The Antichrist as an Agent of God

Daniel predicted four western empires preceding the advent on earth of the Kingdom of God.

Everybody knows that Daniel’s empires are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece (Macedonia), and Rome.

But all students of prophecy agree that John in Revelation 13 saw the rise of yet another empire, an empire in additional to Daniel’s four, the Empire of the Antichrist.

How is it possible to reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions, the position of Daniel with the position of John?

There are at least two possibilities:

1.The empire of Rome never died. She continues to exist in her cultural legacy, such as her republican form of government.

2.The empire of Rome will be revived before the advent on earth of the Kingdom of God. (Those holding the notion of a revived Roman Empire also believe that its leader is the Antichrist.)

There is a major problem with these possibilities.

The first one spiritualizes Rome. All of Daniel’s empires were literal. It seems contrary to treat Rome differently. Furthermore, Jesus envisioned an earthly, successor empire, the Kingdom of God. He made this clear when He prayed, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven”. Matthew 6:10.

The second possibility, a revived Roman Empire, is not realistic. Expositors of this view have put forth morphed concepts of a Roman Empire, such as the United Nations or the European Union. Yet these are Democratic institutions. Democracy was not the political philosophy of Rome.

Must we conclude, then, that Daniel and John are at odds? No.

The answer resolving this riddle appears to be this stunning set of twin assertions:

The Empire of the Antichrist is the really ONE AND THE SAME as the earthly Kingdom of God; and, the Antichrist is God’s agent in achieving this kingdom.

These assertions presuppose at least one of two claims:

1.Jesus Christ is an imposter messiah; or,

2.The Bible teaches a two-messiah redemption, a redemption accomplished through the mutual and complimentary acts of Jesus Christ and the Antichrist.

I subscribe to the latter of these views.

Before you categorically deny these notions, I challenge you to proffer an alternative explanation for what appears to be a major prophetic discrepancy. I have provided a plausible and consistent explanation.