By Jonathan Dane
(an excerpt from my book, Rise of the Little Horn)
A man with no military or political experience announces his run for the most powerful seat in the world. His promise? GREATNESS. He controls the flow of money, and is head over a military that is unmatched in the world. He is consumed with winning politically and fortifying his strongholds. Though initially thought of as a minor threat by his associates, he truly towers over them. He demolishes them by means of abusive and slanderous speech, tears down the character of those who oppose him and flatters and elevates those who admire him. He rises up as if by sheer will. He is an alpha male who plots and manipulates anything and everything to take down his opponents. He is seemingly unstoppable. To the utter amazement of the world, he succeeds at nearly everything he does, despite his lack of deep personal conviction on any issue except self-aggrandizement. His narcissistic pride is evident to all as he continually boasts, exaggerating his achievements and financial worth. He is characteristically disingenuous, so deftly twisting the truth that deceit becomes the norm rather than the exception.
An aura emanates from him that seems to delude people’s thinking; making those―seemingly intelligent―unable to discern truth from falsehood. At some point, these deluded masses begin to view good things as evil and evil things as good. He is untamable, doing whatever he pleases. These characteristics cause other world leaders to fear him. He shows little regard for the support of women, yet boasts of his various adulterous relationships. Despite his inflated claims, he does possess considerable wealth, which he unabashedly flaunts; wealth accumulated through real estate holdings and building projects. Hailed as the consummate praised man of the city, he is a builder of great high towers, bedecked with precious stones and gold. He is obsessed with his name and plasters it on everything he touches.
He is cunning and shrewd; playing his enemies like a game of cards. He is vicious in his desire to win. The concepts of grace and forgiveness find no place in him. Violence follows him wherever he goes; even to the killing of innocents who stand between him and his goals. His false show of religion gains the trust of people of faith―deluding them. He comes to power through the “simple folk” who have been discarded as insignificant. His supporters are unwavering in their commitment, for they worship the ground he walks on. His rise to power coincides with a political uprising and defection. Many will leave their former political affiliations.
His ascension comes at a time of worldwide financial, social, religious, military and civil upheaval. But he will promise to restore law and order, and to soon put an end to crime and violence; a few of many extravagant promises he will never keep. He will establish an extreme vetting process to prevent illegals from gaining access. He will seek the wealth of Iraq as Russia shows signs of escalating military aggression towards the Middle East. Known for his ability to make deals, he promises to make a peace deal between Israel and her surrounding enemies. He plans a restructure of the balance of power in Europe in order to fight terror. The earth will be in global flux.
Who do these paragraphs describe? This portrait was penned thousands of years ago. It is a biblical word picture of the most evil, ruthless killer of all time; a tyrant who will draw the world into the last great mega-battle known as Armageddon. The Bible refers to this man as the Son of Perdition, the Man of Sin, the Wicked One, the Worthless Shepherd, the Beast, the LIE, the Adversary, the Spoiler, the Willful King, the Lawless One, the Desolator, and more. This man’s wickedness grows until, eventually, Satan himself will possess him. He is known to most as the Antichrist.
(Copyright 2016 - Jonathan Dane - All Rights Reserved)
By Jonathan Dane
I recently had a post taken down. The reason stated was that I was "speaking evil of a leader." In point of fact, I had posted asking for scriptural reasons why a current leader could not be the Antichrist (I confessed that I believed him to be.) No proof of a lack of biblical qualification was offered that this leader could "not" be whom I claimed he was. A few supported me.
Yet, one individual stated that Scripture commands us to respect those in authority -- something I was evidently violating. I was simply wrong "in principle" because I'm not "allowed" to do that. He went so far as to quote from the TOS: "Disrespectful or threatening comments toward governmental institutions and/or world leaders will not be tolerated. (1 Pet. 2:13-17)"
If the reason for the censor is a violation of the TOS, may I just point out that I did not make a disrespectful or threatening "comment" about this world leader, as the rules specifically state. NOT ONE. I simply expressed a "belief" about him, i.e. that he was the Antichrist. To my recollection, I made no offensive or disparaging comments about him. My tone was very serious and weighty, for the most part.
A Christian forum's "terms of service" should be grounded in Scripture and administered consistently and not hypocritically. I would like to examine 1 Peter 2:13-17, to see what it says, what it doesn't, and what, if any, historical particulars might influence the application of the passage.
"Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:13-17)
The TOS interprets this verse to mean Christians do not have the right to express an opinion on the forum that may be construed as "disrespectful" towards one in authority. My first thought is that this sounds profoundly un-American. This kind of thought control seems more akin to China than the U.S.
Apparently, the implication is this: Since my statement is dishonoring to our leader and the Bible says "Honor the king" ; therefore I'm in sin. But is that really what this passage says? Not at all.
Historical-grammatical interpretation demands that we examine each and every text within its proper "context," both in terms of its historical background and internal grammar.
This passage above lists two groups: 1.) evil-doers 2.) do-gooders
Yes, we are to submit to and honor those in authority. That is not in question. But what is the context of that submission? What is this honor and what does it look like? Is it talking about our theological opinions of a person or even an opinion of a leader's character? Where does it say that in the text? I neither see it in that passage, nor in the Romans 13 passage -- it's not there. Who are these people that do not "honor the king?" Are they Christians with an opinion? We don't have to guess. The text tells us. THEY ARE LAW BREAKERS -- EVIL DOERS. We honor the king by living in accordance to the law of the land. THAT is what the text says. Verse 14 says that authority is sent by God "to punish those who do evil." Verse 16 says, "Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God."
Clearly, the focus of 1 Peter 2 is living "lawfully" (rightly) in society as a testimony in order to silence men who would unrighteously judge Christ's Church (Christians). It is a call to "live within the law;" to "live beyond reproof". It is not some mystical power or honor given to a King, but rather an admonishment to live in accordance to the ordinances of civil law. But doesn't verse 17 say "Honor the Emperor (king)?" Yes -- but it also says, "Honor everyone." So, if we cannot call a spade a spade in regards to a king, then contextually, we can never call ANYONE an evil or corrupt or bad person. Charles Manson, Anton Lavey, and Hitler may have done some bad things, but we cannot call them evil, bad or wicked people. This kind of reasoning is absurd and not supported by either passage.
After the post was taken down, I was told: "In the 1st century -- Nero was a type of AC and he persecuted believers in the worst way possible -- and yet you don't read so much about him in the Church Fathers."
This is where the historical context must be closely considered. In the 1st century, an unsavory statement written about the Caesar was considered a crime of treason and punishable by death. Of course they didn't write negative statements regarding his character; not if they valued their life. If you wrote anything disparaging to the emperor, you were, in fact, a law breaker. (In America, we have something called the 1st Amendment which safeguards, in particular, religious free speech.) Even so, the apostle John boldly wrote that: "now many antichrists have come." (1 John 2:18), He did not cower to call a spade a spade. And neither do I.
There does appear to be a degree of inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worse when it comes to the enforcement of this supposed biblical principle. I'll spare you the direct quotes in lieu of suggesting that a mere search for the word, "OBAMA", in this forum will provide a SWATH of comparisons of him to the beast. The Pope also garners a lot of insults. I find it fascinating that my post was removed while those posts were allowed to stay. Recall also that my post was just asking folks to refute my conclusions. The posts on Obama and others were actually providing evidence from Scripture that they were indeed antichrists. According to the administrator (who was very nice, I might add), the post was about to be automatically pulled because of the amount of complaints. Is it just possible that when it comes to a Leftist like Obama, we are quick to "tolerate" moral criticism. Yet, when it comes to someone on our side, well...that's seen as "talking evil" about them.
Let me clear up something. This is not "sport" for me. I was not looking for the Antichrist. I have never considered ANYONE previously as a contender - no one. I am not an "end of the world" fanatic or some conspiracy loon. I don't attend prophecy conferences. In fact, I haven't bought a prophecy book in over 20 years.
That said, on March 25, 2016 I was t-boned out of nowhere by the Holy Spirit. I sat down at a computer and typed FURIOUSLY for 3 1/2 months with just my index fingers. When I was done, I had what I believe to be the most exhaustive book ever written on the Antichrist. I pulled from nearly 1000 Scripture verses. I am not a "charismatic" but I have seen the power of God -- marvelous things. When I wrote that book, I knew with certainty that a particular man was going to be elected, not once, but twice. And I wrote about it. I repeat, this is not a game. Trust me when I say that my book is not some inane adding up of a person's name to get 666.
Recall, the reason for the post's delete was because I was deemed "speaking evil of a leader." But what is speaking evil of someone? This link may help: https://biblehub.com/topical/e/evil-speaking.htm Is it not meant to do them harm? -- usually through some kind of slander? Again, I was challenging people to dismiss my views from Scripture. Instead, what I got was, "You're wrong ." I ask, "Why am I wrong?" Answer: "Because you talked evil." Why do you say I was talking evil? Answer: "Because you were wrong." But fact is, I'm only "wrong" if I'm "wrong." In other words, if I'm wrong as in incorrect, then yes, I've committed a serious wrong. But if I'm right, now what? I am certain I am right and have good reason for that certainty.
We are to honor all people, including the king, that we may live in peace. This is practical advice for our comfort -- "so that you may live peaceably." That said, there are times in history when men must forgo comfort to speak up against evil and the men behind it.
If the Peter passage implies that men should just shut up and never point the finger towards unrighteous leaders, how do we explain the great prophets, judges and writers in the Bible that spoke up against evil rulers? The Bible is chalked full of them, from Moses, down through the prophets, to John the Baptist, forward to such men as the Apostles who said, "We must obey God rather than men." How about Nathan pointing his finger at David saying, "YOU ARE THE MAN!" Psalm 26:5 says, "I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked."
We are to honor men. But we are also to hate evil. Ephesians 5:11 says, "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." Yes, we are called to love our enemies. But the Bible does not say, "Do not consider them your enemies." Someone asked me if I respected this leader (the subject of my deleted post.) My response was, "I would bet that I have a deeper, more profound respect for him than you do." I know who he is and what he'll do. I can have a respect for greatness, whether it be good or evil. I respect the man. I hate the monster, especially the monster that he'll become.
What if I'm wrong? Well, for starters, I stand in good company. In fact, the great men of the faith, from the 1st century, through to the Reformation all had their designated, antichrists. Martin Luther, John Calvin all the way through to people like Jonathan Edwards considered the Pope to be the Antichrist. I have a copy of a Geneva Bible. The marginal notation mentions the antichrist of popery. They didn't refer to him as a type, but called him the Antichrist. Recall, the apostle John said there were antichrists in his day. Even today, sermons are preached calling out the evils of anti-Christian dictators. Some have gone as far as to take up arms to stand up against evil leaders. (I have never called for this.) Did our founding fathers commit evil against King George? Did Dietrich Bonhoeffer commit evil in standing with Christians in Germany to try to take down Hitler?
Some may argue that my present-day antichrist has yet to commit evil acts. My response would be this: 1.) I could argue that he has committed evil. 2.) Because I am certain of this man's role, I know the evil he will commit. In God's eyes (assuming I am correct), he's already guilty of it.
The point I want to make is this: The Bible lays out a Christian standard of living and conduct. But the Antichrist is unique. He is the penultimate embodiment of all the previous wicked leaders in history. He is evil manifest. When it comes to the Antichrist, even the admonitions to honor the ruler will go out the window at some point. I am not saying we've arrived there yet.
If claiming someone is the Antichrist amounts to "speaking evil,", what about those who resist him during the tribulation? If they reject the mark, they are rejecting the man. Won't they be speaking evil of him by default? Again, speaking evil has at its center: FALSEHOOD. They won't be speaking evil because they will be speaking truth. And truth is never evil - that is unless it is being spoken for sordid reason e.g. for money, power or slander.
I am solidly convinced that I AM speaking the truth. I am not doing this to hurt the man. My Lord, in my opinion, he's invincible until Christ returns. And from what I know of him, I think he would rather enjoy being called the first dictator of the world, evil or not.
-- I see NO biblical justification to pull my post.
-- I see a different standard whether the object of our critique represents the political Right versus the Left.
-- I am not an evil doer (law breaker).
-- I am certain my conclusion is true and of the Lord.
-- I will continue to attempt to post on here, as long as the Lord permits.
-- I am convinced that those who mock my conclusion will soon mock no more. 1 Peter 2:15 "For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." That is what I believe I have done and will continue to do.
In my next post -- the profile of a man.
By mr. R
I have realized that there are several videos at Youtube and several texts on blogs about the "prophecy" at 23rd September 2017. For instance, this video made by this likely Pentecostal Evangelical pastor has already reached 6.5 million of views!!
In summary, what he explains there is the following:
At 23rd September this year, the sky will have this particular set of position in the cosmos(from the Earth point of view): the Constellation of Virgo(symbolized by a virgin woman) will have the moon below it the sun near to it and 12 stars above it(9 stars from the Constellation of Leo + Mercury + Venus + Mars) Jupiter(often referred to the "king of gods" in ancient Roman mythology) will travel in a spiral way through the "belly" of the Constellation of Virgo for 9 months before the planet "goes out" of it Actually I'm not sure if I can believe in that. What do you think? Is he and all other people who are claiming that 23rd September will be a "Sign for the End of Times" right? According to my "spiritual intuition" I think he may be right, this day may happen some unexpected divine sign, that is, a Warning for humanity that they are going in the wrong way.
I have long promoted the concept of the antichrist being a counterfeit of the true Christ; his religion a counterfeit of the Christian faith. Despite the ever popular theories to the contrary, below is a Bible study revealing why I continue to uphold my views.
The sea-beast or antichrist.
Comes from water to begin activity. (13:1)
Resembles dragon. (12:13 13:1)
Ten diadems. (13:1)
Ten horns (13:1)
Receives power throne and authority from dragon/Satan. (13:2,4)
42 months of activity in first phase. (13:5)
Was slain (13:3)
Receives worship after healing (13:3,4,8)
Comes from water to begin ministry (Luke 3:21-23)
Resembles Father (Jn 14:19)
Many diadems (Rev 19:12)
Lamb has 7 horns (5:6)
Receives power throne and authority from His Father (Math 28:18 Rev 2:27 Chapters 4,5)
42 months of ministry in initial phase. (Gospel of John)
Was slain (Rev 5:6)
Was resurrected (Rev1:18)
Received worship after resurrection (Math 28:17)
For those who would indulge in thinking that perhaps Islam or some other religion or religious leader is the Antichrist, I would remind them that counterfeits are copies of the truth. You do not get counterfeit $99 notes. The counterfeit religion, the counterfeit god, the counterfeit worship of the last days, Babylon the Great, is a quasi Christianform of worship, a Christian God, a Christian form of church. That my friends is what makes it so dangerous, so deceptive. It also means that the mark of the beast is a quasi Christian mark or practice enforced through government legislationb and financial restraints used as incentive to accept it.
Why I am Post-Millennialist (or a Spiritual Post Bi-Millennianist)!
Post-Millennialism teaches that Christ comes back after the Millennium (portrayed as 1,000 years which is 10 - the number of perfection cubed; 10 x 10 x 10 = 1,000)! In Pre-Millennialism, Jesus is said to come back before the Millennium! There are three main pre-millennial schools, each of which relate to the specific timing of the Tribulation (pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib). On the other hand, with regard to Post-Millennialism, there are two main schools, firstly that that Millennium is situated here upon this earth which will become more and more Christianised over time, a view which is held by many theonomists, but which I would happen to reject. Secondly, that the Millennium refers to the reign of Christ over the souls of dead saints, who are currently ruling with Christ, in heaven ever since his ascension, and that this (millennial reign), will last until his second coming.
This second view is the one I which hold to, basically it places the Millennium in heaven, where Christ rules over the souls of disincarnate spirits, during what is called the “intermediate state.” My own position has sometimes been called the A-Millennium view. But, I would reject that title, as it implies that there is no millennium at all, a position which I certainly and clearly have rejected. Also in much A -Millennium eschatology, Christ’s current reign is said to be within the hearts of his people (saints), many living upon this earth, which again as I stated I firmly reject, as I would regard the Millennial reign of Christ as exclusively situated in heaven. For this reason to save confusion, I am a Post-Millennialist, but one who would place Christ’s (spiritual) reign in heaven, as he is currently reigning, and this isn't a physical reign upon this earth, or within people’s hearts, he’s reigning in heaven NOW!
Evidences for my position abound, namely Revelation 20:4 states that those people in the Millennium are said to be “souls,” which indicates only those dead saints in the intermediate state. Also, throughout Revelation, we repeatedly read of God’s throne being in heaven, for instance Revelation 4:2: “a throne set in heaven,” and Revelation 20:4 which states: “I saw thrones” which is speaking of those dead saints who are ruling with Christ, in heaven, during the intermediate state. So I’d argue that the Millennial reign has a heavenly setting, it is not based upon this earth, and neither is it within the hearts of God’s people, as many A-Millennialists have claimed! Also consider the idiocy of Christians assuming that Christ does not reign during the church age, or that this reign has no name, in either the Bible or in Christian Theology! It does have a name! it’s called the Millennium or thousand years!
The phrase “a thousand years” is used six times in Revelation 20, traditionally, this refers to the Biblical period of human (biblical) history, personally I would not take it literally, a thousand is simply ten, which is the number of perfection cubed. However, of these six occurrences of the number one thousand, four refer from Adam to Christ, and two of these “one thousand years,” which specifically mention dead souls “reigning with Christ” at Revelation 20:4 and 20:6, apply to the church age, but with regard to Christ’s heavenly reign. Now seeing that this reign must be situated in heaven, and as every relevant mention of God’s throne in the Apocalypse is indeed set in heaven, the 1,000 years of verse 4 added to the 1,000 years of verse 6, gives us a period of approximately 2,000 years; from Christ’s ascension until his second coming which is the natural end of the intermediate state. For death itself is finished (done away with) at Christ’s second coming (1st Corinthians 15:23-26), this happens; “at the last trump” (1st Corinthians 15:52), that at Christ’s second coming, and not one thousand years after the second coming, as in Pre-Millennial eschatology.
I have come to this position of mine after much dialogue with local Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW). I was intrigued that they, parroting the “latest light” from their Watchtower Society, claimed that Christ’s reign was not instituted at his ascension, despite Colossians 1:13 so clearly stating in the present tense, that at the time Paul had written this, Christ, was already a king over his own kingdom! These JWs would then reason that Christ’s kingdom was instituted in the year 1919, but as I pondered this, I came to realise that the Pre-Millennial view, so beloved of American Dispensationalists and their disciples within the Pentecostal movement, had many similarities to the JW position. Both positions failed to grasp that in scripture, be it the fall, salvation or Christ’s Kingdom, it’s always the spiritual first and then the physical second. So God was not lying when he said to Adam: “in the day you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Adam ate the fruit, but his fall was spiritual immediately, his physical death happened much later. So too in salvation, we are saved spiritually first, but the physical redemption of the body is a still future promise, after Christ’s second coming, and that despite what the Television money preachers on TBN and GOD TV will tell you (Romans 8:23).
Finally, the first resurrection of Revelation 20:6 is obviously spiritual, (i.e. it refers to the salvation of the soul/spirit), that is of disincarnate “souls,” who are currently reigning with Christ during the intermediate state, which is a period of possibly 1,000 + 1,000 = 2,000 years, if you wish to take these numbers literally as American Dispensationalists like to insist upon. Now although it is not specifically mentioned by name, the second resurrection must be the redemption of the physical body mentioned at Romans 8:23, for remember that the Bible puts the spiritual first and the physical second with regard to both the fall and also to salvation. This (physical) salvation happens at the last trump (1st Corinthians 15:52), that is at Christ’s second coming, and not one thousand years after the expiration of some strange earthly millennium, of the saved and unsaved, living together as both disincarnate spirits (souls) as well as people with their souls upon this earth! Finally, remember that the “day of the Lord” (1st Thessalonians 5:2), which comes as a thief in the night, isn’t referring to the first part of some double-barrelled second coming, called the “rapture,” there is only one second coming and that permanently ends the intermediate state, which I maintain is the (spiritual) reign of Christ in heaven over the souls of his disincarnate saints.
Thank you for considering my point of view. I am far from perfect and I'm open to help and correction.