Is the Antichrist Already Here? Global Power and Bible Prophecy

The question is blunt: could the Antichrist already be here, active but not yet revealed? On The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland pushed that question into the open by tying it to Israel, global power, the British Empire, and the war with Iran.

Their case rests on a plain reading of Scripture. In their view, nations still matter, Israel still matters, and world events make little sense if you strip out the spiritual side. That line of thought begins with Nimrod and Babel, then runs straight into Isaiah 60.

The biblical frame for nations, globalization, and the Church

Smith and Rowland began with a broad Bible pattern. In the Old Testament, the world is often read through the lens of Jew and Gentile. In the New Testament, they said, a third category is in view: the Church. The Church is not simply another nation among nations, because in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. That does not erase nations from the earth, but it does mean the body of Christ has a different standing.

That distinction matters to their whole argument. The Church is lifted out of the natural global scene in one sense, yet the world itself still moves along national and political lines. Israel remains Israel. Gentile nations remain Gentile nations. Meanwhile, the Church belongs to Christ in a way that does not fit neatly into ordinary political categories.

A short comparison helps show the framework they were using:

That leads to Nimrod. Their view is that the world has lived under some form of globalization since Babel. Humanity tried to unite itself under one system, and God answered by confusing language and dividing peoples. So, in their reading, God did not bless unchecked global unity. He broke it apart.

At the same time, God chose one nation, Israel, to bless the other nations. That point is central for them. If God chose a nation and tied covenant purpose to that nation, then nationalism, defined in biblical terms, is not automatically a dirty word. They see that as a direct challenge to modern globalism. They also connect it to the biblical phrase "the times of the Gentiles," which keeps the natural world in view as a Gentile-dominated order until God's kingdom is openly established.

Isaiah 60 places Israel at the center of the coming kingdom

The heart of the episode was Isaiah 60. Smith and Rowland treated the chapter as a clear picture of the millennial kingdom, with Isaiah 61 identifying the King himself. They focused on the repeated language about the Gentiles, kings, and wealth flowing toward Zion.

Isaiah 60:2 sets the tone: darkness covers the earth, gross darkness covers the people, but the Lord rises upon Israel and his glory is seen there. Then verse 3 says, "And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." For them, that is not vague poetry. It is a kingdom text with Israel in the middle of it.

They also pointed to verses 5 and 11, where the "forces" of the Gentiles, understood as riches or wealth, come to Israel. That matters because it cuts against the claim that Israel has no prophetic future. Their point was simple: you cannot read Isaiah 60 straight through and come away with a theology that removes Israel from the land, strips Zion of meaning, or blesses anti-Zionism.

The gifts show a difference between Christ's two comings

One detail caught their attention in Isaiah 60:6. The text speaks of people coming from Sheba, bringing gold and incense, and showing forth the praises of the Lord. Smith took that as a contrast with Christ's first coming.

• At Christ's first coming, the gifts were gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
• At his second coming, Isaiah 60 names gold and incense, but leaves out myrrh.

That missing myrrh was important in the discussion. Myrrh was linked to burial and death. So, the hosts argued that the first coming pointed toward Christ as Savior who would die, while the second points to Christ as King who reigns.

The Gentiles do not replace Zion, they bring honor to it

Their reading of Isaiah 60 does not leave much room for replacing Israel with the Church or turning Zion into a mere symbol. The chapter describes Gentile nations bringing wealth, labor, and honor into Jerusalem.

"And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee."

That verse, Isaiah 60:10, became one of the strongest points in the conversation. In their view, the nations are not erasing Israel. They are serving under God's restored favor toward Israel.

Smith and Rowland also tied that to present-day Christian duty. They said support for Israel does not rest on the idea that Israel is flawless or spiritually complete right now. It rests on the Word of God. God reserves judgment and blessing for Israel to himself. Because of that, their language was blunt: keep your mouth off Israel.

They also stressed compassion. If Israel is in a state of blindness concerning Christ, then that blindness should not produce contempt. It should produce mercy. Their comparison was strong, but clear, if you see someone blinded and broken, you help rather than curse. In the same way, they believe Christians should bless Israel while trusting God to finish his own work with that nation.

Is the Antichrist already active behind global power?

From there, the episode moved into its sharpest question. If the spirit of the Antichrist has been at work since the early church, and if the man of sin cannot be revealed until the Holy Spirit's restraint is removed, could that figure already exist behind the scenes?

Smith raised that possibility in direct terms. He was not claiming certainty about the identity of the Antichrist. He was asking whether a satanically driven ruler could already be in place, hidden within global systems of power, using politics, finance, and government while waiting for the restraint to lift.

This is where the conversation turned toward empire, especially the British Empire. Their theory was that if the world has lived in a globalized state since Nimrod, then the final Gentile system may not appear from nowhere. It may already have roots, habits, money channels, and governing patterns in place.

Why they looked at Britain and London

The hosts suggested that the British Empire may still function as a real center of Gentile power, even if its dominance looks weaker on the surface. In their view, the old imperial network never fully disappeared. It changed form. London still matters in finance. The Crown still carries influence in places that many Americans barely think about. They also mentioned King Charles' visit to Canada as part of that wider imperial frame.

Their suspicion went further. Based on research they said they had been doing, both men believed much of the anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hostility thrown at Israel in recent years may trace back, in some form, to Britain or England. They did not present that as a closed case. They presented it as a direction that deserves more scrutiny.

That line of thought also grew out of an earlier reference to Missler and Isaiah 60, especially the mention of Kedar. The show did not claim Isaiah 60 directly names Britain. Still, they treated the British Empire as the most plausible modern heir to a long-running Gentile imperial order.

Nationalism and globalism in the present moment

Their political contrast was plain. Donald Trump's "America First" posture was treated as nationalist, not globalist. Whatever a person thinks of Trump on other grounds, the hosts argued that his instincts have been toward national sovereignty, borders, and independence from supranational control.

That mattered because they see the world dividing between two tendencies. One side wants sovereign nations. The other wants a global union, a world order, or an imperial arrangement that overrides national independence. In their reading, Britain fits more naturally with the second model.

Smith even floated the possibility that this old imperial system could be linked to the revived Roman Empire of prophecy. He did not claim that as settled fact. He offered it as a serious possibility. On that reading, Trump's nationalism is not the arrival of the final system. It is a delay against it.

Why rising hostility toward Israel matters so much

The show kept coming back to one point: the Gentile world is moving toward unity against Israel. For Smith and Rowland, that convergence is one of the clearest prophetic signs in the present hour.

They did not treat anti-Israel agitation as a fringe matter limited to major cities or college campuses. Rowland gave a local example from a mountain town in western North Carolina, where he saw a banner in the town square that read, "Stop the US Israel genocide." The point was not the wording alone. The point was how far the sentiment has spread.

To them, that local sign was a snapshot of a larger trend. The nations are not drifting into neutrality over Israel. They are hardening. That takes the conversation back to Nimrod, Babel, and global unity under rebellion. Once that pattern comes into focus, anti-Israel feeling is not random. It is part of the shape of the age.

Smith and Rowland also made their own position plain. They said the show exists for two main reasons. First, it exists to uphold the written Word of God. Second, it exists to uphold Israel. For them, those are not separate commitments. If the Bible comes first, then Israel cannot be pushed aside. Scripture keeps Israel in view, so they do too.

America, Iran, and the "prince of Persia"

The second major current in the episode was Iran. The hosts viewed the conflict with Iran as more spiritual than political. Yes, there is a material war with weapons, strategy, and state power. Yet they argued the real driver is spiritual because Iran's stated hostility has long centered on America and Israel.

Rowland made that contrast in simple terms. Iran was not threatening to nuke China. Iran was not saying Russia had to be wiped out. America and Israel were the target. That sharpened the conflict in their minds. They were not looking at a normal regional dispute. They were looking at what they believe is a spiritual struggle with the "prince of Persia."

In that frame, the United States is being used by God to push Iran back. Smith compared that to the resistance described in Daniel, where Michael battles over Persia. He also connected Trump to Cyrus, at least symbolically. Cyrus was a Persian ruler used by God for Israel's sake. Because of that, Smith wondered whether Trump has become, in God's providence, a kind of instrument with authority to push back Persia in this moment.

The hosts also found it striking that other nations had not done much to help. Instead of reading that as mere diplomacy, they wondered if God had held them back on purpose. If so, the point would be simple: God wanted the action to be unmistakable. He was using the United States, and he was not interested in shared credit.

That line of thought widened into one of Smith's recurring themes, what he called the "three great delusions": Islam, Judaism, and apostate Christianity. He even mentioned the Pope's opposition to the conflict as evidence, in his view, that apostate Christianity has taken a stand on the wrong side of this struggle.

The pushback against Iran may prepare the ground for revival

For all the war language, the hosts did not end with destruction. They ended with the people of Iran. Smith said the issue is not only the land of Persia, but the souls on that land. If God is allowing such a deliberate pushback against the prince of Persia, he believes there may be a major redemptive purpose behind it.

That purpose, in their reading, is revival. Both men said they expect a great move of God among the Persian people. Smith even said it may be one of the greatest revivals the world has seen. He spoke of a needed regime change, but his main interest was spiritual hunger among ordinary Iranians.

Rowland connected that hope to Jeremiah's word about Elam: "I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes." He also referred to testimony from an Iranian Christian who spoke of persecution, faithful believers, and an outpouring of God's Spirit in Iran that will not be wasted.

So, in their view, the conflict is not only judgment or geopolitical pressure. It may also be protection for a coming harvest. Smith even wondered whether God is, in some symbolic sense, honoring Cyrus through Trump for the sake of the Persian people.

England, Islam, and the warning of abandonment wrath

The episode closed where it had started, with England. Smith argued that if Islam takes over a country, the worst part is not only the rise of Islam itself. The greater failure is that the nation allowed it to happen. That was his way of saying national decline often begins with spiritual surrender.

He then brought in a warning he had heard from Prince before his death, a warning about "abandonment wrath." By that phrase, he meant a time when God removes his hand from a nation and lets it reap what it has chosen. Smith said Prince feared such wrath for America.

Yet England became the immediate case study. This was once the land of Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield, John Wesley, and other strong gospel voices. Their preaching filled streets, churches, and public life. According to the hosts, that heritage is now little more than a memory. England has left that spiritual inheritance behind.

That is why the growth of Islam in the United Kingdom mattered so much in the conversation. The hosts asked whether England is now living under the very thing Prince warned about, abandonment wrath. In that reading, Islam is not only a social development. It is part of the judgment that follows when a nation departs from the light it once had.

Scripture first, and Israel stays in view

Smith and Rowland kept circling back to the same anchor. They do not want "spiritual calisthenics" with the Bible. They want the text read plainly. That is why Isaiah 60 carried so much weight in the episode. The chapter says what it says. Gentiles come to Israel's light. Kings minister to Zion. The wealth of the nations flows there. Their walls are built up.

Everything else in the conversation flowed from that commitment. If Scripture is first, then Israel cannot be cursed away. If Scripture is first, then globalism has to be judged in light of Babel. If Scripture is first, then present conflict may carry spiritual meaning beyond the headlines.

Their bottom line is hard to miss. Christians should not erase Israel, mock Israel, or treat God's promises as expired. They should read the Word, bless what God blesses, and leave God's own judgments in his hands.

Final thoughts

The biggest point in this episode was not a date, a chart, or a name. It was the claim that Bible prophecy only makes sense when Israel stays at the center and spiritual power stays in view.

You can agree or disagree with the show's theory about Britain, Trump, or the hidden workings of the Antichrist. Still, the argument holds together around one fixed conviction: Scripture comes first. Once that conviction is in place, the questions about nations, empire, Iran, and Israel become much harder to brush aside.