Ten Reasons I Do not Believe There Will Be "an Antichrist"

[Wormwood]

Trekson,

Thanks for your response. I think you are severely misunderstanding Galatians 3:17. Lets look at it.

“This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.” (Galatians 3:17–18, ESV)

What I believe you are missing here is that Paul is saying that the "covenant previously ratified by God" is not the law. The "previous" covenant is the one God made with Abraham. Paul is saying that the law does not supercede or override God's promise to Abraham. Abraham's covenant was made first, and the law does not nullify it. Rather, God's blessing comes through promise, not law. The law was not given to change the manner in which God would bless the nations, but the law was added "because of transgressions" (see the following verse Gal. 3:19).

Paul's point is that God's blessing always comes through promise, not law. The promise of God predates the law and thus the blessing of God is always found in his promises, not in adherence to law. God's people are, and have always been, people who trust in God's promises...not those who live by law. That promise and the fulfillment of all its blessings are found in Christ. Paul concludes the section saying,

“And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:29, ESV)

God's blessing and promises to Abraham are revealed in Christ. Those who believe in Christ are truly "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." Conversely, if someone does not believe in Christ, they are not his offspring, nor heirs of Abraham. The promised blessings God made to Abraham (this includes all the promises...land, blessing, etc) are inherited ONLY by those who believe in Christ. If a person does not believe in Christ, they are not an HEIR of Abraham. Consider Hebrews 11...

“By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.” (Hebrews 11:9–10, ESV)

God promised Abraham a land...but Abraham lived in tents. He never owned the land. The author of Hebrews says it is because Abraham's promised and true land was one that was established by God. Abraham did not receive any land....yet.

“Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:28–29, ESV)

And as Paul says,

“Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.” (Galatians 4:25–31, ESV)

The promise God made to his people of faith was that they would be blessed to dwell in the land forever. Abraham's promised land was a heavenly land and a heavenly Jerusalem...whose architect and builder is God. The earthly land and earthly temple are nothing more than shadows and types of the true land, heavenly Jerusalem and heavenly temple. Those who are "heirs" of this land and these promises are those who are of the faith of Abraham...which, according to Paul, means to believe in Jesus Christ.

A child of Abraham has nothing to do with fleshly lineage, but faith. Being an heir of God's promises and being declared God's child has nothing to do with flesh, but faith. "Even out of the stones, God can raise up children from Abraham" John the Baptist declared. The axe is at the root of the tree and every tree that does not produce fruit (the fruit of faith and repentance) is cut down and thrown into the fire.

You said,

agree. I see dispensations as "time periods" only and just acknowledge that fact that God dealt differently with people in various points of time. That's NOT saying there were different "methods" to attain salvation other than faith.

The problem is that this is not essentially what dispensationalism teaches. It teaches that the "true" children of God are the people of Israel. The church is merely a parenthesis to make Israel jealous, but God's focus and plan is always about national Israel. Thus, regardless of Israel's faith or lack of faith, They are God's chosen people and will rescue his people, not because of their faith, but because they are Israel (their flesh). Now I appreciate your emphasis on their faith and that you don't believe the law will be reinstituted (as many Dispensationalists believe). However, I still find your view to be troubling because it emphasizes a fleshly lineage as preeminent in God's focus and plan of salvation when the NT seems to heavily emphasize that faith in Christ is the only issue...and to trust in flesh is the antithesis of faith. Paul disowned his fleshly status and considered it all garbage...only knowing Christ was of any value to him. God loves the Palestinian just as much as he loves the Israelite and has provided a means through the blood of Christ that can save either of them. To say that God loves the Israelite more and has specific plans for the nation of Israel that he does not have for the Palestinian because of 1st covenant promises, I think neglects the focus of the 1st covenant as well as undermines the once-for-all work of Christ that binds all men to disobedience that God might have grace on them all. Those who believe in Christ are the true children of God, sons and daughters of Abraham, and heirs of the promises. Christ is the only focus, not Israel. All things were made by him and for him...not Israel.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Encounter,

Yes old Antiochus Epiphanes did exactly what the prophecy said ... he tried to stop the sacrifices and offered abominable things in the altar, BUT dear brother,
Paul uses the term "the man of lawlessness", this is a man ... Greek -anthropos - if you check the definition it states "a man, one of the human race".
So this is not satan.

So, when the Bible calls people "children of disobedience" it is literally referring to "children"? What about "sons of the righteous"? Does this exclude righteous women? I think you are trying to box Paul in with his use of idioms in the Greek language. This phrase highlights the nature of this person just like the other phrases Paul employs here (lawless one, mystery of lawlessness, son of destruction). Should we assume this person is a literal "mystery" as well? Will he wear a Riddler costume? :) JK

Ok, now you're saying that there is an Antichrist, when you're otherwise saying there is not one. Furthermore, no one in history after the prophecy did what
the the Antichrist was supposed to do according to what Paul says he was going to do ... so then it's futuristic.

Not sure I follow you here. Paul says he opposes God and exalts himself as God. John said the whole world is under the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19). Satan sought to make Jesus worship by offering him the world. I think its clear that the Bible portrays Satan as opposing God in the world and exalting himself as one to be worshipped as the ruler of this world. Those things are happening today.

The judgements of God, the horsemen, the bowls and the trumpets follow on from each other, this for me proves chronology and succession in and
cancels out the notion of repetition.
The judgements are chronological.
The two thrown into the lake of fire are clearly described as people,

The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and
night forever and ever. Rev 20:10

God does not throw political systems into hell because they are just ideas of men/satan, rather he throws individuals in because they are the ones
behind these systems and are therefore more specifically guilty.

Peter saw three visions in succession and it didn't make the meaning chronological. I think you assume too much here. You should read some other apocalyptic literature that people in the first century were familiar with.

Political systems are made up of both people and ideologies. Ideologies are driven by both men and spiritual forces and belief systems. I think this image would give suffering and weary Christians a lot of hope and encouragement. The powers over them that are oppressing them will be overthrown by Christ and they will be exalted if they remain steadfast. Much more encouraging than some future unknown bad guy getting whats coming to him.

The prostitute though is a political/spiritual system because we find her "sitting on" the beast which has seven heads and tens horns which if you check
turn out to be nations or blocks of nations - which ever you prefer.

My point is that you seem to pick and choose what is symbolic and what is a literal person somewhat randomly. The beast and false prophet belch out frogs. Why doesn't that make them political/spiritual systems if a woman "sitting on" a beast obviously makes her symbolic?

Nice try Wormwood, but I think I explained it clearly by illustrating the fact that the "abomination that causes desolation" is a person who does something
that causes the temple to be desolate or empty of priests and sacrifices.
This is not a rejection of salvation in Christ because Christ had ALREADY BEEN REJECTED when Paul wrote this so why did he not simply say that
it had already occurred by the people rejecting Jesus AND refer to it as something that WAS STILL TO COME.
Got you there huh .

But if the true Temple is Christ's body.... My point was that Paul is referring to things currently happening (opposing/exalting himself) and NOT a future Antichrist. See how this all fits together in my little brain :). Maybe Im wrong..but the pieces do fit in my mind...im sure of it. :)

It is only evident if there is something tangible to give it or make it clear, just because you and I believe in Christ doesn't in itself show on our
faces ... we have to do something or say something or have some type of marking to reveal it.
And that is what the mark of the beast does, it shows ... and if you don't have it whether it's a chip under the skin or some type of mark it will show
because it will be evident when you go and by or sell.

It was pretty evident for early Christians as well. Its why many of them lost their heads and were tortured. As Paul said, "Those who seek to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." The enemy knows who we are...and those who live the Christian life will have to make concrete choices that expose their allegiance. No microchip or tattoo required. The seal of the Spirit and mark of the beast are evident to all. ;)

No, not so, Messiah the Prince - Jesus - is cut off during the 70 weeks.
And let's face it 3 days after he was cut off he rose from the dead and brought salvation but that was not the end because the 70 weeks are not up.

I didn't say the 70 weeks were up. However, Daniels prophecy points only to the first 69 and 1/2 weeks and (in my mind) clearly predicts what the cross would accomplish. The last 3.5 years is used symbolically in Revelation and shouldn't be added up to create a 7 year tribulation.



I

It most definitely would alleviate their fears because this person had not yet made his appearance and that would have quelled any fear.
It's like asking, "Has the boss come in yet because I'm worried I haven't drawn up those documents yet"?
"Nah, you're still ok he's only coming in tomorrow".
That would quell any immediate fear wouldn't it ?
Besides Nero was still very much alive, he's the guy who had Paul's head cut off and he did not do the things Paul said he was going to do.

This is only true if you know who "he" is. But if someone says, "He already came and you missed both him and the Second Coming" then it wouldn't alleviate those fears. If these people feared they could miss Christ's return, why wouldn't they fear they would miss this unknown Antichrist as well? See my point here?

Yes, if the lawless one was opposing God during Paul's time then he would not have a futuristic person in mind.
But please keep in mind that the devil has been opposing God from before the time of Eden, so when Paul speaks about the coming man of lawlessness
who has not yet arrived he is clearly not talking about the devil .... so we can rule out the devil.
That's number one and number two, the roman emperors did oppose Christianity even in Paul's day but none of them did what Paul says this specific individual
was going to do.

Paul speaks of the "revealing" of the lawless one. The lawless one, who has been and currently is opposing and setting himself up as God will be "revealed" at Christ's coming. Why would Paul use the word "apocalypse" with reference to the Antichrist if he hasn't been born yet? Apocalypse implies a revealing of something hidden...not the creation or birth of something that doesn't yet exist.

“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, ESV)
“Μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας,” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, NA27)

 

[Trekson]

Hi Wormwood,

I agree with just about everything in this post. No, I’m not misunderstanding Gal. 3, I just believe you are only seeing part of the picture, not the whole scenario. There are physical promises and there are spiritual promises and no the spiritual promises DO NOT replace the physical. Both will be/are being fulfilled. As the majority of the prophecies surrounding Christ’s first advent were literally and physically fulfilled, I see no reason not to believe that aspects of His second advent will be literally and physically fulfilled as well. You see the Book of Revelation as mostly symbolic and I do not. I believe that the majority of events will occur as described, mostly as chronologically listed as well. Of course some symbolism is used, but it’s also usually explained somewhere in the greater context.

Your words: “The problem is that this is not essentially what dispensationalism teaches. It teaches that the "true" children of God are the people of Israel. The church is merely a parenthesis to make Israel jealous, but God's focus and plan is always about national Israel.”

It is a mistake to paint all dispensationalists with the same brush just as it is to believe that all rapturists view that scenario in the same way. Every person is different so one shouldn’t assume that all viewpoints can be so easily categorized.

Your words: “However, I still find your view to be troubling because it emphasizes a fleshly lineage as preeminent in God's focus and plan of salvation when the NT seems to heavily emphasize that faith in Christ is the only issue...and to trust in flesh is the antithesis of faith….”

Preeminent is the wrong word to use to describe my pov. I believe God is more than capable of maintaining both a spiritual and a physical destiny at the same time. Look, in the life of a believer, our “new man” in mostly a spiritual change at first, but as we grow in Christ, the spiritual aspects start to affect our physical lives as well. We act differently, we treat other people differently and over time our whole demeanor changes (or should anyway). We stop doing some things and start doing other things all because of our relationship w/ Christ. Now just consider this on a much grander scale. The spiritual promises and blessings we receive as a church will also be extended to the nation of Israel as a whole. There is no exclusion or favoritism, no different way to salvation other than faith. It will be for all intents and purposes, church the way we should have been, exampled by born again Israeli’s (and others) through the millennium. I don’t believe the new heavens and earth and the NJ will be here until after the thousand years are over.

Your words: “God loves the Palestinian just as much as he loves the Israelite and has provided a means through the blood of Christ that can save either of them.”

I agree.

Your words: “To say that God loves the Israelite more and has specific plans for the nation of Israel that he does not have for the Palestinian because of 1st covenant promises, I think neglects the focus of the 1st covenant as well as undermines the once-for-all work of Christ that binds all men to disobedience that God might have grace on them all.”

We disagree. Does God love Israel more? No, but are Palestinians children of the promise? No. I don’t believe Paul was given the “whole” picture and he wrote accordingly what he knew and was shown. I believe the vision of Revelation was unknown to him because he died before it came to John. No one knows or has been given the ‘whole” picture with complete understanding. If the church ever came together as it should than all the “parts” might be able to be communicated w/ each other and between all of us we just might “get” the whole picture and act accordingly but Satan has sown the seeds of discord and disunity well and that seems unlikely to happen unless God decides to miraculously intervene.

There is a reason the land division of Ez. 47 & 48 are there. There is a reason there are 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel given in Rev. 7. There is a reason this pronouncement is given: Rev. 11:15 – “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” There is a reason Christ will need to rule “all nations with a rod of iron.” Do you really think all of us born again believers will need to be ruled with a rod of iron?

When you hear this phrase, you have to recognize the parenthetical parts: “Christ is the King of (all earthly) Kings and Lord of (all earthly) Lords.” The “deed” to the earth was first given to Adam. He ceded it to Satan in the fall and he is the god of this earth today. That is why Satan was able to tempt Christ with this: Matt. 4:8-9 – “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” When Christ returns, He is coming back to regain His earthly throne and the deed to the whole earth.

It is both a spiritual AND a physical promise to the world. Physically, for born again Israeli’s in the future (physical children of the promise) and spiritually (spiritual children of the promise) for all of us now. The promises weren’t just made to Abraham but also as pointed out earlier to Jacob and Isaac as well and they are not mentioned in Gal. 3. The church as Abraham’s seed do receive the heavenly promises and heaven and eternity is our destination but the “church” will live on and continue through Israel during the millennium.

 

[[email protected]]

I know I am one of the few who think the whole Antichrist concept is unbiblical. However, for the sake of discussion, let me post ten reasons why I think this concept needs to be rejected.

10. The books most often cited to validate the Antichrist concept are Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation. None of these books use the term, Antichrist. It is only used in John's epistles and it is a plural term that encapsulates present day false teachers, not a future demonic figure.
9. The entire concept of an Antichrist only leads to Christians foolishly attempting to label people as the Antichrist. This is judgmental and unchristian.
8. Attempting to view images in Revelation as depictions of this Antichrist figure displays an ignorance about the historical setting of this book and how it would have been understood by early readers.
7. The entire theology of the Antichrist is built on very challenging texts. There is not one straight-forward teaching in the NT about a solitary Antichrist figure for the end times.
6. Jesus declares that the "abomination which causes desolation" refers to the destruction of the Temple...likely because of the rejection of Christ and his perfect sacrifice in favor of animal sacrifices (cf. Matt. 23:38; Lk. 13:35; Lk. 23:28-29; Heb. 10:28-29; Dan. 9:26-27).
5. The "mark of the Beast" on the hand and forehead is spiritual just as is the seal of the Holy Spirit on the foreheads of believers in Revelation (cf. Rev. 7:3; 9:4). It has nothing to do with allegiance to an end times figure. This would mean nothing to the churches to whom Revelation was written.
4. The emphasis of Daniel's 70 weeks is not the end of the world, but to "finish transgression, put and end to sin and atone for iniquity." This happened at the cross and Daniels weeks, like his dreams and visions, point to the coming of the Savior, not the coming of an Antichrist.
3. The context of 2 Thessalonians 2 is encouraging believers that they have not missed the Second Coming (cf. 2 Thess. 2:1-2). Discussion about a mysterious and unknown Antichrist figure makes no sense in this context. It would only cause more confusion and worry, not less.
2. The revelation and destruction of "the lawless one" results in the absolution of all evil. The idea is that as long as evil is in the world, then we know Christ has not returned. When Christ returns, he will reveal the evil one and bring an end to his work and the evil in the world once and for all.
1. The verbs "will exalt" and "will set himself up" in 2 Thessalonians are not actually future tense in the Greek. This is misleading in the NIV. They are participles which indicate that the man of lawlessness is currently and actively exalting himself as God and setting himself up in the temple to be worshipped as God. These are present happenings (in the first century as well as today) that will be brought to an end when Christ returns. This is not a future event of a future Antichrist, but a present work Satan in the world.

I refer the considered reader to the book THE ISLAMIC ANTICHRIST by Joel Richardson ISBN 978-1-935071-12-9 2009 edition chapter 18 beginning on page 171 and continuing to page 175.

In the passage referred to there are no less than 44 comparative statements which indicate that not only is an antiChrist coming, but that this person is defined by Christian scripture as well as the Qur'an, Muslim Hadith literature and the culture of both religions. The parallels between the separate belief systems and the flow of current events are far more than creepy, they are substantially true in present and near future developing events.

Anyone who denies the plausibility of the eschatology of both religions is courting a terrible error, for when the two collide it will cause a catastrophic event that will forever determine the future course of human history on this planet. Its THAT serious.

The time for denial of trends is at an end. The time has arrived for every Christian to shake off the cloud of denial that shrouds his and her mind and to seek the Kingdom of God will all their heart and mind and soul.

It is near. It is very near.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...