Feature
6 February 2023
The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and its global impact have prompted some Christians to prophesy that the end-time Antichrist has finally appeared. It is interesting, however, that the Antichrist has a different identity – depending on which side of the conflict you are on.
On the one hand, American evangelicals such as Pat Robertson and Greg Laurie identify the Antichrist as Putin’s Russia (‘God is Getting Ready to Do Something Amazing’: CBN Founder Pat Robertson on Russia and Its Place in Prophecy, CBN, 28 Feb 2022). They take the Antichrist to be synonymous with “Gog and Magog,” the northern enemy which rallies nations to attack Israel in Ezekiel 38-39. Since Russia is the final fulfilment of Gog-Magog, Russia will not stop at Ukraine, but will lead many nations (including Ukraine!) to “move against Israel ultimately.”
On the other hand, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, is quoted as associating the Antichrist with the liberal West (Russian Patriarch says Orthodox faithful are holding back the antichrist, Reuters, 07 Apr 2022). Kirill takes the Antichrist to be synonymous with, apparently, a deceptive satanic force unleashed to lead the nations in a war of rebellion against God in Revelation 20. Since the Western powers accept homosexuality, Russian aggression is justified because the Orthodox faith is the force that “holds back” this Antichrist.
How are we to evaluate these opposing claims? What really is the place of biblical interpretation in discerning the end-times? In this article, I commend four criteria for evaluation, before concluding with some pastoral responses.
Firstly, are there any alternative interpretations of the biblical texts in question? Instead of unquestioningly accepting what others prophesy, we must go back to study the biblical texts and commentaries. And as long as other viable interpretations exist, we need not be held hostage by popular claims. The opposing Antichrist interpretations above are a case in point. The Greek root word “antichristos” only occurs five times in the Bible (all of them in 1 & 2 John), and refers to plural persons or a general category of heretics who were already existent at the time of writing. This is contrary to both Laurie’s and Kirill’s understanding of “Antichrist” as a singular adversary who leads rebellion against God in the future. As such, there is no biblical warrant to link these “antichrists” (in 1 & 2 John) with Gog-Magog (in Ezekiel) and satanic force (in Revelation). Additionally, we must ask just how literal we should be interpreting the Ezekiel and Revelation texts, or if they may have symbolic or metaphorical fulfilment. While this is not the platform to fully explore these possibilities, the diversity of interpretive opinion presented is already sufficient to challenge both opposing claims above.
Secondly, have previous predictions of end-times gone unfulfilled? Over the Christian centuries until today, there have been innumerable candidates for a final Antichrist, including: the Roman Empire and its various emperors, countless popes, Muslim armies, Napoleon, Hitler, Kissinger, Gorbachev, all the recent American presidents, MTV, the world-wide web, smart-phone technologies, etc. But all these have come and (in some cases) gone, and Christ has yet to return. Certainly, every geopolitical and moral crisis occasions a reminder to look beyond this world order, but we need not “be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed” (2 Thessalonians 2:2) by every single doomsday prediction.
Thirdly, what political ideologies do these interpreters represent? From Vatican support for the Crusades to the German church’s affiliation with Nazism, history is littered with examples where Christianity and politics are not a good mix. Accordingly, Jesus was clear that His Kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Thus, interpreters with vested political interests alert us to the possibility of undue bias in their interpretations. It is no secret that the American evangelical camp embraces right-wing politics, and that Kirill’s church is the national state-supported church of Russia.
Fourthly, what ethical principles do the interpreters espouse? Any prophetic interpretation that promotes ungodly and un-Christian behaviour should be roundly rejected. It is terrifying that Robertson extends the current violence to include more nations against Israel, and that Kirill is implicitly rallying the faithful to take up arms against nonbelievers. These are clearly incompatible with Christ’s persistent call to be peacemakers, turn the other cheek and love our enemies (Matthew 5:9,39,44). And to the extent that the American and Russian churches are all part of Christ’s universal Body, both these prophetic interpretations also cause more confusion and disunity within the one Church, hampering Christian witness to the world.
Thus, these considerations are reasons enough for us to refrain from propagating these untenable end-time claims. In the diplomatic pursuit of peace efforts, demonizing leaders and nations as “Antichrist” is counter-productive. At a personal level, we should also not be spooked into panic buying-and-selling, or hasty resignations and relocations. If there are weaker Christians among us who may be more easily swayed, help them by exposing the subjectivity of such prophetic interpretations. Overall, our focus should not be distracted from doing Christ’s work: it is not those who “prophesy” in Christ’s name that enter into the Kingdom, but only the one who “does the will” of the Father (Matthew 7:21-22).
But how, then, can we be said to be faithful to the many end-time warnings in our holy Scriptures? Jesus says there are many general signs such as the “wars and rumours of wars” (Matthew 24:6), which we must heed; but in the same passage Jesus cautions against specific timeframes, for “no one knows” the exact hour (Matthew 24:36). So then, there is actually an interpretive tension: by the clear signs we have the assurance that Christ is coming, but we are not to over-speculate using debated texts. And if there is any urgency before Christ’s return, it is surely an urgency for calm repentance – and not frenzied conjecture.
Daniel Lee is a member of Toa Payoh Methodist Church. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Old Testament at the University of Cambridge, as a potential faculty-in-development at Trinity Theological College. He is blissfully married to his wife, Faith.