Daniel 11 37 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. -kjv 37 He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. -niv 37 He will not show regard for the gods of his fathers, the god longed for by women, or for any other god, because he will magnify himself above all. -hcsb 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. -kjv 7 I will shake all nations, and what is desired by all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord Almighty. -niv 7 I will shake all the nations so that the treasures of all the nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory,” says the Lord of Hosts. -hcsb Question from moody radio listener: I read Daniel 11:37, talking about the Anti-Christ, "He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, could we take it that in today's context, with the worldwide rise of homosexuality, that Daniel may have give us a glimpse. Is the anti-Christ a homosexual? Moody commentary gave an interpretation, but I wonder if current events would give an additional theory? Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik: The commentary says that these are the characteristics he will have: he will be temporary successful, he will prosper till the indignation's finished, he will be irreligious, he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers, he will be opposed to Christ, he will show no regard of the desire of women, a reference to the longing of the Jewish women to give birth to the Messiah, the desire of whom He is the one, a sort of a nominal way of saying that who is the one desired of women, the Lord Jesus the Messiah, that every Jewish women wanted to give birth to the Messiah, that was the desire of women. In Haggai 2, the Lord Jesus is described in similar way as the desired of the nations.
Know the bible
Question from moody radio listener on Aug 5, 2017: Really happy to ask you this question because it's your Jewish heritage from your perspective. My question is about head covering in Chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians and really what my question is was this something that was in Judaism or was it something that was new or was it a practice that was neglected but more importantly what really troubles me is why would Paul call for an external practice such as something you wear to be part of a woman's Christian walk? Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik: Good. That's a really good question. 1 Corinthians 11 really begins with the structure of authority, the authority listed this way: I want you to know that Christ is the head or ruler of every man and the man is the ruler (this not talking about every man being a ruler of woman but it's talking about male leadership in the local congregation), the head or the male is the ruler of the woman, so there is male leadership (just like what 1 Timothy 2 is talking about) and then it says God is the ruler of Christ. They are fully equal in essence just like man and woman are fully equal but God the Father has functional authority over Christ. In essence, who they are, fully equal, co-members of the God head but the Lord Jesus says I've come not to do my will but the will of the one who sent me, always submissive to the Father's will, that's in John 6. What this is saying is God the Father is the authority, the functional authority over Christ, just as man in the local congregation is the functional authority over the woman in the congregation, just as Christ is the authority, the functional authority over man. That I believe, because of that essence over there, that doesn't change in this passage. But one of the things in that culture and in that day, the way a woman show respect for authority, on God's authority on her life, one of the ways that she dress modestly in worship is by wearing a head covering, a veil. Now, that's true for Jewish people but also true in the gentile world of Corinth that woman respect and honor by wearing a head covering, to show their modesty. Now, today, people say what do we do with this? The system remains intact. The functional authority of God the Father over God the Son, of God the Son over the man and the man over the woman, the function and leadership of the congregation, that remains the same. How woman expresses her submission to that authority is still with modest dress, of course today, being veiled, wouldn't express that. So what we have to do today is to find other ways that woman can dress modestly, fashionably if they like, but modestly, so that they are respectful of the authority structure in the congregation. It's one of the reasons why I don't believe woman don't have to wear veils today because that wouldn't reflect that modesty and that respect that's required but woman do need to dress modestly to reflect that respect. So, today there are other ways that woman can find to dress modestly without wearing a head covering.
Passage to be considered: Colossians 1 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: -kjv 24 Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. -niv 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I am completing in my flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for His body, that is, the church. -hcsb Question from moody radio listener on April 8, 2017: There's a verse colossians 1:24 and I have an amplified bible and it says: 24 now I rejoice in the midst of my sufferings on your behalf. And in my own person I am making up whatever is still lacking and remains to be completed of Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His body, which is the church. Can you shed some light on that? I mean I feel that Jesus did it all, you know and what is Paul talking about? Answer from Dr Michael Rydelnik: The word that is used here for affliction is never used in the new testament of the Messiah's death. Never. It means distress, it means pressure or trouble and it refers to trials in life. I don't believe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and his passion has to be supplemented by anything but rather I think it has more to do with ... do you remember when the Lord Jesus meets Paul on the road and he said why do you persecute me? Paul was not persecuting Jesus, he was persecuting His body but yet it was taken personally because we have this organic bond as from the body to the head and so as we suffers, he suffers, it's not his suffering on our behalf was not complete, that's a different word but it completes the man of suffering so to speak as described in Isaiah 53, acquainted with grief, it is part of his identification with humanity and as we suffer, we identify with him in doing that and that's what we are talking about. It's not talking about we somehow supplement the substitionary suffering and the passion of the Lord Jesus on our behalf. It's a different idea, it's more of the affliction of life, in this world we will have tribulation and we have the organic bond with him and we are connected as a body to the head, therefore he suffers with us.