Is the Pope the Antichrist?
http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/44/44-1/44-1-PP075-086_JETS.pdf
Throughout history the office of pope has been attacked. Among other things it has been said that "the antichrist" (assuming that there is or will be only one) will be the pope. Is there any validity to the idea? Where has this audacious idea come from?
Stephen J. Nichols has written a well thought out biblical-historical-exegetical article in the March 2001 issue of the Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, entitled, "Prophecy Makes Strange Bedfellows: On the History of Identifying the Antichrist". The essence of Nichols' arument is that bad exegesis and hermeneutics of those passages, which contain warnings of the antichrist(s), have led people to name the antichrist, or at least try to name the antichrist.
It is an unwarranted, unscholarly approach to the harder passages of the Scripture that have hurt so many people, even inside the Church. This is not to say that there have not been some very unholy popes in history, but it is to say that when we take our problems and issues into the Scripture we will come out with a warped interpretation. As Nichols points out in
2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, we ought not search to name the antichrist as much as we are to be aware of the signs that will lead to him. An attempt to name the antichrist reveals more of who we are and what we believe, than the objective reality of the Scripture text. If we have a liberal political view, then we will name President George Bush as the antichrist. If we have a strong view against Baptist, then we will name Billy Graham as the antichrist. If we have a view against big-business and industrialization, then we will name Bill Gates as the antichrist. The point is that when we demonize a person and take that issue into the Scripture without allowing the text to speak for itself we will interpret a passage far from its intended meaning, but close to our contemporary agenda.
Throughout history the office of pope has been attacked. Among other things it has been said that "the antichrist" (assuming that there is or will be only one) will be the pope. Is there any validity to the idea? Where has this audacious idea come from?
Stephen J. Nichols has written a well thought out biblical-historical-exegetical article in the March 2001 issue of the Journal of Evangelical Theological Society, entitled, "Prophecy Makes Strange Bedfellows: On the History of Identifying the Antichrist". The essence of Nichols' arument is that bad exegesis and hermeneutics of those passages, which contain warnings of the antichrist(s), have led people to name the antichrist, or at least try to name the antichrist.
It is an unwarranted, unscholarly approach to the harder passages of the Scripture that have hurt so many people, even inside the Church. This is not to say that there have not been some very unholy popes in history, but it is to say that when we take our problems and issues into the Scripture we will come out with a warped interpretation. As Nichols points out in
2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, we ought not search to name the antichrist as much as we are to be aware of the signs that will lead to him. An attempt to name the antichrist reveals more of who we are and what we believe, than the objective reality of the Scripture text. If we have a liberal political view, then we will name President George Bush as the antichrist. If we have a strong view against Baptist, then we will name Billy Graham as the antichrist. If we have a view against big-business and industrialization, then we will name Bill Gates as the antichrist. The point is that when we demonize a person and take that issue into the Scripture without allowing the text to speak for itself we will interpret a passage far from its intended meaning, but close to our contemporary agenda.
2 Comments:
Ron,
I agree. While some people take it too far in trying to determine the actual person who is or will be the Antichrist, I do think that we should be on alert, prepared, and watching for him to emerge.
I am just not sure to what level we should actually worry about him. I mean we can't stop him, can we? We can't keep him from becoming what he will become.
We should be more careful to watch for and identify antichrists (spirit) that can mislead the world. The individuals that are ruled by an antichrist spirit are far more important to us as Christians because them we can combat, and should come against in spiritual warfare.
I am not saying that we should be apathetic to the Antichrist by any means. I am simply saying that who the Antichrist isn't as important as all of the antichrist that we presently have to deal with on a daily basis.
I am more concerned with spirituality, than eschatology.
-Matt
The Pope is not the anti-Christ ,but he
will be one of the first to embrace him!
3
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog