ANTICHRIST WILL BE JEWISH By: Mick Rynning May 15, 2013

In light of very recent events between Jerusalem and Damascus, which may portend the early beginnings of end-times conflicts of Isaiah 17, Psalm 83, Ezekiel 38 and 39, and Revelation 20, I recently posted a paper here on my bookshelf here on Scribd.com, recently that Jerusalem is Babylon the Great, and very recently a paper on the scenarios of End-Times Wars and Conflicts. As anyone who has read my papers knows already, when it comes to Biblical commentaries, I rely heavily on the very first Christian commentaries; specifically, those written by commentators (Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANFs) who were taught by the Disciples themselves. Without going into great detail here in this paper, as was done in other papers Ive written, its a fact that St. John of Revelation taught Polycarp, and that Polycarp taught Irenaeus, and Irenaeus taught Hippolytus. And both Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote extensively on the end-times, including Christ and Antichrist. Consequently, for Christian commentary, I rely heavily on the writings of those who were taught by the Disciples, instead of more modern commentators some 25 generations after Christ, most (if not all) of whom are bogged down in the doctrines of men, e.g., dispensationalism, through which they say we must use to properly interpret the Bible and Bible prophecy. Ironically, many of the modern commentators vehemently deny that any new revelation from God is possible, and they decry anyone who says otherwise as a heretic. Nonetheless, these very same commentators follow the new revelations of dispensationalism and a pre-tribulational rapture invented in the 1830s in Scotland, by a defrocked Pentecostal name Edward Irving, and later refined (without any credit to Irving) by John Nelson Darby, and that the entire false dispensational-pre-trib rapture gained popularity through a lawyer named Scofield, who had all of Darbys new doctrines contained in the footnotes of the infamous Scofield Reference Bible. At any rate, this paper will present a Biblical case that the Antichrist will be Jewish, as elaborated upon by men who were taught by the Disciples themselves, as well as a small sampling of more modern commentators who hold to both the Biblical teaching and writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Because the teachings of the ANFs so clearly speak to the matter, AND include their Biblical references within their teachings, I will not list a separate Biblical case; rather, simply list the ANFs teachings, inclusive of their own Biblical (verses cited) case. Fortunately, only a small sampling should be sufficient to prove the case that Antichrist will be Jewish. In his writings, Against Heresies, Book V, Ch 30, Irenaeus gives us: 2. These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those

men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation. This, too, the apostle affirms: "When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction shall come upon them." 1 Thessalonians 5:3 And Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says, "We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan; the whole earth shall be moved by the voice of the neighing of his galloping horses: he shall also come and devour the earth, and the fullness thereof, the city also, and they that dwell therein." Jeremiah 8:16 This, too, is the reason that this tribe is not reckoned in the Apocalypse along with those which are saved. And in, Christ and Antichrist, Hippolytus tells us: 14. Thus did the Scriptures preach before-time of this lion and lion's cub. And in like manner also we find it written regarding Antichrist. For Moses speaks thus: "Dan is a lion's cub, and he shall leap from Bashan." Deuteronomy 33:22 But that no one may err by supposing that this is said of the Saviour, let him attend carefully to the matter. "Dan," he says, "is a lion's cub; "and in naming the tribe of Dan, he declared clearly the tribe from which Antichrist is destined to spring. For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan. And that the case stands thus, we see also from the words of Jacob: "Let Dan be a serpent, lying upon the ground, biting the horse's heel." Genesis 49:17 What, then, is meant by the serpent but Antichrist, that deceiver who is mentioned in Genesis, Genesis 3:1 who deceived Eve and supplanted Adam (Adam's heel)? But since it is necessary to prove this assertion by sufficient testimony, we shall not shrink from the task. 15. That it is in reality out of the tribe of Dan, then, that that tyrant and king, that dread judge, that son of the devil, is destined to spring and arise, the prophet testifies when he says, "Dan shall judge his people, as (he is) also one tribe in Israel." Genesis 49:16 But some one may say that this refers to Samson, who sprang from the tribe of Dan, and judged the people twenty years. Well, the prophecy had its partial fulfilment in Samson, but its complete fulfilment is reserved for Antichrist. For Jeremiah also speaks to this effect: "From Dan we are to hear the sound of the swiftness of his horses: the whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing, of the driving of his horses." Jeremiah 8:16 And another prophet says: "He shall gather together all his strength, from the east even to the west. They whom he calls, and they whom he calls not, shall go with him. He shall make the sea white with the sails of his ships, and the plain black with the shields of his armaments. And whosoever shall oppose him in war shall fall by the sword." That these things, then, are said of no one else but that tyrant, and shameless one, and adversary of God, we shall show in what follows. While there are numerous more modern commentators who hold to the Biblical and ANF teachings above, I will limit what could be a very long list of unnecessary quotes to only one theologians views I believe have a unique bearing on this topicthose of A. W. Pink. The reader should note that many promoters of dispensational-pre-trib rapture doctrine offer a plethora of quotes of Dr. Pink to support their false doctrines. What those promoters dont tell you is that toward the end of his life, Dr. Pink admitted to being deceived by both the promoters and the doctrine of a dispensational-pre-trib rapture! The reader may also wish to note that Dr. Pink was well acquainted with the writings of the ANFs and quoted from them in his own writings, as well. That being said, here is what Dr. Pink wrote in numerous of his writings on the identity of Antichrist being Jewish:

Our purpose in making these quotations is not because we regard the voice of antiquity as being in any degree authoritative: far from it; the only authority for us is What saith the Scriptures?. Nor have we presented these views as curious relics of antiquity though it is interesting to discover the thoughts which occupied some of the leading minds of past ages. No: our purpose has been simply to show that the early writers uniformly held that the Antichrist would be a real person, a Jew, one who should both simulate and oppose the true Christ. Such continued to be the generally received doctrine until what is known as the Dark Ages were far advanced. We may speak correctly of an and-Christian system, just as we may refer to a Christian organization; but it is just as inadmissible and erroneous to refer to any system or organization as the Antichrist or an antichrist, as it would be to denominate any Christian system or organization the Christ, or a Christ. Just as truly as the Christ is the title of a single person the Son of God, so the Antichrist will be a single person, the son of Satan. 2. The Antichrist will be a lineal descendant of Abraham, a Jew. We shall not stop to submit the proof for this, as that will be given in our next chapter; suffice it now to say that none but a full-blooded Jew could ever expect to palm himself off on the Jewish people as their long-expected Messiah. Here is an argument that has never been met by those who believe that the pope is the Man of Sin. So far as we are aware no Israelite has ever occupied the Papal See certainly none has done so since the seventh century. 3. In line with the last argument, we read in Zechariah 11:16,17, For, lo, I will raise up a Shepherd in the land which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young ones, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. Woe to the Idol Shepherd that leaveth the flock! The sword (of Divine judgment) shall be upon his arm (his power), and upon his right right (intelligence): his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. The land here is, of course, Palestine, as is ever the case in Scripture with this expression. This could not possibly apply to the line of the Popes. 4. In 2 Thessalonians 2:4 we learn that the Man of Sin shall sit in the Temple of God, and St. Peters at Rome cannot possibly be called that. http://www.godrules.net/library/pink/248pink0.htm (NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE WEBSITE) Having made the above case with fellow believers, quoting the early church fathers, including both what they were taught in the line from St. John, as well as their own Scriptural proofs, some of our brethren, IGNORING WITHOUT COMMENT/REFUTING THE ANFs AND THE SCRIPTURE VERSES, have continued to resist the truth of these matters, and then resort to other efforts to discredit nonetheless. The two main areas they resort to are: the people of the prince who is to come, in Dan 9:26, where they state that the verse is a dual prophecy with near-far application. They argue that since Titus was a Roman and it was the Romans who sacked Jerusalem in 70AD (an assumption as you will see), likewise, in the future (Dan 9:27) the people of the prince to come will also be Roman and be lead by the Roman Antichrist. 2. The second resort of our brethren has to do with the word, God, or gods of our fathers, in Daniel 11:37, where they assert the proper translation is gods, and therefore indicates Antichrist is not Jewish (as will be discussed later below). 1.

In regard to the people of the prince who is to come having a near-far prophetic purpose, as well as the contextual reading, I agree with our brethren in this proper hermeneutic; however, I do not agree that the people refers to Romans nor a Roman Antichrist. Instead, However, I believe "the people" to be unbelievers (as Calvin also agrees), and find contextual support for this position by just looking back two verses earlier where Daniel 9:24 makes the distinction, "thy people." So, by contrast of the use of the word people just two verses apart, we find, thy people, i.e., people of God (believers), versus the people of the prince who is to come, (unbelievers). Of course, then comes the rebuttal that the people who sacked Jerusalem in 70AD were Romans under Roman general Titus, son of Roman Emperor Vespasian; hence history proves that the near-far prophecy refers to a Roman leader and Roman people. Here again, I agree with our brethren that another rule of good hermeneutics is to consider the history surrounding a verse, particularly a prophetic one. The only problem is that history does not support their claim that the Romans sacked Rome. And this is where the words of the verse, THE PEOPLE of the prince who is to come is very importantit draws your attention to the people. In short, as a matter of fact, the people who sacked Rome were not Romans! One of the first evidences for this is that at least 90% (up to 95%) of the troops who laid siege to Jerusalem were not Roman, but from other countries of the empire. The use of non-Roman citizens in the legions stationed outside of Rome was extensive, as was their use of "auxilaries" that accompanied the legions, e.g., approximately 50% of the Batavi (Germania region) who reached the age of 16 enlisted. Likewise, the legions were heavily comprised of non-Roman (but "free citizens"), with the legions often being relocated and refreshed with new recruits from each region they moved into. For example, we know that the III, V, X, XII, and XVIII legions were used in the Jerusalem siege, and that the III Legion began in France, moved to Egypt, and then Syria before coming to Jerusalem, and the majority of their troops would have been from those countries. Likewise, the V Legion began in France, moved to Spain and then Germany before Jerusalem; the X Legion-Macedonia, Syria and then Jerusalem. At any rate, "the people of the prince who shall come" is the focus, for it is "the people" who destroy the Temple and Jerusalem, and with at least 90% of "the people" being from other nations of the times, i.e., un-believers; likewise, the people of the prince who is to come will be from the nations, i.e., un-believers. So, one cannot say that "the people" in any way support the assertion that Antichrist will be Roman, especially in light of Scripture that tells us he is of the tribe of Dan, etc. One final word on the people. Some brethren do make a similar case trying to say that the Antichrist will be a Muslimthey point to the fact that the Legions came from Egypt or Syria to Jerusalem. What they fail to do is acknowledge that these same Legions were comprised of troops from all the countries where they had been, e.g., started in France, went to Spain, Greece, Germany, etc. By their attempt to cut a couple of the Legions history off at its last stop before Jerusalem is, at best, poor historical research and documentationdont be mislead!

The last point of contention regarding the identity of Antichrist that some of our brethren raise is the use of the word, gods instead of God in Daniel 11:37: Neither shall he regard the God (KJV) (or gods ESV) of his fathers . . . Of course, those of us who hold to the KJV, say that the verse, by reference to The GodElohiym supports the Antichrist being a Jew, while they say the word is, gods and therefore denotes Antichrist is not a Jew. Basically, this issue comes down to which version of the Bible, or more accurately, which set of manuscripts, does one believe in general, but in this case, what one believes about the endtimes specifically. And this example of this one verse alone gives an excellent example of where people disagree, even on key doctrines. The issue specifically relates to the word God in relation to Antichrist found in Daniel 11:37: 37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. (KJV) 37. He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all. (ESV) Essentially, the source texts used for the KJV Bible are whats called the Textus Receptus/Majority Text (TR/MJ, while the source texts for the ESV Bible are what are called the Alexandrian Text (AT) comprised of both Codex Vaticanus and Code Sinaiticus. This is an issue because those who use the Alexandrian Text (AT) argue that Antichrist is not Jewish because of the words gods and their logic that follows, while those who follow the Textus Receptus/Majority Text (TR/MJ) say that the word God (and not gods) further proves the rest of Scripture identifying the Antichrist as Jewish (verses cited above in teachings of ANFs!) Another point to consider that shows the impact of the words God or gods, is that the Textus Receptus says, the Antichrist will confirm/strengthen the covenant with the Jews (implying the treaty already exists before arrival of Antichrist), as opposed to the Alexandrian which says, "make a covenant" (implying the treaty will be made by Antichrist when he appears). The implications in the differences are obvious, and certainly impact the validity one's eschatology. I am not going to go into a diatribe here on the very questionable background of translators who used Alexandrian Text/Codex Vaticanus/Sinaiticus, such as Whestocott and Hort, including their documented un-Christian sayings, bad associations, etc., nor will I delve into a long documented account about Constantin Von Tishendorfthe man who miraculously discovered the Sinaiticus manuscript in a waste basket in a monastery AFTER HIS VISIT TO THE VATICAN. However, based on the documented evidenced against these men, while I do make use of newer versions of the Bible, its only for comparison, and with a keen skeptical eye, giving priority to the Textus Receptus/KJV, particularly when studying end-times eschatology. In short, it would not surprise me in the slightest that during our enemys vigorous attacks against the Church in the 1800s (Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, along with a whole host of other false Christian religions, false pre-trib rapture doctrine, etc.) that Satan would also

introduce textual criticism during that era along with some newly discovered manuscripts (VATICANus and Sinaiticus) with substantial disagreement with the Textus Receptus/Majority Text widely embraced before the 1800s. Lastly, on the topic of the words God or gods, the reader should note that the KJV is not the only Bible that uses, God, instead of gods. The Hebrew Old Testament, Young's Literal Translation, the Geneva Bible (used by Puritan Pilgrims), et al, all show God and not gods. In point of fact, the word used in Dan 11:37 for "God" or "gods" in your version, uses the word Elohim. It should be noted that Elohim is used in the Bible often to signify The God, as well as refer to other gods, as in Gen 3:5, Ps 79:1, Deu 6:4. That being said, context becomes critical when interpreting who is actually being referred to. In the case of Daniel 11:37, Daniel gives us a contrast to help us out . . . "the God (Elohim) of his fathers . . . nor regard any god (eloahh). The contrast provided by Daniel tells us that he is referring to The God and not gods. Therefore, since AC will not regard The God of his fathers . . . this is merely using Scripture to prove Scripture as noted above, i.e., this is not a stand-alone verse upon which we rely; rather, one that adds to what other verses noted above have already told usthe Antichrist will be a Jewish man, a fake messiah, counterfeiting our Christ, also a Jewish manthe real Messiah! In conclusion, I believe that its apparent that the Bible teaches that Antichrist will be Jewish, and that the writings of the first Christian commentators taught by the Apostles themselves echo Biblical teaching on this topic. Based upon these obvious teachings, I frankly find the entire argument of the textual critics who use the Alexandrian Codex regarding gods vs. God, to be a bad hermeneutic based on defective manuscripts of relatively-recent discovery. At the end of the day, plain enough for just about anyone to see, the Antichrist will be Jewish who else are the Jews going to embrace as their Messiah (who will prove to be the false messiah/Antichrist himself)? A very important fact that will impact on the whos and whats of end-times events before the return of Jesus Christ! Does it matter? If were looking toward Islam for the Antichrist to appear and not be fooled by him, or if were looking for a Roman Antichrist (Western European?), will that impact our ability to see clearly and avoid the deception of a Jewish Antichrist? Remember Jesus warnings about not being deceived, those warnings coming well ahead of Him telling us about Antichrist and the Abomination of Desolation (both in Matthew 24).