THE CONCEPT OF the Antichrist—a diabolical biblical figure who many believe will emerge on the international scene before Christ’s second coming—has captivated Christians and ignited fierce debate for more than two millennia.
So how much do we know about this somewhat elusive figure who is not explicitly named in prophetic scriptures but who occupies such a prevalent position in theological circles?
“Well, not as much as we’d like,” famed end-times author Joel Rosenberg candidly told me through a chuckle, explaining that end-times experts such as himself wouldn’t mind if the Scriptures offered a few more clues and details about the nature and identity of the Antichrist.1 Rosenberg and his peers—including leading Bible prophecy expert Mark Hitchcock, who describes the Antichrist as the “final Gentile world ruler before Christ comes”—generally point to verses in both the Old and New Testaments to highlight the few details that they believe provide some background on the matter.2
From the Book of Daniel to 2 Thessalonians, 1 John, and Revelation, many see the presence of the Antichrist throughout the Scriptures, believing him to be a future figure who will one day gain global political power.
The Apostle Paul, writing in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, described a rebellion in which “the man of sin” would be revealed—a man whom he described as being “the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself as God,” Paul continued.
In fact, Dr. Michael Brown told me that he believes 2 Thessalonians 2 is “probably the clearest single passage” that corroborates the notion that there will be a definitive Antichrist figure who will rise to global power in the future.3
Many theologians also cite Revelation 13:5–8 as describing what they believe to be parallel details about the Antichrist, describing the “man of sin” referenced in 2 Thessalonians as “the beast.” Those verses in Revelation read:
He was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies. And he was given authority to wage war for forty-two months. He opened his mouth to speak blasphemies against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to wage war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe and tongue and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, all whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world.
Earlier, in Revelation 13:3, it is prophesied that this same beast will have a “deadly wound” that will be healed and that the entire world will be captivated by this fact—so enamored that many will end up following him.
“He’s going to come on the scene with a glib voice and talking wonderful, and butter would melt in his mouth—you know the type,” author Tim LaHaye said while describing the Antichrist. “And he’s brilliant and attractive, and he cons his way into leadership and controls the whole world, and then he is killed by the uprising when Christ comes.”4
Bible professor Dr. Gregory Harris wrote about these very issues, explaining that the wound as well as the healing are significant, as they will collectively “cause the world at large to worship the beast, who is considered by most evangelical commentators to be the Antichrist.”5
Harris’s explanation that “most” Evangelicals consider this beast to be the Antichrist gives just a hint to the fact that many, but not all, pastors, theologians, and Bible experts walk away from Scripture with this same view of a singular figure who will fiendishly emerge on the international stage to wreak worldwide havoc.
Part of the reason that a debate continues over what this “beast” really references is potentially due to the dearth of blatant mentions of the word Antichrist in the Scriptures. There’s also complex language in Revelation that has caused some to look cautiously—and even skeptically—at the prospect of a literal interpretation.
Neither Paul nor John use the term Antichrist in either 2 Thessalonians or Revelation, and the word appears in only two New Testament books, which were both authored by John: 1 John and 2 John. Some of those mentions are plural, and seemingly not confined to references about a sole end-times figure.
“As 1 John 2 makes clear, there have been ‘antichrist’ figures in the world for two millennia, since those who actively deny Jesus are antichrist in their behavior,” Dr. Michael Brown said, despite noting his belief in a future Antichrist.6
Let’s take a brief look at those scriptures. In 1 John 2 the author warns that it is “the last hour” and tells readers that, as they have heard, the “antichrist will come” and that “even now there are many antichrists” (v. 18). The use of the plural form of the word has created some discussion and debate about what, exactly, John means here, as he goes on to define “antichrists.” He writes in verse 19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us. But they went out, revealing that none of them were of us.”
John’s definition continues in verses 22 and 23, when he asks, “Who is a liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” and responds by noting that, “Whoever denies the Father and the Son is the antichrist. No one who denies the Son has the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father.”
The author returns to this theme in 1 John 4:1–3 when he writes about false prophets in the world, decrying those who do not acknowledge that Jesus is from God as having the “spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and is already in the world.”
Hank Hanegraaff corroborated Brown’s assessment of the term antichrist by summarizing John’s definition as “anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is coming in the flesh”—a pretty broad statement that would involve a massive array of actors throughout church history and through the modern era.7
Ideas about the Antichrist stem not only from the New Testament but also from the Old Testament, with LaHaye offering a recap of what he believes the Antichrist will do in the end times, tying descriptions in Daniel to those expressed in Revelation.
“He’s going to offer world government and leadership and peace in our time, and then he’s going to get buffed up and the false prophet comes along and makes an idol for him,” he said. “And then they demand the same thing that they demanded in the Old Testament of Daniel—that he worship the king.”8
Daniel reports seeing four beasts in a dream in chapter 7 that represent four kings of the earth; the fourth beast is described as different from the others and has numerous horns on its head.
“The ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise; and another shall rise after them, and he shall be different from the first, and he shall subdue three kings,” Daniel wrote of his vision in verse 24, recapping an explanation that he was given for the imagery. “He shall speak words against the Most High and shall wear out the saints of the Most High and plan to change times and law. And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time,” he continued in verse 25.
Rosenberg also points to Daniel 9 when discussing Old Testament references to the Antichrist—a chapter that has been given a great deal of attention considering that dispensational premillennialists see it as key to predicting what’s to come.
“It talks about [how] the prince will come from the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple,” he said, explaining that the temple was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans.9 The assumption, then, is that the Antichrist will likely come out of Roman origin, which could mean that he will be of European descent, some argue.
Mark Hitchcock agrees that the Antichrist is likely to come from the old reunited Roman Empire, which he said includes parts of North Africa and the western part of Asia, citing Daniel 9 as containing this prophecy.10
As for a specific timeline of events, Rosenberg detailed what he believes will be the general prophetic timeline involving the Antichrist’s rise to power, saying that Daniel’s description of the Antichrist as a “little horn” might hold some significance when it comes to his power and persona.
“He begins as a little horn—a little amount of strength and a little amount of power,” Rosenberg said, imagining the Antichrist to be a smooth and charismatic talker who woos others “with talk of peace.”11
But despite this façade, he said that the Antichrist will “speak blasphemy” and will describe himself as God. Rosenberg warned that the Antichrist will take over the world and will create a “global tyranny” that is unlike anything that’s been seen on the earth before. “He will act as though he himself is God, and he will demand people to worship him,” Rosenberg said. “Those who do not worship him will not be able to buy and sell and will eventually be executed.”12
Hitchcock also believes that the Antichrist will initially gain accolades and subsequent power due to a faux platform of peace in the Middle East. Performing signs and miracles that captivate the masses, the Antichrist, Hitchcock believes, will be “indwelled by Satan.”13
“He’s going to come giving people and telling people what they want to hear,” he explained, noting that Daniel 9:27 reads, in part, “And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week.”14
Shedding additional light on that covenant agreement, Rosenberg said that he believes that the Antichrist will preside over a peace deal with Israel that will last seven years, explaining that he doesn’t know why seven years is the allotted time frame, but that something major happens halfway through that period—a theory that ties into the Tribulation period that we discussed in the previous chapter.
“The Antichrist breaks that deal, he invades the beautiful land Daniel describes that is Israel, and he sets up his throne [there] in the land of Israel and desecrates a temple that has already been rebuilt,” Rosenberg continued. “So, we would be expecting to see Jewish people in the land of Israel . . . preparing and eventually building a third temple.”15
It should be noted that Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem’s first temple in 586 BC, and the Romans destroyed the second temple in AD 70. A third temple has never been built, though many believe—based on interpretations of Scripture—that it will be reconstructed at some point in the future.
It is from this midpoint in the seven years that Hitchcock sees the situation intensifying, as the Antichrist’s “mask is going to come off, and he’s going to show who he really is.”16
“From the midpoint of that seven-year Tribulation on he’s going to dominate the world religiously, politically, and economically,” he continued. “People are going to have to bow the knee to him or starve to death, take his mark upon them, which I take it is basically his name, the numerical value of his name—666.”17
These scholars believe that Jesus will defeat the Antichrist after the Second Coming, thus ushering in the eventual biblical conclusion of a new heaven and a new earth, as documented at the end of Revelation.
Despite the details about the Antichrist that the Bible does seemingly give, there’s still much to ponder about this individual’s identity. But is attempting to definitively identify him truly a prudent task?
Over the centuries many have speculated and proposed that the Antichrist could be a host of individuals, including Roman emperor Nero, King George III (during the American Revolution), various Catholic popes throughout history—even President Barack Obama, among other commanders in chief. But the quest to accurately identify the Antichrist has been thus far unsuccessful.18
Many Bible scholars warn against attempts to explicitly identify the biblical figure, stating that the Scriptures never implore or instruct Christians to spend their time trying to figure out the Antichrist’s identity.
“We are not supposed to be in the business of trying to guess who this person is, because for even a good period of time as he’s emerging, he will be considered a little figure, a small side show to larger players,” Joel Rosenberg said.19
And many others have agreed with this sentiment. Identifying the Antichrist is a “misdirected quest,” Reformation Bible College president Dr. Stephen Nichols wrote back in 2001.20
“The text never calls upon us to identify the antichrist,” he continued. “In fact, some have argued that to impose such a construct as the antichrist upon the text is unwarranted.”21
There’s clearly some danger—and likely a fair bit of embarrassment—in purporting to know the identity of the Antichrist, as time and time again individuals throughout church history have simply been flat wrong in making bold proclamations on the matter. Nichols explained:
Those labeling the antichrist as Jewish were equaled, in the early church, by those nominating various Roman emperors for the role. In the later Middle Ages, Muslims vied for the distinction. Some attempts at naming the antichrist provided helpful physical descriptions just in case one may perhaps encounter the antichrist. One anonymous description dating from the third century records, “These are the signs of him: his head is as a fiery flame; his right eye shot with blood, his left eye blueblack, and he hath two pupils. His eyelashes are white; and his lower lip is large; but his right thigh slender; his feet broad; his great toe is bruised and flat.”22
Rather than determining who the Antichrist is, many faith leaders simply warn believers to be aware of the signs of the times and to properly understand what they believe to be the key events that will take place during the end times.
While the Antichrist is most certainly a part of that paradigm, figuring out his identity—pending you believe that the future diabolical figure will indeed arrive on the scene—is neither needed nor warranted, they argue.
Like the other complex subjects we’ve covered, the debate over the Antichrist will not easily be resolved; for now we will turn our attention to the beasts mentioned in Revelation.