Good Vs. Evil

December of 1999 was a month charged with visions of the end times as the antichrist would establish his one world government and Christians, particularly in the United States, would feel his wrath. The gentleman I mentioned in the introduction is one who had been taught the antichrist was ready to rear his ugly head. In fact, the one world government has already laid down its groundwork. My friend told me the United Nations was on the way to take away all armament from the citizens of the U.S. Christians would soon be placed in concentration camps across the country with Baptists being the first to be imprisoned. Much of Tim LaHaye’s writings veer off in this direction. If I did not know any better I would say the pastor where my customer attended church was preaching not from the Bible but from Left Behind. LaHaye supports the notion of the U.N., as an organization is a classic example of one-world governments. It will be from this organization the antichrist will establish atheism as the only religion. These very attitudes strike fear in the heart of those seeking a deeper relationship with God and run counter active to the goal of drawing others to Christ. The word “goal” was used intentionally since one can get the feeling the ultimate goal is to see how many souls can be “saved” by one person. Two possible scenarios result from this teaching. The first is a person will turn closer to God but the flip side is the usual result where a person turns their back on the church.



Are we living in the end times? LaHaye thinks that we are. Daniel, I believe, gives us an insight into the final days. Historically, we know about Antiochus Epiphanes IV and how he reacted against the Jews. He was a powerful ruler who governed with a rule of terror. As Antiochus continued his military campaigns to grow his kingdom he would loot the Temple to finance these battles. He also had a stake in the high priest of the Temple. Menelaus would be the first high priest under Antiochus as payment was offered for appointment to the office of high priest. Antiochus would not exactly experience a windfall but this generated much needed income. Maybe this is what is meant when disrespect is shown for the god of his fathers. The pride of Antiochus and his religious policies have been defined. After one battle news had spread that Antiochus The Jews would experience cruelty and oppression upon the return of Antiochus. Sacrifices were outlawed, the Temple was desecrated by the sacrificing of a pig on the alter and Antiochus would declare himself to be a god. Daniel could read in this fashion if it was a historical account of the Jewish plight during the intertestamental period. Other references coming from this time frame may also be applied to the Roman rulers as well. However, in some of the commentaries references were made about Adolph Hitler and Karl Marx. Hitler was able to woo the people with his oratory skills and talk about how the Germanic people could be glorious once again. Nationalism developed from this style of speech. Hitler was able to win over certain sects and as each group of people came over to his side, including some Jews, the real purpose of his plans came. Hitler set off to dominate the world and cleanse it of sub-human cultures. Could not Daniel apply in this instance? World leaders have come and gone but in many instances they fit the prophecies in Daniel.


Antiochus would face a rebellion that would cause his empire to crumble. He was not without his enemies. Whenever a king comes to power and amasses great wealth whether it is in the form of money or territory a natural antithesis will develop. Rivals will spring up as jealousy abounds as a result of the possessions of another. Antiochus would become angry with the Jews and those in opposition to him. He would set out to destroy the enemy. Many battles would take place only to see Antiochus defeated. Yes, the Maccabean revolt could be that king of the south who rises up against the king of the north. Yet, is it only Antiochus we see in this passage? In the not too distant past a great country, political system, known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic existed with great power and wealth. One of the satellite countries would fight for its life, as the U.S.S.R. would seek to further amass wealth and territory. Afghanistan, like the Maccabeans, would rise up against the enemy of the north and defeat the evil king. After the defeat of the U.S.S.R. the republic would no longer exist as the once mighty power. However, the rage of this once great kingdom continued as Russia tried to hold onto some of its possessions. Even the small country of Georgia would prove too much only bringing what was once left of a mighty king to its knees. Could not Daniel be read this way?


Why is it in the U.S. we try to view ourselves as the center of the prophecies in the Bible? Recently the U.S. experienced one of the most active hurricane seasons on record. September 11, 2001 saw the twin towers of the Word Trade Center fall victim to an act of terrorism. Immediately the end times were ushered in and the prophecies of the Bible were being fulfilled. The same was said back in 1993 when Osama bin Laden attacked them the first time. We cannot dismiss the prophecies of Nostradamus who also predicted such events taking place. His prophetical visions are a bunch of hooey that could be applied to any situation. They are so vague in their description we actually can apply or interpret their meaning to any situation we please. We do the same thing for Biblical prophecy. Value has been assigned to not only the antichrist but to the false prophet as well. National origin, according to LaHaye, will be someone from Romania or close to this geographical location. I feel the point or purpose of Daniel is being missed. The identity of the antichrist is given but not one identifies the risen Lord in this passage. Maybe, just maybe, the king of the south is Jesus. He was born in southern Judah in the town of Bethlehem. He was then taken to Egypt so he would not be caught up in the rage of King Herod’s jealousy. In the this king of the north. The common people enjoyed the words of the king of the south who pitched his tent between the sea and the Holy Mountain. The people also feared the king of the north. As people turned to the king of the south the king of the north was disturbed by the increased following of the king of the south. The king of the north would plot to kill the king of the south as a result of the rage, which developed from the disturbing news. Anger abounded in the people as the king of the north stirred up the crowds into a frenzy spewing blasphemous comments against the king of the south. I remember these words, “He came into His own and His own recognized Him not”. The king of the south was nailed to the cross in this final battle of good and evil only to find evil destroyed. The antichrist is the church and the false prophet are those who abide in it. Could not Daniel read this way?


Daniel has given us a comprehensive picture of how evil moves in opposition to the word of God. I cannot find one specific individual but realize there will be many events that reflect what Daniel says. Apocalyptic writings bring comfort to the oppressed as they ask “how long”. Yet, God’s word transcends all time. Maybe the comfort gained then versus now is not quite the same but does it only apply to one generation. We take apocalyptic literature and place limits on its meaning. Centuries from now I know someone will take Daniel 11 and apply the peser to the raz in a context they will understand. Daniel was meant to bring about immediate comfort to the people then and yet does the same for us now. I have enjoyed reading apocalyptic literature and have gained a new respect for its purpose. It is wisdom writing and requires the wisdom of God to interpret its meaning.