Post by Cindy on Feb 14, 2016 11:44:40 GMT -5
Note from Cindy: Only those alive after the rapture will be able to discover who the AntiChrist is, because he won’t be revealed until the 7 year treaty is signed. The purpose of this is to help those after the rapture determine whether or not someone they suspect is the antichrist. Remember, The antichrist won’t seem evil, he will seem “good”. He will appear to be the best thing that’s happened in a long time.
A Profile Of The Antichrist
By Dr. David R. Reagan
He will be of Roman descent (Daniel 9:26). The passage says the Antichrist will come from the people who destroy the Temple. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
He will be a Gentile (Revelation 13:1). He is portrayed as "coming up out of the sea." The sea is used in prophecy as a symbol of the Gentile nations. See Daniel 7:3, Luke 21:25 and Revelation 17:1.
He will rise out of the revived Roman Empire (Daniel 2:31-45 and 7:1-8, 24-28).
He will be an egotistical braggart (Daniel 7:8, Daniel 11:36-37, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and Revelation 13:5).
He will be a blasphemer (Daniel 11:36, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and Revelation 13:5-6).
He will be strong-willed (Daniel 8:24 and Daniel 11:36).
He will show contempt for human traditions by changing the laws and the calendar (Daniel 7:25).
He will be shrewd and deceitful (Daniel 8:23 & 25, Psalm 43:1, and Psalm 52:2).
He will be a destructive man of bloodshed (Psalm 5:6 and Daniel 8:24-25).
He will persecute believers (Daniel 7:21 and Revelation 13:7).
He will be a sexual pervert (Daniel 11:37).
He will be a militarist (Daniel 11:38).
He will be possessed by Satan (Daniel 8:24, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, and Revelation 13:2).
His nature is also reflected in the titles he is given in Scripture:
"The Beast" (Revelation 13:1)
"The Man of Lawlessness" (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
"The Son of Destruction" (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
"The Despicable Person" (Daniel 11:21)
"The Willful King" (Daniel 11:36)
"The Worthless Shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17)
"The Insolent King" (Daniel 8:23)
Posted with permission
From the Jan/Feb 2009 edition of the Lamplighter magazine.
Characteristics of the Antichrist
(from page 191 of the book "Global Warning")
1. Intellectual genius Daniel 7:20
2. Oratorical genius Daniel 7:20
3. Political genius Daniel 11:21
4. Commercial genius Daniel 8:25
5. Military genius Daniel 8:24
6. Administrative genius Revelation 13:1-2
7. Religious genius 2 Thessalonians 2:4
Perhaps the most telling of his characteristics is depicted in Daniel 11:21, which tells us that he will come to power and "seize it through intrigue" ("flatteries" KJV)
From page 189-190: Whether the Antichrist is a Jew or a Gentile is not clearly answered in the New Testament. Most Bible prophecy scholars believe he will be a Gentile because....
1. He will lead the European union of Gentile nations Daniel 7:8-24
2. His covenant with Israel will promise Gentile protection for Israel Daniel 9:27
3. His rule is part of the "time of the Gentiles" and their domination over Israel Luke 21:24
These passages make it clear that the Antichrist will lead the Western powers, but they do not specifically designate him as a Gentile. It is entirely possible that he could be of Jewish origin or nationality and still be a European or American Jew who leads the final forum of the future world government. The fact that Daniel 11:37 says that he will not regard the "God of his fathers" can also be translated "gods of his fathers". This makes his background inconclusive. However the typical exegesis of Daniel 11:37 has focused on his atheistic beliefs, regardless of whether he is a Jew or Gentile.
So the Antichrist is clearly said to be an unbeliever.
Me: Keep in mind that the Antichrist will only be revealed AFTER the Rapture. So while it may be interesting to speculate, that's all it will be: speculation. Obviously if we are as close to the end as we think, then the Antichrist must be alive right now. But keep in mind too that Satan has had to have a man ready to be the Antichrist in every generation because he doesn't know when the end is either!
More:
We are told quite a bit about this coming world leader, Satans counterfeit messiah, who will someday soon rise in power . .
- He will be indwelt and empowered by Satan
- He will rise to power over 10 nations [from the old Roman Empire ... Europe?!
- He will somehow be 'diverse from the rest' so we are not certain he will be European
- He will bring peace, yet conquer through treaties and war
- He will be very, very popular around the world
- He will be a great talker and speech maker
- He will likely be charismatic and physically attractive, like King Saul
- He will receive what appears to be a fatal wound to the head
- He will appear to be resurrected from the dead
- His right eye may be blinded and his arm completely withered
- He will enforce a "peace" plan or resolution [covenant] upon nation Israel
[It doesnt say he signs this treaty, but he enforces some coming 'peace plan' or resolution]
- He may help to get the new Jewish Temple built in Jerusalem
- He will appear to perform miracles ("lying signs and wonders")
- He will require that everybody on Earth receive a mark or identification on their forehead or hand and nobody will legally be able to buy or sell without it
- He will stand in a new Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and declare he is "God"
- Unspeakable terror and war will then engulf Earth for exactly 3½ years (1260 days)
- He will direct the slaughter of millions of Christians and Jews
- He will lead the armies of the world into Israel . . . Armageddon.
www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html
Origins Of The Antichrist
By Nathan Jones
In Origins of the Antichrist: Polled we looked at visitor responses to the poll question: "Where will the Antichrist arise from?" In seeking his origins we looked at the Antichrist's character and career. Today we get into the heart of the question.
In Origins of the Antichrist: Polled we looked at visitor responses to the poll question: "Where will the Antichrist arise from?" In seeking his origins we looked at the Antichrist's character and career. Today we get into the heart of the question.
Will he be a Greek?
And so, where will this sinister person come from? Some have speculated that he will come out of Syria since one of his prophetic types in history — Antiochus Epiphanes (215-164 BC) — was a Syrian tyrant. But Antiochus was actually of Greek heritage. Could he therefore be a Greek? It is not likely.
Will he be a Jew?
Many assume he will be because Jesus said, "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him" (John 5:43). Based on this statement, people ask, "How could the Jews possibly receive a Gentile as their Messiah?"
But the Bible does not teach that the Jews will receive the Antichrist as their Messiah. It teaches they will accept him as a great political leader and diplomat and that they will put their trust in him as the guarantor of peace in the Middle East.
But the moment he reveals himself as the Antichrist by desecrating the Jew's rebuilt Temple and blaspheming God, the Jewish people will revolt. They will reject him as Messiah, and he will respond in fury by attempting to annihilate them.
The Antichrist does not have to be a Jew. And, in fact, the Bible makes it clear that he will be a Gentile. In Revelation 13:1 he is portrayed as a "beast coming up out of the sea." The sea is used consistently throughout the prophetic scriptures as a symbol of the Gentile nations (Daniel 7:3; Luke 21:25; and Revelation 17:1).
By contrast, the Antichrist's right hand man, the False Prophet, who will serve as his religious leader, will be a Jew. This is revealed in Revelation 13:11 where it says that John saw "another beast coming up out of the earth [literally, the land]." Just as the sea is used symbolically in prophecy to refer to the Gentile nations, the land (or earth) is used to refer to Israel. This does not mean the False Prophet will be an Orthodox Jew. It only means that he will be of Jewish heritage. Religiously, he will be an apostate Jew who will head up the One World Religion of the Antichrist.
Will he be a Muslim?
If Russia and Iran are wiped out in the Ezekiel 38-39 attack in which God miraculously delivers Israel, and Israel’s surrounding nations seem to be non-players in most of the Tribulation, probably because their Psalm 83 Jewish subjugation, then how could Islam dominate the Middle East and thereby have the Antichrist be of Muslim origins? It would seem such defeats would dishearten any Muslim. Also, if the Antichrist is supposedly not into women and could be a homosexual (Dan. 11:37), the Muslims would immediately want him put to death. Also, the Antichrist glorifies himself. Even the Muslim messiah called the Mahdi couldn’t do that, for a Muslim worship is for Allah alone. And, to reunify all former Roman Empire lands, Antichrist will have to go eastward to grab the Middle East riches that Israel will already be claiming, requiring a peace treaty to achieve.
These and other verses would conclude that Islam is just another false religious system that will be wiped out before the Antichrist installs his religious system.
Will he be from the United States?
Because of the Daniel 9:26 reference to the Antichrist coming from the people who "will destroy the city and the sanctuary," the only way the Unites States would qualify would be if the Antichrist was Italian-American. Not only is this highly improbable, but the total lack of reference to the United States being a power in the end times in the Bible and the powerhouse that the EU will have right after the Rapture, it appears the United States would not have the clout in the eyes of the world to raise a world leader.
Will he be from the European Union?
It is much more likely that he will rise out of the heartland of the old Roman Empire and that he will be of Italian descent. This conclusion is based upon a statement in Daniel 9:26. In that passage the Antichrist is referred to as "the prince who is to come," and he is identified as being from the people who "will destroy the city and the sanctuary."
We know from history that both Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple were destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Therefore, according to Daniel, the Antichrist must be of Roman heritage.
Will he begin again, rising from the dead?
There is one other issue concerning the origin of the Antichrist that we need to consider. Many argue that he will be a person resurrected from the dead — most likely Nero or Judas Iscariot. This assumption is based on a statement in Revelation 13:1-3 where John describes the Antichrist as a beast with seven heads. He then makes the observation that one of his heads appeared "as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed." He comments that "the whole earth was amazed" by this and therefore "followed after the beast" (Revelation 13:3).
The problem with this interpretation is that "the fatal wound" referred to in the passage has nothing to do with the person of the Antichrist. The seven heads represent seven Gentile empires — namely, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the final empire of the Antichrist. The head with the fatal wound that has been healed is the Roman Empire. We know this from the book of Daniel where it is prophesied that the Roman Empire will be the last of the Gentile empires until the end times when the empire of the Antichrist will emerge from a reunited Europe — that is, from a revival of the old Roman Empire (Daniel 2:31-45 and 7:1-8, 24-28).
The prophecies of Daniel have proved to be absolutely accurate. The Roman Empire was the last of the Gentile empires. It disintegrated into the nation-state system that has prevailed to this day. There have been numerous military attempts to resurrect the Roman Empire, most notably by Napoleon and Hitler. Today, the core of the Empire is coalescing before our eyes through diplomatic means, producing a united Europe that will serve as the base for the rise of the Antichrist.
Another passage that is used to justify the idea of the Antichrist being a resurrected person is Zechariah 11:17 — "Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves the flock! A sword will be on his arm and on his right eye! His arm will be totally withered, and his right eye will be blind."
It is argued that this passage indicates that the Antichrist will be a person who has suffered a fatal wound. Now, there is no doubt this passage refers to the Antichrist, but some believe it is talking about his fate rather than his origin. Using symbolic language, the prophet could be saying that divine judgment (the sword) will fall upon the Antichrist's power (his arm) and his intelligence (his eye), and that he will suffer complete defeat (the withering of his arm and the blinding of his eye).
The idea that the Antichrist will be a resurrected person raises a serious theological problem concerning the power of Satan. The Scriptures make it clear that the Antichrist will be Satan's man, empowered by him and possessed by him. But there is no indication in Scripture that Satan has the power to give life to anyone. Satan is not omnipotent. Jesus is the one who has "the keys to death and Hades" (Revelation 1:18).
Is he alive today?
One of the most commonly asked questions is whether or not the Antichrist is alive today. I believe he is, and I believe so for two reasons. First, I believe the Scriptures teach that the generation that sees the re-establishment of Israel (May 14, 1948) will live to see all the end time prophecies fulfilled (Matthew 24: 32-34). Second, I believe the signs of the times clearly indicate that we are standing on the threshold of the Tribulation, the most important of those signs being the regathering of the Jews to their land (Isaiah 11:10-12) and their re-occupation of the city of Jerusalem (Luke 21:24).
If the Antichrist is alive today, does he know who he is? I think not. I don't think he has the foggiest idea of the role that Satan has in mind for him. He will not become the Antichrist until Satan possesses him and empowers him to deceive Europe and the Jews. His full revelation will not occur until he enters the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem in the middle of the Tribulation and declares himself to be god.
The next post can give the believer in Christ hope, for the Antichrist's fate is already sealed.
posted with permission
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2008/11/origins-of-antichrist.html
In a book called Prophecy 20/20 by Dr. Chuck Missler. He brought up a passage in the old Testament that seems to give a small description of the Antichrist perhaps after an injury.
Zechariah 11:17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
Missler goes on to say that a withered arm and blinded right eye may perhaps be why people pledge allegiance to him by taking an insignia upon their right hand or on their foreheads.
Q & A About the Antichrist
By Dave Hunt
Question: The idea that the Antichrist will be resurrected from the dead by Satan seems to be the prevailing opinion among evangelical pretrib teachers. I would appreciate your opinion.
Response: This popular idea comes from Revelation 13:3. For example, in his book, The Prewrath Rapture of the Church, Marvin Rosenthal states, "According to the Word of God, the Antichrist is a man who lived before. He ruled one of the seven great empires which directly impacted Israel....He will literally be raised from the dead. Concerning this raised ruler...the Word of God has much to say. 'And I saw one of his heads as though it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed...' (Rev 13:3)."
Note, however, that it is one of the beast's seven heads, not all of them, that is affected. Furthermore, the head (much less the beast) is not killed but appears "as though it were wounded to death." Seemingly, the beast could have died from this wound, but verses 3 and 12 declare that its "deadly wound was healed." So we have a healing, not a resurrection.
I believe it is referring to the Roman Empire which has indeed suffered from a deadly wound but has never died and is being revived before our eyes. Only God can raise the dead. Satan has no such power. At best he might pull off a "fake death and resurrection" of Antichrist, which John MacArthur suggests in his Study Bible as a possibility.
posted with permission
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2009/03/q_25.html
Q & A About the Antichrist
By Jack Kelley
Q. I really have heard that Assyrian Antichrist idea so many times, but not from people I believe are well grounded prophecy teachers. I have heard some well known teachers refute it and I agree with them because it is not proven by the Word. Can you please elaborate on this teaching?
A. Since I don’t subscribe to the Assyrian Anti-Christ idea, I can only tell you why I don’t. I think proponents of this theory have two major problems. One is their misinterpretation of Isaiah 52:4 that I described in detail in this week’s feature article, The End Times According to Isaiah, Part 11.
The other is their claim that since the Roman Army that destroyed the Temple in 70 AD was supposedly made up largely of Assyrian conscripts, and since Daniel 9:26 hints that the anti-Christ will come from the people who destroyed the Temple, that means the anti-Christ has to be Assyrian.
Let’s say the Roman Legions really were filled with Assyrian soldiers. Assyria was part of the Roman Empire, their leaders were Roman, they were fighting under direct orders from Rome, they wore Roman uniforms and they were paid by Rome. Were it not for Rome the Assyrians wouldn’t have even been there. Simple logic would say it was the Romans who destroyed the Temple.
posted with permission
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2009/03/q_26.html
The Antichrist: East vs. West
By Britt Gillette
One of the great mysteries concerning bible prophecy and the end times is the national identity of the Antichrist. This is an important topic because it will eventually aid the last days generation of Christians in the correct identification of the Antichrist.
Lately, it seems this subject has created a rift within the community of those who study bible prophecy.
One side believes scripture points to the Antichrist coming from Assyria and the Eastern portion of the ancient Roman Empire, while the other side believes scripture points to the Antichrist coming from Italy and the Western portion of the ancient Roman Empire.
Many, but not all, of those in both camps believe their side is right and the other side is wrong.
Fortunately, the Bible provides us with several details regarding the nationalistic origins of this sinister personality…
His Italian Roman Nationality
Although much debate surrounds the Antichrist’s national identity, the Book of Daniel clearly states that the Antichrist will rise from among the people whose armies destroy the Temple.
“A ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple.” Daniel 9:26 (NLT)
The City and the Temple referenced in this passage were destroyed in A.D. 70 by Titus and the Roman legions, but Titus was not the ruler referenced in this verse.
Daniel 9:27 describes the ruler as one who will make a seven-year treaty with Israel, put an end to the sacrifices and offerings, and set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration. These are events that will be fulfilled in the life of the Antichrist.
According to Daniel, the Antichrist will be connected in some way to the people who destroyed the Temple.
Therefore, we can be certain that the Antichrist will rise not only from the resurrected Roman Empire, but from among people connected to the Roman people of the ancient Italian peninsula.
Despite arguments by some that the Roman armies were populated by persons from various ethnic backgrounds, including Assyrians, the fact remains that Titus is the prince who led the siege on the Temple. And the earthly power and authority of Titus came from Rome.
While Assyria may have been a part of the Roman Empire, the directive and the people responsible for the destruction of the Temple came forth from Rome, not Assyria.
So it’s rather hasty to dismiss the geopolitical significance of the City of Rome’s role in the destruction of the Temple, not to mention the City of Rome’s significance in the career of the Antichrist.
Does This Mean the Antichrist is Not Syrian?
Absolutely not.
Daniel Chapter 8 provides us with further clues in regard to the life and times of the Antichrist.
The angel Gabriel explains Daniel’s vision of a Ram and Goat as events relating to the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great. In a claim verified by history, Gabriel states that, following the death of Alexander, the empire will be divided into four parts.
From one of those four parts, the Antichrist will arise:
“The shaggy male goat represents the king of the Greek Empire. The four prominent horns that replaced the one large horn show that the Greek Empire will break into four sections with four kings, none of them as great as the first. At the end of their rule, when their sin is at its height, a fierce king, a master of intrigue, will rise to power. He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause a shocking amount of destruction and succeed in everything he does. He will destroy powerful leaders and devastate the holy people.” Daniel 8:21-24 (NLT)
Daniel Chapter 11 provides an in-depth examination of the history of the breakup Alexander’s empire, describing historical events relating to the King of the North and the King of the South. The latter part of the chapter describes the Antichrist, identifying him with other historical figures who have held the title “King of the North.”
This, along with the passage cited above, clearly links the Antichrist to the Northern Kingdom of the divided Greek Empire. This kingdom was ruled by one of Alexander’s generals, Seleucus, who ruled the areas of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Antichrist will in some way be linked to this geographic area of the Middle East as well.
Isaiah Chapter 10
In addition to Daniel 8, the prophet Isaiah also offers some interesting insight concerning a “king of Assyria”:
“After the Lord has used the king of Assyria to accomplish his purposes in Jerusalem, he will turn against the king of Assyria and punish him – for he is proud and arrogant. He boasts, ‘By my own power and wisdom I have won these wars. By my own strength I have captured many lands, destroyed their kings, and carried off their treasures. By my greatness I have robbed their nests of riches and gathered up kingdoms as a farmer gathers eggs. No one can even flap a wing against me or utter a peep of protest.” Isaiah 10:12-14 (NLT)
Although not directly identified by Isaiah, this king of Assyria bears a striking resemblance to the Antichrist. Both the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation describe the Antichrist as proud and arrogant, boasting arrogantly and blaspheming God Himself. His boast that “no one can even flap a wing against me or utter a peep of protest” also fits the description of the Antichrist as given in the Book of Revelation:
“They worshiped the dragon for giving the beast such power, and they worshiped the beast. ‘Is there anyone as great as the beast?’ they exclaimed. ‘Who is able to fight against him?’” Revelation 13:4 (NLT)
Isaiah 10, coupled with Daniel 8, lends support to the idea that the Antichrist will somehow be connected, either by ethnic origin or political power, to this region of the world.
Is It East or West?
It is an absolute certainty that the Antichrist will arrive on the world scene as the ruler of a revived Roman empire. However, it is less certain whether or not he will be of actual Italian descent or some other ethnic background. And it’s also uncertain whether his central power base will initially be located in the eastern or western portion of the ancient Roman Empire.
Several verses of scripture offer the possibility that he could be Assyrian, Italian, Greek, or Jewish. But none offer us the definitive statement contained in Daniel 9:26.
So how do we rectify these seemingly contradictory prophecies concerning the Antichrist’s nationality? Is he Roman? Italian? Jewish? Assyrian? Greek?
Who says the Antichrist has to be exclusively one or the other?
Maybe he’s an Assyrian Jew born and raised in Italy, or maybe he’s an Italian who brings Assyria to the pinnacle of world political and military power. Any number of possible combinations are possible. We simply don’t know for certain.
But history indicates that each of these prophecies will be harmonized when the Antichrist finally appears.
The Origins of the Messiah…
How can I be so sure?
Because two thousand years ago, the seemingly contradictory prophecies of the first coming of the Messiah were all harmonized in the life of one man, Jesus Christ – the Nazarene born in Bethlehem who came out of Egypt.
The Messiah will come out of Bethlehem….
“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village in Judah. Yet a ruler of Israel will come from you, one whose origins are from the distant past.” Micah 5:2 (NLT)
The Messiah will come out of Galilee…
“Nevertheless, that time of darkness and despair will not go on forever. The land of Zebulun and Naphtali will soon be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with glory. The people who walk in darkness will see a great light – a light that will shine on all who live in the land where death casts its shadow.” Isaiah 9:1-2 (NLT)
The Messiah will come out of Egypt…
“When Israel was a child, I loved him as a son, and I called my son out of Egypt.” Hosea 11:1 (NLT)
Before Jesus Christ fulfilled these prophecies, Jewish factions debated the origins of the Messiah. They found it difficult to imagine that one man could fulfill all these prophecies.
With the benefit of hindsight, we now see how this was possible…
But for the Jewish scholars who lived before and during the ministry of Jesus, these prophecies sparked intense debate.
Would the Messiah come from Galilee, Bethlehem, or Egypt?
These differing viewpoints are put on display in the Book of John:
“When the crowds heard him say this, some of them declared, ‘Surely this man is the Prophet we’ve been expecting.’ Others said, ‘He is the Messiah.’ Still others said, ‘But he can’t be! Will the Messiah come from Galilee? For the Scriptures clearly state that the Messiah will be born of the royal line of David, in Bethlehem, the village where King David was born.’ So the crowd was divided about him. Some even wanted him arrested, but no one laid a hand on him.” John 7:40-44 (NLT)
and
“‘Have you been led astray, too?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us rulers or Pharisees who believes in him? This foolish crowd follows him, but they are ignorant of the law. God’s curse is on them!’ Then Nicodemus, the leader who had met with Jesus earlier, spoke up. ‘Is it legal to convict a man before he is given a hearing?’ he asked. They replied, ‘Are you from Galilee, too? Search the Scriptures and see for yourself – no prophet ever comes from Galilee!’” John 7:47-52 (NLT)
The complete answer eluded both the crowds and the Pharisees.
Since each person was absolutely convinced his position was the correct position, all of them failed to recognize the true and complete picture.
In similar fashion, a debate continues today in regard to the prophecies of the Antichrist and his national identity.
But regardless of how much we speculate on the ultimate real-life fulfillment of the scriptures, no one but God will know the absolute truth until it’s revealed at the appointed time.
Therefore, it’s unwise to establish a hard line position on a particular theory regarding this prophecy’s fulfillment – even those theories based on iron clad scriptural references. After all, even though your belief may be 100% accurate, that doesn’t mean someone else’s belief is false.
In many cases, two viewpoints which seem diametrically opposed, are in fact both true.
Your eyes offer a perfect illustration…
Close your left eye and look at the world through your right.
Now, close your right eye and look at the world through your left.
What did you see?
Both eyes saw the same thing from two different perspectives. But they didn’t see exactly the same thing…
Now, what if the left eye argued that the right was wrong; and the right eye argued that the left was wrong?
If that happens, both eyes fail to see that, taken separately or taken together, each viewpoint is correct…
Am I saying that no belief or viewpoint is false?
Absolutely not.
Some things are true, and some things are false.
But this case illustrates that just because one belief is true, that isn’t proof in-and-of itself that another belief is false.
So don’t become wedded to the idea that the Antichrist is Assyrian, and therefore anyone who says the Antichrist will come from Western Europe is wrong. Likewise, don’t become wedded to the idea that the Antichrist is Italian, and therefore anyone who says he’ll come from Assyria is wrong.
You might both be right.
But the importance of the matter has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. The importance is in each belief’s scriptural origin. For the study of bible prophecy leads people to examine God’s Word, and by examining God’s Word, people are led to Christ.
So by studying these prophecies and teaching them to others, Christians of the end times generation will be able to positively identify the Antichrist based on the sound Scriptural evidence outlined by those who trod before them.
And the work of that last generation will be much easier if we present them with a unified body of unbiased scriptural references – starting points so they can examine the bible themselves…
This is one of the greatest benefits of studying bible prophecy, and upon His Return, I hope the Lord Jesus Christ finds us actively engaged in spreading knowledge of the truth found in His Word and not our deeply held human beliefs.
In the meantime, may we live with a patient and enduring faith that His Return is soon upon us.
posted with permission
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2009/04/antichrist-east-vs-west.html
Will The Antichrist Be A Jew?
Dr. David R. Reagan
Will the Antichrist be a Jew or a Gentile?
Most Christian are aware of the fact that there is a lot of disagreement about the interpretation of Bible prophecy between those who have completely different viewpoints, like the arguments between those who are Premillennial and Amillennial. But, what many people are not aware of is that there are some strong points of disagreement between those that take a literal viewpoint of end-time prophecies.
Recently, I attended a major Bible Prophecy conference in the Dallas area where I had the opportunity to interview a number of Bible prophecy experts. Out of 11 Bible prophecy experts I interviewed, only 3 said they felt like the Antichrist would be a Jew or that he could possibly be one. We'll start with one yes/no answer, one could be, and one maybe. The next seven people responded with a negative reply. The final expert I interviewed answer may surprise you. Finally, I'll conclude with my response.
Phillip Goodman
I do. I believe that he could, but I don't think the Bible tells us. The evidence is not strong enough.
There is a passage in Daniel 11:37 that says he will reject the god or the gods of his fathers. The language is not strong enough in there from the original language to let us know whether it is a plural or a singular. And, that is the primary passage that most people go to say that perhaps he is a Jew. Because if it is the god of his father, it is a very similar phrase we find all over the Old Testament. It is used of the Jews. Yet, that also could be a Muslim, so the evidence is not strong enough in the Bible really to tell us what his origination is in terms of a religious origin.
So, we have to look to the geographic/geopolitical evidence in the Bible to find out where he comes from. He could be a Jew. I am not convinced of it. I think he is a Gentile, because he will be ruling over the time of the Gentiles, according to Daniel 2 and also in Revelation. There is stronger evidence that he will be a Gentile.
Don Perkins
He could be, and my reasons for that is 2 Thessalonians 2, where the Scripture tells us that when the Antichrist comes into the Temple he will literally go into the Temple as God. Which the Temple would be in Jerusalem and he would be worshipped there as God. Now for that fact I believe that the Antichrist could be a Jew. I believe that Israel could literally worship him as a Jewish Messiah. Now, I know that goes a little different against other people's views or whatever, but I do believe that could very well be the case. He could be a Jew.
Todd Strandberg
I think he probably will be a Jew or it is highly likely, because the Antichrist is going to be a replacement for Christ, so he probably will be very much a mirror of Christ. Maybe the same age he will be. He will probably have to be Jewish, because the Jews won't accept someone who is not Jewish as Messiah, so I believe it very strongly. They are going to make lots of mistakes by accepting him as their Messiah. So, they might go beyond accepting someone who is not. They should accept him. The only reason they should accept him is because he is a Jew.
Daymond Duck
No, I don't think the Antichrist will be a Jew.
First, let's deal with a couple controversial passages on this issue concerning the Antichrist in Daniel 11:37. You can go to the King James Version of the Bible and there you will read that it says, "Neither shall he regard the god of his father." You can go to the New International Version or other translations and they will read neither shall he regard the gods (plural) of his fathers. Now, those who think the word is god singular, they say the Antichrist will come out of a monotheistic religion and he will probably be a Jew. Those who think the correct translation is gods plural say he will come out of a polytheistic religion and he will be a Gentile. Now, I am not enough an expert to settle whether it should it should be "god" or "gods." That has gone on for a long time, and I don't know anyone that has ever settled it.
Another controversial passage is John 5:43 and Jesus said, "I have come in my Father's name and you have received me not. If another shall come in his own name, him will you receive." And now you get into what Jesus meant by the word "receive." Some say that means that the Jews would receive him as Messiah, and they reason that the Antichrist will be a Jew because the Jews wouldn't receive someone as their Messiah who wasn't a Jew. And then there are others who say when Jesus said "receive" that meant that the Jews will receive him as a great leader who would guarantee the seven year covenant for peace in the Middle East. So, you got those two views. Those who think the Jews will receive him as a great leader, then they will believe that he will be a Gentile.
I don't guess I could settle this issue on either one of those passages of Scripture. But, I do think we have other passages of Scripture on this issue and here now I am talking about Daniel 7:3 and Revelation 13:1 where the Antichrist is described as a beast coming up out of the sea. And, of course, we know the sea is a symbol for multitudes, nations, peoples, tongues... in other words, for Gentiles. And so, I believe that those passages teach that the Antichrist will be a Gentile.
Don McGee
I do not believe that he will be a Jew, basically, for some of the same reasons he will not be a Muslim. Antichrist is going to be a man that is going to demand or command world-wide attention. For a Jew to be in that position would be a very, very long shot. But, if you take someone who comes from the European community, specifically with the credentials that a lot of those people have, he will be in a position automatically to be accepted by the entire world. Just like the Antichrist will probably not be a Muslim because of a religious connotation, so too will the Antichrist not be a person associated with any type of religion except the one he is going to institute for himself.
Nathan Jones
I don't. If you go to Revelation 13, it talks about the Beast that comes out of the sea. And typically, throughout the Bible, anything that is related to the sea is an outside nation from Israel. It is a Gentile nation. And, if you go to Revelation 13, it talks about a second beast, and I think this is the one we are talking about in that the False Prophet very well could be a Jew because he is the beast that comes from the land, and the land is always a reference for Israel. So, no, I do not think the Antichrist will be a Jew.
Donald Fruchtenbaum
Now again, the passages in Daniel 9:26-27 specifies that he will be of the same ethnic identity as the people who destroyed the city and the Temple. And, in AD 70, it was the Romans that did so, which is why he has to be not only a Gentile, but a Gentile specifically of Roman origin.
Al Gist
No, I don't believe that he will be a Jew. I believe that when he makes his covenant with Israel that he will be speaking to a Jewish leader, probably the man who will end up being the False Prophet, and I do not believe that he will be a Jew. Some people believe this because they think he will claim to be the Jewish Messiah. But, I don't find enough biblical support to accept that. I believe that he will be an apostate Gentile, just like the Caesars of the Roman Empire. He will claim to be God, but he will be an apostate Gentile. I don't think he will be a Jew.
Mark Hitchcock
I think the biblical evidence is that the Antichrist will be a Gentile. He is going, according to Daniel, to lead the final great Gentile world empire, which seems inconsistent for a Jew to be the leader of the final great Gentile world empire. All the other empires in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, the leaders of those were all Gentiles. Also, he is going to mercilessly persecute the Jewish people, which seems strange to me for a Jewish person to be persecuting his own people. Also, in Daniel 8, the only clear type of Antichrist in the Bible is Antiochus Epiphanes who was a Gentile, Syrian. And, also in the book of Revelation 13, this beast, this Antichrist figure rises out of the sea. In Revelation 17:15, it tells us the sea is representative of the nations. So, for those reasons, to me it seems clear that the Antichrist is going to be a Gentile.
Ed Hindson
No, absolutely not! I don't think the Antichrist is Jewish. I think the Antichrist, first of all, is a person who makes a treaty with the Jews. It isn't likely a Jew would make a treaty with the Jews. He is a leader of Gentile nations, if we can understand the prophecy in Daniel 9 correctly. If he is the leader of the revived Roman Empire — the leader that comes out of Europe — it is not likely that he is Jewish. He is, first of all an unbeliever, so it doesn't matter what his nationality is. He is not a believer. He does not regard the gods of his fathers or the gods of any faith system at all. He is what we call an atheist and an unbeliever who really ultimately thinks he is God. And, he will go to the Temple in Israel claiming to be God and demand the world worship him as God. So, in a sense, he is theocentric in the wrong sense in that he thinks he is God and everybody should worship him.
Ray Gano
I actually believe that the Antichrist will be of Hebrew descendent — Hebrew blood — but also practice the Muslim religion, and I use Daniel 11:37 to illustrate this. It talks in there that he shall not regard the god of his fathers in this phrase"god of his fathers," which is always associated to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In fact, this statement "god of his fathers" is only used five times in Scripture. In every time it is associated to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So I look at that.
Another thing that I look at is that we learn in Genesis 49:17 the tribe of Dan (these are last day prophecies that Jacob gave to his sons) and it says in Genesis 49:17, "That a serpent shall cause the rider to fall backwards." So, there is possibility that he actually may come out of the tribe of Dan. I also use Revelation 7:1-8 to back this up because this, the chapter where it talks about the 144,000 Dan is not named in the 144,000. So, there is speculation here or there is Scriptural evidence here I believe that shows that he will have Hebrew ancestry.
Yet, on the other side, he will also practice the Muslim religion, because we go to Daniel 11:38 and it says, "He shall honor the god of forces; and the god whom his fathers knew not." And so, he will not regard the god of his fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He will honor the god of forces, or a god of war which I believe is Allah, and it is a god that his fathers knew not. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know about Allah, did not have any conception of Allah.
Another verse that people point to often is showing that he comes from the people of the prince. The verse they use is Daniel 9:26. And, in this, people often say that he comes from Rome. I believe that he comes from the Roman Empire, but I don't believe that he is Italian in descent, which a lot of people are pointing to. There's the Roman Empire. The eastern leg of the Roman Empire comes out of Constantinople, and Constantinople ruled for a 1,000 years after Rome ceded. And, the reason they point to this is the Tenth Legion of Rome that Titus invaded Israel and Jerusalem and overthrew that area in 70 AD. Titus was the only person who was pretty much of Roman descent, but he was an individual, not people plural. There was another individual. His associate's name was Tiberius Julius Alexander and he was actually the general that did all the work. Titus took the glory, Tiberius Julius did the work. Now the interesting thing is Tiberius Julius was actually an Egyptian Jew born in Alexandria. So, again, both of these people are individuals. It's the people of the prince. Well, history tells us the Tenth Legion was basically hired mercenaries, people from the area. That is what Rome always did. Any of the legions that Rome created they usually pulled from the local people right there. So the Tenth legion, who comprised of the Tenth Legion? They were Middle Eastern Arabs, Syrian, Moabites, Edomites — basically the enemies of Israel. Garrisons of the Tenth Legion were stationed in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, so forth, at no time were they ever stationed in Rome. It was only when Titus came back in victory when he entered Rome, and so it was the people of the prince, and I am saying that it is the people who invaded Israel and that was the Tenth Legion were the soldiers and not the individuals.
One more point is if he is of Roman or European descent — Italian descent — I question his names in Scripture. He is clearly called "the Assyrian." He is called the "Prince of Tyre." He is called "King of Babylon." He is called the "King Pharaoh of Egypt." These are all Middle Eastern titles, Middle Eastern names, and Middle Eastern places. If he was from either like Italy or Europe or something, why isn't he called the King of Italy, or the Duke of Germany, or the Prince of Rome, or something like that? I tend to read Scripture literally and maintain a basics in literalness and the golden rule of interpretation. I don't just dig into it more. And so, with these names I point to a Middle Eastern side.
Dr. David Reagan
That unique answer by Ray Gano to the question "Will the Antichrist be a Jew?" gives us a final total of 7 no's, 1 yes, 1 could be, 1 maybe, and 1 yes/no.
Now, until fairly recently, I would say that the majority viewpoint among those who interpret Bible prophecy literally was that the Antichrist will be a Jew. That was primarily due to a statement of Jesus that is recorded in John 5:43, where Jesus is quoted as saying, "I have come in my Father's name and you do not receive me, if another shall come in his own name you will receive him." Now the argument drawn from this statement was that the Antichrist would have to be a Jew in order for the Jews to accept him as their Messiah. It's a very logical argument, but it ignores the fact that other passages in the Bible make it very clear that the Jews will never accept the Antichrist as their Messiah. In fact, we are specifically told that when the Antichrist reveals himself in the middle of the Tribulation and claims to be God the Jews will be horrified and will totally reject him, causing him to turn on them in fury and launch an attempt to annihilate them.
So, what did Jesus mean when he said, "That if another shall come in his own name the Jews will receive him?" Well, those who argue that the Antichrist will be a Gentile responded by saying that the Antichrist will be accepted by the Jewish people as their political savior when he implements a treaty at the beginning of the Tribulation that will guarantee their security and enable them to rebuild their Temple. But, the Jews will never receive the Antichrist as their spiritual Savior, thus when he declares himself as God, they will reject him.
My conclusion is there is no Biblical reason that the Antichrist must be a Jew. And, there is some very strong Biblical evidence that he will be a Gentile. For example, Revelation 13:1 pictures him as a beast arising out of the sea. This is, of course, symbolic language, but it is significant because in the Bible and in Bible prophecy the sea is used to symbolize Gentile nations. For example, in Daniel 7 where there is a prophecy about four great Gentile empires, it refers to them as coming up from the sea. In contrast, the Antichrist's right-hand man and spiritual leader is pictured in Revelation 13:11 as rising up out of the land, or the earth in some translations. This reference to the land is an indication that the False Prophet will be a Jew who will rise out of the promise land of Israel.
Now, there is a logical reason we can assume that the Antichrist will be a Gentile, and it is one that Mark Hitchcock mentioned in his answer. And that is the fact that the book of Daniel reveals that the Antichrist is going to be the leader of the last great Gentile empire. It is simply not logical to assume that such an empire would be headed up by a Jew. Also, it is not logical to assume that a Jew would attempt to annihilate the Jewish people as the Antichrist will try to do. Finally, the clearest type of the Antichrist in the Scriptures is Antiochus Epiphanes who was a Greek tyrant.
posted with permission
www.lamblion.us/2009/05/will-antichrist-be-jew.html
Al Gist
I don't think there is sufficient evidence in the Bible to come to that conclusion. I am convinced he will be a Gentile. He will be the last great Gentile leader. The last kingdom will be the revived Roman Empire lead by the Antichrist. And, I think Daniel 2 gives us that time span for the time of the Gentiles, which began with the Babylonian Empire with Nebuchadnezzar and will end with the Antichrist and his Empire. So, I believe that he is the last great Gentile leader, but to say that he is a Muslim Gentile, I don't think we have enough evidence to say that positively.
One problem I have with that idea is the thought the Antichrist when he commits the abomination of desolation will sit in the Temple in Jerusalem and claim to be God. I just can't quite see a Muslim sitting in the Temple claiming to be Allah. I think that's a stretch and I just don't see it. So, I have my doubts about that. I think there is some evidence that he could possible be Syrian. And from that perspective, because Syria is mostly Muslim, I guess there is that possibility. I also believe the Muslims will have a large role to play in the Last Days events and wars. But I really wouldn't say positively that he's going to be Muslim, only that he would be a Gentile.
Phillip Goodman
I don't think it makes any difference and here is why, because the Antichrist during the initial stage of his rise is going to partner with all the religions of the world. And he is going to be part of the great harlot system. At that point, no Muslim would do that; no Jew would do that who were orthodox. He is not official revealed as the Antichrist until the abomination of desolation and that is what the Lord says in Matthew 24:15 and Paul confirms it in Second Thessalonians. At that point, he rejects all the religions of the world. He rejects the gods of his fathers according to Daniel 11 and he exalts himself and magnifies himself above every so called god. So, in other words, there is no possible way he could be a Muslim, of course, and put Allah beneath his feet, which he will be doing at that point. He will exalt himself above every so called god including the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So, he is going to be unique in that respect in all of history. Antiochus Epiphanies the strongest type of the Antichrist magnified himself to the extent that he claimed to be God manifest, but he didn't put himself above all gods. He put the god Jupiter in the temple and was a strong type of Antichrist, but this guy is unique in all of history.
So, where he comes from is the real question. Is he going to come from the area of Muslims, or where the Jews are? It is my belief that he will come from the Middle East. He will arise there. I think the Biblical evidence points in that direction. But, the time he is revealed he is not going to be a Muslim. He's not going to be a Jew. He is going to proclaim himself to be God and not identify with any other god. He is going to reject all the other gods.
In the next article, the remaining nine who were asked "Will the Antichrist be a Muslim?" will give their reasons why they answered "No."
posted with permission
www.lamblion.us/2009/06/will-antichrist-be-muslim-yes-or-maybe.html
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2009/06/will-antichrist-be-muslim-yes-or-maybe.html
Will The Antichrist Be Killed And Resurrected?
By Nathan Jones
There is a mysterious passage in Revelation 13 that implies the Antichrist might be killed and resurrected from the dead in the middle of the Tribulation. Is this what the passage means, or does it mean something else? Will the Antichrist be killed and resurrected from the dead? Lamb & Lion Ministries sought out eleven different Bible prophecy experts and asked this question. Of those eleven, two said yes, one said it was doubtful, and eight gave a firm no. Let's take a look at all eleven answers.
The following two experts answered "yes."
Arnold Fruchtenbaum
I would have to say, yes, because the very same term used of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:1-2) is also used of the true son (Revelation 5:6) as though he had been slain. In the case of Jesus, He didn't appear to be dead. He really did die. Under normal experience He should have remained dead. And so, He was alive because of resurrection. And the phrase "though he had been slain" is the Greek idiom for resurrected individual, was used of the true son in chapter 5 and is used of the counterfeit son in chapter 13. You have to understand the same way. He will be killed in this war against the 10 kings. He will be raised back to life by Satan's power. He will continue the war, kill 3 kings, then several will submit to his authority. And, therefore, he will undergo as part of the counterfeit program a counterfeit death and resurrection.
Mark Hitchcock
Yeah, I think in the Scriptures it seems clear to me from Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 that the Antichrist is going to suffer a fatal wound and come back to life. Now, some people take that it refers to the empire, that the Roman Empire is going to suffer this fatal wound and then the Empire will be revived or come back to life.
But, I think it is better to see this as the individual himself. The same language is used of the death and resurrection of the Beast or Antichrist in Revelation 13 that is used of the death and resurrection of Jesus, now back in Revelation chapter 5. Now some people will say, "Now, how is it that Satan has the power to raise people, someone from the dead?" Cause back in Mark 2 Jesus raises this man up who is lame and it is sign that only God has the power to do that. But, it seems to me like in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 it says, "God will send a strong deluding influence upon people in the world so they will believe the lie." So I think that God will allow Satan to have the power to pull off this great miracle as part of that deluding influence, because obviously God is the only one that has the ultimate power to give life. But, I think that He is going to allow Satan to do that as part of the great delusion that will take place in the end times.
This expert was doubtful the resurrection was real.
Al Gist
Revelation 13 speaks of an assassination attempt I believe on the Antichrist. In fact, it even goes on the say that it will be from the use of a sword. But, it uses some words there that indicate that it may not be successful to the extent that he actually, literally dies. It uses the words as though he were dead, or something to that affect. So, I don't believe that he will literally die. However this event will cause the world to wonder after him. So, whether he dies literally or not, the world will be amazed at this feat where he appears to die certainly and then is miraculously, so to speak, healed and able to resume his leadership of the world. So, whether he actually dies or not, I think is questionable. I tend to believe that he would not die but only appear to die. That is my personal position.
The following experts responded that they do not believe the Antichrist will literally die and be resurrected.
Daymond Duck
No, I don't. And again, there is a lot of different views on this issue and I think the controversy centers primarily around how you interpret Revelation 13:3 and Revelation 13:11-14. If you go with 13:3, you come up with one way. If you go with Revelation 14 and Revelation 13:11-14, you come up with another way. At least some people do.
Now, those who go with Revelation 13:3, they say that it is one of the seven heads that has a deadly wound and it is healed. And they believe that is the not the Antichrist, but that Europe fell apart and was killed, or died and was healed and came back as the revived Roman Empire which was raised from the dead.
Those that go down to Revelation 13:11-14, they look at those verses and they believe that those verses are saying that the Antichrist will receive a deadly wound and be healed and raised from the dead. Now, when I look at Revelation 13:3, the way I read that it says "this head looks like," or "this head is as though," "this head appears as," however you want to phrase that, as though it had a deadly wound that was healed. Now to me, there is a little bit of difference in saying it looks like, or it were a wound, a deadly wound that was healed, and actually having a deadly wound that was healed.
What I am getting at, when I get down to Revelation 13:11-14, we start reading about the False Prophet, and we see the False Prophet forces people to worship the Antichrist. And the False Prophet uses wonders and signs to persuade people to believe that the Antichrist received a deadly wound that was healed and he was raised from the dead. In other words, the way I interpret that passage it's saying the False Prophet uses persecution and force and phony miracles and deceit to cause people to believe that the Antichrist was killed and raised from the dead. Not that he actually was killed and raised from the dead, but that he uses deceit and force and things like that to perpetrate that untruth, that false doctrine, or that lie.
Phillip Goodman
No, I do not. I don't think the Bible teaches that.
First of all, we have to look at it from a theological standpoint that the evidence that Jesus himself is the Son of God is because of the resurrection from the dead. That is unique in all of human history. As a matter of fact, I want to read a passage out of Romans chapter 1 that speaks to that affect. Romans 1:4 tells us that Jesus was declared the Son of God with power by what, by the Resurrection of the dead. So, we could not possibly have Jesus rising from the dead and saying, "I am the life and the resurrection." And Satan on the other hand coming up and saying, "So am I, I am the life and the resurrection also." And also the evidence in the Scriptures don't indicate that.
Revelation 2:18 tells us what it is like to be raised from the dead. Jesus says this, He says, "I am the first and the last I was dead and I have come to life." We never see that about the Antichrist. In Revelation 13 he's got 7 heads — 7 kingdoms — one of those is slain.
The real commentary on what really happens with the Antichrist is Revelation 17, it says, "He was, he is not and he will come." That is the language of reincarnation. That is not the language of resurrection. And Satan has raised up reincarnation as the chief antithesis of the resurrection all through history. Satan hates the Doctrine of the Resurrection because of the resurrection of the Son of God. But, when we look at "I was, he was, he is not, and he will come, he was in past history, he is not" during the time of John when John wrote that particular passage and he will come in the future. That is the most it says about the Antichrist and his origins. He will come up by the way out of the Abyss. That also is not the language of Resurrection. He will be indwelled by a spirit that comes up out of the Abyss. So he is two persons in one, he is a man, and he is a spirit from the Abyss. And, he comes up from the past a spirit who controlled a kingdom in the past, comes up and indwells the Antichrist, raises him up in the last days. And perhaps fakes a resurrection, but Satan does not have the power to perform resurrection.
Ray Gano
No! Actually, I back that up with a couple points. First point is a lot of people point to and make an assumption that the Antichrist is being raised from the dead based on Revelation 13:3. You know John describes a beast with seven heads and that one of these seven heads has a mortal wound and is resurrected and everything. There is problems with this. I see in Revelation 13:1-3 that this is not the Antichrist. This actually represents the seven Gentile nations. And, in this I see it's: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the final kingdom or empire that has the wounded head. It is the one people totally disregard and forget about — the Ottoman Empire.
Nathan Jones
That's a tough one. That could be a reference to the Roman Empire being wounded and being broken up for so many hundreds of years and reviving as the European Union. God does seem to like a lot of symbolism, though. If you look at the seven churches, the seven churches of Revelation were seven actually churches, they also represent time periods, and they also could be representative of the seven churches today. So, the Antichrist could very well have something that seems like he died and then rose again. But, Satan has no power over death. So, if it is a resurrection, it's going to be another counterfeit resurrection, a counterfeit miracle.
Todd Strandberg
No. The healing of that wound is the Roman Empire in which it has two stages. I believe when someone dies you are in God's hands. Only God can resurrect someone. I don't think the False Prophet can bring him back to life.
Don McGee
I don't believe the Antichrist is going to be killed and resurrected from the dead because only the Lord Jesus Christ has the power over death. If you look at those passages that have to do with the slaying or the mortal wound of the Antichrist, it says that John saw that he had a wound "as if" he had been slain. Not every mortal wound results in a fatality. People have been healed from wounds that would otherwise be mortal in nature, but for some reason they were not. And, I believe this is going to be a resuscitation more then anything else. I believe that it is going to be fakery. I believe that it is going to be trickery. It's going to be one more thing in the arsenal of the Antichrist to convince the whole world that he is their Messiah.
Ed Hindson
I do not. I differ here from some other prophecy preachers. I think that passage that says in Revelation one of his heads was wounded unto death represents the multi-headed facets of the kingdom of the Antichrist in the last days. I don't think that it is an individual that is attacked. I think that you have serious problems with saying Satan will have the power to resurrect the Antichrist. That is a power given only to God in Scripture. Now it may appear to be a resurrection if it is an individual attack, but not a real resurrection. It is a pseudo-miracle at best. I think that it actually represents the fact that part of his kingdom will be devastated and that part of the kingdom will be revived. Could that apply to a nation, for an example like Germany, that was totally destroyed and has now come back to power as a major leader in Europe and as part of the kingdom of the Antichrist of the end times... I think that is certainly a very real possibility.
David Reagan
I side with those who believe the Antichrist will not be killed and resurrected from the dead. I think the passage is speaking of the Roman Empire rising from the dead and not the Antichrist. But, if it is speaking of the Antichrist, I do not believe he will be resurrected from the dead. Instead, I believe his death and resurrection will be a deception using modern technology.
I hope you found those answers as fascinating as I did, and I hope the discussion will drive you into the Scriptures to judge for yourself the meaning of Revelation 13:3.
posted with permission
www.lamblion.us/2009/06/will-antichrist-be-killed-and.html
A Profile Of The Antichrist
By Dr. David R. Reagan
He will be of Roman descent (Daniel 9:26). The passage says the Antichrist will come from the people who destroy the Temple. The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
He will be a Gentile (Revelation 13:1). He is portrayed as "coming up out of the sea." The sea is used in prophecy as a symbol of the Gentile nations. See Daniel 7:3, Luke 21:25 and Revelation 17:1.
He will rise out of the revived Roman Empire (Daniel 2:31-45 and 7:1-8, 24-28).
He will be an egotistical braggart (Daniel 7:8, Daniel 11:36-37, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and Revelation 13:5).
He will be a blasphemer (Daniel 11:36, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and Revelation 13:5-6).
He will be strong-willed (Daniel 8:24 and Daniel 11:36).
He will show contempt for human traditions by changing the laws and the calendar (Daniel 7:25).
He will be shrewd and deceitful (Daniel 8:23 & 25, Psalm 43:1, and Psalm 52:2).
He will be a destructive man of bloodshed (Psalm 5:6 and Daniel 8:24-25).
He will persecute believers (Daniel 7:21 and Revelation 13:7).
He will be a sexual pervert (Daniel 11:37).
He will be a militarist (Daniel 11:38).
He will be possessed by Satan (Daniel 8:24, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, and Revelation 13:2).
His nature is also reflected in the titles he is given in Scripture:
"The Beast" (Revelation 13:1)
"The Man of Lawlessness" (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
"The Son of Destruction" (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
"The Despicable Person" (Daniel 11:21)
"The Willful King" (Daniel 11:36)
"The Worthless Shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17)
"The Insolent King" (Daniel 8:23)
Posted with permission
From the Jan/Feb 2009 edition of the Lamplighter magazine.
Characteristics of the Antichrist
(from page 191 of the book "Global Warning")
1. Intellectual genius Daniel 7:20
2. Oratorical genius Daniel 7:20
3. Political genius Daniel 11:21
4. Commercial genius Daniel 8:25
5. Military genius Daniel 8:24
6. Administrative genius Revelation 13:1-2
7. Religious genius 2 Thessalonians 2:4
Perhaps the most telling of his characteristics is depicted in Daniel 11:21, which tells us that he will come to power and "seize it through intrigue" ("flatteries" KJV)
From page 189-190: Whether the Antichrist is a Jew or a Gentile is not clearly answered in the New Testament. Most Bible prophecy scholars believe he will be a Gentile because....
1. He will lead the European union of Gentile nations Daniel 7:8-24
2. His covenant with Israel will promise Gentile protection for Israel Daniel 9:27
3. His rule is part of the "time of the Gentiles" and their domination over Israel Luke 21:24
These passages make it clear that the Antichrist will lead the Western powers, but they do not specifically designate him as a Gentile. It is entirely possible that he could be of Jewish origin or nationality and still be a European or American Jew who leads the final forum of the future world government. The fact that Daniel 11:37 says that he will not regard the "God of his fathers" can also be translated "gods of his fathers". This makes his background inconclusive. However the typical exegesis of Daniel 11:37 has focused on his atheistic beliefs, regardless of whether he is a Jew or Gentile.
So the Antichrist is clearly said to be an unbeliever.
Me: Keep in mind that the Antichrist will only be revealed AFTER the Rapture. So while it may be interesting to speculate, that's all it will be: speculation. Obviously if we are as close to the end as we think, then the Antichrist must be alive right now. But keep in mind too that Satan has had to have a man ready to be the Antichrist in every generation because he doesn't know when the end is either!
More:
We are told quite a bit about this coming world leader, Satans counterfeit messiah, who will someday soon rise in power . .
- He will be indwelt and empowered by Satan
- He will rise to power over 10 nations [from the old Roman Empire ... Europe?!
- He will somehow be 'diverse from the rest' so we are not certain he will be European
- He will bring peace, yet conquer through treaties and war
- He will be very, very popular around the world
- He will be a great talker and speech maker
- He will likely be charismatic and physically attractive, like King Saul
- He will receive what appears to be a fatal wound to the head
- He will appear to be resurrected from the dead
- His right eye may be blinded and his arm completely withered
- He will enforce a "peace" plan or resolution [covenant] upon nation Israel
[It doesnt say he signs this treaty, but he enforces some coming 'peace plan' or resolution]
- He may help to get the new Jewish Temple built in Jerusalem
- He will appear to perform miracles ("lying signs and wonders")
- He will require that everybody on Earth receive a mark or identification on their forehead or hand and nobody will legally be able to buy or sell without it
- He will stand in a new Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and declare he is "God"
- Unspeakable terror and war will then engulf Earth for exactly 3½ years (1260 days)
- He will direct the slaughter of millions of Christians and Jews
- He will lead the armies of the world into Israel . . . Armageddon.
www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html
Origins Of The Antichrist
By Nathan Jones
In Origins of the Antichrist: Polled we looked at visitor responses to the poll question: "Where will the Antichrist arise from?" In seeking his origins we looked at the Antichrist's character and career. Today we get into the heart of the question.
In Origins of the Antichrist: Polled we looked at visitor responses to the poll question: "Where will the Antichrist arise from?" In seeking his origins we looked at the Antichrist's character and career. Today we get into the heart of the question.
Will he be a Greek?
And so, where will this sinister person come from? Some have speculated that he will come out of Syria since one of his prophetic types in history — Antiochus Epiphanes (215-164 BC) — was a Syrian tyrant. But Antiochus was actually of Greek heritage. Could he therefore be a Greek? It is not likely.
Will he be a Jew?
Many assume he will be because Jesus said, "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him" (John 5:43). Based on this statement, people ask, "How could the Jews possibly receive a Gentile as their Messiah?"
But the Bible does not teach that the Jews will receive the Antichrist as their Messiah. It teaches they will accept him as a great political leader and diplomat and that they will put their trust in him as the guarantor of peace in the Middle East.
But the moment he reveals himself as the Antichrist by desecrating the Jew's rebuilt Temple and blaspheming God, the Jewish people will revolt. They will reject him as Messiah, and he will respond in fury by attempting to annihilate them.
The Antichrist does not have to be a Jew. And, in fact, the Bible makes it clear that he will be a Gentile. In Revelation 13:1 he is portrayed as a "beast coming up out of the sea." The sea is used consistently throughout the prophetic scriptures as a symbol of the Gentile nations (Daniel 7:3; Luke 21:25; and Revelation 17:1).
By contrast, the Antichrist's right hand man, the False Prophet, who will serve as his religious leader, will be a Jew. This is revealed in Revelation 13:11 where it says that John saw "another beast coming up out of the earth [literally, the land]." Just as the sea is used symbolically in prophecy to refer to the Gentile nations, the land (or earth) is used to refer to Israel. This does not mean the False Prophet will be an Orthodox Jew. It only means that he will be of Jewish heritage. Religiously, he will be an apostate Jew who will head up the One World Religion of the Antichrist.
Will he be a Muslim?
If Russia and Iran are wiped out in the Ezekiel 38-39 attack in which God miraculously delivers Israel, and Israel’s surrounding nations seem to be non-players in most of the Tribulation, probably because their Psalm 83 Jewish subjugation, then how could Islam dominate the Middle East and thereby have the Antichrist be of Muslim origins? It would seem such defeats would dishearten any Muslim. Also, if the Antichrist is supposedly not into women and could be a homosexual (Dan. 11:37), the Muslims would immediately want him put to death. Also, the Antichrist glorifies himself. Even the Muslim messiah called the Mahdi couldn’t do that, for a Muslim worship is for Allah alone. And, to reunify all former Roman Empire lands, Antichrist will have to go eastward to grab the Middle East riches that Israel will already be claiming, requiring a peace treaty to achieve.
These and other verses would conclude that Islam is just another false religious system that will be wiped out before the Antichrist installs his religious system.
Will he be from the United States?
Because of the Daniel 9:26 reference to the Antichrist coming from the people who "will destroy the city and the sanctuary," the only way the Unites States would qualify would be if the Antichrist was Italian-American. Not only is this highly improbable, but the total lack of reference to the United States being a power in the end times in the Bible and the powerhouse that the EU will have right after the Rapture, it appears the United States would not have the clout in the eyes of the world to raise a world leader.
Will he be from the European Union?
It is much more likely that he will rise out of the heartland of the old Roman Empire and that he will be of Italian descent. This conclusion is based upon a statement in Daniel 9:26. In that passage the Antichrist is referred to as "the prince who is to come," and he is identified as being from the people who "will destroy the city and the sanctuary."
We know from history that both Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple were destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Therefore, according to Daniel, the Antichrist must be of Roman heritage.
Will he begin again, rising from the dead?
There is one other issue concerning the origin of the Antichrist that we need to consider. Many argue that he will be a person resurrected from the dead — most likely Nero or Judas Iscariot. This assumption is based on a statement in Revelation 13:1-3 where John describes the Antichrist as a beast with seven heads. He then makes the observation that one of his heads appeared "as if it had been slain, and his fatal wound was healed." He comments that "the whole earth was amazed" by this and therefore "followed after the beast" (Revelation 13:3).
The problem with this interpretation is that "the fatal wound" referred to in the passage has nothing to do with the person of the Antichrist. The seven heads represent seven Gentile empires — namely, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the final empire of the Antichrist. The head with the fatal wound that has been healed is the Roman Empire. We know this from the book of Daniel where it is prophesied that the Roman Empire will be the last of the Gentile empires until the end times when the empire of the Antichrist will emerge from a reunited Europe — that is, from a revival of the old Roman Empire (Daniel 2:31-45 and 7:1-8, 24-28).
The prophecies of Daniel have proved to be absolutely accurate. The Roman Empire was the last of the Gentile empires. It disintegrated into the nation-state system that has prevailed to this day. There have been numerous military attempts to resurrect the Roman Empire, most notably by Napoleon and Hitler. Today, the core of the Empire is coalescing before our eyes through diplomatic means, producing a united Europe that will serve as the base for the rise of the Antichrist.
Another passage that is used to justify the idea of the Antichrist being a resurrected person is Zechariah 11:17 — "Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves the flock! A sword will be on his arm and on his right eye! His arm will be totally withered, and his right eye will be blind."
It is argued that this passage indicates that the Antichrist will be a person who has suffered a fatal wound. Now, there is no doubt this passage refers to the Antichrist, but some believe it is talking about his fate rather than his origin. Using symbolic language, the prophet could be saying that divine judgment (the sword) will fall upon the Antichrist's power (his arm) and his intelligence (his eye), and that he will suffer complete defeat (the withering of his arm and the blinding of his eye).
The idea that the Antichrist will be a resurrected person raises a serious theological problem concerning the power of Satan. The Scriptures make it clear that the Antichrist will be Satan's man, empowered by him and possessed by him. But there is no indication in Scripture that Satan has the power to give life to anyone. Satan is not omnipotent. Jesus is the one who has "the keys to death and Hades" (Revelation 1:18).
Is he alive today?
One of the most commonly asked questions is whether or not the Antichrist is alive today. I believe he is, and I believe so for two reasons. First, I believe the Scriptures teach that the generation that sees the re-establishment of Israel (May 14, 1948) will live to see all the end time prophecies fulfilled (Matthew 24: 32-34). Second, I believe the signs of the times clearly indicate that we are standing on the threshold of the Tribulation, the most important of those signs being the regathering of the Jews to their land (Isaiah 11:10-12) and their re-occupation of the city of Jerusalem (Luke 21:24).
If the Antichrist is alive today, does he know who he is? I think not. I don't think he has the foggiest idea of the role that Satan has in mind for him. He will not become the Antichrist until Satan possesses him and empowers him to deceive Europe and the Jews. His full revelation will not occur until he enters the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem in the middle of the Tribulation and declares himself to be god.
The next post can give the believer in Christ hope, for the Antichrist's fate is already sealed.
posted with permission
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2008/11/origins-of-antichrist.html
In a book called Prophecy 20/20 by Dr. Chuck Missler. He brought up a passage in the old Testament that seems to give a small description of the Antichrist perhaps after an injury.
Zechariah 11:17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
Missler goes on to say that a withered arm and blinded right eye may perhaps be why people pledge allegiance to him by taking an insignia upon their right hand or on their foreheads.
Q & A About the Antichrist
By Dave Hunt
Question: The idea that the Antichrist will be resurrected from the dead by Satan seems to be the prevailing opinion among evangelical pretrib teachers. I would appreciate your opinion.
Response: This popular idea comes from Revelation 13:3. For example, in his book, The Prewrath Rapture of the Church, Marvin Rosenthal states, "According to the Word of God, the Antichrist is a man who lived before. He ruled one of the seven great empires which directly impacted Israel....He will literally be raised from the dead. Concerning this raised ruler...the Word of God has much to say. 'And I saw one of his heads as though it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed...' (Rev 13:3)."
Note, however, that it is one of the beast's seven heads, not all of them, that is affected. Furthermore, the head (much less the beast) is not killed but appears "as though it were wounded to death." Seemingly, the beast could have died from this wound, but verses 3 and 12 declare that its "deadly wound was healed." So we have a healing, not a resurrection.
I believe it is referring to the Roman Empire which has indeed suffered from a deadly wound but has never died and is being revived before our eyes. Only God can raise the dead. Satan has no such power. At best he might pull off a "fake death and resurrection" of Antichrist, which John MacArthur suggests in his Study Bible as a possibility.
posted with permission
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2009/03/q_25.html
Q & A About the Antichrist
By Jack Kelley
Q. I really have heard that Assyrian Antichrist idea so many times, but not from people I believe are well grounded prophecy teachers. I have heard some well known teachers refute it and I agree with them because it is not proven by the Word. Can you please elaborate on this teaching?
A. Since I don’t subscribe to the Assyrian Anti-Christ idea, I can only tell you why I don’t. I think proponents of this theory have two major problems. One is their misinterpretation of Isaiah 52:4 that I described in detail in this week’s feature article, The End Times According to Isaiah, Part 11.
The other is their claim that since the Roman Army that destroyed the Temple in 70 AD was supposedly made up largely of Assyrian conscripts, and since Daniel 9:26 hints that the anti-Christ will come from the people who destroyed the Temple, that means the anti-Christ has to be Assyrian.
Let’s say the Roman Legions really were filled with Assyrian soldiers. Assyria was part of the Roman Empire, their leaders were Roman, they were fighting under direct orders from Rome, they wore Roman uniforms and they were paid by Rome. Were it not for Rome the Assyrians wouldn’t have even been there. Simple logic would say it was the Romans who destroyed the Temple.
posted with permission
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2009/03/q_26.html
The Antichrist: East vs. West
By Britt Gillette
One of the great mysteries concerning bible prophecy and the end times is the national identity of the Antichrist. This is an important topic because it will eventually aid the last days generation of Christians in the correct identification of the Antichrist.
Lately, it seems this subject has created a rift within the community of those who study bible prophecy.
One side believes scripture points to the Antichrist coming from Assyria and the Eastern portion of the ancient Roman Empire, while the other side believes scripture points to the Antichrist coming from Italy and the Western portion of the ancient Roman Empire.
Many, but not all, of those in both camps believe their side is right and the other side is wrong.
Fortunately, the Bible provides us with several details regarding the nationalistic origins of this sinister personality…
His Italian Roman Nationality
Although much debate surrounds the Antichrist’s national identity, the Book of Daniel clearly states that the Antichrist will rise from among the people whose armies destroy the Temple.
“A ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple.” Daniel 9:26 (NLT)
The City and the Temple referenced in this passage were destroyed in A.D. 70 by Titus and the Roman legions, but Titus was not the ruler referenced in this verse.
Daniel 9:27 describes the ruler as one who will make a seven-year treaty with Israel, put an end to the sacrifices and offerings, and set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration. These are events that will be fulfilled in the life of the Antichrist.
According to Daniel, the Antichrist will be connected in some way to the people who destroyed the Temple.
Therefore, we can be certain that the Antichrist will rise not only from the resurrected Roman Empire, but from among people connected to the Roman people of the ancient Italian peninsula.
Despite arguments by some that the Roman armies were populated by persons from various ethnic backgrounds, including Assyrians, the fact remains that Titus is the prince who led the siege on the Temple. And the earthly power and authority of Titus came from Rome.
While Assyria may have been a part of the Roman Empire, the directive and the people responsible for the destruction of the Temple came forth from Rome, not Assyria.
So it’s rather hasty to dismiss the geopolitical significance of the City of Rome’s role in the destruction of the Temple, not to mention the City of Rome’s significance in the career of the Antichrist.
Does This Mean the Antichrist is Not Syrian?
Absolutely not.
Daniel Chapter 8 provides us with further clues in regard to the life and times of the Antichrist.
The angel Gabriel explains Daniel’s vision of a Ram and Goat as events relating to the Greek Empire of Alexander the Great. In a claim verified by history, Gabriel states that, following the death of Alexander, the empire will be divided into four parts.
From one of those four parts, the Antichrist will arise:
“The shaggy male goat represents the king of the Greek Empire. The four prominent horns that replaced the one large horn show that the Greek Empire will break into four sections with four kings, none of them as great as the first. At the end of their rule, when their sin is at its height, a fierce king, a master of intrigue, will rise to power. He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause a shocking amount of destruction and succeed in everything he does. He will destroy powerful leaders and devastate the holy people.” Daniel 8:21-24 (NLT)
Daniel Chapter 11 provides an in-depth examination of the history of the breakup Alexander’s empire, describing historical events relating to the King of the North and the King of the South. The latter part of the chapter describes the Antichrist, identifying him with other historical figures who have held the title “King of the North.”
This, along with the passage cited above, clearly links the Antichrist to the Northern Kingdom of the divided Greek Empire. This kingdom was ruled by one of Alexander’s generals, Seleucus, who ruled the areas of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Antichrist will in some way be linked to this geographic area of the Middle East as well.
Isaiah Chapter 10
In addition to Daniel 8, the prophet Isaiah also offers some interesting insight concerning a “king of Assyria”:
“After the Lord has used the king of Assyria to accomplish his purposes in Jerusalem, he will turn against the king of Assyria and punish him – for he is proud and arrogant. He boasts, ‘By my own power and wisdom I have won these wars. By my own strength I have captured many lands, destroyed their kings, and carried off their treasures. By my greatness I have robbed their nests of riches and gathered up kingdoms as a farmer gathers eggs. No one can even flap a wing against me or utter a peep of protest.” Isaiah 10:12-14 (NLT)
Although not directly identified by Isaiah, this king of Assyria bears a striking resemblance to the Antichrist. Both the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation describe the Antichrist as proud and arrogant, boasting arrogantly and blaspheming God Himself. His boast that “no one can even flap a wing against me or utter a peep of protest” also fits the description of the Antichrist as given in the Book of Revelation:
“They worshiped the dragon for giving the beast such power, and they worshiped the beast. ‘Is there anyone as great as the beast?’ they exclaimed. ‘Who is able to fight against him?’” Revelation 13:4 (NLT)
Isaiah 10, coupled with Daniel 8, lends support to the idea that the Antichrist will somehow be connected, either by ethnic origin or political power, to this region of the world.
Is It East or West?
It is an absolute certainty that the Antichrist will arrive on the world scene as the ruler of a revived Roman empire. However, it is less certain whether or not he will be of actual Italian descent or some other ethnic background. And it’s also uncertain whether his central power base will initially be located in the eastern or western portion of the ancient Roman Empire.
Several verses of scripture offer the possibility that he could be Assyrian, Italian, Greek, or Jewish. But none offer us the definitive statement contained in Daniel 9:26.
So how do we rectify these seemingly contradictory prophecies concerning the Antichrist’s nationality? Is he Roman? Italian? Jewish? Assyrian? Greek?
Who says the Antichrist has to be exclusively one or the other?
Maybe he’s an Assyrian Jew born and raised in Italy, or maybe he’s an Italian who brings Assyria to the pinnacle of world political and military power. Any number of possible combinations are possible. We simply don’t know for certain.
But history indicates that each of these prophecies will be harmonized when the Antichrist finally appears.
The Origins of the Messiah…
How can I be so sure?
Because two thousand years ago, the seemingly contradictory prophecies of the first coming of the Messiah were all harmonized in the life of one man, Jesus Christ – the Nazarene born in Bethlehem who came out of Egypt.
The Messiah will come out of Bethlehem….
“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village in Judah. Yet a ruler of Israel will come from you, one whose origins are from the distant past.” Micah 5:2 (NLT)
The Messiah will come out of Galilee…
“Nevertheless, that time of darkness and despair will not go on forever. The land of Zebulun and Naphtali will soon be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with glory. The people who walk in darkness will see a great light – a light that will shine on all who live in the land where death casts its shadow.” Isaiah 9:1-2 (NLT)
The Messiah will come out of Egypt…
“When Israel was a child, I loved him as a son, and I called my son out of Egypt.” Hosea 11:1 (NLT)
Before Jesus Christ fulfilled these prophecies, Jewish factions debated the origins of the Messiah. They found it difficult to imagine that one man could fulfill all these prophecies.
With the benefit of hindsight, we now see how this was possible…
But for the Jewish scholars who lived before and during the ministry of Jesus, these prophecies sparked intense debate.
Would the Messiah come from Galilee, Bethlehem, or Egypt?
These differing viewpoints are put on display in the Book of John:
“When the crowds heard him say this, some of them declared, ‘Surely this man is the Prophet we’ve been expecting.’ Others said, ‘He is the Messiah.’ Still others said, ‘But he can’t be! Will the Messiah come from Galilee? For the Scriptures clearly state that the Messiah will be born of the royal line of David, in Bethlehem, the village where King David was born.’ So the crowd was divided about him. Some even wanted him arrested, but no one laid a hand on him.” John 7:40-44 (NLT)
and
“‘Have you been led astray, too?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us rulers or Pharisees who believes in him? This foolish crowd follows him, but they are ignorant of the law. God’s curse is on them!’ Then Nicodemus, the leader who had met with Jesus earlier, spoke up. ‘Is it legal to convict a man before he is given a hearing?’ he asked. They replied, ‘Are you from Galilee, too? Search the Scriptures and see for yourself – no prophet ever comes from Galilee!’” John 7:47-52 (NLT)
The complete answer eluded both the crowds and the Pharisees.
Since each person was absolutely convinced his position was the correct position, all of them failed to recognize the true and complete picture.
In similar fashion, a debate continues today in regard to the prophecies of the Antichrist and his national identity.
But regardless of how much we speculate on the ultimate real-life fulfillment of the scriptures, no one but God will know the absolute truth until it’s revealed at the appointed time.
Therefore, it’s unwise to establish a hard line position on a particular theory regarding this prophecy’s fulfillment – even those theories based on iron clad scriptural references. After all, even though your belief may be 100% accurate, that doesn’t mean someone else’s belief is false.
In many cases, two viewpoints which seem diametrically opposed, are in fact both true.
Your eyes offer a perfect illustration…
Close your left eye and look at the world through your right.
Now, close your right eye and look at the world through your left.
What did you see?
Both eyes saw the same thing from two different perspectives. But they didn’t see exactly the same thing…
Now, what if the left eye argued that the right was wrong; and the right eye argued that the left was wrong?
If that happens, both eyes fail to see that, taken separately or taken together, each viewpoint is correct…
Am I saying that no belief or viewpoint is false?
Absolutely not.
Some things are true, and some things are false.
But this case illustrates that just because one belief is true, that isn’t proof in-and-of itself that another belief is false.
So don’t become wedded to the idea that the Antichrist is Assyrian, and therefore anyone who says the Antichrist will come from Western Europe is wrong. Likewise, don’t become wedded to the idea that the Antichrist is Italian, and therefore anyone who says he’ll come from Assyria is wrong.
You might both be right.
But the importance of the matter has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. The importance is in each belief’s scriptural origin. For the study of bible prophecy leads people to examine God’s Word, and by examining God’s Word, people are led to Christ.
So by studying these prophecies and teaching them to others, Christians of the end times generation will be able to positively identify the Antichrist based on the sound Scriptural evidence outlined by those who trod before them.
And the work of that last generation will be much easier if we present them with a unified body of unbiased scriptural references – starting points so they can examine the bible themselves…
This is one of the greatest benefits of studying bible prophecy, and upon His Return, I hope the Lord Jesus Christ finds us actively engaged in spreading knowledge of the truth found in His Word and not our deeply held human beliefs.
In the meantime, may we live with a patient and enduring faith that His Return is soon upon us.
posted with permission
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2009/04/antichrist-east-vs-west.html
Will The Antichrist Be A Jew?
Dr. David R. Reagan
Will the Antichrist be a Jew or a Gentile?
Most Christian are aware of the fact that there is a lot of disagreement about the interpretation of Bible prophecy between those who have completely different viewpoints, like the arguments between those who are Premillennial and Amillennial. But, what many people are not aware of is that there are some strong points of disagreement between those that take a literal viewpoint of end-time prophecies.
Recently, I attended a major Bible Prophecy conference in the Dallas area where I had the opportunity to interview a number of Bible prophecy experts. Out of 11 Bible prophecy experts I interviewed, only 3 said they felt like the Antichrist would be a Jew or that he could possibly be one. We'll start with one yes/no answer, one could be, and one maybe. The next seven people responded with a negative reply. The final expert I interviewed answer may surprise you. Finally, I'll conclude with my response.
Phillip Goodman
I do. I believe that he could, but I don't think the Bible tells us. The evidence is not strong enough.
There is a passage in Daniel 11:37 that says he will reject the god or the gods of his fathers. The language is not strong enough in there from the original language to let us know whether it is a plural or a singular. And, that is the primary passage that most people go to say that perhaps he is a Jew. Because if it is the god of his father, it is a very similar phrase we find all over the Old Testament. It is used of the Jews. Yet, that also could be a Muslim, so the evidence is not strong enough in the Bible really to tell us what his origination is in terms of a religious origin.
So, we have to look to the geographic/geopolitical evidence in the Bible to find out where he comes from. He could be a Jew. I am not convinced of it. I think he is a Gentile, because he will be ruling over the time of the Gentiles, according to Daniel 2 and also in Revelation. There is stronger evidence that he will be a Gentile.
Don Perkins
He could be, and my reasons for that is 2 Thessalonians 2, where the Scripture tells us that when the Antichrist comes into the Temple he will literally go into the Temple as God. Which the Temple would be in Jerusalem and he would be worshipped there as God. Now for that fact I believe that the Antichrist could be a Jew. I believe that Israel could literally worship him as a Jewish Messiah. Now, I know that goes a little different against other people's views or whatever, but I do believe that could very well be the case. He could be a Jew.
Todd Strandberg
I think he probably will be a Jew or it is highly likely, because the Antichrist is going to be a replacement for Christ, so he probably will be very much a mirror of Christ. Maybe the same age he will be. He will probably have to be Jewish, because the Jews won't accept someone who is not Jewish as Messiah, so I believe it very strongly. They are going to make lots of mistakes by accepting him as their Messiah. So, they might go beyond accepting someone who is not. They should accept him. The only reason they should accept him is because he is a Jew.
Daymond Duck
No, I don't think the Antichrist will be a Jew.
First, let's deal with a couple controversial passages on this issue concerning the Antichrist in Daniel 11:37. You can go to the King James Version of the Bible and there you will read that it says, "Neither shall he regard the god of his father." You can go to the New International Version or other translations and they will read neither shall he regard the gods (plural) of his fathers. Now, those who think the word is god singular, they say the Antichrist will come out of a monotheistic religion and he will probably be a Jew. Those who think the correct translation is gods plural say he will come out of a polytheistic religion and he will be a Gentile. Now, I am not enough an expert to settle whether it should it should be "god" or "gods." That has gone on for a long time, and I don't know anyone that has ever settled it.
Another controversial passage is John 5:43 and Jesus said, "I have come in my Father's name and you have received me not. If another shall come in his own name, him will you receive." And now you get into what Jesus meant by the word "receive." Some say that means that the Jews would receive him as Messiah, and they reason that the Antichrist will be a Jew because the Jews wouldn't receive someone as their Messiah who wasn't a Jew. And then there are others who say when Jesus said "receive" that meant that the Jews will receive him as a great leader who would guarantee the seven year covenant for peace in the Middle East. So, you got those two views. Those who think the Jews will receive him as a great leader, then they will believe that he will be a Gentile.
I don't guess I could settle this issue on either one of those passages of Scripture. But, I do think we have other passages of Scripture on this issue and here now I am talking about Daniel 7:3 and Revelation 13:1 where the Antichrist is described as a beast coming up out of the sea. And, of course, we know the sea is a symbol for multitudes, nations, peoples, tongues... in other words, for Gentiles. And so, I believe that those passages teach that the Antichrist will be a Gentile.
Don McGee
I do not believe that he will be a Jew, basically, for some of the same reasons he will not be a Muslim. Antichrist is going to be a man that is going to demand or command world-wide attention. For a Jew to be in that position would be a very, very long shot. But, if you take someone who comes from the European community, specifically with the credentials that a lot of those people have, he will be in a position automatically to be accepted by the entire world. Just like the Antichrist will probably not be a Muslim because of a religious connotation, so too will the Antichrist not be a person associated with any type of religion except the one he is going to institute for himself.
Nathan Jones
I don't. If you go to Revelation 13, it talks about the Beast that comes out of the sea. And typically, throughout the Bible, anything that is related to the sea is an outside nation from Israel. It is a Gentile nation. And, if you go to Revelation 13, it talks about a second beast, and I think this is the one we are talking about in that the False Prophet very well could be a Jew because he is the beast that comes from the land, and the land is always a reference for Israel. So, no, I do not think the Antichrist will be a Jew.
Donald Fruchtenbaum
Now again, the passages in Daniel 9:26-27 specifies that he will be of the same ethnic identity as the people who destroyed the city and the Temple. And, in AD 70, it was the Romans that did so, which is why he has to be not only a Gentile, but a Gentile specifically of Roman origin.
Al Gist
No, I don't believe that he will be a Jew. I believe that when he makes his covenant with Israel that he will be speaking to a Jewish leader, probably the man who will end up being the False Prophet, and I do not believe that he will be a Jew. Some people believe this because they think he will claim to be the Jewish Messiah. But, I don't find enough biblical support to accept that. I believe that he will be an apostate Gentile, just like the Caesars of the Roman Empire. He will claim to be God, but he will be an apostate Gentile. I don't think he will be a Jew.
Mark Hitchcock
I think the biblical evidence is that the Antichrist will be a Gentile. He is going, according to Daniel, to lead the final great Gentile world empire, which seems inconsistent for a Jew to be the leader of the final great Gentile world empire. All the other empires in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, the leaders of those were all Gentiles. Also, he is going to mercilessly persecute the Jewish people, which seems strange to me for a Jewish person to be persecuting his own people. Also, in Daniel 8, the only clear type of Antichrist in the Bible is Antiochus Epiphanes who was a Gentile, Syrian. And, also in the book of Revelation 13, this beast, this Antichrist figure rises out of the sea. In Revelation 17:15, it tells us the sea is representative of the nations. So, for those reasons, to me it seems clear that the Antichrist is going to be a Gentile.
Ed Hindson
No, absolutely not! I don't think the Antichrist is Jewish. I think the Antichrist, first of all, is a person who makes a treaty with the Jews. It isn't likely a Jew would make a treaty with the Jews. He is a leader of Gentile nations, if we can understand the prophecy in Daniel 9 correctly. If he is the leader of the revived Roman Empire — the leader that comes out of Europe — it is not likely that he is Jewish. He is, first of all an unbeliever, so it doesn't matter what his nationality is. He is not a believer. He does not regard the gods of his fathers or the gods of any faith system at all. He is what we call an atheist and an unbeliever who really ultimately thinks he is God. And, he will go to the Temple in Israel claiming to be God and demand the world worship him as God. So, in a sense, he is theocentric in the wrong sense in that he thinks he is God and everybody should worship him.
Ray Gano
I actually believe that the Antichrist will be of Hebrew descendent — Hebrew blood — but also practice the Muslim religion, and I use Daniel 11:37 to illustrate this. It talks in there that he shall not regard the god of his fathers in this phrase"god of his fathers," which is always associated to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In fact, this statement "god of his fathers" is only used five times in Scripture. In every time it is associated to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So I look at that.
Another thing that I look at is that we learn in Genesis 49:17 the tribe of Dan (these are last day prophecies that Jacob gave to his sons) and it says in Genesis 49:17, "That a serpent shall cause the rider to fall backwards." So, there is possibility that he actually may come out of the tribe of Dan. I also use Revelation 7:1-8 to back this up because this, the chapter where it talks about the 144,000 Dan is not named in the 144,000. So, there is speculation here or there is Scriptural evidence here I believe that shows that he will have Hebrew ancestry.
Yet, on the other side, he will also practice the Muslim religion, because we go to Daniel 11:38 and it says, "He shall honor the god of forces; and the god whom his fathers knew not." And so, he will not regard the god of his fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He will honor the god of forces, or a god of war which I believe is Allah, and it is a god that his fathers knew not. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know about Allah, did not have any conception of Allah.
Another verse that people point to often is showing that he comes from the people of the prince. The verse they use is Daniel 9:26. And, in this, people often say that he comes from Rome. I believe that he comes from the Roman Empire, but I don't believe that he is Italian in descent, which a lot of people are pointing to. There's the Roman Empire. The eastern leg of the Roman Empire comes out of Constantinople, and Constantinople ruled for a 1,000 years after Rome ceded. And, the reason they point to this is the Tenth Legion of Rome that Titus invaded Israel and Jerusalem and overthrew that area in 70 AD. Titus was the only person who was pretty much of Roman descent, but he was an individual, not people plural. There was another individual. His associate's name was Tiberius Julius Alexander and he was actually the general that did all the work. Titus took the glory, Tiberius Julius did the work. Now the interesting thing is Tiberius Julius was actually an Egyptian Jew born in Alexandria. So, again, both of these people are individuals. It's the people of the prince. Well, history tells us the Tenth Legion was basically hired mercenaries, people from the area. That is what Rome always did. Any of the legions that Rome created they usually pulled from the local people right there. So the Tenth legion, who comprised of the Tenth Legion? They were Middle Eastern Arabs, Syrian, Moabites, Edomites — basically the enemies of Israel. Garrisons of the Tenth Legion were stationed in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, so forth, at no time were they ever stationed in Rome. It was only when Titus came back in victory when he entered Rome, and so it was the people of the prince, and I am saying that it is the people who invaded Israel and that was the Tenth Legion were the soldiers and not the individuals.
One more point is if he is of Roman or European descent — Italian descent — I question his names in Scripture. He is clearly called "the Assyrian." He is called the "Prince of Tyre." He is called "King of Babylon." He is called the "King Pharaoh of Egypt." These are all Middle Eastern titles, Middle Eastern names, and Middle Eastern places. If he was from either like Italy or Europe or something, why isn't he called the King of Italy, or the Duke of Germany, or the Prince of Rome, or something like that? I tend to read Scripture literally and maintain a basics in literalness and the golden rule of interpretation. I don't just dig into it more. And so, with these names I point to a Middle Eastern side.
Dr. David Reagan
That unique answer by Ray Gano to the question "Will the Antichrist be a Jew?" gives us a final total of 7 no's, 1 yes, 1 could be, 1 maybe, and 1 yes/no.
Now, until fairly recently, I would say that the majority viewpoint among those who interpret Bible prophecy literally was that the Antichrist will be a Jew. That was primarily due to a statement of Jesus that is recorded in John 5:43, where Jesus is quoted as saying, "I have come in my Father's name and you do not receive me, if another shall come in his own name you will receive him." Now the argument drawn from this statement was that the Antichrist would have to be a Jew in order for the Jews to accept him as their Messiah. It's a very logical argument, but it ignores the fact that other passages in the Bible make it very clear that the Jews will never accept the Antichrist as their Messiah. In fact, we are specifically told that when the Antichrist reveals himself in the middle of the Tribulation and claims to be God the Jews will be horrified and will totally reject him, causing him to turn on them in fury and launch an attempt to annihilate them.
So, what did Jesus mean when he said, "That if another shall come in his own name the Jews will receive him?" Well, those who argue that the Antichrist will be a Gentile responded by saying that the Antichrist will be accepted by the Jewish people as their political savior when he implements a treaty at the beginning of the Tribulation that will guarantee their security and enable them to rebuild their Temple. But, the Jews will never receive the Antichrist as their spiritual Savior, thus when he declares himself as God, they will reject him.
My conclusion is there is no Biblical reason that the Antichrist must be a Jew. And, there is some very strong Biblical evidence that he will be a Gentile. For example, Revelation 13:1 pictures him as a beast arising out of the sea. This is, of course, symbolic language, but it is significant because in the Bible and in Bible prophecy the sea is used to symbolize Gentile nations. For example, in Daniel 7 where there is a prophecy about four great Gentile empires, it refers to them as coming up from the sea. In contrast, the Antichrist's right-hand man and spiritual leader is pictured in Revelation 13:11 as rising up out of the land, or the earth in some translations. This reference to the land is an indication that the False Prophet will be a Jew who will rise out of the promise land of Israel.
Now, there is a logical reason we can assume that the Antichrist will be a Gentile, and it is one that Mark Hitchcock mentioned in his answer. And that is the fact that the book of Daniel reveals that the Antichrist is going to be the leader of the last great Gentile empire. It is simply not logical to assume that such an empire would be headed up by a Jew. Also, it is not logical to assume that a Jew would attempt to annihilate the Jewish people as the Antichrist will try to do. Finally, the clearest type of the Antichrist in the Scriptures is Antiochus Epiphanes who was a Greek tyrant.
posted with permission
www.lamblion.us/2009/05/will-antichrist-be-jew.html
Al Gist
I don't think there is sufficient evidence in the Bible to come to that conclusion. I am convinced he will be a Gentile. He will be the last great Gentile leader. The last kingdom will be the revived Roman Empire lead by the Antichrist. And, I think Daniel 2 gives us that time span for the time of the Gentiles, which began with the Babylonian Empire with Nebuchadnezzar and will end with the Antichrist and his Empire. So, I believe that he is the last great Gentile leader, but to say that he is a Muslim Gentile, I don't think we have enough evidence to say that positively.
One problem I have with that idea is the thought the Antichrist when he commits the abomination of desolation will sit in the Temple in Jerusalem and claim to be God. I just can't quite see a Muslim sitting in the Temple claiming to be Allah. I think that's a stretch and I just don't see it. So, I have my doubts about that. I think there is some evidence that he could possible be Syrian. And from that perspective, because Syria is mostly Muslim, I guess there is that possibility. I also believe the Muslims will have a large role to play in the Last Days events and wars. But I really wouldn't say positively that he's going to be Muslim, only that he would be a Gentile.
Phillip Goodman
I don't think it makes any difference and here is why, because the Antichrist during the initial stage of his rise is going to partner with all the religions of the world. And he is going to be part of the great harlot system. At that point, no Muslim would do that; no Jew would do that who were orthodox. He is not official revealed as the Antichrist until the abomination of desolation and that is what the Lord says in Matthew 24:15 and Paul confirms it in Second Thessalonians. At that point, he rejects all the religions of the world. He rejects the gods of his fathers according to Daniel 11 and he exalts himself and magnifies himself above every so called god. So, in other words, there is no possible way he could be a Muslim, of course, and put Allah beneath his feet, which he will be doing at that point. He will exalt himself above every so called god including the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So, he is going to be unique in that respect in all of history. Antiochus Epiphanies the strongest type of the Antichrist magnified himself to the extent that he claimed to be God manifest, but he didn't put himself above all gods. He put the god Jupiter in the temple and was a strong type of Antichrist, but this guy is unique in all of history.
So, where he comes from is the real question. Is he going to come from the area of Muslims, or where the Jews are? It is my belief that he will come from the Middle East. He will arise there. I think the Biblical evidence points in that direction. But, the time he is revealed he is not going to be a Muslim. He's not going to be a Jew. He is going to proclaim himself to be God and not identify with any other god. He is going to reject all the other gods.
In the next article, the remaining nine who were asked "Will the Antichrist be a Muslim?" will give their reasons why they answered "No."
posted with permission
www.lamblion.us/2009/06/will-antichrist-be-muslim-yes-or-maybe.html
bible-prophecy-today.blogspot.com/2009/06/will-antichrist-be-muslim-yes-or-maybe.html
Will The Antichrist Be Killed And Resurrected?
By Nathan Jones
There is a mysterious passage in Revelation 13 that implies the Antichrist might be killed and resurrected from the dead in the middle of the Tribulation. Is this what the passage means, or does it mean something else? Will the Antichrist be killed and resurrected from the dead? Lamb & Lion Ministries sought out eleven different Bible prophecy experts and asked this question. Of those eleven, two said yes, one said it was doubtful, and eight gave a firm no. Let's take a look at all eleven answers.
The following two experts answered "yes."
Arnold Fruchtenbaum
I would have to say, yes, because the very same term used of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:1-2) is also used of the true son (Revelation 5:6) as though he had been slain. In the case of Jesus, He didn't appear to be dead. He really did die. Under normal experience He should have remained dead. And so, He was alive because of resurrection. And the phrase "though he had been slain" is the Greek idiom for resurrected individual, was used of the true son in chapter 5 and is used of the counterfeit son in chapter 13. You have to understand the same way. He will be killed in this war against the 10 kings. He will be raised back to life by Satan's power. He will continue the war, kill 3 kings, then several will submit to his authority. And, therefore, he will undergo as part of the counterfeit program a counterfeit death and resurrection.
Mark Hitchcock
Yeah, I think in the Scriptures it seems clear to me from Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 that the Antichrist is going to suffer a fatal wound and come back to life. Now, some people take that it refers to the empire, that the Roman Empire is going to suffer this fatal wound and then the Empire will be revived or come back to life.
But, I think it is better to see this as the individual himself. The same language is used of the death and resurrection of the Beast or Antichrist in Revelation 13 that is used of the death and resurrection of Jesus, now back in Revelation chapter 5. Now some people will say, "Now, how is it that Satan has the power to raise people, someone from the dead?" Cause back in Mark 2 Jesus raises this man up who is lame and it is sign that only God has the power to do that. But, it seems to me like in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 it says, "God will send a strong deluding influence upon people in the world so they will believe the lie." So I think that God will allow Satan to have the power to pull off this great miracle as part of that deluding influence, because obviously God is the only one that has the ultimate power to give life. But, I think that He is going to allow Satan to do that as part of the great delusion that will take place in the end times.
This expert was doubtful the resurrection was real.
Al Gist
Revelation 13 speaks of an assassination attempt I believe on the Antichrist. In fact, it even goes on the say that it will be from the use of a sword. But, it uses some words there that indicate that it may not be successful to the extent that he actually, literally dies. It uses the words as though he were dead, or something to that affect. So, I don't believe that he will literally die. However this event will cause the world to wonder after him. So, whether he dies literally or not, the world will be amazed at this feat where he appears to die certainly and then is miraculously, so to speak, healed and able to resume his leadership of the world. So, whether he actually dies or not, I think is questionable. I tend to believe that he would not die but only appear to die. That is my personal position.
The following experts responded that they do not believe the Antichrist will literally die and be resurrected.
Daymond Duck
No, I don't. And again, there is a lot of different views on this issue and I think the controversy centers primarily around how you interpret Revelation 13:3 and Revelation 13:11-14. If you go with 13:3, you come up with one way. If you go with Revelation 14 and Revelation 13:11-14, you come up with another way. At least some people do.
Now, those who go with Revelation 13:3, they say that it is one of the seven heads that has a deadly wound and it is healed. And they believe that is the not the Antichrist, but that Europe fell apart and was killed, or died and was healed and came back as the revived Roman Empire which was raised from the dead.
Those that go down to Revelation 13:11-14, they look at those verses and they believe that those verses are saying that the Antichrist will receive a deadly wound and be healed and raised from the dead. Now, when I look at Revelation 13:3, the way I read that it says "this head looks like," or "this head is as though," "this head appears as," however you want to phrase that, as though it had a deadly wound that was healed. Now to me, there is a little bit of difference in saying it looks like, or it were a wound, a deadly wound that was healed, and actually having a deadly wound that was healed.
What I am getting at, when I get down to Revelation 13:11-14, we start reading about the False Prophet, and we see the False Prophet forces people to worship the Antichrist. And the False Prophet uses wonders and signs to persuade people to believe that the Antichrist received a deadly wound that was healed and he was raised from the dead. In other words, the way I interpret that passage it's saying the False Prophet uses persecution and force and phony miracles and deceit to cause people to believe that the Antichrist was killed and raised from the dead. Not that he actually was killed and raised from the dead, but that he uses deceit and force and things like that to perpetrate that untruth, that false doctrine, or that lie.
Phillip Goodman
No, I do not. I don't think the Bible teaches that.
First of all, we have to look at it from a theological standpoint that the evidence that Jesus himself is the Son of God is because of the resurrection from the dead. That is unique in all of human history. As a matter of fact, I want to read a passage out of Romans chapter 1 that speaks to that affect. Romans 1:4 tells us that Jesus was declared the Son of God with power by what, by the Resurrection of the dead. So, we could not possibly have Jesus rising from the dead and saying, "I am the life and the resurrection." And Satan on the other hand coming up and saying, "So am I, I am the life and the resurrection also." And also the evidence in the Scriptures don't indicate that.
Revelation 2:18 tells us what it is like to be raised from the dead. Jesus says this, He says, "I am the first and the last I was dead and I have come to life." We never see that about the Antichrist. In Revelation 13 he's got 7 heads — 7 kingdoms — one of those is slain.
The real commentary on what really happens with the Antichrist is Revelation 17, it says, "He was, he is not and he will come." That is the language of reincarnation. That is not the language of resurrection. And Satan has raised up reincarnation as the chief antithesis of the resurrection all through history. Satan hates the Doctrine of the Resurrection because of the resurrection of the Son of God. But, when we look at "I was, he was, he is not, and he will come, he was in past history, he is not" during the time of John when John wrote that particular passage and he will come in the future. That is the most it says about the Antichrist and his origins. He will come up by the way out of the Abyss. That also is not the language of Resurrection. He will be indwelled by a spirit that comes up out of the Abyss. So he is two persons in one, he is a man, and he is a spirit from the Abyss. And, he comes up from the past a spirit who controlled a kingdom in the past, comes up and indwells the Antichrist, raises him up in the last days. And perhaps fakes a resurrection, but Satan does not have the power to perform resurrection.
Ray Gano
No! Actually, I back that up with a couple points. First point is a lot of people point to and make an assumption that the Antichrist is being raised from the dead based on Revelation 13:3. You know John describes a beast with seven heads and that one of these seven heads has a mortal wound and is resurrected and everything. There is problems with this. I see in Revelation 13:1-3 that this is not the Antichrist. This actually represents the seven Gentile nations. And, in this I see it's: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the final kingdom or empire that has the wounded head. It is the one people totally disregard and forget about — the Ottoman Empire.
Nathan Jones
That's a tough one. That could be a reference to the Roman Empire being wounded and being broken up for so many hundreds of years and reviving as the European Union. God does seem to like a lot of symbolism, though. If you look at the seven churches, the seven churches of Revelation were seven actually churches, they also represent time periods, and they also could be representative of the seven churches today. So, the Antichrist could very well have something that seems like he died and then rose again. But, Satan has no power over death. So, if it is a resurrection, it's going to be another counterfeit resurrection, a counterfeit miracle.
Todd Strandberg
No. The healing of that wound is the Roman Empire in which it has two stages. I believe when someone dies you are in God's hands. Only God can resurrect someone. I don't think the False Prophet can bring him back to life.
Don McGee
I don't believe the Antichrist is going to be killed and resurrected from the dead because only the Lord Jesus Christ has the power over death. If you look at those passages that have to do with the slaying or the mortal wound of the Antichrist, it says that John saw that he had a wound "as if" he had been slain. Not every mortal wound results in a fatality. People have been healed from wounds that would otherwise be mortal in nature, but for some reason they were not. And, I believe this is going to be a resuscitation more then anything else. I believe that it is going to be fakery. I believe that it is going to be trickery. It's going to be one more thing in the arsenal of the Antichrist to convince the whole world that he is their Messiah.
Ed Hindson
I do not. I differ here from some other prophecy preachers. I think that passage that says in Revelation one of his heads was wounded unto death represents the multi-headed facets of the kingdom of the Antichrist in the last days. I don't think that it is an individual that is attacked. I think that you have serious problems with saying Satan will have the power to resurrect the Antichrist. That is a power given only to God in Scripture. Now it may appear to be a resurrection if it is an individual attack, but not a real resurrection. It is a pseudo-miracle at best. I think that it actually represents the fact that part of his kingdom will be devastated and that part of the kingdom will be revived. Could that apply to a nation, for an example like Germany, that was totally destroyed and has now come back to power as a major leader in Europe and as part of the kingdom of the Antichrist of the end times... I think that is certainly a very real possibility.
David Reagan
I side with those who believe the Antichrist will not be killed and resurrected from the dead. I think the passage is speaking of the Roman Empire rising from the dead and not the Antichrist. But, if it is speaking of the Antichrist, I do not believe he will be resurrected from the dead. Instead, I believe his death and resurrection will be a deception using modern technology.
I hope you found those answers as fascinating as I did, and I hope the discussion will drive you into the Scriptures to judge for yourself the meaning of Revelation 13:3.
posted with permission
www.lamblion.us/2009/06/will-antichrist-be-killed-and.html
!!
