Today’s post is a fine-tuning of how we use the term, “the Antichrist.” No doctrinal issues are in jeopardy that I am aware of, but Zane Hodges proposed that the term, “the Antichrist,” refers to the coming false prophet of Revelation 13:11, not to the first beast of Revelation 13:1. Here is Zane’s argument from his commentary on 1 John:
The readers had already received teaching about the end times and had heard that the Antichrist is coming. Many interpreters take the term Antichrist as a reference to the “man of sin” who claims godhood in the Jewish temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4) and who will rule the world (Revelation 13:5–8). But John is the only New Testament writer to use this term, and it is clear from 4:1–3 that the many antichrists of this verse are essentially the same as the “many false prophets” of 4:1. This strongly suggests that the Antichrist is none other than the False Prophet of Revelation 13:11–17; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10 who will assist the man of sin.[1]
I will provide three lines of reasoning why the prince to come, not the false prophet, is “the Antichrist.”
1. The Primacy of the Prince to Come
In his comments on 1 John 2:18, Zane writes:
Thus we may understand the phrase the last hour in the latter sense as a period during which human history will climax with the rise (and overthrow) of Satan’s final great deception, of which the Antichrist is the primary human agent.[2]
It makes sense for John to assign a title such as “the Antichrist” to “the primary human agent” of the coming tribulation. But, whom would the audience recognize as the primary human agent of evil during the tribulation? It would probably be the one whom the Old Testament speaks about so clearly, the coming prince, not the false prophet. The Book of Revelation is the first text to bring the false prophet into the discussion and he is presented as one who serves the coming prince, not vice versa.
2. Pre-Trib Rapture
In his comments on 1 John 2:18, Zane writes that “The readers had already received teaching about the end times and had heard that the Antichrist is coming.”[3] The false prophet is not mentioned in the Bible prior to Revelation, so Zane argues from silence that the original audience could have affiliated this Antichrist with the false prophet. John’s audience may have already received this teaching, but it is more likely that their understanding of prophecy aligned with what was Paul was writing to Thessalonica around that time.
The Geneva translation renders 2 Thessalonians 2:3, “Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition.” There is good reason to understand this “departing” as the rapture.[4]
We believe that the rapture will come before the 7-year tribulation. This man of sin will be active for the entire seven years (cf. Daniel 9:27), but apparently, the false prophet will only be visibly active for the second 3.5 years (Revelation 13:11–18). It would be odd for John to talk about the end of days by skipping half of the tribulation and going straight to the false prophet, who makes people worship the man of sin.
Many pre-tribbers would say that the Rapture had not yet been disclosed when John wrote this epistle, in which case it would make sense for him to point to the first known thing of the coming tribulation: the man of sin. Even if the audience already knew about the Rapture, then it would still make sense to point to the man of sin, because he relates to the world that is left behind, which would be a development of the previous three verses (1 John 2:15–16). The most awkward reading would be the one that Zane proposes, that the audience knew about the Rapture and the coming man of sin, but that John skips all this and goes to the subservient false prophet.
3. The Dating of Revelation and 1 John 4:3
1 John 4:3 is:
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (1 John 4:3)
In his commentary, Zane skips over the phrase “and is now already in the world.” There is a similar term in Revelation 17:10, which Zane uses to date Revelation. In the introduction to his commentary on the epistles, Zane mentions the date of Revelation:
…the mention in Revelation 17:10 of five fallen Roman emperors is most naturally taken as referring to Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, bringing us to A.D. 68. In that case, Galba is the reigning emperor (cf. “one is” in Revelation 17:10) and Otho would be “the other” who “has not yet come” and “must continue a short time” (Revelation 17:10). Galba ruled from June 68 to January 69 (Otho only until April of 69), so the date of the Book of Revelation may with some confidence be placed during the period of Galba’s rule…[5]
Revelation 17:11 is “The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.” So, the coming man of perdition is a resurrected Roman emperor, specifically one of the first seven emperors.
Now we get into a grammatical issue. The NKJV supplies an italicized word in the phrase, “And this is the spirit of the Antichrist.” Italicized words are not in the original, but are added for clarity or smoothness. The phrase could be translated more literally, “And this is that of the Antichrist,” which implies “the spirit” of the Antichrist. The next phrase is “which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.” What does “which” refer to? If John means “the Antichrist, whom you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world,” then it would align nicely with the wider context of Biblical prophecy. Bible students have anticipated this future oppressor ever since the Old Testament times and, if Zane is correct about Revelation 17:11, then he will be a resurrected Roman emperor, who well could be said to be “now already in the world” per 1 John 4:3.
Conclusion
This blog post does not matter much. We still agree that there will be a rapture, a 7-year tribulation, a world leader with a false prophet, a future Messianic Kingdom, and much more. The only real impact that this discussion has is on how we use the term, “the Antichrist.” I am happy to continue endorsing several teachers and authors who see “the Antichrist” as the false prophet, but here are three reasons to shift the title of “the Antichrist” away from the false prophet and to the primary human agent of the tribulation.
[1] Zane Hodges, The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 108.
[2] Zane Hodges, The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 107.
[3] Zane Hodges, The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 108.
[4] See Andy Woods’ talk here: https://deanbible.org/old-testament-menuitem/habakkuk-menuitem/message/10-2-thessalonians-2-3a-spiritual-apostasy-or-rapture
[5] Zane Hodges, The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 24.