A Letter to the Vision-Driven Church, Part II

Continuing our look at Christ's Message to the Church at Thyatira, the vision-driven church...

Some interpreters of the Revelation suggest that Jezebel was the wife of the vision caster in Thyratira. Even though there are a few linguistic reasons for such an interpretation, I find none of them convincing in the least. Primarily (as I've written elsewhere), the angels to whom these letters are written are not pastors, prophets, vision casters, or even humans--they are angels as is consistent with the use of the term throughout the Apocalypse. Pastors and bishops are never called angels (or messengers) in the NT, and it would be a novel application of the term to use it as such in these messages to the seven churches.

Furthermore, since the same Koine word means "wife" and "woman", it is not necessary to interpret the reference to Jezebel ("that woman") as "your wife", even if an extra pronoun (your, second person, singular) is attested in some minority manuscripts. She is female, she may be married, but there is no way she is married to an angel! The bottom line: there is nothing compelling about such an interpretation, and much that militates against it.

Christ gives this self-styled prophetess time to repent of teaching and misleading Christians in Thyatira to commit sexual immorality and participate in idolatry. Of course, in that time she actually has an opportunity to lead more astray, although time granted for the one leading others astray is also time granted for those being led astray to come to their senses and repent. If they don't, they'll go down with her because followers never shed their responsibility for following what they follow. The Antichrist may be thrown into the fire first, but those who follow him get thrown in just the same afterward.

Striking her children dead is a shocking threat, not really unique in biblical revelation, but appalling to our modern sensibilities all the same. Whatever else that says about God, it certainly undermines any notion that he is the touchy-feely type that loves everyone unconditionally. God is love, but he does with people as he sees fit, and who is there that can argue with him about it or question his judgment? History has an ample record of bracing catastrophe, e.g. the Black Death (~1340's), the Shaanxi Earthquake (1556), the Spanish Flu (1918), the Boxing Day Tsunami (2004), and the Haitian Earthquake (2010), which should convince any of us that it is a fearful thing to be in the hand of a God who can suddenly bring us into judgment.

If one sees the name Jezebel as a merely figurative assignation, (i.e. there was not a woman actually named Jezebel in Thyatira), then I would think it was permissible to see her children along the same figurative line. In that case, the children would be her second layer or level of followers rather than actual biological offspring. Those she commits adultery with would be the first layer, those that are won to her way as a result of the first layer would be the children. All three (her, her first followers, and the followers of followers) are justifiably threatened with judgment, for none are innocent.

When God strikes in judgment, it is meant to get our attention, but does he do so just because he desires to demonstrate his wrath? I think that the answer to that question must be both yes and no. No, in that he didn't desire it within himself as if wrath were an attribute of his nature; yes, in that given rebellion, he does desire to respond to it with wrath. Apart from creatures rebelling, there would be no need for, nor any expression of wrath--God is not innately wrathful. He doesn't have to, and hasn't fixed the game just so he has an opportunity to hurt someone and break things, but when it comes to unrepented of rebellion, God wants folk to know what reaction to expect from him.

So never read the wrong message into his patient forebearance--God searches the mind and heart, with absolute transparency. And what he knows in secret, he'll make known in judgment seen by all.

A Letter to the Vision-Driven Church, Part I

‘I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate...       Revelation 2:19-20a  NASB

In his message to the church at Thyatira, Jesus pinpoints trouble in a church that seemed to know where it was going. Look at his description: notable deeds, love and faith, service, perseverance, and a trajectory in mission that resulted in latter deeds being greater than former ones. I think any of us looking at that description would say, "What a great church, now that's the way to do it!." Particularly, in today's business and marketing laden approach to church planting, church management and growth, those qualities would seem to be the core of producing the right kind of success.

Now please don't misunderstand what I'm saying, those were great characteristics. This church was relational, it was engaged and moving, they were focused. They knew what they were trying to accomplish, and they were getting after it. But as important as these considerations are, what cannot be overlooked is that they were not allowed by Christ to be substituted for proper teaching and upright behavior.

The message to Thyatira that perhaps today's church needs to clearly hear is that passe things like doctrine and discipline really do matter, at least to God. I fear that under the current church-growth regimens so widely practiced by congregations swallowing up whole the population of church-goers, discipline never rises past the level of showing the door to anyone who doesn't quite buy the leader's vision. Doctrine isn't anything more than the joyous knowledge that as long as you fit the profile the church is trying to attract and submit to that leader's vision, God loves you.

It is not enough to have a vision that drives your church. It is not enough to know one's mission and to dedicatedly pursue it. Even if one is successful in that aspect of church life, Christ may find significant and disastrous fault with such a church. Church discipline is a key aspect of church life as Christ would have it. False prophets, false teaching, immoral practices all have to be addressed via discipline. Talk about turning today's wisdom on its head--vision, evidently, is not a suitable vector for close-mindedness in church according to Christ, but doctrine is.

Her Name Rings A Jezebel

"...you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols."    Revelation 2:20 NASB 

Jezebel called herself a prophetess and unrepentantly led Christians in Thyatira into license. Exactly who was she? I doubt there was a person in Thyatira actually named "Jezebel" at the time of the writing of the Apocalypse, but I do think there was an actual person in Thyatira around that time who was symbolically designated by the reference but was otherwise unnamed. What I feel quite certain about is that whoever was referred to by the name was not a "spirit" or a demon. It's not that I don't think that a demonic spirit could have been behind the activity mentioned, it's just that it's not at all discernible from the text if it is. It's better not to make such a claim.

The name itself hearkens back to some of the dark days of the northern kingdom of Israel during the era of the divided kingdom. In a politically expedient marriage, Ahab, an Israelite king, married the heathen daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Sidonians. Her name was Jezebel. She was willful, a dedicated pagan, and in utter opposition to God and his prophets. Elijah, the one prophesied to reappear in the end of the age, was driven to despair and into hiding by her focused effort to undermine what he said and to kill him.

Whoever the actual person referred to by Christ may have been, the qualities which make her a symbol for all who followed are that she was: 1) a woman, 2) who wanted those in the believing community around her to embrace practices foreign to true religion, and 3) who resisted all correction from legitimate spiritual leadership. Furthermore, this self-appointed authority was associated with teaching the "deep things of Satan." Christians never need delve deeper into the things of Satan than realizing he's on the prowl seeking someone to devour. Learning his secrets is not the means of overcoming him, rather getting deeper into the things clearly, openly revealed in Christ is.

My experience over the last 30 years leads me to doubt any claim to "deep things" from contemporary prophetic figures, so when I hear the phrase used by teachers today, my mind translates it into: "reading into the text something completely alien to it". I do not doubt the Jezebel referenced by John the Revelator would have foisted her teaching in a similar vein. In fact, since I see these letters as prophetically representative and therefore in force for types of the local church as it exists in various places at various times, I would expect that at any given time some local church would be dealing with such a figure in their midst. If and when that happens, even though the false prophetess' name may not, her way most certainly should ring a Jezebel.

A Letter to the Tolerant Church

Throughout time, churches in various places find themselves in the midst of a society which labels as acceptable, or even good, that which the church should clearly see and forthrightly eschew as evil. The pressure to affirm the practice of the broader, surrounding culture can be immense at those times. In such places and times there will be those Christians who endeavor to hold the core of the faith, even while compromising to some degree on what they'll call tangentials. That may not seem unreasonable, but what happens when reasoned compromisers lose sight of who actually holds the straight edge?

In his message to the Church in Pergamum, Christ takes to task a church that was trying to stay true to the fundamentals of the faith while compromising on the practice of morality. It appears, according to Christ, true, obedient Christianity is not maintaining historic, biblical Christology while softening stands on sexuality and idolatry. This seems to me a letter rife with application to the church today. I think we, in the Western world in particular, need to see the line Christ drew regarding these "tangentials"--there is a lot at risk!

It is possible for one to say the right things about who Christ is and what he has done, even to the point of martyrdom, but if one is soft on sexual license or the fixations and substitutions which are idolatry, that one has failed Christ. What a bracing thought! The cost of such failure is being being treated as an enemy of Christ, at war with him and subject to the judgment of his word. The benefit of repentance and success is being treated to a special intimacy with Christ, something shared with Christ that is the victors' alone.

That should be an easy choice, but never undersell the flesh's power to cloud our moral vision, even when the risk is huge!

Never Be Ashamed of God's Testimony

Christianity is predicated upon the belief that a dead guy rose, unaided, from the dead on the third day after buying the farm. That is the most ridiculous, patently absurd, demonstrably false (the dead have never risen unaided, before or since) event ever to have supposedly occurred in history. And yet myself, and every other true Christian who has ever lived believe it to be absolute truth--historically, physically, bodily. I cannot wrap my mind around people buying into this basic fundamental of Christianity, but then balking at some of the surrounding issues or other repercussions of the faith.

For instance: why would someone actually believe in Christ, but then balk at the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures? Jesus, the one whom they believe rose from the dead and then ascended to the height of all power, believed the Old Testament lock, stock and barrel. If one is basing their confidence in life and in life hereafter on the more than unlikely occurrence of this credulous guy rising from the dead, why so much as blink at inerrancy? To believe in the former while not believing the latter seems, minimally, inconsistent.

The same can be said concerning creation and evolution. Jesus believed in Adam and Eve and Noah's flood (and for that matter, Jonah's fish)--he cited their occurrences as factual back-up in his public disputations and teachings. How can one embrace the outrageousness of the gospel, but then hedge when it comes to instantaneous creation of kinds and Noah's flood (or any of the supernatural interventions of the Old Testament)? I truly cannot apprehend someone believing in Christ for salvation and simultaneously believing in evolution. It's a case of trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

What motivates those who believe in Christ but hesitate at believing in what Christ believed? Perhaps they bow down at the altar of their own intellects, all too willing to cede authority to human reasoning rather than Jesus' testimony. Maybe they would be embarrassed to believe such things and are unwilling to be thought a fool for Christ. It could be that they are merely ashamed of Christ before men. Regardless, what they need to remember is that Christ's resurrection is true or false with no shades of color in between, and if you're in it for a penny, you're in for a pound.

Come on, pick a side, make up your mind. It's not rocket science that gets anyone to eternal bliss in the hereafter with God, but Christ. You who believe in Christ, stop catering to the unbelieving and to your natural mind. The only good side that anyone needs to be on is the good side of Christ! He who is not with him is against him, so go "all in" for Jesus and stop hedging your bets. Never be ashamed of God's testimony.

Who Did Jesus Die For?

As in almost anything that observers look upon, one observer can see a thing from a different angle or direction than can another. The two may describe a thing in terms virtually opposite of each other, and yet both be correct, and I would add, objective. Only a view that captures more angles, including those observers', would be more accurate. This is certainly true about our title question.

Calvinists assert that Jesus died only for those that were unconditionally selected to be saved. To say that there is even a hint of truth in such a perspective seems to fly in the face of the scriptures which universally assert that Christ died for everyone. Not everyone gets saved, however, which leads one to question in what way did he actually die for all when only some are benefited. Certainly, there is no doubt that he died for those who are benefited.

From one perspective, looking at efficacy, there is no argument--Jesus death was for some and not for others. From eternity looking back on time, such an assessment would seem to meet the facts as they will be: the repercussions of his death and resurrection will affect some, but not others. To look at that reality from that perspective and say Jesus died for the benefited is a spin that one could technically make and be accurate as far as it goes.

The problem with this view arises when the horizon on the subject is stretched to include intent. Since intent in this regard involves the counsels of God, humans can only know what God tells us about his intent. We cannot figure out the mind of God in this regard, nor infer what our reason tells us he must have been thinking. That is error prone when done between humans, it is idolatry when done concerning God.

God has spoken concerning his intent in offering Christ as the atoning sacrifice for humanity's sin, and has done so conclusively. Christ died as a bonafide sacrifice for all. Whosoever will may lay their sin stained hand upon the head of the scapegoat and tap into its benefits. That anyone who does so requires the intervention of God to do so does not mitigate or limit the expansive intent of the offer, anymore than does the outcome. Jesus is the savior of all men, but especially for those who believe and are benefited.

The Necessity of Spiritual Encounter

The pattern of scripture is not that men choose God but that men are encountered by God and a relationship ensues. Pelagic theologies frame man's capacity as something capable of initiating a relationship with God, but I think the scriptures are clear that man would never bother with God if God didn't intervene. It's not that we cannot come to an unaided conclusion that God exists or even comprehend his attributes, but in the gap between knowing about someone and knowing him personally, mankind can do none other than chiseling that data to our own liking (idolatry). God, the infinite and transcendent, is never subject to our powers of drawing him out.

Folk bent on discovering God, or knowing the Great Truth--Buddha, Lao-Tzu, or Plato for instance--do not find God the Creator, nor the Son who conquered death. They merely rearrange the particulars of projections of humanity and/or human reasoning. God as he is, God the only all-wise, the self-existent, the maker of heaven and earth, he who sees the end from the beginning, the one who talks, they do not find. Humans cannot find God, he must "find" them.

There is the scriptural command to seek God with one's whole heart with the promise of finding him as a result. However, just a modicum of thought will recognize that it was the word from God to seek and find that was itself the initiator of process in the first place. God "saying" something is how it always begins. God must show up in the places we can perceive (but not necessarily see) and poke us, shake us, call us or we remain apart. If one is ever to truly know God as he truly is, a spiritual encounter initiated by him is absolutely necessary.

What Happens After We Die: Final Thoughts

I think the scriptures are reasonably clear about what happens when people die. The body turns back to dust in death and the soul departs to one of two places. For the believer (or the immature child of a believer) the soul is ushered into the presence of God, where he or she stays until the Rapture. For the unbeliever, their soul is placed into Sheol (in Greek, Hades), under some duress (if the story of the rich man and Lazarus was intended to describe the afterlife factually).

At the end of time God will raise all the dead who had not been raised up to that point. Everyone of them, soul reunited with body, will be brought before God's judgment bench for final disposition. Those written in the Lamb's Book of Life are taken into eternity with Christ, those that are not are judged by their works and thrown into the appropriately heated place in the Lake of Fire. The conditions of all parties is final and eternal.

We cannot be essentially destroyed; we cannot have our wills co-opted and still be what God made us to be; the unrepentant among us cannot be allowed to roam free. What can be done with the likes of man after death and for eternity? Those that repent and embrace Christ can be cleansed and remade and then freed to live in agreement with God. Those that do not repent must be locked forever into an environment that will keep them from expressing their sinfulness.

Annihilation is clearly unscriptural; universalism is as well; inclusivism is and isn't at the same time. For the incapable children of believers, inclusivism is absolutely true. For the incapable among unbelievers there is some reason to be optimistic that it might be true. For what I'll call "noble savage inclusivism," the doctrine can only betray the semi-pelagianism of the one promulgating it, and it is patently untrue.

When we get to eternity, I am sure there will be surprises concerning who made it and who did not. There is no reason not to think that we will find the odd unknown walking the golden streets, who far from the climes of the Levant, was visited by God (like Abram), repented and put trust in him as a result. While I'm satisfied admitting my necessary ignorance in the matter and leaving it to the judge of all the earth to do right, I am certain that there will be no post-mortem grace, nor will any idolater see the kingdom of heaven.

Grace at the Bottom of the Well

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound... yeah, but do we understand the sound? What is grace anyhow?

We can believe it's divine assistance, a helping hand from God. I can't do this by myself, but by God's grace I can, it's my vitamin G!

We can believe it's divine amnesia, the sea of holy forgetfulness. When we aren't doing too well obeying God, we have an elven cape woven of grace that conceals us from a watching eye-- like a big cardboard cut out of Jesus to hide behind when we go into the holy of holies.

We can believe it's divine artifice, a trick of God that outsmarted the Devil, who never saw it coming. Presto, chango, the sinner is now a saint! What accusation can hold up against that? The evidence disappears as fast as the charge is made before the God who judges the heart.

I don't know if it's truly possible to understand grace with words alone. It's a something in the heart of God, whom words are not adequate to describe. Attempting to define or describe the heart of God will always leave us wanting.

Experience may be the best teacher in this matter. I don't think we understand grace until we have grasped it in desperate hands and dangled over the depths upon it; until we have exhausted all our efforts at depending on ourselves and still haven't found ourselves delivered into the lap of God.

Like one trapped alone at the bottom of a slippery well with nothing but one's self, one's wits, and in the end, no hope whatsoever, so are we before God. Exhausted and utterly hopeless we can do nothing but accept our fate. At that place, the tap on our heads, reveals a rope lowered from the nail scarred hand of a Savior. Grace is what we discover at the bottom of the well.

The Antichrist: From Head Wound to Armageddon

The Rise and Fall of the Antichrist Part III

Will the Antichrist usher in and reap the benefits of an era of peace, security and unity unknown previously upon the face of planet earth? Although such a case could be made using some passages of the scripture, that's not quite the whole picture the Bible paints. Though the Antichrist may be a mesmerizing messianic figure to the world, ultimately, it's his use of the big stick that gets things done. The question the world asks that elicits its acquiescence is not about his program for peace, nor his prowess in the supernatural, it's his ruthlessness in war.

Because of the head wound passage (and this one), it is often supposed that the Antichrist suffers an assassination attempt and recovers in a seemingly miraculous way--a pseudo-resurrection of sorts. That interpretation is wrong because it mixes metaphors and thereby misses the point. The heads of the beast, its horns and its crowns do not refer to the physical person of the Antichrist but to the nations or kingdoms that make up his empire. A wound to one of the heads of the beast, therefore, is not a physical wound to the Antichrist's person, but the loss of political control over one of the kingdoms in his empire. 

My reading of Daniel and Ezekiel tells me that the wound will be a rebellion of the King of the South (Egypt). It is put down with such a ruthless, callous, cunning, and an overwhelming display of willfulness and power that whatever independent spirit might have remained in the Gentile world at that time evaporates. "Who is able to wage war with him?" they'll ask themselves acquiescently. The Antichrist will then be poised to expand his hegemony from the Middle East to the world, though he'll need a friend to do so.

Jay Leno learned a valuable lesson shortly after taking the reigns of the Tonight Show. When one is in the limelight, it can be very helpful to have a sidekick (a foil that makes the big dog look good). He hadn't planned for that when he took over for Johnny Carson, and Branford Marsalis wasn't willing to play that gig. Enter Kevin Eubanks who was willing, and voila, his rise into the spotlight.

For the Antichrist, that person is the False Prophet. He will provide a sense of spiritual legitimacy, backed up by signs and wonders, for the Antichrist's claims of divinity. He's the foil that makes the Antichrist look good and the lieutenant that advances and executes the spiritual component of the Antichrist's agenda. The need for such a figure is puzzling given the description of the Antichrist. 

Nonetheless, there he is, prophesied in intriguing detail, the third beast of the Apocalypse's unholy trinity. Is this figure identifiable before he actually appears? Yes, he is! We're told that he's like a lamb with two horns, but he speaks like a dragon (devil). Furthermore, we have the cryptic description of the Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17-18. She rides upon the seven-headed, ten-horned beast and she dwells in the city on seven hills.

What do these things this tell us? Believe it or not, that there is a connection between the False Prophet and the Whore. 

The False Prophet has the appearance of being of Christ (like a lamb); he has two horns, that is, power centers associated with him; and though he looked like a lamb, he did the bidding of and spoke for the Devil, not for Christ. The Whore is a mother figure but not wholesome; she dwells in Rome, the city on seven hills; she commerced with the kings and merchants of the world; she was fabulously rich, global in reach, multi-cultural; and she spread her idolatry (adultery) through a goblet of wine. It's hard not to see the writing on the wall!

The Whore ultimately represents the Catholic Church. The Mother Church which worships the "Mother of God" is actually the Mother-of-All-Harlotries. Although she was useful to the Beast and the Ten Horns in deceiving the world prior to their advent, and they did partner with her for a time (her riding), they actually hate her and want to destroy her. Understandable, I would say, for a Muslim tyrant ruling over a Muslim dominated empire. God's call to all true believers that happen to be in her at the end of days-- "Come out of her," lest you share her sins and the plagues of judgment upon those sins.

On an interesting side-note: both Rome and Constantinople are known as "the City on Seven Hills."

The False Prophet is the Pope at the time of the Antichrist's ascension to power. The lamb-like appearance with those horns representing his ancient Roman and Orthodox loci of power are a dead giveaway. His attachment to the Whore is not so much as mentioned-- so much for his faith-- as would become the chief promoter and spokesman for the Antichrist. This Pope will actually possess some dark, spiritual powers, unlike his ancient predecessors, who were merely performers. Evil signs and wonders, even the release of demonic hordes at his hand are the result.

Three and a half years into the treaty period, probably just prior to the Temple's dedication, the Beast will reverse course in two ways: 1) he will break his treaty with Israel, make war against them, and confiscate and defile the new temple; and 2) his nominal support of Allah will fall by the wayside altogether as he will declare himself god above all that is called God instead. With the assistance of the False Prophet, he will require everyone in the world to acknowledge his divinity by taking a mark on the right hand or upon the forehead.

Wonder where he got that idea?

This mark will not be coercive, despite the fact that no one can buy, sell or trade without it. The combination of the Antichrist's forceful will, the deceptive signs and wonders done at his bidding, and the strong delusional influence sent by God upon the Gentiles of that day will result in a ready capitulation by the masses. They will gladly take the mark, and it will seem the right and good thing to do. They would actually feel indignation toward any who would not! The mark, however, spells their doom.

Not so with the Jews. Under the ministry of Enoch and Elijah, and the 144,000 in the first 3 1/2 years of the pact, the Jews will embrace Christ en masse and resist taking the mark. Many of them will be imprisoned and some of them will be beheaded for doing so. Though tragic in human terms, it leads to glory in divine ones--  for Christ will raise them up when he returns, the last remnants of the First Resurrection, all participants of which will never die again.

Near the end of the 7 year treaty period, the armies of the nations will be mustered together in northern Israel to do battle against the anticipated invasion of Christ and his army of saints. When the sixth angel empties his vial of wrath upon the Euphrates River at that time, it will set in motion the events we call Armageddon. The river will dry up allowing the armies of the east to cross over it unhindered. Where will those armies be heading? Ultimately to the mount of Megiddo (Har Megiddo) in north-central Israel.

I don't think it is absolutely necessary to envision this as the armies of China and/or India, but it sure is possible, even if not specifically indicated by scripture.

According to Daniel, the Antichrist will find the initial news of these armies stirring alarming. He immediately puts the spin machine into gear and gets out in front of it. Whatever rogue quality these movements may have had at first will be transformed by spiritual deception into a patriotic effort which supports the mission of the Antichrist. Israel, as in the time of Hitler, will be made the fall guy, but I think the key to turning the situation around for the Antichrist may be convincing the world that an alien invasion targeted at Jerusalem is afoot.

Of course, it won't be aliens invading, it'll be Jesus Christ and his church  returning! On a rise, somewhere in the Jezreel Valley near Megiddo, the armies flying the banner of the Antichrist will be utterly destroyed. The Antichrist and False Prophet will be caught alive and thrown immediately into the Lake of Fire which burns forever. The Devil will be shackled and thrown into the Abyss, and Jesus and those who have believed in him will begin to rule here on planet Earth for a thousand years. 

Though the Devil has tried to accomplish the Antichrist scheme for so long, when he finally succeeds, he'll falter rather quickly and end up going out with a whimper rather than a bang. 

To all of which I say, Maranatha!

Index to the Entire Series
I, II, III

The Antichrist: A Muslim in a Muslim World

The Rise and Fall of the Antichrist: Part II

Since the Antichrist's kingdom is typified by the King of the North (the Seleucid Kingdom) and his empire is bounded by the area controlled by both Alexander and the Romans, we can make some fairly certain statements about what will and what will not be part of the Ten Horns. Western Europe is out, entirely-- not England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany... you get the picture. The ten horns will be in the Levant, the Balkans and Africa and nowhere else.

The specificity of a revived Kingdom of the North ensures that Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon will absolutely be included. Jordan and Saudi Arabia (Ammon, Moab and Edom) are specifically excluded in the biblical text, whereas Egypt, Libya and the Sudan (Cush) are specifically included. That leaves three others which would have to come from the Balkans (i.e. Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, or Albania) or Azerbaijan. Israel is not one of the ten, it merely signs a covenant with their leader, the Antichrist.

Daniel's prophecy has to be taken as locating this covenant in time with the ultimate abominator as opposed to the type of the abominator (Antiochus) or with the Romans. Additionally, the destruction of the city and the temple can only refer to the events of 70 AD and not with anything done by Antiochus. Furthermore, Jesus mentioned the abomination in question as yet to come, not as fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes, despite having been fully aware of that history. Because the events of 70 AD do not even remotely resemble what Daniel prophesied concerning this covenant, the actual fulfillment of it has to be reserved to a time after 70 AD by the actual Antichrist.

We have not considered the potential of Palestine being one of the ten nor the producer of the Antichrist, because Palestine is not a biblically legitimate entity. Even though the area had a large Gentile population in the days of Antiochus, and though there are efforts afoot to incorporate an Arab state in the Beautiful Land today, Canaan is Israel's, given once and for all time to her by God. The land of Israel is being restored to the people of Israel in these last days along with Jerusalem their eternal capital.

The notion of Palestine is a wisp of fancy from unredeemed minds that God will never allow to stand now that he's brought the Jews back to their promised land.

The Antichrist will worship a god unknown in Daniel's day. That is the implication of the descriptive phrases used by Daniel-- not the god of his fathers, not the one desired of women, a militaristic god unknown to his fathers, a foreign god. Whenever something is described prophetically that will only exist in the far future, it tends be a bit weird, hence the cryptic language. It is an important, identifying characteristic, nonetheless, or it would not have been mentioned from so many angles.

Let me ask you, "What new god has arisen since the days of Daniel, that is totally outside the bounds of previously existing pagan pantheons and is militaristic? A god of fortresses (literally, strongholds), who assists his followers in overcoming the mightiest of citadels? In my mind, this is a perfect description of the jihadist god of Islam, Allah, and really, nothing else. So, the Antichrist will be a Muslim, at least when he reaches power. Considering his locale and his international ambitions (one third of the current world population is Muslim).

Of course, he could only at best be a nominal one, because as his true heart is revealed, he ends up repudiating all gods and claiming himself alone as one.

Index to the Entire Series
I, II, III

Interpreting the Whore of Babylon

In Revelation 17 we are introduced to the enigmatic figure of the Whore of Babylon who sits by many waters. She's riding on a strange, fantastic, Scarlet Beast, which seems the very picture of a symbiotic relationship to me. Who or what do these mysterious figures represent and why are they joined at the hip? Let's take a little ride of our own...

Whores function as sexual substitutes, providers of sexual pleasures without the entanglements of a committed relationship. God means for those experiences to occur only within the context of heterosexual marriage, so prostitution short-circuits the righteous directive of God for an upright life. Throughout the Bible, God applies the sordid concept of prostitution to the sin of serving gods other than him, the one, true God. Substituting the false for the true was an affront to decency and fidelity, and worthy of judgment. 

The prophets of the Old Testament, in bringing God's word of rebuke to idol worshipping Israelites, called their sin "harlotry" and "adultery." Instead of living in a committed relationship with the living God and seeking the blessings they wanted and needed from him, idolaters exchanged the true God for one of their own making. God, who could not be managed nor massaged, was jettisoned by the unfaithful and replaced with gods who at least gave the appearance that they could be. 

Wonder where they got that idea from?

Idolatry was part of the Devil's hijacking scheme mentioned in my last post. The Devil's plan, from the earliest times in human history, has been to subvert and steal the redemptive promises announced in the protoevangelium. There is a governmental component to his plan-- the Devil wants to rule, and there is a religious component to the plan-- the Devil wants to be worshipped. Until he can manage to get the human race to worship him instead of God, having them worship something other than God would do.

The governmental aspect of the Devil's plan is centered around bringing the Antichrist, the man of lawlessness, into worldwide political dominion (as covered in the last post). The religious aspect is the subject of this post and revolves around the figure of the Whore. Revelation 17 shows both aspects of the Devil's plan linked as part of one overarching strategy by displaying the figures for each together, one riding the other.

The scarlet beast is the Antichrist Scheme, the Whore is the Spirit of Idolatry.

In the Devil's plan to separate humanity from God and to torpedo whatever possibility of reconciliation there might be, his prime strategy has been substitution: the Devil for God, the Antichrist for Christ. In order to achieve that ultimate objective, he had to hijack the promise to Eve (protoevangelium) first. So, deep in the past, at Babylon (ie., Babel), the Devil hatched a substitution plot, where the Whore was offered as a displacement of Eve (or, from the perspective of ultimate fulfillment, Mary).

This was the root of the Mother/Son imagery which is part of ancient idolatrous religion the world over.

Highlighting a few details concerning the Whore may be helpful:

1) She is riding on a scarlet beast, which means that even though she may seem to be in control, she is actually only being carried forth by the Devil's efforts as he wills; 

2) She is of Babylon, which means that is where the effort first found traction; 

3) She is of Babylon so she will have a Roman connection; 

4) She is the mother of all harlotries, therefore the genesis of all idolatry; 

5) She is a prostitute which means she has a certain utility that will make her worthless once accomplished; 

6) She is the mother, which points to a hijacking of Eve's promise from God; 

7) She is the mother of all abominations, which means she is the genesis of practices (in the name of spirituality) that make God gag; 

8) She is drunk on their blood of God's holy people, so she is a murderer of and the implacable foe of true believers in Christ.

Point #5 comes into especially clear focus in v.16. Even though the Whore represents perhaps the most successful of the Devil's stratagems through time, she actually deflects attention away from him and is thereby hated by him. It makes a lot of sense, for even in our contemporary culture, even the pimp hates the whore.

She is first mentioned in Revelation 14:8 where her fall is announced by an angel. Her evil influence in the world is likened to wine and its effects. Her name comes up again in 16:19 in association with the seventh bowl in which God makes her drink the wine of his wrath, the very picture of poetic justice. So important is she in understanding the unfolding of redemptive history, chapters 17 and 18 form an interlude which takes the reader aside from the flow of prophetic time just to take a deeper look at her. It's necessary, for she is a mystery that cannot be understood by man apart from divine illumination.

It has not been uncommon, since the Reformation, for the figure to be interpreted as the Roman Catholic Church, despite the fact that most of the Reformers did not take the Petrine remark as a reference to Rome. Evidently, the references within the description of the whore were clear enough to them without any other scriptural references. Exactly how clear are they?

In 95 A.D. there was only one city in the entire world that could have fit the description, and since then, no real contenders have emerged. There are only a handful of great cities renown for sitting on seven hills (or mountains): Rome and Constantinople are the most obvious, a case can be made for Jerusalem (but a lame one in my mind). Either of the capitals of the Roman Empire could be made to fit the rest of the description through chapter 18, but Jerusalem doesn't even come close. When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, it ceased being the center of idolatrous worship in all but name only, which leaves Rome standing unassailable as the target of the figure.

That's not the same as saying that the RCC is the whore, but there is a great deal of sense in seeing her that way, especially in light of 18:4-5. I think the whore imagery reaches far beyond the halls of the Vatican, but suffice it to say, I think she knows her way around those halls in the dark!

Be Like Jesus

Distractions are some of our greatest enemies. They do not confront us with malice frontally, their blows, if they land at all, are only glancing. They don’t have to be dangerous or even lethal-- a butterfly on the windshield wiper can be just as distracting to our drive as a bee in the car. Like the old saw which says that a man may be the head of the family, but the wife is the neck, so distractions seek to turn our attention from where we were going.

The Bible warns us about distractions. Most of them are not intrinsically evil, but some of them are. A family will be a distraction, it's unavoidable, and not evil in the least (quite the opposite in fact). An unrelenting drive for "success" and status is distracting, particularly from trying to achieve our point in being here, and is evil at the core. Oddly, benign or evil distractions can stop ministry in its tracks.

Multiple choice exams, in order to add a degree of difficulty, often instruct their takers to choose, not the answer, but the best answer. A response can be wrong, not because it isn't true, but because it isn't full. When tolerances are high, quality control is a cinch: when the fit is tight, we have to be more choosy. I wonder how much of what we teach and practice in the church settles for something in the ballpark, but actually misses being in the game? The church at Ephesus certainly has some lessons to teach us in this regard.

Even the litany of discussions about the church seems somewhat distracting to me. So many are writing and reading about, mostly, what has already been said by someone at some time. Mention anything to a brother or sister today and you're likely to hear, "have you read so and so's book/article/blog about ..." So much information, so many concerns, too many choices, urgencies everywhere, the flesh in the midst of it all, excuses overflowing. So much effort in planning and prospecting and trying to get ahead.

Can it be that hard to just be like Jesus? 

Maybe it's time to just do that!