Studying Bible prophecy is an ongoing process of learning, refining and adjusting — not based on headlines, but on what Scripture truly emphasizes. One thing I strive to do is avoid allowing current events to shape my views; instead, I focus on grounding those views in a biblical foundation first.
This week, while preparing an article on a current event, I find myself confronted with a prophetic insight that I haven’t given the weight Scripture assigns to it. I realized that although I have constructed a strong argument for Turkey’s role in the rise of the Antichrist, I have not attributed the same significance that Daniel does to another key empire in prophecy. This is not because it contradicts what I’ve previously written, but rather because it actually strengthens my argument.
If you’ve followed my work, you know I’ve written extensively about modern-day Turkey and its central role in the rise of the Antichrist. I still stand by that. Revelation 17 lays out a compelling case for the revival of the Ottoman Empire, referring to it as the eighth and final kingdom before the return of Jesus. Historically, the Ottomans ruled from Turkey, and much of my argument has relied on the notion that the Antichrist’s empire — or coalition of nations — will be led from there. Other passages also support this, including Ezekiel 38’s mention of Magog, which I believe indicates Turkey’s leadership in the final war. However, as much as I’ve highlighted Turkey, I’ve overlooked something critical.
The Bible — especially the book of Daniel — does not emphasize the Ottoman Empire as it does another empire, which serves as a prototype for the final one. Daniel’s visions in chapters 7, 8 and 11 do not merely provide a vague description of a future ruler. He focuses on one significant historical moment — the division of Alexander the Great’s empire into four kingdoms — and from those four, he instructs us to focus on only two. Time and again, he depicts the ongoing wars between the Kingdom of the North and the Kingdom of the South, and when he finally hones in on the Antichrist, he makes it unmistakable — the Antichrist is referred to as the King of the North.
Daniel is not talking generically about northern and southern nations. He is specifically referring to the Seleucid Empire in the north and the Ptolemaic Empire in the south — the two dominant divisions of Alexander’s empire after his death. The Seleucid Empire was based in Syria and included Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, much of Turkey and parts of Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Armenia. This was a vast and powerful empire, all of which would later become part of the Ottoman Empire.
You may not have spent much time thinking about the Seleucid Empire, but you’ve likely heard of Antiochus Epiphanes. He was the brutal king of the Seleucid Empire in the second century BC, ruling from Syria, and is widely regarded as the greatest prototype of the Antichrist in history. His desecration of the Jewish temple, persecution of the Jewish people and attempts to erase their faith from existence were so severe that some believe he fulfilled Daniel’s prophecies about the Antichrist. However, he didn’t. Jesus made that clear in Matt. 24:15 when He warned that the abomination of desolation was still to come. This indicates that Antiochus wasn’t the Antichrist, but he was the clearest foreshadowing of him.
If the greatest historical depiction of the Antichrist originated from the Seleucid Empire, and Daniel consistently highlights the King of the North, why don’t we discuss this empire more? That’s the question I had to wrestle with.
I share this not to suggest a shift in my overall view but to refine it. I’ve long argued that the Antichrist’s empire will be a revived Ottoman Empire, and that still holds true. However, Daniel provides us with something more specific. He doesn’t merely mention the four winds of Alexander’s empire in passing; he repeats this concept multiple times, making it clear that the final Antichrist will emerge from one of those four divisions. He then focuses on the King of the North, indicating that this is the empire to watch.
That means Syria is just as crucial to monitor as Turkey. Given the current situation in Syria, it deserves our attention. For over a decade, Syria has endured turmoil. Damascus remains a war zone. Iraq has been fractured by terrorism and shifting allegiances. However, things are starting to change. A new president is emerging in Syria. Iraq is finding a fragile but strategic position. Meanwhile, Turkey is stepping in to reassert its dominance.
It’s also fascinating that both Daniel and Revelation describe a group of 10 kings (leaders or nations) that will unite, with three of them handing their power over to the Antichrist. Could those three be located in the Seleucid territories? That question is definitely worth considering.
The more I study, the more I see that Daniel doesn’t just reference the Seleucid Empire — he makes it central. And if Daniel deemed it worthy of such attention, so should we.
I don’t want this article to be perceived as an invitation to pursue shifting current events and shape our eschatology around them. That’s the opposite of my intention. We must ensure our understanding of prophecy is grounded in what the Bible says, not in what the headlines tell us. And when we do that, we can recognize that the Seleucid Empire isn’t merely another kingdom — it’s the very one Daniel consistently points to when describing the rise of the Antichrist. That doesn’t diminish Turkey’s role — it amplifies it. The Antichrist’s rise may start in Syria, but his empire will ultimately be governed from Turkey, just as the Ottomans absorbed the Seleucid territories before them.
We must focus on what Daniel emphasized, not merely on what modern discussions have highlighted. Daniel made it abundantly clear — the King of the North is significant. The Seleucid Empire is significant. In the days to come, that truth may become impossible to overlook.
