Identifying the Anti-Christ
Click here to go to our Home
Page
Antichrist The early church scanned the future in
anticipation of the coming Antichrist who was depicted so strikingly by
Daniel, Paul, and John. Many thought that he would appear on the scene after
the fall of the Roman Empire. It is not surprising that the early church had
indistinct ideas about the great Antichrist. It is significant that the church did not come
to any distinct or united conviction about the identity of Antichrist until
the clear Gospel of justification by faith alone began to chase away the
shadows of the dark ages of the papacy. Not only did the church come to a
united understanding of justification by faith alone, but at the same time it
came to a united understanding about the identity of Antichrist. It is
important that we realize this relationship between justification by faith
alone and the identity of Antichrist. We do not contend that the Reformers were
without fault in their theology. There were points on which they could not
agree among themselves. But we had better give serious consideration to the
points on which the Christian Church reached total and united agreement. With
one united voice the Church said that the Antichrist was the papacy. Nowadays many want to dismiss the Reformers’
view of Antichrist as mere polemics of a bygone era. But it was not a matter
of ill will in the midst of theological controversy. "This understanding
of the position and function of the papacy became an important part of
Luther’s theology. It was not merely part of his polemic but apart from all
personal animosity a sincere theological conviction" (George W. Forell, Faith Active in Love [Augsburg, 1954], 171). The
reason so many today cannot appreciate the united view of the Reformers as to
the identity of Antichrist is that they do not see the importance of
justification by faith alone. They do not regard this doctrine as the great
central article of faith, the very air which Christians breathe. They do not
recoil with horror to see this doctrine adulterated or relegated to a
position of only relative importance. To the Reformation Church the papacy was the
very Antichrist because it committed the ultimate impiety by making war on
justification by faith alone. Francis Pieper expressed the view of the
Reformation when he wrote in Christian Dogmatics: There can be no greater enemy of the Church of
God than the Papacy. In and by the doctrine of justification the Church
lives. . . . Can anything worse befall the Church than being robbed of the
doctrine of justification, by which alone she lives and exists? When the
enemy takes my earthly life, he can do me no greater harm in earthly matters.
And when the Pope has taken away the spiritual life of the Church by robbing
her of the doctrine of justification, the climax of harm has been reached
(Concordia, 1950, Vol. 2, 553-554). An English theologian of the nineteenth
century, Dr. H. Grattan Guinness, wrote: From the first, and throughout, that movement
[the Reformation] was energized and guided by the prophetic Word. Luther
never felt strong and free to war against the papal apostasy till he
recognized the pope as antichrist. It was then he burned the papal Bull.
Knox’s first mission as a Reformer, was on the prophecies concerning the
Papacy. The Reformers embodied their interpretation of prophecy in their
confessions of faith, and Calvin in his Institutes. All the Reformers were
unanimous in the matter. . . . And their interpretation of these prophecies
determined their reforming action. . . . It nerved them to resist the claims
of that apostate church to the uttermost. It made them martyrs; it sustained
them at the stake. And the views of the Reformers were shared by thousands,
by hundreds of thousands. They were adopted by princes and peoples . . .
(Romanism and the Reformation [S. R. Briggs], 250-260). The United Testimony of the Reformers on the
Identity of Antichrist The Reformers’ system of prophetic
interpretation, known as "the Protestant system," was unchallenged
in the Protestant movement for three hundred years. It has been all but
forgotten today. Martin Luther: "We are convinced that the papacy is the
seat of the true and real Antichrist" (What Luther Says, ed. Ewald M. Plass, Vol. 1, 34).
"You should know that the pope is the real, true, final Antichrist, of
whom the entire Scripture speaks, whom the Lord is beginning to consume with
the spirit of his mouth and will very soon destroy and slay with the
brightness of his coming, for which we are waiting" (Plass,
op. cit., Vol. 1, 36, 37). John Calvin: "Daniel and Paul had predicted that
Antichrist would sit in the temple of God. The head of that cursed and
abominable kingdom, in the Western church, we affirm to be the Pope. When his
seat is placed in the temple of God, it suggests that his kingdom will be
such that he will not abolish the name of Christ or the Church. Hence it
appears that we by no means deny that churches may exist, even under his
tyranny; but he has profaned them by sacrilegious impiety, afflicted them by
cruel despotism, corrupted and almost terminated their existence by false and
pernicious doctrines; like poisonous potions, in such churches, Christ lies
half buried, the Gospel is suppressed, piety exterminated, and the worship of
God almost abolished; in a word, they are altogether in such a state of
confusion that they exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather than of the holy
city of God" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. 4, chap. 2, sec.
12). Heinrich Bullinger: "By the little horn many understand the
kingdom of Mohammed, of the Saracens and of the Turks. . . . But when the
apostolic prophecy in Second Thessalonians 2 is more carefully examined, it
seems that this prophecy of Daniel and that prophecy of the apostle belong
more rightly to the kingdom of the Roman pope, which kingdom has arisen from
small beginnings and has increased to an immense size" (trans. from
Heinrich Bullinger, Daniel Sapientissimus
Dei Propheta (Daniel the Most Wise Prophet of God),
chap. 7, fol. 78v). Nicholas Ridley: "The head, under Satan, of all mischief
is Antichrist and his brood and the same is he which is the Babylonical beast. The beast is he whereupon the whore
sitteth. The whore is that city, saith John in plain words, which hath empire
over the kings of the earth. This whore hath a golden cup of abominations in
her hand, whereof she maketh to drink the kings of the earth, and of the wine
of this harlot all nations hath drunk; yea, and kings of the earth have lain
by this whore; and merchants of the earth, by virtue of her pleasant
merchandise, have been made rich. "Now what city is there in the whole
world, that when John wrote, ruled over the kings of the earth; or what city
can be read of in any time, that of the city itself challenged the empire
over the kings of the earth, but only the city of Rome, and that since the
usurpation of that See hath grown to her full strength?" (A Piteous
Lamentation of the Miserable Estate of the Church in England, in the Time of
the Late Revolt from the Gospel, in Works, 53). Philip Melanchthon: "18. Since it is certain that the
pontiffs and the monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest, and true
without any doubt, that the Roman pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom,
is very Antichrist. "19. Likewise in 2 Thessalonians, 2, Paul
clearly says that the man of sin will rule in the church exalting himself
above the worship of God, etc. "20. But it is certain that the popes do
rule in the church, and under the title of the church in defending idols. "21. Wherefore I affirm that no heresy
hath arisen, nor indeed shall be, with which these descriptions of Paul can
more truly and certainly accord and agree than with this pontifical kingdom .
. . . "25. The prophet Daniel also attributes
these two things to Antichrist; namely, that he shall place an idol in the temple,
and worship [it] with gold and silver; and that he shall not honor women. "26. That both of them belong to the
Roman pontiff, who does not clearly see? The idols are clearly the impious
masses, the worship of saints, and the statues which are exhibited in gold
and silver that they may be worshiped" (trans. from Philip Melanch-thon, "De Matrimonio,"
Disputationes, No. 56, in Opera (Corpus Reformatorum), Vol. 12, cols. 535, 536). John Hooper: "God hath given this light unto my
countrymen . . . that [neither] the bishop of Rome nor none other is Christ’s
vicar upon the Earth. . . . It is so plain that it needeth no probation; the
very properties of Antichrist, I mean of Christ’s great and principal enemy,
are so openly known to all men that are not blinded with the smoke of Rome
that they know him to be the beast that John describeth
in the Apocalypse" (Declaration of Christ and His Office, chap. 3, in
Works, Vol. 1, 22, 23). The Origin of Futurism and Preterism Not only did the Reformers proclaim the mighty
truth of justification by faith alone for the liberation of men’s souls, but
they nerved thousands to break from the tyranny of the dark ages of the
papacy by clearly identifying the Antichrist of Bible prophecy. The symbols
of Daniel, Paul, and John were applied to the papacy with tremendous effect.
The realization that the incriminating finger of prophecy rested squarely on
Rome aroused the consciousness of Europe. In alarm Rome saw that she must
successfully counteract this identification of Antichrist with the papacy or
lose the battle. She must present plausible arguments which would cause men
to look outside the medieval period for the development of Antichrist. The Jesuits rallied to the Roman cause by
providing two alternatives to the historical interpretation of the
Protestants. These alternatives, preterism and
futurism, were designed to deflect attention from the papacy as Antichrist by
making Antichrist exclusively a figure of the past (preterism)
or of the future (futurism). In this way the Jesuits attempted to refute the
Reformers’ identification of the papacy as Antichrist. The first alternative developed by the Jesuits
was preterism—which is now the view held by many
post-millennialists. Luis de Alcazar
(1554-1613) of Seville, Spain, devised what became known as the
"preterist" system of prophetic interpretation. This theory
proposed that Revelation deals with events in the pagan Roman Empire, that
Antichrist refers to Nero, and that the prophecies were therefore fulfilled
long before the time of the medieval church. Alcazar’s
preterist system has become popular among Protestant liberals, modernists,
and postmillennialists. The second view developed by the Jesuits was
futurism, which is the view held by most dispensationalists and fundamentalists.
This tack was taken by Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca, Spain. He
was the founder of the "futurist" system of prophetic
interpretation. Instead of placing Antichrist in the past as did Alcazar, Ribera argued that Antichrist would appear far
in the future. About 1590 Ribera published a five hundred page commentary on
Revelation denying the Protestant application of Antichrist to the Church of
Rome. The gist of his futurist system was as follows: (1) While the first few chapters in the Revelation
were assigned to ancient Rome in the time of John, the greater part of the
prophecies of the Revelation were assigned to the distant future, to events
immediately preceding the second coming of Jesus Christ. (2) Antichrist would be a single individual
who would abolish the Christian religion, rebuild the temple at Jerusalem,
and be received by the Jews. (3) Antichrist’s blasphemous work would
continue for a literal three and a half years. (4) The locale of the conflict with Antichrist
would be the Middle East—i.e., Palestine. Ribera’s futurism was expanded and polished by
later Catholic scholars and became the dominant Catholic system of prophetic
interpretation. Roman Catholic author G. S. Hitchcock
summarizes the genesis of futurism and preterism as
follows: The Futuristic School, founded by the Jesuit
Ribera in 1591, looks for Antichrist, Babylon, and a rebuilt temple in
Jerusalem, at the end of the Christian dispensation. The Praeterist
School, founded by the Jesuit Alcazar, explains the
Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem [in A.D. 70] or by the fall of Pagan Rome
in 410 A.D. (G.S. Hitchcock, The Beasts and the
Little Horn, 7). In 1898 the English Protestant Joseph Tanner
made these observations on the beginnings of futurism and preterism: Accordingly, toward the close of the century
of the Reformation, two of her [Rome’s] most learned doctors set themselves
to the task, each endeavoring by different means to
accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men’s minds from
perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal
system. The Jesuit Alcazar devoted himself to bring
into prominence the Preterist method of interpretation, which we have already
briefly noticed, and thus endeavored to show that
the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled at
Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy. On the other hand the
Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the
Papal Power by bringing out the Futurist system which asserts that these
prophecies refer properly not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of
some future supernatural individual who is yet to appear and to continue in
power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera,
about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the Founder of the Futurist system in
modern times (Daniel and the Revelation [Hodder
& Stoughton, 1898], 16, 17). Ribera’s futurism was polished and popularized
by the great Roman Catholic controversialist, Cardinal Bellarmine
(1542-1621) of Italy. This shrewd prince of the Roman State-Church took up
the battle against Protestantism and became the foremost apologist for Rome
in the Counter Reformation. Bellarmine insisted
that the prophecies concerning Antichrist in Daniel, Paul, and John had no
application to the papal power. Between 1581 and 1593 he published the most
detailed defense of the Roman faith ever produced, Disputationes de Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos. The third part of his Disputationes
was devoted to showing that Antichrist is not the papacy but a single man who
will appear at the end of time. Bellarmine wrote: For all Catholics think thus that Antichrist
will be one certain man; but all heretics teach . . . that Antichrist is
expressly declared to be not a single person, but an individual throne or
absolute kingdom, and apostate seat of those who rule over the church (Disputationes, Bk. 3, chap. 2, 185). Bellarmine further said: Nor can anyone be pointed out who has been
accepted for Antichrist, who has ruled exactly three and one-half years;
therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Then Antichrist has not yet come
(Chapter 8, 190). The pope is not Antichrist since indeed his throne is not
in Jerusalem, nor in the Temple of Solomon (Chapter 13, 195). For nearly three hundred years the Protestant
movement had no lack of expositors who very ably defended the Protestant, or
historical, school of prophetic interpretation. Until the nineteenth century,
Protestantism stood united on the historical principle of prophetic
interpretation, and neither futurism nor preterism
penetrated the Protestant movement. Today there are two prophetic camps fighting
each other within "Protestantism," and the Protestant doctrine has
been abandoned or rejected. The two camps are the futurists—the
dispensationalists, fundamentalists, and amillennialist—and
the preterists—the postmillennialists and the
liberals. Both are wrong. Neither is Protestant. Both reject the Reformers’
identification of the Papacy as Antichrist. Both are unwitting disciples of
the Jesuits. Futurism Futurism first entered Protestantism in
nineteenth-century England by two apparently widely separated developments.
The first was the appearance of a Romanizing tendency in the Church of
England. Briefly, the development was as follows: Dr. Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), curate of
Christ Church at Gloucester and later librarian to the archbishop of
Canterbury, was the first notable Protestant scholar to accept the Riberan interpretation of Antichrist. Maitland held the
Reformation in open contempt and freely admitted that his view of prophecy
coincided with Roman Catholic interpretation. His views were first published
in 1826 and received widespread study and interest. James H. Todd
(1805-1869), professor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin, studied and
accepted Maitland’s futuristic views. He strongly attacked the Reformers’
historical system of prophetic interpretation. Todd’s views were published
and widely circulated among the theologians of his time. John Henry Newman (1801-1890), famous high
church Anglican who converted to Rome and became a cardinal, was one of the
leading spirits in the Oxford, or Tractarian,
movement. Five years before he joined the Roman State-Church, Newman
advocated Todd’s futurism in a tract called The Protestant Idea of
Antichrist. Newman wrote: We have pleasure in believing that in matters
of Doctrine we entirely agree with Dr. Todd. . . . The prophecies concerning
Antichrist are as yet unfulfilled, and that the predicted enemy of the Church
is yet to come. Through the publication and dissemination of
thousands of tracts, the Oxford Movement leavened English Protestantism with
the idea that the Reformers‘ understanding of Antichrist was untrustworthy.
It effectively diverted attention from Rome to some unknown person to come in
the future. About the same time as the development of the
Oxford Movement, there was another development in England which played a
decisive role in bringing futurism within the Protestant movement. There was
a growing disenchantment with the deadness of the established churches, a
reaction against the spiritualizing tendency of postmillennialism (with its
tendency toward modernism and preterism), and a
revival of hope in the soon coming of Christ and the last things. Two
religious leaders played an important role in these developments: Edward
Irving (1792-1834), born in Scotland and a brilliant Presbyterian preacher,
became a noted expositor in the British Advent Awakening. At first a
historicist in his approach to the prophecies, Irving came to adopt
futuristic views. He despaired of the church being able to complete her
Gospel commission by the ordinary means of evangelism and began to believe
and preach about the miraculous return of the gifts and power of the early
church. In 1831 the "gift of tongues" and
other "prophetic utterances" made their appearance among his
followers, first in Scotland among some women and then in London. Irving
never detected the imposture and gave credence to these new revelations.
Under the influence of these revelations of "the Holy Ghost"
"by other tongues," a new aspect was added to the expectation of a
future Antichrist—the rapture of the church before the advents of Antichrist
and Christ. The origin of this theory has embarrassed some of its advocates,
and the defenders of this novel theory have tried to deny its historical
beginning. But the discovery in a rare book by Dr. Robert Norton entitled The
Restoration of Apostles and Prophets: In the Catholic Apostolic Church,
published in 1861, establishes the origin of this innovative doctrine beyond
all question. Norton was a participant in the Irvingite
movement. The idea of a two-stage coming of Christ first
came to a Scottish lass, Miss Margaret MacDonald of Port Glasgow, Scotland,
while she was in a "prophetic" trance. Norton actually preserved
Miss MacDonald’s pretribulation vision and
"prophetic" utterance in his book. He wrote: Marvelous light was shed upon Scripture, and especially on the
doctrine of the second Advent, by the revived spirit of prophecy. In the
following account by Miss M. M.—, of an evening during which the power of the
Holy Ghost rested upon her for several successive hours, in mingled prophecy
and vision, we have an instance; for here we first see the distinction
between that final stage of the Lord’s coming, when every eye shall see Him,
and His prior appearing in glory to them that look for Him (15). A little later the idea of the secret
pre-tribulation rapture was adopted and polished by the Plymouth Brethren in
their founding Powercourt Conferences of the 1830’s. S. P. Tregelles, who
participated in the Powercourt Conferences,
admitted that the Brethren obtained the idea of the rapture from the Irvingite movement. He wrote: I am not aware that there was any definite
teaching that there should be a Secret Rapture of the Church at a secret
coming until this was given forth as an "utterance" in Mr. Irving’s
church from what was then received as being the voice of the Spirit. But
whether anyone ever asserted such a thing or not, it was from that supposed
revelation that the modern doctrine and the modern phraseology respecting it
arose (The Hope of Christ’s Coming, 35; cited by George L. Murray, Millennial
Studies—A Search for Truth [Baker Book House, 1960], 138). John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), one of the
prominent founders of the movement often known as Plymouth Brethren, was not
only an ardent futurist, but he added another new dimension to the futuristic
scheme—dispensationalism. Oswald T. Allis wrote in his book, Prophecy and the
Church: "The Dispensational teaching of today, as
represented, for example, by the Scofield Reference
Bible, can be traced back directly to the Brethren Movement which arose in
England and Ireland about the year 1830. Its adherents are often known as
Plymouth Brethren, because Plymouth was the strongest of the early centers of
Brethrenism. It is also called Darbyism,
after John Nelson Darby (1800-82), its most conspicuous representative. The
primary features of this movement were two in number. The one related to the
Church. It was the result of the profound dissatisfaction felt at that time
by many earnest Christians with the worldliness and temporal security of the
Church of England and of many of the dissenting communions in the British
Isles. The other had to do with prophecy; it represented a very marked
emphasis on the coming of the Lord as a present hope and immediate
expectation. These two doctrines were closely connected. The Parenthesis Church "The beginning of the Brethren doctrine
regarding the Church is found in the claim that an ordained ministry and
eldership was not necessary to the proper observance of the great central
rite of the Christian Church, the Lord’s Supper. It was claimed that
Christian believers might meet together to break bread, without any
ecclesiastical order or government whatsoever. And since the New Testament
speaks quite definitely of the ordaining of elders, it was claimed that this
"professing church" which is characterized by a ministry or
eldership having "successive" or "derivative" authority
was Jewish and Petrine, and to be sharply
distinguished from the Church described by Paul as a "mystery,"
which is entirely unique, utterly distinct from Israel, a heavenly body
having no connection with the Earth. So understood, the Church age is to be
regarded as a "parenthesis" between the Old Testament kingdom of
the past and the Old Testament kingdom of the future, or in other words as
constituting an "interruption" in the fulfillment of the kingdom
promises to Israel. This distinction between the true (Pauline) Church and
the professing (Petrine) church is of fundamental
importance. The Any Moment Coming "Closely connected with the doctrine of
the Church was the doctrine of the Coming. Brethrenism
had its beginnings at a time when there was great interest in the doctrine of
the second advent. Edward Irving had stirred London by his flaming eloquence,
declaring in sermon after sermon that the Lord might come at any moment. The
Brethren, who were ardent Chiliasts, took the position that the Church as a
heavenly body had no connection with earthly events, that such events
concerned Israel and the nations, that the Church must live in constant
expectancy of the coming of the Lord, that no events of any kind must be
regarded as necessarily intervening between the Church and this any moment
expectancy, and particularly that the rapture of the Church would certainly
take place before the great tribulation. "This any moment doctrine of the coming
had a natural and inevitable consequence, which is of prime importance in
Dispensational teaching. It led to the discovery of a second hidden interval
or parenthesis in the course of redemptive history as set forth in the Bible.
If the Church has nothing to do with earthly events and may be raptured at any moment, and if the Bible clearly refers
to events which are to precede the coming of Christ to the Earth, the logical
inference is that there must be two aspects or "stages" of the
coming: one which concerns the Church only and is timeless and signless, and the other which concerns the Earth and will
be separated from the former by an interval during which the predicted events
will take place. Consequently, instead of adhering to the view that the
rapture, the catching up of the saints to meet the Lord in the air, would be
immediately or speedily followed by their return with Him to reign over the
Earth, which was the view generally held at that time by Premillennialists,
the Brethren reached the conclusion that a sharp distinction must be drawn
between the coming of the Lord for the saints (the rapture) and His coming
with the saints (the appearing or revelation). In between these two events,
they claimed that they could recognize an important interval of time; namely
the 70th week of Daniel 9., the second part of which they identified more or
less exactly with the events recorded in Revelation 4-19. Consequently, this
second parenthesis, as we may call it, between the rapture and the appearing,
is both a very necessary and also a distinctive feature of Brethren teaching,
almost if not quite as important as the Church parenthesis referred to above. The Jewish Remnant "Closely related to this teaching
regarding the Church and the Coming and indeed indispensable to it was the
doctrine of the Jewish Remnant. If the Church consists only of those who have
been redeemed in the interval between Pentecost and the rapture, and if the
entire Church is to be raptured, then there will be
no Christians on Earth during the period between the rapture and the
appearing. Yet during that period 144,000 in Israel and an innumerable
multitude from the Gentiles (Revelation 7) are to be saved. How is this to be
brought about, if the Church has been raptured and
the Holy Spirit removed from the Earth? The answer to this question is found
in the doctrine of the Jewish remnant. After the rapture of the Church a
Jewish remnant is to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom and through the
preaching of this Gospel multitudes are to be saved. "This Brethren Controversy, as we may
call it, has now become largely a thing of the past. The Plymouth Brethren
are today one of the smallest of Christian groups, and their distinctive
conception of Church order and government is very largely ignored. On the
other hand, the fact that many of the views of the Brethren (their conception
of the Church as a heavenly mystery and their prophetic program as a whole) are
fully accepted in Dispensational circles, are indeed characteristic of
Dispensationalism as such, has made Dispensationalism an issue of greater or
lesser importance in practically all evangelical denominations at the present
time. Dispensationalism in America "The distinctive features of Brethrenism were fully developed and formulated before
the middle of the last century. Darby made his first visit to Canada in 1859
and subsequently paid repeated visits to Canada and the United States. In
1862 James Inglis of New York began the publication
of a monthly, Waymarks in the Wilderness, which
helped to spread the teaching of the Brethren on this side of the Atlantic.
One of the most influential advocates of this teaching was James H. Brookes
of St. Louis, whose Maranatha appeared about 1870
and passed through many editions. But while Brookes’ Dispensational views so
closely resemble those of the Brethren that it seems clear that they were
largely derived from them, Brookes gave no credit for them to Darby or any
other of the Brethren. This may be due to the fact that there were
associations with the name of Darby which Brookes wished to avoid. But his
attitude was characteristic of the movement as a whole. Dispensationalists
have accepted the prophetic teaching of the Brethren, but until recently have
shown themselves decidedly unwilling to disclose the source from which they
derived them. Brookes was active in the summer conferences known as
"Believers’ Meetings for Bible Study" which were commenced in the
seventies, and also in the Prophetic Conferences, the first of which was held
in New York in 1878. "Without attempting to trace the history
of Dispensationalism in detail, it will suffice to point out that it has owed
its rapid growth in no small degree to two books, Jesus is Coming by "W.
E. B.," and the Scofield Reference Bible.
Blackstone’s Jesus is Coming was published in 1878. The Scofield
Reference Bible was published by Oxford University in 1909. It is the Bible
of Dispensationalists, and has probably done as much to popularize the
prophetic teachings of Darby and the Brethren as all other agencies put
together. That Scofield was indebted to the
Brethren for his Dispensational views cannot be questioned. He derived them
first indirectly, from Brookes, and then directly from the Brethren and their
writings. He held Darby’s Synopsis, which is the standard commentary among
the Brethren, in high esteem; and in the introduction to the Reference Bible
he acknowledged his indebtedness to the Brethren Movement without expressly
mentioning it and made special mention of the "eminent Bible teacher,"
Walter Scott, who was a prominent figure among the Brethren. There are today
scores of Bible Schools and Institutes in this country and elsewhere,
especially in Canada, where Dispensational interpretation of the Bible is
stressed and the Scofield Reference Bible practically
a textbook. And the number of books and periodicals in circulation today
which represent this viewpoint is legion (Presbyterian & Reformed Pub.
Co., 1972, 9-14). Two Outstanding Defenders of Protestant
Hermeneutics When developments in England were seriously
eroding the historical, or Protestant, system of prophetic interpretation,
two great opponents of futurism arose: 1. Edward Bishop Elliott (1793-1875), graduate
of Cambridge in 1816, produced a most elaborate work of 2,500 pages on
Revelation. He exposed the fallacious interpretations which involved
abandonment of the Protestant position on Antichrist and attacked the
Romanizing tendencies in the Tractarian movement.
It was Elliott who presented a thorough, documented history of the rise of
futurism and preterism from Jesuit sources. 2. Dr. Henry Grattan Guinness (1835-1910) of
London published nine major works on prophecy between 1878 and 1905. Alarmed
by the inroads of the futurist school of interpretation stemming from the
Jesuits, Guinness mounted a tremendous defense of
the historical school, the Protestant view, which holds to the progressive
fulfillment of prophecy from John’s time to the second advent. A Summary and Appraisal In the last one hundred years the Protestant
movement has largely abandoned the prophetic convictions of historic
Protestantism and has opted for theories which have their origin with the
Jesuits. The liberal and postmillennial wings of the Protestant movement,
often denying the inspiration of the Bible or spiritualizing away its most
pointed truths, have adopted the preterist view of prophecy, first espoused
by the Spanish Jesuit Alcazar. The right wing of
Protestantism, the dispensationalists and fundamentalists, have taken over
the Spanish Jesuit Ribera’s futurism, and have made it a part of orthodoxy.
This represents a remarkable triumph of the theories of Rome’s Counter
Reformation. The Presbyterian Church, at the turn of the
twentieth century, revised the Westmister
Confession of Faith and deleted the sentences identifying the papacy as
Antichrist. The Reformational understanding of
prophecy has been either deliberately rejected or forgotten. The two
contending factions, the futurists and the preterists,
can be traced directly to the Jesuits. Both agree on one thing: The
Protestant view is wrong. The Reason for the Change in Eschatology We need to understand the reason Protestantism
has abandoned her historic prophetic convictions. It is because the great
truth of justification by faith alone is no longer at the center of the
church’s attention. That truth has been eclipsed by an earthly, man-centered
vision. Dr. Francis Pieper wrote: What, then, may be the reason that men are
today disinclined to recognize the Pope as the Antichrist? Whence this
strange and deplorable phenomenon, that nearly all recent
"believing" theologians search about for the Antichrist while he is
performing his work in the Church right before their eyes, his
soul-destroying activity as plain as day? The trouble is that they have no living
knowledge of the doctrine of justification and of the importance of this
doctrine for the Church. From my own experience I must confess that I was
vitally convinced that the Pope is the Antichrist only after I realized, on
the one hand, what the doctrine of justification is and how much it means to
the Church, and, on the other hand, that the real essence of the Papacy
consists in denying and cursing the doctrine of justification. . . . Most modern Protestant theologians have
adopted the Roman view of the doctrine of justification, as Dollinger pointed out in his lectures on the reunion of
the Christian Church [in the nineteenth century]. The historic Protestant identification of
Antichrist is not a matter of cheap polemics against the papacy. Rome is the
religious personification of human nature. "We cannot reproach Rome with
anything which does not recoil upon man himself" (J. H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth
Century, Vol. 1, 32). It is for good reason that the apostle calls the Antichrist
the "man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Paul’s words echo the book
of Daniel. The prophet describes this power which grew up out of the Roman
Empire and among the ten nations of Western Europe as having "eyes like
the eyes of man" (Daniel 7:8). And the leopardlike
beast of Revelation 13, which is obviously the same power as the horn of
Daniel 7, is said to have "the number of man" (Revelation 13:18).
The papal system was developed by man. Its beginnings are found in 3 John.
Great men like Augustine, who combatted the heresy
of Pelagianism, tragically helped build the Roman
State-Church into the papacy. Augustine combated Pelagius by showing that
there was much evil in the best saints—and his own impact on subsequent
church history proved his own words. More and more the Roman State-Church
bore the image and superscription of man until it sat in the temple of God
acting as if it were God. It was the expression of the one sin of all
ages—man taking the place of God. Casting the Truth to the Earth The focus of the Christian’s affections is
above. It is "where Christ sits on the right hand of God"
(Colossians 3:1). The Old Testament scripture most frequently alluded to in
the New Testament is Psalm 110: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit at my
right hand. . . ." It needs to be made startlingly clear that Christ at
the right hand of God, and not Christ in the human heart, is the great focal
point of the apostolic proclamation. Christ has achieved, perfected,
justified, and secured the salvation of his people, and he has brought life
and immortality to light through the Gospel. But all these blessings are in
Christ, reserved in Heaven for all who are kept by the power of God through
faith (1 Peter 1:3-5). The Christian does not possess these blessings within
himself, for they are found outside of him in the person of Christ. Christ
himself at the right hand of God, absent from his saints on Earth, is the
redemption, righteousness, security, perfection, and life of his people. The
Holy Spirit dwells in the saints to direct their affections, their faith, and
their attention outside of themselves to Christ at the right hand of God. In contrast, let us look at the spirit of
Antichrist. Daniel, the great prophet who described the Antichrist, said,
"It cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced and
prospered" (Daniel 8:12). Consider how the truth of justification by
faith alone was thrown down to the Earth. The Christian’s righteousness with
God is at the right hand of God. But through the influence of sinful human
nature—the man of sin— It needs to be made startlingly clear that
Christ at the right hand of God, and not Christ in the human heart, is the
great focal point of the apostolic proclamation. The Church lost this great truth of
justification. More and more it focused on the inward work of grace in the
human heart. Finally, the Church taught that the Christian’s righteousness
with God is found in the Holy Spirit’s work in his heart—the experience of
renewal and sanctification. The personal righteousness of the believer on
Earth was put in place of the vicarious righteousness of Christ in Heaven.
Faith was no longer directed to the doing and dying of Christ alone for
justification with God. It was directed to the inner experience of the
believer. In short, a present righteousness on Earth (the good works of men)
took the place of a heavenly and all-sufficient righteousness (the good works
of Christ) mediated for poor sinners at the right hand of God. Thus did the
sin of man throw down the truth to the ground. The whole development of the Roman system is a
de-monstration of what happens when the human heart
and inward religious experience become the focus of the Church’s attention.
What makes it more terrible is that it is done under such a pious pretext. It
is done under the guise of honoring the Holy
Spirit, who indwells Christians. James Buchanan pinpointed the doctrine of
Antichrist when he wrote: There is, perhaps, no more subtle or plausible
error, on the subject of Justification, than that which makes it rest on the
indwelling presence, and the gracious work, of the Holy Spirit in the heart .
. . nothing can be more unscriptural in itself, or more pernicious to the
souls of men, than the substitution of the gracious work of the Spirit in us,
for the vicarious work of Christ for us, as the ground of our pardon and
acceptance with God (The Doctrine of Justification [London: The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1961], 401, 402). When man’s personal righteousness took the
place of Christ’s substitutionary righteousness, the whole process of putting
man in the place of God began. The whole development of the Roman system is a
demonstration of what happens when the human heart and inward religious
experience become the focus of the Church’s attention. The Church usurped the authority of Christ.
Its voice was put forth as the voice of God, its priests became mediators in
the place of Christ, and its mass was set forth as the present and
experiential sacrifice in the place of the historical cross. All the horrors
of the papal system are corollaries of its one great error of putting an
inside righteousness of the heart in the place of the outside righteousness
of Christ. The Deadly Wound Luther did not center his attack on the abuses
of the papacy but against its doctrine of justification. Complaining against
the radical enthusiasts, who aimed their attack on papal customs and abuses,
Luther said: We moreover did teach and urge nothing but
this article of justification, which alone at that time did threaten the
authority of the Pope and lay waste his kingdom. . . . Images and other
abuses in the church would have fallen down of themselves if they had but
diligently taught the article of justification (A Commentary on St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Galatians [London: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1953], 218,
219). The Reformation restored the truth of
righteousness by faith—a righteousness not on Earth but in Heaven, not in man
but in Christ, not personal but vicarious, not infused but imputed, not
earned but given by grace, not experiential but judicial, not psychological
but legal. The Reformation restored the truth of
righteousness by faith—a righteousness not on Earth but in Heaven, not in man
but in Christ, not personal but vicarious, not infused but imputed, not
earned but given by grace, not experiential but judicial, not psychological
but legal. This was the sword of truth which inflicted such a blow on the
papacy that prophecy described it as a "deadly wound" (Revelation
13:3). The Healing of the Deadly Wound The same sinful tendencies which corrupted the
truth of justification by faith alone in the early Church have been at work
in the Protestant movement for centuries. Contemporary religionists are
preoccupied with things other than the great article of justification. They
are obsessed with the human heart and what goes on in it. This religion of internalism, which never gets higher than a man’s own
spiritual navel, takes many forms: (1) It is often taught that faith itself
justifies as an ethical act. People are urged to "surrender" as if
a certain quality in the heart called "faith" or "trust"
will make them pleasing in the sight of God. (2) Every sinner who comes to faith by the
hearing of the Gospel and work of the Spirit will make a decision for Christ,
but this is far different from urging people to become Christians by their
own acts of decision. There is a popular type of "decisionism"
which tends to ground salvation on some religious act—it may be called
"faith," "decision," "surrender," etc. But
justification by grace alone teaches us not to trust in our own acts of
repentance, contrition, and consecration, and hide ourselves in the
faithfulness of Christ alone. (3) So-called "evangelicalism" has
far more to say about the psychological and moral change in the believer
(regeneration or renewal) than about God’s salvation in Jesus Christ. Along
with this, baptism is often set forth as the outward sign of this inward
experience. Baptism becomes a sign and memorial of the believer’s
"death"—a memorial of his decision and consecration—instead of a
witness to the one efficacious death of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is subtly
changed into a message of self and self crucified instead of Christ and
Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2). The believer’s mystical act of
"dying" becomes the focus of attention. This crisis experience of
"yielding," "surrendering," and "dying" is said
to be the means of getting the Spirit or getting the victory over sin
(according to a misuse of Romans 6:1-7). Just as Rome put man’s personal righteousness
in the place of Christ’s vicarious righteousness, so this teaching puts the
personal "dying" of the believer in the place of the vicarious
death of Christ. Just as Rome put man’s personal righteousness
in the place of Christ’s vicarious righteousness, so this teaching puts the
personal "dying" of the believer in the place of the vicarious
death of Christ. It is so easy to forget that it is Christ’s unique,
unrepeatable death which frees us from sin and the law and brings us the
Spirit (Romans 6:2-7; 7:4; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Galatians 3:13, 14). (4) The apostles proclaimed the resurrection
of Jesus with great power, but modern "evangelicalism" prefers to
focus on the resurrected life of the believer. The new birth, of course, is
vitally important, but it is a soul destroying error when we substitute the
"gospel" of the changed life for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The new birth, of course, is vitally
important, but it is a soul-destroying error when we substitute the
"gospel" of the changed life for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead of preaching the good news about
Christ, the pulpit on the changed life itself as the supreme event. Go to a
typical "testimony meeting," and you will have full proof of that.
But the devotees of Indian gurus, Mary Baker Eddy, and dozens more religious
charlatans also have glowing testimonies about how their masters have given
them victory over drugs, changed their personalities, and filled them with
radiant peace. The apostles did not run around preaching a new lifestyle
obtainable by believing in Jesus—as if Jesus were a mere means to this end.
Modern "evangelicalism" preaches the conversion event of the
believer far more than the death of Christ: It preaches salvation by new
birth rather than salvation by the finished work of Christ. (5) There is no question but that the doctrine
of the Spirit’s indwelling and the Spirit-filled life has become a focus of
"evangelical" interest. The charismatic movement has merely carried
this evangelical preoccupation with the Spirit’s work in the heart a little
further than most of its "evangelical" friends. (6) Contemporary fascination with counseling and psychology in the churches is a logical
result of the man-centered message of the churches. The churches have long
been preaching an experiential message; they have long been preoccupied with
inner experience. In the past twenty years they have discovered that
unbelievers have had a lot to say about inner experience, and they are now
preaching psychology rather than the Christ of history. When the human heart and subjective inner
experience become the center of the church’s teaching, the truth is cast down
to Earth. Man on Earth has taken the spotlight from Christ at the right hand
of God; it is the spirit of Antichrist. Glorification of religious experience
under the sanctimonious pretext of honoring the
Holy Spirit is the glorification of man and leads to the worship of the
creature rather than worship of the Creator. This is what the great issue
described in Revelation 13 and 14 is all about. The Church cannot ignore the mighty truth of
justification by faith alone without casting the truth to the ground. When
the pursuit of man’s religious experience on Earth takes the place of faith
in Christ’s intercession of righteousness in Heaven, people "mind
earthly things"—even their own "belly," or internals
(Philippians 3:19). How Views of the Gospel Influence Views on
Prophecy An earthly, man-centered, experience-centered
religion will have a corresponding effect on views about eschatology. Instead of looking to the Jerusalem which is
above (Galatians 4:26), which descends "out of Heaven from God"
(Revelation 21:10), there is a looking to an earthly Jerusalem. Instead of
looking to Mount Zion which is in "heavenly Jerusalem," where Jesus
stands as Mediator of the new covenant (Hebrews 12:22-24), there is a looking
to an earthly Mount Zion. Instead of looking to the true temple of Heaven,
where Christ is high priest after the order of Melchisedek
(Revelation 11:19; Hebrews 8:1, 2), there is a looking for an earthly temple
to be built in Palestine. And the end of all earthly, man-centered religion
is an earthly and man-centered millennium. An "exciting experience of
the Spirit-filled life" is to be exceeded by an even more exciting
future in the coming earthly utopia. Futurism and preterism
are extensions of Roman Catholic spirituality to the things of prophecy. The
only reason that they could take root on Protestant soil is because, as
Catholic scholar Louis Bouyer wrote, there has been
"a rediscovery of Catholicism" within the Protestant movement (The
Spirit and Forms of Protestantism [Cleveland: World Pub. Co., 1964], 189).
The so-called "Protestant" churches are saturated with Catholic
mentality and Catholic spirituality. A Judaizing
corruption of the Gospel has led to a Judaizing
concept of prophecy and eschatology. The Implications of Revelation 13 However unpleasant and alarming it might be,
we ought to take off our futurist and preterist glasses and look at the way
Protestantism read Revelation 13 for three hundred years. Just as the Hebrews
got a new Pharaoh who knew not Joseph, so the church has new teachers who
know not justification by faith alone nor the Protestant system of prophetic
interpretation. This generation of Christians needs to be told how our
spiritual fathers understood the symbol of the leopardlike
beast in Revelation 13. Until the last one hundred years Protestants
generally understood that the great leopardlike
beast of Revelation 13 was a symbol of the papacy. John wrote: And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw
a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon
his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast
which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear,
and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and
his seat, and great authority (Revelation 13:1, 2). This echoes Daniel 7, where the prophet
describes the four great empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece, and Rome) under the symbols of the lion, the bear, the leopard and
the ten-horned beast. Apparently, the spirit of Babylon, Greece, etc., lives
on in the power brought to view in Revelation 13. The evil work of this beast
corresponds exactly with the evil work of the "little horn" of
Daniel 7. The "little horn" of Daniel 7 grew
out of the beast which symbolized the Roman Empire. It is therefore a Roman
power. It grew up among the ten nations of Western Europe and dominated them.
It is described as continuing its existence until the judgment takes away its
dominion. The "little horn" clearly describes Papal Rome, and the
beast of Revelation 13 is obviously the same power brought to view. So
Protestant theologians of a bygone era said that Revelation 13:1-10 describe
the papacy. They also understood that the Protestant Reformation inflicted
the "deadly wound" on the papacy through proclaiming the truth of
justification by faith alone. Thereafter the power of Rome suffered a great
decline in Europe, until the opening of the nineteenth century witnessed a
papacy so weakened that most observers saw it ready to die as a world power,
never to rise again. But the prophecy of Revelation 13 does not end
there. Even as Christ received his death wound and lived again, so the
Antichrist would receive his death wound and live again. The prophet shifts
his attention to a lamblike beast rising from the Earth (Revelation 13:11).
The lamb is elsewhere used as a symbol of Christ. Here a new power arises
which is completely different from the wild, ravaging "beasts" that
came before. In appearance and profession this power is Christian. But a
strange thing happens. This second beast, which supplanted the first beast,
begins to act like the first beast. Instead of preaching the Gospel, it
preaches another gospel. It becomes a "false prophet" (Revelation
16:13) which works miracles and brings fire down from Heaven in the sight of
men (Revelation 13:13). It thereby deceives people into once again worshiping
the first beast (Revelation 13:11-13). A likeness of the first beast is
formed, and together the beast and its image unite to compel all men to
follow in their train. Now if the first beast of Revelation 13 is, as
Protestantism once believed, a symbol of Romanism, what is signified by this
second beast, which finally becomes a likeness of the first beast? Could it
be a symbol of a Pro-testantism which, having lost
the truth of justification by faith alone, proclaims a "gospel" in
the power and spirit of Antichrist? If Revelation 13 is truly a description of
where the current religious scene is heading, it demands the most urgent and
prayerful attention on the part of God’s people. The great mistake of the
Jewish nation was that, failing to recognize Christ, they fulfilled prophecy
by condemning him (Acts 13:24). The great danger facing the Christian Church
is that, failing to recognize Antichrist, we will fulfill prophecy by
promoting him. One thing from Revelation 13 stands out clearly. Just as
Christ, the image of God, is also God, so the lamblike beast, on becoming an
image of Antichrist, is also Antichrist. The Reformation of All Things Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering togther to him,
we ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by
word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let
no one deceive you by any means, for that day will not come unless the
falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worhiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God. . . . For the mystery of lawlessness is
already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out
of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will
consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his
coming. Amen. |