The Man of Sin (Part 1)
There are few doctrines in Christianity that are sensationalized (and commercialized) as the doctrine of the antichrist. This luminous figure has found its way into mainstream culture through movies, books, and the like. The question that should concern thinking Christians is what is the Biblical truth on the antichrist? How can we be best prepared for this figure without the media shaping our theology more than the Scriptures?
I read a book a while back by Kim Riddlebarger on Amillenialism, and when I heard he wrote a book on the antichrist I wanted to read that as well. The work is entitled: The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist, and I enjoyed this book as well. I appreciate his desire to stay focused on the topic at hand with pertinent exegesis of critical texts as well as a profitable view of historical church positions on the antichrist.
The Spectrum of Historical Positions
Throughout church history various positions have been espoused on this issue. I believe many in the 1st century church saw Nero, Domitian, and other Roman tyrants as this figure. The early church (Irenaeus, Hippolytus) thought the antichrist will be an apostate Jew who will appear at the fall of the Roman Empire. Modern Dispensationalists, to which much of popular Christianity owes their understanding of antichrist to, see the antichrist appearing after the rapture and makes a peace treaty with Israel and demands to be worshiped after setting himself up in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
The Reformer's identified the antichrist as their greatest nemesis most notably the office of the papacy. This was the general consensus of the early reformers, to the Puritans, and even many today hold this position in the reformed tradition. On the other extreme are Preterists who believe that the antichrist is an event that has been completed with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. It should be noted that all of these opinions will concede that John teaches that the antichrist is also a present reality.
I will defend the position espoused by Riddlebarger in his work. I believe that many antichrists have indeed appeared, but there will be a final embodiment of everything opposed to Christ and his kingdom near the end of the age. I believe that John teaches the former, and the latter can be found in Pauline literature.
Forerunners of the Antichrist
Throughout the Old Testament we are giving types of the antichrist. Those figures range from the offspring of the serpent, the Pharaoh, Gog/Magog, and King Nebuchadnezzar among others. There is quite a pronounced history of individuals that strongly oppose God and the expansion of his kingdom. I should make an interesting note on Daniel's prophecy in chapter 9 that Dispensationalists believe refers to the antichrist.
"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." (Dan 9:26-27)
On a precursory reading I can see how one could read into this passage an antichrist expectation, but we must be diligent to practice exegesis. It becomes clear in vs. 27 that "he [the Messiah] will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering" (cf. Heb 10:11-12). It should be noted that this happens in the "middle of the week" which I concur with Riddlebarger that it refers to the inter-advental period.
May 20th 2007 
17 Comments 
May 21st 2007
Please explain more of what you mean in the final paragraph.
May 21st 2007
Basically that the passage from Daniel 9 refers to the work of the Messiah and not the antichrist.
May 23rd 2007
So you're saying a dispensationalist would say the "he" refers to the antichrist? Any idea of their interpretation of "the prince who is to come" or "the one who makes desolate?"
May 23rd 2007
May 28th 2007
I just read Kim Riddlebarger's book on Amillenialism and I look forward to reading Man of Sin. I agree with what you said on Dan 9. Christ is the one who confirms the covenant, and Christ is the one who does away with sacrifices. This obviously is in staunch contrast to dispensationalism, which of courses ties it to the anti-christ. I just posted a blog about my new views concerning amillenialism in light of Kim's book. I believe that the most important issue is Rev 20. Given that the battles of 19 & 20 are recapitulated (see my blog for further explanation), it is clear that dispensationalism is entirely faulty. Likewise, it's ecclesiology is terrible as well. They're more committed to Israel's distinction that they miss the clear intentions of the NT authors. As far as the anti-christ goes, 2 Thess 2:3-8 gives a great picture of his restraint. This ties nicely into Rev 20:3 and the binding of Satan during the current age.
May 29th 2007
Agreed John. Your article is very informative and helpful.
Jun 2nd 2007
Hmmm. I like your assertion at the end of your article that we must be diligent to practice exegesis. Well, I'm trying to think of a kind way to say this, but I guess it's best just to say it, when are you going to start? The text in question, Dan. 9:26-27 is part of a greater text, beginning in verse 24 and ending in verse 27. So proper exegesis would require us to begin in verse 24. Although there are many things mentioned in the passage, the over-arching theme is God's Dealings with the Hebrew people and the Messiah. The prophecy begins, "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people..." Who is, "your people"? Well, it's certainly not the Church, as some would have us believe. It is the Hebrew people, we know this because Daniel was a Hebrew and the prophecy is obviously being given in response to Daniel's prayer for "his people" as seen in the beginning of the chapter. We know the "Seventy Weeks" is weeks of years, as the Hebrews divided time in seven year periods, much like the Greeks divided times in 10-year perioeds (the decade), which we still use today. So seventy weeks would be 490 years (360 day years, remember, it's "your people", the Hebrew people and they used a 360 day lunar calendar)...we arrive at this through exegesis. Verse 25, he tells Daniel how to know when the 70 weeks starts and what to look for and what will happenk. This is a highly complex and startlingly accurate prophecy. It gives the future of Israel from "the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" all the way to the final end of the age. Verse 24 also spells out 6 things that are going to happen. Clearly, this must be understood to sweep to the end of "the times of the Gentiles" which is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture. A decree was issued in 445 B.C. that fits the bill to that which was prophecied, "So you are to know and discern..." If you do the math from the issuing of that decree until Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey on what has come to be known as "Palm Sunday" in Christendom, it is 483 years to the day, or seven weeks and sixty two weeks. Amazing how God ALWAYS fulfills prophecy literally. But wait, 70 weeks of years adds up to be 490 years. There's still 7 years unfulfilled, and I can assure you the last 7 years is not now all of a sudden symbolical. This is where your exegesis broke down. Notice verse 26 again, "Then after the 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, --->and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary
Jun 2nd 2007
The people of the prince who is to come destroyed the city and the sanctuary in A.D. 70. However, notice it says "the people" destroy the city and sancturary, not " the prince." The "prince" is the "he" in verse 27. It is the "prince who is to come (of the people who will destroy the city...." The Romans destroyed the city & sanctuary (Temple) in A.D. 70. Therefore, good exegesis leads us to rightly conclude there is coming a future leader (the prince who is to come) who will do the things in verse 27. Jesus did not come in on "the wing of abominations," nor did he "make desolate." Remember, 483 years have been literally fulfilled. 7 years remain. There is no reason whatsoever on this earth that would lead us to believe that the last 7 years of this 70 weeks of years is now somehow symbolical and that God has washed His hands of the Jewish people and transferred all His promises to and concerning the Jewish people to the Church. He will fulfill His promises here and elsewhere in Scripture concerning the Jewish people and also the Church. Verse 27 summarizes that final week (or 7 years). There is no other possible conclusion that can be made, so long as you are using good exegesis. We know this, because the bringing in of righteousness did not occur 7 years after the death of ZJesus, nor did the destruction of Jerusalem fit the 7 year peeriod. This has to be the future 7 year period which ends with sins final judgment and Christ reign of righteousness. These 7 years constitutes the 70th week of Daniel. So, the "he" who will "make the firm covenant with the many" is the leader of the Roman spher (see chapters 2 & 7, as good exegesis would lead you to do). He "confirms" (this word literally means 'causes to prevail') a 7 year covenant (not a 10 year or 15 year or any other number) with Israel (wow, Israel didn't exist until 14 May 1948). This nut job is the "little horn" of chapter 7:7, 8, 20, 21, 24-26. Furthermore, good exegesis would lead us to conclude he is the same nut job mentioned in the New Testament (Mark 13:14; 2 Thess 2:3-10; Rev. 13:1-10). You know, I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, we must remember, the Bible says what it says and means what it says. If it says something using obvious symbolism, then interpret it as such. But remember, even the symbols point to something literal. Therefore, interpret the symbol then literally believe it. All prophecy concerning Christ first coming was fuflfilled literally. In fact, all prophecy that has been fulfilled has been literally fulfilled. There is no way on this green earth to convince me that God has now somehow changed from literal to figurative fulfillment. Read Isaiah 66:7-9. This prophecy was literally fulfilled on May 14, 1948. Isaiah 66:8, "Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once?" On May 14, 1948, in less than 24 hours, the British Mandate over Palestine ended, Jewish independence was declared, and the surrounding Arab countries attacked...and they have continued to attack to this day, thus fulfilling Isaiah 66:7...the nation was born in one day and the birthpains have continued ever since. God fulfills prophecy literally, down to the smallest dot and tiddle. Anyone who believes God has washed his hands of Israel needs to read Romans 9-11. Such a theological position is known as "Replacement Theology" which says the Church replaced Israel. No wonder it was so easy for Hitler to pull off the holocaust. And no wonder the Church kept silent while it was happening. And I just noticed "John's" comments about dispensationalism being entirley faulty. Well, I don't know too much about dispensationalism, but I suspect he lumps anyone who isn't Ammilinial into the dispensational camp. Personally, if you haven't figured it out by now, I'm premillinial. However, I have plenty of friends that are post and ammelinial and a few who don't know what they are. However, we all seem to manage to maintain fellowship with one another. But I will say this, when it coms to being entirely faulty and ecclesiologically lacking, ammilinialism comes up woefully lacking.
Jun 2nd 2007
Hey, scott. If you have the "literal" interpretation of Dan 9, why do you have to insert a gap of at least two thousand years in between the 69th and 70th week? A "literal" reading of the text wouldn't warrant that!
Jun 2nd 2007
Also, you are a dispensationalist if you believe in a future for ethnic Israel in a political/economical sense during the thousand year reign of Christ. Your comments seem to indicate that you are dispensational.
The Reformed position is not "Replacement Theology"! The church has not replaced Israel. The Reformed position is one of expansion. The Israel of God in the OT was primarily ethnic Jews, but now the Israel of God includes people from every tongue, tribe and nation. This is not Replacement theology, this is expansive theology. Now, scott, what do you with these passages like, Ro 2:29; Ro 9:6-8; Gal 3:15-29; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:11-22; Phil 3:3; 1 Peter 2:9-10? These passages teach that Gentiles are now included in the Israel of God. Also, Heb 8:6-13 tells us that the new covenant is a present thing. But wait! Jeremiah 31 says this is made to "the house of Israel." How could this be? Because Israel has expanded. It is not the natural children that are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who counted as Abraham's offspring. Likewise, Paul tells us in Gal 3:29 that if we are Christ's, then we are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise. I apologize scott, for the anti-semitic nature of Replacement theology, however I do not hold to it, nor have I met anybody who holds to it.
Jun 2nd 2007
Hi John. I'll respond to your first comment, then I have to go play soldier...or airman, or whatever it is I'm supposed to play in the Air Force...The OT Prophets clearly saw the 1st and 2nd Advents of Christ, but did not see the "gap" which we know as the Church Age, which Paul described as a "mystery". That aside, if God literally fulfilled the first 483 years of the 70 weeks prophecy, the only logical conclusion has to be He will literally fulfill the last 7 years of that prophecy, which deals soley and completely with the "your people," ie, the Hebrew People. I don't have to insert anything, but the reality is, there is a gap. It is not unusual in prophecy to find gaps, that is 1 part of the prophecy is fulfilled and another part is awaiting fulfillment. Take for Example, Isaiah 9:6-7, I would agree that part of that prophecy has been fulfilled, Jesus has been born, however, that rest of it has not, as the government is not currently resting on His shouldres, and He is not sitting on the throne of David right now, but that will happen, because God literally fulfills prophecy. A word about symbols, and then I have to go. Keep in mind that symbols are used for a specific purpose. They stand for something. They have a literal meaning behind them. They were not selected pell-mell by the Holy Spirit when He inspired Scripture, and they do not stand for just anything we may desire. Take Jesus, for example. In the Bible He is referred to as the "Rose of Sharon" (Song of Solomon 2:1) Now Jesus is not a rose, but the statement that He's the "Rose of Sharon" communicates something real about Him. It tells us that He's beautiful, that He's glorious, that He's wonderful, that He's the spiritual aroma of God. He's also called the "Bread of Life" and the "Fountain of Life." Each of these symbols is used to emphasize a different facet of His character. Think how improper it would be to refer to Him as "the Tumbleweed of Texas"! (I stole that illustration from somewhere, just can't remember where) That symbol conjures up the image of something that is ugly and rootless, subject to every whim of the wind. The same is true of symbols all through the Bible. When a symbol is used, always look for the literal meaning behind it. God does not use symbols randomly, just pulling them out of the sky as if they have no meaning whatsoever. People have spent centuries explaining away God's Word simply because they did not necessarily understand it. I'm saying take the plain sense approach. Assume that God wants to communicate, that God knows how to communicate, and that God says what He means and means what He says. Cya!
Jun 2nd 2007
Scott, there are a few problems with your previous posts, most of which are presuppositional. You wrongly assume a "liteal" interpretation of Bible prophecy. And you set up a false distinction between God's economy with Israel and the Church. I'd like to address both of these.
First, although you believe in "prophetic perspective," which I agree is biblical, this still is not "literal." No matter how you slice it scott, it is simply not literal. You mention that God always fulfills prophecy literally, however there are clear examples where this is not the case. Acts 2:29-36 teaches that Christ is on David's throne! He ascended to the right hand of God. Peter said that David spoke of Christ's resurrection because "he knew that God promised that one of his descendents would sit on his throne." After his death he was exalted to the right hand of God, since the throne of david is often identified with the throne of God in both the OT and the NT then this prophecy is fulfilled. I find it quite offensive that certain dispensationalist will deny the present aspects of Christ's kingdom and reign. This is fufilled in Christ's present reign.
A second example of a non-literal fulfillment of prophecy can be seen in Acts 15 where James quotes from Amos 9. James is asked about the present state of Gentiles and whether or not they must be circumcized. He replies saying, "Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, "After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old." Now, James response was for that time period. The "rebuidling" of the tent of David is in relation to Christ in his ascension and resurrection. This prophecy has been fulfilled in Christ. Dispensationalists believe that James is yet looking forward to the millennial reign of Christ when the temple is rebuilt. Once again, this is not a literal interpretation. A major gap must be inserted to have this occur. The only reason why dispensationalists do this is because they are afraid of seeing Christ fulfill such a promise. James was answering a question for that time period. There is no contextual evidence to support a future restoration here. Not even the usuage of "After This." Instead, The tent of David (christ) was rebuilt so that the remnant of manking and the gentiles who are called by the name of the Lord would seek the Lord. Considering that the question being asked to James was concerning the Gentiles, this is exactly what he was saying. His answer was essentially saying, "Yes, the reason why Gentiles are allowed to come to Christ and not be circumcized is because Christ is risen, and through his resurrection God is bringing Gentiles to himself as this prophecy from amos indicates."
Third, You mentioned that this church age is mystery, and it certainly is in some respects. However, it was not foreign to the prophets and this age is not paranthetical to the Sovereign will of God. Peter said in Acts 3:24, "Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days." This is post-pentecost! This is after the "church age" started! How could this be? This brings me to the third point, Jeremiah 31 is the great prophecy of the New Covenant. This covenant is said to be made to "The house of Israel" and the "House of Judah." Then in Heb 8:7-13 we are retold of this prophecy being brought with Christ! Likewise, Hebrews 10:15-25 tells us that the new covenant is for us. So then who is "the House of Israel" or the "House of Judah?" Well, the New Testament tells us it is those who belong to Christ. Christ is the true Israel. If we belong to Christ, we are a part of the people of God, or Israel. Gal 3:29 tells us if we are Christ's then we are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise. In this same manner, Eph 2:11-22 tells us that "In Christ" we are no longer excluded from the commonwealth of Israel or the covenants or the promises. Christ has made us into "one body." Just as Ro 11 tells us that the gentiles are grafted into the Olive Tree. Also, 1 Peter 2:9-10 uses explicit Jewish terms and labels and applies it to those who belong to Christ, "You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God..." Notice this, we are a chosen people, wasn't Israel a chosen people? We are a royal priesthood. How could this be? How can the church be a holy nation? Or the people of God? Or how can Gal 6:16 explicitly refer to the church as "The Israel of God"?
This is because Christ has fulfilled all of the promises made to Israel in the OT. Notice the words that Paul uses in Gal 3:16, "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ." The promises were made to Christ. Because of Christ, the writer of Hebrews says in Heb 12:22, "You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.." Wait, but aren't these terms found in Isaiah 2 and Zec 12-14? If the writer of Hebrews is correct then Christ fufills those OT passages that the dispensationalist believes applies to a future/restored Israel. Christ is also the true Temple. Jesus said that "one greater then the temple is here" (Mt. 12:6). The writer of Hebrews tells us that Christ put away with sacrifice with his own sacrifice. So there is no need for the sacrificial system or the temple. (How could the temple be reinstituted during Christ's millenial reign? This is the most blasphemous idea I've ever heard of, but of course, if we're going to maintain a strict "literal" interpretation then it is necessary). Jesus is the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37, which talks about living water flowing from the temple. Jesus said in John 4 that he is the living water. In John 2:19 Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." He was referring to himself. Jesus is also our prophet as Heb 1:1-2 clearly teaches us. Therefore he is our prophet, priest, and king.
Jun 2nd 2007
Could you guys move this to my forum? It's a much better place for dialog.
Jun 10th 2007
If the Man of sin is simply a Christian who sins - as the Bible says, then all of the mass hysteria is exactly that -Hysteria.
Jun 10th 2007
@Brian: I personally do not think that the antichrist is simply a Christian who sins. Could you give a little more backing to that claim?
Jun 12th 2007
Hi Chris --- Sure here is an address that will clarify my thinking on this and other topics -- http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/brmicke/page1.html Brian
Jun 12th 2007
My Basic thought - is that - since the temple of God is the individual Christians body - that there is no person that can set themselves up in that temple except the Individual Christian.This refers to the bible verse - 2 Thess 2:4 Brian