The AntiChrist Is Both Beasts

It's popular to argue today that modern eschatology has gotten their identification of the beast and antichrist all mixed up. Modern eschatology gets almost everything wrong, so why not one more thing?

However, because there is one, and yet many leading up to the one, just like eschatological events themselves, the beast and antichrist in New Testament theology can be identified as the same person at any given time, and I will argue that it is in the Book of Revelation.

First, it is important to note that the idea itself stems from the events in Daniel, where Antiochus IV, both a state leader and a religious figure, sets himself up to be worshiped in the temple of God in Jerusalem. He is often called "the lawless one," or as Paul says in 2 Thessalonians "the man of lawlessness." In vv. 2-12, the text reads as follows.

3 gLet no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, hunless the rebellion comes first, and ithe man of lawlessness2 is revealed, jthe son of destruction,3 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, kproclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For lthe mystery of lawlessness mis already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then nthe lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus owill kill with pthe breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by qthe appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan rwith all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for sthose who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore tGod sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe uwhat is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned vwho did not believe the truth but whad pleasure in unrighteousness.

Notice that this language and imagery is taken from Epiphanes, who is both a political and religious figure. Paul is  not merely talking about some false teacher in the church. That would be extremely odd imagery to employ if the man had no political power and was also the object of worship (those who attempt to find some sort of figure like this in the early church fail to find a figure that fits the bill exactly and are left to mold these descriptions to people like a wax nose). 

The reason why this figure must be both political and religious is that he would not have had the ability to exalt himself above Caesar or the Roman gods unless he actually was Caesar and claimed to be the highest of Roman gods, i.e., Jupiter. It may be that Paul is not thinking of a false teacher like Cerinthus, but instead of Caligula who had ordered a statue of himself be placed in the temple (his death being the only thing that ultimately prevented this).

Likewise, the figure often referenced as the beast in Revelation (actually there are two different beasts in Revelation, not one) is clearly a political figure and a religious figure in that it is a Roman Emperor exalting himself as a god. 

Unlike the singular beast in Paul's description, John breaks him up into two different beasts, one making the blasphemous claims of deity and exalting himself above all gods, and one lending him support and making those claims of him as well. 

The question becomes what John is doing in his theology of the man of lawlessness. In Paul's description, the man of lawlessness is accompanied by all sorts of displays of power and false signs and wonders. In Revelation, these signs and wonders are brought about through the second beast, which is the religious teacher.

In fact, I would argue the second beast is not just any religious teacher, but is any false teacher in the church (this beast has the horns of a lamb, i.e., comes in the name and authority of Christ). 

This brings us to the Johannine Epistles, where John states that the spirit of antichrist has already come into the world (1 John 2:18). A similar statement is made by Paul above in that "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work," even though the man of lawlessness is not yet revealed. 

What brings this all together is understanding what the word "antichrist" actually means. The preposition anti in the New Testament means "replacement." It refers in John to either the Christology of false prophets or the false prophets themselves simply because they have placed their false Christ's in the place of the true One, and have hence replaced Christ. They are antichrist. But there is also the AntiChrist to whom John alludes that is merely being prefigured by these false teachers and their false Christs. 

John is likely, therefore, alluding to the man of lawlessness, and if we understand that the word antichrist means "replacement Christ," then we understand that anyone who either teaches himself to be or anyone else to be Christ beside the real Jesus Christ is an antichrist. The beast from the abyss in Revelation qualifies and so does the other beast from the land.

They all likely prefigure the lawless one who will be revealed/the antichrist who is coming.

This also means that any political figure who puts himself in the seat of Christ, or any Christian who props up that figure or any replacement of Christ is antichrist espousing the doctrines of antichrist. It is not limited in its application when it comes to the types that prefigure the actual one who is coming. The beast absolutely exalts himself as a replacement of Christ in Revelation. Christians are to bow to him as lord and savior of the world, not Jesus exclusively.

Hence, it is absolutely fine to identify both of the beasts in Revelation as the antichrists, even though John does not use that language (Revelation is filled with Johannine theology that expresses the concepts used by John elsewhere in the vivid and symbolic imagery of apocalyptic speech). Certainly, John is using Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians, and explaining that the man of lawlessness is accompanied by a false prophet that props him up in support, and that this false prophet is a false teacher(s) in the church (the very false teachers he is dealing with in the letters at the beginning of the book).

None of these shadows are the actually substance, of course. Christ does not rain fire upon Cerinthus or Titus or Nero or Domitian or any other person one seeks to identify in the first century. In fact, the coming of Christ in all of these passages hails the end of the physical existence and reign of the man of lawlessness/beast. That does not happen to any of these people in the first century, and so they remain only types and nothing more.