Ichthys Acronym Image

Home             Site Links

Antichrist:  Alive and Well and Living on Planet Earth?

Word RTF

Question #1: 

Dear Brother Bob, I noticed in one of your paragraphs you believe that the antichrist may be alive today. I just wondered if you could tell me how you arrive at that conclusion from scripture my dear brother. I will be honest and say that I struggle to read too much off the Internet in one go as I get headaches maybe I need to wear reading glasses or something but if you have stated it already on your site can you post me a link to take me to it. I always value and respect the material you post and I have such a passion for eschatology. In Messiahs love,

Response #1:  

Good to hear from you. Before I answer your question, a suggestion on the reading. Apologies if you already know this (and I'm sure you do), but in the interest of helping a brother I sometimes point things out just in case. You can increase the type-font size on your browser making it as big as you like (by hitting "control +" at the same time); you can also adjust the brightness of your display (to cut down the glare). Also, of course, while it is a bit expensive, all of these studies can be printed out (and the type-font size can easily be adjusted for this too). If you do choose to print out some of these studies, please see the link to the first FAQ #1 "Are these studies available in printed format?". Generally speaking, the RTF option is the best one to try first, since those files are easily manipulated to change the font, font-size, and printed area of the page (so as to save paper and toner). Next in order of priority would be the Adobe PDF files (harder to change). Please do not try to print straight from the HTML on the browser, as this will give the worst results. As I say, you probably are well-versed in all these matters, but in case you have questions about the above, do feel free to write back.

As to antichrist, as you correctly represent, I have opined as how he could be presently alive. Clearly, there is no way for me to know that for certain. My supposition is based upon the end-times chronology which, if correctly estimated in these studies, will begin in less than two decades. As one assumes from the representations of him in scripture, antichrist will not be a mere teenager or younger when he comes to dominate the world; therefore we can well suppose that he is currently alive -- again, assuming the validity of the schema constructed in these materials. Here is the caveat I include on this point in part 5 of the Satanic Rebellion series:

The most potentially controversial piece of information developed below, that is, the projected date for the commencement of the Tribulation, is based upon the following suppositions (all of which are treated within the context of this study):

* The seven millennial day interpretation is taught in scripture and meant to be understood and applied.

* The Church Age will last for two millennial days or 2000 years.

* The Church Age commenced following the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

* These events took place in 33 A.D.

* The Tribulation belongs to both the Church and Jewish Ages and is therefore to be subtracted from the 2000 year total when calculating the start of the Tribulation.

* The half hour of silence in heaven at the breaking of the seventh seal (Rev.8:1) signifies a half year grace period that shifts the start point from spring to fall.

* Scripture gives no indication of either shortening or lengthening of this time-line, and therefore no such change of schedule is anticipated.

The above points are all presented here as true, and the analysis upon which they are based is set forth below. Clearly, deviation from any of the above will alter the entire scheme. It is also true, as we have already said, that alteration of the schema presented below is certainly within the power and authority of the Almighty. The very end of the Tribulation, for example, will be shortened by some undisclosed amount of time (Mk.13:20). Rather than undermining the theory advanced in this study, however, Mark 13:20 in actuality supports the importance of paying heed to the Bible's chronological information. For if "the days are shortened", then surely this means that there was a definite heavenly timetable in the first place. Secondly, Mark 13:20 indicates that the shortening mentioned is a matter of days, weeks at the most (i.e., not enough to change the general time-line given below). This is certainly in line with the very specific tally of days and months given in Daniel and Revelation (Dan.7:25; 8:14; 12:7; 12:11-12; Rev.11:2-3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5).

As the result of the above is a commencement date for the Tribulation of 2026, the assumption of the beast being presently on earth is a very good one, if these researches above be correct, that is (and I do firmly believe that they are). You can find the specifics of how the chronological data is extracted from scripture at the following links:

Evidence for the Seven Millennial Day interpretation (in SR 5)

The Specific Chronology for the Seven Days of Human History (in SR 5)

There is much on eschatology throughout the site, but part 3B of Coming Tribulation is all about antichrist.

Thanks again for all your good words of support.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #2: 

Hi Bob, How are you my brother in Christ? Have been dealing with a few people who don't believe the Antichrist is a person, but a whole nation or religion...even the papal commission. At first they were trying to tell me that I was stating that Satan was antichrist and used the reason it couldn't be was that Satan knows darn well there is a God and a Son. I stated that I wasn't saying this at all, that I believed Antichrist to be the 'seed' of Satan. I had used your list for the 'names of antichrist' and he asked if this was the author's opinion or was it scripture. I haven't responded to him yet as I am still searching for my response.

He is correct in that Satan knows as well as the demons:

James 2:19 (King James Version)
19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

So, my question to you is that when scripture states that:

1st John 2:18 (King James Version)
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

I wish to ask him about this part of the verse, 'heard that Antichrist shall come'. Wouldn't we need to ask who is this? Why is it separated from the 'many' that are already here and always will be? Isn't this distinguishing a separate entity than an 'antichrist' of the 'many'?

Also, when referring to the scripture below, 'her seed and your seed', many think it is only a metaphor for a country and not a literal offspring. Yet, later in the scripture it states 'HE will attack your head' and 'you will attack HIM from behind'. But, isn't Israel and Babylon both depicted as females? Is this consistent in the original language when referring to lands or peoples or countries as a whole? Why is it using the masculine in this instance? Does it confirm it is an individual by linguistic standards and a male at that?

Genesis 3:15 (your translation)
"And I shall place hostility between you and the woman, that is, between your seed and her Seed. He (i.e., Christ) will attack you head[-on], but you will attack Him from behind" (lit., "His heel")"

This guy knows his Bible and has a fairly good understanding of scripture, but when it comes to anything pertaining to the future Tribulation he has different ideas about many things.

So, my other question to you, and to him is, are we to assume that Antichrists can't lie verbally to others as to faith and knowledge in the Father and the Son? I guess if we are to use the 'Christ test' will all those being tested always tell the truth of their faith or lack of?

And can't Antichrist also just mean to be 'against' anything and everything that is against God and the Son? He uses the four instances in scripture that literally use the word "Antichrist' as the only definitions of Antichrist, hence why he doesn't agree with your list for 'names of Antichrist'. If Antichrist can only be human flesh, for we know Satan and the demons know there is a God and Son, what do we call these demons, even half demons as Antichrist will be, who will blaspheme the name of God and try to annihilate faith off of the earth? Now we know the direct reasons, but if Antichrist, by John's definition in the scriptures, only means those who deny the Son and the Father, does this mean that human beings are worse than Satan and Antichrist past, present and that future time? Isn't being against the Father and son also being ANTIchrist or is it only human beings who won't believe upon Him?


In Christ,

Response #2: 

On your questions, first, there is no doubt that antichrist, aka "the beast" is an individual, not a metaphor. Scripture is very clear on this point over and over again. I will say a few things about that point; however, I have to say that this is such an obvious biblical truth (which you have supported very nicely -- if Christ is "your Seed", a person, then how can "his seed" not be a person too without making Christ a metaphor as well?) and such an almost universally held opinion that a position which doubts it would have to have some very sturdy evidence in order be taken seriously prima facie.

For example, in all of the passages which actually use this term, the "personhood" of antichrist is made very clear:

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They (i.e., the "antichrist") went out from us, but they did not really belong to us . . .
1 John 2:18-19a NIV

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:22 NIV

but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
1 John 4:3 NIV

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2 John 7 NIV

The word "Christ" in Greek is a masculine noun meaning "the Anointed One" (i.e., the Messiah). The word "antichrist" is identical with the exception of having the added prefix anti-. Thus it too is a masculine noun referring to a person (not a concept or a metaphor). Rather than merely "against", however, the "anti" in antichrist also and perhaps even more significantly means "instead of"; antichrist is a pseudo-Christ -- and only a person could be that (link: Definition of antichrist). Antichrist is also of course the beast, and the beast is a "king" who rules a kingdom throughout the book of Revelation (how could a king ruling a kingdom be a metaphor for a kingdom?). If the argument is that the beast and antichrist are not the same person, then the beast surely is a person who does and represents everything we teach that antichrist does and represents; in that case, all we have done is dispense with a name for him (and wrongly so). The same thing goes for all of the other prophetic designations for antichrist (link: Names of antichrist): dispensing of one name does not eradicate the extensive prophecies about this individual, whatever we call him; the fact of so much prophecy about this pseudo-Christ and his tribulational activities means that the only way to reduce him to a metaphor is to reduce all of eschatology to a metaphor (as the R.C.'s and old line protestant denominations actually do). But if one is looking to scripture, antichrist must be taken seriously as the person he is and the threat to faith and the faithful he represents. One could go on at very great length, but I think you get the point. I am happy to address this further if you or your friends so desire.

On the next point, that of the demons being aware of the existence of God, I do not follow the logic at all. If the argument is that because the devil knows he can't win therefore he won't fight, 1) why did he fall in the first place?; 2) why is he fighting might and main up to this present hour?; 3) why does scripture show him fighting with everything he has right up until Christ's return -- and even continuing the fight when he is released at the end of the Millennium (Rev.20:7-10)? It is a false, Platonic argument to assume that knowledge = behavior. For example, we believers know that sin is wrong, that sin is offensive to the God and Savior we love, that sin damages our spiritual growth, hurts our relationship with Jesus, and results in all sorts of negative consequences for us, not the least of which is very painful divine discipline. Yet we all still occasionally stumble, we all still occasionally fall, we all still occasionally sin -- sometimes more than occasionally. When the devil rebelled, he had a deeper knowledge and understanding of the perfect character and unlimited power of God than the most spiritually advanced of us can presently imagine; but he did it anyway. Such is the blinding power of pride, ambition, and arrogance. If Satan were going to be restrained by knowledge, it would have been at the point; now he has nothing to lose.

But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.
Revelation 12:12b NIV

I also can't see why it would be assumed that antichrist, whose father the devil is the "father of lies" (Jn.8:44), will not be able to lie. Quite the contrary, his name means "false Messiah", so that the very nature of his being, his program, his presentation of himself to the world is a lie. He will proclaim himself to be Jesus Christ (and a bigger lie than that I cannot imagine).

Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ’ and will deceive many."
Matthew 24:5 NIV

For this reason, getting this doctrine wrong is likely to be deadly for any Christian who finds him/herself in the midst of the Tribulation. Refusing to acknowledge that there will be a person who dominates tribulational events and who claims to be Jesus Christ (offering many convincing "proofs" of the same, so convincing that he will be able to "deceive, if possible, even the elect": Matt.24:25), will certainly predispose such an ill-prepared believer to be deceived. For if the only person who can seem to be Christ is Christ, then following antichrist as if he were Christ will be perhaps an irresistible temptation.

In our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #3:

Dear Brother Bob,

Sorry for troubling you again I know you must be a very busy man, I was puzzled by a verse in Daniel, 11:37. When it is speaking of the Antichrist it says he regards not the desire of women, does this verse mean that the antichrist has no interest in women at all?

In Messiah's love,

Response #3:   

Always good to hear from you. This reference is complicated by the nature of Daniel's Hebrew (which is difficult because of its syncopated nature). The reference is to antichrist's religious regime rather than to his personal preferences. Here is my translation:

(37) He will have no regard for the God of his fathers (i.e., the Lord), nor those favored by their wives, nor will he have regard for any god [at all], for he will exalt himself above them all.

Here is what I have written about this verse in part 4 of Coming Tribulation (see the link):

Verse 37: The phrase often translated "the desire of women" is not a reference to any particular pagan god, but represents the replacement or rather superceding of all other pagan activity by the new religion which worships only Satan and antichrist. In Jewish experience, foreign women were often the ones who led their husbands to idolatry (cf. Num.25:1-3; 1Ki.11:1-13), so that this phrase stands for all pagan influence in contrast to the "God of his fathers". Not only will antichrist "have no regard for the God of his fathers" (i.e., the Lord), but will also not revere "those [gods and religions] favored by their wives", and, indeed, will not even have any "regard for any god [at all]", but will instead "exalt himself above them all". In place of both the worship of the one true God and all other pagan worship (wherein the satanic origins and effects may be presently concealed to one degree or another), antichrist's new religion will put into place the direct worship of the devil (along with the worship of his son, the beast).

In addition to the full treatment of the Daniel 11 passage in the link above, here are two other links to discussions of the phrase:

Antichrist's 'desire of women' in Daniel 11:37 et al.

A Question about Daniel 11:37.

Please feel free to write any time!

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #4:  


I'm writing from Australia. I'm just browsing thru section 3, on coming tribulation by a chap called Robert - good stuff, well researched.

A few years ago there was a Christian preacher called Rick Coombes [I think] who wrote some similar stuff about Babylon.

Am I right in assuming that it would be your prediction that the Babylon of Revelation is most likely the U.S? It seems that way from what I've read so far.

The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about the false prophet. Your text seems to indicate that you believe the antichrist will be the "King of Babylon" - which I assume to be the political leader of Babylon.

If the false prophet is a spiritual leader, do you think he too will rise up along side the antichrist out of the same nation, or is it possible he will be based somewhere else? I'm only asking for your general opinion, I won't hold you to it if your wrong, but would be interested to get your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for your hard work on these subjects, it is appreciated by both myself and some of my friends in Australia.


Response #4: 

Good to make your acquaintance. Yes this is indeed how I interpret the matter, although I am always quick to point out that the US of the Tribulation will be markedly different from our country today. As I say at one point in part 3B, comparing the contemporary US to tribulational Babylon is a little like comparing Weimar Germany of the 1920's to Nazi Germany of the 1940's; it may be the same country but the situation has changed so radically on so many levels that it is a bit of an "apples and oranges" comparison. Incidentally, this is all spelled out in part 3B of Coming Tribulation (see the link: "Probable Identification of the Future 'Mystery Babylon"), so keep reading and many of your questions about this may be answered (but I am certainly always happy to answer any and all Bible questions in any case).

As to the false prophet, I can't think of anything in scripture which nails his origin down to Babylon. The worldwide religion of antichrist comes to prominence particularly at the Tribulation's midpoint, as it is a worldwide religion. Also, as antichrist's power-base is at least half European, there is nothing to rule out the second beast having a non-US provenance. But I must confess it seems to me to make more sense a priori that they should both come from Babylon. That is what I expect to happen, but we have to be ready to be flexible about our expectations where the Bible is not specific.

On the false prophet and the tribulational religion of antichrist, please see the following links:

Characteristics of the New Religion of Antichrist

The False Piety of Antichrist's Tribulational Religion

The Anti-Christian Religion of Antichrist and its World-wide Expansion

The Persuasiveness of the Tribulational False Religion

The False Prophet's Administration of Antichrist's False Religion

Thanks you for your great questions, and thanks so much too for your encouraging words about this ministry.

In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question #5: 

Shalom Bob,

In Rev. 17:9 we read the following translation from the greek text which reveals that the Woman, Mystery Babylon, sits upon ALL Seven Heads (Mountains) of the Scarlet Beast.

Rev. 17:9
Here the mind having wisdom. The Seven Heads Mountains are Seven, where the Woman sits upon THEM. 

There greek word 'autos’ used above for where the Woman sits (MOUNTAINS) is a - pronoun PLURAL genitive neuter.

Moreover, Rev. 17:10 reveals the 'additional’ identities of the Seven Heads on which the Woman sits as 'Seven Kings’ as well – thus the symbolic Seven Heads are explained as Seven Mountains AND Seven Kings.

Rev. 17:10 KJV
And there [they] are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Meanwhile, in your published internet article entitled, "The Coming Tribulation: A History of the Apocalypse" under the subsection of ’the seven heads’ you suggest the following (emphasis added):

"…The seven heads primarily represent the seven rulers of revived Rome allied with antichrist from the beginning of his rise. In Revelation 17:9-11 we discover that they also have a secondary symbolic meaning, for they also represent the original six emperors of Rome with antichrist being the seventh emperor of revived Rome…"

With respect to this summation here is my concern regarding the 'secondary symbolic meaning’ you suggest. As stated above, the greek text of Rev. 17:9 reveals that the Woman rides ALL Seven Heads of the Scarlet Beast. To this end, there is NO Scriptural mention of any discrimination between the two meanings (Seven Mountains AND Seven Kings) of the Seven Headed Beast with respective distinction to the Woman riding either/or - one but not the other.

Therefore, Rev. 17:9-10 then compels that the Woman rides BOTH the Seven Mountains AND (not either/or) the Seven Kings – as the Seven Heads.

In summary, if what you suggest then is true the Woman (the Great City) would have to ride BOTH the Seven Heads (rulers) of future revived Rome AND the Seven Emperors as well (former original six emperors of ancient Rome plus the future seventh emperor antichrist of revived Rome).

Response #5:  

The woman is not said to sit on the heads, only on the mountains. The heads (seven kings) represent mountains (seven kingdoms); it is on the later that the woman sits. Clearly, in the vision John saw, the woman cannot be imagined actually to sit on seven heads simultaneously -- she is mounted on the back of the beast who has seven heads. Thus, the woman only "sits on the heads" in a metaphorical sense, not in a literal sense that can be viewed. The meaning is very clear: Babylon depends/rests upon the revived Roman empire which will be the sword wielded by the beast, so to speak.

As to the double application, that comes not from the 7/7 here, but from the description of the beast who is said to be both an "eighth" king (actual Greek: the 8th), AND "one of the seven" (Rev.17:11). Therefore he is both within the symbolism of the "five have fallen, one is, one is yet to come" (he is the one yet to come, so powerful that he is described as filling out the line of the original six Julio-Claudian Roman emperors [which actually starts with Caesar, not Augustus]), AND he is outside of the "seven" taken together (that is, he is the ruler of the seven who constitute the college kings of revived Rome -- he is from Babylon, not from revived Rome, but will rule over revived Rome and its 7 and later 10 kings = he is "the eighth").  See the link: CT 3B.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #6: 

Shalom Bob,

Thank you for responding. You state the following:

"The woman is not said to sit on the heads, only on the mountains. The heads (seven kings) represent mountains (seven kingdoms); it is on the later that the woman sits…Thus, the woman only "sits on the heads" in a metaphorical sense, not in a literal sense that can be viewed…"

In your above response with respect to Rev. 17:9 you are suggesting that the Seven Heads represent 'Seven Kings’ and the Seven Mountains represent 'Seven Kingdoms’. Thus, in this scenario we would have Seven Heads AND Seven Mountains – hence, Seven Kings AND Seven Kingdoms. However, the Seven Kings are never mentioned in Rev. 17:9 but are addressed in Rev. 17:10 as the 'AND…’ (additional) representation of the Seven Heads.

Meanwhile, the translation you are suggesting does not seem to be what is actually translated from Rev. 17:9 with regards to the Greek Text, the KJV nor the NIV. Each of these following translations only reveals that the Seven Heads ARE (Strong’s greek 1526/1510) Seven Mountains on which the Woman sits – not Seven Kings AND Seven Mountains.

Rev. 17:9 (Greek Text)
Here the mind having wisdom. The Seven Heads Mountains are Seven, where the Woman sits upon THEM.

Rev. 17:9 (KJV)
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Rev. 17:9 (NIV)
This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.

Response #6: 

I don't have any problem with "are" = "stand for" in biblical prophecy (indeed, that is really the only thing it can mean when you stop to think about it, since heads are not mountains and mountains are not heads). The further context seems to demand it: "and they are seven kings". You don't imagine that John in his vision was given to see the woman sitting on seven kings, I don't suppose; it's the same with the heads. She rides the back of the beast; but the beast itself is in its essential symbolism both the king and his kingdom (antichrist and revived Rome). As this discussion has shown again and again, these are interchangeable. Babylon rides the kingdom; the kingdom is composed initially of seven kingdoms; the seven kingdoms each have a head, a king, who is intimately connected with antichrist (likely also nephilim in my conjecture; see the link and also in CT 3B, "The Seizure of Revived Rome").

Hope this helps.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #7:

Shalom Bob,

Getting back to our previous discussion regarding Rev. 17:9-10, if I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is that the 'Seven Heads' are = to 7 Mountains AND the Seven Heads are = to 7 Kings, but the 7 Mountains AND the 7 Kings are NOT equal to each other. Therefore, with respect to this premise the harlot Mystery Babylon metaphorically sits upon the Seven Heads which are = to the 7 Mountains but does NOT equally sit upon the 7 Kings.

However, there is another way to grammatically view Rev. 17:9-10. The 'Seven Heads' are = to 7 Mountains AND the 7 Mountains are = to the 7 Kings. Thus, the 7 Heads, the 7 Mountains, and the 7 Kings are all synonymous with each other. To this end, Mystery Babylon would then metaphorically sit upon each of the 7's above.

Why do I suggest this? It would seem that the 7 Kings of Rev. 17:10 are not merely the typical 'horned' human Kings of previous Scriptures but rather they are somewhat different altogether, perhaps the seven demonic spirits that once ruled/will rule the 7 Mountains (7 Heads) to which each are contemporaries, Prince of Persia, Prince of Grecia, etc.

As such, with respect to this scenario the Beast that WAS, and IS NOT but yet IS (Rev. 17:8-11), is actually one of the demonic angelic 7 Heads/Mountains/Kings (actually one of the first 5 Kings - Prince of Assyria?) that will be released from the Abyss during the Great Tribulation to rule once again - this time he will reign over the final 7th. Empire THROUGH the Man Antichrist. Moreover, it should be noted that the Beast only has 7 Heads (Kingdoms) with 8 Kings and NOT 8 Heads/Kingdoms with 8 Kings.

In closing, are there any Scriptures that support a 'human(s)' ever rising from the Abyss to rule as King(s).

Revelation 17:8 (KJV)
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Response #7:   

I agree with your interpretation, but not with your application. Yes, this is what I have said and written. The heads, horns, and mountains are all closely related. I would add the very important caveat that just as the beast in the allegories of Revelation represents both antichrist and his kingdom even though there is very clearly a large distinction between the two, so it is in the case of the kings/horns/mountains. When scripture is talking about one or the other (i.e., a person or his power-base) it is very important to interpret correctly as to which is which. That is precisely why the allegorical beast is both "one of the seven" (i.e., he is a ruler, antichrist) and "also an eighth" (i.e., he rules the super-kingdom, Babylon, which in turn rules revived Rome).

I am on record as interpreting antichrist as the seed of Satan (Gen.3:15), and have also opined that the ten kings will likewise be nephilim (see the link: in CT 3B, "The Seizure of Revived Rome"), for that explains not only the unusual fact of the meteoric rise of so many "gifted" individuals at one time, unique in human history, but also their great willingness to do antichrist's bidding. I do not, however, see the possibility of either them or antichrist being completely non-human.

The "flies in the ointment" in Revelation 17:8 all hinge on the fact that this is an allegory. First, the red, seven-headed beast only represents Rome and antichrist in an allegorical way (neither of which has/will have seven literal heads), so that we have to understand the Abyss in an allegorical sense here as well. Secondly, the beast's "was/is/will be" has to apply to both Rome and antichrist; it is in the case of Rome that we have the metaphorical rising from the Abyss described here -- and it must be metaphorical since we have to do here with an allegory of a huge, red, seven-headed monster. The Roman Empire will be revived in a very real sense, and that is what the "rising" mostly refers to. Thirdly, the application to antichrist in "rising from the Abyss" is also clearly linked to the third part of "was/is/will be", and so must refer not to his initial "rise" but to his apparent rising from the dead giving him the mark of "one who was slain but came back to life". Were this a reference to having the Abyss as his initial place of origin, that rise would probably have to be associated with the "was", not the "will be".

In our dear Lord Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #8:  

Shalom Bob,

Please help me to hammer out the following Passages. With respect to Rev. 17:9-12, I would simply like to discuss the overall symbolic construct of these four Passages without applying any suggested interpretative names or identities to the MOUNTAINS/HILLS and KINGS - they will remain anonymous.

Revelation 17:9 (KJV)
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Revelation 17:10 (KJV)
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Revelation 17:11 (KJV)
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Revelation 17:12 (KJV)
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Going forward, regarding Rev. 17:9-10, we see that the 7 Heads are defined as 7 MOUNTAINS AND THEY (see greek eisi - strong's 1526) are 7 KINGS also - a double meaning. Therefore, what we grammatically see is that the 7 Heads equals (=) 7 MOUNTAINS/HILLS and (conjunctive) the 7 MOUNTAINS/HILLS equals (=) 7 KINGS. It can also be accurately stated as well that the 7 Heads equals (=) 7 MOUNTAINS/HILLS and (conjunctive) the 7 Heads equals (=) 7 KINGS. Nonetheless, in either interpretation, the 7 Heads equals (=) BOTH 7 MOUNTAINS/HILLS and 7 KINGS.

To this end, what I want to focus our attention on is the 7th Head of the Beast and its symbolic construct/design as John saw it - whether past, present or yet to come is of no concern here, only the construct of the 7th Head is of focal concern here. Therefore, as stated before, the 7th Head of the Beast not only was a MOUNTAIN/HILL, but was also comprised of the component of a KING. Meanwhile, Rev. 17:12 reveals that the 7th Head of the Beast will ALSO be comprised of 10 Horns as well - which are said to be per Rev. 17:12, an additional 10 KINGS.

Moreover, the 7th Head AND the 10 KINGS (which per John's vision must be attached to the 7th Head of the Beast) are ALL attached to the Scarlet Abyss Beast, which is the 8th KING and another KING himself, in addition to the 7th Head KING and the 10 Horn KINGS, bringing the total number of KINGS with respect to the 7th Head and the Scarlet Abyss Beast to 12 KINGS - 1 King for the 7th Head, 10 Horn Kings attached to the 7th Head, and the Scarlet Abyss Beast King in which the 7th Head and 10 Horns are attached to.

As I stated before, John saw a Scarlet Beast with 7 Heads and 10 Horns - there is no mention of an 8th Head, even though there very well could be. Nonetheless, if as per Dan. 7:24 the 10 Horns were to rise from (out of) another nameless Kingdom, and the 10 Horns did NOT even exist per Rev. 17:12 in John's day then, as suggested before, the 10 Horns would be metaphorically attached to the 7th Head (horns are symbolically attached to the heads of beasts and do not merely float around in abstraction - John no doubt saw these horns attached to a head), while the 7th Head itself is figuratively attached to the Scarlet Abyss Beast.

Daniel 7:24 (KJV)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

Revelation 17:12 (KJV)
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

In your professional opinion is the above description correct and if not please correct me?

Response #8: 

I don't know how to answer except to explain this the way I understand it (which I suspect I have done before). You are certainly free to take it or leave it.

The phrase "an eighth and one of the seven" is speaking of antichrist as being 1) "an eighth", meaning a king in his own right (not one of the seven out of ten Mediterranean potentates who initially constitute revived Rome), and also 2) "one of the seven", meaning he is the last in the line of Roman emperors of the original Julio-Claudian stamp (i.e., he possesses total power). This dual description makes clear (or should -- most interpreters miss it entirely) that while the beast is in command of revived Rome, he is not from revived Rome nor is that his original power base. Babylon is his original power base and is most definitely distinct from revived Rome.

The mountains/kings references are given to make clear that we have to do here both with individuals and with power-blocs (kings and mountains respectively). The ten together are the complete college of despots who rule over all of the "provinces" of revived Rome; the last three are the ones who "fall" before the beast, but they and their kingdoms are seen to be under his command by the time of Rev.17:12-14. That is the explanation for their original absence. Daniel chapter seven gives us an entirely consistent picture since the additional "little horn" is the beast himself.

I really think its as simple as that (if the above can be said to be simple). It took me a long time to figure all this out, but I have crunched it and had it crunched many times over many years since, and the same conclusion always results. N.b.: the text I am translating for Revelation 17:11 is from the Greek of the manuscript Sinaiticus (Aleph):

And [as to] the beast which was and is not, this is the eighth [king] and he is [also] one of the seven, and he is going to [his] destruction.
Revelation 17:11

Finally, as to the point that this phrase must refer to antichrist himself, I write the following about this translation elsewhere:

In the Greek text (see ms. א), the phrase "this [one] is the eighth" is masculine, meaning that the reference has to be to the kings, and not the beast per se (neuter in Greek), or to one of the heads (neuter in Greek), or to one of the mountains (feminine in Greek). The same is true for the "other", i.e., "last" in the sequence of the seven, so that in both instances the reference is to antichrist rather than to his ten-kingdom empire.
FN 30, CT 3B [see the link]

Hope that is of some help.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9: 

Shalom Bob,

You state the following in your article under the subsection of, The Kingdom of the Beast, with respect to Rev. 17:9:

"Our consideration of the passages above should suffice to show that the distinction made by scripture between the 10 horns and 7 heads (or, for that matter, the 7 horns as distinct from the 3 horns within the group of 10) does not represent any discrepancy in symbolism, but is instead designed to differentiate between that part of revived Rome first assimilated by antichrist and Babylon, and the later conquest of the remaining three kingdoms (which constitute the "southern alliance" as we are terming it). Indeed, in the vision of the woman riding the beast throughout Revelation chapter 17, we find all three elements of antichrist's kingdom closely intertwined, with Babylon (represented by the great whore), the seven core kingdoms (represented by the seven heads), and the ten kingdoms of revived Rome fully re-united (represented by the ten horns) all occurring at once."

As such, you suggest the 7 Heads above, those of "...the seven core kingdoms (represented by the seven heads), and the ten kingdoms of revived Rome fully re-united (represented by the ten horns) all occurring at once...", will as you state ALL occur 'Simultaneously' with the AC. However, while in this same article under the section of The Origin, Character and Rise of Antichrist sited below you suggest the 7 Heads to occur 'Sequentially' to the AC.

While the seventh king "who has not yet come" is antichrist, the preceding six kings are Roman emperors. For the sixth king "now is alive", while five have died. Nero was the Roman "king" or emperor alive when John wrote Revelation, and he was preceded by the five prior Julio-Claudian rulers, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. Inasmuch as the Julio-Claudian line of succession came to an end with Nero (and has long since disappeared into the dust of history), antichrist can only be said to be "the seventh king" in the sense of being, in effect, the next ruler of restored Rome, gaining control of her territories after his rise to power in his own country, Babylon.

To this end, with respect to Rev. 17:9-10 where the 7 Heads are identified and defined as 7 Mountains AND 7 Kings (where the conjunction AND connects the two definitions of the Head), am I correct when I state that EACH of the 7 Heads is equal to (=) One Mountain AND One King that must be, per the Head's definition, simultaneous to each other based on the grammatical conjunction AND.

Revelation 17:9 (KJV)
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Revelation 17:10 (KJV)
10 And there [THEY] are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Therefore, per the grammatical Scriptural constraints above can we actually have One Head equal to (=) One King (the AC) AND 7 Mountains (the Seven Core Kingdoms)?

Response #9:  

The heads have a dual interpretation: antichrist is "an eighth" but he is also "one of the seven". As the "eighth" he is king of Babylon, a king in his own right parallel to (and indeed superior to) the seven contemporaneous kings whose alliance forms the original revived-Rome. In this respect Revelation is saying precisely what Daniel 7:19-24 says in the vision of the little horn which defeats three of the ten horns. But antichrist is also "one of the seven", and these "seven" are the Julio-Claudian emperors. He is the seventh in the line of Caesar, not biologically (indeed, Augustus was adopted by Julius Caesar and was in no biological sense his "son"), meaning that like the original emperors his control will be absolute and based upon personal military and financial control of the whole. The first analogy deals more with the kingdoms (head of Babylon versus the seven heads of the seven Roman "provinces"); the second analogy deals more with the personality: antichrist is "exceptional" in regard to his military and political power in a way that defies historical comparison -- except to the original rules of the Roman empire.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #10: 

Shalom Bob,

From a purely symbolic mechanical perspective, with respect to Rev. 17:9-10 where the 7 Heads are equal to 7 Mountains AND 7 Kings - can one of the 7 Heads be wounded to death and not effect BOTH of its components (the Mountain AND the King)?

In other words, can the Head be wounded to death and only destroy the Mountain and not harm its King, or visa versa?

Response #10: 

Of course antichrist's demise is only apparent. Antichrist seems to "rise" just as Rome is reconstituted. In neither case is there an actual death, only what seems to be a death. So there is no damage in fact, merely a long abeyance in the case of Rome and a very short one in the case of antichrist. This part of the analogy I see as overlapping and applying to both the beast and the Beast.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #11:

Shalom Bob,

Please consider the two following logical mathematical questions.

1. If we have 7 individual Heads that are equal to (=) 7 individual Mountains, then how many Mountains PER each of the 7 Heads must there be?

2. if we have 7 individual Heads that are equal to (=) 7 individual Mountains, can there be NO Mountains on the first 6 Heads and ALL 7 Mountains on the 7th Head?

Response #11:   

I must confess, I was never very good at math. Blessedly, this is language, not math. Things change in verse nine where we move from visual description to interpretation (i.e., "the mind which has wisdom" is to interpret these statements). In verse nine, the woman is said to sit on the seven mountains, whereas before she was said to sit on the beast. John does not see this; it is an interpretation given to him – not a vision but an extrapolation of it to teach him something further, or, more precisely put, to explain what the vision means. The beast is both antichrist (on whose good will Babylon depends), but also the BEAST, revived Rome, and it is to this second application that the woman's "sitting on seven mountains" applies, her referring particularly to her reliance on the seven nation confederation with whom she combines to make war on the king of the south (who leads an alliance of the other three "horns" of Daniel 7).

I don't think that analysis of the sort you provide changes any of this, but I may have misread your question or its intent. Please feel free to have another go.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #12:  

Shalom Bob,

Thank you for responding. Here is why I asked that question, in your theological thesis of this particular concern, from a purely numeric and symbolic perspective your summation supports 8 Mountains in total.

Whereas, while we see 8 Kings, John only reveals 7 Heads equal to (=) 7 Mountains, etc. As such, you imply the 'wounded head' to be former Rome, which is in and of itself a Mountain with as you suggest 6 Caesar Kings - that is one Mountain. Meanwhile, you then conclude with the additional 7 Core simultaneous Mountains of the AC, which you call the 7 Heads, that are subsequent 7 Mountains to the one aforementioned Roman Mountain - that is 8 Mountains.

Response #12: 

I don't see eight mountains anywhere. In fact, there are no mountains to see at all (that is an interpretation "for the mind that has wisdom", but not part of the vision John is given to see). Nor do we "see" eight kings. What we see is one beast with seven heads. Antichrist is "an eighth" only in the sense of being a ruler in his own right, and this detail is added by scripture precisely so that we will not wrongly conflate antichrist into the seven heads: he is part of the number seven (in terms of the Julio-Claudian absolute power only), but he is not one of the seven kings; rather is "the eighth" (in the original Greek). He is the wounded head, but the seven heads as a college do not include him. There is dual application here, spelled out very precisely by scripture, and we cannot apply the one side the interpretation given to the other nor the other to the one (because scripture itself carefully distinguishes the two). We have to take it for what it is. I suppose from one point of view this may seem inconsistent, but had God shown John an eight headed beast we would have similar problems for opposite reasons should we wish to be to apply each side of the interpretation to the other (which, as I say, the text rules out).

To reprise, the Beast is revived Rome -- and also antichrist, the beast (dual application). The fatally wounded head means only that the personal beast will have an apparent resurrection, roughly similar to the corporate beast which has had a seemingly miraculous reconstitution. But if we look not at the singular but the collective, then the seven heads have the dual application as the context makes clear, namely, 1) seven kings; 2) seven provinces (with the horns leaning toward the personal side, the mountains toward the corporate side of things). Scripture authorizes us to make this distinction and dual application by describing the personal beast as "one of the seven" and at the same time "the eighth", meaning that there is a sense in which the beast is part of the college and a sense in which he is not. The rub is that he is not both at the same time, and we cannot therefore conflate the two applications of the symbol.

I suspect that this is what lies at the heart of the perceived problem here, but I am certainly happy to discuss it further.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #13: 

Shalom Bob,

Thank you for responding.

Here is what you are suggesting in relation to John's time-frame with respect to Rev. 17:8-11. You stated earlier that the 'anchor' for the time-frame is NOT based in the PRESENT of John's day, but is projected to the FUTURE.

I think the critical thing to remember here is that John is in the midst of being shown the events of the Tribulation, and so he is being addressed from that time-line perspective (not from the perspective of the 1st century).

This is what you do with respect to the interpretation of the Scarlet Abyss Beast itself, in relation to Rev. 17:8 - the Beast that WAS and IS NOT. Thus, your time-frame is in the FUTURE.

However, in your interpretation of this SAME vision of the Scarlet Abyss Beast, when it comes to the interpretation of the 7 Kings, you use the PRESENT time-frame of John's day as your anchor for naming the 7 Kings. As such, you list the 5 Caesar Roman Kings BEFORE John's day (John's day as the time anchor) and the IS King as the 6th Caesar Roman King of John's PRESENT day.

Thus, you switch from the FUTURE time-frame for interpreting the Beast itself (WAS/IS NOT) to the PRESENT day of John for interpreting the 7 Kings - the IS 6th King.

Meanwhile, you count off the first 6 Heads of the Beast with the first 6 Roman Caesar Kings using ONLY one Mountain, the SAME former Roman Empire. Whereas, the 7th Head of the Beast you apply 7 more Mountains with the One King AC, all on this One 7th Head.

Therefore, the sum total is this, the first 6 Heads ALL have Kings (Caesar's) but ONLY One Mountain for all 6 (former Roman Empire), so actually you have 5 Heads with NO Mountains. As stated, the 7th Head receives 7 more Mountains on the One 7th Head - for a cumulative total of 8 Mountains. There are only 7 total Mountains named per Rev. 17:9-10 and EACH Head must have at least ONE Mountain.

Response #13:  

Actually, the seven Julio-Claudian kings span the three times: 5 are past (Julius Caesar through Claudius); one is present (Nero; alive at the point John is writing); one is yet to come (antichrist, whose revealing is only a matter of time at present). It is true that this part of the interpretation (which is the interpretation of the vision, not the vision itself) is anchored on John's present. Whereas the vision, as I have said, has a future anchor (because all it entails is future, whereas the Julio-Claudian line had not yet been expunged at John's writing). The kings are also an interpretation. John sees no kings. He sees a beast with seven heads. The seven heads represent seven hills (one step removed from the vision), and the seven hills in turn represent seven kings (two steps removed from the vision). John, who was looking at this vision, admittedly had an easier time than we do in keeping the vision and the points of interpretation he is given separate. But the truth is clearly there, for anyone who cares to take the time to see it.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #14: 

Shalom Bob,

Please forgive my poor explanation.

What will happen if you use the SAME time frame for interpreting the 7 Kings as you do for interpreting the WAS/IS NOT of the Beast?

For example, why do you not use the SAME John's day time-line for the IS NOT Abyss Beast, which would be EQUAL to the SAME time-line that you are using for defining the IS 6th Roman Caser King - which was King in John's day? This then, would force the Beast to have existed BEFORE John's day.

How could John see the SAME vision interpreted from two different time-lines - FUTURE/PRESENT?

Response #14: 

I think I have just answered this one. The angel who gives the interpretation is the one who shifts the time frame (for the interpretation is said to be about "the punishment of the great whore" = future Babylon; Rev.17:1). The vision is about the future, and most aspects of its interpretation are future as well. However, the seven historical kings of which antichrist forms an ultimate conclusion are, naturally enough, a part of the interpretation which begins in the past (the Julio-Claudians) only to end in the future with the ascension of the beast; the purpose of this comparison is demonstrate the total nature of antichrist's future control by comparing it to the near-past and present (from John's point of view) total power and control of the original emperors.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #15:

Shalom Bob,

PLEASE be patient with me and I will explain my concerns regarding our previous conversation.

With respect to Rev. 17:8 as stated before, you project the pivotal point for the time line of the WAS/IS NOT Scarlet Abyss Beast well into the distant FUTURE beyond John's day. As such, this time line then 'mandates' that the Beast CANNOT with absolute certainty have any former existence prior to John's day or for that matter, during John's day, but must exist at some distant point in the future beyond John's day, relevant to the aforementioned chosen time line.

To this end, here is where you thesis becomes inconsistent with your previously chosen 'futuristic' time line. In describing the first 6 Heads of the Beast and their symbolic equal Kingly representations, you subscribe to and apply a different time line with the pivotal point of the IS King (present tense) being readjusted from the future to that of John's day. The problem with this determination is that the first 6 Heads/Kings of the Beast are being defined in a time period of which, by your own admission and choice of the previous futuristic time line, CANNOT exist.

Therefore, the Beast itself cannot exist in a future time line and its inherent components (Heads - Kings, Mountains) exist in the past/present time line of John's day.

Going forward, with respect to Rev. 17:9-10 we see that 7 individual Heads are equal to 7 individual Mountains, etc. What this symbolic prescription and design represents is that we must have ONE Head equal to ONE Mountain, repeated for ALL 7 Heads. However, what CANNOT exist is that we should have ONE Head equal to 7 Mountains. This would ultimately result in 6 of the 7 symbolic Heads being equal to NO Mountains at all, which is not what Rev. 17:9-10 clearly states - 7 Heads are equal to 7 Mountains.

Thus, with respect to your analysis of the 7 Heads of the Beast I will only focus on the symbolic 7th Head as you describe it, which will adequately explain my concern.

In your summation of the symbolic 7th Head of the Beast, you support no less than 7 simultaneous Mountains (Kingdoms) symbolically representative of this ONE 7th Head. Thus, what this then figuratively entails is that by mathematical enumeration each of the other former 6 Heads, of which you describe EACH as having a King (per Rev. 17:10 each King also equals one of the 7 symbolic Heads), have no allowable access to a Mountain, because ALL available 7 Mountains have been applied to the 7th Head, but yet you list 6 Kings before the 7th King.

While, the 7 Heads, 7 Kings and 7 Mountains may only appear to be symbolic they precipitate(d) in reality and MUST conform to the prescribed figurative blueprint of Rev. 17:8-11, as well as their relative mathematical enumeration - we cannot have more or less Heads, Kings or Mountains then are distinctly prescribed.

Response #15:   

You are certainly welcome to your own view. I don't see it this way, as I have explained. The angel links the vision to Babylon's destruction and that is certainly future as chapter 18 makes clear enough. The fact that certain points of interpretation are brought to John's attention based on the vision which are not precisely the same as the vision itself does not, in my opinion, vitiate the validity of the vision, nor should it cause us to seek some deeper overall explanation that will in consequence necessarily run afoul of the most basic facts of the passage (specifically, the future anchor of the vision itself). What John is given to see and what is explained to him all makes perfect sense (again, in my appreciation of these matters, at any rate).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #16:  

Shalom Bob,

Thank you for your kind response.

The two different time lines does however, create a problem with interpretative consistency and skews the actual identity of the Beast.

Meanwhile, when we are counting the Heads that are symbolically representative of 7 Kings and 7 Mountains - Each ONE of the 7 Heads is equal to ONE individual King, etc. Thus One King per each Head until 7 Heads are ALL accounted for.

Therefore, NO one single Head can have more than ONE King AND ONE Mountain. To this end, as you name the Caesar Kings from 1-6, each King with respect to Rev. 17:10-11, is counted as ONE of the 7 Heads of the Beast. Therefore, by the time you reach the 7th King you have numerically deployed ALL 7 Heads of the Beast. Thus, there cannot be more than 1 Mountain (Kingdom) AND King represented by this 7th Head as well.

This is where your supposition of the simultaneous 7 Kingdoms/Mountains (what you call the 7 Core Heads/Kingdoms) with respect to the 7th Head cannot support Rev. 17:10 - the Seven Heads are equal to Seven Mountains - NOT the 7th Head is equal to 7 Mountains.

Response #16: 

In Revelation chapter 16, John is given to see the seven future bowl judgments. In Revelation 17:1, one of the angels responsible for that judgment says he will show John "the punishment of the great whore". Babylon's punishment is part of the seventh bowl judgment (Rev.16:19), so the fact that John sees a beast with seven heads upon whose back rides the whore, Babylon the great, incontrovertibly ties this vision to the future. This "mystery Babylon" (Rev.17:5) did not exist in John's day. Since she is future, and since her punishment is future, and since this vision explains her future role and punishment, the vision itself must ipso facto be future as well. I am happy to explain (as indeed I feel I already have, several times at least now) how the other details apply, how the Beast qua Rome has a longer historical existence, how antichrist is also tied into earlier Rome as an interpretation by the angel in order to demonstrate the power he will wield in the future, and all other facets of the vision as I understand it. But it strikes me at this point that unless and until we can agree on the essential "futuricity" of the vision as explained above, we may be spinning our wheels here. So please answer me this question about the vision dealing with the future. Do you accept that point, or not? And if not, to what do you think it refers, and how do you explain away the contextual links to the future time-line of the Tribulation here?

After all, Revelation is about the Tribulation (from the point when the Lamb opens the seventh seal and begins it), and the Tribulation has long been underway by the time we get to chapter seventeen. In chapter 18, Babylon is destroyed, and in chapter 19, Christ returns. It would odd beyond passing if chapter 17 took the entire narrative back to John's day. There are "historicists" who believe that, but, generally speaking, they do not believe that Revelation is inspired at all. For those of us who see the book as a blueprint for future eschatology, Babylon, antichrist, and the coalition they will lead (as well as the events described in this portion of the book) are all future from our present-day perspective. To me, that is the clear, essential meaning of this vision, with only the details which the Bible itself assigns to have their origin in an earlier period deserving of being so assigned.

For more on all this, please consult the following links:

More on Antichrist and his Kingdom

Antichrist and Babylon

The Beast:  Some Questions about Antichrist.

Antichrist's 'desire of women' in Daniel 11:37 et al.

The reign of antichrist:  7 years or 3 and 1/2 years?

Aliens, antichrist, and eschatology.

Coming Tribulation part 3B:  Antichrist and his Kingdom

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Ichthys Home