https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1209
Will There be an "Antichrist"?
The long history of failed attempts to identify the so-called
“Antichrist” would be humorous if it were not so tragic. Candidates for
this personage have included Nero, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin,
Kruschev, and Saddam Hussein. The “mark of the beast” that the
Antichrist allegedly causes people to receive has been associated with
social security numbers, UPC barcodes, WWW—the World Wide Web, and even the IRS
(a much more tempting postulation, to be sure). These endless
shenanigans could be avoided if the Bible were taken seriously and
impure motives were replaced by an honest pursuit of truth.
As a matter of fact, the term “antichrist” occurs only five times in Scripture, only in the writing of John, and only
in two of his five books: 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7. The
implications are significant. Dispensationalists do not go to 1 and 2
John when they discuss the Antichrist. They go to Revelation, or 2
Thessalonians, or Daniel. They go to passages that do not even use the
word Antichrist!
Contrary to current claims, John applied the term “antichrist” to more than one individual, and to individuals who were living then—in
the first century! For example, 1 John 2:18 states that numerous
antichrists had arisen in John’s day, and he therefore contended that
“it is the last hour” (i.e., the final period of religious history
commonly referred to as “the last days,” as in Acts 2:16-17). He then
described their behavior as “not of God” (1 John 4:3). “Antichrists”
were simply anyone who denied Christ (1 John 2:22). John,
therefore, labeled any such deluded soul as “the deceiver” and “the
antichrist” (2 John 7). Notice the use of the article. John was saying
that people living in his own day who denied the incarnation of Jesus
were to be regarded as the antichrist! Not just an antichrist—but the
antichrist! The idea that the term “antichrist” is to be applied to
some “future fuehrer” (Lindsey, 1970, pp. 87ff.) who will draw the world
into a global holocaust is totally out of harmony with John’s inspired
use of the term.
The primary passage that is used to support the notion of an antichrist is Revelation 13:1-10.
Several points regarding the context of the book of Revelation and its
proper interpretation lead to the understanding that the seven-headed
sea beast was a symbol for the then monstrous emperor of Rome who
was responsible for unleashing horrible atrocities upon Christians of
Asia Minor in the latter years of the first century A.D.
(Summers, 1951, pp. 174-175; Swete, 1911, pp. 161ff.). The two-horned
land beast (Revelation 13:11-18), who enforced worship of the sea beast,
referred to the official governmental organization known as the Roman
Concilia that was responsible for supporting and regulating all details
relative to emperor worship (Summers, pp. 178-179; Swete, pp. 168ff.).
This evil legal entity was authorized to instigate economic sanctions
against those who refused to appropriate the “mark” of the beast, “mark”
being a symbol for the proof of their submission to Caesar worship (vs.
17). With this understanding of Revelation 13, it is unscriptural and
unbiblical to identify the sea beast in Revelation 13 with some future
revived Roman dictator known as the “Antichrist.”
A second passage that some say predicts an Antichrist is Daniel 9:24-27.
Notice carefully the content of this marvelous prophecy. During the
prophetic period that Daniel identified in terms of seventy symbolic
weeks (vs. 24), transgression, sin, and iniquity would be “finished,”
“ended,” and “reconciliation provided for.” This terminology clearly
refers to Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross (Hebrews 9:26). The effect
of Christ’s atoning work was that “everlasting righteousness” was
ushered in. As Paul stated: “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin
for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2
Corinthians 5:21; cf. Jeremiah 23:5-6). Because of what Jesus did,
individuals may now stand before God completely righteous through
obedient faith. Likewise, “vision” and “prophecy” would be “sealed up.”
This refers to the inevitable termination of Old Testament prophecy and
its fulfillment in Christ’s appearance in human history: “Yes, and all
the prophets from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken,
have also foretold these days” (Acts 3:24; Hebrews 1:1-2). Finally, the
phrase in Daniel 9:24 that speaks of the “anointing” of the “most holy”
refers to the public ministry and official crowning of Jesus as He took
His place upon His throne to rule in His kingdom. Isaiah said: “The
Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to
preach good tidings to the poor” (61:1). On the day of Pentecost, Peter
said: “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33).
Notice that Daniel summarized the entire seventy-week period by
including all of these six factors in the seventy weeks.
Next, Daniel broke the seventy-week period into three segments: seven
weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week. Verse 25 pertains to the first two
sections of the seventy-week period. During these two periods, that is
during sixty-nine of the seventy prophetic weeks, a decree would go
forth calling for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the reconstruction of
the temple that had been destroyed by the Babylonians (cf. Nehemiah
2:7-8; Ezra 1:1-3). Daniel made clear that these sixty-nine weeks of the
prophetic period, during which the temple would be rebuilt and national
Israel reestablished, would take one up to the appearance of the
Messiah.
Verse 26 speaks of the final week of the seventy week prophetic period, for he said “after the sixty-two weeks.” “After” puts one into
the final or seventieth week of Daniel’s remarks. Two significant
events were to occur during this final week. First, the Messiah would be
“cut off.” This definitely refers to Jesus’ death upon the cross: “He
was cut off from the land of the living” (Isaiah 53:8). Second, a
“prince” and his people would come and destroy the city and the
sanctuary—an obvious allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem and the
temple edifice in A.D. 70 by Titus and his Roman army.
Verse 27 alludes to the activation of the new covenant between the
Messiah and “many,” that is, between Christ and those who are responsive
to the demands of the new covenant. As the Hebrews writer said: “Behold
the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (8:8; cf. Acts
3:25). The New Testament teaches that the cutting off of the Messiah,
the crucifixion, was the act that confirmed the covenant (Matthew
26:28; Hebrews 9:15-29), and brought an immediate end to the validity
of the Old Testament practices of sacrifice and oblation (Colossians
2:14; Luke 23:45; Hebrews 10:18-20). Then Daniel alluded to the ruthless
invasion of Jerusalem in the phrase “abomination of desolation.” Jesus
quoted this phrase in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20, and applied it to
the Roman desecration and destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70.
Thus, the fundamental purpose of Daniel’s seventy-weeks prophecy was to
show God’s final and complete decree concerning the Israelite
commonwealth. All of the events described in the prophecy were
literally fulfilled over 1,900 years ago. As far as God is concerned,
the logical end of the Old Testament and Judaism has occurred. Now He
deals only with the spiritual children of Abraham, whether Jew or
Gentile (Romans 4:11-12,16; 9:8). Daniel 9 gives no credence to the
notion of a future Antichrist.
A third passage used to foster belief in an Antichrist is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.
Whatever interpretation is placed upon this passage, its use to refer
to a future personage is doomed to failure since Paul explicitly stated
that he was referring to a person who would be the product of the
circumstances of his own day, i.e., “already at work” (vs. 7).
How could Paul have had in mind a future dictator that still has not
arisen, though 2,000 years have transpired? One need go no further to
know that 2 Thessalonians 2 does not refer to a future Antichrist.
History is replete with a variety of interpretations of this passage,
the most prominent one likely being the view that the papacy is under
consideration (see Workman, 1988, pp. 428-434; Eadie, 1877, pp. 340ff.).
Another possibility is that the “falling away” (vs. 3), or apostasy,
referred to the Jewish rejection of the “new and living way” of approach
to God (Hebrews 10:20). The Jews were the single most adamant opponents
to Christ and the infant church (John 8:37-44; Acts 7:51-53; 13:45-50;
Romans 10:20-21; 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). This rebellion, or
falling away, would not reach its “full” (Matthew 23:32) climax until
the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and the
resulting dispersal of the Jewish people. Paul had already alluded to
this Jewish apostasy in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16. The pouring out of
God’s wrath was the logical consequence of the first century Israelite
failure to make the change to Christianity.
The “man of sin” or “son of perdition” (vs. 3) would have referred to
the personification of Roman imperialism, and would have been equated
with “the abomination of desolation” that Jesus, quoting Daniel 9,
alluded to in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20. Verse 4 would refer to the
Roman general who introduced his idolatrous insignia into the Holy of
Holies in A.D. 70.
That which was “withholding” (vs. 6), or restraining, this man of sin,
at the time Paul was writing 2 Thessalonians in approximately A.D.
53, would have been the presence of the Jewish state. The ingenious
design of God was that Christianity would appear to the hostile Roman
government to be nothing more than another sect of the Jews. Thus
Christianity was shielded for the moment (i.e., A.D.
30-70) from the fury of the persecuting forces of Rome, while it
developed, spread, and gave the Jews ample opportunity to be
incorporated into the elect remnant—the church of Christ (cf. Romans
11:26). Thus the nation of Israel was rendered totally without excuse in
its rejection of Christianity, while at the same time serving as a restraining force by preventing Christianity from being perceived by the Romans as a separate, and therefore illegal, religion (religio illicita).
Once the Jewish apostasy was complete, and God’s wrath was poured out
upon Jerusalem, Christianity came to be seen as a distinct religion from
Judaism. Increasingly, Christians found themselves brought into
conflict with the persecution from “the wicked” or “lawless one” (vs.
8). In fact, after A.D. 70 (when the withholding
effect of Judaism was removed), Roman opposition to Christianity
gradually grew greater, culminating in the fierce and formidable
persecution imposed by Caesar Domitian in the final decade of the first
century.
Once the shield of Judaism was “taken out of the way” (vs. 7), and
Christianity increasingly found itself subject to the indignities of
governmental disfavor, the Lord was to come and “consume with the breath
of His mouth” (vs. 8) the one who was responsible. This terminology is
not an allusion to Christ’s Second Coming. Rather this verse refers to Christ’s coming in judgment on the Roman power. Such a use of the word “coming” to describe the display of God’s wrath upon people in history
is not unusual (cf. Isaiah 19:1; Micah 1:3). Paul alluded to the
government’s use of counterfeit miracles (vs. 9), and thus deceit (vs.
10)—reminiscent of the Roman Concilia’s employment of trickery and
illusion to deceive people into worshipping the emperor in Revelation
13:13-15 during the last decade of the first century A.D.
(see Barclay, 1960, 2:127-128; Hailey, 1979, pp. 294-295; Summers,
1951, pp. 178-179). Sufficient textual indicators exist in this passage
to exclude the premillennial interpretation of a future “Antichrist.”
When studied in context, the passages that are used to bolster the
dispensational scheme provide no such support. Those over the centuries
who have applied these passages to papal authority, Napoleon, Mussolini,
Hitler, Saddam Hussein, et al., have been shown to be wrong. Amazingly,
the pattern continues among those who have not learned from the sad
mistakes of the past.
REFERENCES
Barclay, William (1960), The Revelation of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Eadie, John (1877), Commentary on the Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Hailey, Homer (1979), Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Summers, Ray (1951), Worthy Is the Lamb (Nashville, TN: Broadman).
Swete, Henry (1911), Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977 reprint).
Workman, Gary (1988), Studies in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon (Denton, TX: Valid Publications).
