THE DEBATE OVER THE NATURE OF THE BEASTS
AS YOU’VE PROBABLY caught on by now, the concept of the Antichrist—like everything else in the Bible prophecy realm—isn’t immune to controversy and debate. Now we turn our attention to the two beasts mentioned in Revelation 13.
Some reject the idea of future diabolical “beasts” who wreak havoc in the Middle East, pushing back against the commonly held belief among many Evangelicals that one of them will be the Antichrist.
Dr. Sam Storms, an amillennialist, sees something a bit different unfolding when it comes to John’s references in Revelation 13 to a “beast rising out of the sea” and a “beast rising out of the earth,” arguing that these verses might not be speaking about forces that are restricted to just one time frame in the historical narrative.
“My understanding of what John is saying when he refers to the beast . . . and he portrays him in these rather graphic terms and with these images of ferocious animals and the like—I believe what he’s describing for us . . . [is a] transcultural movement, if you will, that is opposed to Christ and His kingdom,” Storms told me.1
Rather than a single individual, he sees the beast of the sea—which is most commonly associated with the idea of an antichrist—as potentially being a collective reference to numerous diabolical people over time.
“[There have been] many people, at many times, in many ways throughout the course of church history who have conspired collectively to deny the Christian gospel,” Storms said.2
He went on to cite Roman rulers who sought to exterminate Christians as well as a fourth-century priest by the name of Arius, who was declared a heretic by the Council of Nicaea for refusing to sign a statement of faith that held Jesus as being of the same divine nature of God.3
Other related movements that were cited by Storms as denying the gospel include certain sentiments embraced by medieval Roman Catholicism that he said corrupted the gospel, European deism (the belief that God created the world but then disconnected Himself from its affairs), Marxism, Darwinian evolution, the proabortion movement, the radical gay rights movement, and Islamic fundamentalism.
“All of these are in their own ways expressions of this collective image that the Book of Revelation calls ‘the beast.’ So, again, it can express itself in the form of an individual, a movement, a philosophy, an institution, a nation, or a political movement of some sort,” Storms said. He continued, “Anything and everything, individually and corporately, that sets itself up against Jesus is an expression of the concept of the beast.”4
This notion then flows into interpretations of the Old Testament scriptures in Daniel 7 and Daniel 9 that many pastors and theologians connect with the language and claims made by John in Revelation 13.
While some Christians, as noted in the previous chapter, believe that those Old Testament texts are sure-fire projections into the end times that focus—at least, in part—on a singular future Antichrist, Storms offers up a different option regarding the nature of the beast.
“In Daniel’s case, I think that he had in mind, specifically, one particular historical manifestation of the beast, and that was the Syrian ruler Antiochus Epiphanes, who in the middle of the second century BC appeared on the scene and slaughtered the Jews and defiled the temple,” Storms explained. Antiochus Epiphanes, he contended, was likely the first manifestation of the anti-kingdom power that is also discussed in Revelation 13.5
More specifically Daniel 9:27 speaks of an “abomination that causes desolation” (NIV) that would unfold, with many believing that the verse was a prophecy about Antiochus Epiphanes’s invasion of Jerusalem and defiling of the temple.6 Rhodes wrote in his book The 8 Great Debates of Bible Prophecy that, in 168 BC, Antiochus Epiphanes set up an altar to Zeus and sacrificed a pig on it—acts that were seen as abominations that cause desolation. “Antiochus was thus a prototype of the future antichrist,” Rhodes wrote.7
LaHaye explained that Antiochus Epiphanes was “the worst, most evil king that ever existed”—a description that clearly distinguishes the political leader as possessing an elevated fiendish state. “He did unmistakable evils to human beings . . . persecuting them, blinding people, just deliberately torturing their lives, and so on. And he’s finally murdered by his own family, he was so evil,” he continued. “He is a type of the Antichrist in the Tribulation period.”8
And the horrific descriptors didn’t end there. LaHaye also called Antiochus Epiphanes a “symbol of evil,” explaining that, in addition to desecrating the temple, he demanded to be worshipped—acts that crossed a line with God and led to his destruction.9 It’s this same ruin that the author believes will befall the Antichrist in the end times.
It’s important to note that Jesus Himself references the abomination that causes desolation in Matthew 24:15 as well as Mark 13:14, two centuries after Antiochus Epiphanes’s actions. In the former verse Christ said, “So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).” If Daniel’s prophecy was intended to have no future prophetic connection and was merely limited to the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes, one wonders why Jesus would later reference it while speaking of a future event that was set to take place well after Antiochus Epiphanes’s time.
Here too there are numerous theories and ideas about what connects these prophecies to the New Testament end-times narrative.
A number of arguments and explanations could be made when considering why Christ used the phrase “abomination of desolation,” including dual prophecies that are unfolding both in close proximity to the time He was speaking and in the future, a strictly futurist view of the Antichrist, or, as Storms argues, a collective reference to many “beasts” or antichrist figures over thousands of years.
As for what he believes Christ is saying in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, Storms said that it is a likely a prophecy involving Titus Vespasianus Augustus, a Roman general and eventual emperor.10
“I think Jesus refers to Titus in the first century . . . when Titus led the Roman armies and destroyed Jerusalem, and destroyed the temple, and enslaved and slaughtered the Jewish people in AD 70,” Storms said.11
Hank Hanegraaff also weighed in to share some similar perspective on the matter.
“[Antiochus Epiphanes] succeeded in desecrating the temple, but did not succeed in destroying the temple,” he said. “Jesus, in the Olivet Discourse, looks back to that Old Testament antichrist, and He warns about a coming beast. That coming beast is going to not just defile the temple, but it is going to manifestly destroy the temple.”12
While he likened Antiochus Epiphanes to an “Old Testament antichrist” of sorts and said that there was clearly another antichrist that Jesus was referencing in the Olivet Discourse, Hanegraaff also pointed back to John’s definition of an antichrist as anyone who essentially denies “the deity and incarnation of Jesus Christ.”13
“The notion that there’s going to be some Antichrist in the twenty-first century is true and it’s false,” he said. “It’s true in the sense that, as John said, there will be people and institutions that deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the fact that Jesus came in the flesh and the incarnation, that He is really God in human flesh.”14
Hanegraaff continued, “There’s the sense in which you can say, those that deny the deity of Jesus Christ are antichrist, from a biblical perspective.”15
But he does not embrace the notion that there will be another “beast” as is referenced in Revelation, explaining that there was an “antichrist figure” at the time that was impacting the struggling church.16 The beast in the text, he said, was representative of the issues—a tribulation of sorts—that the early church was facing at the hands of brutal Roman emperor Nero Caesar.17
With this in mind, Hanegraaff said that there’s “no warrant for driving the text into the twenty-first century” in the form of a literal future Antichrist figure, as he believes a close reading of the text simply doesn’t warrant it.18
It’s a subject that the theologian has spent a great deal of time speaking and writing on, attempting to push back against the ongoing speculation about the identity of the Antichrist that has raged for centuries. “Rather than joining the sensationalistic game of pin-the-tail-on-the-Antichrist, Christians need only go to Scripture to find the answer,” Hanegraaff once addressed the matter.19
Hanegraaff said that there is “no basis . . . whatsoever” for a theology that sees future individuals filling the roles of the beast of the sea and the beast of the earth introduced in Revelation 13; he said that these descriptions are archetypal.20
“[John is] drawing on Daniel’s apocalyptic description of evil world empires, or powers,” he said. “He describes an emperor in his own epic of time, who arrogantly sets himself and his empire against God, a person who persecutes the saints, a person who grossly violates the commandments, through disgusting demonstrations and depravity, not the least of which was his demand to be worshipped as Lord and God.”21
Hanegraaff said that this wasn’t merely restricted to Nero, but that it also applied to Rome as an empire, with its rulers at the time demanding that they be worshipped. When Christians pushed back against such adoration, they suffered greatly.
“You have the New Testament Christians saying, ‘No, no, we’re not going to call you Lord and Savior. It’s not Caesar that’s Lord and Savior. It’s Christ that is Lord and Savior,’” he explained. “As a result, they’re going to suffer greatly, but their vindication is going to be for a thousand years. In other words, they’re going to suffer for ten days, to use the language of Revelation, but their vindication is going to be a thousand years. Their suffering is going to be short; their vindication is going to be eternal.”22
Dr. Shane J. Wood, professor of New Testament studies at Ozark Christian College, also said that he doesn’t expect a future Antichrist figure to emerge, though he understands why some people do interpret Scripture in that way.
“What they’re really describing is 2 Thessalonians 2, with the man of lawlessness. That’s where they really get legs under it,” he told me. “From Revelation 13 itself, they wouldn’t really have much of an antichrist figure. They figured out ways to jigsaw puzzle it in to fit their theological schema.”23
Wood argued that Revelation 13—which discusses the beasts—can best be understood by considering the contents of the preceding chapter. It is in Revelation 12 that there is a mention of a red dragon in pursuit of a woman who is having a child, with robust imagery driving the narrative. The relevant verses (1–4) read:
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: There was a great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven, and threw them to the earth. The dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as He was born.
Wood went on to cite verse 5, noting that it proclaims that the woman gave birth to a male child “who was to rule all nations with an iron scepter.” This figure, he said, is Jesus, though he contended that there are actually multiple levels worth considering when it comes to the woman’s identity.
“On one level, this is Mary. We’re in Bethlehem,” he said.24
But Wood added that there is also a broader imagery here that speaks to the cosmic battle between good and evil that has been raging since the days of Genesis.
“In chapter 12, when it introduces this dragon in his pursuit, in his zeal, at verse 9, it says, ‘That ancient serpent called . . . Satan, who leads the whole world astray’ [NIV]” Wood explained. “It’s this collision, this cosmological collision between Satan and Christ.”25
Rather than looking at the text as prophesying a future scenario in which an antichrist rises and takes power with the help of the second beast, the scholar reiterated that he believes that the imagery is actually pointing to the “cosmic war that’s been raging since Genesis 3.”26
This, of course, is just another perspective on the matter, with theories and ideas about the identity and nature of the Antichrist running the gamut. Just consider what Dr. Michael Heiser had to say about the notion of Old Testament “foreshadowings” of the Antichrist.
“They can be foreshadowings. I think Antiochus does some things in the intertestamental period that really are very striking when it comes to some of the talk in Daniel—Daniel 9 and later on in chapters 10 and 11,” Heiser explained. “There are some things in there that are pretty close correlations, but there are also some things that are missing.”27
He, like many others, referenced the most intriguing fact that could back a futurist mentality—Jesus’s mention of the abomination of desolation—adding that it appears as though there had to be a broader reason that Christ invoked the language and specifically mentioned the Prophet Daniel by name.
“I tend to think that the Antichrist material is still valid, or still in effect, and that there will come a person who will play this role in the scheme of the larger eschatological picture,” Heiser said. “I don’t think we’re really given too much information.”28
Regardless of whether Jesus was referring to a future end-times antichrist or to one of many collective “beasts,” Storms said that John’s intentions in Revelation are clear, as he “takes all of that imagery, all of that language, and he kind of compresses it into one final portrait of this hideous creature that he describes in Revelation 13.”29
That hideous creature, Storms believes, encompasses all of the aforementioned individuals and movements. That said, he doesn’t entirely dismiss the notion of a final antichrist who rises to power during the end times.
“Having said that . . . will there be one particular individual who emerges in the end times, who will, himself, be the Antichrist—who will, himself, in some way lead or galvanize or organize all of this . . . into a singular force?” he rhetorically asked. “I’m open to that possibility.”30
Storms said that it’s quite possible that a final antichrist in this vein could be referenced in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4. “That may be what Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2 when he talks about the man of sin, the man of lawlessness,” the theologian said, though he added the caveat that he’s not quite convinced, but still wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what’s going on there in the scriptures.31
Another point worth considering is what, exactly, Daniel was seeing when prophesying—and whether he himself knew what was unfolding, including the identity of the individual responsible for the abomination of desolation.
“Remember, he only saw visions that came from God, and I don’t think he understood some of the nuances for the end times that we’re living in,” LaHaye said. “He was more interested in the times in which he lived and then getting the children of Israel right with God and back to rebuilding the temple and so on, and reestablishing their mandate with God.”32
LaHaye said that he does not believe that the prophet understood the eschatological elements the way that believers do today.
So, let’s briefly take a more clinical look at the categories of belief surrounding the Antichrist. Writing in the theological journal Bibliotheca Sacra, Bible professor Dr. Gregory Harris broke down the differing views on the matter.
Those perspectives include the Nero Redivivus View, the Reincarnation View, the Nonpersonal View, the Antichrist View, and the Revived Roman Empire View.33
Since our purpose here is to provide the essentials, we won’t spend too much time delving into each one of these, though I will provide a recap of each to help readers understand the debate as well as the underlying reason why everyone isn’t in agreement on the Antichrist front.
• The Nero Redivivus View is a historical view that holds that John and early church members believed that an evil Roman Caesar would come back to life. It was mainly believed by some that Nero, a tyrannical emperor who persecuted Christians, would return as the aforementioned “beast” in Revelation 13. While some in the early Christian church held to this theory, Harris explained that it’s not all that surprising considering that the ruler had so brutally dealt with believers, though he cautioned that they were potentially mistaken on the matter.34
• Another theory on the “beast” is the so-called Reincarnation View, which consists of the notion that an individual such as Nero—or someone else—could potentially reincarnate, emerge on the scene in another form, and forge on with the plans that are detailed in Scripture.35
• Others look at contents of Revelation and come to adopt the third perspective, known as the Nonpersonal View: that the text is speaking about spiritual issues involving evil forces that led to persecution among early believers, Harris explained. Some might contend, though, that this nonpersonal view is a lens into the evil that will come in the future prior to Christ’s return. Either way, Harris questioned these sentiments.
“How would the increase of evil promote worldwide amazement and the worship of the beast and Satan (Rev. 13:3)?” he wrote. “And why would the world come to any conclusion about waging war on impersonal forces?”36
• The fourth perspective—the Antichrist View—consists of what was discussed earlier in this chapter: the rise of an antichrist who is injured and healed, and who will come to power and usher in worldwide deceit.
• Rather than taking the form of an individual, the fifth and final view, the Revived Roman Empire View, holds that the “beast” is actually the Roman Empire, which will one day be healed and will again rise to worldwide domination during the Tribulation period. This is based on a reading of Daniel 2 and Daniel 5 that see the use of “king” and “kingdom” being used interchangeably, Harris explained. The wound itself could then be healed of an empire and not merely an individual, as many believe will be the case with the Antichrist.37
As you can see, there’s much discussion and debate to be had about what’s really unfolding in the Scriptures when it comes to the beasts and the nature of the Antichrist. If the fulfillment is literal, there’s a future antichrist figure who will take control and plunge the world further toward the end.
If it’s not, though, perceptions and proposed theories about the events that will unfold during the end times could end up being quite incorrect. With no worldwide leader who rises to power and persecutes believers, the scenario becomes somewhat less contentious.
We’ve spent a great deal of time here speaking about the beast out of the sea in Revelation, but what we haven’t yet addressed in detail is that John’s vision also includes a second beast—the beast out of the earth, a separate entity that is also described as being both diabolical and tyrannical.
To recap what Revelation 13:5–8 says about the first beast: he is said to exercise authority for forty-two months as he utters blasphemies against God and demands that the world worship him after being given authority “over every tribe and tongue and nation.”
It is the image of a second beast that simply adds to that horror, as this creature is described as having “two horns like a lamb” but speaking “like a dragon” (v. 11). This latter beast is known as the false prophet.
“The false prophet will appear like a lamb on the outside, but then on the inside of the false prophet . . . he’s going to have a dragon heart,” Charlie Restivo, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Westchester, New York, said during a 2014 sermon. “He’s going to speak like a dragon.”38
While similar to the first beast in terms of its authority, this beast will work to ensure that those on earth worship the former, and will perform wonders. Revelation 13:15–17 explains:
He was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. He causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, so that no one may buy or sell, except he who has the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name.
That number, of course, is 666, known traditionally as the mark of the beast. Not much is known about the nature of this number, though many Bible scholars believe that one must receive it during the end of days to engage in basic commerce; those who do take the mark will presumably not be able to enter the kingdom of heaven.
It is absolutely unclear exactly what 666 stands for. We know that it is the “number of a man,” though many have wondered if it pertains to letters in a name or some other marker. Without going too deep into the weeds, the use of “666” is believed to be a form of gematria, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as follows: “a cryptograph in the form of a word whose letters have the numerical values of a word taken as the hidden meaning.”39 Basically it involves adding up the numbers in a person’s name (words have numerical values in this system), though its usage here gives us no definitive clue as to who the Antichrist is or will be.40
Ron Rhodes spoke further about this false prophet, telling me that he believes he will play a key role in the end times by attempting to control the world through religion.
“One way to bring unity to people especially on a global level is religion,” Rhodes said. “He’s going to be used in a terrible way to build a false religion that will serve to bring unity to the world.”41
Many believe that the false prophet’s main goal will be to move people toward worshipping the Antichrist. “There’s going to be a false religion for a time, but after that religion has served its purpose . . . the Antichrist is going to destroy it, because from that point forward he wants to be worshipped,” Rhodes explained.42
In essence, there’s an unholy trinity of sorts that includes Satan, the first beast, and then the second—a twisted and mirrored version of the very Christ-centered Trinity that has brought salvation to humanity.
“This beast rounds out what I believe to be the unholy trinity; Satan has always longed to be like God . . . like the most high God,” Restivo said. “He wants to be in the place of father God.”43
It is this false prophet who Restivo believes will join the Antichrist, a political leader, by serving as a religious leader. He likened the beast from the sea to the “opposite of the Holy Spirit.”44
“The false prophet, I want you to notice . . . comes out of the earth and he had two horns. Now, horns speaks of authority,” Restivo said.
“But I notice that this one has no crown, and with him not having a crown means that he really doesn’t have any political power.” He continued, “He’s going to be a religious guy, and he’s going to be pointing back to the Antichrist.”45
Again, the notion is that the beasts are connected to and indwelled by Satan, mirroring, in many ways, the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Despite the power that the beasts are said to gain in the Scriptures, Revelation details what will befall them, painting a vivid picture in which Jesus Christ returns on a “white horse,” proceeding to successfully battle over the forces of evil and subsequently triumph.
John detailed the fate of both beasts in Revelation 19:19–20:
Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to wage war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. But the beast was captured and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped his image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.
Interestingly, when addressing discussion and debate over the nature of the Antichrist, Dr. Gregory Harris pointed out that he does not believe that these individuals are “merely personifications of empires,” as “no empires will be cast into the lake of fire,” concluding that these references in Revelation are likely talking about individuals.46
It’s important to highlight a divergent view that Dr. Shane Wood offered on the two beasts of Revelation, noting that he believes there is an unholy trinity, but that each component references something not quite so literal.
“What’s interesting is if you look at the dragon and then the two beasts . . . they make up an unholy trinity in the Book of Revelation. They are these counterparts,” he told me. “You have the dragon, where a lot of the language used for him is paralleling the Father. You have the beast from the sea; a lot of the language used to describe him is parallel to the Son.”
As for the second beast of the earth, Wood said that there is language that seems to mirror the Holy Spirit. He explained:
The whole job of the second beast is to actually breathe life into things, to breathe into them life and to bring them to life. Then they are going to point, to worship, toward the beast who had a wound to the head that raised from dead and to the dragon. You have this unholy trinity that is paralleling the Trinity.
Then it’s from that construction that you see why it is that Rome is functioning the way they are functioning. Rome is basically in bed or in league with this unholy trinity. Then really the rest of Revelation is a tale of two cities or a tale of two brides. You have the city of Rome and you have the New Jerusalem. You have the prostitutes in Revelation 17 and you have the bride in Revelation 19. They’re both the physical manifestations of the trinities they belong to.47
Now, let’s look at the millennial debate.