Yes He Can!

As you all know, in 2008 Barack Hussein Obama was swept into the White House to thundering chants of "YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!" With charisma and eloquence seldom seen in American politics since the days of John F. Kennedy, he was spoken of in almost messianic terms as he seemed to engender hope for a better future in one mesmerizing speech after another.

What some of you might not know, however, is that ever since that time, a spirited debate has been steadily brewing among many Bible prophecy buffs concerning Obama's possible role in end-time prophecy.

To wit: Is Barack Obama the Antichrist?

OK, I know what you're thinking:

"Sure he is...and his Secret Service agents are reptilian shapeshifters."

Touché. Not surprisingly, those involved in this debate seem to have migrated into two main camps: those who believe and can "prove" that Obama is the Antichrist, and those who believe and can "prove" that he isn't.

"Can you guess my name..."

First of all, there is divergent teaching among respected Bible scholars and prophecy experts as to what the Bible actually says about this coming global leader who will force the world to worship him as God, and the first order of business is to decide what to call him.

By some counts, the Bible has as many as 46 titles for this guy, and here is a quick Top 10 list of some of his more popular monikers found in Scripture:

1. The man of sin (2 Thess. 2:3)
2. The son of destruction (KJV: "son of perdition") (2 Thess. 2:3)
3. The lawless one (2 Thess. 2:8)
4. The beast (Rev. 11:7)
5. The Assyrian (Isa. 10:5)
6. The king of Babylon (Isa. 14:4)
7. The little horn (Dan. 7:8)
8. The prince that shall come (Dan. 9:26)
9. The willful king (Dan. 11:36)
10. The worthless shepherd (KJV: "the idol shepherd") (Zech. 11:17)

However, referring to him as the Antichrist (or "anti-Christ" as some people write it) is a convention that has been widely adopted and is well established within the eschatological community, so we'll stick with that.

As a matter of fact, the word "antichrist(s)" only appears in the Bible five times, in four different verses, in two different epistles, all written by the apostle John. So, it only takes a few minutes to see everything the Bible has to say about the word "antichrist."

In the first reference, the Greek grammar clearly indicates that one specific flesh-and-blood man is being referred to: a man who would come in place of Christ (not simply against Christ, although that's certainly true as well).

The second reference concerns individuals (not governments, not systems, but people) who would arise and manifest the same spirit of denying Christ. In other words, anyone who denies that Jesus Christ came as God in the flesh is a type of antichrist (but not necessarily the Antichrist).

Same deal. One specific man who would come in place of Christ and deny that Jesus is the Son of God.

Here John refers to the spirit of all who deny Christ, which is the spirit that will be manifested by and be one of the primary identifying characteristics of the Antichrist—and that spirit has been around ever since Jesus walked the earth and has manifested itself in countless millions of people.

Ditto. All those who deny that Christ is the Son of God are types of antichrist, but there is one specific man coming in place of Christ—the one and only Antichrist of the last days.

Of course, if these few references were all we had to go on, we wouldn't have much. However, there are many other places in Scripture that provide more information about this man, although he may be referred to by one of his many other titles.

I don't intend to turn this article into some type of scholarly treatise about the detailed characteristics of the Antichrist. Neither do I have any intention of trying to prove that Obama is or is not the Antichrist, and the reason is simple:

I can't.

And neither can anyone else, by the way. At least not yet.

I only have one goal here: I simply want to point out the potential flaws in some of the arguments I have come across that purport to "prove" that Barack Obama absolutely cannot be the Antichrist.

Why? Because every single such argument I have come across can be shown to be full of leaks—or at least less than conclusive.

Now, I already know what many of you are thinking—that in reality I want to slyly suggest that I believe that Obama really is the Antichrist, but just don't want to come out and say so (nudge nudge...wink wink).

Not necessarily. I will admit that I believe Obama is a potential candidate, but in the same breath I admit that such a scenario is not without problems. Obama may simply be a tool God uses to set the stage for the real deal.

First of all, and I'm not going to get into it here, realize that there are other candidates that are worthy of serious consideration.

Also, and again I don't want to get into it here because it is highly speculative in nature, there are reasons why an American president as Antichrist might be problematic in light of certain Scriptures.

Of course, Obama's days as president will come to an end.

So on that cheery note, let's look at several of the reasons I have come across that claim to prove that Barack Obama simply cannot be the Antichrist, and why they don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny.

A very 'revealing' argument

In my experience, this is one of the most frequently quoted arguments from people who claim that Obama cannot be the Antichrist, and it goes like this:

• The Antichrist won't be "revealed" until after the Rapture.
• The Rapture hasn't occurred yet.
• But Obama has already been "revealed."
• Hence Obama cannot be the Antichrist. Q.E.D.

The people who make this argument normally use the following passage of Scripture as a proof text, and as a result eliminate not only Barack Obama but any other current world leader from consideration:

The Thessalonians were undergoing severe persecution, and had also been victimized by a forged letter claiming to be from Paul. As a result, there was a lot of fear and confusion—they were convinced that the Tribulation was well underway. That was a problem, however, because it's fairly obvious that Paul had taught them that the Rapture would occur before it ever started, yet they were still here. They were afraid that either they had missed the Rapture, or that Paul was just wrong.

Paul wrote this second letter to the Thessalonians to settle things down and remind them that the Tribulation would not start until after the "departure" occurred, and the man of sin (the Antichrist) was revealed. The word in the original Greek translated "departure" here is also sometimes translated "falling away," and many believe it can refer to a great apostasy (which is already well underway and accelerating as we speak), the Rapture (which could happen as we speak), or possibly both.

After all, it is clearly evident in many places throughout the Bible that the Holy Spirit has an exquisite sense of irony and uses plenty of wordplay.

Respect the text: God the Holy Spirit authored the Bible, and every single word is there (or in some cases not there) for a reason. Not only that, but every listed meaning of a word in the original Hebrew or Greek must be taken into consideration and may well prove to be significant. Make your study of God's Word reflect this type of attitude.

This is actually a good Scripture-based argument, and it is advanced by many excellent Bible prophecy teachers for whom I have great respect. But...

One potential problem I see is interpreting the word "revealed" to mean that the Antichrist must be virtually unknown until after the Rapture, as if he were being kept under wraps until the Church was gone. Advocates of this view admonish people to not waste their time looking for the Antichrist (and rightly so), but in their view it's because he will be completely unknown until the Church has been raptured.

Well, not so fast.

The problem lies in the interpretation of the word "revealed." The Greek word translated "revealed" here is a form of the verb apokalupto (to reveal), which is the exact same word from which we get the noun "apocalypse" (something revealed; a revealing of things). That's exactly why the book of Revelation is also known as the Apocalypse, which opens with the words "The Revelation of Jesus Christ."

In fact, it's the horrific things described within the book of Revelation that made the English word "apocalypse" synonymous with cataclysmic events or the end of the world, although that's not what it originally meant.

Apokalupto means to reveal something that has been hidden or covered, but it is used in two different senses:

1. To reveal something in the sense of "first you don't see it, then you do."
Ex. "The magician revealed a chihuahua from his hat."

2. To reveal the true or inner (previously hidden) nature of something.
Ex. "It was later revealed that the magician was allergic to rabbits."

As a matter of fact, it is this latter sense that seems to be the primary usage of the word in the Bible. So, a perfectly normal, straightforward way to interpret the line in the above passage of Scripture from 2 Thessalonians would be "...and the man of sin is revealed for who he really is, although he may already be well known."

So, I'm not saying it's wrong to interpret this passage to mean the Antichrist will not be well known prior to the Rapture, but when you look at what the word in the Greek actually means, you see that it certainly doesn't have to be interpreted that way.

Bottom line: The case for excluding Obama or any other current world leader from consideration based on this passage of Scripture is shaky.

But that leads us to the $64,000 question: How is the Antichrist revealed? Just how is the inner nature of this man uncovered or made manifest? That is, how will people know the Antichrist is really the Antichrist? If he implements or enforces a seven-year treaty with Israel? (Note that Daniel 9:27 seems to suggest that he doesn't simply negotiate and sign an agreement, but rather strengthens or confirms an existing agreement.) But how do we know that's the treaty? Israel has signed various types of agreements before—how did we know none of those was the treaty?

That's the question: What exactly is it that will let biblically knowledgeable people know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a particular person is officially the Antichrist?

(I say "biblically knowledgeable people" because most of the world will be deceived—they will be falling all over themselves to buy into his one-world system and will be blissfully willing to take his mark and worship him as God.)

There is only one event that positively identifies the Antichrist with 100 percent absolute certainty. And it's not a treaty. It's the abomination of desolation, and it is unmistakable to any student of the Bible who has done his homework.

These passages of Scripture are all talking about the same thing: At the midpoint of the seven-year Tribulation, an image representing the Antichrist will be erected in the holy place in the rebuilt temple and people will be forced (by the False Prophet) to worship the Antichrist as God under pain of death.

That's when the Antichrist will officially be revealed for who he really is: when he presents himself to the world as being the Messiah in place of the real Messiah, and people are compelled to worship him as God.

Although there will surely be those who will have him pegged as the Antichrist with a high degree of certainty prior to that, it is only the abomination of desolation that will positively ID him once and for all, and it's difficult to believe that he wouldn't have already achieved global acclaim as a charismatic leader and peacemaker prior to that.

As an aside, note that two verses later Paul reminds the Thessalonians that the Antichrist cannot be revealed until the "restrainer" is taken out of the way:

The "one who restrains" can be none other than the Holy Spirit who indwells believers, and this event can be none other than the Rapture, which allows the Antichrist to be revealed. (I've heard other interpretations of this passage, but if you threw them all into a pot and boiled them down you wouldn't get a spoonful of substance.)

Notice, however, the phrase "in his own season."

This phrase almost slides by unnoticed, but it seems to make it clear that the "revealing" of the Antichrist doesn't necessarily come immediately following the Rapture, but at some point later—in his own season. Clearly, the abomination of desolation would seem to be the center of gravity for the Antichrist's "season."

This all fits together perfectly if we consider that (a) the Rapture occurs, (b) the Antichrist begins (or likely continues) his rapid rise to global power, (c) the Tribulation begins with the confirmation of a 7-year treaty with Israel, and (d) three and a half years later, the Antichrist is officially revealed as such at his coming-out party: the abomination of desolation—in his own season.

But however you choose to look at things and however things play out, I see nothing in 2 Thessalonians 2 that absolutely precludes the possibility of Barack Obama, the current president of the United States, turning out to be the man who ultimately becomes the Antichrist.

Incidentally, this is why there is no need for you to waste your time reading any websites or watching any YouTube videos that claim to prove a certain person is the Antichrist. It is only the abomination of desolation that reveals this man for who he is, and that occurs three-and-a-half years into the seven-year Tribulation—which as of May 2013 hasn't even started yet!

So chill out.

The people of the prince

Another biblical argument I have heard is that the Antichrist must come from an area that was once part of the Roman Empire, an argument that is based on the following key passage from the Book of Daniel:

"The prince who shall come" is the future Antichrist, but the people being referred to are the Roman legions who sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish temple in AD 70. Thus, the argument goes, the Antichrist must come from the revived Roman Empire prophesied by Daniel to arise in the end times.

Obama, they argue, cannot be the Antichrist because he fails this test.

This one is actually rather interesting because it has led to a lively debate over whether the Antichrist will come from Europe (the western leg of the Roman Empire) or the Middle East (the eastern leg, which outlived the western leg by a thousand years). There are also those who believe he will emerge from a coming Islamic caliphate. They point out that Obama was apparently born in Kenya, which was never part of any leg of the Roman Empire. According to historians, Roman conquest in Africa only extended slightly below the southern border of Egypt. Kenya lies nearly two thousand kilometers further south, below the horn of Africa.

Traditionally, most prophecy scholars have believed the Antichrist must come from a revived Roman Empire in Europe, since the people who destroyed the city (Jerusalem) were ostensibly the Romans. This is why the rise of the European Union has had them buzzing for years now, and any talk of a future "United States of Europe" sends them swooning.

More recently, however, some prophecy teachers have argued that the people being spoken of are actually Muslims. By AD 70, foreign conscripts made up as much as 90 to 95 percent of the Roman army, especially legions stationed in distant territories (such as Judea). Rome was straining under the burden of ruling a huge and ever expanding empire, and they just didn't have enough native Roman soldiers to go around. So, it is true that the people who actually sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple were primarily Arabs, not Romans.

Not only that, but there is documented historical evidence that those Arab conscripts destroyed the temple out of their deeply rooted hatred for the Jews, rather than in obedience to orders from their Roman commanders, who apparently had no desire to destroy such a magnificent structure.

Thus, their argument goes, the Antichrist will come from the Middle East and be a Muslim. But whether the Antichrist comes from the western leg or the eastern leg of the Roman Empire, there are advocates of both views who claim Obama fails this test because he was born in Kenya.

I see two potential difficulties with this argument, although I agree that its premise is biblically valid.

First, I would argue that one's physical place of birth is not the exclusive determining factor of one's ethnic background, and the verse in Daniel can also refer to ethnic background.

For example, I am of German and Irish ancestry, and I would still be of German and Irish ancestry even if my mother had physically given birth to me in a mud hut in Madagascar, would I not? Obama's ethnicity is 43.75 percent Arab, and his actual birthplace—wherever that may be—can't change that.

Second, so you do have definitive proof that Obama was actually born in Kenya, don't you? I mean, you do have irrefutable documented evidence that would stand up in a court of law that he was born within the borders of that particular African nation, don't you? You do have an unretouched photo of a Kenyan doctor in a Kenyan hospital slapping a little Kenyan baby named Barack Hussein Obama on his slippery little Kenyan backside, don't you?

That's what I thought.

That's just it. Just because the Hawaiian birth certificate released by the White House was proven to be as phony as a three-Kenyan-Shilling bill within a matter of hours, that doesn't prove that he was born in Kenya.

Let's face it—we don't really know for sure where he was born.

Man of mystery: The truth is we know virtually nothing about the man currently occupying the Oval Office—the background information about Obama the mainstream media has released to the public is mostly fiction.

Barack Hussein Obama could have been born on one of the moons of Jupiter for all we know as documented fact.

Jew or Gentile?

A lot of prophecy teachers are convinced that the Antichrist must be Jewish, and since Obama isn't Jewish, he cannot be the Antichrist. This argument is based on another verse in the book of Daniel:

Some translations (including the venerated King James Version) render the word as big-G "God" instead of small-g "god" or "gods" and so these people insist that this is a reference to Yahweh—the God of the Bible. The God of the Jews, that is. Many translations, including the World English Bible that I have quoted above, translate it as either "god" or "gods," which means he could in fact be a Muslim, since Allah is not the big-G God—he's nothing but a small-g god (and even that's an overstatement).

According to competent references, however, the Hebrew word used here can be translated as either "God" or "god." Most modern English translations go with "god" or "gods."

So, this argument is not definitively supported by Scripture.

Gay or straight?

Incidentally, many use the same verse to claim that the Antichrist must be a member of the LGBT community:

And since Obama is married and has two children, he obviously cannot be the Antichrist, right?

This is a good example of what can go wrong when people read a Jewish book through Gentile eyes.

A religious Jew would understand that the phrase "the desire of women" is a Hebrew idiom referring to the birth of the Messiah, and has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation. In traditional Jewish culture, it was considered "the desire of women" to be the lucky gal whom God would choose to give birth to the Messiah. So, it is far more likely that this verse is saying that the Antichrist will have no regard for the birth of a future Messiah.

Now, let's put on our thinking caps and see if we can come up with a reason why the Antichrist might feel that way. Hmm...hey, do you suppose it could have anything to do with the fact that he will claim to be that Messiah?

Ya think? After all, that's exactly what the word "Antichrist" means—one who comes in place of Christ.

Incidentally, call me a flaming heterosexual, but if this verse was intended to mean that the Antichrist would be gay, it seems to me that it would read "the desire for women." I'm just saying.

And I'm not trying to run a gossip column here, but as far as the idea that Obama is not homosexual because he is married and has kids is concerned, according to reports there are a number of people in the gay community in Chicago who knew him back in the day who would beg to differ. That's why they were so stunned when he announced he would run for president.

The far side

Some of the arguments people have offered to prove that Obama cannot be the Antichrist are just plain silly (nearly as silly as some of the arguments that claim to prove he is the Antichrist), and I simply chose to ignore them. Many stem from fanciful assumptions or misguided misinterpretations of Scripture. Still others may not necessarily be silly, but may be based on interpretations of certain things that could easily be interpreted other ways, and I just didn't feel like wasting my time and yours sorting them out.

There is one particularly silly argument, however, that I felt compelled to share because it's just too good to pass up. As we have seen, there are numerous passages of Scripture in the book of Daniel that most Bible scholars agree are references to the Antichrist, and one verse in particular seems to allude to his general appearance:

The King James reads "fierce countenance."

Fierce countenance? OK, well, maybe he hadn't had his morning coffee yet. Or maybe somebody from the mainstream media went rogue and dared to ask him a question about the mayhem in Benghazi.

I have come across at least one individual out there in cyberspace, however, who is apparently convinced that Obama can't be the Antichrist because he doesn't have a "fierce countenance."

Mmm-kay...I'll let you be the judge.

Jesus Christ—there is no substitute

My study of Bible prophecy has convinced me of one fact: God buried the details of how the prophetic scenario is going to unfold in a haystack of false leads and an ocean of red herrings.

And like most things God does, He did it as an expression of His glory:

But I am also convinced He did it for our own good. After all, God knows that if we were able to figure out and pin down end-time events with precision, it would greatly damage the Church. The resulting prophetic mania would tear the Church to pieces and do nothing but bring reproach to His holy name.

God doesn't want us to be overwhelmed by the world through fear—He wants us to overcome the world through faith.

God doesn't want us to be fixated on chemical weapons and earthquakes—He wants us to be focused on His kingdom and His righteousness.

God doesn't want us to be stymied to the point of paralysis—He wants us to strive for the prize He has set before us.

Far too many prophecy buffs knock themselves out trying to hurry God up. Relax. God will reveal to us what He wants us to know when He wants us to know it.

Red sky in the morning: The primary reason we should keep an eye on prophetic events is not so we can gain some inside knowledge to impress our friends or to win arguments with other believers—it's simply so we can know when His return is near and be assured that His Word is true.

The bottom line is that we should never let speculation over end-time events distract us from what is important: our walk with the Lord. And that brings me to the point I want to leave you with:

• Don't look for the Antichrist—look for Jesus Christ.
• Don't look for the worthless shepherd—look for the Good Shepherd.
• Don't look for the man of sin—look for the man who conquered sin.
• Don't look for the willful king or the little horn—look for the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

So, can Barack Obama be the Antichrist?

Yes he can.

I can find nothing that's absolutely bulletproof in Scripture that definitively rules him out beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Is he?

Nobody knows (and I do mean nobody). But I wouldn't bet a week's pay on it.

To tell you the truth, judging from some of his actions and from a string of intriguing little clues, I am beginning to develop a sneaking suspicion that down deep in his arrogant, self-deceived, self-aggrandizing little heart, Barack Obama may actually believe he really is the Messiah.

Of course, that does not mean he is going to turn out to be the Antichrist. If I'm right, all it does is prove how hopelessly deluded he is.

But whoever he is, the Antichrist will be absolutely nothing like Jesus Christ. They do, however, have one important thing in common:

They're both coming soon.

Greg Lauer — MAY '13

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 MAY '13 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit