HomeFeatureCould you be an Antichrist?    

Comments

Could you be an Antichrist? — 17 Comments

  1. “Joseph almost put poor Mary away thinking he had all the evidence of an affair. Even with his overwhelming evidence, he was wrong! Even with all his evidence, he tried to put her away privately, without any public embarrassment. What a great example for us to imitate. Even with his incontrovertible evidence, Joseph was not going to judge Mary’s heart.“

    What a wonderful example of a pure heart. God chose Jesus’s earthly father very well…Well said William...Royce

    Amen!(5)
  2. Yes, John’s epistles are considered to have been written post Revelation. However, whenever the “commandments” of Rev 14:12 are mentioned we immediately consider the Ten Commandments of Mount Sinai. But John says: “...Whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and he in Him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us (1 Jn 3:22-24).

    The ministry under Law was preparatory to the ministry of the Spirit/Kingdom of Heaven. Under Law (O.C.) was the ministry of condemnation and death. The ministry of Spirit (N.C.) is that of Life and Righteousness (2 Cor 3:6-10). Consider the woman caught in adultery. She was caught at the end of O.C and the beginning of the N.C. Moses and Christ are compared (Heb 3:1-6; 2:1-3). The change of Priesthood necessitated a change of law (Heb 7:11,12; Gal 3:17,19, 22-26; Isa 2-2-4; Mic 4-1-3). Moses testified that God would raise up a prophet like himself and all must “hear” Him (Dt 18:18,19; Jn 5:45-47; Mk 9:7).
    Of course Israel wanted no part of this, stood their ground, and killed Christ in order to retain that ministry and make it their own (Jn 11:47-52; Matt 21:38-44). They misunderstood both their own and Christ’s ministries. Christ was vindicated in the end.

    Amen!(2)
    • Thank you for your perspective. I believe it was the pre-incarnate Christ Himself who proclaimed the Ten Commandments from Sinai. In my view, they are the moral law, a transcript of God's character, and as such are not transitory in nature. That said, we are indeed not "under" even the best of laws, in the sense of being saved by our own efforts in obeying them. The ministry of grace, through the Spirit, is far more glorious. Yet, according to Paul, grace does not undermine the moral law. It upholds it.

      The change of priesthood did necessitate a change of law -- ceremonial law that regulated what the priests were supposed to do. The rituals of the earthly sanctuary, the animal sacrifices, and the annual and monthly observances are no more.

      Jesus did not set aside the Law of Moses in His treatment of the woman caught in adultery. When He got done questioning her would-be accusers, they had all disappeared. Without a prosecutor there can be no indictment. Jesus, in my view, was upholding the true spirit of the laws He had given through Moses.

      You seem to be implying that the Ten Commandments are no longer in effect. With which of them do you find fault?

      Amen!(2)
      • R.G., keep in mind that the author of Hebrews was not the only Bible author to make a comparison between Moses and Christ. John the Baptist, whose birth was prophesied (Mal 3:1; Lk 1:13,17) and whose ministry was directly commissioned by God (Jn 1:6-7), made the same comparison (Jn 1:17 NKJV). Why was it necessary for this Divinely appointed herald to make such a comparison?
        Both the northern nation of Israel, as well as the southern nation of Judah(/Benjamin) revered the legacy of the patriarchs (eg Abraham's altar (Gen 22:14), Jacob's well (Jn 4:12) etc. Among these many revered legacy items was, of course, the writings of Moses (Dt 31:24-26). John made his declaration, because a significant transition was about to occur on the Earth with the physical appearance of Christ. Similar to the Ten Commandments which were written on stone, by the finger of God and placed INSIDE the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 24:12; 25:16), the writings of Moses were in a book, on the SIDE of the Ark of the Covenant (again see Dt 31:24,26)--one indicating permanence (Heb 10:16-18) and the other a transitory status (Col 2:13-14). Paul would later magnify John's comparison with his extensive writing on the subject (Gal 2:16; Heb 7:19; Rm 5:20-21; 8:3).
        In the New Covenant ministry of Christ, the mature believer is exempted from all static, externally written laws. He/she is, by Christ, gifted instead with the dynamic Spirit of grace (Zech 12:10 NKJV; Heb 10:29; Jn 1:17) who facilitates the writing of the "great commandment(s)" (Mt 22:36-40) within the mind of the mature (Rm 5:5).

        Amen!(2)
        • Again, thank you for your perspective. Mine is a bit different. I believe that, in idolizing the writings of Moses, the Jews had departed from their true spiritual intent, and that this is why it was necessary for New Testament writers to emphasize the authority of Christ to place the sayings of Moses in their true context.

          Much of what Moses wrote was moral instruction, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit helping Israel to apply the principles of the Ten Commandments. I believe that these instructions, insofar as they are still applicable, are as authoritative for today's Christian as they ever were. The dynamic Spirit of grace will never lead us contrary to what constituted good morals in ancient times, nor will the truly born-again believer desire to be exempted from the details of how true love for God and humanity may still be expected to play out. He or she will naturally love God's law.

          Amen!(2)
          • R.G., I sense from your response that my use of the word "exempt" with respect to the law might be an obstacle for your thinking, so I'd like to clarify what I meant.

            I believe the Scripture teaches that the starting status of all humans is broken, unprofitable, sinner (Rm 3:23). I believe it also teaches that each sinner is inherently flawed from deep within the mind (Jer 17:9). Consequently, our broken minds generate the actions that offend God and each other (Mk 7:20-23). The goal of God's salvation plan, therefore, is to restore the broken to health (Lk 19:9-10). It is an act of love on God's part that meets sinners in our brokenness, bestow on us a new status (Jn 3:3), then take us through a series of phases to maturity (Mk 4:28-29).

            The "law", whether of Ten Commandments or all of Scripture, is then like the support pole for an emerging seedling, or like a cast on a broken extremity. I like the cast analogy. Like a broken limb needs a cast, all broken sinners need the law (Rm 3:19; 7:7). Like a cast, the law doesn't actually heal the broken spirit, it facilitates its healing (Gal 3:21; Rm 3:21). Like a cast, once the spirit has been healed, there is no more need of the law--for THAT HEALED individual (1 Tim 1:8-10; Rm 7:4). This was the sense with which I used the word "exempt" with respect to the law.

            Bear in mind that the goal of God's salvation isn't to JUST keep us from sickness and debt, it is to return us to good health and positive profitability (compare Rm 7:4 with Jn 15:5,8)! Therefore anyone who has had a broken limb and benefited from having a cast applied, who then goes on to say, "I'm going to keep wearing this beneficial but cumbersome cast, just in case I break my limb again", isn't thinking correctly. I was once one of a lot of Christians who, unfortunately, fell into this trap of "protectionist" thinking (Mt 25:24-27). God has called us to more--a lot more--through Christ's provision of access to His dynamic Spirit of grace (Col 1:21-22; Rm 8:12-17; 1 Cor 2:12,16)!

            Amen!(3)
          • Dear Lynrol,

            I certainly find your view both helpful and biblical, yet I think your use of the word "exempt" is not quite accurate. The person who is sufficiently impressed with the need for safety and conservation to naturally drive at speeds that are always under 60 mph will never feel restricted by a 70 mph speed limit. This doesn't mean that the authorities have now exempted this individual from the legal requirement. It just means that the person's whole thinking is now so in harmony with the spirit of the law that the letter ceases to be a restriction.

            Amen!(1)
          • R.G., even though at this present time you're not able to accept my use of the word "exempt" with respect to the law as accurate, I cannot move away from this Scriptural teaching I believe to be the goal of our salvation. The law (Rm 3:19), Scripture (Gal 3:22), and even the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:8) share a common characteristic which is a hallmark of an early salvation experience of a believer. Jesus, our supreme Teacher (Heb 1:2), and Paul each taught that Scripture (Jn 5:39-40) and the law (Gal 3:24-25) have their function and limitation. While both are used by the Holy Spirit to enlighten the mind to its true condition and bring the conviction of a need for change, neither is commissioned by God to effect the change itself. But neither is it within the will of God that a sinner who is converted remain forever in a state of searching without finding, or conviction of guilt without eventual release from such guilt. The fledgling believer, brought by law and Scripture, are introduced to Christ, the giver of abundant grace (Jn 1:17; Rm 5:20). It is by faith that the believer is brought into the grace experience (Rm 5:1-2). Peter says it is "multiplied" grace from Christ that provides access to "His divine power" and "the divine nature" that secures escape from the inherited "lust" within and around us that is the "corruption that is in the world" (2 Pt 1:2-4 NKJV).

            I would hope that all mature beneficiaries of the New Covenant, who have the law written by God within their minds (Heb 10:16) and who are "partakers of the divine nature", would never come under the condemnation of any law issued from the Lawgiver they are so closely bound to (Rm 5:5; Mt 22:36-40; Jn 14:21,23).

            Amen!(2)
  3. "I am not the Lawgiver or the interpreter of the law for the rest of the world."

    In the main, I agree with the thrust of this article, and I mean to take it to heart. However, I'm a bit unclear about this statement. Does it mean that we are not in a position, based on the Scriptures, to tell the world what is right and what is wrong? How then can we even try to uphold God's law, except of course by our own example? Is there no place for reproof, and if not, then how are we to proclaim the 3rd angel's message?

    Amen!(2)
    • Thanks R.G. that is a good question I have to ask myself. Of course we are to proclaim the plain Word of God. But if someone disagrees with us we can't burn them at the stake. We have to be tolerant of other peoples views. I also cannot assume someone is lost because they disagree with my interpretation of Scripture. I am free to believe the way I believe and preach what I believe to be true but I can't punish someone for disagreeing or assume they are lost for disagreeing with my way of thinking.

      Amen!(5)
      • Thank you for the thoughtful response. I agree that we must not condemn those who reject even the plainest teachings of Scripture. We do not know their inner thoughts/motives and personal experience, nor God's possible plan for their lives, and we are faulty ourselves. That said, while we respect the right of others to express their views, I believe there is a limit to tolerating the views themselves. We've got to be able to call sin by its right name.

        Amen!(3)
          • Indeed. However, I believe that all sin harms other individuals, directly or indirectly. So, if their views are clearly in favour of sin, then I must respectfully, and as tactfully as possible, refuse to tolerate such opinions.

            That said, I fully agree with the main point of your article. We really have to watch our attitudes, lest we be found cherishing the spirit of antichrist.

            Amen!(1)
  4. Where do you find that Revelation was written first? I've never heard that & I can't find anything now to corroborate.
    Please comment.

    Amen!(2)
    • Hi John. I read a while back, that the epistles of John were written after Revelation. This morning before going to Sabbath School I tried to find documentation but could not find it. I asked a good pastor friend of mine about it, and he said he had read that theory too, but that more and more evidence is being found that the epistles of John were actually written first. So I just took that sentence out of my article, since there is speculation with no documentation. Thank you for your question.

      Amen!(2)
  5. I really appreciate your article, plus you and JC's discussion all helps me better understand 'Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing' page 55.2 to 57.4, based on: Matthew 5:22.

    Amen!(1)

Please leave a comment long enough to say something significant and considerably shorter than the original post. First and last name required.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please leave a comment long enough to say something significant and preferably significantly shorter than the post on which you are commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.