Christ White wrote a book False Christ where he argues that that The Antichrist certainly both will claim to be the Jewish Messiah and be accepted as such. I sort of halfway went along with that theory for awhile, and I still think there might some small truth to it. But it has some major problems.
The first thing he does, before delving into any Scripture, is attempt to demonstrate that it was the unanimous opinion of the Early Church Fathers. Like many Protestants he tries to deny he's calling on tradition or Church Authority here. But he clearly acts like this is a vitally important argument, how could they ALL have been wrong? Well they were also ALL post-trib (if Futurist at all), and rarely did one actually seem to teach Salvation by Faith Alone or Eternal Security.
The Early Fathers also, by the time any of these references he cites start popping up, were developing major Anti-Semitic tendencies, largely in response to Jewish Persecution of Christians during the Bar-Kochba Revolt. And were also already trying to reconcile Christianity with Rome. The Pre-Constantine Fathers were all Heretics as far as I'm concerned, Catholicism didn't just begin with Constantine. If anything I've seen evidence that things at first got a little better after Constantine, until Augustine happened.
Tertullian is among the Church Fathers he cites, and Tertullian actually rejected Paul as an Apostle in Against Marcion. At any-rate White misrepresents Hippolytus of Rome who believed The Antichrist would come from The Church.
Regardless of what the Antichrist may or may not claim to be. The argument that The Jews will actually accept him as their Messiah is built primarily on one verse.
John 5:43 “I come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another come shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
Here is the funny thing. Chris White's refutation of both the Psalm 83 War and how Micah is used to support an Assyrian Antichrist is based on pointing out that those prophecies have a hypothetical context to them. This verse however is far more blatantly hypothetical, the word "if" is right at the beginning of the second part of it.
In the past I've been inclined to apply this to Bar-Kokhba. Now I've decided that using Scripture to interpret Scripture it is really quite obvious this is about Barabbas. John's Gospel is the least eschatology minded of The Gospels, it's all about Jesus being The Passover Lamb in 30 AD. And Barabbas could be viewed as the Azazel goat.
Christ White's particular elaboration has a lot to do with his Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon view, which I refute firmly here. However I've recently pointed out additional overlooked fatal flaws to seeing Babylon as anything other then a Mesopotamian City here and here.
The other specific verses White likes to cite on the subject are mostly from Daniel 11:36-45. Which I have shown recently is probably not about The Antichrist at all. Even if it were, I agree with White about what "God of his Fathers" and "Desire of Women" mean. The problem is this person is NOT regarding those two things.
You can say "he's a FALSE Messiah so he's not truly regarding them". But no it doesn't work that way. The Hebrew Bible always distinguishes between worshiping other gods and worshiping Yahweh in a wrong way. Often that difference doesn't matter to God, especially in terms of giving the name Yahweh to an Idol, but it's a distinction that's made. Which is why we know the Northern Kingdom did worship Yahweh, they just did so Idolatrously, and Edom was probably the same.
It's the same with II Thessalonians 2. The Man of Sin deifies himself, but is also opposing the True God, not merely co-opting his worship. Now I do think what he says at that moment won't necessarily match his earlier claimed beliefs.
White argues that since we Christians know The Messiah is also God that the Antichrist will make that argument from The Old Testament. That again ignores that this deification of himself also involves opposition to the Biblical God.
He also brings up "die the death of the Uncircumcised" from Ezekiel 28 as saying he is circumcised. I feel that is a pretty hard thing to back up. The immediate context of Ezekiel was clearly the then contemporary ruler of Tyre who was a Gentile.
He insists The False Prophet must be claiming to be Elijah since he's calling Fire down from Heaven. Problem is Elijah is expected to come first.
I think the idea of The Antichrist claiming to be or being claimed to be the rabbinic Messiah Ben-Joseph is plausible in light of how that concept is for a number of reasons considered to possibly be fulfilled by a Gentile leader in how many look at it.
Ultimately however The Beast is overwhelmingly presented as an enemy of Israel. But maybe he won't show his true colors at first.
My problem with White's view is he thinks this claiming to be The Messiah deception is still going on before and during The Abomination of Desolation and for awhile after. That somehow Orthodox Jews will become Okay with making an Idol of The Messiah.
When the Abomination of Desolation happens, Israel (the Woman of Revelation 12), flees to the Wilderness where she will be protected. Jesus when he returns, returns to defend Jerusalem.
At the Abomination of Desolation his system becomes open Satanism, whatever he taught before no longer matters.
What does "Antichrist" mean?
antichristos, Greek 500, Strong’s
antichristos, an-tee'-khris-tos; from Greek 473 (anti) and Greek 5547 (Christos); an opponent of the Messiah :- antichrist.
It means being an adversary of The Messiah, not a False Messiah, or alternate Messiah. John defined Anitchrists not as people who claim to be Jesus or Christ, but as denying Jesus was God, the main heretics doing this in John's time fully believed Jesus and not anyone else was The Christ, like the Ebonites.
Jesus warned of many False Messiahs, but nothing to solidly link any of those to The Abomination of Desolation.
Now I'm not even sure I consider it appropriate to affiliate the term "Antichrist" with the Eight King/The Beast. But there are people who want to cite it as meaning "False Messiah" or "opposing Messiah", so that is why I bring it up.
No comments:
Post a Comment