The Antichrist Most Definitely Is Not a Person!

If you study Daniel 7 you will soon realize that the ten horns mentioned there are kingdoms among whom the Roman Empire would be scattered. Among them would arise a little horn. Just what is a horn? The ten horns are kingdoms. In Daniel 8 we find that the Greek Empire is pictured as a he-goat and the first kingdom as a great horn. When it is broken four horns appear in its place. Most Bible interpreters see the four horns as four Greek states or kingdoms. What, then, is the little horn? It, too, must be a kingdom -- NOT a person.

In Revelation 13 we find the Antichrist is pictured as a beast. Now what are the four beasts of Daniel 7? They are Empires. The first beast of Revelation 13 is taken by all to be an empire. What, therefore, is the second beast who looks like Yeshua the Messiah but talks like Satan? That’s right -- NOT a person! If the beasts are empires, then the lamb-like beast is also an empire -- a little empire. The Antichrist is thought by many in the Churches of God to be a soon-coming person on the world scene. He is thought to be a man who will sit on a throne in Jerusalem. However, Revelation 17 gives the picture of Antichrist as a woman dressed in scarlet and riding the power of the Roman Empire. Does this mean Antichrist is a woman? She is called, “Babylon, mystery, the Mother of harlots.” No -- the Antichrist is NOT a woman. The picture of Revelation 17 is -- as the others -- of some FALSE RELIGIOUS POWER which assumes or perpetuates the power of the Roman Empire and claims to have the power of YEHOVAH God. The Antichrist is NOT a person. The Antichrist is predicted to be a great political power rising up out of the fallen Roman Empire and the church -- as is explained in II Thessalonians 2. This we will discuss later.

In Revelation 13:1-10 the Roman Empire is pictured as being wounded and fighting against YEHOVAH’s people. From verse 11 through 14 we find described the lamb-like beast. In verse 14 he makes an image to the first beast, and then uses this image to control the minds and economic concerns of men. In verses 17 and 18 the beast is identified by the number 666.

This chapter in Revelation opens right up if one simply substitutes the name of the Roman Empire for its code name as the first beast. Let’s paraphrase chapter 13 –

Verses 1-8: “Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw the Roman Empire rising up out of the sea, having seven heads (or the seven forms or phases of government through which it was to pass) and ten horns (or the ten kingdoms into which it was to be divided), and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the Roman Empire which I saw had the appearance of the Babylonian, Persian and Greek empires that were before it. And the dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. I saw one of its forms of government as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the Roman Empire. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the Roman Empire; and they worshiped the Roman Empire, saying, “Who is like the Roman Empire? Who is able to make war with him? And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against YEHOVAH God, to blasphemy His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. And it was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue and nation. And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Verses 11-14: “Then I saw another empire coming up from out of the earth (world system), and he had two horns like a lamb (Yeshua the Messiah) and spoke like a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the Roman Empire in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the Roman Empire, whose deadly wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the Roman Empire, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the Roman Empire who was wounded by the sword and lived.”

Verses 15-16: “He was granted power to give breath to the image of the Roman Empire, that the image of the Roman Empire should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the Roman Empire to be killed. And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads.”

Verses 17-18: “And that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the Roman Empire, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the Roman Empire, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.”

This chapter in the Book of Revelation outlines the history of western Europe. The Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D. and the Bishop of Rome entered the power vacuum left by the wounded Roman Empire. Over a period of time this relationship developed into a worldwide religio-political power. The Papacy of Rome rose up into a divided Roman Empire.

As the little horn of Daniel it actually did take over three of these kingdoms. The little horn was to pluck up three of the other horns -- the interpretation being that “he shall subdue three kings [kingdoms]” (Daniel 7:24). Did the Papacy, in fact, subdue three of these ten kingdoms? Writes Edward B. Elliot in his Horae Apocalyticae: “I might cite three that were eradicated from before the Pope out of the list first given, viz., the Heruli under Odacer, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths” (Vol. 3, page 139). The Heruli were overthrown in 493, the Vandals in 534, and the Ostrogoths in 553. The final configuration of the Papacy was in place shortly after 800 A.D. and consisted of the Exarchate of Ravenna, which was conferred on the Papacy by Pepin in 755, the kingdom of the Lombards which was conferred on the Papacy in 774, and the Roman senate itself which was taken over by the Papacy in degrees. These Papal states were held by the Papacy until 1870 -- over 1000 years. These states ruled over Europe with no small amount of intrigue, war, bloodshed, immorality and other adjuncts of political chicanery.

As the two-horned beast the Papacy became an empire in its own right. In the year 800, when Charlemagne the Great came to Rome, the Pope crowned him Emperor of the Romans. There could be no clearer picture of the image of the beast than the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. This feudal society would last for over 1000 years until it was dismantled by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1804. During that 1000 or so years the Papacy truly wore out the saints of YEHOVAH and prevailed against them. Uncounted numbers of people were put to death simply because they would not worship the image of the beast. While masquerading as the “Vicar of Christ,” this beast (for so a political power is styled in prophecy) waged wars, dominated politics, made kings, dethroned kings and literally exercised supreme power over the lives and deaths of millions throughout the Papal states and the image he made to the Roman Empire called the “Holy Roman Empire.”

In studying Revelation 13 we see the picture of a pseudo religious-political organization restoring power to the Roman Empire. Historically, such events as we have just seen pictured did happen. We have noted that three of the ten kingdoms were subdued and absorbed by the Papacy. We also saw the land grants of Pepin and Charlemagne and the usurpation of the Roman senate by the Vatican. At the conclusion of this period -- in the year 800 -- Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Romans. This act produced the image of the Roman Empire called the “Holy Roman Empire.” It became the political framework which would be handed down for over 1000 years. It would dominate the European politics and economy until its dissolution under Napoleon Bonaparte. The actual end of the Holy Roman Empire came in 1804 when, ironically, Napoleon assumed the title of Emperor -- without the authority of the Pope. However, the legal dissolution came in 1806 when the hereditary possessor of the title, Frances II of Austria, (who, interestingly, called Napoleon the new Odoacer) abdicated from the office of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. This officially ended the entity.

Of the Holy Roman Empire, the most well-known history was authored by James Bryce in 1864. Republished in numerous editions for use in colleges and universities as a standard text, Bryce documents the list and history of the Emperors from Charlemagne to Frances II -- all of whom were crowned or confirmed by Papal authority. In his introduction to the 8th edition, Bryce gives an analysis of the meaning connected with the announcement of the abdication of Frances II in London newspapers, in 1806.

Of those, in 1806, who read in English newspapers that the Emperor Frances II had announced to the Diet his resignation of the imperial crown, there were probably few who reflected that the oldest political institution in the world had come to an end. Yet it was so. The empire...extinguished, was the same which the crafty nephew of Julius [Caesar] had won for himself against the powers of the East, beneath the cliffs of Actium; and which had preserved almost unaltered, through eighteen centuries of time, and through the greatest changes in extent, in power, in character, a title and pretensions from which all meaning had long since departed. Nothing else so directly linked the old world to the new...From the days of Constantine until late into the middle ages it was, conjointly with the Papacy, the recognized center and head of Christendom, exercising over the minds of men an influence such as its material strength could never have commanded...Strictly speaking it is from the year 800 A.D. when a king of the Franks was crowned Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo III that the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire must be dated (The Holy Roman Empire, 1896, p. 23).

Bryce notes that there is nothing isolated in history, and the Holy Roman Empire harks back to the Roman Empire before its fall in 476. As he stated above, the power that was dissolved in 1806 is that which was begun by Augustus at Actium in 35 B.C.

The history of the power of a wounded and seemingly dead Roman Empire being resurrected in the form of the Papal system, and the Papal system in the name of Rome creating an image to that first political system, called the Holy Roman Empire, is so clearly outlined in history and the 13th chapter of Revelation as to give no room for any other interpretation.

It seems truly bizarre to me that the Churches of God and evangelical Christians have abandoned the true interpretation of prophecy and those leaders who have for many centuries outlined these prophecies in more detail and greater precision than we do here. That the Churches of God would caste away their prophetic heritage for the fantasies and drivel that are currently being hawked around in the name of prophetic fulfillment is both frustrating and shocking! Why, let me ask, does anyone look for a future fulfillment when these prophecies are so clearly fulfilled in history? The Antichrist has long since come. His reign of 1260 years is long since over. He has received most of the blows designed to knock him from his place of arbitrary control over the physical and spiritual lives of men. He has but little time left.

Is it right, then, to call the Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church a power with the mouth of Satan? Absolutely! Is it right to call the Vatican a whore who rides the power of the Roman Empire? Absolutely! Following is an outline of historical events that enumerate some of the willful sins of those in the list of “successors of St. Peter.”

The very character and morals of many of the popes would tend to identify them as successors of pagan priests rather than so-called representatives of Yeshua or Peter. Some of the popes were so depraved and base in their actions, even people who professed no religion at all were ashamed of them. Such sins as adultery, sodomy, simony, rape, murder and drunkenness are among the sins that have been committed by popes. To link such sins with men who have claimed to be the “Holy Father,” “The Vicar of Christ” and “Bishop of bishops” may sound shocking -- but those acquainted with the history of the Papacy well know that not all popes were holy men.

Pope Sergius III (904-911). This pope obtained the papal office by murder. The annals of the church of Rome tell about his life of open sin with Marozia who bore him several illegitimate children. He was described by Baronius as a “monster” and by Gregorovius as a “terrorizing criminal.” Says a historian: “For seven years this man...occupied the chair of St. Peter, while his concubine and her Semiramis-like mother held court with a pomp and voluptuousness that recalled the worse days of the ancient empire” (Medieval Italy, by Cotterill. P. 331). This woman -- Theodora -- likened to Semiramis (because of her corrupt morals), along with Marozia, the pope’s concubine, “filled the papal chair with their paramours and bastard sons, and turned the papal palace into a den of robbers” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p.774). The reign of Pope Sergius III began the period known as “the rule of the harlots” (914-928).

Pope John X (914-928). Originally he had been sent to Ravenna as an archbishop, but Theodora had him returned to Rome and appointed to the papal office. According to Bishop Liutprand of Cremona, who wrote a history about fifty years after this time, “Theodora supported John’s election in order to cover more easily her illicit relations with him” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 8, p. 245). His reign came to a sudden end when Marozia smothered him to death! She wanted him out of the way so that Leo VI could become pope.

Pope Leo VI (928-929). His reign was a short one! He was assassinated by Marozia when she learned he had “given his heart to a more degraded woman than herself”! (Chiniquy, The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional, p. 138). Not long after this, the teenage son of Marozia (under the name of John XI) became pope.

Pope John XI (931-936). The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “Some, taking Liutprand and the ‘Liber Pontificalis’ as their authority, assert that he was the natural son of Sergius III (a former pope). Through the intrigues of his mother, who ruled at that time in Rome, he was raised to the Chair of Peter” (Vol. 8, p. 426). But in quarreling with some of his mother’s enemies, he was beaten and put into jail where he died from poisoning.

Pope John XII (955-964). In 955 the grandson of Marozia became pope at the age of 18. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes him as “a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium...On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter’s; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope...John XII took bloody vengeance on the leaders of the opposite party, Cardinal-Deacon John had his right hand struck off, Bishop Otgar of Speyer was scourged, a high palatine official lost nose and ears...John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumor, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery” (ibid., p. 427). The noted Catholic Bishop of Cremona, Luitprand, who lived at this time, wrote: “No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows -- they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul.” The Catholic collection of the lives of popes, the Liber Pontificalis, said: “He spent his entire life in adultery” (Vol. 2, p.246).

Pope Boniface VII (984-985). This pope maintained his position through a lavish distribution of stolen money. The Bishop of Orleans referred to him (and also John XII and Leo VIII) as “monsters of guilt, reeking in blood and filth” and as “antichrist sitting in the temple of God.” The Catholic Encyclopedia says he “overpowered John XIV (April, 984), thrust him into the dungeons of Sant’Angelo, where the wretched man died four months later...For more than a year Rome endured this monster steeped in the blood of his predecessors. But the vengeance was terrible. After his sudden death in July, 985, due in all probability to violence, the body of Boniface was exposed to the insults of the populace, dragged through the streets of the city, and finally, naked and covered with wounds, flung under the statue of Marcus Aurelius...The following morning compassionate clerics removed the corpse and gave it a Christian burial” (Vol. 2, p.661 and 662).

Pope John XV (985-996). This pope split the churches finances among his relatives and earned for himself the reputation of being “covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts.”

Pope Benedict VIII (1012-1024). Benedict “bought the office of pope with open bribery.”

Pope Benedict IX (1033-1045). He was made pope as a youth of 12 through a money bargain with the powerful families that ruled Rome! He “committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims on the graves of the martyrs, a hideous criminal, the people drove him out of Rome” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p.775).

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216). This monster surpassed all of his predecessors in killing. Though he did not do the killing personally, he promoted the most Satanic episode in human history -- the Inquisition. Estimates of the number of “heretics” that Innocent (not so innocently) had killed run as high as one million people! For over 500 years popes used the inquisition to maintain their power against those who did not agree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303). Says The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Scarcely any possible crime was omitted -- infidelity, heresy, simony, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, loss of the Holy Land, death of Celestine V, etc....Protestant historians, generally, and even modern Catholic writers...class him among the wicked popes, as an ambitious, haughty, and unrelenting man, deceitful also and treacherous, his whole pontificate one record of evil” (Vol. 2, p. 668). During his reign the poet Dante (of Dante’s Inferno fame) visited Rome and described the Vatican as a “sewer of corruption.” He assigned Boniface (along with Popes Nicolas III and Clement V) to “the lower parts of hell.”

Though trying to put emphasis on certain “good” traits of Boniface, “Catholic historians...admit, however, the explosive violence and offensive phraseology of some of his public documents” (ibid., p. 670). An example of this “offensive phraseology” would be his statement that ‘to enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one’s hands together” (History of the Church Councils, Bk. 40, art. 697). On other occasions, apparently in those “explosive” moments, he called Yeshua the Messiah a “hypocrite” and professed to be an atheist.

Yet -- and this sounds almost unbelievable -- it was this same pope that issued, in 1302, the well-known Unam Sanctum which officially declared that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church outside of which no one can be saved, and says: “We, therefore, assert, define and pronounce that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Pontiff of Rome.” Because there have been many sinful popes, being “subject” to the pope has raised an obvious question -- “Should a sinful pope still be obeyed?” The Catholic answer is this: “A sinful pope...remains a member of the (visible) church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 435).

From 1305 to 1377 the papal palace was at Avignon in France. During this time Petrarch accused the papal household of “rape, adultery, and all manner of fornication.” In many parishes men insisted on priests keeping concubines “as a protection for their own families!” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p. 778).

Pope John XXIII (1410-1415). During the Council of Constance, three popes, and sometimes four, were every morning cursing each other and calling their opponents antichrists, demons, adulterers, sodomists, enemies of YEHOVAH and man. One of these “popes,” John XXIII, “was accused by thirty-seven witnesses (mostly bishops and priests) of fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, simony, theft, and murder! It was proved by a legion of witnesses that he had seduced and violated three hundred nuns. His own secretary, Niem, said that he had at Boulogne, kept a harem, where not less than two hundred girls had been the victims of his lubricity” (Chiniquy, The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional, p. 139). Altogether the Council charged him with 54 crimes of the worst kind.

A Vatican record offers this information about his immoral and depraved reign: “His lordship, Pope John, committed perversity with the wife of his brother, incest with holy nuns, intercourse with virgins, adultery with the married, and all sorts of sex crimes...wholly given to sleep and other carnal desires, totally adverse to the life and teaching of Christ...he was publicly called the Devil incarnate” (Sacrorum Conciliorium, Vol. 27, p. 663). To increase his wealth, Pope John taxed everything he could lay his hands on -- including prostitution, gambling, and usury. He has been called “the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne.”

Pope Leo X (1513-1521). Leo was born in 1475, received his tonsure at age 7, was made abbot at 8 -- and a full-blown cardinal at 13! The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Pope Leo X “gave himself up unrestrainedly to amusements that were provided in lavish abundance. He was possessed by an insatiable love of pleasure...He loved to give banquets and expensive entertainments, accompanied by revelry and carousing” (Vol. 9, pp. 162, 163).

During those days Martin Luther -- while still a priest of the Catholic Church -- traveled to Rome. As he caught his first glimpse of the seven-hilled city, he fell to the ground and said: “Holy Rome, I salute thee.” He wasn’t there long, however, before he realized that Rome was anything but a holy city. Iniquity existed among all classes of the clergy. Priests told indecent jokes and used awful profanity -- even during Mass! The papal court was served at supper by twelve naked girls (Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, p. 344). “No one can imagine what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome,” he said, “they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus they are in the habit of saying, ‘If there is a hell, Rome is built over it.’”

The Papacy is not ignorant of all this history. Malachi Martin (who is still a member of the Roman Catholic Church) was a member of the Vatican under Pope John XXIII. In his book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, he records similar history but with greater detail. He calls Marozia “The Nymph who made popes.”

This same history of moral and political corruption is more briefly but accurately recorded by Butler, another Catholic author, who wrote an account of the Vatican Council 1869-1870. This book has an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat -- which means that Roman Catholic authorities had declared the book has no doctrinal errors. He writes –

Butler, a confirmed Papist, also gives the history of the Donation of Constantine -- a fraudulent set of decrees which were knowingly used by the Vatican to justify holding temporal power. Says Butler,

There are still the same stains of blood, money manipulation, alleged assassinations, and political intrigue which causes the sufferings of countless victims -- all done in the name of the Messiah. Yes, it is historically right to call the Roman Catholic Church a whore. Yes, it is historically correct to see the Roman Catholic Church as a political power that looks like Yeshua but which talks like Satan. At least one Papal insider sees the same thing.

The number 666 obviously refers to the name “Roman.” The Bible says so. It is the NAME OF THE BEAST. Notice Revelation 13:17 –

The number 666 refers to the name Roman. The reason for this arises from the incredible prophecies of Daniel where he clearly predicts four world empires and proceeds to name three of them. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar’s empire begins the new world order of one nation ruling all the other civilized nations around the Mediterranean. The next three are describes but not named here. The first is named the Babylonian Empire, and it is the head of gold –

In the 8th chapter, Daniel describes in a vision the amazingly accurate occurrence of the Medo-Persian struggle with the rise of the Greeks. The first kingdom of the Greek Empire defeats the Medo-Persians inside their own territory and then, at the height of its power, the first kingdom is broken and divided into four horns or kingdoms. The amazing part is that Daniel not only gives this precise outline many years before 325 B.C. when the events happened -- but he also names the participants by name, before they had even risen to power!

Thus are the first three empires of the four named by name in the Bible.

Now since the fourth beast is described in Daniel 2 and 7 in much greater detail than the first three, why is it not named? Surely, if YEHOVAH God inspired Daniel to name 1. Babylon; 2. Medo-Persia; 3. Greece; he could have named the fourth beast. The fourth beast is described in even greater length in the Book of Revelation where, once again, it is not named. Why?

There is a very good reason why the fourth beast is named in code in the Book of Revelation. The number 666 is the number of the name of the fourth beast -- which is the fourth kingdom. Your Bible says so -- no matter how many ministers or pastors see some mysterious person arising during the last seven years of the world’s history who will have the number. The number is clearly stated to be the name of the fourth beast. Therefore, 666 ought to be the name Roman. Significantly, the Biblical text rules out the name being Rome. It must be Roman -- because it is the name of a single person as well as the name of the beast. Rome is a place. Roman is the name of both the empire, the beast, and a citizen, a single person, who is also a Roman.

Our society now uses the Arabic numbering system with numerals 1 through 9 and then adding a zero -- invented by the Arabs in the 8th century. Previous to that time numbers were attributed to each letter of the alphabet. A=1, B=2, C=3,...J=10 then K would not be 11 but 20 and L=30 etc. Continuing, R would be 90, S would be 100, T=200 and so on. Any name could, therefore, have a numerical value. Both Hebrew and Greek alphabets used this system.

It is well known -- and has been for centuries -- that the name “Roman” in both Greek and Hebrew has the number we are looking for. Every historical interpreter, with few exceptions, from Irenaeus forward, has recorded this fact. In the old world Tertullian and Hippolytus did. Isaac Newton, the scientist, did in the 17th century; Robert Fleming at the turn of the 17th century; Bishop Newton in the 18th century; Faber, Barnes, Elliott, Cunningham, Johnson, and a host of others from almost every denomination of Protestantism in the 19th century. The number is the name of the beast, and the name of the beast is “Roman.”

The Book of Revelation and the New Testament are written in Greek, and the Old Testament is written in Hebrew or Aramaic. In Greek the name Roman is LATEINOS; it has the number 666. In Hebrew the name Roman, when modifying empire or beast is feminine, RO-MI-ITH (empire and beast are feminine in Hebrew). The Hebrew form also has the number 666! What are the odds of finding any other name which would have the same number in both Biblical languages? This is more than coincidence.

But why is the fourth beast named in a mystery code? Why didn’t the apostle John come right out and name it for what it was? Because the Roman Empire fulfilled the prophecies concerning its persecution of the woman (Revelation 12), and “make war with the saints and overcome them” (Revelation 13:7). The Roman Empire waged ten official persecutions against the church for almost 300 years. These were legally sanctioned by the senate and carried out under the Roman legal system. The Christians were tortured, scourged, burned, torn apart, beheaded, thrown to the lions, and crucified by official Roman authority according to law. Church leaders were killed, Bibles confiscated and burned, church buildings destroyed -- and the flocks scattered.

How much worse might the Roman persecution have been if they found their empire named by name as a beast in the Holy writings of those they persecuted? The conditions were bad enough without adding more fuel to the fire. So YEHOVAH God couched the name in a mystery. He called the fourth beast 666 -- so that no one could know it except those who have wisdom as a result of YEHOVAH’s holy spirit. The first three beasts of Daniel are named by name in the Bible. The fourth beast of Daniel ought to be named in the Bible. It is; its name is 666.

Did the early Christians so understand it? Yes, they most certainly did. Paul clearly explained it to the churches he visited -- they read the Book of Daniel and could count and know that Rome was the fourth Empire to come on the world scene. They could see in Daniel that it would pass away by being divided into ten kingdoms and Antichrist would rise from among the ten kingdoms of a divided Roman Empire. You can see this understanding in II Thessalonians 2 -- which is commonly understood to refer to the same Antichrist as the other passages. In this passage Paul is correcting an impression that the second coming of Yeshua the Messiah was imminent. It was not imminent, and he was telling them why.

When the Christians at Thessalonika supposed the day of Yeshua’s coming was right at hand, Paul explained to them that there were certain events that would happen before that time. There would come “a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed.” And before the man of sin could be revealed, something else would need to happen. There was something restraining, holding back his appearance -- something that would need to be taken out of the way:

Here Paul affirms that no word, letter, nor inference came from him that Yeshua’s second coming was imminent. In fact, he says, it is not. He goes on to say that something that they know about has to happen first:

The Greek word that is here translated “falling away” is apostasia -- defined by Strong’s Concordance as “defection from the truth.” This was not a falling away from religion into atheism, but rather a falling away that would develop within the realm of the Christian church. This is apostasy, and as such should be sought in the visible church -- not outside the church. Paul says right below this that the man of sin will come after the falling away. In verse 6 he says –

In verse 7 Paul continues by saying “that which is now holding back [Antichrist] will continue to do so until it be taken out of the way.” Paul is stating here that something that now exists in his time -- that they knew about -- “that when I was still with you I told you these things,” was holding back the Antichrist.

Paul told them about the fourth beast when he was among them. He told them that as long as the Roman Empire stood the Antichrist would not come because it would rise up out of a shattered Roman Empire and then “the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” He is to arise out of the church, which is the true Temple from the time of the coming of the holy spirit to this day; “...showing himself that he is God.” This is the very same description as the little horn of Daniel and the lamb-like beast of Revelation 13. He takes upon himself the power of the Roman Empire but masquerades as the Lamb sitting in the Church!

Paul is reminding them that he told them and that they know what it is that holds back the Antichrist –

He does not tell them plainly by name in his letter who or what it is -- even though it is something they both know. In verse 6 Paul writes: “And now you know what is restraining that he may be revealed in his own time.”

He further states that the kind of thing Antichrist will bring is already at work -- “For the mystery of lawlessness [iniquity] is already at work” (verse 7). Paul then repeats that the entity that they both knew about, which they had talked about while he was still with them, would continue to restrain the coming of Antichrist until he or it was taken out of the way: “only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.” Therefore Paul, knowing the Book of Daniel, could say: “after the departure of the Roman Empire, as we all know from Daniel; ‘then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming’” (verse 8).

Some object that the Catholic Church cannot be the Antichrist because Paul spoke of “the man of sin” -- meaning an individual man, not a succession of men or an entity patterned after a kingdom. But this simply is not true. “The” is used in the expression “the man of God” (II Timothy 3:16) -- a reference to a class of men of certain character, a succession of similar individuals. We read about “the high priest” (Hebrews 9:7) -- meaning a succession of high priests. The true church -- the long line or succession of believers through the centuries -- is spoken of as “one new man” (Ephesians 2:15). A single beast in prophecy often represents a whole empire or kingdom in all its changes and evolutions from beginning to end. The four beasts of Daniel 7 are mentioned as four kings, yet the meaning is not limited to individual kings, for each of these kingdoms included a succession of rulers.

Grammatically speaking, the expression “the man of sin” could mean either an individual or a succession of similar individuals. There is a strong hint, however, that a succession of men is meant. “He who now restrains” was a line or successions of Caesars, so it certainly would not be inconsistent to believe “he [that] sits” would also be a succession of men. Even so, the idea of one man is not eliminated by this interpretation, for there is only one man at a time who occupies the papal office.

What did the early Christians think about these passages? Though Paul does not call this “let” or restraint by name, his words clearly show it was not something unknown or obscure. He knew what it was. The Christians at Thessalonika knew what it was. Solid evidence shows that the Christians of the early centuries believed it was the ROMAN EMPIRE that was in the way -- the fall of which would bring on the “man” of sin. When they were accused of holding this belief, they did not deny it. Their reply was that they did not wish the fall of the Empire, for its fall would bring on the Antichrist. As Lactantius phrased it: “Beseech the God of heaven that the Roman State might be preserved, lest, more speedily than we suppose, that hateful tyrant should come” (Porcelli, The Antichrist -- His Portrait and History, p. 49).

Those writers whose lives overlapped the lives of the apostles are called Apostolic Fathers. Their writings are fragmentary and few have been preserved down to our time. Christian writers who were born after the death of the apostles, but before 325 A.D. and the Council of Nicea, are called Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ancient writers who lived after 325 A.D. and the Council of Nicea are called Post-Nicene Fathers. Many writings from these times have been preserved and are extant today. I think it would be interesting to see what these “fathers” thought about these verses barely fifty years after they were penned -- and before they were fulfilled. The incredible thing is that the “fathers” knew the general outline of future events. They, therefore, were not as I Thessalonians 5:4 states:

And WHY were they not in darkness? Because they knew that as long as the Roman Empire had not yet fallen the second coming of Yeshua was not imminent! Let’s see what they have to say:

Irenaeus. Irenaeus was born around 135 and lived into the next century. He wrote a commentary on parts of Daniel and Revelation -- especially of the 13th chapter of Revelation and the 7th chapter of Daniel. The epitome of his chapter (XXI) on the Antichrist in his commentary begins as follows –

Irenaeus clearly had no difficulty interpreting Daniel: “concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire that now rules earth shall be partitioned” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies XXVI, 1).

He believed the Roman Empire would pass away and be divided into ten kingdoms -- which happened a number of centuries in his future. There was simply no way for Irenaeus to know that except through the prophecies. The opinion of Roman citizens of the day was that the empire would last forever -- they even called it “eternal Rome”! But understanding that both John and Daniel had predicted the decline and fall of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms is not all that Irenaeus saw. He said, “It is manifest that he shall come” -- meaning the little horn -- and “shall slay three” of the ten horns, “and subject the remainder to his power.” He clearly believed that the coming entity would overcome three and then dominate the other seven states left to a divided Roman Empire.

He refers to the power that would rise in the place of the Roman Empire as an “apostasy” -- and warns that YEHOVAH God “has prepared eternal fire for every kind of apostasy.” In quoting Justin Martyr, who lived before Irenaeus, he considers that Satan is the author of “apostasy” and eternal fire is “reserved for all apostasy.” This is a truly remarkable passage because Irenaeus foresees the division of the Roman Empire yet to come in the future and sees the Antichrist power rising out of the church, for that is the meaning of apostasy. It refers to an enemy -- not from without but one who rises up from within.

In a few paragraphs later Irenaeus makes the first known attempt to interpret the number 666. Remember, this is only a few short years after the Book of Revelation was written by the apostle John. It was also at a time when the Roman Empire was at its zenith -- the most peaceful, successful time of the empire. It was the time of the Five Good Emperors or the Pax Romana, when there was no war within the bounds of the empire, and no unsuccessful military action outside the empire for a hundred years.

Irenaeus cautions that since 666 -- the name -- had not yet been fulfilled in a coming world power, then it is wise to be careful in looking around for the right name. These interpreters, who lived before the fall of the Roman Empire, obviously did not see the great anti-Christian power that would rise up on the European scene and persecute true believers for centuries. They understood everything except the time frame. However, they did know that the Antichrist would rise up from a shattered Roman Empire. They did not have the hindsight we have today to recognize that an anti-Christian kingdom did in fact rise up out of the Church of God and usurp the authority of YEHOVAH God and man; and with the falsely assumed authority of YEHOVAH and the sword of man, dominate European and world politics for almost 1300 years.

With that said, we find that Irenaeus made some startling observations about the number 666. Notice –

This comment was made before the ink on the Book of Revelation was barely dry! And, although it is made with caution, those writers who followed Irenaeus were more bold in the application of the name. Irenaeus doesn’t get it completely right due to the fact that he was not able to parallel the prophecy with the events of history. He didn’t have the hindsight we have today. But Irenaeus knew certain things. He knew that the Roman Empire had to fall and that the Antichrist would arise from its ruins -- and that the second advent of the Messiah would follow that. He was right!

Tertullian. Tertullian, born circa 150 A.D., was a Christian living in Carthage. He carried the interpretation forward in his essay On the Resurrection of the Flesh. In this he speaks of the coming Antichrist and quotes from Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians. He writes –

Here the prophecy of Daniel and Paul’s passage to the Thessalonians are pieced together to predict the future. Tertullian could not have believed in the imminent return of Yeshua. He, like Irenaeus, knew that the Roman Empire had to fall and be divided. He knew the Antichrist would come -- but not before the fall of the Roman Empire. Yeshua would come after that. Tertullian not only had a correct view of the future from his time, but he was able to give the obvious true meaning of a passage of scripture over which ministers in the Churches of God still stumble over today.

Hippolytus. Hippolytus was active around the year 200. In his treatise he takes it for granted that all of the church understood that LATEINOS is the name of the beast. He writes:

Hippolytus knew that “Lateinos” has the number, but as a Latin writer uses “Latinus” and does the same thing in his own language that we do when we say “Roman” has the number. He then makes some faltering attempts to name the three kingdoms to be taken over by the Antichrist. Since they are in the future to him, he has little success identifying them. But Rome has been identified, and he knows the empire must fall. He continues –

Hippolytus has a composite of Daniel, Revelation and II Thessalonians in his fulfillment. He knew enough to put together the four beasts of Daniel and the little horn with the beasts of Revelation 13 and 17 -- as well as the image to the beast -- to make this interpretation. Out of that he has properly identified Rome as the beast and has the name 666 identified with the Romans because, “they still, at present, bear rule.” In other words, they are the fourth empire from the Babylonians as per Daniel’s prophecy. We should be impressed.

Scolia. Sometime between the years 250 and 300 A.D. An unnamed person wrote comments called “scolia” in the margin of Hippolytus’ writings. They are very enlightening and contain a detailed exposition of Daniel 7, analyzing and interpreting each of the beasts. This person states that Babylon is the first, the bear is Persia, the Leopard is Greece -- and the four heads of the leopard are the fourfold division of Alexander’s kingdom. He clearly names each of the principalities, and makes a very accurate historical assessment of Daniel’s prophecy. The scolia then go on to the fourth beast:

It is obvious that the author of the scolia has concluded from the prophecies that the four world empires spoken of by Daniel would end with the Romans. He concluded that the imperial system would then end! Now this was quite a feat for someone who did not have the advantage of hindsight! He stated that there would be no further united empire after the (Roman) empire in which he lived! What incredible insight to a scenario we now know to be correct. Take note that with the lengthening of time since the giving of the prophecy the fulfillment was no longer expected to be sudden, i.e. the sudden appearance of the Antichrist was now expected to take place after the empire was divided for some space of time. The same unfolding of events (rather than instant fulfillment) is surmised in Hippolytus above -- “he will begin to show.”

The scolia goes on to ask for patience and prayer -- that people might avoid these things that he was convinced would transpire. It is indeed ironic that the author was living contemporaneously with, or just slightly before, the worst persecution the church would ever suffer, yet he shows great concern for the time of the little horn in his future:

John Chrysostom. Chrysostom’s name means “golden mouth” -- indicating that he was a great orator. Chrysostom’s time moves us ahead a little less than 100 years. He died in 408 A.D., placing his death just two years before the first sacking of Rome.

His writings are preserved in “Homilies.” In “Homily IV” he left a commentary on II Thessalonians 2:6-9. The passage on the man of sin -- which synchronizes with the little horn of Daniel and the lamb-like beast of Revelation -- has already been commented on by most of the previously cited authors. However, Chrysostom’s comments regarding those who claim that the gifts of the spirit were holding back the Antichrist, are interesting –

This is an eye-opening comment on the presence of “spiritual gifts” in the church at the time of Chrysostom -- or their non-existence to be exact! Clearly he is a believer in YEHOVAH’s Word the Bible, and a believer in the gifts of the holy spirit. He knows that they have ceased and COULD NOT be “that which hinders,” because they are no longer in the church, and the Roman Empire has not yet fallen to allow the appearing of the man of sin. The use of the information about the fall of the Roman Empire is further described as he goes on to explain why Paul spoke covertly about what “withholds”:

Speaking of how long it might be till he comes, he said –

Jerome. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible -- upon which version all later Roman Catholic vernacular versions would be based (including the English Douay version) -- was born circa 340 and died in 420. He lived well into the first of the Barbarian invasions and actually witnessed his home town on the Dalmatian border being destroyed by the marauding Goths. He saw, as did the others, that the fall of Rome was necessary to the coming of the Antichrist. The events of his later life would have anticipated the event of the fall, and those living just a few years longer would have witnessed the fall of the Roman Empire. Of II Thessalonians he writes,

Jerome also said: “He [Paul] shows that that which restrains is the Roman Empire; for unless it shall have been destroyed, and taken out of the midst, according to the prophet Daniel, Antichrist will not come before that” (Jerome, Commentaria, Book 5, chapter 25).

Jerome fully understood why Paul was so careful when writing about the Antichrist and what restrained it because “if he had chosen to say this openly, he would have foolishly aroused a frenzy of persecution against Christians” (Jerome, op. cit., Book 5, chapter 25).

There are many others who came to the same conclusions about the fall of the Roman Empire and its division into ten kingdoms based on the seventh chapter of Daniel. Then authors left writings with similar views, i.e. The Roman Empire would be dissolved into ten kingdoms, and the Antichrist would arise from among them -- preceding the second coming of Yeshua by a long period of time. None of these men were in ignorance that that day would overtake them as a thief. They knew the second coming of Yeshua was not imminent in their life-time. Only those, like Jerome in the latter time of the empire, thought the time was near because the fall of the empire was near.

Justin Martyr spoke of Christians praying for the continuance of the restraining Roman Empire, lest the dreaded times of Antichrist, expected to follow upon its fall, should overtake them in their day (Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 1, p.19).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, speaking of this same prophecy, said: “This, the predicted Antichrist, will come, when the times of the Roman Empire shall be fulfilled....Ten kings of the Romans shall arise together...among these the eleventh is Antichrist, who, by magical and wicked artifices, shall seize the Roman power” (Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463).

Ambrose said the Roman Empire was that which was holding back the appearance of Antichrist and that “after the failing or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist would appear” (Newton, op. cit., p. 463).

Just like Chrysostom, others knew the Roman Empire would fall and on its ruins and “out of the church of Christ” one would rise who would feign himself to be the Messiah and “seize the power of God and man.” Now WHAT power was it that actually did step into the vacuum left by fallen Rome and with the name “Roman” sit in the church? What power SEIZED THE AUTHORITY OF YEHOVAH AND MAN, then pluck up three states or kingdoms and dominate all other seven for hundreds of years? Does the reader need a clearer picture of the past to name the Antichrist? These brethren of the past gave us this clear picture before it happened!

Later writers were under no illusion regarding the Antichrist -- they knew exactly WHO fulfilled this role.

John Foxe. Noted author of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, John Foxe gives a list of learned men between 1331 and 1360 who contended against the false claims of the Pope. One of these, Michael of Cesena, who had numerous followers, declared the Pope “to be Antichrist, and the church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon, drunk with the blood of the saints” (Foxe, op. cit., p. 445).

John Wyclif. This noted English reformer taught that the persecuting little horn of Daniel had found fulfillment in the Papacy which arose out of the fourth kingdom, Rome. “Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist?” he asked. “In the Seventh Chapter of Daniel, Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the fourth kingdom...wearing out the saints of the most high” (Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 55). His book, The Mirror of Antichrist, is filled with references to the Pope as Antichrist.

John Huss. Born in Bohemia, Huss was a well-educated man who came under the influence of Wyclif’s writings which caused him to break ranks with the church of Rome. He labeled the Pope as the Antichrist of which the scriptures had warned. His writings constantly refer to Antichrist as the enemy of the church -- not as a Jew, a pagan, or a Turk -- but as a false confessor of the name of the Messiah.

Martin Luther (1483-1546). While still a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, Luther disagreed with the practice of selling indulgences. As he grew in the knowledge of Yeshua, he clearly saw that reform within the church would be impossible, so he decided to “come out of her.” Being loosened from the bondage of this system, Luther began to wonder if the Pope was the Antichrist. Eventually this belief became pronounced.

Luther’s friends, fearing for his safety, begged him to suppress his book To the German Nobility. To this he replied on August 18, 1520: “We here are of the conviction that the Papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist” (ibid., p. 256). Two months later, Luther’s book, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, was published. In this he spoke of the Papacy (the system, not the individual pope) as “nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist....For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? All the conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny” (Luther, First Principles, pp. 196, 197).

In 1540 Luther wrote: “Oh, Christ, my Lord, look down upon us and bring upon us thy day of judgment, and destroy the brood of Satan in Rome. There sits the Man, of whom the apostle Paul wrote (II Thessalonians 2:3, 4) that he will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God -- the man of sin, that son of perdition...he suppresses the law of God and exalts his commandments above the commandments of God” (Froom, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 281).

It is quite evident that Luther did not believe the Antichrist would be some lone individual at the end of time, for he said: “The Antichrist of whom Paul speaks now reigns in the court of Rome.” As the Encyclopedia Britannica says, “These ideas became the dynamic force which drove Luther on in his contest with the Papacy” (article: Antichrist, Vol. 2, p. 61).

Andreas Osiander (1498-1552). A leader with Luther in the German Reformation, Osiander also took a stand against the Roman Antichrist who spoke words against YEHOVAH and who had seated himself in YEHOVAH’s temple. His concept of Antichrist was not limited to one individual man -- he believed it was the Papal ecclesiastical system which rose with the fall of Rome and would extend until the time of the end. He felt that the Papal contention that the Antichrist was some future person had caused people to look ahead for a fictitious Antichrist and thus overlook the REAL Antichrist at Rome who had already exerted his influence for centuries (Froom, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 296, 299).

John Calvin (1509-1564). An eminent French reformer second only to Luther in influence, Calvin wrote concerning the Pope -- “I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist -- I deny him to be the successor of Peter...I deny him to be the head of the church” (Calvin, Tracts, Vol. 1, pp. 219-220). In his classic Institutes, he wrote:

He then pointed out that the Antichrist was to conceal himself under the character of the church, “as under a mask,” and that the Papacy had fulfilled the characteristics set forth by Paul.

John Knox (1505-1572). Especially known for his reformation work in Scotland, Knox was persecuted from country to country until the affairs of Scotland were finally in Protestant hands. He preached that Catholic traditions and ceremonies should be abolished as well as “that tyranny which the Pope himself has for so many ages exercised over the church” and that he should be acknowledged as “the very Antichrist, the son of perdition, of whom Paul speaks” (Knox, The Zurich Letters, p. 199). In public challenge Knox said: “As for your Roman Church, as it is now corrupted...I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the Pope, to be that man of sin whom the apostle speaketh.”

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). A friend of Zwingli, Bullinger is regarded as one of the greatest prophetic expositors of his time. He explained that the kingdom of the popes rose up among the divisions of Rome, that the Pope is Antichrist because he usurps the keys of Christ and his kingly and priestly authority (Froom, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 343-344).

William Tyndale (1484-1536). The first translator of the Bible from Greek to English, Tyndale was a reformer and martyr who taught that the Papal church was Babylon and that the Pope was the man of sin or Antichrist, seated in the temple of YEHOVAH, i.e., the church. Repeatedly he cited II Thessalonians 2 in this regard (ibid., p. 356).

Years later in 1611, the translators of the King James Version of the Bible also recognized the Papacy as the man of sin and the Catholic Church as Antichrist, and that the open publication of scriptural truth was dealing a great blow to this Satanic system. Therefore, in their dedication to King James, they wrote: “...the zeal of your majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the fartherest parts of Christendom by writing a defense of the truth which hath given such a blow to that man of sin as will not be healed.” It is quite evident these men did not think the man of sin was an individual to be revealed at some FUTURE time!

John Jewel (1522-1571). One of the great intellectuals of the English reformation, Jewel listed some of the MISCONCEPTIONS held by the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Antichrist: that he would be an Israelite of the tribe of Dan, born in Babylonia or Syria, or Mohammed, or that he would overthrow Rome or rebuild Jerusalem. “These TALES have been craftily devised to BEGUILE our eyes, that, whilst we think upon these guesses, and so occupy ourselves in beholding a shadow or probable conjecture of Antichrist, he which is Antichrist indeed may unawares DECEIVE us.” He was referring, of course, to the Papacy.

Jewel then mentions that if we took the term “man of sin” by itself, we might suppose that an individual man is meant. But taking all of the evidence into consideration, we understand that a SUCCESSION of men is the proper understanding. He pointed out that pagan Rome was the hindering power that prevented the development of Antichrist and that “Paul saith, Antichrist shall not come yet; for the emperor letteth him: the emperor shall be removed; and then shall Antichrist come.” This system of apostasy shall continue until it is destroyed at the coming of Yeshua. “He meaneth not, therefore, that Antichrist shall be any one man only, but ONE ESTATE OR KINGDOM of men, and a continuance of some ONE POWER and tyranny in the church” (Jewel, An Exposition Upon the Two Epistles to the Thessalonians, Vol. 2, p. 813).

LeRoy E. Froom sums up the evidence in these words: “We have seen the remarkable unanimity of belief of Reformation leaders in every land that the Antichrist of prophecy IS NOT to be a single individual -- some sort of superman -- who will wrack and well-nigh wreck the world just before the second event of Christ. Instead, they found that it was a VAST SYSTEM OF APOSTASY, or rather, an imposing counterfeit of truth which had developed within the jurisdiction of that divinely appointed custodian of truth, the Christian Church” (Froom, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 793).

After many pages of carefully documented proof for his statement, Froom concludes: “The FUTURIST view of an INDIVIDUAL Antichrist was unknown among the Protestants of North America prior to the nineteenth century”! (Froom, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 257).

Today, however, there are many in the Churches of God who have only heard the futurist ideas from false ministers such as Flurry, Dankenbring, et al. THEY ARE NOT EVEN AWARE THAT ANOTHER INTERPRETATION -- THE TRUE INTERPRETATION -- EXISTS!! May YEHOVAH God open their eyes to His Word -- and to the deceptive machinations of Satan’s great Antichrist, the Roman Catholic Church.