Is He or Isn't He?

A few months ago, I wrote a two-part article about the Jerusalem Covenant and its (supposed) relationship to the treaty of Daniel 9:27, and in the second part I discussed the end-time expectations of the Jews, especially in terms of what they are expecting from the man they will mistakenly hail as their Messiah.

It has long been established from careful study of Scripture that this is the man who will ascend (descend?) to the role of the Antichrist, and I stressed how the Jews' expectations—as unscriptural and misguided as they may be—will play a key role in how end-time events surrounding the treaty of Daniel 9:27, the Tribulation, the rise of the Antichrist, etc. will take shape and play out.

In a section of that article entitled "Paths to the treaty" I laid out three brief, speculative scenarios that could conceivably lead to the treaty of Daniel 9:27, and in them I mentioned that the Jews' Mashiach-turned-Antichrist would probably be European (from the revived Roman Empire), and would certainly be of Jewish descent.

Naturally, the argument goes, if the Jews are going to embrace the man who will become the Antichrist as their Mashiach, (and honestly, it takes some doing to interpret Scripture any other way) he obviously must be Jewish, right? Duh. Otherwise the Jews won't so much as give him the time of day, let alone accept him as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies—no matter how many messianic boxes he ticks off.

Seriously. If you ask any Jew today if there is even a remote possibility that the Mashiach could be a Gentile, you will get an exasperated roll of the eyes...the kind of look you give some nice person who asks you a sincere but utterly moronic question and you're really trying not to be rude.

In other words, for Jews, a Gentile Messiah is beyond unthinkable.

As unthinkable as that idea is to the Jews, however, I should have done a little more thinking of my own. I was so focused on the expectations of the Jews that I didn't think it through as carefully as I should have, and fell into the same trap that legions of other students of the Bible have fallen into by leaping to the conclusion that the Antichrist must be Jewish because the Jews will accept him as their Mashiach. Makes sense, right?

Long story short:

I was wrong, and I don't think that anymore.

It's true that a few minor details here and there about the Antichrist being Jewish bugged me ever so slightly, but I remained unswayed. He has to be Jewish...otherwise the Jews will never accept him in a million years—and Jesus told us point blank they would (John 5:43).

But the question of whether the Antichrist is a Jew or a Gentile is one that I had never taken the time to study out carefully, and so I want to do what I always do when I discover I am wrong about something scriptural:

Freely admit I'm wrong, get it right, and move on.

Hence this article.

What I want to do here is go over a number of reasons why some believe the Antichrist is going to be a Jew, and some reasons why others believe he will be a Gentile. And by the time we're finished, I have a feeling you will be as convinced as I am that the Antichrist must be a Gentile.

Why A Jew?

The last two centuries have seen the rise of premillennial dispensationalism, which, among a number of other things, teaches that Christ will physically return to earth following the seven-year Tribulation to establish and rule His 1,000-year kingdom on earth. Among these are both pre-tribulational and post-tribulational adherents, and it is with the fullest measure of scriptural confidence that I count myself among the former.

Some of the men who played foundational roles in the development of premillennial dispensationalism include John Nelson Darby, William Kelly, William Blackstone, Henry Allen Ironside, C.I. Scofield, and many others. Although I'm not certain what all these men specifically thought about the ethnicity of the Antichrist (in doing some research for this article, I dug up something that clearly suggested that Darby thought the Antichrist would be a Gentile), some may well have believed the Antichrist would be a Jew.

One I am certain of, however, is Arthur W. Pink, a prominent dispensationalist of the early twentieth century who was convinced the Antichrist must be Jewish and taught extensively on the topic.

Between 1913 and 1923, Pink put together a series of lectures concerning the Antichrist and his end-time exploits, and these lectures have since been collected and published as a book entitled The Antichrist.

In one of those lectures, Pink listed seven reasons why he believed the Antichrist would be a Jew. I have searched other websites for additional reasons, but Pink's list seems to pretty well encompass the spectrum of the argument (and then some). In light of that fact, I figured the easiest thing to do is just borrow Pink's list of reasons and respond to them one by one.

So here, in the order he originally listed them, are Arthur Pink's seven reasons why the Antichrist must be a Jew, each followed by my response. Note that I have taken the liberty of briefly paraphrasing Pink's reasons except where otherwise noted.

Arguments for a Jewish Antichrist (in red), and my response:

1. In his prophecy against Israel and Jerusalem, the prophet Ezekiel refers specifically to Zedekiah, and many believe by prophetic extension the Antichrist, as the "profane wicked prince of Israel."

So the Antichrist is referred to as the "prince of Israel," and will masquerade as Messiah the Prince. Therefore, since Messiah the Prince is a Jew, so must the Antichrist be a Jew.

My response: As we shall see, this is just one variation of the same basic argument, and that argument could stated as follows:

The Antichrist will purport
to take the place of Christ.

Therefore, he must logically share
many characteristics of Christ.

Like, say, His Jewish ethnicity. OK, let's slay this dragon right now.

Yes, the Antichrist will purport to take the place of Christ. But in what sense? In the sense that he hails from Bethlehem and was born of a virgin? In the sense that he speaks in parables, and in fluent Aramaic? In the sense that he sports a robe and sandals, or has an inner circle of 12 homies that follow him around wherever he goes?

No. He will purport to take the place of Christ in a functional sense—in the sense that he will claim to be the Messiah. The Mashiach. In the sense that he will present himself as the world's savior, the Promised One. In the sense that he will display miraculous power, is here to save mankind, and as a result warrants the worship due God.

That's how he will attempt to "take the place" of Christ, and the one single, solitary point that one might tend to assume would require him to be Jewish is his acceptance by the Jews as their Mashiach.

In this particular case, when Ezekiel refers to the Antichrist as the "profane wicked prince of Israel," he just means he will be a profane, wicked man that Israel will receive as their "prince."

Q. Does he have to be Jewish for them to do that?

A. See my response to #7 below.

2. In Ezekiel 28:2–10, the Antichrist is described as the prince of Tyrus, and finally in verse 10 it says:

Well, if he is doomed to "die the deaths of the uncircumcised," that implies he ought not to suffer such a fate. And that implies this horrible punishment must be being meted out on someone who is circumcised...a Jew!

My response: This is one of Pink's weaker arguments, in my opinion. This is a prophecy against a literal Gentile (Phoenician) king who was incredibly arrogant and evil and who treated the Jews with the utmost disdain. Most commentators believe it also applies to Satan himself, and many believe by extension to his man the Antichrist. Thus, the typology is clearly flashing "Gentile...Gentile."

When Ezekiel says he will "die the deaths of the uncircumcised," however, he uses the plural to denote both temporal and eternal death, and it will be the kind of ignominious death that the uncircumcised, godless heathen deserve—suitable retribution for one who had so scorned the circumcised Jews.

So no, it doesn't suggest the Antichrist will be a Jew. On the contrary. In fact, it does more to suggest he is a Gentile.

3. The prophet Daniel says this about the Antichrist:

"The God of his fathers" is obviously a reference to the God of the Jews, and so this proves the Antichrist must be Jewish.

My response: This is one of the top arguments people use to bolster the idea that the Antichrist must be Jewish, but in reality it is a surprisingly weak argument. In fact, it does more to prove the opposite. Here's why.

It's true that the venerable King James Version renders the word used here as "God" (capitalized), and as a result many commentators over the years have leaned toward the idea that it refers the God of the Jews.

But it's far from being that simple.

For what it's worth, a cursory glance at numerous other English translations reveals that the rendering as "gods" wins hands down. Out of 28 English translations listed at BibleHub.com, only eight render it as "God" (several of those being sister versions of the KJV). This split in the English renderings between "God" and "gods" causes many commentators to throw in the towel and say it's ambiguous—that we can't be 100 percent certain which meaning is intended. Although this may be true in a strict, technical sense, and I certainly respect their opinions, I personally have become convinced that the deeper one digs into this, the less ambiguous it becomes.

The Hebrew word used here is a form of elohim, which is plural. And as you probably know, there are many cases where this word does in fact refer to the God of the Jews, as in Genesis 1:1, the very first verse of the Bible:

In verses such as Genesis 1:1, there is context that makes it thunderingly obvious that the God of the Jews is being referred to—the Creator Himself. In Daniel 11:37, however, any surrounding context that would lead one to assume it should be rendered "God" is not only lacking, but points rather strongly to the fact that it should be rendered "gods," as in heathen deities.

I'll spare you the gory details, but I will leave you with a quote from someone whose opinion on such matters I respect greatly:

Also, when Daniel refers to the "God of my fathers" elsewhere in his book and is referring to the God of Israel, he uses the singular form elah for the word "God." But he doesn't do that in this verse, and I strongly suspect there is a reason for that:

He's not referring to the God of Israel.

For example:

Of course, the context makes it drop-dead obvious he is referring to the one true God, but note that the phrase used in Hebrew is elah abahati, which literally means "the God of my fathers," where elah (God) is singular.

The bottom line is that at best this verse is ambiguous and insufficient to prove the Antichrist is a Jew. Further study, however, reveals that this is not only an exceedingly weak argument for a Jewish Antichrist, but that this verse actually does far more to show the Antichrist is not a Jew.

I just want to say one quick thing to all my KJV-Only friends (both of them). This is by no means the first time that I have seen the KJV use a rendering of a word or a phrase that goes completely against strong manuscript evidence. OK? So, repeat after me:

Inerrancy only applies to the God-breathed original,
not to man-made translations into other languages.

Including Elizabethan English, not to put too fine a point on it. The very men who translated the 1611 King James Bible state as much in the introduction to their work...which included the Apocrypha, for Pete's sake.

4. This one is fairly speculative, so rather than try to paraphrase it, I'm going to let you hear it straight from Arthur Pink:

My response: Here is the passage in question, and it comes on the heels of Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees who had come to Him asking to see a sign—or a parlor trick for their titillation (Matt. 12:38). After telling them the only sign they were going to get was the sign of Jonah (vv. 39–40), that Nineveh would rise up in judgment of their generation since the Ninevites had seen less and yet had repented (v. 41), and that the Queen of Sheba would similarly judge them since she had traveled a great distance to hear the wisdom of Solomon (v. 42), Jesus blows their hair back with a stunning prophetic pronouncement:

So...according to Pink, the unclean spirit Jesus casts out of the man in the parable could be interpreted as the Antichrist, the "house" is the house of Israel, and when the unclean spirit refers to it as "my house," this implies that the Antichrist thinks of Israel as his house, which proves he is a Jew.

Now, I don't dispute the fact that Jesus is referring to Israel here—the final words of verse 45 make that clear. But Jesus isn't prophesying about the Antichrist, He's prophesying about the damning effects that the Jews' rejection of Him will have on them as a nation.

Many Jews had heard the preaching of Jesus' cousin John the Baptist, who baptized them in water in preparation for the advent of the Messiah. But when the one who would baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire arrived, as a nation the Jews rejected Him. They had cleaned up their act, and put on an external form of righteousness. But by ultimately rejecting their true Messiah, as a nation they experienced no internal spiritual regeneration.

Israel cleaned up their house, but never invited
their Messiah in—and their house was left empty.

As a result, it wasn't long after Christ's earthly ministry that Satan's influence returned in spades and Israel soon ended up far worse off spiritually than they had been previously. They were slaughtered like cattle, their temple was destroyed, they were driven from their land and scattered all over the world, and they reinvented Judaism by adding copious amounts of teaching from copious numbers of unregenerate men to the perfect Word of a holy God.

And worse off they have remained for the last two thousand years.

That's what Jesus was talking about, and it has come to pass over the last two millennia. Thus, trying to force the end-time Antichrist to be the central figure in this passage strikes me as a split-level duplex of cards.

5. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says:

The Greek word used for "another" is allos, which means "another of the same type or kind." The Antichrist must therefore be a Jew, just like Jesus—i.e. "another of the same type," that is, Jewish.

My response: There is no clear reason to force this interpretation on this verse. Yes, Jesus said "another (of the same type or kind as me) shall come in his own name, him you will receive," but does that mean Jesus is focusing on His own ethnic Jewishness? Is that the characteristic that is uppermost in His mind at that moment? Not at all. At its root, this is just a variation of the argument used in reason #1.

It is clear that Jesus is focusing on His functional role as the Jews' promised Messiah, and the future Antichrist's effort to deceive the Jews into believing that he has come in that same role, and as a result warrants the same worship as God. I see that as Jesus' primary focus in this verse, not merely His ethnic background. And again—we could use the same line of reasoning to claim the Antichrist must mirror Christ in any number of other miscellaneous ways, which collapses into pure silliness.

6. I think I'll quote Arthur Pink on this one too, since this is yet another variation of the argument used in #1 and #5:

My response: Same old same old. The Antichrist comes in place of Christ, and so must share many of His characteristics—such as His ethnicity. See my response for reason #1. Again.

7. We can conclude from Scripture that the Jews will accept the Antichrist as their Messiah. But the Jews would never accept a Gentile as the Messiah! It's absolutely unthinkable!

My response: This is the Big Kahuna. This is the argument that towers above the rest, and in the minds of many puts a lock on the fact that the Antichrist simply must be Jewish.

It's also the one that had me convinced up until recently—I saw no way around it. The identity of the Messiah is something the Jews take extremely seriously, and they have been weeding out false messianic candidates for a couple of thousand years.

At least this argument had me convinced up until recently, when I experienced one of those exquisite scriptural "Ah ha!" moments.

To be perfectly honest, I originally intended to go into depth on this point in this article, but as it turns out there is so much to it that I can't do it justice that way. It clearly warrants a separate article. I toyed with the idea of making this another two-part article, but in the end I opted not to. The problem is that you can't always be sure where your research will take you, and if you tell people you're writing a two-part article (and you haven't written part two yet), you place yourself under pressure to deliver, regardless of what direction your research takes.

Go ahead, ask me how I know this.

So, let me just say this: It's possible that I may write an article devoted to this point sometime in the future, but I am not making any promises.

But whether I devote a full article to it or not, here is the basic argument:

I have become convinced that the Jews will remain skeptical of a Gentile being the Messiah during the first half of the Tribulation, in spite of the fact that he will facilitate the building of the Third Temple and bring them (false) peace and security. But at the abomination of desolation, Satan will stage a counterfeit "resurrection" designed to "prove" both his man's messiahship and divinity, and it will take nothing less than a strong delusion sent by God (2 Thess. 2:11–12) to hornswoggle the unbelieving majority of Jews into swallowing the Antichrist's lies.

I am convinced that the strong delusion, although it will affect unbelievers all over the world, is primarily directed at the Jews and their religious leadership, and that its primary purpose is to sway the Jewish religious leadership into leading the unbelieving majority of Israel into accepting this Gentile Antichrist as their Messiah in the wake of the events surrounding the abomination of desolation. The believing Jewish remnant won't buy it and will flee for their lives, and will be protected by God for the duration of the Great Tribulation. Meanwhile, I hate to say, the unbelieving majority of Israel, who has been deluded into accepting this Gentile impostor as their Messiah, will be destroyed by the same.

But think about it: If the Antichrist were a Jew, the Jews would have been hailing him as the Messiah from day one. Even though Jews publicly insist the Mashiach will be a mortal man, you'd be surprised how many religious Jews do talk about how the Mashiach will have marvelous, wondrous powers of various types (they just stop short of saying he's God in the flesh). In other words, the "mortal" part is not as black and white as many non-Jewish students of the Bible suppose. So after venerating this wonder-working Jewish man as their Messiah for three and a half years, getting them to worship him after his apparent resurrection would be a surprisingly small step up...small enough that the strong delusion would be quite unnecessary. And a world at large still reeling from the chaos that will ensue after the Rapture will scarcely need a strong delusion to get them to believe Satan's lies that will seem to help things make sense again.

Bottom line: If the Antichrist were a Jew, there would be little need to send a strong delusion.

So, the Jews accepting a Gentile Messiah is absolutely unthinkable?

Think again—it's not called the "strong delusion" for nothing.

Those are the bulk of the reasons why many think the Antichrist must be a Jew. Now, let's turn things around and consider some reasons why many are convinced the Antichrist must be a Gentile.

Why a Gentile

In addition to the refutations of the above seven arguments some people offer for the Antichrist being a Jew, here are four more reasons why I am convinced he must be a Gentile.

1. The beast from the sea.

Revelation 13 describes two beasts, and the first one is the Antichrist, who rises out of the sea:

Throughout Scripture, whenever the word "sea" is used figuratively, it is normally a reference to the Gentile nations of the world. Thus, if we want to maintain any degree of typological consistency, we should see this as a strong clue that the Antichrist is a Gentile.

Incidentally, the second beast is the False Prophet, who rises out of the earth:

The Greek word translated "earth" in this verse is a form of ge (earth, land, soil, country, etc.), and it is often used in reference to the land of Israel. As a result, some people use this fact to try and argue that it is in fact the False Prophet who must be Jewish, rather than the Antichrist.

I won't be dogmatic about it, but I am inclined to disagree. Yes, the word ge is used in many references to the land of Israel. But when it is used in this manner, there is normally clear context that points to Israel that makes the meaning completely clear. In other words, it's either "the land of Israel" (or some other country), or "the land" where it is clear from the context what country is being referred to. When such country-specific context is lacking, it often refers to the earth and is so translated.

Well, that's the case here. There is no trace of any context that points to Israel, or any other specific country for that matter. In this case, it's just earth. Period. And that's why extremely few translations render this as the land—virtually every translation renders it as the earth. Even though commentators have various opinions on what the intended meaning actually is, hardly any of them view this as a reference to the land of Israel (and thus a clue that the False Prophet is Jewish).

2. Check out the types.

As I'm sure you know, throughout the Old Testament there are a number of men who in some way typify, or serve as types of Christ. Their lives or roles in some event serve to prefigure some aspect of Christ's life, ministry, or work of atonement, and it is certainly the case that the most prominent among them are Jews. For example, men such as Jonah, Moses, Joshua, Isaac, Joseph, and David give us clear foreshadowings of Christ and various aspects of His life and what He would come to accomplish.

On the other hand, there are also a number of men who serve as types of the Antichrist, but the most prominent among them are Gentiles. For example:

Nimrod (Gen. 10–11). Nimrod descended from Noah's son Ham (while Abraham descended from Noah's son Shem), and he has the dubious distinction of being the first man to attempt to unite the world in rebellion against God. The Antichrist will attempt to outdo him.

Pharaoh (Exod. 3–14). Pharaoh was legendary for his persecution of the Jews, but won't hold a candle to what the Antichrist is going to do.

The Assyrian (Isa. 10:5). According to many commentators, this refers to the nation personified, rather than any one individual, literal Assyrian king. Either way, however, it's still Gentile typology of the Antichrist, as the Assyrian was the rod of God's anger that He used to judge His people. Hold that thought for the coming Antichrist.

The King of Babylon (Isa. 14:4). Although unnamed, many commentators believe this is a reference to Belshazzar (of "handwriting on the wall" fame). But whether it's Belshazzar or a generic reference to any ruler of ancient Babylon, it is certainly a reference to a cruel Gentile oppressor of the Jews, as the Antichrist will certainly be.

Nebuchadnezzar II (Dan. 3). This is the Gentile king who ruled Babylon while Daniel and his three pals Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were still getting accustomed to their new digs in Babylon.

You know the story. He's the one who made the huge statue of gold and ordered everyone to bow down to it when they heard the music. And they did—all except these three Hebrew lads who were determined to honor God no matter what.

The enraged king gave them one last chance to bow, telling them he would throw them into the furnace if they refused and tauntingly asking them what God could save them from that. They still refused, however, and told the king their God could indeed save them—and they put old Nebuchadnezzar on notice that even if He didn't, they would still honor Him even if it cost them their lives.

So, the king made the furnace seven times hotter and threw them in, expecting to make short work of these three impudent Hebrew punks. But then a stunned king saw a fourth individual in the furnace that had the appearance of the Son of God, and the three Hebrew lads were drawn out of the furnace not even smelling of smoke.

Most commentators see this Gentile king as a clear type of Antichrist, the three Hebrew boys as a type of the believing Jewish remnant, and the seven-times-hotter furnace as type of the Great Tribulation.

And you'll never guess who the Fourth Man in the Fire was.

Antiochus Epiphanes (referred to in Matt. 24:15–16 in a manner that, while cryptic to modern readers, was universally understood by Jews of the day). Antiochus Epiphanes (a Hellenistic king of the Seleucid Empire) desecrated the Jewish temple in 167 BC in a manner that foreshadowed what the Antichrist will do at the midpoint of the Tribulation at the abomination of desolation.

So, if we adhere to such biblical typology—and I'm hard-pressed to think of a reason not to, then God's Word is telling us clearly that the Antichrist is going to be a Gentile.

3. So...a Jewish leader confirms a treaty with Israel. Really?

One other reason some people believe the Antichrist must be a Gentile is the simple fact that it seems to make little sense to think that Daniel 9:27 would say that he would confirm a treaty with Israel if he were in fact Jewish. I mean, if he's Jewish, then he is part of Israel. So how...er, why would he be confirming a treaty with Israel? Huh?

That's a bit like saying senior adviser Jared Kushner confirmed a treaty with the United States.

Excuse me?! How does that work? In the opinion of some, Daniel 9:27 only makes good, clear, straightforward sense if the Antichrist is not Jewish—someone approaching Israel from the other side of the negotiating table, as it were. If he's a Jew, then the plain sense of Daniel 9:27—that he confirms a treaty with Israel (and "the many" is Israel)—seems quite strange. It simply goes against the plain sense of the text.

4. Daniel's "times of the Gentiles" includes the Tribulation.

In my honest opinion, one of the strongest arguments for a Gentile Antichrist comes from the book of Daniel.

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus speaks of the coming destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70), and what lay ahead for the Jewish capital:

The times of the Gentiles. This is a time composed of successive periods of Gentile dominion over the earth, seen as a series of four kingdoms by the prophet Daniel in two different symbolic forms in two separate prophetic dreams (Dan. 2:31–45; 7:1–8).

I won't take the time here to go into the details of these two dreams, but virtually all commentators agree that historically, these correspond to:

1. The Babylonian Empire.
2. The Medo-Persian Empire.
3. The Greek Empire.
4. The Roman Empire.

And the Roman Empire returns to the forefront in a "revived" form at the end of days. Which would be right about now.

Each of Daniel's visions ends with a reference to Christ's kingdom, so these Gentile empires have dominion over the earth one after another, all the way from the Babylonian Empire until the Second Coming, when Christ will establish His kingdom that will be without end.

The point is that the Antichrist is going to be the final leader of that revived version of the Roman Empire—the little horn mentioned in Daniel 7:8.

Note that these are Gentile kingdoms, and Gentile kingdoms tend to be led by Gentile leaders. As a rule.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but the idea of a Jew being the leader of the final Gentile kingdom prior to the Second Coming is...I may as well go ahead and say it:

It's utterly absurd.

So, insisting that the Antichrist is a Jew flies in the face of quite a bit of solid biblical scholarship.

Now, there are a few other arguments for and against—this is not meant to be exhaustive, and there are also a couple of cases that seem to cross the lines. For example, Adam is considered by some as a type of Christ, and David's son Absolom is considered by some as type of Antichrist—but Adam wasn't Jewish and Absolom was.

In the final analysis, however, I believe the arguments for a Gentile Antichrist are compelling. At least they are compelling enough to change my mind, and that's not always easy.

Just ask my wife.

Why it matters

Overall, the weakness of the arguments for the Antichrist being a Jew and the strength of the arguments for him being a Gentile are pretty compelling, in my opinion. And I believe the above points make the case about as convincingly as it needs to be made.

At the end of the day, however, one might reasonably ask:

Does it really matter?

Is this just another arcane little detail pertaining to the end-time scenario—the kind of thing Scripture wonks get in a huff over and niggle at each other about? You know, stuff like the identity of the 24 elders in the throne room scene of Revelation 4–5, or whether the battle of Gog-Magog occurs before or after the beginning of the Tribulation. Stuff like that.

Honestly, I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking so.

But consider this:

If you were totally convinced that the Antichrist absolutely had to be a Jew, and a man came on the geopolitical scene and began doing things and posturing himself in ways that virtually screamed "Antichrist!"—but he was not Jewish, what would you do?

I already know what you'd do—you'd do the same thing I would have done up until recently: You'd basically ignore him and focus on other things of prophetic significance you deemed worthier of attention.

After all, as born-again believers, we are not commanded to look for the Antichrist, and there's no special reason why we should. We are commanded to look for Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and soon coming King.

At best, the Church will only see the Antichrist
coming from a distance—and even if we do,
we may not be absolutely 100 percent certain.

That's because we won't be here to see him do the things that will peg him beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The primary thing we should be looking for is the blessed hope.

The Rapture. The only people who have saddled themselves with the task of looking for the Antichrist are those poor souls whose inability (or refusal) to rightly divide the Word has left them with a twisted, convoluted (and unscriptural) view of the end-time scenario that has the Church supposedly slogging through all or nearly all of the seven-year Tribulation. They are the ones who are obligated to scour the horizon for Mr. Six Sixty-Six, and store food and guns in the basement to prepare for the apocalypse they imagine the Church will suffer through.

Blessed hope?! For post-tribbers, the Rapture is a glorified trampoline jump that occurs in conjunction with the Second Coming, and as such is little more than an eschatological footnote. It's a non-event that scarcely warrants a wisp of concern from believers.

For post-tribbers and their pre-wrath cohorts, it's survival gear—that's the ticket. And hey, whaddya know! Luckily, there are plenty of "Anything But Pre-trib" snake oil salesmen out there peddling it.

And for many others, the Rapture is simply a lie from the pit of hell.

On the other hand:

If you were totally convinced that the Antichrist could be a Gentile, and a man came on the geopolitical scene and began doing things and posturing himself in ways that virtually screamed "Antichrist!"—and he was a Gentile, what would you do?

That attitude changes everything. Now the situation would warrant your attention, and you would follow events surrounding this man and you would examine him more carefully to see how well he fits the profile and to what extent his actions line up with what we understand the Antichrist will do according to Scripture.

My point is that even if you lean toward the Antichrist being a Jew, if you are at least open to the possibility that he may be a Gentile, then if a man comes onto the scene who is a prime candidate for the role, be he Jew or Gentile, you won't just blow him off because he doesn't fit your profile.

Think about it...if he really is the man, and he is on the scene now doing things or planning to do things that we know the Antichrist will do, it could clue us in to one glaring fact:

It can't be too much longer!

It means the Rapture is that much closer, and we can be encouraged to know that our time may be even shorter than we thought.

No, Jesus never told us to watch for the emergence of the Antichrist. That's true. But having a more accurate grasp of end-time details such as this enables us to be more fully alert—more aware of and sensitive to some of the signs of the times that are unfolding in the world around us.

Signs of the times he did tell us to watch for.

I think that's a lot better than ignoring certain people or events due to our preconceived notions about some end-time detail like "Is he or isn't he?"

After all, you are watching the signs of the times, right?

Well, are you or aren't you?

Greg Lauer — NOV '19

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 NOV '19 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit