isaiah 30:31 the Assyrian is destroyed the same way the lawless one is destroyed in 2nd Thessalonians 2:8 (by the voice of the Lord). Isaiah 31:8 says that the Assyrian will fall by a sword not of man. Also Micah 5:5-6 says And this man (Christ) shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders. This verse also shows that the Assyrian is associated with the land of Nimrod (Iraq) and we all know the final beast has the mouth of a lion (Iraq). Isaiah 10:24-25 says Therefore thus saith the Lord God of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.

  • Joel
    Posted at 17:48h, 22 May

    I have a chapter in my book Mideast Beast that explains how the Assyrian, while a genuine historical figure, also serves as a motif and a prefigurement of the Antichrist. This was also the view of several of the early Church writers. Various modern commentaries have acknowledged this also. One does however, have to be cautious in reading too much into this, for instance, the specific region where the Antichrist comes from, ie., Nineveh. Not only does one need to reconcile such efforts with other ket texts, but it is also important to acknowledge that discerning the difference between the historical context and the possible prophetic implications requires caution as it is somewhat speculative. On the other hand, disregarding this motif altogether, as it is has nothing to do with the Antichrist, as some have critics unfortunately done, is simply the result of poor hermeneutics. I hope this has helped.


  • Marcus Maddox
    Posted at 00:02h, 25 June


    I love the NIV but I think they missed it on this one point.
    To say the AC invades a kingdom and then turn around and say he obtains it by flaterries doesn’t make any sence to me so I went to the Greek inter-linear and found the Hebrew word uba .
    Then went to the Hebrew concordence and found it’s used 53 times.

    The interlinear translates it as “he shall come in”
    and the other instances are mostly comes, go ,went or enter.

    Something we might expect because so short a word is usually in everyday use.

    The NLT has it:
    “He will slip in”

    The English Standard:
    “He shall come in without warning”

    New American Standard:
    “He will come in a time of tranquility”

    and others describe it as;
    peaceably, in at time of security, a time of properity, etc. etc.

    Young’s Literal even has it as quietly.

    Why do you think the NIV is so much different than all the

    If all my comments are too much ,just let me know. I don’t want to be a bother.


  • Marcus Maddox
    Posted at 21:44h, 27 June

    Was just listening to Hosea. In 1:11 it reads; “The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited….” (this must be post 1948-right?).
    ….”and they shall appoint over themselves a leader.”
    Doesn’t sound like Jesus’ return to me.
    ” …and they will come up out of the land,for great shall be the day of Jezreel
    Sounds like Armegedon to me.
    Any thoughts.

  • Kevin
    Posted at 06:59h, 06 October

    My question to u is: The anti-christ, and the beast, are they they same person? I have found scripture from the bible and apocryphal books that fit the beast of revelation perfectly. As a matter of fact it matches both beasts. Are u interested are should i move along??

Post A Comment