Who is the antichrist? - part 2

"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." -- Andy Warhol

What would the antichrist be if he could only squeeze fifteen minutes of fame from the attention-span challenged public? He wouldn't be the Robert Redford look-alike/demon possessed/hypnotist/all around world-beater of the Left Behind books, that's for sure. He couldn't be. The fact is that in a world like that the antichrists of the type that we saw in the last post would be small fish in a huge, swirling ocean of humanity. You would need something else to work your corruption on a society like that. Something more pervasive.

The third time -- If you are a Protestant you probably think that very little good ever came from the Catholic church. You could not be more wrong.

We love to read the book of Acts and talk about the zeal in the early church, but the early church had a dark side as well. Yes it was characterized by hospitality; it was also characterized by heresy and falling away from "sound doctrine" at the drop of travelling antichrist's hat. These are the ones John singles out when he says, "they came from us, but did not remain in us."

The word Catholic means "universal" and it created a standard that protected centuries of believers by making heresy clearly visible as heresy. It was a God-ordained institution. It's breakup was God-ordained as well. By the fifteenth century the Catholic church had become a cumbersome, worldly monster and reform from within was no longer possible. The reformers would have to break away and become something else, but make no mistake, even as necessary as it was it still had the side effect of reopening the Pandora's box of heresies.

For every Martin Luther there was a Jan Bockelson, cult leaders taking advantage of the sudden doctrinal void in order to tell people that they were the real truth and the life. All over Europe believers turned back to pure worship of the God of the Bible; unfortunately, at the same time, all over Europe, people turned to heretical movements like the Cathars and Anabaptists.

The third rise was directly created not only by the hardship of the times, but also because of the opportunity afforded by the collapse of the "universal" church.

The half a time -- In all three of the earlier times, surrounding circumstances provided an opening for men who possessed the inclination to travel the path of the antichrist. But the inclination wasn't enough, these men also had to posses certain abilities. Charisma was the main requirement: specifically the ability to communicate a passionate message of cosmic significance. Now rhetoric (the ability to persuade with words) was the end goal of centuries of Western educational curriculum. A good speech could influence the masses, and an influential person had to master the spoken and written word.

We still make a big deal out of our leader's speeches, but we are not greatly influenced by them anymore. Think about the last presidential election. You saw the speeches, and then what happened? If you were watching on most channels you saw a political commentator who then 'rated' the speech. They told the viewers whether or not it was a good speech, and what they thought the speech would accomplish. So, who then was more influential, the speech-giver or the people who reinterpreted the speaker's message.

And now we find ourselves at the heart of the matter: how is a modern-day antichrist different from the earlier versions and how is the "man of lawlessness" different from an antichrist. This is not easy to explain and I'm going need to name certain names to illustrate my points.

Point 1) Barak Obama is not "the antichrist".

There was a "prophet" who, prior to the last election, claimed that the next American president would be the antichrist and that he would have a woman for his VP. Now, with all due respect to any of you who heard this on Christian talk radio and gave it more than a second's consideration, unless you think that Joe Biden is a very advanced cross-dresser you have to admit that this so-called prophet was flat out wrong.

But again, saying that he was merely 'wrong' misses the point. The very notion that our current president could be an antichrist -- let alone "the antichrist" -- reveals a basic misunderstanding. First of all, remember that an antichrist is one who corrupts people by tricking them into worshipping him rather than God. It is not a person whose politics you don't approve of. Yes, some people 'idolize' Mr. Obama, but as far as I know he has never yet claimed divinity and that mistaken idol-worship must for now fall squarely on the heads of the worshipful masses.

Saying that he could be "the antichrist" is a different matter. When John warns his readers of "the antichrist" in 1 John 2 the differentiation between "antichrist" and "antichrists" is a simple one: antichrist (singular) is the one of the antichrists (plural) who you have to worry about because he is going to try and corrupt and destroy you. Let's be clear on this, "the antichrist" is only "the antichrist" because he is the one antichrist who shows up at your door. For John's readers there was one obvious candidate for "the antichrist", that being the Roman emperor who claimed divinity, hated Christians and first began turning Christian-killing into an art form -- ie: Nero. For you, if you hear about David Koresh on the news then he's an antichrist. If he is your next door neighbor then, for you, he is "the antichrist". What about someone like the fictional Nicolai Carepthia who merits the status of being everyone's next door neighbor due to his powers and abilities?

Sorry, no. You see, Warhol was right. But don't take his word for it. Besides, noticing a phenomenon after it has already started is marginally impressive, but predicting it two thousand years in advance... that takes real talent. Observe below: (the italics are mine)


The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. --Revelation 17:12

It says hour and not minutes, but then the unit of time known as a minute hadn't been invented yet. An hour was the smallest. Not only does the above verse prophesy a time when leaders will come and go like spring fashion, but another passage is going to do something else that Warhol couldn't do; it is going to explain why.

Next post, point 2) the antichrist's entourage.

Who is the antichrist? - part 1

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. -- 1 John 2:18


The word "antichrist" appears a grand total of five times in the scriptures; four times in 1 John, once in 2 John. It never appears in the book of Revelation. Most of what modern theologians think they know about the antichrist comes from Paul's description of "the man of lawlessness" found in 2 Thessalonians 2 and are based on the assumption that the man of lawlessness and the antichrist are one and the same. This is not quite true. But I can't simply tell you how it is false. It's a bit like Matthew 24, where I can't just give the answer because you don't yet understand the question. Let's look at the history of the antichrists, first remembering two things: 1) an antichrist is someone who denies that Jesus is the Christ (ie: the savior), they do this to prop themselves up as savior and take for themselves the worship that rightfully belongs to God. 2) a spike in "antichrist" activity is a sign of the "last hour".

The first time -- I've already told you that historians are aware of at least forty so called "messiahs" that went around claiming to be the chosen one, or at least not denying the title when it was foisted upon them, during the Roman occupation of Israel. That's an average of about one every four to five years. That's not how they came, of course -- spread out I mean. Most times a decade would pass and then three or four would pop up all at once.

What is interesting about this is the way these "messiahs" came and the way they were treated by the religious authorities. Now let me tell you up front, there's not a lot of information on any of the first century messiahs other than Jesus, so I'm having to make certain assumptions, but apparently the other "messiah" rarely if ever claimed to fulfill any of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the long awaited savior. Does that not strike you as odd? Remember that one of the knocks on Jesus was that He came from Galilee, which the religious authorities believed was a violation of prophecy. So Jesus was given a hard times because He fulfilled some, but in their eyes, not all of the Old Testament prophecies. Yet forty others gained followings (which sometimes included those same religious authority figures) without ever seriously attempting to defend their messianic claims. How?

The other "messiahs" were rebels, military leaders claiming to be the one who could cast off the yoke of Roman rule. If I'm understanding it right the Pharisees, Saducees, Herodians often treated these messiahs like modern day political candidates, backing the one who they believed could benefit them the most. Let me state that again: they treated God's plan of salvation like something they could control, like it was a contract, the terms of which they should rightfully be able to dictate.

So the first flood of antichrists occurred because of the messianic expectations built into the Old Testament prophecies as well as the peculiar aspects of the Roman occupation -- and by that I mean that not only were the Roman Pagan culture totally at odds with Jewish culture, but prior to the Roman invasion the Jews had recently thrown off another Pagan regime, the Seleucids. So for another Pagan regime to conquer you so soon after you believed that you had been "saved" from paganism, the Jews naturally turned to and took solace in those messianic prophecies as being the only things that could truly save them (ie: "it's going to take a miracle if we're ever going to be rid of these pagans forever").

In general terms, the first rise of the antichrists took place due to a preexisting set of expectations and a surrounding backdrop of worldly hardships.

The second time -- As I wrote in History isn't what you think it is it became quite fashionable in the 12th-14th centuries to foist messianic expectations on the kings and emperors of the age. Now understand something: a sense of longing, of something unfulfilled, is every bit as much a part of being human as awkward puberty years and opposable thumbs. We all have a sensation of need, although one person's belief on how the need can be remedied may be very different than another's. For medieval man, Christianity was something that you did (through recitations in Latin, giving of offerings, ceremonials performances, etc.) but it was not something that you understood, and certainly not something that, for most, shaped your identity or -- here's that word again -- your expectations.

During that age the kingdom of Heaven was just too remote, and I mean "kingdom of Heaven" in both the sense of a future place of promise as well as God's spirit reshaping your life and identity right here and now, the very same way that Jesus means it when He begins a parable with the phrase, "The kingdom of Heaven is like..." For the medievals who did not own a Bible, who did not have a "personal" savior, but rather subcontracted out their spiritual needs to a professional priest, those needs I mentioned earlier naturally focused on the one agent that they could conceive of as being both willing and able to deliver them from that needy state -- their worldly rulers. Because of this several generations of Kings like Frederick Barbarossa would be worshipped as gods.... and some of them liked it.

Again, the second rise of the antichrists was caused by a preexisting set of expectations (those being the messianic qualities placed on human rulers) and a surrounding backdrop of hardship (this time a complex mish-mash of economic decline, disease, and the encroaching Muslims).

Next post, we finish with the third rise of the antichrists and I begin attempting to explain how the man of lawlessness is certainly an antichrist, but an antichrist is not necessarily the man of lawlessness.

Matthew 24 - part 3

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. -- Matthew 24: 36-41

Read the above. Now, tell me: who is it that is being "taken"? Are these servants of the Lord being raptured up to Heaven, or are these children of the devil being dragged to Hell?

The answer isn't so simple. For now just notice that there is nothing in the passage to tell you one way or the other. The whole thing is incredibly vague. Now let's back up.

So far in chapter 24 we have seen Jesus twice talk to the disciples in specific detail about the near-term events of the destruction of Jerusalem and the early church. Twice we have seen Him then broaden out and discuss the fall of man in a more general way. Now He does it one final time:

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. -- Matthew 24: 32-35

Jesus answers the disciple's question "When will this happen?" with a statement that says, "In this generation." in other words, "You guys better pay attention, some of you are going to see this."

But, but, but, I was told that "generation" could refer to the Jewish race. That would be an outlandish translation. Also, Jesus would have been something of a heel to answer the 'when?' question with the oh-so-informative "Some Jews will still be alive somewhere when it happens" answer. But Jesus, that doesn't tell us anything. "So?".... Can you really see Jesus doing that?

The reality is that some people with a particular translation feel the need to defend that translation by making certain passages say something that they never intended to say. The logic goes like this: Jesus can't mean both "this generation" and "all these things have happened" because he hasn't come back yet. So they have to try and play word games to get the meanings to square with observed reality.

Except that He has come back. In fact, for that generation alone, He came back twice!

The first time He came back to life three days after His death on the cross. The second time He came in the form of the Holy Spirit -- which He even refered to as "My spirit."

Question -- So which was Jesus talking about in 32-35? That generation or the final generation?

Answer -- Both.

Remember how vague 36-41 sounds? Now we get the reason why. Like I said in the last post, at this point the disciples are still very much confused about Jesus' future comings and goings. Not only does Jesus have maneuver around their misconceptions, but He is somewhat limited in what He can tell them. Face it, Jesus -- the living embodiment of love -- is not going to be one to tell people the date and time of their own deaths. Knowing that tends to suck the joy out of life. So what does He do? He gives them what they need: a few basic watch-signs to give a heads up when their end is near. He also leaves a few crumbs of information to help them understand that the end of Jerusalem is not going to be end of everything.

Once more to try and make this clear -- The preterist says that everything that Jesus told the disciples was fulfilled in the 1st century AD. I'm telling you that they are right. The futurist says that most of what Jesus told his disciples was meant for people in a later age. I'm saying that that is correct as well.

Yes it happened in the 1st century. Then it happened again in the 11th and 12th centuries, and another time in the 15th and 16th centuries. It will happen one final time. If that time does not take place in our current generation I will be utterly stunned.

Next, we look at the antichrist.