The Antichrist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by CalvinandHodges
Greetings:

The WCF has it correct. Though the Bible clearly teaches that there are many antichrists, 1 John 2:18,19, there will be a manifestation of one who embodies all of the antichristian traits - the pope of Rome.

The idea that Nero is the antichrist does not fit the Biblical criteria found in Rev. 13. There is no indication that Nero did any of the following things:

1) Caused the earth to worship the First Beast.
2) Made fire to come down from Heaven.
3) Deceptions through miracles.
4) Give life to the Image of the First Beast.
5) Caused all both small and great to receive a mark on their hand or forehead.
6) Forbade those who did not have the mark to buy and sell.

Most important of all the number 666 does not fit with Nero:

First, because John is writing in Greek to the Greek churches. Thus, to say that one has to figure the number in Hebrew gematria would not make sense to Greek speaking people.

Second, in order to fit the name of Nero into 666 one has to add an "n" at the end of his name: "Neron Caesar" is how the number is calculated from the name. The second "n" though is called a "final n" which is calculated as 700. Thus, "Neron Casear" is calculated in Hebrew as 1316 - not 666. (Those who say that the 5 finals in Hebrew came at a later time cannot answer the question as to how the Hebrews calculated 700, 800, 900 etc before then).

The Bible gives us no indication that Hebrew gematria should be used in calculating the name. The idea that Nero was the antichrist was a ruse used by the Jesuits in order to deflect attention from the Pope.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

:ditto:

:pilgrim::up:
 
What is their proof that the Pope is going to be the anti-Christ? If anything, I would say the Pope would be the false prophet. But seriously, with the damage that has been done to the RC church over the years, does anyone honestly think they are going to have much pull, credibility, or authority over the WORLD? They can't even recruit priests right now, let alone rule the world and be the "church" of the anti-Christ.

It is my understanding that Luther and the Reformers just despised the Pope and that's why they called him the anti-Christ. Maybe I'm wrong...but maybe I'm right.
 
Actually I was going to ask a question concerning the historic Reformed view of the antichrist, so I'm glad somebody had already decided to bump this up today.

Eschatology has never been a topic of terrible interest to me. Not that I am in any way, shape, or form taking away from its importance. I just usually only give one or two doctrines serious thought during any phase of learning.

But over the past couple weeks (I'll leave the arguments out, as they have already been posted) I've just been... incredibly convinced of the historic Reformed view of the Antichrist, so much so that I'm wondering how I ever managed to "miss it" before.

Most of the sites and articles I've found are very brief... and I'm not good at googling Reformed resources online (I still haven't gotten over graduation and losing my school library...), but:

I know the Reformed tradition sees the papacy as the fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2. Is "the beast" figure in Revelation also equated with the same personage? At least historically?

And this is purely a fanciful thought to which I am attaching exactly " 0 " significance (since it came from my head), but: Is there a "consensus" among historic Reformed divines as to the nature of the "head wound"? Have any ever taken that to refer to the Reformation?

Also, what are the best full-length books on the subject, if any, from this perspective?

Much obliged.
 
Virtually all the reformers and puritans would agree the Papacy is the AntiChrist and the Man of Sin.

Most believe that the Papacy is the Beast. Some believe that the Beast (of the Sea) is the secular Roman Empire (comparing it with Dan 7) while the False Prophet Beast is the Papacy. One opinion is that the First Beast is the Papacy while the 2nd (prophetical) Beast is the Romanish clergy.

One opinion of the wound to the beast's head I am familiar with, according to the interpretation that the Beast is the Roman Empire, is that its heads are the seven forms of governments Rome had, the wound being the fall of Rome in the 5th century and the revial being the resurrection in the Holy Roman Empire. (to the best of my memory thats how it goes)

One way to gain a sort of broad, yet superficial, knowledge of reformed eschatology is to read the easy popular level commentaries of the Reformers and Puritans. Gill, Henry, Calvin are all available free on the internet or as a download. Poole is worth buying. Probably the most indepth book I've read is Alexander Macleod's Lectures on the Principal Prophecies of Scripture. Most of it is online or you can buy a copy used. it is surprisingly cheap for a book nearly 200 years old. It must have been very popular in its day. Also I highly recommend Edward's History of the Work of Redemption for a general overview. I think its also online.
 
Wasn't the Book of Revelation written to contemporaries (Rev 1:4)?

If so, would not the message have been contemporary (relevant to the hearing audience) in nature?

John starts the letter by saying "the things which must shortly take place" (1:1) and "the time is near" (1:3) and finally wraps up the letter with "to show his bond-servants the things which must shortly take place" (22:6).

What good would a letter be that wouldn't even be applicable for hundreds of years?

NERO gets my vote, until I can be otherwise convinced.

:candle:
 
Originally posted by Mudandstars
I know the Reformed tradition sees the papacy as the fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2. Is "the beast" figure in Revelation also equated with the same personage? At least historically?

Yes; and there is no doubting that papal Rome's assumption of the temporal power of pagan Rome together with its usurping of the prerogatives of Jesus Christ over the church is a significant fulfilment of the beast figure.

And this is purely a fanciful thought to which I am attaching exactly " 0 " significance (since it came from my head), but: Is there a "consensus" among historic Reformed divines as to the nature of the "head wound"? Have any ever taken that to refer to the Reformation?

Yes, I have read some who have taken it that way, but there are conflicting views. The chronological historical view suffers from the fact that the variety of schemes all sound plausible. Which led me to adopt the ideal historicist scheme, that what we find in Revelation can find multiple applications throughout history.

Also, what are the best full-length books on the subject, if any, from this perspective?

Andrew has referenced Wylie's book. It is very good. The principles of prophetic interpretation are first illustrated in reference to the coming of Christ, and then it is shown how the same principle, when applied to the coming of Antichrist, must point to the Papacy. If a more easy reading work is desired, Paisley's abridgment of Wylie retains all the essential features of the original work. Begg's Handbook of Popery is also highly recommended. Manton's is sermonic material, and probably provides the best practical application, but if you are looking for exegetical proof alot of sifting will be needed.
 
Originally posted by rjlynam
Wasn't the Book of Revelation written to contemporaries (Rev 1:4)?

If so, would not the message have been contemporary (relevant to the hearing audience) in nature?

John starts the letter by saying "the things which must shortly take place" (1:1) and "the time is near" (1:3) and finally wraps up the letter with "to show his bond-servants the things which must shortly take place" (22:6).

What good would a letter be that wouldn't even be applicable for hundreds of years?

NERO gets my vote, until I can be otherwise convinced.

:candle:

The book was written to the whole church throughout the entire NT era. which is why it is in the canon of scripture. One might ask, why has God put this book in the bible if it is only for first century christians?

Historicists do believe that the prophecies of Revelation will shortly come to pass, or, that is, the fulfilment of the earliest prophecies in the apocolyptic chronology will begin shortly after it was written. Which is why many Historicists believe the wars of Trajan and Adrian are prophecied or even sometimes earlier events. But because the prophecy will begin shortly that does not mean it will end shortly. Everyone short of hyper-preterists believes this. If all of Revelation ended shortly after it was written Christ must have already come.
 
Originally posted by Peter
The book was written to the whole church throughout the entire NT era. which is why it is in the canon of scripture. One might ask, why has God put this book in the bible if it is only for first century christians?

Historicists do believe that the prophecies of Revelation will shortly come to pass, or, that is, the fulfilment of the earliest prophecies in the apocolyptic chronology will begin shortly after it was written. Which is why many Historicists believe the wars of Trajan and Adrian are prophecied or even sometimes earlier events. But because the prophecy will begin shortly that does not mean it will end shortly. Everyone short of hyper-preterists believes this. If all of Revelation ended shortly after it was written Christ must have already come.

First of all, let me say that I don't consider myself a hyper-preterist, although my mom has told me I was hyper as a kid. I do consider myself teachable though.

That being said, I'm not so sure that the premise "If all of Revelation ended shortly after it was written Christ must have already come." is accurate. On what basis is that statement made? Christ's pronouncement in the Olivet discourse? Specifically, Matthew 24:30 (The Sign of the Son of Man)?

Always looking to learn here.
 
To be clear, I meant that if all of the prophecies of the book of Revelation must have come to fulfillment shortly after it was written then the literal, physical seconding coming of Christ must also be past. I believe Christ came in judgment against the Jews in 70 AD but that is a separate event (which happened before Revelation was written by the way)
 
So IF as some believe Nero was the antichrist, then I guess all of those alive today missed the 1000 year reign of Christ, as one thousand nine hundred and thirty six years have already gone by.

Now, I don't believe a pope will be the anti-Christ, but I do believe a pope could be the False Prophet, who will point to some man to be the Messiah.

United Religions (UR).

One reason, I believe the anti-Christ will be a man is because that is what the Jew's are looking for in a Messiah, a man from the line of David who will bring peace to the world and how they will be decieved by a peace agreement.


Messiah
 
Is the "thousand" spoken of in Rev 20:6 to be taken literally?

Is so, then consider Psalm 50:10. Who owns the cattle on hill 1001?

Is it safe to assume "literally" one thousand years in a Book so filled with symbolism?

Just something to ponder.
 
rjlynam,


Is the "thousand" spoken of in Rev 20:6 to be taken literally?

I would think so, as the verses in Chapter 20 teach that the Saints will reign with Him for that 1000 year time frame.

Is so, then consider Psalm 50:10. Who owns the cattle on hill 1001?

God owns it..

Is it safe to assume "literally" one thousand years in a Book so filled with symbolism?

I don't see why not, If God is timeless and we are not. Because that will be a time after the great tribulation, and those who survived through the tribulation will still be alive in their bodies of flesh. And after the 1000 year reign of Christ, Satan will be loosed again from the bottomless pit (Rev 20) to decieve the nations yet again.

Is there anything in History that speaks of a time where people had to recieve a mark in their forehead or hand? As spoken of in Rev 20:4?
 
I find it hard to be a "literalist" in a Book with so much symbolism. Just a difference of opinion here. :um:

[Edited on 9-1-2006 by rjlynam]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top