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.