The Antichrist: His Rise to Power

The Rise and Fall of the Antichrist Part I

We return to the subject of eschatology with this series of posts by looking at the career of the Antichrist. I'll set out the narrative of his rise and fall and connect it to the key bits of information the Bible gives us about him. I can't name names or give dates and times (no one can at this moment, honestly), but what we can understand I will do my best to communicate clearly.

At some point in the days to come, a figure will arise to dominate the world. We commonly refer to him as the Antichrist. He will be a willful, even maniacally manipulative, ruthless, politician, a nominal Muslim, and will hale from Turkiye. It is possible that he will originate in the Balkans, in Syria, in Lebanon, or in Iraq, but my money's on the Turkish Republic. His first move to power will likely occur in his country of origin, and he will face a challenge which puts his rule in question in the early half of his reign. 

According to Daniel 7, what separates the actual from other contenders (or pretenders) for the title is his bold power-grab. The Antichrist rises to power at the expense of three of the ten kingdoms that end up constituting his empire. Furthermore, the Apocalypse locates the throne of Satan, the sponsor and inspiration of the Antichrist, in Pergamum (now Bergama, Turkiye). So Turkiye will be the nation of origin for the Antichrist. If history is the key to the future, that would make Syria and Iraq (possibly Lebanon or Azerbaijan) the prime candidates for the other two ripped out horns.

The Antichrist will be ceded imperial power by an alliance of ten nations, which include the ones he personally reigns over plus seven more. In totality then, the Ten Horns are Turkiye, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, and three of Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria and Azerbaijan. Some of the ten are identified quite clearly in scripture, some are the fruit of my conjecture, but none are in western Europe, and none have anything at all to do with Rome.

Minimally, his empire will be roughly bounded by that area that was ruled by both Alexander (Daniel 8) and the Romans (Daniel 7) in the Levant, the Balkans and Africa. 

The Antichrist is typified by the prophetic figure called the "little (מִצְּעִירָ֑ה: littleness) horn" in Daniel 8. That figure is Greek and arises to power within (upon) the conquests of the "shaggy goat" (Alexander) in the Medo/Persian Empire (the ram). Given the division of Alexander's empire after his death, and the description of the little horn's growth toward the south, toward the east, and toward (yes, in the Hebrew, the "toward" is mentioned thrice) the glorious land (Israel), the little horn could only arise within the Seleucid Empire. 

The "little horn" prophecy was most immediately fulfilled in the Seleucid ruler named Antiochus Epiphanes. However, through the instrumentality of secondary fulfillment, this prophecy looks through him, past him, to the ultimate Antichrist yet to come. The domains of Antiochus included large portions of Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Turkiye, and Iraq, which is indicative of where the Antichrist will rule as well. The type/antitype relationship between Antiochus and the Antichrist is also demonstrated in Daniel 11-12. Daniel 11:21-35 prophetically points to the type (Antiochus); Daniel 11:36-12:4 points to the antitype (Antichrist).

The type of the Antichrist, Antiochus, not only demonstrates the evil persona of the Beast, but also indicates the general location his domain will cover in that kingdom, the Apocalypse styles, "...that was, now is not, and will be again."

In Daniel 11, the prophetic description of Antiochus' rule seamlessly morphs into that of the Antichrist at verse 36. That, in turn, is carried on through to the end of Daniel 12. So in understanding the rise and fall of the Antichrist, it is the type-- the King of the North (the Seleucid Emperor)-- that is most descriptive of the domain and action of the antitype, the Antichrist. Yet, the Antichrist's kingdom is Roman as well (as is determined by Daniel 7), so the domain of the Antichrist will be roughly bounded by that area controlled by both Alexander and the Romans, but arising after the Roman Empire as is necessitated by Revelation 17:8.

The Roman Empire could not possibly be described as "once was, now is not and yet will be" at any of the times the Apocalypse was supposedly written.

Daniel 7:8 uses a different word (זְעֵירָה֙: small, insignificant) than does 8:9 to describe the little horn, but the concept is the same. That makes sense because they're not quite the same: one is the type, the other the antitype. In 7:8, the little horn arises from ten other horns on the fourth beast of the vision. The four beasts represented Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome in succession. In the Apocalypse, those same ten horns are said to arise in the day of the Antichrist for the sole purpose of turning power over to him. Yet, they were not in existence at the time of John (Revelation 17:8) despite coming out of the fourth beast in Daniel 7.

That description, by itself, rules out interpreting the Ten Horns as a revival of the Roman Empire. That empire was in existence at the time John received the Revelation, so it was, in fact, "now," quite the opposite of "now is not." Since the ten-horned empire of the Antichrist represents a resurrection of a empire that was dead in the Apostle John's day, and it has to been seen as within the Roman Empire because of Daniel 7, and also within one of the Alexandrian daughter empires because of Daniel 8; therefore, that revived empire must be the realm of the King of North, the Seleucid Empire which expired in 63 BC.

In view of all the prerequisites and the facts of history, interpreting the Ten Horns and the "little horn" (the Antichrist) as arising in western Europe is unscriptural and just wrongheaded.

At some point after the Ten Horns have ceded imperial power to the beast, he will sign a 7 year pact with Israel. The treaty will give Israel control over the Temple mount and the right to rebuild that structure. Whether or not this is the reason that the King of the South (Egypt) rebels, I am not sure, but Egypt most certainly does rebel as signified by the apparently fatal head wound of the Beast. Since the ten heads represent kingdoms, the wound is not to the person of the Antichrist but to his control over one of those kingdoms. The Antichrist reacts so forcefully and utterly to this challenge that the rest of the world loses all desire to withstand him.

I'll talk more about the horns, and the Antichrist with my next post.

Index to the Entire Series
I, II, III