Ron Reese (29 June 2011)
"Does the Bible say that the Antichrist will be homosexual?"

Yesterday's post was Part 1, on the genealogies of Barack Hussein Obama, and hopefully, we cleared up a lot of people's reservations about Obama not becoming the Antichrist, because he supposedly did not have the proper genealogy.  If you missed it, here is the link.
Today's post deals with another very popular misconception, which is that the Antichrist has to be homosexual.  Many say that because Obama has a family, that he cannot be a homosexual, and, therefore, cannot be the Antichrist.  There are reports that Obama may be homosexual, or bi-sexual.  I cannot vouch for Obama's sexuality.
The only Scripture that I know of, that is used to supposedly support this teaching is found in Daniel 11:37.  It is dangerous to try to establish a Bible doctrine from just one verse in Scripture.  It is usually backed up in other Scriptures.  In my opinion, this is just one more example of how so many Christians accept as the absolute Biblical truth what they have been taught, without studying Scripture, to find out the real meaning.  After reading my post below, I believe you will reach the same conclusion that I have reached.  Barack Hussein Obama cannot be ruled out as the Antichrist, as so many believe, because of his sexuality, as the Antichrist having to be homosexual is not a Biblical teaching.  Below is a post that I wrote a couple of years ago:
This is another of these pre-conceived ideas that the majority of Christians have accepted, simply because of one short phrase in the Bible and what has been taught to them.  Daniel 11:37 says, "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."
It does not say that he would have no desire FOR women and there is absolutely nothing in the context to remotely suggest that it is talking about the Antichrist being homosexual.  There is nothing that I know of, in all of Scripture, that would give any credence at all to this "theory".  So what is this verse, especially this phrase, talking about?  Let's examine it a little closer.
All of Daniel 11:36 and 11:37 is talking about ONE MAIN THEME, which is the Antichrist exalting himself and magnifying himself, even above God, and every other god. Verse 36 and verse 37 are connected, because verse 36 starts with the connecting word "neither".  The theme is consistent throughout these two verses.  Why would God put a phrase into these two verses that is so totally inconsistent with the the theme of these two verses?  And especially a phrase, that IF it was referring to the Antichrist being a homosexual, that would be totally unsupported by any other verse, or chapter, in the entire Bible. 
Let us look at the verse once again, with the bracketed words being mine.  "Neither shall he (have any regard for) the God of his fathers, (nor any regard for) the desire of women, nor (any) regard for any god:  for he shall magnify himself above all (gods).  The phrase "the desire OF WOMEN" (NOT "FOR WOMEN") is the only phrase in verses 36 and 37 that SEEMS totally out of place.  There is a very obvious explanation for what "the desire of women" means, that will show us that it is not out of place at all.  IT FITS IN PERFECTLY.
The Jews knew all about the promises of the coming Messiah.  It was their coming hope of redemption.  It had been taught to them from their earliest childhood days.  There was coming a saviour, a redeemer, a messiah, the Son of the living God.  They also knew about the prophecies that a virgin, a Jewish woman, would conceive the Messiah, and be the mother of this long-awaited Messiah, the son of the living God.  The hope and dream, AND DESIRE of most every Jewish woman was to be the mother of the Messiah.  So it became "THE DESIRE OF WOMEN" to become the mother of the Son of God, the Messiah.  So "THE DESIRE OF WOMEN" became an idiom, or a phrase, that meant the Messiah, or the Son of God.
I am convinced because there is no other Scripture that would support the antichrist being homosexual, because there is absolutely nothing in the context of Daniel 11:36-37 that would remotely suggest that the proper interpretation is referring to the Antichrist being  homosexual, and because it says the "desire OF women", not "desire FOR women", that the correct interpretation of this verse is as follows:
Daniel 9:37, with, again, the brackets being mine, "Neither shall he (have any regard for) the God of his fathers, nor (any regard for the Son of God), nor (any) regard for any god:  for he shall magnify himself above all (gods)".
The whole two verses now follow the same theme, verse 37 now makes complete sense, and we do not have to make a Bible theme (the antichrist being homosexual) out of one short phrase that is totally unsupported anywhere else in Scripture, that so obviously DOES NOT mean what we have been taught all of these years.    
Ron Reese