Tag Archives: truth

The Rich Man and Lazarus – Parable or not?

Lazarus and the Rich Man is the final parable of five that Jesus told in response to a group of Pharisees and scribes who were unhappy over the fact that Jesus welcomed sinners and ate with them (Luke 15:1 and 16:14). Just before this parable, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for loving money, exalting themselves in self-justification, and ignoring the Old Testament’s authority, which testified about the Messiah (Luke 16:14–18). All three themes are woven into the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Starting from Luke 16:19, Jesus begins the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. What can we learn from this parable?

Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day (Luke 16:19 NASB 1995)

Now there was a rich man. This is similar to the way Luke introduces the four parables that precede this. Parables are introduced with the generalizing formula such as “there was a man” (Luke 15:3, 15:8, 15:11; 16:1). The rich man is the first character in this story, and he represents the Pharisees and anyone who loves money more than God.

He habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. Purple color was expensive as well as splendid, and was chiefly worn by nobles, and the very wealthy. Fine linen was chiefly produced of the flax that grew on the banks of the Nile and it was also very expensive. So, we are told that this rich man feasted and lived selfishly in a splendid manner not just occasionally, but constantly, ignoring God’s commandments to help the poor. You shall fully open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land” (Deuteronomy 15:11)

And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores (Luke 16:20)

And a poor man named Lazarus. This is the second character in this story, representing a class of people despised by the Pharisees. Jesus named the poor man in this story, and not the rich man, which was countercultural in that society and it would have felt really wrong to the Pharisees. The name Lazarus means “The one whom God helps”. God’s help was much more evident after Lazarus’ death as the parable goes on to show.

Now some say that this story is not a parable, but a real event since it mentions historical figures such as Lazarus, Abraham, Moses—something no parable has. This observation is right, but it’s hard to miss the fact that Luke introduces this story the same way he does the previous parables such as “there was a man”. Further, there are no known rules that prohibit parables to include actual names.

Was laid at his gate, covered with sores. He was laid at the door of the rich man probably by some man in order that he might obtain help. We are told he was afflicted not only with poverty but loathsome and offensive ulcers.

And longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. (Luke 16:21)

And longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table. It was common in that day for dogs to eat the food spilled from the table of their masters. Lazarus was so hungry that he longed to be treated as well as the rich man’s dogs.

Even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. The picture is not that the dogs came to befriend Lazarus, but they come to humiliate and irritate his condition more by licking his sores and possibly infecting them even more. The dogs in this culture were considered ceremonially unclean, and to be licked by an unclean creature magnified his humiliation.

Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried (Luke 16:22)

Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The poor man Lazarus died, but Jesus surprises the listeners by saying that “the angels carried him to Abraham’s side” and not the rich man. Pharisees would have expected the rich man to be favored by God, and that people like Lazarus were poor and diseased because they were under God’s judgement; hence, it was people like Lazarus who should have been tormented in Hades when they died. Jews also held to the belief that the spirits of the righteous were carried by angels to Abraham’s bosom or side in heaven at their death. Jesus mentions these facts based on the prevailing view at this time. In The Testament of Abraham, a Jewish apocryphal text, it is written in 20:11-12 about Abraham’ s death as follows: “And they buried him in the promised land at the oak of Mamre, while the angels escorted his precious soul and ascended into heaven singing the thrice-holy hymn to God, the master of all”.

A question arises though. Should this parable of the rich man and Lazarus be used as a definitive statement about the afterlife? Since parables were told to illustrate a point, not to give a systematic account of any doctrine, we must be careful to use it as a definitive statement about after life. However, the Scriptures do teach that, at death, “the dust [body] will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God” (Ecclesiastes 12:7), and the body will “sleep” in the grave till the resurrection of the body at Christ’s second coming. See our study on The state of the dead. While the Bible do not mention angels carrying spirits to heaven elsewhere (besides in this parable), the Bible is clear angels are “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:14) doing God’s work, and it may not be surprising for angels to be involved in this work.

“Abraham’s bosom” was a term equivalent to being with Abraham’s side in Paradise or heaven similar to when Jesus says, “Many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: (Matthew 8:11). Generally, all parables have an earthly setting, but not this one, again, compelling some to interpret this not as a parable, but a real historical event.

And the rich man also died and was buried. Burial was thought to be an honor, and funerals were often expensive. This is said of the rich man to show that he had “every” earthly honor unlike the poor man.

In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom (Luke 16:23)

In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment. Jesus completes the surprise by telling them that the rich man also died and was buried, but he is the one who found himself being conscious and tormented in Hades. From this, some conclude that the parable teaches that the poor go to heaven and the rich to hell at death. The problem with such a view, as Augustine noted long ago, is that poor Lazarus is carried to the side of wealthy Abraham. If wealth alone determines our fate, then Abraham, Job, among many others should not be in heaven along with the rich man.2

Further, it is noteworthy that the parable nowhere states that both Lazarus and the rich man were in Hades; Lazarus appears to be placed in Abraham’s Bosom, a place far off (Luke 16:23) from Hades and separated from it by a great chasm. (Luke 16:26). Again, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus should not be used as a definitive statement about the afterlife, or the nature of Hades. Thus, Jesus intended not to fully describe Hades, but to warn His listeners about their hardheartedness, and love of money.

Sheol/Hades: In the Old Testament Scriptures, the Hebrew word generally used to describe the realm of the dead is SHEOL. It simply means “the place of the dead” or “the place of departed souls/spirits” (Genesis 37:35), or sometimes the “grave” (Psalm 141:7), with context determining the meaning. Sometimes the Old Testament present those who go down to sheol as silent, and another time, they are conscious as we find in Isaiah 14:9, which says that Sheol below is excited about you, to meet you when you come; It stirs the spirits of the dead for you” .The New Testament Greek equivalent to SHEOL is HADES, which is also a general reference to “the place of the dead”.

– Jehovah’s Witness’ and Seventh-day Adventists, among others interpret SHEOL and HADES, simply to be the grave (nothing more), where both righteous and wicked go at death until the final resurrection and judgement. In their theology, generally the soul/spirit do not exist apart from the body after death. In this view, soul is the whole person, and their view is generally known as “soul sleep”, where the whole person sleeps (or is not conscious) until the resurrection.

– While other Christians see sheol/hades to be more than just the grave. In this view, “bodies” of the dead sleep at death, but the “spirit/soul” is to some degree conscious and go to the following destinations. In this view, some believe that during the Old Testament time period, the “spirits” of the righteous went to a part of Sheol/Hades called “Paradise/Abraham’s Bosom”, not heaven, and the “spirits” of the wicked went to a part of Sheol/Hades where they were tormented, similar to parable of the rich man and Lazarus . After Jesus rose from the dead, it is interpreted (I Peter 3:19; Ephesians 4:8-10) to mean that He cleared out the side called Paradise (where the Old testament righteous saints have gone at death), and took all of them with Him in His ascension to heaven (where all “the spirits” of all post-resurrection saints now go at death). Hades is now exclusively a temporary place of torment for the wicked. And that may or may not be true. Christians do not agree on these specifics. [Others feel that paradise, Abraham’s bosom, and heaven are three different descriptions of the same place, where all the “spirits” of righteous saints (before and after the cross) have gone (Hebrews 11:10,16)].

Not HADES, but the Greek word GEHENNA is used in the New Testament for “hell” or “lake of fire”, the final place of punishment for the wicked after the “bodily” resurrection at the final judgement (Revelation 20:14).

Saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. This appears to aggravate his misery and suffering, to see the poor man that lay at his gate completely happy with Abraham.

And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ (Luke 16:24)

And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me’. The Jews believed that departed spirits might know and converse with each other. Jesus speaks in conformity with such opinions. Now, remember that this man is a Jew and his Jewishness has not saved him. He bore no fruit that befits repentance, he shared no food, no clothes, and now he’s condemned. Interestingly, the rich man is not represented as calling on “God.” The Jews considered a proud honor that Abraham was their “father” and they were “descendants” from him, yet having Abraham as father was not enough to escape.

And send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.

The rich man knew Lazarus by name, so he clearly was aware of the impoverished poor man at his gate. The rich man, even in his torment, remained self-centered, viewing Lazarus as a servant. He showed no sense of remorse for how he failed to help Lazarus during their time on earth. A drop of water on the tongue would not stop his agony in the flame yet he was desperate to have even a drop of water. This again shows that we need not take everything in this parable literally.

You received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony (Luke 16:25)

“Your good things” refers to the wealth and riches that the rich man valued most during his life. But they were of no value to him after death.

And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ (Luke 16:26)

It was also commonly understood in the teaching of the ancient Jewish writings, that the righteous and the unrighteous were separated after death, and although they can see each other, they cannot cross the unfathomable, uncrossable, unbridgeable chasm that God has fixed in his sovereign judgment.  There is also no indication in the Bible or in this parable that there’s a purgatory because “those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us”.

But the underlying revelation in this story is that, in fact, there is one who crosses chasms for the sake of sinners, that is Jesus. God gave his eternal Son for all sinners, not just for sinners like Lazarus, but for sinners like the rich man, too (John 3:16-17). But the rich man, a symbol of the Pharisees and the scribes, who gathered to condemn Jesus, didn’t want the God who became flesh.

And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ (Luke 16:27-28)

The rich man continues to be self-absorbed, concerned only about those in his immediate family. He again views Lazarus as a mere servant.

But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ (Luke 16:29)

“Moses and the Prophets,” that’s a way of saying what we call the Old Testament, which was the extent of the Bible at that time, which was sufficient revelation about the necessity of love and the danger of judgment, until Jesus came. Jesus had already told them that the Law and Prophets testify about Him (John 5:39), a testimony they had rejected. How much more so does the entire Bible today, by detailing the fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic prophecies, and in the New Testament, clearly laying out God’s offer of grace through Jesus’ atoning death on the cross?

But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ (Luke 16:30)

Once again, the rich man shows his pride and arrogance by arguing with Abraham. But the rich man knows that his brothers do not listen to the Old Testament Scriptures. They may have devotions in the morning for a few minutes and they attend synagogues once a week, but he knows that their whole mindset about money is shaped by the world not God. And so the rich man knows it is not going to do any good for Abraham just to say to them: read Moses, read the prophets! If someone could go from among the dead—something really startling, some miracle—then they would wake up and repent. They would forsake their selfish luxury and start to live for others to the glory of God.

But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31)

Jesus is foretelling the resurrection of his close friend Lazarus (John 11) as well as His own. In both cases, some believed, but many did not. Moreover, in both resurrections, many actively resisted the outcome and plotted against the characters involved. If a person is so in love with money that he is deaf to the commands and warnings and promises of Moses and the prophets, then even a resurrection from the dead will not bring about repentance. Jesus’ friend Lazarus (John 11) and Jesus rose from the dead. Yet the Jews weren’t convinced; the Pharisees, scribes and chief priests who conspired to have Jesus crucified also conspired to have soldiers lie about his resurrection (Matthew 27:62-66) and proceeded to persecute and kill those who became believers.

Additional thoughts:

By the first century two conflicting schools of thought were prevailing, represented by the Saducees and the Pharisees respectively. Whereas the Saduccees dismissed any idea of disembodied spirits/angels or the resurrection of the dead, the Pharisees — as well as the Jewish populace at large (see: Matt 14:26; Luke 24:37–39; John 11:24; Acts 12:15) — embraced both these concepts (Acts 23:8–9). 

  • In Luke 16, Jesus offers the most graphic New Testament depiction of ongoing conscious existence beyond death. Some first-century Jews had ideas about the afterlife that included such concepts as Abraham’s bosom and consciousness in sheol. Jesus used these ideas as the setting for the story, without attempting to correct those ideas. Neither Jesus nor Luke felt any compulsion to correct the popular beliefs about the afterlife. Would Jesus use a pagan error to illustrate his parable of Lazarus and the rich man? Would one use error to illustrate truth? This is a valid question.

  • While the lesson of the parable is very clear, it is difficult to conclude that Jesus’ audience (the Pharisees for instance) were not expected to draw relevant inferences from it regarding life after death. Thus, whilst one should be cautious about pressing all the details in this parable to be literal (e.g., the rich man and Lazarus are both depicted in a corporeal manner, having a finger and tongue respectively, and can communicate with one another, among other things), Jesus appears to be giving at least tacit endorsement to the idea of after death, but pre-resurrection, state of being. Thus, the scenario portrayed in this parable seems to correlate in some measure with the idea of an intermediate state for both the righteous and the unrighteous, before the final resurrection and judgement.  

  • However, this is the only biblical text that lends any support to such an interim conscious punishment for the wicked (perhaps a case could be made in Jude 1:6-7 too). As such, it is also arguably mistaken to build such a doctrine on the basis of such a debatable passage. While there may be little or no definitive biblical support for the conscious intermediate state of the wicked, there is much clearer evidence with respect to the righteous after Christ’s resurrection.1

Adapted & Referenced:

  1. Death and the Afterlife – Paul R. Williamson
  2. Is the Rich Man and Lazarus a Parable? Peter Gurry
  3. Lecture on the Rich man and Lazarus by D. A Carson.

See also our chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse, commentaries on the book of DanielRevelation & Genesis for a deeper understanding of the Sabbath. 

And more:

Your support of this ministry is greatly appreciated and can be made here.

Who is Michael the Archangel? 

Who is Michael? Some individuals and groups (such as the Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others) insist that Michael is Jesus. Though Michael has similarities with Jesus, Michael is not Jesus for the following reasons.

  • Some say Michael must be Jesus because he has his angels. But if Satan, a fallen angelic being, has his angels (Revelation 12:7), cannot Michael, an unfallen angelic being, have his angels?
  • Some say Michael must be Jesus, because his name means “who is like God” or One like God. But if this were a title of Jesus, it would argue against His deity, not for it because it would say that Jesus is like God, but not God. However, Jesus is God, and not just like God (John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8).
  • Some say Michael must be Jesus, because he is called the archangel (Jude 9), which means leader or prince among the angels, and they say that only Jesus is the leader of the angels. But we know from Daniel 10:13, 10:20 and 10:21 that Michael is “one of the chief princes”, meaning he is one among others. Jesus is not the foremost from a group of others. The Bible calls Jesus “King of Kings” and “Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16) This title indicates absolute sovereignty and authority and is a far cry from being a foremost prince who is one among a group of equals.
  • Paul refers to “a voice of an archangel” in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 in a way that presupposes other archangels. Translations like the ESV and NKJV uses “an archangel,” and others like the NASB put “the” in italics so that it is clear to the reader that the word is not in Greek.
  • Jesus is referred to as a “prince”, “the Son of God”, but so are angels referred to as “sons of God”, and Satan is referred as a “prince” (Ephesians 2:2). Yet this does not mean that Jesus, angels or Michael are the same in spite of similar titles. Jesus is more than a prince.
  • SDA theology presents Michael as the only archangel. However, Michael cannot be the only archangel, as Ellen White presents Satan as another archangel: “Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God’s purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an ARCHANGEL, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence”. (source: https://m.egwwritings.org/it/book/820.4726#4738).
  • Ellen White says, “Christ as High Priest within the veil so immortalized Calvary, that though He liveth unto God, He dies continually to sin and thus if any man sin, he has an Advocate with the Father. He arose from the tomb enshrouded with a cloud of angels in wondrous power and glory,–the Deity and humanity combined. He took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside as his lawful territory, and by His wonderful work in giving His life, He restored the whole race omen to favor with God. The songs of triumph echoed and re-echoed through the worlds. Angel and archangel, cherubim and seraphim, sang the triumphant song at the amazing achievement.–Manuscript 50, 1900.  {7ABC 485.1}.
  • As per the above Ellen White statement, it would have been odd indeed that, if there is only one archangel, and he is none other than Christ himself, he would sing “the triumphant song” at his own “amazing achievement”.
  • Some say that Michael must be Jesus because Paul says that at the second coming, the Lord will call His people with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God (1 Thessalonians 4:16). But Jesus can use His voice as well as the voice of an archangel to call out for His people without being that angel, just as much as God can use a trumpet to sound out a call without being the trumpet.
  • Pre-incarnate Jesus appears in the Old Testament as “the Angel (Messenger) of the Lord”, and perhaps even as the “Captain of the Host” (Joshua 5:13-15), but none of those verses tell us that “the Angel of the Lord” is Michael.
  • In Zechariah 3:2, the Angel of the Lord (pre-incarnate Christ) defers the rebuking of Satan to God the Father. Similarly, Michael does the same in Jude 1:9. There is no necessity to conclude both are the same individuals, simply because Michael and Angel of the Lord defer their rebuking. Another time, Jesus rebuked the devil directly (Matthew 17:18).
  • The angel Michael is often associated with spiritual battle (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21, Jude 1:9, and Revelation 12:7). Since Michael is called the archangel (Jude 1:9), he is Satan’s true opposite. Satan is not the opposite of Jesus; he is the opposite of Michael, this high-ranking angel.
  • Even if Michael, a very high-ranking angel, had certain similarities with Jesus, and did certain similar things, that does not make Jesus to be Michael. Michael is not to be identified with Christ, any more than any other of the great angels in the Bible. Such identification would confuse hopelessly the persons in the heavenly scene (Revelation 12).

See our Revelations commentary to learn more about Michael (see Chapter 12).

Origins of ‘Preterism’ and ‘Futurism

Is it true that ‘Preterism’ and ‘Futurism’ were Jesuit interpretations of prophecy that were contrived during the counter-reformation? SDA’s and some others (even wickipedia articles) essentially promote that Jesuit scholarship rallied to the Roman cause by providing two plausible alternatives to the historical interpretation of the Protestants. Luis de Alcazar (1554–1630) of Seville, Spain, devised what became known as the “preterist” system of prophetic interpretation, pushing the antichrist as already come. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) proposed that most of Revelation refers to the distant future just prior to the second coming, the “futurist” system.  

So, are the above statements true? No, that is a lie perpetrated by Seventh-day Adventists and others to stifle investigation through guilt by association. While Alcazar and Ribera championed and popularized those views from the 16th and 17th century, the idea of an antichrist that had already come, and also a future coming anti-Christ was not a new idea among the early church fathers before the reformation. John himself states simultaneously that the “antichrist is coming” and that “now many antichrists have come” (1 John 2:18; cf. 1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7). 

Preterism (moderate) sees most of the prophesises fulfilled in the first few centuries. Historicism teaches that much of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are to be fulfilled over long ages of church history. Futurism views much of the prophecies of Daniel, and Revelation to be yet future.

The early church fathers had differing views on end times. Here are a few samples of early Church views on anti-Christ:

Irenaeus (AD 189) believed in a single future antichrist who will sit in the temple of Jerusalem for 3 1/2 years.

“By means of the events which shall occur in the time of the Antichrist it is shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God, and that although a mere slave, he wishes to be proclaimed as king. For he, being endued with all the power of the devil, shall not come as a righteous king nor as a legitimate king in subjection to God, but as an impious, unjust, and lawless one . . . setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising himself up as the only idol. . . . Moreover [Paul] has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways: that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] . . . in which the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ” (Against Heresies 5:25:1-2 [A.D. 189]).

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire” (ibid., 5:30:4).

Hippolytus (AD 200) saw a future Jewish antichrist and a rebuilt temple before the second coming.

“We find it written regarding Antichrist . . . ‘Dan is a lion’s whelp, and he shall leap from Bashan’ [Deut. 33:22]. But that no one may err by supposing that this is said of the Savior, let him attend carefully to the matter. Dan, he says, is a lion’s whelp. 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” (The Antichrist 6 [A.D. 200]). 14).

“Above all, moreover, he will love the nation of the Jews. And with all these [Jews] he will work signs and terrible wonders, false wonders and not true, in order to deceive his impious equals. . . . And after that he will build the temple in Jerusalem and will restore it again speedily and give it over to the Jews” (Discourse on the End of the World 23-25 [A.D. 217]).

Hippolytus separated Daniel’s 70th week from the 69 weeks, and placed the last 7 years before the end of the world (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 43).

Tertullian (AD 210) believed in a present day “antichrist” and a future coming “antichrist”.

The man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the Lord comes, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; and who is to sit in the temple of God and boast himself as being God. . . . According indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, and by the apostle John, who says that ‘already many false prophets have gone out into the world,’ the forerunners of Antichrist, who deny that Christ is come in the flesh, and do not acknowledge Jesus, meaning in God the Creator” (Against Marcion 5:16 [A.D. 210]).

Ephraem of Nisibis (AD 306-373), a major theologian of the early Eastern (Byzantine) Church, writes:

All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins.” He describes the imminent rapture, followed by 3½ years of great tribulation under the rule of Antichrist, followed by the coming of Christ, the defeat of Antichrist, and the eternal state. His view includes a parenthesis between the fulfillment of Daniel’s sixty-nine weeks and his seventieth week in Daniel 9:24-27. (source: https://tms.edu/m/tmsj13e.pdf )

Brother Dolcino (AD 1307), a leader of the Apostolic Brethren in northern Italy writes:

The Antichrist was coming into this world within the bounds of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, then he [Dolcino] and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, in which are Enoch and Elijah. And in this way they will be preserved unharmed from the persecution of Antichrist” (source: https://tms.edu/m/tmsj13e.pdf )

Peter Jurieu (1637-1713) was a prominent theologian and apologist in the French Reformed Church. In his work, Approaching Deliverance of the Church (1687), he taught that “Christ would come in the air to rapture the saints and return to heaven before the battle of Armageddon. He spoke of a secret rapture prior to His coming in glory and judgement at Armageddon.” (source: https://tms.edu/m/tmsj13e.pdf )

Augustine (AD 354) alluded to Nero as a type of antichrist.

“Some think that the Apostle Paul referred to the Roman empire, and that he was unwilling to use language more explicit, lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal; so that in saying, ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work,‘ he alluded to Nero, whose deeds already seemed to be as the deeds of Antichrist” (The City of God on II Thessalonians 2:7, XX.19.3).

Commodian (AD 260), a Christian poet, writes of the Antichrist, when Nero will return from hell:

“Then, doubtless, the world shall be finished when he shall appear. He himself shall divide the globe into three ruling powers, when, moreover, Nero shall be raised up from hell, Elias shall first come to seal the beloved ones; at which things the region of Africa and the northern nation, the whole earth on all sides, for seven years shall tremble. But Elias shall occupy the half of the time, Nero shall occupy half. Then the whore Babylon, being reduced to ashes, its embers shall thence advance to Jerusalem; and the Latin conqueror shall then say, I am Christ, whom ye always pray to; and, indeed, the original ones who were deceived combine to praise him. He does many wonders, since his is the false prophet” (Instructions, XLI).

Irenaeus (AD 189), a church father comments on the number of the Beast, warned against “making surmises, and casting about for any names that may present themselves, inasmuch as many names can be found possessing the number mentioned; and the same question will, after all, remain unsolved” (Against Heresies, V.30.3).

He understood John’s vision to have occurred “almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign“, a tradition repeated by Eusebius (AD314) in his Ecclesiastical History (III.18.3) and by the church fathers (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man’s Salvation, XLII; Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, X.11; Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, IX; Sulpicius Severus, Sacred History, II.31)—which is to say, sometime before AD 96, when the emperor was assassinated and just a few years before John himself died of old age, having been banished to the island of Patmos, where Revelation was written. Source: University of Chicago/paper

Jerome (4th Century), in his Commentary on the Book of Daniel, expressed this idea:

And so there are many of our viewpoint who think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist because of his outstanding savagery and depravity. (Source: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm)

John Calvin did not write a commentary on Revelation, but in his Commentary on Daniel, he identifies the little horn of Daniel 7 as Roman Caesar’s:

“It is sufficiently clear, therefore, that this exhibition ought to be referred to the first advent of Christ. I have no doubt that the little horn relates to Julius Caesar and the other Caesars who succeeded him, namely, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and others” 

(Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/daniel/7.htm)

In Calvin’s Institutes, the little horn is Antiochus:

“In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity” (Dan. 7:25). Source: (Calvin’s Institutes IV:7:25)

Calvin also accused the Pope of being the Antichrist not based on Daniel 7 or 8, but because of his “tyranny,” “destruction of the truth,” “corruption of the worship of God,” “breaking of His ordinances,” and the “dispersion of the order of His Church.”

Martin Luther, who had grave reservations about Revelation as a canonical book, subscribed to historicist ideas in his later years and found resources for an anti-Catholic message in the Bible. Martin Luther was probably unaware of the previous attacks on the papacy when, in 1517, he drafted his 95 Theses. However, for Martin Luther, the popes were not only the antichrist. For him, popes were the “spirit” of antichrist, while the “Turks” (Muslims) were the flesh. In reading Daniel 8, Luther also saw Antiochus Epiphanes as the forerunner of the great antichrist.

In the first few centuries of the Church, the Roman Caesars from Nero to Diocletian became “antichrists,” and Rome was “Babylon.” Some also saw a future literal anti-Christ, and rebuilt temple (all this before the arrival of Papacy).

Yet, centuries later, with the arrival of Muhammad, the idea of antichrist took on a distinctly Muslim flavor.

John of Damascus (6th century) wrote in his Against Heresies about the “deceptive error of the Ishmaelites, the forerunner of the antichrist.” 

As early as 634 A.D., in The Doctrine of Jacob, a Jewish merchant from Palestine who had converted to Christianity laments over the Arab invasions. He writes: “What can you tell me about the prophet who has appeared with the Saracens? He replied, groaning deeply: “He is false, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword.” Truly they are the works of anarchy being committed today and I fear the first Christ to come, whom the Christians worship, was the one sent by God and we instead are preparing to receive the Antichrist.

Another eyewitness to the initial Arab attacks was Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. In 634 A.D., Bethlehem had already fallen to the Arab invaders, so he was forced to give his Nativity sermon in Jerusalem. His most detailed description of the Muslim invasion came in his Epiphany sermon, in probably 636 A.D., a dire moment, as the Arab army had surrounded Jerusalem itself. He spoke of the “God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets.” Jerusalem fell in 637 A.D., and in due course they established Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, meant to forever cement the idea that Islam had supplanted Christianity and Judaism, even in the very heart of the Judeo-Christian world.

Peter the Venerable (12 the century), saw Muhammad as the precursor to the Antichrist (source: Wikipedia).

During the 13th century, works by scholars such as Peter PascualRiccoldo da Monte di Croce, and Ramon Llull, depicted Muhammad as an Antichrist while Islam was shown to be a Christian heresy (source: Wikipedia).

Kenneth Setton (an American historian) wrote that Muhammad was frequently calumniated and made a subject of legends taught by preachers as fact. For example, in order to show that Muhammad was the anti-Christ, it was asserted that Muhammad died not in the year 632 but in the year 666 – the number of the beast – in another variation on the theme the number “666” was also used to represent the period of time Muslims would hold sway of the land (source: Wikipedia).

Islam undoubtedly punctuated Martin Luther’s wholehearted belief that he was living amidst the Last Days, so Martin Luther wrote, “The pope is Antichrist, so the Turk (Muslims) is the very devil … both shall go down to hell”.

Luther was not the first to attribute antichrist characteristics to the papacy. Back in 991, Bishop Arnulf of Orleans, applies that title to papacy. 

Luther and others went on to identify the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church as the “Antichrist” and “Whore of Babylon” during the Protestant reformation. This was the central conflict of Luther and the reformers of the Protestant Reformation. Hence, Protestantism redirected and divided the views of the antichrist away from where it had been for the first centuries. After Luther, for many centuries until the middle of the 19th century, the dominant view in the church was the Historicist school of thought which was held by such people as John Knox, William Tyndale, Isaac Newton, and many others. Today, SDA’s champion the historicist view, continuing with much of the ideas held by the Protestant reformers.

Now, was John Calvin influenced by Jesuits for writing that the little horn of Daniel 7 refers to Caesars? Were the early church fathers influenced by Jesuits for holding a flavor of preterist and futurist ideas of antichrist? Far from it. As you can see, the SDAs and others who propagate that preterist and futurist ideas of antichrist (in opposition to Popes being the antichrist) were a Jesuit invention in the 16th century is utterly false. Preterist ideas were more common than futurist ideas, but they were nothing knew among several early church believers.

Preterism traces its roots back to the second century, and there have been many prominent preterists (partial or moderate) since long before the Jesuit order was born. Historicism, which also had a long history on the periphery, only gained prominence during the Reformation as Protestant leaders “discovered” the papacy on the pages of almost every evil power in Daniel and Revelation, as they believed they lived in the very last days of apostasy. Apparently contrived from an anti-Catholic mindset rather than a critical evaluation of the facts, and good exegesis, Historicism’s fortunes waned as anti-Catholic fervor died down. Its highly subjective (such arbitrarily picking of dates to pinpoint fulfillments) and controversial nature led many to question if it was not based more on wishful thinking rather than actual fact. Due to its nebulous interpretation method and the fact that John’s original readers could not have understood the book of Revelation in a historicist manner, the historicist view is not widely held today. As historicism came to be viewed as unreliable because of having so many differing variations on interpreting the same symbols, and following the very public humiliation of the October 22, 1844, Great Disappointment, there was widespread abandonment of historicist view among protestants. Futurism’s more literalist approach gained favor among Christian denominations there after. Futurism (with varying degrees) has arisen to prominence over the past two centuries, and Preterism (partial, moderate, etc.) has also been making inroads.

While we do not side with any particular camp, the bottom line is, regarding antichrists, there are many antichrist spirits that have gone out into the world (1 John 2:18), and so will there be many coming through out the church age.

Interestingly, the only place in the New Testament where the word “antichrist” appears is in the Johannine Epistles, not in Revelation. Nowhere in Revelation is the “beast” ever called “antichrist”. In his first epistle John emphatically states (1 John 2:18) that we may know this is the last hour because of the existence and activity of many antichrists. He says: “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour” (2:18).

Note well that the entire period between the first and second comings of Jesus is called either the “last hour” as well as the “last days”. See Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 1 Pt. 1:20 (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11). Thus the “last hour” in 1 John 2:18 is not a reference to the final days preceding Christ’s return but a reference to the entire church age in which we now live.

For John, “antichrist” is anyone “who denies that Jesus is the Christ” (1 John 2:22), or anyone “who denies the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22). The term “antichrist” is a combination of anti (against or instead of) and christos (Messiah, Christ).

We would be agreeable to say that the spirit of antichrist has revealed itself in Antiochus Epiphanes, Julius Caesar, Nero Caesar, and the papacy— and many others like Islam. This is consistent with the beliefs of the Reformers such as Calvin, and Luther, and the early church fathers, who applied the antichrist figure to more than one individual unlike what SDA’s try to portray! Besides, we believe the beast and Babylon powers of Revelation goes beyond Caesars and Popes as outlined in our Revelation commentary. See:

1) Our verse-by-verse complete Daniel Commentary

2) Our verse-by-verse complete Revelation Commentary

You can contribute to our ministry if you have been blessed by our ministry:

Donate