- Image via Wikipedia
Herman Von Rompuy has just been appointed the first ever permanent President of the European Union. It’s no wonder that this news causes a stir among a large segment of Christians in North America who subscribe to a view of the end of the world known as “Dispensationalism”, or, more commonly, the “pre-trib rapture view”. It’s even less surprising that when Von Rompuy, in his first big speech, made mention of “global government” and “global management of our planet”, certain Dispensationalist sensationalists saw all kinds of “red flags”, portens of the “one world government” they expect before the coming of the arch-enemy of the Church, the Antichrist. (Just so you know, I actually respect Jerome Corsi, the author mentioned in the above link. But I think his work on this topic is a misinterpretation of the Bible and that its sensationalistic flavour feeds certain extremist elements in the Christian Church.)
What did President Herman Von Rompuy actually say? Here’s the video:
Okay, so all he really said was that the current financial crisis was the occasion of the establishment of a G-20 response… what he called “global governance”… by which it seems he meant “global governance” of the financial crisis. Similarly, when he mentioned “global management of our planet”, it was in the context of talking about the Copenhagen Conference, and seems to be a reference to “global management of our planet” with respect to the environment.
I think both of those (global governance of the financial crisis and global management of the environment) are terrible ideas. They seem to undermine local national sovereignty (which I think is a great idea!). I want to be governed by a government that I elect, a government formed from my own countrymen, ruling with respect to the laws of the country I live in. I don’t want some European deciding how much fuel I can put in what kind of car so that I can commute to work and earn a foreign currency to spend however the EU or some foreign legislative body determines I should spend it. I’m Canadian. I like my flag with the maple leaf on it, thank you very much. I’m also Baptist in my heritage and convictions (Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689), and I value local autonomy, for local churches and individual countries!
But Von Rompuy isn’t the Antichrist. The Westminster Confession of Faith identifies the Popes of Rome as the Antichrist–and I think those guys were correct. It makes better sense of the various Bible prophecies than expecting a single individual to be the arch-enemy of the Church. Especially an individual living so long after the Antichrist was due–at the demise of the Roman Empire and the rise of 10 European kingdoms that replaced it in the West.
And just because liberal elites like Von Rompuy and his socialist friends scheme and plan how to centralize international control of things like the environment and the global economy doesn’t mean that they are setting up an evil Antichristian Empire to usher in the end of days. All it means is that they are worshipping an ideology patterned after the Roman Empire. They are enamoured with fantasies of recreating the Imperial Senate of Rome.
In Revelation 13 & 17, as well as in Daniel 2 & 7, the Roman Empire is the fourth and final monolithic Empire to rule Western Europe. Upon its demise a ten-fold commonwealth of kingdoms is predicted to emerge, with a partly political and partly ecclesial kingdom rising to leadership among them. This occured when the Roman Empire fell, finally, in 476 AD and within a bit more than a century, the territory of Western Europe saw the emergence of 10 barbarian kingdoms–the precursors of the same number of nations that exist within those boundaries today. During much of their history–more or less the period sometimes called the “Dark Ages”–the City-State ruled by the Popes, dominated those ten kingdoms.
In Revelation 13 and 17 and in Daniel 7, the Empire of Rome is called “the beast”. When socialist elites today fantasize and scheme to recreate Rome’s glory through the establishment of the European Union, the G-20, the Copenhagen Conference, etc., etc., they are literally worshipping the picture, the form and shape and image of the Beast:
Revelation 13:14-15 by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.
It’s an old cult, this worship of the image of the beast, the idolatry of Roman forms of government. Not new at all. And Christ has already conquered the beast, its worshippers, the Hell they will endure forever and the death their sins (and ours) have earned. So don’t fear the Antichrist, his government, or Obama. Fear God, worship His Son, Jesus, and put your trust in His death and resurrection as the Substitute for sinners.
I was wondering . . . I understand Daniel 11:36-39 as describing the attributes and personal characteristics of the anti-christ (I could be wrong). The Westminster Confession of Faith attributes the Pope of Rome as the Antichrist. Since there have been hundreds of them (Popes), Daniel 11:36-39 seems to be describing not one particular Antichrist, but a type of man that fits the Antichrist description. Could the Antichrist description in Daniel 11 not only apply to the hundreds of Popes that have ruled in Rome, but to whole societies or nations of people that also fit the bill in Daniel 11?
The reason I ask is because it seems to me that the reign of the Antichrist is not really a particular time where one man rules though a global government, but a time where people's hearts become very hard and whole nations follow deceptive philosophies akin to the Antichrist. The only biblically historical example I can think of off-hand that fits these charactistics is Jezebel's reign in Israel during Elijah's ministry.
On the passage in Daniel 11:36-39, rather than give a long explanation of the context, let me quote myself from the piece, “Interpreting Daniel” available here: http://ow.ly/HnsL . Grab your Bible and follow along from verse 30 (the text has been talking about Antiochus Epiphanes at this point)…
<quote>
Verse 30 the Roman Senate sent ships to force Antiochus to leave Alexandria alone. He was so furious about that defeat that he sent Appolonius to take his vengeance out on the Jews (1 Macabees 1:30; 2 Macabees 5:24).
Verse 31 “forces from him will arise” refers not to Antiochus' armies but the word “from him” (mimenu) usually means “than him” as in Genesis 48:19 where it is used to say that the younger brother shall be greater “than him”–not from him. So in verse 31 it means “forces other than his shall arise” or “after him forces shall arise” or “apart from him other forces shall arise”, meaning the rise of the Roman Empire. this verse includes a brief reference to AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem.
The rest is, as they say, history. Verse 33 speaks of the early church spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles (“the many”) in the face of persecution and martyrdom. Verse 34 predicts, with great economy of words, the conversion of the Empire to “Christianity” under Constantine, in the fourth century, but points out that it will be a corrupt form of Christianity, or “hypocritical”. Verse 35 acknowledges that the centuries following the rise of Catholic Christianity would bring suffering for the saints: not what Christians would have expected in the optimistic decades of the fourth century! Verse 36 explains why: the new Roman leader, that is the ecclesial head of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, or the “Pope”, will be fundamentally anti-Christian. He will exalt himself as “God on Earth”. And he would “prosper” for a long, long time. Verse 37 shows the true spiritual reality behind the Roman antichristian Popes: they do not serve God at all, but themselves. They teach celibacy, in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. Instead, in verse 38, we see that their ambition is for strength, power and wealth.
</quote>
Verse 36 describes the new “head” of Rome as bad indeed, claiming superiority in authority over every spiritual authority and even saying “astonishing things” against the true God, prospering for a long time in what is called an “indignation”. Verses 37-39 detail his “indignations” and career in very succinct form, with just enough prophetic detail to recognize when it is fulfilled but not enough to predict how it will look when the time comes.
As to whether this “antichrist”, or what the text calls a “king”, is an individual or a type or an idea, the text itself gives the clues. As you read verses 3-20, you can see that the text moves the prophecy along with the continuous reference to “he”, even though verse 3 introduces Alexander, verse 5 the contests between his four successor generals, the longlasting struggle for supremacy between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, all the way to the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes in verse 21. Even when power is transferred to a new ruler, the text continues calling him “he”, sometimes referring to all the Seleucid rulers in succession as “he” or all the Ptolemies as “he”. So “he” is a way of the prophecy referring to a line, or dynasty, of rulers. The text also indicates when a dynasty is broken and replaced by a new dynasty which takes up the title “he”: e.g., verse 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 16, 21, 31, etc.
The chapter begins with the rule of the kings of Persia and ends with the Popes of Rome, the Atlantic Powers/NATO/ or the USA, and a northern power, possibly Arab nations headed by Turkey (as with the Ottomans) or Syria, or possibly Russia. So there is no time when the Antichrist is pictured, anywhere in Scripture, as ruling through a global government. But Scripture does attach a very definite time period to the reign of Antichrist, if by “reign” you mean the time when the saints are “given into his hand” (Dan 7:25), it shall be for exactly 1260 years (on the prophetic scale of a year for every day in prophecy). It's possible this was fulfilled in the secular or temporal power of the popes from 606 AD to 1866 AD.
Hi Joe,
Thanks for your detailed response. Sorry I have not responded earlier . . . I had to think over your response for a while. Your explanation of Daniel 11 makes a lot of historical sense; I was wondering if you wouldn't mind my asking you some more questions?
You stated that Daniel 11:34 refers to the rise of Constantine. Does verse 34 mean that Constantine was helpful for the early Church when it says “when they stumble, they shall receive a little help”? If so, that would imply that Constantine is being played by both sides, right? Would he not be a vehicle for the early Church (by the spreading of the gospel across Roman lands) as much as he is a vehicle for the Antichrist (the rise of the Pope and the hijacking of the Christian faith)?
I'm starting to see, based on the text, that the Antichrist is a dynasty of men with a certain position and not a social movement, philosophy or type of government. I think I am getting the Antichrist mixed up with the frog like spirits that come from the mouth of the dragon in Revelation 16:13. If so, does this mean that the dragon is a general symbol of all the individual men who rule as the Antichrist, and that their lies (like teaching celibacy) are symbolized as frog like spirits?
I’m assuming that the reason the date 606 AD is stated as the beginning of the 1260 years of dominion of the Antichrist is because that is when the Papacy achieved absolute rule over all of Christendom. My history is not the best; what happened to the Papacy in 1866 AD? Is it when concepts like pluralism and sphere sovereignty were introduced into European society?
Well Abigail, thanks for the compliment on the blog. The rest of your post looks a lot like spam. If Clement's “perspective” is “extemporaneous” then it's not worth listening to. No one would be happy with a turkey dinner that had only been in the oven for five minutes. No wonder Clement has “gained… notoriety”.
Well Abigail, thanks for the compliment on the blog. The rest of your post looks a lot like spam. If Clement's “perspective” is “extemporaneous” then it's not worth listening to. No one would be happy with a turkey dinner that had only been in the oven for five minutes. No wonder Clement has “gained… notoriety”.
I was impressed when I noticed that Joseph Ratzinger's June wish-list matched Historicist predictions almost bullet-for-bullet, then December's proposed Copenhagen Treaty (the real Treaty, not the flimsy Accord thingy they settled on) mirrored it clearly.