In Revelation 13:3, 12, and 14 we are introduced to the idea of a resurrected ruler (some say kingdom, but a king and a kingdom are inseparable). Thankfully this concept is not new to us, as we have been studying Daniel’s history-gap-history pattern. Simply put, but how simply believed I am not sure: Someone who reigned before will reign again. More of this in chapter 17. Let’s look closer at what happens.

In verse 3, one of the heads of the beast receives a (potentially) fatal wound. We have identified the heads above in terms of nations of the world. But in chapter 17 they are also considered to be individual men. Which way shall we go when thinking about interpretation? I think we need to see the context of the chapter. The world sees this resurrected entity and concludes that it will be impossible to make war with such a one (13:4)! That sounds more like a man than a nation does it not? Let’s see how it fits as we move on.

Again in verses 3, 12, and 14, there is indication that a deadly wound is healed, one who should have died does not, or seemingly dies but comes back from the dead. I am not totally certain that this person experiences an actual death, due to the phrase “as if it had been” mortally wounded. Is this sleight of hand? The false prophet, another beast described later in this chapter, is working all sorts of magic tricks, even trying to duplicate Moses’ and Elijah’s command over elements, such as fire. Could such a one conjure up a death experience for antichrist, so that the world could see it and the resultant resurrection? One thinks of the temptations of Christ and the way Satan tried to get Jesus to try death-defying acts so as to prove His Messiahship. Will Satan resort to these methods?

Whatever, the wound is made by a sword, yet Antichrist lives. The world is in awe. Now, some have speculated that what we are seeing here is Sennacherib, the great Assyrian “antichrist” figure, who decimated Israel and incurred God’s wrath. The story of his demise and slaying by the sword is actually told in your Bible (II Kings 19:35-37)!

It is hard to take lightly such a story, as it seems to tie in. I believe that after you have heard the evidence in chapter 17 you too will be convinced that someone will rise from the dead. Why not Sennacherib? As I pondered this for awhile I began to imagine Sennacherib, or even Antiochus for that matter, trying to prove to people in our generation that he is a resurrected ruler. We remember Saddam Hussein’s attempts to convince us that he was in some way Nebuchadnezzar of old Babylon. The man is crazy, we guessed. Appeal to history is not a powerful tool. It seems to me the man of sin will have to prove his worthiness by a miraculous episode in our own day. And his right hand man, the false prophet, can easily see to that.

I cannot ignore what I have seen of antichrist in the book of Daniel, especially since the Lord Himself has told us to go to that book for answers to the mystery. Though I do not want to write off every other idea, I prefer to stay with Antiochus, as opposed to Sennacherib, about whom little else is said in Scripture. Now, Antiochus died a horrid death. The disease which took him was similar to that suffered by Herod in the book of Acts (12:20-24). He was eaten of worms. But as with all lost and saved persons, a new body is reserved so that persons can be blessed or judged eternally. When Antiochus returns from the dead it will be with a new imperishable body, one that can indeed endure any sort of fatal wound.

As to the use of the sword in our generation, it is not so difficult to imagine any longer, is it? With the Muslim ascent to power, we can readily envision not only the sword, but beheadings, prophesied for believers of the last days.

We readily remember from Daniel the details John now points out in verse 5, the blasphemous words, the three and one half years. No question now who this is. Six hundred years earlier, an angel pointed the finger to a historical figure described in great detail in Daniel 11 and 12, mentioned his blasphemy, mentioned his time limit. It all comes together. Even if only his name, Epiphanes, was on his head, it would be blasphemy enough. He claims to be the manifested son of the living God.

“Great is the mystery of godliness,” says Paul (I Timothy 3:16) “God was manifest in the flesh!” But the mystery of iniquity is that there will be one claiming this “manifested” title for himself and demanding that all give him the honor deserved only by Jesus.