The Natural Origin of The antichrist (from Footsteps of the Messiah, by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, pages 206-212)
As to the natural origin of the antichrist, speculation has centered around his nationality, with the question being whether or not the antichrist will be a Jew.
(a) The antichrist will not be a Jew
Those who believe that the antichrist has to be a Jew do so for several reasons. One reason that is given could be classed as the logical reason. Stated in a syllogism, this argument goes as follows:
Major premise: The Jews will accept the antichrist as the messiah;
Minor premise: The Jews will never accept a gentile as the messiah;
Conclusion: The antichrist will be a Jew.
The argument is that the Jews will accept him as the messiah. The Scriptures make no such claim. While the Bible teaches that Israel enters into a covenant relationship with the antichrist this in no way means that they will accept him as the messiah. Some have stretched this reasoning to say that the Jews would not even enter into a covenant with a gentile. But none of this is valid, for Jews have often entered into covenant relationships with non-Jews in the past. But this logical reason also fails to view the whole issue. It could be asked another way: how would the gentiles accept him if he is a Jew? So the logical reason could be used either way, and it is not valid in and of itself. The argument for his Jewishness based on this kind of logic is not valid. It is an argument based on two assumptions, neither of which is able to stand on its own. Furthermore, the final analysis as to whether something is true cannot be based on logic, but on Scripture. The ultimate question isn not, “Is it logical?” but, “Is it scriptural?” The assumption necessary for the logical reason cannot be validated by Scripture.
Another reason people often give for the Jewishness of the antichrist is based on Revelation 7:1-8. Stated as a syllogism, this argument would read as follows:
Major premise: The tribe from which the antichrist would come would not be listed among the 144,000;
Minor premise: Dan is not among the 144,000;
Conclusion: The antichrist is from the tribe of Dan.
The folly of such reasoning should be clear to anyone holding to a literal interpretation of Scripture. First of all, it is an argument of conjecture. If the interpreter is at all honest, he would have to admit that he really does not know why Dan is left out of the 144,000. The Bible nowhere spells out why Dan is excluded. If the reason is what the proponent of this view says it is, then it should be explained why an entire tribe is punished because of one man. Furthermore, why is Dan included in the Millennial Israel (Eze 48:1) if there is a curse on him? Assuming information where the Bible is silent is a danger to sound hermeneutics. This argument also involves circular reasoning. To repeat the syllogism:
Major premise: The tribe from which the antichrist would come would not be listed among the 144,000;
Minor premise: Dan is not among the 144,000;
Conclusion: The antichrist is from the tribe of Dan.
From this syllogism another is developed:
Major premise: The antichrist is from the tribe of Dan;
Minor premise: Dan is a Jewish tribe;
Conclusion: The antichrist is a Jew.
Or they can be stated another way:
1) The antichrist is a Jew;
2) The tribe from which the antichrist would come would not be listed among the 144,000;
3) Dan is not among the 144,000;
4) The antichrist is from the tribe of Dan;
5) Dan is a Jewish tribe;
6) The antichrist is therefore a Jew.
No matter how it is put, this is purely circular reasoning, the truth of which is dependent upon the truth of the presupposition. While circular reasoning is consistent within itself, the consistency does not make it scriptural. The presupposition of circular reasoning has no proof on which to base this doctrine.
The scriptural text used most often for the Jewishness of the antichrist is found in Daniel 11:37, which in the King James version reads as follows:
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
The whole argument rests on the phase, the God of his fathers, which is taken to be clear-cut evidence that the antichrist is a Jew. It should be pointed out, however, that the argument for the Jewishness of the antichrist from this verse is based upon the King James version. But even if it is granted (and it is not) that the King James is the correct translation from the original, the phrase “God of his fathers” need not be used exclusively of the Jews. The phrase “God of his fathers” allows for a wider interpretation. For instance, he could be a person who had Christian parents but rejects their God in this sense. It could refer to a roman catholic or a pagan just as easily as to a Jewish person. The one phrase where the term “antichrist” is used in 1 Jon 2:18-19 refers to those who apostatize from Christianity and not from Judaism.
Ultimately, Bible doctrine should be based on the Hebrew and Greek texts since they are the closest to the original autographs. To base a doctrine on a translation, especially when that translation is known to contain error, is folly. This is exactly the case with the King James rendering of Daniel 11:37. Any student of Hebrew would see from the original text that the correct translation should be: “the gods of his fathers,” and not “the God of his fathers.” In the whole context, Daniel 11:36-39, the term god is used a total of eight times. In the Hebrew text six of these times it is in the singular and twice in the plural, one of which is the phrase in verse 37. The very fact that the plural form of the word “god” is used in a context where the singular is found in the majority of cases makes this a reference to heathen deities and not a reference to the God of Israel.
Moreover, there is much external evidence to show that this is the correct rendering of the text. The earliest known translation of the Old Testament is the Septuagint (LXX), which is a Geek translation of the Old Testament made about 250 B.C. The LXX has translated the word as “gods,” which is inn keeping with the Hebrew text. Further evidence that the King James version is incorrect in its translation here is seen in the fact that almost all other English translations, both from Jewish, and non-Jewish sources, have rendered the word for “god” in the plural. Two major Jewish translation, the Jewish Publication Society of America and the Isaac Leeser translation, have rendered the phrase “the gods of his fathers.” In Christian translations–suck as the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Amplified Old testament, the New American Standard, and the New International Version, among others–have all translated the phrase to read the gods of his fathers. Furthermore, the New Scofield Reference Bible, itself based o the King James Version, has done a great service to scholarship by rendering this passage to read in the plural form. Commentaries based on the Hebrew rather than the English text recognized the correct reading of Daniel 11:37. This is true of the official Orthodox Jewish commentary in the Soncino Commentary on the Old Testament, as well as the prominent Christian commentary in the Kiel and Delitzsch Commentary.
All this evidence shows that Daniel 11:37, the chief argument used by proponents that the antichrist is to be a Jew, gives no validity to this belief. A doctrine of such magnitude must not be based solely on the King James Version as is this one. It has been shown that even if the King James Version were correct, it would not limit the expression to Jews, but it would be valid for believers as well. However, the truth is that the text is dealing with heathen deities and not with the Jewish Jehovah. If anything, this passage implies that the antichrist will be a Gentile rather than a Jew.
(b) The antichrist Will Be a Gentile
It has been shown that the Bible does not teach that the antichrist is to be a Jew. This raises the question: do the Scriptures plainly teach that the antichrist is to be a Gentile? The answer is that they do. This is seen to be true from biblical typology, biblical imagery, and the nature of the Times fo the Gentiles.
That the antichrist is to be a Gentile is seen first by looking at biblical typology. The only biblical type of the antichrist is given in the person the Antiochus Epiphanes, a Gentile. The reason is that the antichrist himself is to be a Gentile.
Another argument for the Gentile nature of the antichrist is found in biblical imagery. Whenever the word sea is used symbolically in the Scriptures, especially in the Book of Revelation, it is a symbol of the Gentile nations. Since the Beast in Revelation 13:1-10 arises out of the sea, and since the sea represent the Gentile nations (Rev 17:15), this points to the antichrist as being of Gentile origin.
But the key to his Gentile nationality is to be found in the nature of the Times of the Gentiles. It is agreed by most Premillennialists that the Times of the Gentiles does not end until the Second Coming of the Messiah. It is further agreed that the antichrist is the final ruler of thee Times of the Gentiles (extended information on this was presented in Chapter 2, The Times of the Gentiles). If this is so, how then can a Jew be the last ruler when only the Gentiles can have the pre-eminence? To say that the antichrist is to be a Jew contradicts the very nature of the Times of the Gentiles. A Jew heading up the final world throne of Gentile power is an impossible postulation. So while arguments from typology and imagery are not strong by themselves, when coupled with the clear scriptural teaching of the nature of the Times of the Gentiles, they can be powerful evidence that the antichrist is to be a Gentile.
© The antichrist Will be of Roman Origin
But not only does the Bible reveal that fact that the antichrist is to be a Gentile, it also reveals the very nationality of the antichrist. The nationality of the antichrist can be deduced from Daniel 9:26-27:
And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with the many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that makes desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.
The first order of business is to identify the he in verse 27 who makes the Seven-Year Covenant with Israel. The rules of Hebrew grammar must be used to determine this. The fact that in the Hebrew text the third masculine singular is used means that the one must look for an antecedent. The nearest antecedent is the prince that shall come in verse 26. So the he of verse 27 is the same as the prince that shall come of verse 26.
The next order of business is to establish the identity of this prince. It is generally recognized that this prince is the antichrist himself. Daniel used the definite article since he had already spoken of him in chapter seven of his book as the little horn, and again in chapter eight. So then, the prince that shall come is also the he who makes the covenant with Israel, and both have reference to the antichrist. Verse 26 also states that the prince that shall come is of the same nationality as the people who will destroy the city and the Sanctuary. The third step is to establish the nationality of this people, and history has shown that this was accomplished by the Romans in A.D. 70. The obvious conclusion, then, is that the antichrist is a Gentile of Roman origin.
To summarize the argument of the Gentile Roman origin of the antichrist, it could be stated as follows:
1. The he who makes a covenant and the prince that shall come are one and the same person;
2. They both have reference to the antichrist;
3. The antichrist is of the same nationality as the people who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple;
4. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70;
5. The antichrist, then, will be of Roman origin.
The conclusion is that the antichrist will not be a Jew. Most people who believe that contrary merely assume it without giving any reason. Those who present a logical reason–”How will the Jews accept him if he is not a Jew?”–are reminded that the Bible and not logic is the basis for doctrine, including this one. Those who argue from Revelation 7:4-8 are arguing from conjecture and circular reasoning and not from any clear statement from Scripture. Those who argue from Daniel 11:37 are basing doctrine on a faulty translation fo the Hebrew text.
Not only has it been concluded negatively that the antichrist is not a Jew, but is concluded positively that he is a Gentile, as seen from biblical typology and imagery, along with the very nature of the Times of the Gentiles as presented by the Scriptures. The Bible not only teaches that the antichrist is a Gentile, but it reveals his exact nationality: a Gentile of Roman origin, as seen by a careful study of Daniel 9:26-27.
