The City of the Antichrist

Disclaimer: The author intends these articles to assist the reader in understanding the End Times prophecies of the Holy Bible. There is no intention to provoke hatred towards any group, tribe, or nation. Even the family of the Antichrist deserves to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ! The book of Revelation states that there will be members of every tribe, nation, kingdom, and tongue, in Heaven! It is the hope of the author to provoke Christians to witness of the love and forgiveness of God toward all who will listen! It is his hope that we will share in the joy of seeing even family members of the Antichrist himself, in Heaven with Jesus!

A corollary to my questions from last week would be “Is there biblical evidence against the nation of the Antichrist?”

Well, yes, and no!

If you believe the Antichrist will come from Rome, there is only a couple of cryptic passages that could indicate Rome, or they might indicate someplace else! We have the Daniel 9:26 reference to the destruction of Jerusalem;

the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”

Now, everyone knows that the armies of Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, don’t they? That was the fact I accepted most of my adult life, but some time in 2009 I decided to take a look at an eye-witness account of the events in question. I remembered the meeting between the apostle Paul and the centurion who had bought his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:26-28), and I realized that this was probably a common occurrence. Rome itself was too small to run the whole empire without assistance from conquered peoples.

Were there Arabs in Rome’s armies which ransacked Jerusalem? Who was there, and who started the destruction?

As I looked for an eye-witness account, I found the best, and most reliable account was the one by the Jewish historian, Josephus.

In book 4 of “the Jewish Wars” I found what I had been looking for, and which I had come to suspect; When general Vespasian was marching toward Jerusalem he stopped in Damascus and gathered large numbers of auxiliaries from kings in the neighbourhood;

So Vespasian sent his son Titus from Achaia, where he had been with Nero, to Alexandria, to bring back with him from thence the fifth and. the tenth legions, while he himself, when he had passed over the Hellespont, came by land into Syria, where he gathered together the Roman forces, with a considerable number of auxiliaries from the kings in that neighborhood.”

Hmmm! So we know that there were Syrians there at the destruction of Jerusalem. So much for it being entirely Rome’s responsibility. In fact Vespasian had to return to Rome to become Caesar, and he left his son Titus in charge. Titus, it turns out, made an order that the Temple was to be saved intact.

Some of the soldiers began looting, and when it appeared that he might lose control over his armies, Titus reversed his order. It appears that it was only then that the Roman armies joined the looting. So, were the Syrians responsible for the destruction?


Someone else got there first, and began the destruction while the Roman armies were still enroute. The destruction begun by this group of people served to ensure that Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the temple!

Who were these people? They were actually practising Jews at the time, and the closest relatives the people of Israel have on the planet, the nation founded by Jacob’s brother Esau, Edom!

These people, being brought in by the Zealots, by stealth, first went to the Temple where they slaughtered some 8,500 men, and then went throughout the city killing another 12,000 people! At the end of their slaughter, they held a trial, by jury, of the high priest Annanus, and his deputy, one Jesus. When they failed to get a conviction, they threw both men off the Temple wall.

These men knew they could not defeat Rome, and were prepared to negotiate a surrender, but with them gone, the Idumeans left the Zealots in charge. The Zealots had such a hatred of Rome that they refused to surrender, and in the end some 1.3 million people were killed and the rest taken captive. Here is what Josephus says about the Idumean slaughter of these two men;

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered.

He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was.

Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men’s case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.” (Josephus, The Jewish War, Book 4, Chapter 5, Section 2)

So who was Daniel speaking about when he wrote “ the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary”? Did he mean Rome, who was carried along by the actions of others, or was he referring to those others whos actions actually resulted in the destructon of Jerusalem? I say it was the others, and not even the Syrians, who began the destruction, but the Idumeans, who made it inevitable. The Idumeans, Edomites, the descendants of Esau, are the people of the Antichrist, according to Daniel 9:26!

But what about the prophecy in Revelation 17:9 that says the Antichrist will rule an empire from a city of seven mountains? Surely this must indicate Rome, which was historically known as “The city of seven hills”?

And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.”

To you and me the distinction between “hills” and “mountains” might seem small and insignificant, but the Lord is specific in His choice of words. He chose the word “mountain” because he had another city in mind, one that prides itself as being a city of seven mountains, or as they say it in Arabic, seven “jabals”! This city was a Rome wannabe, and some day soon will actually surpass Rome, its model.

The city of seven mountains that Revelation 17:9 refers to just happens to be the capital city of Esau’s descendants; Amman.

Interestingly, as you study the history of Amman, you will discover that it was known as Philadelphia from some hundred years before the time of Christ, and for some three hundred years after. This is not some insignificant fact, but a key to the whole mystery. You can bet that the Antichrist will exploit the confusion between the Philadelphia of Asia minor, in Revelation 3, and the Philadelphia which was Amman at the time. Will he call his church the “Church of Philadelphia”? This is a distinct possibility.

As you go through Revelation 17 and 18, you will see that there are actually two entities in view here. The one is Babylon the Harlot, who sits on many waters, and the other Babylon is a city of seven mountains. The first is a religious entity, and her headquarters is not identified in the passage, except by the name Babylon. The phrase “many waters” is a reference to many people groups, and refers to a world-wide base. She will have a headquarters, however, and I believe this will not be Rome, nor the city of seven mountains, but to Ancient Babylon itself.

Rome will be destroyed before these events take place, and her destruction will lead many to believe that the Tribulation is over. This is a deception of the devil. In the aftermath of the destruction of Rome, the remaining Catholic churches will be forced to select a new headquarters. I believe this location will be Babylon, Iraq.

I am quite sure that many protestant churches will view the destruction of Rome as having been the judgment of Revelation 17 and 18, and will now feel safe in uniting with the remaining Catholic churches. In doing so they will actually be forming the Harlot Church. Their unity will be to promote peace on earth, and to form the “kingdom of God on earth”, and by doing so they will ride the Beast, until he and the ten kings of the earth destroy them.

When the Harlot church is destroyed, another entity, a city of seven mountains will be ready to take on the mantle of world power, and to set up another world religion. That will be the city of the Antichrist; Philadelphia; Amman!

One would think that the “Roman Antichrist” is a footnote to history, the way that there are no specific condemnations against Rome in the bible. You can search high and low, and you simply won’t find any. This man is Christ’s arch enemy, one of only two people in the history of the world who are thrown into the lake of fire without attending the Great White Throne judgment, but there are no statements of condemnation, no prophecies about a man from Rome, or even condemnation of Rome itself by name.

Obviously the man of sin can’t be that important to God, if he is from Rome.

This is an example of studying Scripture the backwards way. Rather than looking for condemnation of Rome, one should look for who it is that God condemns, in His End Times prophecies, and then determine where the Antichrist is from.

Here is a part of a verse about a nation who suffers the Lord’s anger. Look at not only the Lord’s anger, but the reputation of this nation for ever. Could this be Rome?;

and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation forever.”

If the Antichrist came from Rome this is the kind of statement one would expect about that city. It isn’t Rome. Read the rest of the story;

Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.” Malachi 1:4

Edom, the nation founded by Jacob’s brother Esau is THE nation against whom the Lord will be indignant with for ever! There is no other nation that suffers this fate!  This is the same nation responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the same nation that is today governed by the ancient city of Philadelphia, a city of seven mountains, and a Rome wannabe!

Is this everything against these people? No! There is a mountain of biblical evidence that this nation, and the people of Edom, Ammon, and Moab, will have a special relationship with the Antichrist. He is their favourite son, and the one they pin their hopes and dreams on!

Daniel 11:41 is often used to say that the little nation across the river from Israel will not be defeated by the Antichrist, as if this tiny nation, even smaller than Israel, will be so strong that the Antichrist can’t defeat them;

He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.”

Well, that is one interpretation, but it really doesn’t make any sense in the light of the whole bible. Why on earth would the Antichrist not take-over this little nation when it is so close to his real quarry, Israel? How is it that the man who is able to take over the whole earth, is not able to take over a little nation of some 5 million souls?

You see, it doesn’t say that he will not rule this nation, only that they will escape his hand. They will escape his hand because he has no need to attack them; they are his power base! The people of Edom, Moab and Ammon are his people, and will support him from the beginning!  If he has a close relative on the throne of this nation, such as a brother, cousin, or uncle, why would he attack his own family?

I could go on and talk about the other prophecies against Edom and the people of this nation. There are even prophecies about the destruction of Amman, which is very similar to the destruction of Babylon, and there are other prophecies against the descendants of Esau, but I will leave it at that for now. 

I want to end with a note; Why have so many missed these prophecies?  Well, if you have already decided that the Antichrist is from Rome, then you will NOT be looking for verses that indicate the Antichrist will come from somewhere else, and if you do see them you will interpret them incorrectly!

About dknezacek

An average, ordinary guy. Author, husband, father, pilot, aircraft builder, test pilot, machinist, artist, just ordinary stuff that lots of people do. Don't forget bible student. Dan's passion is bible study, especially including the End Times prophecies.
This entry was posted in Christian Doctrine, Prophecy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The City of the Antichrist

  1. Charlie says:

    Brother Dan, do you recall that I a also am absolutely certain that the AC comes from what is today the modern nation of Jordan. In fact, I firmly believe that King Abdullah II, Jordan’s reigning king will eventually be revealed as the so-called Antichrist. In fact, Ezekiel 21 points to Ammon as the land of origin of the “slain wicked prince of Israel” who is the coming antichrist. The Roman antichrist theory is based upon a mistranslation of Daniel 9:26 that occurred for the very purpose of sealing and concealing the true meaning of the prophecy until the “set time of the end”. The word translated “people” in this passage actually means “with” and was so translated in every version of the LXX that I’ve ever seen. There is no mention of the antichrist anywhere in the prophecy of the seventy weeks. The coming Prince in that passage is the Lord Jesus Christ.


    • dknezacek says:

      Hi Charlie,
      I guess we do have a few things in common.

      There are several reasons why I do not believe Abdullah II is the Antichrist, among which are; While he rules over Edom, Moab and Ammon, he is not an Edomite, and in fact is not from any of these three tribes. He actually traces his ancestry to Ishmael, on his father’s side. All his ancestors on his father’s side married women from Mecca, also of Ishmaelite lineage, until his father broke with tradition and married an English woman.

      So the family is Ishmaelite, and not Edomite…until now.

      Abdullah is the first in his family to actually marry someone with a history from the “west bank”, though she herself was born in Kuwait.

      Queen Rania with her sons

      It is virtually impossible to ascertain exactly which tribe she came from apart from the general term “Palestinian”, but it is a known fact that Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, moved into Israel after the fall of Jerusalem, and all are referred to as “Palestinian” today. It is certain that she is from at least one of them, and probably from all three, since they have all mingled together over the last two thousand years.

      If I am correct, then Abdullah’s children are from both Ishmael and Esau, the first sons of both Abraham and Isaac. Don’t forget that the Arabs take special significance for the firstborn son, even though God changed the birthright to the second son in both cases.

      But, what will you say if Abdullah falls victim to the Arab Spring? The Muslim Brotherhood has their sights set on him, and are agitating for a revolution in Jordan. Once they are finished with Assad, they are sure to go after Abdullah.

      I expect that he may not survive a revolution, though it is more likely his family will.

      Take a look at that little boy on the left, Hashem bin al Abdullah. Do you know what name the Jews read out loud when they come across the tetragramaton, YHVH, or Yehovah, in the bible? “Ha shem”, which means “the name”.

      I checked through Abdullah’s family tree, and could not find any other examples of this name except for Muhammad’s grandfather, from whom the tribe gets its name “Hashemite”.

      When this young man grows up, will he use this name to claim that he is “Ha Shem” in the flesh? It sure looks to me like he is being set up for that role. It is too early to say for sure, but he is certainly someone to watch.

      In the mean time, the MB is going to take over several nations in the Middle East, and then they will go after Israel. Of this I am certain. The only question is “when”, not “if”. Will this be the Psalm 83 war? Again, the question is “when”, not “if”. The Arabs have learned that they can’t win against Israel in ones and twos. They are certain to form a united front in an all-out attempt to dislodge the Jewish state.

  2. Charlie says:

    Brother Dan, I have no problem with the sincerity of your arguments and we do agree on the land from which the Antichrist will arise. But please understand, I didn’t research and study Biblical prophecies in order to conclude that Abdullah is the soon to be revealed AC. That was given to me by the LORD years ago through three supernatural experiences. It was afterward that I went back to the Scriptures and discovered the Biblical evidence that points to Jordan as the nation from which the Man of Sin will be revealed. Your assertions in this regard are your business but they are basically meaningless to me. And believe me, if you were in my shoes, you would feel exactly the same way. And time will most certainly tell who is closer to the truth here.


  3. dknezacek says:

    That’s too bad, Charlie,

    I have no regard for anyone’s extra-biblical experiences. I don’t believe the Lord speaks to people that way; He speaks to them through His word. This is why I focus on the bible itself. The bible reveals the way the Antichrist will be unveiled, and it is not through visions and extra-biblical experiences.

    If He were to speak to someone through an extra-biblical experience, there is no doubt that the experience would line-up with the bible. In other words it could be checked by the bible.

    If your experience can’t be verified by the Word of God then it is not valid.



  4. Charlie says:

    Brother Dan, I wasn’t trying to convince you of anything! I completely understand that “we” can’t put any credence in a Brother’s personal experience regarding Bible prophecy because there is simply no way to validate it, regardless of whether it is genuine or not. Now, are you asserting that the Lord never “speaks” to His children in any way or situation? Some 30 odd years ago, He clearly warned me of an impending wreck while I was riding my motorcycle at the time and absolutely saved my life. You can take that or leave it, but for me, the proof was in the pudding, so to speak. Had I not heeded His warning, I would not be typing this reply. I don’t know about you, but I’ve “heard” His voice in a few exceedingly rare occurrences, so I recognize it when He speaks to me. And what I asserted regarding the identity of the AC is not technically unbiblical unless you can show me a Scripture that clearly indicates that no one will know who he is before he’s revealed (2 Thess. 2:3). We know from Scripture that in the last days of the last days, God will raise up certain men who will be supernaturally empowered to carry out His will. Am I claiming to be such a man? Absolutely not! But if I did, it would not technically be unbiblical, but rather unproven. Again, time will eventually reveal who’s on the right track here, which should be interesting whichever way it goes.


  5. dknezacek says:


    The Lord is sovereign and can do what He wants. That being said, no genuine experience from the Lord would contradict Scripture. Lots of people claim direct revelation from the Lord which does indeed contradict Scripture, such as just about every “Apostle” in the NAR.

    Here’s the thing, I also believe the Lord has led me to my conclusions. I believe, however, that the Lord has led me in a slightly different direction than you claim he has led you. He didn’t lead you to Abdullah, and me to Abdullah’s son. Someone is wrong. In fact we both could be wrong, but we both can’t be correct.

    I also know that some times I thought an idea I had came from the Lord, only to find that later I was wrong, however, other times my conclusion is that this did not come from me.

    Nevertheless, if one of us is correct, we are really quite close in our conclusions, and both of us are very different from the main-stream “prophecy scholars”.

    All the best,


  6. Charlie says:

    Brother Dan, we’re making progress towards being on the same page here. You didn’t respond to my assertions regarding Ezekiel 21, the “slain wicked prince of Israel”, and his connection with ‘the sons of Ammon”. Do you disagree?

    Did I ever offer you a copy of my article “Rethinking the Seventy Weeks of Daniel” which documents the mistranslation of Daniel 9:26? I’d be glad to email you a copy if you were interested. It completely debunks the so-called Roman antichrist theory.


  7. dknezacek says:

    I remember you mentioning that passage before. I think the context of the passage dictates that it was about the last king of Israel, before the Babylonians attacked.

    I am well aware that sometimes past events are foreshadows of future events, but I’m not sure this is going on here. To me this appears to be a straight forward judgment of both Israel and Ammon, and led to both nations being taken captive by the Babylonians.

    Yes you are correct that Rabbath of the Ammonites is Amman, Jordan today. There are other Ent Times prophecies of the destruction of Amman, so I’m not sure that this is anything going on more than appears on the surface.

    20 Appoint a way, that the sword may come to Rabbath of the Ammonites, and to Judah in Jerusalem the defenced. 21 For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination: he made his arrows bright, he consulted with images, he looked in the liver. 22 At his right hand was the divination for Jerusalem, to appoint captains, to open the mouth in the slaughter, to lift up the voice with shouting, to appoint battering rams against the gates, to cast a mount, and to build a fort. 23 And it shall be unto them as a false divination in their sight, to them that have sworn oaths: but he will call to remembrance the iniquity, that they may be taken. 24 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have made your iniquity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are discovered, so that in all your doings your sins do appear; because, I say, that ye are come to remembrance, ye shall be taken with the hand. 25 And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, 26 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. 27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.
    Ezekiel 21:20-27

    The “profane wicked prince of Israel” is not the Antichrist, but the last king of Israel, Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had put on the throne, and who rebelled against his benefactor some 11 years later. This is the context of the passage.

    “until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him” is a reference to Jesus Christ. The kingdom will not be returned to Israel until Jesus returns. After Zedekiah, Israel was ruled by other kings, but not their own. Today they have a president, not a king, and he is merely a figurehead.

    The Antichrist will be another gentile king who will rule over Israel, but he will not be a king of Israel. I say “of” in the sense of “belonging to”. The next king “of” Israel will be Jesus Christ at His return.

    There are enough prophecies against Jordan in the end times, to identify them as the people of the Antichrist, that we don’t need to force End Times meaning when none is intended.

    If you want an accurate bible you need to stick with the AV.


  8. Charlie says:

    Ezekiel 21:
    24 “Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Because you have made your iniquity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are uncovered, so that in all your deeds your sins appear—because you have come to remembrance, you will be seized with the hand.
    25 And you, O slain, wicked one, the prince of Israel, whose day has come, in the time of the punishment of the end,’
    26 thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Remove the turban and take off the crown; this will no longer be the same. Exalt that which is low and abase that which is high.
    27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin, I will make it. This also will be no more until He comes whose right it is, and I will give it to Him.’

    Brother Dan, I don’t know if you’re familiar with Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, but here is what he had to say about this passage:

    “Ezekiel 21:25-27 is primarily concerned with the Second Coming of Messiah. Verse 25 refers to the antichrist, the last Gentile to rule over Israel. In verse 26, the turban, or mitre, is the mitre of the priest (Exodus 28:4, 37, 39; 29:6; 39:28, 31; Leviticus 8:9; 16:4) and the crown is the royal crown. Just as Genesis 49:10 uses the royal scepter to represent the authority to rule, Ezekiel uses the royal crown to represent the same thing. Then the exact same phrase is used: “until He comes who’s right it is.” Both priesthood and kingship are to be overthrown “until He comes who’s right it is.” It should be noted in passing that Ezekiel’s reference to the priestly mitre indicates that Messiah will be a priest as well as a king.
    Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Messianic Christology, Copyright 1998, page 21.

    I also don’t know if you’re familiar with E. W. Bullinger’s “Companion Bible”. It’s not very well known these days. Anyway, it gives Revelation 13:3 as a cross reference to Ezekiel 21:25.

    Revelation 21:3
    And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

    The reason that Ezekiel refers to him as being “slain” is because he receives a deadly head wound yet lives.

    You’ve given the standard dispensational interpretation of this Ezekiel passage and you’re welcome to your opinion. I just beg to differ.

    Now, regarding this statement: “If you want an accurate bible you need to stick with the AV.” I understand where you’re coming from and I would agree that the Textus Receptus is the preferred underlying Greek text for the New Testament. However, most all Old Testament translations use the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament so I don’t see any great harm in using any English translation of it as a starting point for study. Personally, I rely on the free program Interlinear Scripture Analyzer if I’m seriously studying a Biblical passage, particularly if it’s from the OT. Since I have no formal training in Biblical languages, I use any tool that I can find to help me and this is for me at least absolutely the best tool that I’ve ever come across. If you don’t already use it, I would highly recommend it!


  9. Pingback: Fellow WorPress blogger and author Dan Knezacek, weighs in on question of Muslim Antichrist | Serve Him in the Waiting

  10. Pingback: The Antichrist and his Muslim background | housetops

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.