Different evil entities? (sermon)

Ernest Hepnar via Facebook

April 25 2004

Another excellent sermon from Michael Phillips and Grace Baptist Church. I appreciate the scholarship in preaching. I appreciate his humility.

I am going to limit my comments in regard to this complex subject to just as aspect of the sermon.

This article has new content and edited content from archives (unapologetically!).

Cited

Men possessed by the spirit of Antichrist don't know the truth and wouldn't preach it if they did. But what about God-fearing men? Why have they gotten it so wrong so long? I can tell you why. They confuse words that sound alike with ideas that are alike.

If the Antichrist is the enemy of God and the Man of Sin is the enemy of God and the Beast is the enemy of God and the False Prophet is the enemy of God and the Little Horn is the enemy of God then.the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Little Horn are all the same man!

Wrong! 

Who killed the Lord? Pontius Pilate, King Herod, Caiaphas, Annas, Judas Iscariot, the Roman soldiers, the Centurion, and the mob. Are Judas and Pilate the same man? Is Herod another name for Annas? They were all enemies of the Lord, but they were different persons. 

A concordance is like the law, "Good, if it is used lawfully". But comparing a word in Revelation to a word in Daniel to a word in Matthew to a word in I John is no way to study the Bible or to find the truth! 

Read the Bible in context, get the flow of thought, understand one passage before you go on to another. That's the way to keep your doctrine straight and your heart in the truth.
---

Interesting perspective, perhaps on preterist lines on some points. By the Pastor's take, the Antichrist, is not the Man of Sin, and yet again the Beast, False Prophet and Little Horn are all different persons.

(The Beast and False Prophet have often been distinguished in scholarship).

I am by no means dismissing this theology. It is reasonable theology, however, a trillion dollar question arises for me. If these persons, after separating the Beast from the False Prophet, are not the Antichrist, then who are they?

Robert Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. Mounce (1990: 42).

Strong lists the Antichrist four times from the New Testament, and the term Antichrists once. The references are from First and Second John. Phillips' sermon too ties these terms to John's within his letters.

Strong's number 473 is noted as ἀντί, and therefore is anti, anglicised. Strong (1986: 13). The number 5547 is χριστός, which is Christ, which Strong's states is from 5548 which means the anointed, the Messiah, an epithet of Jesus. Strong (1986: 106). The beast from Revelation 11: 7 onward is figuratively described as θηρίον.

Robert Mounce is a well-known scholar on the Book of Revelation. In contrast to a preterist position, he embraces at least aspects of a futurist position. In Revelation, the Antichrist is the beast and the enemy of the Church in the last days. Mounce states that this may be the beast of Daniel 7: 7. Mounce (1990: 225).

Notice he states, 'may'.

David A. Hubbard writes that the term 'antichrist' is found only in the Johannine letters. Again in support of Phillips' sermon.

The concept is found in both Testaments and in intertestamental writings. Hubbard (1996: 55). Hubbard explains as Christ is not fully revealed in the Old Testament, the Antichrist is not either.

Hubbard notes that in Daniel 7 the little horn symbolizes rebellion, and in eschatological terms seems to depict the defeat of God's final enemy, while Daniel 8 describes Antiochus IV who persecuted the Jews and their religion. Hubbard (1996: 55). The description of the king of the north in Daniel 11 has helped shape the picture of the New Testament Antichrist, as he erected the abomination of desolation, exalted himself to a position of deity, and his helpless death points to Christ's slaying of the Antichrist.

The beast from the sea in Revelation 13 points toward Daniel 7 and ties Daniel to the New Testament. Hubbard (1996: 55). In the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the abomination of desolation recalls Daniel's prophecy and this may be pointing to a single personality according to Hubbard. Hubbard (1996: 55).

Again, note the term 'may'.

In Second Thessalonians, Paul describes the man of lawlessness and the lawless one (Second Thessalonians 2:3, 8-9). This man claims to be deity and according to Hubbard is not a pseudo-Messiah pretending to represent God, but a pseudo-God that viciously opposes all other religions. Hubbard (1996: 56).

(The man of sin)

The Antichrist will do many amazing wonders with satanic power that will be attributed to God (Second Thessalonians 2: 9-10 and Matthew 24). Hubbard reasons that John, like Paul and Daniel, depicts a single Antichrist who demands personal worship. Hubbard (1996: 56).

So, this is in contrast to the sermon, reviewed.

John adds to Paul's version by mentioning the false prophet, the second beast. This person will direct the political and religious workings of the Antichrist. Hubbard (1996: 56). If the Antichrist is a system as opposed to an actual person, the second beast, the false prophet, could also be an aspect of the system.

Mounce writes that the beast has ten horns and seven heads. The ten horns are like Daniel's fourth beast from Daniel 7: 7. Ten kings come from the fourth kingdom. The seven heads can be connected to the seven-headed dragon of Revelation 12: 3. The number seven carries the idea of completeness. Mounce (1990: 250). The beast is given divine permission to rule for forty-two months. Mounce (1990: 254). The beast blasphemes God in a way similar to Antiochus in Daniel's day, and the Roman Empire in John's day. This means the Antichrist is likely a secular authority. Mounce (1990: 254).

The beast will overcome the saints and put them to death, and this too will echo the times of both Antiochus and the later Roman Empire. Mounce (1990: 255). But, as Mounce points out, there is victory in martyrdom for Christians in this era. Mounce explains that the entire world will worship this beast, apart from those written in the Lamb's book of life and the beast will be a type of false Christ described in Matthew 24. Mounce (1990: 255). So, on this last point he appears to differ from Hubbard. To demonstrate how careful one should be in dealing with eschatology and the issue of the Antichrist, consider the following:

Mounce notes that the preterist position understands the apocalypse from a first-century setting. The events and book of Revelation are not relegated to the future, but are understood to have occurred by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Mounce (1990: 41).

Mounce explains that a major problem with this preterism is that the decisive victory over evil described in Revelation is not achieved. John views the overthrow of evil occurring with the defeat of Antichrist. Mounce (1990: 42).

The futurist view is more common among scholars and understands that Revelation describes a final victory over evil. Phillips acknowledges this in his sermon. Some scholars regard everything after Revelation 4:1 as taking place in the future. But, Mounce sees this as problematic as the book still needs to be relevant for the first-century reader. Mounce (1990: 42). Mounce reasons that no single approach is sufficient.

The preterist is correct that the book of Revelation must be understood in a first-century context.

The futurist is correct that the book is centrally eschatological describing how this age will come to an end. Mounce (1990: 44). Mounce also explains the value of the historist approach which sees the importance of specific fulfilment in history. A problem which this view is that it is quite subjective in connecting certain historical events to Scripture. Mounce (1990: 42). The benefits of the idealistic approach are that God can be seen as guiding the events. But, Mounce notes that the idealistic approach may lack a distinct consummation of events. Mounce (1990: 43). Its allegorical method tends to lessen the historical nature of future events. Mounce (1990: 43).

W.R.F. Browning writes that the lawless one is expected before the Second Coming of Christ and has been identified with the Roman Empire and Nero. Beyond the historical dimension, Antichrist is a symbol for a final revolt against Christ, although the revolt is embodied in a historical person such as Judas Iscariot. Browning (1997: 17). By the use of Judas, I reason Browning means that the Antichrist will act as a representative of God and Christ, but in reality represents satanic powers. 

Further:

2 Thessalonians 2: 7-12...

New American Standard Bible

7 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. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; 9 that is, the one whose [g]coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and [h]signs and false wonders, 10 and with [i]all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God [j]will send upon them [k]a deluding influence so that they will believe [l]what is false, 12 in order that they all may be [m]judged who did not believe the truth, but [n]took pleasure in wickedness.

f 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Or presence
g 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or presence
h 2 Thessalonians 2:9 Or attesting miracles
i 2 Thessalonians 2:10 Or every deception
j 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit is sending
k 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Lit an activity of error
l 2 Thessalonians 2:11 Or the lie
m 2 Thessalonians 2:12 Or condemned
n 2 Thessalonians 2:12

Or approved I take it this event, the second coming of Jesus Christ, should be interpreted with a significant level of literalness. However, I admit that the Lord slaying the lawless one with the breath of His mouth is quite possibly significantly figurative language. But the second coming of Christ is a literal, biblical and theological event of the future.

In my mind, the potentially figurative nature of Christ's breath and the slaying of the opposition does not cancel out the literalness of the second advent. Actual (non-fiction, non-mythological) historical events can be described with degrees of literal and figurative language. Jesus Christ literally destroys the lawless one at this point, in some context to do with breath from his mouth. Possibly, it may also be quite literal language, as Jesus Christ as the God-man would be quite capable of destroying an opponent that way.

Regardless, it does not appear this event occurred in the New Testament era.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

HUBBARD, DAVID A.(1996) ‘Antichrist’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.