The Antichrist: Hussein or Hitler? - Glenn Conjurske

The Antichrist: Hussein or Hitler?

by Glenn Conjurske

Robert Van Kampen, the new prewrath rapturist, teaches dogmatically that Hitler will be the antichrist, while Bob Ross seems to hint that it may be Saddam Hussein. I do not pretend to know who the antichrist is, but I believe there is one statement of Scripture which both theories have overlooked, which effectually disallows both Hussein and Hitler.

Of Hussein I shall say but little. The notion that Hitler is the antichrist is based upon a long string of fallacies. Van Kampen begins by turning Daniel’s four empires into eight.[ The first two of them nothing concern us, as they existed before Babylon, with which Daniel’s vision begins. The fourth, the Roman Empire, he turns into two, the sixth and eighth on his scheme, whereas this is but one in Daniel’s vision. By turning Daniel’s one into two, he gains a place for another, which he puts between his sixth and eighth—-that is, in the midst of Daniel’s fourth. The empire which he thus thrusts in is Nazi Germany. All of this is based upon turning the eight kings of Rev. 17:10 & 11 into eight kingdoms, a thing which Van Kampen assumes without proof, and insinuates upon his readers without a word, as though this were the received interpretation.

This is Van Kampen’s usual manner, and this he does with numerous points throughout his book. In this manner he begins the “Diaspora” with the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. (The “Diaspora,” I should say, is intellectual jargon for “the dispersion.” I prefer to write in English.) Yet we all know that the dispersion has been a fact since the captivity of Israel, and was a fact during the ministry of Christ. James wrote to the twelve tribes “scattered abroad.” But Van Kampen must have an empire which persecutes the Jews outside of their land, and therefore between 70 A.D. and 1948—-and therefore the dispersion must begin in A.D. 70. But the plain fact is, there was no less dispersion after 1948 than before that date—-for though Israel became a sovereign state in 1948, her land was given her half a century before that—-and there was no more dispersion during Hitler’s Third Reich than there was during the ministry of Christ. At both times Israel was dispersed, with a small remnant in the land under a foreign yoke.

But to return to the antichrist, there is one text which disallows both Hitler and Hussein. The true Christ said in John 5:43, “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.” “Ye” here is of course the Jews. Now what is the likelihood that the Jews will receive either Hussein or Hitler? The likelihood is, none at all.

Van Kampen is doubtless conscious of this difficulty, but seeks to get around it by affirming that Hitler will take the reigns of the world incognito. Thus, when the Jews receive him, they will not know that it is Hitler. In order to maintain this view, he adopts a new sense of II Thes. 2:8, “and then shall that Wicked one be revealed.” He continually speaks of this as the revelation of the identity of the man who is already reigning as the antichrist. This novelty he insinuates upon his readers without a word of proof, or even of introduction, just as though it were the common interpretation—-just as though no other interpretation were possible, or had ever been thought of. But the revelation of the man of sin—-so we have always thought—-consists of the revelation of some particular man as the antichrist, not of the revelation of the identity of a man who is already known as the antichrist. But John 5:43 totally disallows Van Kampen’s novel view of II Thes. 2:8. The Lord tells us explicitly that the antichrist “shall come in his own name.” This absolutely disallows any possibility that he shall reign incognito for three and a half years. He comes in his own name. But Van Kampen overlooked this text. He never mentions John 5:43 in his entire book, consisting of more than 500 pages.

Another less direct argument also stands against Van Kampen’s new view. “Here,” the Bible says, “is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six.” (Rev. 13:18). And, as the previous verse tells us, this is “the number of his name.” But Van Kampen’s scheme deprives men of the possibility of this “wisdom.” They must receive the man in the dark, not knowing his name until long after they have received him.

 Glenn Conjurske