click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Is Obama the Antichrist?
by Dan WallaceAugust 14th, 2009
128 Comments
More than one Christian friend has suggested to me, in all seriousness, that President Obama is the Antichrist. I haven’t taken such suggestions too seriously, but recently a video has shown up on Youtube that seems to claim that Jesus identified Obama as the Antichrist. Some Christians have been startled by this (and the video is wildly popular) and believe that the evidence is compelling. The video is found here.
The anonymous narrator introduces his provocative four-minute video by asking if Jesus identified the name of the Antichrist, then says, “I will report the facts; you can decide” (reminiscent of Greta Van Susteren’s tagline on her show on Fox News). The narrator then notes that in Luke 10.18, Jesus says, “And he said unto them, I beheld Satan falling from the heavens.”
He then begins to link several hypotheses together. First, he claims that Luke 10.18 was written originally in Greek, but that Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic, “which is the most ancient form of Hebrew.” Second, he observes that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and claims that the Aramaic that Jesus spoke would have been quite similar to the Hebrew that is spoken today and, presumably, similar to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Third, he then says that Jesus spoke these words in Hebrew, and retranslates the text as follows: “I saw Satan falling as lightning from the heights, or from the heavens.” Fourth, he discusses the Hebrew words for ‘lightning’ and ‘heights.’ He notes that the word for ‘lightning’ is baraq. Fifth, he claims that Isaiah is the source of the Christian understanding of Satan or ‘Lucifer’ (Isa 14.12 in the KJV). Sixth, Isa 14.14 has Satan say, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.” Seventh, the Hebrew word in Isa 14.14 for ‘heights’ is bamaw, and this is surely what ‘heavens’ means in Luke 10.18. Eighth, the Hebrew letter waw is sometimes transliterated as a u or o. Ninth, the waw is used in Hebrew as a conjunction. Tenth, in Hebrew poetry baraq obamah literally is translated “lightning and the heights” or “lightning from the heights.” Eleventh, if Jesus’ words in Luke 10.18 were spoken in Hebrew by a Jewish Rabbi today he would say, “And I saw Satan as baraq ubamah.” He concludes his narration by asking, “Did Jesus reveal the name of the Antichrist? I report; you decide.” There is a disclaimer at the end of the video that simply says the correlation is striking, but not that the narrator is claiming that the President is the Antichrist.
This video was followed up by another by the same narrator. You can see it here.
It essentially argues the same point, but changes a couple of points (without warrant).
What can we say about these videos and the linguistic argument used? Of the eleven points noted above, the fourth and eighth are the only ones that are indisputable: the Hebrew word for lightning is baraq; and the waw is sometimes transliterated as a u or o. The seventh point comes close to being correct: the Hebrew word for height is bamah, but the plural is used in Isa 14.14, bamot (pronounced baw-moat). As for the rest of the points, some are debatable, while others are factually wrong. Taking them in order: (1) It is debatable whether Jesus spoke most of the time in Aramaic; he may have done much of his teaching in Greek. It is also not true that Aramaic is the oldest form of Hebrew. (2) and (3) A sleight of hand has occurred here: First, it is claimed that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but then it is claimed that he spoke in Hebrew. Which is it? Although the characters for both languages are the same, the vocabulary has some key differences, especially in vowel points but also often in the very consonants used. (5) and (6) Is Isaiah really the source for the Christian view of Satan? It may contribute to our understanding, but even that is disputed. The one passage that may speak about Satan is indeed Isa 14. But part of the reason for this being so interpreted is due to the influence of the KJV. At v. 12 the King James says, “O Lucifer, son of the morning!” The word lucifer, however, is simply a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate at this point. It is not another name for Satan. The Hebrew word, helel means ‘morning star’ or ‘shining one.’ Most modern translations (the NKJV is the only exception I found of the translations I checked) do not translate helel as Lucifer; rather they have ‘shining one,’ ‘day star,’ ‘morning star,’ etc. (cf., e.g., NET, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NAB, NJB, HCSB). Of course, there are still excellent scholars who believe that Isa 14 is ultimately a reference to Satan, though in the historical context it was directed at the Babylonian king. (9) This is true, but irrelevant. To have the idea of ‘lightning from the heights’ would normally require a preposition, not a conjunction (see next point). (10) It seems to be an illegitimate leap to say ‘lightning and the heights’ means the same thing as ‘lightning from the heights.’ Indeed, there is a perfectly good Hebrew word that means ‘from’: min. But that would produce baraq min-bamot. It’s getting more difficult to see the validity of the narrator’s linguistic points. (11) When all is said and done, the evidence is simply bogus. Jesus didn’t speak in Hebrew, and the Hebrew that is given here does not mean ‘lightning from the heights.’ Baraq ubamah means ‘lightning and height.’ But that can hardly be the underlying Aramaic (which is not Hebrew) for the Greek text of Luke 10.18. Thus, a linguistic leap from Greek to Aramaic to Hebrew, with the grammar and vocabulary changing along the way, is required to make Luke 10.18 mean what the narrator wants it to mean. This is hardly a case of “I report; you decide.” It is rather a case of “I’ll tell you only part of the evidence, and will use some fancy exegetical gymnastics to make everything fit; and based on the skewered evidence, you decide.”
Now, to be sure, the President did say at one public meeting that the rumors that he was born in a manger are not true (!). I didn’t care for that comment (though it was in reaction to what many pundits, conservative politicians, and comedians had sarcastically said), nor do I care for many, if not most, of his policies. Perhaps he’s a little full of himself. And certainly there has been hype about him that goes beyond reason, some that is even blasphemous (e.g., Evan Thomas, of Newsweek, who said that Obama was ‘sort of God’ on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, to which Matthews replied, ‘yeah.’ It’s that kind of rhetoric that is more persuasive than the video, since it reflects the opinions of so many Americans and even the global community). But is he the Antichrist? In the least, the linguistic torturing required to make the biblical evidence say this is beyond the pale of reason and, perhaps, sanity.
Similar Posts:
- A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 2 of 4
- Walid Shoebat Youtube Video on the Mark of the Beast
- Two DVD videos on the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts
- Is the Bible That Big of a Mystery?
- Christmas Sale at nttextualcriticism.com
Loading ...
128 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
I have to get in on this conversation… Yes, there are a lot of anti-christs in the last days. But the Bible warned, that the believers would know” you do not remember that do you…. Obama did say that a couple of times he was the messiah. so, Open your eyes he would cause freedom to be held in captivity, chaos such as never was since the beginning of time Daniel 12… If you wanna know things translate words in Hebrew, Arabic, and Greek and Punic if you want too. It never hurts to go back and translate anything. The Bible originally was not written In English ever until our founding fathers. from capitalism, to socialism and more… The implants are out since that wasn’t sign enough for anyone maybe you are not that serious about anything… The leader that arises would cause as many as he can to take the mark, look at how many of the people already got a computer chip implanted in the skin, and are being lied to that there is nothing but a address and a tracker in that chip, but guess what your money, and all that is on the chip. Now Obama wants to add health info on the s-chip. Read your house bills if you did not have a barcode you wouldn’t be able to work or anything now. the anti-christ mark was not used as money but as show and tell. So translate words like looking glasses in Hebrew in the book of exodus. you may write me. I love doing research and i love Theology and in order to obtain the correct information you must research, read books study the Punic War and Translate words for yourselves.. I do. Do you know what it helps me to understand the way the Bible is written. If you want to talk to me or anything on this you are more then welcome. I signed up for the Theology classes cause I love history, translations, an understanding the Bible and what it truly means. I love God with all my heart and soul and would do anything for Him, and my brother Jesus.. He didn’t make us robots. The government does that (the beast is the government) that is specifically in the Bible one time. Don’t be left behind translate the words the messages are hidden scriptures, and the words are symbolic. There were 3 world wars in 241.B.C. before translate Hamilcar in Hebrew and Punic the name Hamilcar is baraq a chief leader also known as a golden hoarder leader type in lightning and since that is symbolic for someone handsome and bright, but would have a evil side astronomy dictionary, and more to define Punic or other language.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve Martin,
Your at least partially right, but I think your reasoning is off. Obama is in fact intentionally trying to change the American way of life. Despite this if you genuinely believed the the “American way of life” was dangerous and was leading our country to ruin and destruction then seeking to change it would not be destroying the country, but saving it. This is in fact what Obama appears to believes and thus his intent is not to destroy the country but save it. He’s wrong in his assertions, but again implying intentionality and malicious intent to his actions is absurd.
On another note I find is amusingly disturbing that you would assert that America and our form of government are the “last best hope for mankind on the Earth”. Winston Churchill put it best when he said that “democracy is the worst form of government, save all the others”. Remember it was democracy that got Obama elected in the first place.
On another note I’m still trying to figure out what you mean by “oppression”. If you mean killing millions of innocent babies I agree with you. If you mean higher taxes or more government control over things like healthcare, then this seems to be a stretch, especially considering the people knew he would do this and elected him anyhow. Is it inadvisable, yes, oppression, I don’t think so.
For the record I did not vote for Obama and disagree with 90% of what he wants to do. That being said I really see no difference between the Obama haters and the Bush haters. They both want to turn men who are doing what they think best into monsters who are out to intentionally destroy us.
Like or Dislike:
0
@ Michael Well Put. Thanks for a brave response. I agree that he has no intentions to do evil. Just as Bush was attempting to lead, he is.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
The ‘American way’ is smaller government and more personal freedom. Obama is trying to save that way? Hardly.
Was Bush the greatest at preserving the ‘American way’? Hardly.
But he was a far cry from this, the most left president we’ve ever had.
We are the last best hope of mankind on this earth in that we actually care if other nations are free. And we do what we can about it within the available means at the time.
People aren’t risking their lives to get OUT of this country. it is the other way around.
You see no difference in the Bush haters and the Obama haters?
How about we do this : You give me a dollar for every reference, or photo of a poster depicting Bush as a Nazi, and I’ll give you a dollar for all those depicting Obama as a Nazi.
I will be a rich man and you will be a pauper.
Leftists do not need body guards when they go to speak at a campus, but conservatives do. How’s that for hate?
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Here’s Dan Wallace’s excellent and helpful critique. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Amy, I don’t doubt your sincerity. But just wondering if you are familiar with Dr. Wallace’s credentials and his expertise in the original languages? Moreover, I think he has laid out a pretty good case for disproving the charges of Obama as the anti-Christ as defined in Revelation.
Like or Dislike:
0
Jigawatt, wait…are you saying it’s NOT Bill Clinton?
(I’m just missin’ the ’90′s)
I love your list, and I’ll take it back even further – I had a book in the ’70′s that said it was Anwar Sadat.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan,
Thanks for taking the time to expose the lunacy–It’s unfortunate that this type of insanity has to be answered but it does.
1. Barack is from Swahili, which borrows much vocabulary from Arabic. Barack is cognate to Hebrew ‘barak’, meaning ‘he blessed’. If I wanted to make up a fanciful biblical connection I would point to Baruch son of Neriah, the friend of Jeremiah, and the president’s friend Jeremiah Wright. Jeremiah, of course, was considered unpatriotic because he exposed the false nationalism of the imperial prophets of his day.
2. I guess I’m older than some of the readers . . . I remember when it was Henry Kissenger. I am glad that shortly after reading “The Late Great Planet Earth” I rejected dispensationalism.
3. I’m not sure if the basic fault is dispensational theology or the fact that evangelical christendom has sold its soul to the republican party–but this kind of rumor-mongering is what has made us a stench in the nostrils of the Americans. It has damaged our witness beyond repair–or almost, all things are possible with God.
4. I haven’t yet read Valarie Tariko’s book “The Dark Side of Evangelicalism” yet–but this has to be part of what led her to atheism.
5. If I understand dispensationalism correctly–Christians won’t even be around when the antiChrist comes. What could be more bizarre than an obsession with a person and events that won’t even affect us?
6. Among the list of sins that mark a depraved mind in Romans 1 is included “reviling” or “slander.” Christians who pass on these baseless rumors are guilty of that sin. This is way beyond legitimate dissent on political policies. What gives your readers the ability to see into the president’s soul and conclude that he is a “very evil” man?
7. I avoided criticizing president Bush until about 2005 or 2006–after it became evident that he lied to us about Sadam’s weapons and after the abysmal failure of his administration to help New Orleans. I still limited my criticisms to policy issues–I didn’t resort to name calling and slander.
Like or Dislike:
0
I am a conservative biblically based Christian.
I am a moderate person politically.
Tomorrow my son in law will spend his birthday in Afghanistan. While his wife, son and new born son he has not seen yet wait as he serves his country.
I state these points in this discussion to remind those with political positions masked in Christian garb that while we may not agree with many of the Presidents positions, it is Gods plan that has him there. He is our Commander in Chief. And so while my son in law fights to allow this discourse, we should remember that the bible also tells us to honor our leaders. The President has great burdens. I think we should all, and I mean all, pray boldly that he leads according to Gods plan, not our personal desires.
The jury is out on Mr Obama. But I am an American and I shall support him as Commander in Chief and pray he makes good decisions.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve,
So the sole measure of the ridiculousness of the Bush haters vs. the Obama haters should be whether or not they’ve been compared to Hitler??? Portraying Obama as the Joker in the recent poster may not be comparing him to a Nazi, but it comes pretty darn close. At any rate from a political science perspective it makes more sense to compare him to Stalin or some other communist then a Nazi since Nazi’s are considered by most scholars to be fascists, an extreme form of right wing politics.
I would also dispute the way you choose to define the “American Way” as this is by its very nature a nebulous concept. If you took a person from every 25 year increment of time since the year 1800 and asked them to define this I can guarantee you would come up very different answers. Before 1850 you would probably get a weird look at the question since most American’s considered themselves to be the citizens of the individual states rather than the nation. So you’d have to ask what the Virginia way was or what the New York way. I would even bet if you took two people from different parts of the country, say Texas and Minnesota, they wouldn’t completely agree on what the American way was today. Ultimately the American Way is whatever those who are alive say it is. It is part of our national mythos, but seek to define it and I can guarantee at least quarter and probably more will disagree with your definition. As for your definition I would say that for better or worse that hasn’t been the American Way since well before the Great Depression. Now if you want to advocate a return to this ideal, fine that is a great political debate and one we should be having, but to say the American Way can’t change over time to meet new conditions is absurd.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
My purpose in the comparison is to say (rightfully so I believe) that far more hating is going on from the left side of the political spectrum.
The right believes that people on the left are wrong, and the left believes that people on the right are evil.
In general this is true.
The ‘American way’ is small government. Small government = big people. Big government = small people.
Americans may adopt other, non-American ways. But the ideals that brought this country into existence were those of freedom and independence. Equality of opportunity…not eqaulity of outcome. That is the European way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Calling someone names or labeling them as the “anti-Christ” is just another provocative and lazy shortcut for those who can’t be bothered to disagree with someone the good old-fashioned way, you know, the kind of thing that requires reasoned argumentation and substantiated evidence.
If Obama is truly as disastrous as conservatives are saying, there is no need to bring apocalyptic speculation into the equation. Thoughtful and well-constructed rebuttals of his policies should do just fine.
Isn’t that the whole idea behind reclaiming the mind?
Someone doesn’t have to be the Anti-Christ to be a poor President. On the other hand, the fact that one disagrees with a President’s policies doesn’t necessarily make them the spawn of Satan.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] 15 08 2009 Eminent Greek Scholar Daniel Wallace of his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics fame has written an article over at the Parchment and Pen blog discussing the merits (or the lack thereof) of a supposedly [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Every time I hear someone blather on about “the American way” or something is not “our founders way” as a criticism of Obama, I want to heave.
You really think we should live by their values? All their values?
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve no idea why I began receiving e-mail updates from your Reclaiming the Mind Ministry a few months ago, but now I’m glad I did. This is my first visit to this blog and I’m pleasantly surprised. Thank you for this post. I’m grieved by Christians spreading lies and misinformation for the sake of their political loyalties. It’s distressing to see people so eager to destroy the reputation of a person the Scripture commands us to honor and pray for. If this is how we honor God-ordained authority, with slander and rumor-mongering, then God help us all. Thank you for setting political position aside to look at this matter with honesty and integrity.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think we need to look at these comments with some humility.
Do we think God looked away during the presidential election?
No. He was there. He ordained President Obama.
Do we think that the “American Way” is really the only hope for the world?
No. Jesus is. If we disagree about that, then we disagree on all other points.
Obama is not the Anti-Christ. This is scripturally unsound.
The scary issue I see in these comments is the hearts of people so stuck in their politics that they can’t separate America from Heaven.
Shouldn’t the left, the right and everywhere in between be able to serve God? And shouldn’t our status as an American come second to our status as a redeemed child of God?
Like or Dislike:
0
Your right when you say God was not looking away when Obama won the presidency..but I also remember that Israel prayed for a godless leader (Saul) and they got what they wanted and they suffered greatly for it.. and surely God grieved for he had better plans.. The people of this country voted for a man that had a very questionable profile and past. o how we were warned of his extreme leftism ….and so it went.. . a mindless vote for personality and flair..and total lack of common sence..And so here we are..falling closer and closer into a precipice of socialsim and fear. That is not how its supposed to be..
Anti Christ Obama? He sure has the markings and world admiration of blind followers, with nick names that only belong to our God.. I think when the Anti Christ is revealed everyone will still be doubing that it is he from what I read here..
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] aquí para el resto del [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
So if we take the logic of the video, I could also make this argument:
1) Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life”
2) The Hebrew word for “the way” is Derek.
3) My name is Derek.
So we have Jesus saying “I am Derek, the truth and the life”
ta-da!
I report… You decide.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well said dac. For our first 75 years the “American Way” was owning slaves and for another 100 years after that oppressing African American’s by systematically denying them the basic rights that whites enjoyed. Since we have (thank God) ceased to do these things I guess you could say we’re no longer following the “American Way”. The problem is people want to selectively follow the founders when it suits their political purposes (both the right and the left does this) and then completely discredit our founders when it doesn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well said Daniel!
It’s excellent to see someone like you bringing God given wisdom and rational scholarship to all the propaganda and polemics being slung around.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Obama the antichrist? 2009 August 16 by Matthew Svoboda Newest post from Dan Wallace, incredible and needed: [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
I actually once talked with a fellow who was totally convinced that Bill Clinton was The Antichrist because the letters of his name added up to 666. Scary. I’m not joking here; that kind of analysis is scary.
Part of me wants to say what George said in #44 – why does Dr. Wallace (and why should we) even take the time to respond to such lunacy? Here are my suggested answers:
First off, I think the only time anyone should respond to these kinds of arguments (I use the term loosely) is when they come from a good friend or they’re getting a lot of attention. Dr. Wallace’s response falls into category two.
1. There is the off chance that the person will see the error of their ways and repent of their misuse of God’s Word, especially if the person seems otherwise to be a genuine brother or sister in Christ. By itself, this reason would not be very convincing to me. I don’t know any statistics on the subject, but does anyone know of someone actually being convinced from a reasoned argument like Dr. Wallace’s that their methodology was all screwy?
2. There could be some young or weak believers who are confused by such arguments. We need to give these impressionable brethren some sound advice and try to bring them back to a common sense approach to the Bible. Unfortunately, good theology is not as outwardly exciting as bad theology, but remember it’s the Lord’s work, not ours.
3. The rest of the world loves to take arguments such as this video and present them as the norm for Christianity. If you don’t agree, just go read some of the atheist blogs and you’ll see. What you hardly ever see is an acknowledgement that articles like Dr. Wallace’s even exist. Poisoning the well and guilt by association are two of the main weapons in the non-believer’s arsenal. But God may be working in the heart of someone in the audience of those who go after the low-hanging fruit. Doing as Dr. Wallace did helps us show the world that there are some Christians who do indeed love the Lord their God with their minds.
Like or Dislike:
0
Obama isn’t the anti-Christ he is a just a socialist. This sort insane pronouncements by some does not help the cause of opposing BHO’s socialist ideas, in fact it makes it far harder.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mark said/asked:
5. If I understand dispensationalism correctly–Christians won’t even be around when the antiChrist comes. What could be more bizarre than an obsession with a person and events that won’t even affect us?
You misunderstand dispensationalism: The Christians will be around when the antiChrist COMES. However, the Christians will not be around (due to the Rapture) when the antiChrist is REVEALED (when Israel agrees to his 7-year [this period of time is the Tribulation] offer of protection).
Sarah said:
Do we think God looked away during the presidential election?
No. He was there. He ordained President Obama.
Be careful with this. We are only informed that God elects governments, not ‘specific’ individual leaders. God did elect specific leaders under his theocracy, but that was during a different dispensation.
I also would caution anyone who uses “ordained” in an all-encompassing way. To use an emotionally charged example, don’t have God ordaining the rape and torture of a little girl; let the evil individual be the one who ordains this.
Michael:
The America Way is why we no longer have slaves. It was contrary to the American Way (so stated in our Constitution), and for that reason, slavery was ruled unconstitutional.
Many countries today have slaves. Check out their Constitutions.
This principle is how Christian Apologists handle the Crusades; the “Christians” were not following the Christian Way. No case could be made for such behavior as Christians exhibited in the Crusades. Every time YOU sin, I do not alter my view of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Dan Wallace wrote:
That’s what the Greek prepositional prefix, anti-, means: not AGAINST, but in place of. (emphasis mine)
Are you willing to say that ANTI does not ever mean “against”? In your GGBB you cite Waltke on ANTI, in which he concludes it can have the meaning “opposite” or “over AGAINST” (emphasis mine, p 366).
I agree with your statement on how to interpret ANTI when used ANTI-CHRIST. But I don’t want to be caught overstating my (your?) position on ANTI… in all cases. Can you help me with your quotation of Waltke and his suggested meaning of “opposite” or “over AGAINST” (emphasis added)?
Like or Dislike:
0
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Your ministry is much needed today. In a time when many Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe that we are living in the Last Days, it is extremely helpful to have voices like yours join in the conversation. As we try to discern the meanings of prophecies and the words of scripture we need to be careful not to accept rumors, myths, errors and deception. Thank you for participating in this global conversation.
Like or Dislike:
0
The first time I heard the claim that Obama was “the” anti-christ was on election night, from my young republican nephew. This debate has only pushed him further into psychological instability – he believes he’s paying his rent by protecting his family from demon attack too – and that he has a cosmic role to play in the “cutting down of the tree” of Israel. But he dropped out of college when real biblical scholarship threatened his “faith”…
Nice critique, but I think it’s really moot. Any bit of trail would obsess people now – because that’s really all they’ve got. You can Google anti-christ or 666 and find hundreds of such accusations for different people. What they all have in common is that the person being accused of being the antichrist is always someone the writer disagrees with. In my view, this is simply a method of manipulating people toward hatred and fear.
What could be more “anti-christ” than that?
Like or Dislike:
0
I very much enjoyed reading your post on this subject. It is very interesting to me that videos such as that one can get so much play. As for the point of Obama as Antichrist however, I don’t even think it is necessary to use intellect or logic as a proof of his not being such. The Anichrist is someone who would have throngs of minions following his teachings and doing his bidding to insure his will be done. One look at the battle with health care reform will show you the President has no such power. Therefore one must eliminate his name from the list of possible candidates. Should people want to find a suitable candidate to replace him on the list of possible Antichrists, they need to find a person who has throngs of folk enthralled with everything they say and do without any true justification for it. In my mind, one person who would fit that description to a “T” is Will Ferrell. Food for thought.
Like or Dislike:
0
Do people seriously think Obama is a mesmerizing speaker? I know he attracts big crowds all over the world, but the real anti-Christ will have people hanging on every word. Obama is soooo boring after 10 minutes – hey, even his supporters admit that he is way too scripted. There are some pretty funny videos out there showing how he really does put people to sleep.
The real anti-Christ will be so intelligent and charismatic that he will make Obama look like a piker. Plus, he will be extremely spiritual, even performing miracles. This guy says he’s religious, but so has every single U.S. President- but he refuses to even pray publicly. He is trying really hard to make the presidency a secular office.
There are so many angles you could look at and see that this guy doesn’t fit into the puzzle.
Like or Dislike:
0
I should have written “Do people seriously think Obama is a mesmerizing speaker?”, not “Does people seriously think Obama is a mesmerizing speaker?” – hope you can fix this for me if it isn’t a hassle.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think it’s more important to spend our time knowing our Lord and Savior and then we wouldn’t have to worry about who the antichrist is or when he will appear….. remember not even Jesus knew when the day would be, and it seems silly even trying to speculate about these things.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks, Dan, for setting the record straight on this rumor.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] to show that Jesus warned in Luke 10:18 that President Obama is the Antichrist. I commend to you this excellent response by New Testament Scholar Dan [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Jigawatt (#73), you have articulated well why I wrote the blog post. I really didn’t want to give the video any credit, but the reasons you mentioned are what drove me to write it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Eddie (#75), it is true that ANTI could have the force of ‘opposite,’ ‘over against,’ but as Waltke noted, this was a local (that is, spatial) use. He also noted that the metaphorical meaning was that of substitute. And this is surely what antichrist must mean. The antichrist is one who comes as a substitute for Christ. He comes as a pretender, someone who will persuade many that he is, indeed, the Messiah. But his religion is false, and it will lead many people astray. It is for this reason that I suspect that the ultimate antichrist will be Jewish, for he could not persuade Jews that he was the Messiah unless he were.
Like or Dislike:
0
Obama, Obama, Obama… why is everybody always picking on Obama?
We must put all this in context… Obama is being scrutinized because he is misunderstood… The man has only been in office for six months and many are making assertions that he’s the anti-Christ… but ignoring those whom took office before him whom demonstrated anti-Christian actions… So if we’re going to identify people as being the anti-Christ… we must do it without bias… lets line them all up starting with Christospher Columbus… to the first president of these so called united states… down to those that acted out the orders to bomb the church house which killed many young people that was in a sunday school class learning about God…
Like or Dislike:
0
Actually, the Bible itself, Jesus himself, noted that many “false Christs,” plural, would come after him.
(While John, in a letter, spoke as if one or more had already come, even in his own time?)
Therefore any nomination of anyone, particularly today, as “the” anti-Christ, is not true to the Bible itself.
Incidentally, for two thousand years, there have been hundreds of people named as the anti-Christ, by the pious; from Pontius Pilate, to Nero, to Napoleon, to Hitler.
Like or Dislike:
0
Joe, it is true that the Bible speaks of many antichrists. But if the beast of Rev 13.18 is the antichrist, then he’s the ultimate one. I take it that this is the case. Further, often we see in scripture multiple fulfillment culminating in the grand fulfillment that is envisioned. Connecting the beast of Rev 13.18 to the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess 2 suggests that there will be a final antichrist who makes himself out to be God.
Like or Dislike:
0
Later in Job, by the way, God himself, is said to send “lightning.” (Same root as “Barack.”)
Likewise elsewhere, God sends “fire” from heaven.
So in this reading, Barack is probably sent from heaven.
Thank you Derek, on your name, and especially Dan Wallace; for your excellent etymologies.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] of hand as ridiculous, but, if you know someone who takes this seriously, you might refer them to this nuanced take on the “evidence” at Parchment and Pen, the blog of the Credo [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Eddie Mishoe,
I think you need to examine the history of slavery a little more closely because your history is completely inaccurate.
Slavery was never ruled unconstitutional under the original Constitution. In fact Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution reads as follows.
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Although somewhat vague the purpose of this provision was to specifically allow for slavery and hold that slaves should be counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes and apportionment of Representatives for the lower House of Congress and taxes. This was known as the “Three-fifths Compromise”.
Our founding Father’s (though not all of them) specifically supported slavery and many of them (most famously Jefferson) owned slaves themselves. It was not until after the Civil War, the most bloody war in our history, that slavery was outlawed by the passing of the 13th Amendment in 1865 which was 78 years after the passage of the Constitution in 1787. Even then it wasn’t until the passage of the 24th Amendment and numerous Civil Rights laws in the 1960′s that African Americans gained anything resembling equality. Unfortunately our countries history in this area is regretfully shameful, we just don’t like to acknowledge it.
Like or Dislike:
0
“barak” in Hebrew means “blessing”
Why the writer wishes to use “baraq” instead of “barak” is anyone’s guess… other than he is desperately trying to invent something out of nothing…. and truly only God can do that.
This is actually the product of my favorite Greek word “baloney.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Chuck,
So… What Jesus was actually saying is that he saw Satan falling, because of Barack Obama, the blessing from heaven?
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] narrator himself seems unsure whether Obama is merely the antichrist or Satan himself. Thankfully Dan Wallace has written a thorough debunking of this video. If you find someone you know who has encountered this video or something like it, [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
One side note (and I will take any correction gladly since this is slippery ice for a moderately educated new Christian):
There have been Obama Anti-Christ correlations since before the elections. Do I need to remind this audience of this whole thing that circulated as early as the spring of 2008 where it claimed that Revelation described the anti-Christ as “a man in his 40′s of Muslim decent who will deceive the nations. I recall getting that e-mail from well-meaning Christian friends. My rebuttal to this video would be exactly the same as to that e-mail.
Where in the book of Revelation is the word “Anti-Christ” mentioned ?
To my understanding, searching and reading… nowhere.
Lisa (#56): You referred to the description of the Anti-Christ in Revelation. Where ?
Dan (for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect btw), alluded to it in a couple of posts, to wit #30 and #88, that in Revelation there is a clear reference to “the Beast” and as with so many other things we are left to wonder who/what that really will be. But it is to be feared that’s for sure.
I sometimes feel the jump from the beast of revelation to the Anti-Christ is a little bit “Left Behind” inspired and really at the foundation of all this nonsensical hype. As educated Christians, let’s use the correct terminology. The right question would be on whether Obama is the beast or not. Antichrist(s) are those that deny Christ as John teaches us in his letters. But not in Revelation….
But I will humbly sit down and listen to be corrected now
In Him
Mick
PS: As a non-citizen I can happily stay out of the political minefield. This is a theology blog after all.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello.
Thank you to those who have tried to bring some rationality and judgment into this thread.
Sadly, I think there is something strongly in common between the “Obama is the Anti-Christ”, “Obama is a Muslim”, “Obama was born in Nigeria” obsessions and “the Holocaust never happened” folks, like David Irving, Mel Gibson’s father, American fascist groups, and certain Muslim leaders. There seems to be a basic fear of loss of control, and an inability to face one’s prejudices or ironclad ideas in the face of a feared reality — not that the reality need inspire fear, just that the person has fears that the reality might make one face those prejudices, and find out they are baseless, thus forcing one to change a strongly held idea. Whether the cause is an internal prejudice, like racism or ‘religious’ bigotry (no really religious person would be a bigot, because true religion requires humility in the face of God’s being), or fear that one tiny divergence from one’s belief system will bring the whole structure down and destroy what one believes to be faith (though real faith is a lot stronger than that!). Our shared human insecurities have led to so much misery, violence and murder — witness Stalin and Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition, murder of Catholics by Cromwell … Jesus gives us a Gospel of Love, and we give greater authority and control to the apocalyptic and symbolic dream of Revelation than we do to Jesus’ actual words! We don’t call Harry Truman a Socialist, though he tried to put in a national public health system way more comprehensive than Obama’s suggestions, because he’s dead and we don’t fear him.
Fear God (i.e. RESPECT God above your fears, and give him all the worship of which you are capable by living according to his will), and take the time and energy to learn something real about your religion, and a lot of non-Christian hate-mongering will drop away and give you the freedom your faith should give, as Jesus said: The TRUTH will set you free!
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, if I may be so bold, I predicted this story months ago. Read the opening words of my new book, Revelation Reclaimed, now published by Paternoster Press (UK) .
You see, as some of the people posting here note, this is not a new problem. People have been misusing Revelation (and other parts of the Bible, especially Daniel) for years, in all sorts of ways. Read my book for more.
Like or Dislike:
0
Or is John McCain the anti-Christ?
Since his name seems to resemble “Cain,” who slew the more righteous Able.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael L.
I am embarrassed that a “moderately educated new Christian” has been drawn into this disgraceful conversation. I think Antoninus has the best advice.
The description of the beast in Revelation is given to encourage followers of Christ who were being persecuted–and they knew who it was. It is not a puzzle for a later generation to figure out. It was not written to indulge the speculations of a later generation who believes they will not be present when the figure in question is “revealed.”
The “right question” would be on why Christians believe they have the right to spread vicious rumors, and to cause the name of Christ to be blasphemed because of their arrogance and ignorance. Haven’t they ever read Jude 8-10. (By the way, I’m not implying that our president is a heavenly being. I am saying if those who fear God exercise restraint when they know they are dealing with Satan–shouldn’t we exercise restraint when criticizing our human leaders?)
This has nothing to do with debating political issues. If you think it is better for 47 million citizens to be unprotected than to have the government involved in health care, that’s fine. If you think the president and the democratic party are wrong about abortion, don’t vote for them. But remember Titus 3:1-2
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
Like or Dislike:
0
47 million Americans (many of whom choose not to buy insurance) is not the problem.
The problem is destroying a good healthcare system in order to give a small percentage insurance.
Everyone in this country has access to healthcare (contrary to what the liberal media and many govt. officials tell us).
Taking away our freedom, being lied to by the government, and having a sub par system foisted upon us is the issue.
Obama is not the anti-Christ (although he may be anti-Christ, millions in churches are), but he is a left winger, bent on government running every aspect of our lives.
People are finally starting to wake up and figure out that this guy has no new ideas, just tired old, failed socialist ideas.
More Comments:
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »