The beast is NOT the antichrist. [Record scratch] What?
It’s popular to hear folks identify the beast of Revelation (you know,
the one whose number is 666) as THE antichrist. Or, if not that beast, then the other beast,
or the false prophet, or even the dragon. Here’s the point: If you believe or if you
refer to anyone or anything in the book of Revelation as THE antichrist, you’re doing so
from your presuppositions. You’re not doing so from Scripture. And once I explain why,
we will see two terrible things that happen when you DO call the beast the antichrist.
You may be tempted now to click off this video because you feel you already disagree with me,
but why not prove you have an open mind and stick with me for just a few minutes?
Welcome to Topical Bible Studies,
where we pursue God’s truth together. Ready to study? Let’s dive in.
The word antichrist is found five times in Scripture. And all five can be found
in 1 John and 2 John. Therefore, the word antichrist is not in the book of
Revelation. If you’d like to study this a bit more, check out my other recent
video on antichrist. Click up there, or find the link in the description.
Now, if you’ve got a loose view of Scripture, and you think the Bible should change over time
based on our interpretations and culture, that’s one thing. However, if you’re like me, and you
have a high view of Scripture, and you believe God has a reason for saying what He says in His word,
then shouldn’t we pay attention to and honor His words? The Holy Spirit inspired the apostle John
to write five books of the New Testament: the gospel of John; 1, 2, and 3 John; and Revelation.
John is the only one who uses the word antichrist in the Bible, yet he never uses it when discussing
the beast or the false prophet. In fact, he never uses it in the book of Revelation at all.
Instead, in his epistles, John talks about antichrist as an attitude, teaching,
and spirit of the first century. He specifically said that those in the first century who denied
Jesus’ coming in the flesh had an antichrist spirit. And that speaking against Christ and
His gospel in this way was how many people in the first century were anti-Christ.
But then, when discussing the beasts of Revelation, he talks about symbols,
signs, power, authority, blasphemous names,
and false worship. If we start calling the beast THE antichrist, two terrible things happen:
One, we abuse Scripture. In the 1970s, one author sold millions of copies of a
book doing just this.* He spent an entire chapter of his book (more than 15 pages
long) on the subject of “the antichrist,” using “beast,” “Future Fuehrer,” and “the
Antichrist” interchangeably. He knew very well how sensationalism in religion can make millions. Yet,
not once in this chapter did he even reference 1 and 2 John, the only passages in the Bible that
actually use the word antichrist. I don’t think I’m being nit-picky about words here. To give a
different example, the apostle Paul speaks of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11. Then,
in Romans 14, he mentions a person who eats vegetables only. If I were to start claiming
that the vegetables in Romans 14 constitute the Lord’s Supper, I have committed the same
blunder. I have taken a phrase from one book by Paul and applied it to a totally different book
and context by the same author. John wrote his epistles for a specific purpose to one audience,
and the book of Revelation he wrote to a different audience and purpose. When I take
from one context and force it into another, this is reading into the Bible my own interpretations.
The second and worse terrible thing that happens, which is a byproduct of the first, is we miss
John’s point in 1 and 2 John. You see, John had an important point to make in his letters. However,
if, while reading 1 and 2 John, and we come across the word antichrist, and we begin thinking of
666 and beasts, then we’ve tragically missed his point. We’ve lost the benefit of a major section
of the New Testament. The beast in Revelation is pretty apparent. John says the beast is going
to have a blasphemous name. He’s going to demand worship. But the people who had the spirit of the
antichrist in John’s letters are subtle, crafty, and disguised. They were people who claimed to
be disciples, yet began teaching falsehood about Jesus’ coming in the flesh. Both were warnings to
Christians, but two different warnings. Have we missed one of them by trying to combine the two?
And if we could so easily miss the Holy Spirit’s point by our presuppositions in this case,
what other passages might we have abused?
If careful study of Scripture is not important to you, and if you’re okay with using Bible words in
unbiblical ways, then ignore what I’ve said. If I’ve missed something, or you disagree with me,
please mention it in the comments below, but keep it healthy and respectful.
Otherwise, I hope you’ve understood my plea: Let’s pay attention to the way God talks about
things so we don’t miss His point. We are not at all denying the reality of the beast. But
because we have paid attention to Scripture, and not what so many folks are saying today, then we
will stick with using Bible words in Bible ways. The beast of Revelation is not the antichrist.