Is the Church of Rome the Antichrist? - Glenn Conjurske

Is the Church of Rome the Antichrist?
by Glenn Conjurske

I have received several publications of late which confidently affirm that the papacy is the antichrist, and that there shall be no other. This belief might appear harmless to some, but it is based upon a very careless use of the Scriptures, and leads to further carelessness, especially in its departure from the literal meaning of many of the prophetic scriptures. This is a system of allegorical (falsely called “spiritual”) interpretation, which makes Scripture mean almost anything except what it says. Those who “spiritualize” the reign of antichrist usually “spiritualize” the reign of Christ also, and so of course the binding of Satan, thus veiling the true character of the present age. Thus they fail to recognize the most of the army of the enemy, while they inveigh against one of his detachments.

It is typical of such publications to discourse, on the one hand, on the great spirituality of the Reformers (whose doctrine they follow), and on the other hand, on the supposed evil origin of the doctrine that the antichrist is a man. Of direct appeal to the Scriptures they contain but little—-and little wonder, for the Scriptures afford them but little help. I intend to make my appeal directly to the Scriptures, yet I dare not completely ignore these two favorite arguments of the opposing party.

In the first place, I admire the Reformers, and rejoice in all that they were. Yet they were but men, and had weaknesses, and very great ones, both in doctrine and practice. What is the meaning of modern professed Protestants exalting these men to the place of virtual infallibility, and allowing them to determine their faith for them? This is popery in principle, and I utterly repudiate it. Those who teach that the papacy is the antichrist claim to be perpetuating the teaching of the Reformers (which in fact they are). But to me this is beside the point. I am called to teach the Bible, not the teachings of any set of men, no matter how great and good they may have been. The Reformers were men of God, but they were just emerging from the Egyptian darkness of the dark ages, and they certainly did not see all things clearly. None of them (except the Anabaptists) so much as understood what the church is, but followed the Catholic example of baptizing babies, and made the true Church out to be the whole population of the country. Luther was often led astray by Augustine, and under his influence made void the prophetic scriptures in general. It was quite natural for a man in Luther’s position, and with his temperament, to declare the papacy to be the antichrist. This we might excuse: but there is less excuse for folks in this day who use the Bible not to learn the whole truth of God, but only to glean support for the teachings of the doctors of the past. This is in fact practically to set aside the Bible, and revert to one of the leading principles of Romanism. With that I will have nothing to do, but will oppose it with all my might.

As for the supposed evil origin (the Jesuits!) of the doctrine for which I stand, they must be either ignorant or dishonest who assert such a thing. That the antichrist is a man—-an individual—-was the doctrine of the early church, before the existence of papacy or Jesuit, and of course before the existence of the wretched system of “spiritual” interpretation which makes the Bible mean anything or everything or nothing, but never allows it to mean what it says. And if folks wish to speak of the evil origins of things, let them study the origin of that “spiritual” system of interpretation, and they will find it to have been born and bred in worldliness and unbelief of the worst sort. The early church knew nothing of such a system of interpretation, nor of the antichrist being anything other than an individual man.

Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of the apostle John, writes much of the antichrist, and always treats him as an individual person, who will come upon the scene in the last days, enter the temple in Jerusalem and show himself as Christ, reign over the earth for three years and six months, and be destroyed by Christ at his coming.1 Hippolytus also, a disciple of Irenaeus, speaks in the same vein, in his Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, clearly setting forth that Daniel’s “one week” when antichrist flourishes is the last week at the end of the world, before the coming of Christ.

Hippolytus was noted as a vigorous opponent of the bishops of Rome (now called popes) at the beginning of the third century. And yet now we are told that his doctrine was invented by a Jesuit in order to save the papacy from the odium of being antichrist!

I attach no authority to the teachers of the early church. I refer to them only to show the falsity of the statement that the doctrine of an individual antichrist is the invention of a Jesuit. To the Scriptures I will make my appeal. These modern tracts and booklets claim that the Catholic Church must be the antichrist precisely because all of the prophecies concerning the antichrist are fulfilled, or “exhausted” in it, yet the real fact is, these publications simply ignore many of those prophecies, and with others they deal in so loose and careless a manner as in reality to empty them of their meaning. They attach to them a “spiritual” sense which fails altogether to reckon with what the prophecies actually say. This will become very clear as we proceed.

But first let one thing be clearly understood: I affirm without hesitation that the Roman Catholic Church is anti-Christian, having very little in common with true Christianity. No one who knows anything of the Bible and of the Church of Rome can have any doubt of this. Rome is the great whore of Revelation 17, full of filthiness and fornication and abominations and blasphemies, and drunk with the blood of the saints. This is her unchanging character, and the true church of God can have no union, no cooperation, and no fellowship with Rome. In contending that the Church of Rome is not the antichrist, I have not the least thought of commending or exonerating her. She is the implacable enemy of God and the Bible, and always will be. Yet the same may be said of the Moslem religion and the Communist Party, and yet neither of them are the antichrist, though many points of agreement between them and the antichrist might be found.

This much being prefaced, it only remains for us to show that the papacy, the popes, or the Roman Church, cannot be the antichrist, for the simple and conclusive reason that the papacy does not fulfill the scriptural prophecies concerning the antichrist.

In the first place, the antichrist is a man, not a system, nor a succession of men. This, I know, is vehemently denied by those who contend for a papal antichrist, but consider the following: “…as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time. They [the many antichrists] went out from us, but they were not of us,” etc. (I John 2:18-19). This scripture plainly distinguishes between “the antichrist” (which is what the Greek says) and “many antichrists” who precede him. Now these “many antichrists” are men, individual persons, who had gone out from among the true saints. They are not systems, nor dynasties, and neither is “the antichrist.” He is “the man of sin, the son of perdition.” (II Thes. 2:3). This latter epithet is applied to the man Judas Iscariot in John 17:12. The antichrist “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God.” (II Thes. 2:4). Christ says to the Jews concerning him, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” (John 5:43). He is a man, the same as Christ is.

“He as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (II Thes. 2:4). “And they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.” (Rev. 13:4-5, and so on through verse 8.) In Daniel we read of him, “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” (Daniel 7:25). (This time and times and the dividing of time, by the way, is equal to one time and two times and a half a time, or three and a half years, the precise equivalent of the forty and two months in the verse just quoted from Revelation, and of the 1260 days mentioned elsewhere. It is the latter half of Daniel’s seventieth week, which will be ended by the personal coming of Christ, and the destruction of the antichrist. I merely mention this in passing, as the proof of my thesis no way depends upon it.)

Some have put forth the silly claim that the beast of the book of Revelation cannot be a man because it is a kingdom. We might with just as much truth assert that the beast cannot be a kingdom because it is a man, but this assertion would be as silly as the other. The beast in fact represents both the antichrist and his kingdom, precisely as the “head of gold” in Daniel 2 represents both the Babylonian kingdom, and its great monarch Nebuchadnezzar. “Thou art this head of gold,” says Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, and yet goes on immediately to add, “and after thee shall arise another kingdom [not king] inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth, and the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron,” etc. (Daniel 2:38-40). Now if the remainder of this great image represents another kingdom, and a third kingdom, and a fourth kingdom, then obviously the head represents the first kingdom—-and no interpreter of prophecy doubts this. Yet we are explicitly told that the head represents the king, a man. The beast of the book of Revelation may likewise certainly represent both the kingdom of antichrist and the man who is the head of it.

Now in direct contrast to all of these plain references to the antichrist as a man, the Bible refers to the false church as a woman, and always speaks of her in the female gender. She is “the great whore,” “and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.” (Rev. 17:1-2). She is “the mother of harlots,” “the woman drunken with the blood of the saints.” (Verses 5-6). “For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” (Rev. 18:5). “For she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow.” (Verse 7, and so constantly throughout chapters 17 and 18, and the beginning of 19.)

The seventeenth chapter of Revelation also expressly distinguishes between the woman and the beast. But the full and indisputable proof that this woman is not the antichrist is to be found in the end which Scripture assigns to each of them. The antichrist, as all admit, will be taken and destroyed by Christ at his coming: “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” (II Thes. 2:8). A completely different doom awaits the woman, who represents the Church of Rome, as all admit. She usurps such power over the kings who reign with the beast that they hate and destroy her: “And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.” (Rev. 17:16).

The word “burn” is, in the Greek, to burn up, or consume with fire. Observe its usage in the following passages: Matt. 3:l2—-“He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Matt. 13:30—-“Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them.” Acts 19:19—-“Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together and burned them before all men.” Heb. 13:11—-“For the bodies of those beasts…are burned without the camp.” Rev. 8:7—-“The third part of the trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.” There could be no stronger word to express the complete destruction of any thing, and in this we see the complete destruction of the Church of Rome. It will be carried out by the ten horns (which are ten kings, Rev. 17:12), and obviously and necessarily before the coming of Christ, for those kings will meet their end when Christ comes.

Other plain scriptures which the papacy cannot fulfill are all those which relate to the mark of the beast. I am, of course, well aware that these are the very scriptures which are most confidently claimed as proving that the papacy is the antichrist, but it is only by using them in the most vague and loose manner that they can be made to lend any appearance of support to the doctrine. If we but carefully examine what those scriptures actually say, they will lead us directly to the opposite conclusion.

To begin with what the mark of the beast actually is. Here there can be no doubt: it is “the name of the beast, or the number of his name,” which is 666. (Rev. 13:17-18). Yet directly in the teeth of this plain declaration of the Bible, there are some who inform us that the mark of the beast is “Latin worship,” or even “the sign of the cross”! Such assertions are mere foolishness, and betray minds governed by prejudice rather than Scripture. However evil the Latin worship or the sign of the cross may be, they have nothing to do with the mark of the beast. The mark is either one of two things: the name of the beast, or the number of his name, which is 666.

As to what the number 666 signifies, there has been great disagreement. Man has exercised his ingenuity upon this number ever since it was given by inspiration of God, with many and curious results. Suffice it to say that it is not too difficult to find epithets in various languages, the numerical value of which is 666, and which may be fastened upon the Church of Rome, or the popes. Some which have been suggested are: in Greek, lateinos (a Latin man), and he latine basileia (the Latin kingdom); in Hebrew, romiti (a Roman man); and in Latin, vicarivs Filii Dei (vicar of the Son of God). The latter is claimed with the utmost confidence, as it is purported to be an inscription in the pope’s crown. But all of these theories break down as soon as we consider what the Scriptures actually say. The prophecy plainly tells us that 666 is “the number of a man,” and that it is “the number of his name.” This is individual and personal, and none of the words suggested can fulfill it. Vicarivs Filii Dei may be a title of the popes, but it is no man’s name, and it is wresting the language to affirm that it is.

But the complete breakdown of all of these theories comes when we look at what the Bible says about the use of this mark. This part of the question is totally ignored by those who declare the popes to be the antichrist, and no wonder, for the papacy does not begin in any way to fulfill these scriptures. The Bible says, “He causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads, and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark,” etc. (Rev. 13:16-17). When, where, how has the papacy ever done anything even remotely resembling this? Suppose the pope does wear a title on his crown, the number of which is 666, what is that to the purpose? The Bible says nothing whatsoever about that. It says not a word about the antichrist himself bearing such a mark. What it does say is that he causes all other men to receive it, and that none may buy or sell unless they do so. The papacy has never attempted such a thing, in any sense whatsoever. The number 666 will be a mark of certain identification of the antichrist, but only when it appears as the number of a man’s name, and when all men are caused to receive it in order to be able to buy or sell. Till all of these things concur together, this prophecy is not fulfilled, and all the ingenuity exercised over the number 666 is mere idle speculation, which can prove nothing.

This consideration will of course drive the proponents of this doctrine to their usual loose and vague manner of interpreting Scripture. They will insist that these prophecies have a so-called “spiritual” fulfillment in the Church of Rome. Depending upon who is doing the so-called interpreting, to receive the mark of the beast in the right hand or in the forehead will be made out to mean to submit to the Roman worship, to make the sign of the cross, to adore the host, to profess faith in the Roman Church—-or any number of other things which Romanism imposes upon its subjects. This is not interpreting prophecy, but wresting it; and by this method any prophecy of Scripture can be made out to mean just about anything under the sun. But waive that, and just suppose that some one of these “spiritual” interpretations is the true one. What will be the consequence? Clearly this: that NO ONE WHO HAS EVER BEEN A ROMAN CATHOLIC COULD EVER BE SAVED. For Scripture plainly tells us, “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” (Rev. 14:9-11). Assign, then, whatever “spiritual” meaning you please to the receiving of the mark of the beast, and this much will remain clear: all who have done it, whatever it is, have thereby sealed their doom, and can never be saved. And this is proof enough that the mark of the beast has nothing to do with the present system of Romanism.

The universal dominion of the antichrist is another point which Romanism does not fulfill. Of antichrist we read, “all the world wondered after the beast,” and “power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations, and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:3,7-8). The papacy, it is true, has always aspired to universal dominion, but has never exercised it. The Communist Party has also aspired to the same, and has in fact come closer to it than the papacy ever did in the height of its glory, but neither of them have ever fulfilled this prophecy, and neither of them are the antichrist, though both have much in common with him, for they are all inspired by the same devil.

Another scripture which the papacy cannot fulfill is, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” (John 5:43). The popes and the Church of Rome do not, and never have, come in their own name. The Church of Rome always claims to be the Church of Christ, and the popes of Rome always claim to be the vicar, or representative, of Christ. The very title which is so confidently claimed to be the mark of the beast (“vicar of the Son of God”) is full proof of this.

Another point in John 5:43 cannot be fulfilled by the papacy, for it was to the Jews that Jesus said, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” When have the Jews ever received the papacy, or the Church of Rome? Nay, it is often the crimes and corruptions of the papacy that keep the Jews from receiving Christ. But antichrist they “will receive.”

Of antichrist we read, “he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every God, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods… Neither shall he regard any god, for he shall magnify himself above all.” (Dan. 11:36-37). Further, “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (II Thes. 2:4). Bad as the papacy is, it has never fulfilled these plain prophecies, and as long as the popes claim to be the “vicar of Christ,” it never can. A vicar, in the very nature of the case, claims to be under Christ, as his representative. Though those who ransack history may be able to find a few words of some particular pope by which he claims divine honors or divine prerogatives, still it remains an indisputable fact that the papacy as such has never exalted itself “above all that is called God or that is worshipped.” And it is simply absurd to say of the papacy (full as it is of idolatry, and maintaining always a form of the worship of God and his Christ) that it does not regard any God, or that it magnifies itself above every God. This might be said truly enough of Communism, but certainly not of Romanism. Anyone who can seriously contend that the papacy “exhausts” the meaning of this prophecy only proclaims his own blindness. Words, phrases, grammar, all mean exactly nothing to him, and anything in the Bible may mean anything he pleases.

Again, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (I Jn. 2:22). Romanism has never denied that Jesus is the Christ, but has always upheld and taught it, and therefore the popes claim to be his vicar.

In three different places the Scriptures ascribe to the antichrist the working of miracles. The first relates not only to the antichrist himself, but to some of those many antichrists who shall precede him: “For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matt. 24:24). The others ascribe such power to the antichrist himself. “Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders.” (II Thes. 2:9). “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him…… And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast…. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” (Rev. 13:12-15).

Now the one thing which is perfectly obvious here is that these scriptures speak of real miracles, and cannot be fulfilled as they are claimed to be by the pretended miracles of Romanism. These are real miracles, actually done “in the sight of men”—-not the cunningly devised fables of Romanism, miracles which no man ever has seen or can see, mere fabricated reports, which can deceive none but the credulous. The miracles which antichrist does are “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (II Thes. 2:10). They do actually “deceive them that dwell on the earth” (Rev. 14:14)—-“insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matt. 24:24). But one booklet which I have singles out the term “lying wonders” from II Thes. 2:9, and insists that this refers to pretended miracles. The answer to this is extremely simple. In the first place, the verse says the antichrist comes not merely with lying wonders, but with “all power and signs,” after the working of Satan. Satan is certainly able to work miracles, and so are his servants (Ex.7:11-12,22;8:7). “Signs” are certainly miracles. “All power” is miraculous power, the word “power” itself being often translated “miracles” or “mighty works” (referring to Christ’s miracles). Lying wonders are not pretended wonders (such as Romanism abounds in), but real wonders, which are used to deceive men from the truth. But suppose you could prove that “lying wonders” does in fact mean pretended miracles, what do you gain? Nothing, for you must still reckon with the fact that antichrist comes “with all power and signs,” as well as “lying wonders.” Even if you maintain that “lying” actually refers to “all power and signs” as well as “wonders,” still you gain nothing, for you must still reckon with the fact that Revelation 13 records actual miracles which he will do “in the sight of men,” and that it explicitly says he “had power to do” such “miracles.” Romanism does not, and never has, fulfilled these scriptures.

In conclusion we need only say that, in spite of the claim that is made that Romanism “exhausts all of the prophecies” of the Antichrist, when we once pay careful attention to what those prophecies actually say, it immediately becomes evident that Romanism “exhausts” the meaning of none of them. Romanism fulfills none of them. The beast is yet to come. The Church of Rome is the great whore, who will ride and control the beast (as she did to kings and emperors throughout the dark ages), but for that very reason she cannot be the beast.

Finally, let me address a word of exhortation to those who hold this doctrine. Not one in a thousand of you has come to this doctrine by merely studying the Bible. You have been led into this system of doctrine by others—-by teachers who make it their business to teach the doctrines of the Reformers rather than the Bible. And the two are by no means identical, though the Reformers did hold much of the truth of the Bible. And in being thus led into this system of doctrine, you have been led at the same time into a system of interpretation which is extremely loose and careless in handling the word of God. It ignores (or is ignorant of) many of the scriptures which relate to the antichrist. Those which it uses are in fact misused. Any kind of vague resemblance is taken for proof, while they continually fail to deal fairly with what those scriptures actually say. The word of God is more precise than that, and deserves more reverence than that. And if you form the habit of using the Scriptures in such a loose and vague manner on this subject, what is to stop you from using them in the same way on other matters of equal or greater importance? This kind of “interpretation” is neither for the glory of God nor the good of your own soul. You need to repent of such a use of the holy word of truth. You need to cease making reckless and confident statements about what the Bible means, and humbly study what it says (for it means what it says). And those of you who have been guilty of it need to cease denouncing as “compromisers with Rome” those who disagree with you. I no more compromise with Rome than you do. If you love Christ and his cause, and hate Romanism (which Christ also hates), then I value your soul. I value your fellowship. I value your zeal. And I am very sorry to see that zeal thrown away upon a system of interpretation which makes void the word of God.

Glenn Conjurske