In a cursory reading of the last part of the chapter 9 in Daniel, one does not see any word that resembles the title "Antichrist"! Yet many prophecy books write about the Antichrist to come, spoken of in Daniel 9. Whole series of sermons are dedicated to this man in modern pulpits, especially pulpits of TV preachers, selling books about the End time or about the Last Days.

There is mention of Anointed one, a prince but no "anti-anointed one." There is mention of a Covenant made strong but it does not say it is an evil covenant.

And the whole section is under the holy cloud of verse 24 which listed six reasons for laying out Seventy Weeks (heptads). (1) To finish the transgression, (2) To make an end of sins, (3) To make reconciliation for iniquity, (4) To bring in everlasting righteousness, (5) To seal up the vision and prophecy, and (6) To anoint the Most Holy. None of these seem to be the kind of work any Antichrist would want to be involved in!!!

So where does the idea of an Antichrist originate in this passage of scripture?

  • Not the word, of course, but the concept of antichrist is addressed in Daniel, but not in chapter nine. Look in chapter 11, particularly verses 32-39. Note the mention of a "strange god." Anyone who worships the wrong god is against Christ who taught about the true God.
    – Biblasia
    Jun 17, 2023 at 10:55
  • @Biblasia-Generally speaking, and according to 1 John, your definition is correct! Anyone against God and Jesus has the spirit of an antichrist. Antiochus Epiphanes, in chapter 8, and mentioned again in ch. 11 would qualify as one of them. But as to the modern concept of one End-time Bad dude, neither of these passages of verses would teach of such a one. It seems people are reading into the verses what isn't there, eh? The contexts, and the interpretation of the angel forbid it. Good input!
    – ray grant
    Jun 17, 2023 at 20:14
  • According to 1 John 4:2-3, anyone who says Jesus did not come in the flesh, has the spirit of antichrist. Comparing John 4:24 and Luke 24:39, we see that anyone who says Jesus was God cannot without contradiction say that he came in the flesh, because God does not have flesh and bones. Realizing how widespread this false doctrine is today, we get a sense for the magnitude of the antichrist spirit's presence.
    – Biblasia
    Jun 17, 2023 at 20:22

5 Answers 5


The concept of the antichrist is not found in Dan 9:24-27. Such is a NT idea that is, depending on the author, found explicitly and implicitly.

In Dan 9:24-27, there are only two separate people mentioned:

  • V25: Messiah the prince who will be cut-off (V26) and confirm a covenant for one week
  • V26: the prince who is to come who will destroy the city and sanctuary whose end will be like a flood and precipitate the abomination of desolation.

In the NT, the concept of the antichrist is explicit and implicit. Let us examine these. But first note that the explicit references by John are more general about anyone who can qualify as "an antichrist". This is distinct from those in Revelation where we encounter "the antichrist".

Antichrist Explicit (General: "an antichrist")

Explicitly, the antichrist occurs in only four places:

  • 1 John 2:18 - Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.
  • 1 John 2:22 - Who is the liar, except the one denying that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one denying the Father and the Son.
  • 1 John 4:3 - and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is that of the antichrist, which you heard that is coming, and now is already in the world.
  • 2 John 7 - For many deceivers have entered into the world, those not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Antichrist Implicit (Specific: "The Antichrist")

For many centuries, many Bible readers have observed that the book of Revelation presents a "trinity" of beasts which appear to form an "anti-trinity" that is a patent counterfeit of the father Son and Holy Spirit. This is set out the tables below:

God the Father Beast from the Abyss Rev 11:7, 20:1 = great dragon, serpent
God Most High (Heb 7:1, Acts 7:48, 16:17, etc) "like the most high" Isa 14:12-14, who is "the great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world" Rev 12:9
"is, was, & yet will come" (Rev 1:4, 8, 4:8, 11:17) "was, now is not, yet will come" (Rev 17:8, 11)
Creator (Ps 33:6, 9, Rev 4:11) Destroyer (Rev 9:2, 11, 11:7, 8)
Has power and authority, Rev 12:10 Has power and authority, Rev 13:2
River of life comes from God, Rev 22:1 River to kill woman from dragon, Rev 12:15
Jesus Christ/Messiah Beast from the Sea Rev 13:1-8
Begins ministry in water (ie, baptized), Luke 3:21 Come out of water, Rev 13:1
Has seven horns (Rev 5:6) Has 10 horns (Rev 13:1)
Jesus like the Father (John 10:30, 14:9) 7 heads & 10 horns like dragon (Rev 13:1, 2)
Slaughtered/sacrificed Lamb (Rev 5:6) Slaughtered/sacrificed (same verb) (Rev 13:3)
Miraculously lives (John 11:25, Rom 1:4) Miraculously lives (Rev 13:3)
Receives throne from Father (Rev 5:7, Matt 28:18) Receives throne from dragon (Rev 13:2)
Wears a crown (Rev 19:12) Wears crowns (Rev 13:1)
Jesus’ ministry lasts 3½ years Beast reigns 42 months (Rev 13:5)
Holy Spirit Beast from the Land, Rev 13:11-17 = "false prophet"
Spirit like blazing lamps (Rev 4:5, Acts 2, 2 Kings 1:10-12) Calls fire from heaven (Rev 13:13)
Brings glory to Jesus (John 16:14,15) Gives glory to sea beast (Rev 13:14)
Gives seal of God (Eph 4:30) Gives mark of beast (Rev 13:16)
Inspires prophets (2 Pet 1:19-21) Is the false prophet (Rev 19:20 etc)

Thus, the sea beast of Rev 13:1-10 appears to act like a false Christ, and has thus been labeled, "antichrist".

Now whether one equates this beast with other persecuting powers such as the little horn of Dan 7, the destroying prince to come in Dan 9:24-27, and the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess 2, is another matter entirely and the subject of another question.

  • Daniel 9 So, there is no mention of an antichrist in Daniel 9 (which is the topic of this question). The rest of this answer belongs posted on another question dealing with the N.T. ,eh? BTW, the placement of the articles dealing with anointed one and prince point to Him being the same person, as confirmed by the N.T. (Acts 5:31, Heb. 12:2, Acts 3:14-15).
    – ray grant
    Jun 15, 2023 at 20:34
  • @raygrant - I wanted to give a longer answer than just "No". So, I included the material about the beast trinity and then a hint that many do see the antichrist in Daniel 9 because many associate the prince to come with the antichrist, but than cannot be deduced from the passage itself.
    – Dottard
    Jun 15, 2023 at 20:37

Disclaimer: I don't speak for any sect.

"antichristos" is Greek, so it wouldn't appear in the Hebrew, and it does not appear in the Greek of Daniel 9.

However, I think we get an introduction in the previous chapter:

[Dan 8:21-27 NKJV] [21] "And the male goat [is] the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that [is] between its eyes [is] the first king. [22] "As for the broken [horn] and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power. [23] "And in the latter time of their kingdom, When the transgressors have reached their fullness, A king shall arise, Having fierce features, Who understands sinister schemes. [24] His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; He shall destroy fearfully, And shall prosper and thrive; He shall destroy the mighty, and [also] the holy people. [25] "Through his cunning He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule; And he shall exalt [himself] in his heart. He shall destroy many in [their] prosperity. He shall even rise against the Prince of princes; But he shall be broken without [human] means. [26] "And the vision of the evenings and mornings Which was told is true; Therefore seal up the vision, For [it refers] to many days [in the future]." [27] And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days; afterward I arose and went about the king's business. I was astonished by the vision, but no one understood it.

  • Context One would have to totally ignore the context of chapter 8 to come up with an Antichrist of a future End-time era. The biblical interpretation (angel) definitely mentioned ancient Persia and Greece (Diodochi), from which Antiochus Epiphanes arose to harass the Jews. However, this question inquired about chapter 9 references to any antichrist.
    – ray grant
    Jun 15, 2023 at 20:27
  • The strategy/design of the NT is to take every passage of the OT, and recast the narrative in a way that it speaks of Christ. Context is not paramount in that paradigm. This is an obviously Platonic and "chreian" approach, but very much about Sensus Plenior; look it up!
    – Ruminator
    Jun 15, 2023 at 23:15
  • Interesting Hermeneutic However it would be Quixotic to make Antiochus Epiphanes "speak of Christ"! And much less to speak of Antiochus, ripped out of the historic pages of ancient Greece, and flown off into the nebulous future, and retitled, "antichrist."
    – ray grant
    Jun 15, 2023 at 23:26
  • @raygrant, Call me Don Quixote!
    – Ruminator
    Jun 15, 2023 at 23:50

Admission of Absence From a survey of Answers posted so far, there is an admission that Antichrist is not mentioned as such in Daniel 9! To come up with a person with the characteristics proposed by modern eschatologists, most interpreters jump off into other passages of scripture. Only an Anointed One (Messiah), who is also a Prince, is mentioned. Not any "anti-anointed one."

Bad Dude There is indeed, a bad dude in chapter 8, Antiochus Epiphanes, who lived in the Greek Era. But his time of oppression is listed as 2,300 days. This time frame is different from that given in Chapter 9...which should give a clue that he was a different person. And the Chapter 9 person was prophesied to live 490 year in the future (to Daniel). That is well beyond the Greek dude's era.

The placement of Antiochus in the Greek Era also disqualifies this prophecy as one referring to some Mean Critter way off in the 21st century, or beyond!

John's Antichrist The appeal to an Antichrist mentioned in his letters is not germane to this question about Daniel 9. (1 John 2:18, 2 John 7) The antichrist(s) he referred to were present in his day. His days were after the existence of the Anointed One in Daniel 9, who was to minister (live) in the 70th week 490 years after Daniel. (The Messiah ministered around 27-30 A.D., and not 70-90 A.D. in John's writing time.)

Hostile Prince To deny the Prince as ever being The Anointed One because he seems "hostile" is to ignore the previously recorded times when God Himself expressed anger toward the Israelites...to the point of bringing the fiercest of armies against Israel because of their wickedness...and destroying their Temple and sending them into exile! God led the armies!

So for the Anointed One (Messiah), who is the Prince, to instigate the Destruction of Jerusalem is not unusual. ESPECIALLY when we hear Jesus condemning the Jewish rulers in His time! Read Matthew 23, and recall His parables that made the rulers mad because they knew He was talking about them! And when we hear Him declare their "House desolate."

Even if an interpreter does not admit the Prince to be Jesus, the destruction by the people of the prince planned was to be within the time of the first century, not the End of the World in our future.

Question Destination The results of the excursion into the topic of ANTICHRIST may have been to expose the tendency of expositors to read into verses things that aren't there (eisegesis). Especially to prop up eschatological traditions by using verses that don't really apply. This example of exegesis on Daniel 9 is a classic example...and a wake-up call!

  • In your last paragraph, you seem to be implying that the "Prince", in 9:25, as in "Messiah the (P)rince", is the same "prince" (this time with small "p" implied) as in ... "and the people of the prince", of 9:26, when one clearly comes after the other. I totally agree that we are talking of the first century, with regard to both Hebraic "nagid's" (firstly the Prince, then of the prince), but, while the first is most definitely with regard to the anointed Jesus, the second (who ..*is to come* .. [later]) has to be with regard to the "princely" Titus, at the head of his armies/people. Jul 18, 2023 at 16:50
  • Sorry! Second to last paragraph of your answer. Jul 18, 2023 at 16:53

Daniel and Revelation both describe a leading figure hostile to God. The ruler at the end of chapter 9 is to be identified as hostile, because he "causes sacrifice and offering to cease" (v27). This is always an evil thing, in Daniel's eyes, because it is what the infamous Antiochus Epiphanes did. So, for Daniel's purposes, that is what the enemies of God always do. They try to stop people worshipping him.

Neither Daniel nor Revelation actually uses the word "antichrist" for their hostile ruling figure. But the word has been borrowed from 1 John in more modern times as a convenient label to identify him.

If anyone is not confortable with that label, they may choose another one. "Hostile ruler" is two words, but conveyes the essence of the concept. I take the view that the concept matters more than the label.

  • Obsolete Sacrifices Could it be that the ceasing of the sacrifices and offerings (blood and grain offerings) were a good thing in order to bring in an Everlasting Covenant? (Hebrews 8-10, 1 Peter 1, et al.) The "cutting off" of the Anointed One (Messiah) after three and a half years, did indeed make the Mosaic sacrifices to cease, and brought in Everlasting righteousness: a very good thing for us Jews and Gentiles. This fits in well with the expressed 6 reasons for this 70 week prophecy (Vs. 24). Also, the arraignment of articles with Anointed One and Prince point to a same person.
    – ray grant
    Jun 15, 2023 at 20:49
  • @ray grant The cessation of sacrifice is not "a good thing" in the perspective of Daniel. Compare ch8 vv9-14, where the little horn "tramples upon" the host of heaven, the sanctuary, and the continual burnt offering. It is the hostile act of a hostile ruler. Jun 16, 2023 at 6:04
  • @StephenDisraeli-Remember that it was God Himself that destroyed the Temple the first time as a judgment on Israel. He was quite capable of doing it the second time...especially if it would make way for instituting a New Covenant that would include all people, Jew and Gentile, based on a new Sacrifice: His own Son. The old blood and grain sacrifices are obsolete, and ineffectual. See Hebrews 8:13. Peace.
    – ray grant
    Jun 16, 2023 at 20:25

As others have noted, other parts of Daniel speak to the doctrine of the antichrist. Rather than trying to reproduce/rebuild what others have spoken of better than I, I commend to your reading John Brug's paper on the topic. I think this paper will answer some of your questions:

A Scriptural and Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Antichrist

  • @Epimanes-Thank you for your reference! So, the fact remains that chapter 9 does not speak of an antichrist?! Just the Anointed Ruler...who dies for the many...who confirms the Covenant., and who accomplished the six awesome redemptive acts of Verse 24!
    – ray grant
    Jun 20, 2023 at 21:27
  • 1
    You're welcome, Ray.
    – Epimanes
    Jun 20, 2023 at 22:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.